The record in Acts 11 concerning the planting of the church at Antioch is a clear rebuke to such thinking. We are told concerning this greatest of all New Testament churches that it was started by noncommissioned ordinary Christians who began preaching at their own initiative. And when the church at Jerusalem did find out about the work at Antioch they sought to encourage and support it- not to claim or exert authority over it. Barnabas seeing the work was glad and encouraged them, for Luke says “he was a good man and full of the Holy Spirit and faith.” Beyond that we are told concerning the pioneer church planters that the “hand of the Lord was with them.” To suggest this church planting work was done in the wrong way is impossible for the Word of God gives it unqualified approbation.

Yet there are those who have the arrogance to insist on their rules such as we mentioned above- rules that would disqualify the great work at Antioch itself. Sadly the real concern of such ones is not church planting or God’s Word but making themselves judges and dispensers of human authority and commendation.

It is our responsibility and privilege to disregard them and hold fast to the pattern of the scripture, encouraging and laboring in the ever expanding field of the Lord’s work.

The position clearly articulated in the 1689 is that among the results of the fall is total depravity, that man is “wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body” 6:2 , that “this corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated” 6:5, and that “there abides still some remnants of corruption in every part” 13:2. This, the classic reformed doctrine, is that the Christian is totally depraved with sin yet affecting every part of his being.

The unfortunate position of the tract in question is that total depravity is true of the unregenerate man but is “reversed” in the regenerate man. The authors call this the Bible’s “large doctrine of regeneration” but the largeness is of the error being taught and its denial of the classic reformed doctrine. It also sets an equally sizable stage for inevitable and serious further errors in realms such as the doctrine of sanctification and assurance of salvation. The following quotations from the tract identify the position of the authors.

“So what is regeneration? It is God’s reversal of man’s total depravity.” pg2

“The unsaved man is thoroughly corrupted by sin, with the sin polluting his mind, will, and affections. No part of the sinner is left untouched by sin. Regeneration changes all this: the sinner is thoroughly renewed and restored by God’s grace.” pg2-3

“The unredeemed man is totally depraved because every square inch of him (i.e.,the total man) is contaminated by sin.” pg12

It is not merely “the unsaved man” as the authors say who is corrupted by sin in the totality of his being, it remains equally true of the regenerate Christian as well. Regeneration does not as they say above “reverse” total depravity – that would mean there is some area(s) of the Christian’s humanity that is no longer affected by sin. What regeneration does is radically change the context in which total depravity exists. It is no longer the dominant principle but now a new equally universal and opposite principle of spiritual life which wars against it.

It is regrettable that under the supervision of a Reformed Baptist church, as a part of the ARBCA association of Reformed Baptist churches and in ostensible identification with the 1689 Baptist Confession serious doctrinal error is taught by means of the ongoing sale and distribution of this booklet.

LB

Many would affirmatively reference his statement that he “became all things to all men in order to save some.” That however misconstrues a passage having to do with his voluntary non-exercise of Christian rights and prerogatives. There is a difference between seeking to remove hindrances to the gospel by our voluntary sacrifice of our own prerogatives and doing something to make our message relevant. One is personal and privative the other seeks to make the message itself pertinent.

Again we ask, did Paul seek to make his message culturally relevant? The premise of the question, of course is wrong. It suggests that the message of the New Testament is capable of being irrelevant to a culture. God’s message is never irrelevant to any culture. Paul was relevant for one and only one reason and that was that he preached the divine message. We are relevant on the same basis – whether we set forth the same message. If so, rest assured we are relevant. If we do not we are worse than irrelevant we are false.

Those who are pushing cultural relevance betray the fact that they view the message of the New Testament as something that must be changed. They do not put it that way of course, but they mean nothing less. Something that ostensibly must be “made relevant” is declared to be otherwise irrelevant. It is a low and insulting attitude toward the message of the New Testament that is cloaked under this language of cultural relevance. And it is in reality not relevance but cultural popularity and acceptance that they are seeking.

Paul rejected this line of thinking out of hand. Against the cultural norms of the Corinthians he says he stood in bold defiance and opposition lest the gospel be made of none effect. It is culture that is irrelevant not the gospel. The wisdom of man is made foolish by God. The wise, the philosopher, the great of the world are called to become foolish in order that they may become wise. Paul never supposed he needed to make his message relevant to those who considered it a stumbling block or foolishness. He understood the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God . He was mocked, imprisoned and finally executed yet that message was and is still the power of God. Cultures have changed but the message has not, cultures have disappeared but Christianity remains. The thing to realize is not merely the cultural relevance of the New Testament message, but it’s cultural defiance and supremacy.

Those preachers who think they must become relevant to our culture should embrace the New Testament message. If that is not relevant enough for their purposes then by all means let them take up another faith. That would be far better than their seeking to undermine and subvert the truth of the New Testament under the guise of pseudo Christianity.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It is a continual challenge for us as Christians to obey the apostle’s command not to be conformed to the world. The failures to do so are all around us and often are set forth as if they were positive developments.

We are familiar with the world’s thinking in the form of what is called affirmative action policies. There people of certain races are treated disparately with the ostensible goal of correcting past inequities. The fallacy should be obvious, if it is wrong to give preference to one race it is just as wrong to give preference to another. Racial inequity cannot be corrected by racial inequity, reverse racism is itself also racism. Nevertheless the world in such ways promotes and justifies its own politically correct racism.

In contrast to this Christianity remains the only answer to the entrenched and perpetual divisions among mankind. It alone does not correct racism with racism. It alone declares that racial unity is not something to be gradually pursued among its followers but rather is something that exists as an established matter of fact. It is a unity so profound indeed in its scope that not only races, but men and women and even slave and free are all one. What a selling out therefore of this precious truth it is when Christians nevertheless seek to raise up racial disparities in crass emulation and conformity to the world.

Just such a spectacle we came across recently in reading the affirmations of a well known group of churches. It is their assertion that we are as Christians in the United States to treat those of a certain race in a disparate manner from those of other races due to what they call the “staggering magnitude of injustice” done in the past to this one race and which wrongs they claim were done against them “in the name of the gospel.” They assert that we have therefore a “unique responsibility” toward this one race. What is this but the very essence and application of affirmative action- and treating one race differently than others which is by definition itself a form of racism. Racial preferments and disparities of any kind can never be justified by the Christian for any reason and are a denial of the fundamental realities of the Faith. It should grieve any sensible Christian that some would feign usher the world’s identity politics and divisions into the holy temple of the Lord- that which is to be the sole sanctuary from it!

A racially conditioned Christianity with disparate relationships and priorities dependent on the race of those we are interacting with is not that set forward in the New Testament. It is an acceptance of the the world’s vain philosophies and an affront to the sacrificial work of Christ by which all His people are united to Him and each other irrespective of race. May all sober followers of the Lord have the sense to reject these unbiblical teachings and may we stand forth boldly in this world of division as those who are truly one in Christ.

“The significance of the Westminster Standards as a creed is to be found in these three facts that, historically speaking, they are the final crystallization of the elements of evangelical religion, after the conflicts of 1600 years; scientifically speaking, they are the richest and most precise and best-guarded statement ever penned of all that enters into evangelical religion and of all that must be safeguarded if evangelical religion is to persist in the world, and religiously speaking, they are a notable monument of spiritual religion.”

A more realistic and biblically subordinate view is that expressed by John Murray in his work “The Covenant of Grace.”

“It would not be, however, in the interests of theological conservation or theological progress for us to think that the covenant theology is in all respects definitive and that there is no further need for correction, modification, and expansion. Theology must always be undergoing reformation. The human understanding is imperfect. However architectonic may be the systematic constructions of any one generation or group of generations, there always remains the need for correction and reconstruction so that the structure may be brought into closer approximation to the Scripture and the reproduction be a more faithful transcript or reflection of the heavenly exemplar.”

That is the challenge of reformed theology, a quest for ever greater understanding and accurate expression of the truths of Scripture.

Virtually everybody in the world however understands that certain means are humanly calculated as effectual toward certain ends- does the Christian really need simply to embrace this intuitive mode of thinking and apply it to the Christian life? Many quickly conclude this makes “good sense” and proceed uncritically. It’s largely due of course to this very embrace of carnal intuitive thinking that the church in so many places today is run according to principles of business and marketing rather than divine directive and principle. Genuine Christian thought rarely coincides with the world’s conventional wisdom.

In fact what needs to be realized by the Christian about means is not their effectiveness but just the opposite- their inherent ineffectiveness. The student of the Old Testament should not be able to miss the fact for example that contrary to all sound military theory the battle for the Lord’s people is not won or lost based on the number of chariots, horses or soldiers. And confidence in those means is something the Lord repeatedly denounces as the path not toward success but toward failure and divine abandonment. Jonathan puts it well in saying that the Lord is not constrained to save by many or by few- a basis on which he and his armor bearer set to flight an army. The best of means are means at best and determine nothing in and of themselves, and the least of means on the other hand are no limitation on divine power. The seriousness of the matter for us to realize is that it’s a kind of apostasy to make a virtual savior out of such things.

It is, we should know, the Lord’s method throughout His working to use the weakest of instruments to do His will precisely to manifest that it is not those means but He himself that brings about the ends He has ordained. He calls the things that are not to bring to naught the things that are, the foolish and the weak things to bring to nothing those that are considered mighty and wise. His strength is made perfect in weakness and most gladly therefore does the apostle say that he will boast about his weaknesses that the power of Christ may rest upon him. It is all the opposite of the world’s pragmatism and the unadvisedly baptized form of it which make such constant appearances among professing Christians.

What we need to remember is that means put us in no better position than we are without them. If God doesn’t bless and use the means they are nothing or perhaps worse than nothing -a snare and a detriment to us. When we offer to the Lord our weak and worthless means it should be like the instance of the feeding of the five thousand; here are two fish and five loaves of bread – but what are these? John 6:9 Yes we ought to offer to the Lord all the instruments and means at our disposal but we must do so renouncing any confidence in those means and with an attitude of “but what are these?” The means are nothing in and of themselves and the one thing we need is divine help. As the centurion understood and said to the Lord “If you but say the word my servant will be healed.” Such faith had not been seen by our Lord in Israel and there is a rebuke in it for us as well. May the Lord increase our faith so that we look not to means for our help but to Him.

Is it proper to label the modern Emergent Church movement as an example of worldliness? The desire on the part of those defending that movement of course is to seek to define worldliness in such a way as that it does not apply to them. What basically takes place is that worldliness is defined in accord with an antinomian outlook.

What they attempt is to bar outward behavior as being a criteria for worldliness. The heart is what is important they say not behavior. Any focus on behavior they claim is a form of phariseeism and legalism- an externalism that is contrary to genuine heart religion. Thus no judgment can be passed on their embrace of Hollywood culture because they “love the Lord” and that is the important thing.

This of course is a misconstruction. The fact that heart issues are of preeminent importance does not mean that the New Testament has no concern about behavior. More often than not it cites behavior as the great revelation of the heart and as the avenue through which a heart-felt love of God makes itself known. Behavior also is a practical line of demarcation in terms of what constitutes conformity either to God’s revealed will or – the world.

But using for example the passage in 1 John “Do not love the world” it is stated by these defenders of the modern church that worldliness consists only in an inordinate love for the world rather than behavior that is like the world. This however is seeking to use one biblical truth to destroy another. The fact that “love of the world” is worldliness does not prove that behavior that emulates the world is not worldliness. They are both worldliness.

Jude makes this clear when he speaks of those who are “worldly minded” after having listed their many sins such as flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage following their own lusts, causing divisions etc. The behaviors mentioned are an indication of their worldly mindedness.

An important description the NT gives of our relationship to the world is that of non-conformity to it. Romans 12:2 “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Paul does not say do not love the world he says to not be conformed to the world. Louw-Nida renders it “do not shape your behavior to the standards of this world.” Conformity to the world is worldliness regardless of claims that such people are exempted because they “love the Lord.”

Paul describes this conformity in Ephesians 2:2 as having “formerly walked according to the course of this world.” There is the “course of the world” and there is this radical discontinuity of the Christian – not walking according to the course of the world. The so-called robust embrace of modern culture that these Emergent Churches claim as a virtue is something Paul identifies with an unregenerate state.

And in line with that we must see also that worldliness is a description of conduct that seeks to harmonize the basic antagonism of the world toward the Christian. Our Lord says the world hates his disciples as it first hated him. John says “do not marvel if the world hates you.” James says therefore that seeking to change this scenario and make one’s self a friend of the world is an act of spiritual adulteration toward God. This befriending of the world by the emergent church and which seeks to remove all offense and antagonism toward Christianity by embracing Hollywood cultural norms is just what James condemns.

In a still more comprehensive sense worldliness is in a real sense all behavior that is irreconcilable to the sanctification of the regenerate believer. The world is characterized by sin and therefore sin itself, it may be said, is worldliness. This in its unregenerate form is what Paul cites as the pattern of the carnal man as opposed to the spiritual man, and the unfruitful deeds of darkness which he says we are not to participate in but instead even expose (Eph. 5:11). We are to distance ourselves from all such things as Paul says by living in accordance with the grace of God which instructs us Titus 2:12 “to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age.”

Worldliness is not simply an isolated affection in the heart but an ethical likeness and conformity to the world in its sin. Where there is not for example clear condemnation of sin but rather accepting and accommodating words about it, there is by definition worldliness. The Emergent Church movement in its ethical latitude and embrace of Hollywood cultural norms; and with for example one of its leading figures proclaiming recently that he has no problem with homosexual marriage, is guilty of this very thing- worldliness due to immorality.

Are we to leave the matter of worldliness safely isolated in the realm of affections and having nothing to do with behavior? Not according to the New Testament. We must judge ourselves and yes also evaluate such examples as the Emergent Church movement. Their bending backwards to accommodate and emulate the world and their effort to redefine the very character of Christianity as being indistinguishable from modern cultural norms is an undeniable and extreme form of worldliness that should grieve every sober minded, biblically instructed believer. Let them try as they might to redefine worldliness, the effort is a failure. If they are not characterized by worldliness no one ever has been and no one ever will be.

Are numbers a “metric” of God’s blessing? The affirmation of that statement is one of the basic tenants of the church growth philosophy of ministry and its recent manifestations in the so-called emergent church movement. What is of concern to us however is that the same thing is now being insisted on by some leading Reformed Baptist figures. A “metric” of course is a fixed standard of evaluation- a measurement of God’s blessing. All things being equal a larger church is more “blessed” than a small one. It is not the only metric we are told, but it is a metric and that is the point at which we wish to object.

The biblical argument that is used invariably centers on the book of Acts. We are told that Luke under the inspiration of the Spirit highlights the fact of a large number of converts as an indication of God’s blessing. But a little discernment must be exercised about this.

Luke highlights the large numbers as a part of the extraordinary aspects surrounding the outpouring of the Spirit and establishment of the church. Yes three thousand were converted in one day, but this was the fulfillment of prophecy at Pentecost and coincided with the speaking in tongues, the flames of fire, the sound of rushing wind etc. These things did indicate a blessing by God but it was a historically unique blessing. And it is therefore unwarranted to take these extraordinary events as being a “metric” for all future churches.

True enough there were other large works such as Ephesus, but there also Luke while highlighting the large number of converts does so with the fact that “God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul.” The exceptional nature of the situation is explicitly stated.

We may well desire and sometimes experience such large numbers, and there are, of course, still instances of revival where mass conversions take place in a way not completely unlike these biblical records. But here again especially in the case of revival we are talking about what is extraordinary. What we are rejecting is not that a church could ever be large but the idea that our blessing corresponds to the largeness of our church and that without such size a church is less than what it ought to be.

The rest of the New Testament should be looked at as well. Did for example Paul have a second chapter of Acts expectation when he spoke the Gospel to some woman gathered to pray at Philippi or did he feel the effort was an unblessed failure since the number of converts was so small? Or were those New Testament assemblies that we are told met in the homes of believers all composed of thousands of people? Of course not.

What can be said is that large numbers may be a result of God’s blessing, but never can it be said that they are a “metric” or measurement of it- that is a complete fallacy.

Today in fact in our religious climate of compromise and carnality large numbers are more often an indication of the forfeiture of God’s blessings. That we are convinced is the scenario of the church growth movement in their crass emulation of the world and downplaying of biblical distinctives and doctrine. Their goal is to make the world at home in their assemblies and they are succeeding wonderfully with the resulting large crowds.

On the other hand small numbers, even in the extreme, according to our Lord are no necessary indication of a lesser blessing for where He says two or three are gathered in His name He is there in the midst. It is an insult to His very presence as well as Christ’s people gathered in small and despised groups throughout the world, to depreciate their blessings.

Furthermore the statement that numbers “are a metric of God’s blessing” represents a tacit denial of God’s providence in favor of a simplistic formula. Is it not understood that often it is God’s will and providence at any particular place and time that his people should be a small and seemingly insignificant group? That does not mean they are necessarily doing anything wrong, or that they are less blessed. Fear not little flock our Lord said for it is the Father’s good pleasure to grant the kingdom to you. He has chosen the weak things and the things that are not to bring to naught the things that are.

To denigrate Christ people as less blessed when they meet in small numbers is to disparage the greater part of the church and its history, and to twist the statements of the New Testament. Such is the unmasked arrogance of those who push this deceptive Emergent Church agenda. May Christ’s people not be misled.

For those of us with some longevity among Reformed Baptists it is undeniable there have been remarkable changes of perspective. Change has its own appeal and to many newer is better. We are convinced however that the changes of recent years are not an evolution but a devolution- not a trend up but a trend down. Indeed we assert they are of such a nature as threaten to obliterate our original distinctives altogether.

We began and grew in decades past upon the premise of reform. Those of us who were there know the convictions which were held among us: that the broad stream of Christianity was derelict and even apostate and that the modern gospel was in many respects false and unbiblical, that we must stand against the tide and run in a contrary direction by a return to sound doctrine, biblically qualified ministry, bold and clear preaching, and principled thoroughgoing Christian living. The early “church growth” movement was condemned as being a man centered gospel seeking numbers rather than true converts to Jesus Christ. There was never the idea that we should be “main stream” in the sense of emulating the broader stream of modern Christianity -that was anathema. We were seeking more truth, more conformity to God’s Word, more of God’s glory in the church- much more. And as such we had the commendation of our own consciences that we were seeking and in some measure manifesting faithfulness to God.

Back then there was the understanding that such a stance for biblical reform and fidelity would not meet with general popularity with the world or the modern church. But that didn’t matter because there was a conscious rejection of the fear of man and an understanding that popularity rarely coincides with faithfulness to God. There was no desire to be accepted at the table with all of modern Christianity, no hesitation to denounce and condemn what were the false and unbiblical standards of the day, no hesitation for the preachers to thunder and shout that the word of God must be heeded and that God’s glory in the church must be manifested among us. There was something like our Lord in His willingness to overturn the money changers’ tables and drive them out because “zeal for my Father’s house has consumed me.”

Now however there are different voices and new attitudes. We are told by a new generation of Reformed Baptists that we must link arms with the worldly so-called emergent church movement. We need to adopt the crude and irreverent fashions and music, the shallow man centered preaching and gospel and of course the wide doctrinal latitude. The new standard is not faithfulness to God’s Word but relevance and relateability – the naive and unbiblical notion that if we become just like the world then it will be interested in Christianity. Now we are told we should adopt the “successful” principles of the church growth movement. While pushing the “mainstreaming” of Reformed Baptists they are abandoning the very principles that made them a movement in the first place and distinct from the mass of modern Christianity. To those of us who care it is a tragic and almost inconceivable turn of events.

Behind these things there is a secret sin, the desire for popularity on the part of too many of the new leaders in their effort to emulate the “high profile” main stream religious figures of our day. Such men they say can not be criticized because of their “profile” their “audience” and their “influence.” They are “relevant” in our society and unless we emulate their ministry we are not. Large numbers we are told after all are a measurement of God’s blessing.

Those of us who remain committed to the original principles of our movement view all this with grief and contempt. What is needed obviously is a whole new reform effort to reestablish those earlier perspectives now almost forgotten but which were based on faithfulness to God’s Word.

Those pushing the anti-reform and emergent church agenda are a menace to the glory of God in the church and must be opposed. They will seek to blunt all criticism as being unloving and therefore illegitimate. That of course has been the defense mechanism of theological liberalism for more than a century. But we understand it is not biblical love to grant safe passage to their destructive errors and carnal compromises.

It is a daunting situation. Ground that had been earlier won on the battlefield of truth has now been lost and many we thought should be faithful soldiers have become turncoats for the sake of popularity. First of all we must pray. Together with that we must labor to teach and reestablish the priority of Biblical reform. It will be difficult but may the Spirit of the prophets fill us with zeal, determination and perseverance and may the victory be ours through Jesus Christ.

LB