|
ON JUNE 21, 2024 BY PASTOR TOM HICKS Many Christians today question whether it’s necessary or even biblical to join local churches. Some think joining a church will rob them of personal freedom and independence. Others believe they may attend several different churches without ever committing to just one. Some even believe they don’t need to be part of any particular local church, but that they may stay at home, pray privately, and watch sermons on the internet for their personal edification. I once met someone who said that his “church” was his personal circle of Christian friends. But all of these attitudes are a novelty in church history, and they reflect the radically individualistic and autonomous spirit of our age. Such beliefs are contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture, orthodox theology, and the historical witness of the church. Some Historical and Confessional Witnesses to Church Membership The great prince of the Puritans, John Owen (1616-1683), wrote, “It is the duty of everyone who professes faith in Jesus Christ, and takes due care of his own eternal salvation, voluntarily and by his own choice to join himself to some particular congregation of Christ’s institution.” The early English Particular Baptist, Benjamin Keach, in his magnificent work, The Glory of a True Church, wrote: A Church of Christ, according to the Gospel-Institution, is a Congregation of Godly Christians, who as a Stated-Assembly (being first baptized upon the Profession of Faith) do by mutual agreement and consent give themselves up to the Lord, and one to another, according to the Will of God; and do ordinarily meet together in one Place, for the Public Service and Worship of God; among whom the Word of God and Sacraments are duly administered, according to Christ’’s Institution. The most influential confession of faith among English Baptists and early American Baptists, the Second London Confession of Faith 26.6, says: The members of these [local] churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing (in and by their profession and walking) their obedience unto that call of Christ;[12] and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ; giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, in professed subjection to the ordinances of the Gospel.[13] 12. Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2 13. Acts 2:41,42, 5:13,14; 2 Cor. 9:13 The Second London Confession is not alone. Other Reformed confessions speak of church membership, including the Second Helvetic Confession (XXI, XXX), the Savoy Declaration (Institution of Churches), and others. Having looked at parts of the church’s historical and confessional witness to church membership, we now need to consider what it means to join a local church. What Does it Mean to Join a Local Church? To join a local church, a credibly professing believer must enter into a covenant with a local church as a whole. Church membership is a bilateral covenant in which individuals make promises to the church as a whole, and the church as a whole makes promises to individual members. A covenant is a formalized agreement, or commitment, by which two or more parties make promises to one another. The basic promises between individuals and churches in a church covenant include: Individual Promises. Each individual church member promises the whole church to trust and obey the Lord Jesus Christ together, to love other church members, to attend faithfully and participate in the life of the church, to receive the means of grace, and to be in submission to the pastors and to the church as a whole for the sake of growing in the knowledge of Christ for His glory. Church Promises. The church as a whole and her pastors promise to trust and obey Christ, to love individual members in their midst, to foster a community of truth and love, to maintain biblical orthodoxy and godly character, to administer the Word and sacraments, and to watch over the souls of individual church members for their growth in the knowledge of Christ for His glory. A church covenant is bilateral (a two-way commitment), and it is breakable, which means one party may break the covenant, such that individual members may be disciplined for heresy or gross unrepentant sin, or individuals may call the whole church to account for heresy or gross unrepentant sin. Some question whether a church has authority to make such a covenant. But the Bible provides examples of human beings making covenants with one another to keep the Word of God (Neh 9:38; 10:28-32ff). Church covenants are valid because churches are formed, not on the basis of any historical succession of churches or apostolic succession, but only on the basis of the Word of God. The Word of God forms a church when a group of Christians agree together (covenant together) to believe and obey the Bible and to be a church together. Why is Joining a Church Necessary? Consider seven important reasons that joining a church is necessary: (1) for the church’s existence, (2) for the church’s purity, (3) for pastoral ministry, (4) for church discipline, (5) for congregational government, (6) for growth in love, and (7) because church membership is implied by the New Testament.  In spite of the fact that it seems more and more fashionable in our day to say that women may be pastors, the Bible is clear that pastoral leadership is restricted to biblically qualified men. This post will examine 1 Timothy 2:12-14, one of the key biblical texts on male-only pastoral leadership, and it will respond to some of the most popular Evangelical Feminist efforts to undermine the teaching of these verses. The Scriptural Teaching In 1 Timothy 2:12-14 Paul says: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” Paul writes these words in the context of a pastoral epistle. He’s writing Timothy to teach him about pastoral ministry in the church, which means these verses need to be read in that light. They apply to church leadership, specifically to pastoral leadership. READ MORE.... Tom Hicks serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He's married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.
There has been a good deal of debate about whether the Second London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689 (2LCF) is a serviceable confession for Baptist churches. Some have argued it's far too detailed for a whole congregation to affirm, and they suggest that a shorter confession like the New Hampshire Confession or the Abstract of Principles … Read More... Tom Hicks serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He's married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.
Are good works necessary for Christians? If so, in what sense? There was an enormous historical dispute among Protestants about whether it is right to say good works are “necessary for salvation.” After a long debate among themselves, the Lutherans rejected the language of good works as “necessary for salvation,” and opted instead to say that they are “signs of eternal salvation.” The Reformed, on the other hand, believed the dispute was largely a debate over words, and they couldn’t see any significant difference between saying, “good works are necessary for salvation,” and it is “impossible to be saved without good works.” The Marrow Men of Scotland, including James Hog, Thomas Boston, and Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine, jointly composed a document of answers to questions from the Commission of the General Assembly, which in part, addressed the question of the necessity of good works. They said they preferred not to speak of good works as being “necessary for salvation” because of “the danger of symbolizing with the Papists and other enemies of the grace of the gospel.” They feared that to say good works are “necessary for salvation” might imply that human beings cause their own salvation or that they save themselves by their good works. The Marrow Men did, however, affirm that good works are “consequents and effects of salvation already obtained, or antecedents, disposing and preparing the subject for the salvation to be obtained,” but they denied that good works are “causes or proper means of obtaining the possession of salvation.” They would rather say, “holiness is necessary in them that shall be saved than necessary forsalvation; that we are saved not by good works, but rather to them, as fruits and effects of saving grace; or that holiness is necessary unto salvation, not so much as a means to an and, but as part of the end itself.” In other words, good works are not necessary in order to obtain salvation, but God saves us in part by giving us good works as gifts purchased by the merits of Christ. God saves us from sin and disobedience by giving us holiness and good works. Read More Here Tom Hicks serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He's married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.
There seems to be a fair amount of confusion today about what it means to be “under the law.” And there’s confusion about what it doesn’t mean. Some suggest that all of the members of the Old Covenant were “under the law.” Others say that for a believer to accept any commands or directives from God is to be “under the law.” Some believe that to accept the moral law, revealed in the Old Testament, as normative for the believer is to be under the law. But the phrase “under the law” is technical terminology in the Pauline epistles for something very specific. 1. Consider the meaning of the phrase “under the law” in Pauline literature. Perhaps the best way to understand the phrase is to study the Galatian heresy. Paul used the phrase “under the law” five times in his letter to the Galatians (3:23; 4:4; 4:5; 4:21; 5:18), more than any of his other letters. But how were the false teachers in Galatia attempting to bring God’s people back “under the law?” First, to be “under the law” is to attempt to secure God’s verdict of justification by the law. Paul says in Galatians 2:21, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” The false teachers were teaching Christians that they had to keep the whole law of God for their justification, not only the Ten Commandments, but circumcision and the Jewish food laws and festivals. This was a false gospel (Gal 1:6-7). Second, to be “under the law” is to attempt to obtain the Spirit through obedience to the law. Keep Reading.... Tom Hicks serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He's married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.
The Bible teaches us to search the Scriptures (Acts 17:11), and to rightly handle the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Christians are to hide God’s Word in their hearts (Psalm 119:11). And yet, many people want to avoid difficult questions of theology. They make excuses for not coming to careful biblical conclusions about what is true. R.C. Sproul wrote a wonderful book titled, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, in which he identified several reasons people avoid studying theology. Here they are, mixed with my own thoughts. 1. The Childlike-Faith Error Some people believe it’s better to have a simple childlike faith that doesn’t bother with complicated matters of Scripture. Now, we should have faith that simply trusts what God says, like a child, but we should not have a childish faith. Hebrews 5:12-14 says, “For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.” 1 Corinthians 13:11 says, “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” 1 Corinthians 14:20 says, “Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.” 2. Easy Believism Read the Rest of this Article Here!! Tom Hicks serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He's married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.
Sometimes Christian parents struggle with how to talk with their children about difficult subjects. They don’t want to burden their children unnecessarily. Death is one of the subjects that is difficult for parents to discuss. But the principles here apply to all difficult subjects. The general rule is to speak the truth in love without overwhelming your child with more information than is necessary. 1. Tell the truth. Sometimes, out of love, parents want to shield their children from the difficult parts of life. But parents love their children best when they tell the truth quickly and plainly. God’s law is the very definition of love, and God’s law teaches us not to lie but to tell the truth (Col 3:9; Eph 4:15, 25). Titus 2:4 says that mothers are to “love … their children.” It’s loving to be truthful. Never hide the truth from your children. Parents should use biblical words like “death” and “died,” when they explain what happened. They shouldn’t merely say, “Uncle Steve went to be with Jesus.” They need to be clear, and say something like this: “Uncle Steve died, and his body will return to the dust of the ground, just like the Bible teaches. Death is sad. It came into this world because Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden. Unless Jesus comes back, we will all die one day.” Another important way to tell your children the truth is to let them see your grief. Don’t hide your grief from your children. Jesus wept at the grave of Lazarus (Jn 11:35). Christians rightly grieve because of death; so, allow your children to see you and join you in your sorrow. Talk to them about your loss. Tell stories, and let them share how they are feeling with you. Read the Rest Here! Tom Hicks serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He's married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.
There has been a good deal said and written about expository preaching, Christ-centered preaching, redemptive-historical preaching, etc., but very little has been said about pastoral preaching. Pastoral preaching is at the heart of true pastoral ministry. It’s expository, based on biblical hermeneutics and Christ-centered, but it goes further. Pastoral preaching is directed to a particular local church. It requires Christlike holiness of the preacher and aims to shepherd a church in the same. Consider some of the qualities of a pastoral preacher. 1. The pastoral preacher’s sanctification is his main task in sermon preparation. Certainly, the preacher needs to study his text and do all of the technical work required to prepare to preach the Word faithfully. But the pastoral preacher knows that his strength and sincerity in the pulpit are tightly tied to his own life of communion with Christ. He prepares to preach Christ, not as a detached academician, but as one who is growing in the grace and knowledge of Christ personally. All week long, the pastoral preacher prepares as a “whole man,” loved, taught, and ruled by Christ in his mind, heart, and will in every part of his life. During particularly busy weeks, when he’s had less time to study for his sermon, God will often carry him in the pulpit, if he has been faithful to walk with Christ. His sincerity, love to Christ, and love for the church is basic to pastoral preaching. 2. The pastoral preacher’s first responsibility during sermon delivery is his own personal holiness. While preaching a sermon, the pastoral preacher aims to love God and love men. That is, he strives to obey both tables of the Ten Commandments by humble faith in Christ. Practically speaking, this means that while he’s preaching, he’s somewhat self-forgetful in the pulpit. More than anything, while he’s preaching, he’s thinking about the good of the church and the glory of God. His faith and love for God and His people issue in sincere conviction and humble boldness in the truth. Read More Here! Tom Hicks serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He's married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.
The Reformed confessions of faith all affirm that God made a “covenant of works” with Adam in the Garden of Eden. For example, The Second London Baptist Confession 20.1 explicitly refers to this covenant: “The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life….” But some aren’t sure the doctrine is found in the Bible. This post will set out some of the main arguments for the covenant of works found in Holy Scripture. Consider the creation of the first man in Genesis 2:7-8, which says, “Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.” Here God created the man before He planted the garden. Then Genesis 2:15, says God “put” the man in the garden. So, God made Adam outside of the Garden in a state of nature. But then God put Adam in the Garden and we will see that God made a covenant with him. In Genesis 2:16-17, we find a threat of death. These verses say, “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.’” This threat of death is a curse. The fact that Adam could die implies something about Adam’s natural state. Prior to eating from the tree, Adam was mutable. He could have sinned or not sinned. He was able to die or not. The Genesis account not only reveals the threat of death in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but it also reveals the promise of eternal life in the tree of life. Genesis 3:22-24 says: “Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.” This promise of “forever” or “eternal” life shows that Adam might have obeyed God to obtain a blessing. The promise of eternal life in Genesis 3 implies that the death threatened in Genesis 2:16-17 was “eternal” death. The promise of “eternal” life further shows us that something about Adam’s nature would have changed had he obeyed God. We’ve already seen that prior to obtaining the promise of eternal life, Adam had a mutable nature that could have sinned or not sinned. But if Adam obtained eternal life, the text tells us that he would love forever. That necessarily means that would be unable to fall or die. He would reach an immortal state of glory. All of these passages of Scripture contain the elements of a covenant. But what is a covenant? We could define a covenant as sworn oath or promise between at least two people. Covenants set the terms of inter-personal relationships. We might also call a covenant a “guaranteed commitment.” Sometimes covenants have commands attached to promises. Other times they are bare promises. Divine covenants are sovereignly imposed promises and they often have commands attached. So what elements in the Genesis narrative reveal the presence of a covenant? There were two parties: God and Adam, who was the federal head of all creation. There was a command: don’t eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This was a test in which Adam was required to obey God. There was a threat: you will surely die. And it had a promise: eternal life. Those are all elements of a covenant: parties, command, threat and promise. Now some say there is no covenant in Genesis 2 because the word “covenant” (berith) does not appear. But that assertion contains some assumptions. It assumes that a word has to be present for a doctrine to be present. This is called the word-thing fallacy. A word does not have to be present for a thing to be present. Consider these reductio-ad-absurdum arguments applied to the idea that a word has to be present in a text for the doctrine to be present. The word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in Genesis 1, but does that mean that the Trinity didn’t create the world? Of course not, we know from later revelation that the Trinity created the world. The word “marriage” doesn’t appear in Genesis 2, but clearly there is a marriage covenant between Adam and Eve. We know that marriage is a covenant from later revelation. The words “sin” and “fall” don’t occur in Genesis 3, but we know that Adam sinned in Genesis 3 because later revelation defines sin as a transgression of the law of God. Consistency would demand that people deny the existence of the Trinity in Genesis 1, the existence of marriage in Genesis 2, and the existence of sin in Genesis 3 if the absence of a word means that the doctrine isn’t present. Further Scriptural Proof of the Covenant of Works The the use of God’s covenant name “Yahweh” (tetragrammaton: yhvh) appears in Genesis 2:4-25, while the general name God, or “Elohim” appears earlier in Genesis 1:1-2:3. But God’s personal name, Yahweh, is associated with covenants throughout the Bible; so, this use of God’s covenantal name in Genesis 2 is one strong indication that there is a covenant in Genesis 2. Hosea 6:6-7 expressly speaks of a covenant with Adam. This is a case of later revelation explaining earlier revelation. It says, “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me.” Some interpreters translate this to say that “like men,” they transgressed the covenant, since the Hebrew word Adam can be translated man. But it makes no sense that men could sin in a way other than “like men” sin. Could men sin like animals, or like angels? Israel could only have sinned “like men,” since they were men. Other interpreters say “Adam” was a city where Israel sinned. But there is no biblical record of Israel sinning at a town named “Adam.” Therefore, it’s best to take Hosea 6:6-7 as saying that the Israelites transgressed their covenant, just like Adam transgressed his covenant. Job 31:33 does not mention a covenant but refers to Adam in a similar way, showing that Hosea 6 isn’t unique. Continue Reading Here! Tom Hicks serves as the Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Clinton, LA. He's married to Joy, and they have four children: Sophie, Karlie, Rebekah, and David. He received his MDiv and PhD degrees from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary with a major in Church History, emphasis on Baptists, and with a minor in Systematic Theology. Tom is the author of The Doctrine of Justification in the Theologies of Richard Baxter and Benjamin Keach (PhD diss, SBTS). He serves on the board of directors for Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary and is an adjunct professor of historical theology for the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies.
Is part of the “good news” of Jesus Christ that He threatens His blood-bought people with an eternity of hell’s torments if they don’t believe and repent and keep on believing and repenting? To be clear, there is no question about whether the law as a covenant threatens anyone who does not believe. If you are not in Christ, if you are not trusting Christ for forgiveness and if you are not living a penitent life, then you are in Adam, under the covenant of works and its curse.
|