Challenge to Unbelief (6 of 6) – Apologetics Conference Q & A

[00:00] All right. We have some time to spend together with questions and answers. I have no idea what might be on your mind or whether I can even help, but I’ll give it a shot. We’d like to begin.

[00:12] Okay. A question about sola scriptura. Right. The question is, how was the canon determined? Right. Well, let me try to give a brief answer, but I’m going to use this for a commercial moment as well. I have an essay on that subject, on the concept of canonicity that you can get from Covenant State Ministry. I’d like to encourage you to do that because you can follow up with greater detail, and I hope it will prove somewhat helpful.

[00:36] But a thumbnail sketch of an answer is, you need to understand that the Church does not determine what the Bible is. Roman Catholics have that completely wrong. They say the Church determines the canon. They say historically the Church determines the canon. You can’t avoid that. Well, I do avoid that, and I dispute that ferociously.

[00:55] The church does not determine the canon, does not determine the Word of God. The Word of God creates the church. You read in 1 Peter that we are born again by incorruptible seed, which is the gospel that’s been preached to you. It’s the Word of God that creates the church, and not vice versa.

[01:13] The books which we consider biblical do not receive their authority because we agree with them or we’re willing to put them in something we call the holy bible the church did not vote certain books into authority and something think about it if the bible represents god’s own authority it makes no sense to say that men can confer that authority on the bible by their vote by their decision by their agreement the word of god carries its own authority in itself. When God revealed his word, whether orally or in writing, it came with such convicting power and with such signs of authority that men knew it to be the word of God.

[02:00] Therefore, the canon is established by God’s revealing his word in writing, and that writing, be it a letter of Paul or John or a gospel of Luke, whatever, that writing carries authority in itself. As long as God in his providence has that writing circulated to the entire church and preserved through the ages, it is canonical. His revelation in and of itself, if it’s preserved for the entire church, makes a writing canonical. What the church did was simply recognize what it already submits to as the Word of God. When you have a list of canonical books drawn up later in the history of the church, it’s not so that the church can establish for the first time the canon, but rather so that the church can screen out those things that it does not recognize as canonical. I think Roman Catholics and people who read church history that way have got it completely backward. The church from its earliest days recognized these writings as from God and binding on their conscience for doctrine, life, so forth.

[03:08] And then as spurious works are generated and heretical works are generated, the Church protects its purity and its orthodoxy by declaring what it has always accepted to be God’s Word and what it does not accept to be God’s Word.

[03:26] And so getting back to what books belong in the Bible, those which have been revealed by God, circulated to the entire church, and preserved from the church in all ages. That is the canon. How do we know that a book comes from God? Well, that involves some spiritual and mysterious work, to be sure, in the fact that when you read it, it comes to you either declaring itself explicitly or with the implicit authority of your maker, and you recognize that in it. But it is not an individual decision. I wouldn’t want to give the impression that one person says, well, I think, you know, 2 Peter belongs in the canon, and another person doesn’t, so they can’t settle that. It’s the church as a whole that speaks and responds to that. We don’t have individual religious mavericks who make up their mind what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t.

[04:14] And so, we get into an area of God’s work that I can’t really explain to you beyond correcting misimpressions, but God does communicate.

[04:24] How is it that Abraham knew for sure it was god speaking when he said sacrifice your son how is it that the people who heard jesus knew that this man was not like a regular man because he spoke with authority and so forth i can’t explain to you how it works but these books were revealed by god and the church from the very beginning accepted them as god’s word because spurious works were also generated then you would get the church wanting to be careful debating certain things but we have to remember the church was simply clarifying what was accepted by the congregation of Christ’s people, rather than trying to determine which books they will accept and which ones they will not.

[05:06] Can you follow up on that? Basically, it comes down to God testifies to himself. The church doesn’t vote the Bible in. God says, this is my word, and because I say it’s my word, you need to accept it. I know a lot of people don’t like it. They say, well, how can you be sure? In the end, I think you can say, God is the one who makes it sure. And although you don’t understand how he does that, and maybe I can’t tell you the procedure by which he does it, the fact is when God reveals his word, he sends it with such convicting power that people know it’s the word of God. You read this and you say, my maker is speaking here. This is not just mere men who have put something together.

[05:49] Do you have a question here? right how should we respond to those here in the question called brethren who leave the reformed or protestant church and enter the roman catholic communion should they be seen as excommunicated brothers as apostates unbelievers what have you that’s a very hard question it tears out our emotions i know and one thing that complicates the question is that you do not get the reformed churches responding with uniformity. And so you get Reformed people getting mixed signals. And then we feel guilty, like, are we not being faithful to the Word of God? Are we being too judgmental and loving? And we get pulled back and forth there because the church doesn’t operate with a kind of unity on this matter.

[06:35] So the best I can do is try in all humility to be faithful to God’s Word and give you what I think the answer is to that question, but I don’t pretend that every even Orthodox Presbyterian minister wouldn’t necessarily agree with what I’m telling you. My own conviction is that the Roman Catholic Church is apostate. I have to begin there. Now, to judge that a body is apostate is not to judge that every individual that’s a member of that body is not a Christian. Those are two different questions.

[07:05] You see, there’s an organization known as InterVarsity. And I don’t believe InterVarsity is the church. Some people treat it like the church. But intervarsity is not the church. It doesn’t administer the sacraments. It isn’t authorized to preach the word of God in the way that we do, thus sayeth the Lord from the pulpit. It doesn’t have the mark of discipline that the church requires and so forth. But to say that intervarsity is not the church is not the same as saying that those who go to intervarsity are not Christians. It’s one thing to talk about an organization, another thing to talk about individuals.

[07:40] So when someone asked the question about the organization called the Roman Catholic Church, I have to judge if I’m faithful to God’s word that it is not a true church of Christ. It cannot be a true church of Christ. And by the way, the Westminster Confession virtually tells you that when it speaks of the abomination of the mass and speaks of certain churches that once were true churches, but if so, degenerated as it becomes synagogical state.

[08:05] it is possible for an organization which once had the marks to so corrupt them and lose them that it no longer is a church of Christ. And the reason why I feel we have to judge the Roman Catholic Church not to be a true church is Paul tells us in Galatians 1 that those who teach the doctrine, which comes right out of the Roman Catholic Church, that say the works of the law are necessary along with our own faith, are anathema. They are cursed by God. We speak of different denominations. Charles Hodge explained once in a very helpful way that we can look at church denominations the way we look at denominations of money. You know, I have in my pocket, or if I were wealthy enough, I would have in my pocket a $1 bill, a $5 bill, a $20 bill, a $100 bill. All of those are different denominations of American currency. Are they all of equal value? Obviously not. That’s why we’d rather have $100 bills rather than $1 bills in our pocket. But all of them are American-denominated money. In the same way, different Christian churches form denominations. Some are more valuable than others as you evaluate their adherence to the Word of God. And so everyone would like to believe that their own denomination, one way or another is one of the higher denominations. You don’t willingly choose to go to a weaker rather than a stronger church. But that doesn’t mean you believe the weaker churches are not true churches of Christ. I think independent Bible churches have a whole lot that’s wrong with them.

[09:45] Most of them tend to be Arminian in their views with theology. They don’t understand church government. They don’t practice the sacraments and discipline the way they ought to. And on and on and on I could go. And yet I wouldn’t say that That independent Bible church down the street here is not a true church of Christ. I think some can so degenerate and so teach works righteousness through their view of free will that they might come very close to that and some cross the line. But in general, I don’t, you know, personally judge that those that disagree doctrinally are not true Christians.

[10:18] The key here is the gospel. Can the gospel be heard in this church? Could a person listening to the preaching in this church hear the way of salvation and be saved? Okay, so maybe that church down the street is a $1 denomination church, and maybe the OPC is a $100 denomination church, although I doubt it. I’m sorry, but I mean, I think sometimes we give ourselves too much credit. Anyway, however you evaluate that, the question is, what do you make of the Roman Catholic communion and its preaching?

[10:48] Secondly, before we can answer that, we have to realize that you judge an organization by its banner, that is, by what it declares to the world to be its views. Because when I tell people what I, well, my view of the Roman Catholic Church, they often come back by saying, well, I know a priest who really is trusting Christ for salvation. They praise God, I’m glad that’s true. It’s irrelevant. because you judge a church by its confession of faith, not by the aberrations of individuals within the church, even if they’re ordained individuals. In the same way, if somebody were to criticize the Orthodox Presbyterian Church because some individual minister, say, is a socialist, I would say, well, I think the OPC should look into that, I think that’s bad, but you should judge the OPC by the Westminster Confession of Faith, which, by the way, condemns socialism.

[11:38] Okay, so you look at the organization in terms of its banner, what it puts out to the world as the official statement of its views. Where do we find the official statement of Roman Catholic views? Well, in a number of decrees, but primarily in the Council of Trent, where the Roman Catholic Church not only laid out its doctrine, but declared its doctrine to be irreformable. A lot of Roman Catholics will tell me, well, yeah, in the old days they believed things like that. And I have to tell them, in the old days they said it can’t be reformed. They declared it to be irreformable and, in the Council of Trent, most Protestants are not aware of this, declared that those who disagree with these views are anathema. They are cursed by God if they disagree with this irreformable dogma of the church. That doesn’t fit into loosey-goosey late 20th century American culture, and most Roman Catholics won’t lay it out to you that way, but that is Romanism.

[12:34] And now finally, what does the Council of Trent teach? It teaches that our merit warrants God’s attention and makes it appropriate that he would save us through the mercy of his Son. So we, as I said last night, we merit the merit of Christ. Moreover, the Council of Trent declares that the work of Christ makes satisfaction for sin committed prior to baptism. and that following baptism, we need to make satisfaction for sin through penance. And so it clearly declares as irreformable and something which makes you cursed of God if you disagree, that you must add to the work of Christ for the sake of your salvation. Now, Paul says in Galatians that anyone who teaches that kind of thing is cursed of God. So you have your choice. The Roman Catholic Church says you’re cursed if you don’t believe this. Paul says you’re cursed if you do. Well, I’ve made my choice.

[13:28] It’s awkward. It’s not easy to say this. And by the way, many Reformed people will not stand with me, and they have criticized me for trying to take this position, but for the sake of men’s soul, I have to tell them the Roman Catholic Church teaches soul-damning doctrines. And then we’ll hear, well, but this priest doesn’t, or I know people who are good Christians and so forth. And I say, I grew up in a Roman Catholic community. I know the aberrations. I know the way that going to the priest is used as a cop-out for living, you know, it’s a wild life of excess and thinking God’s bound to save me anyway because I’ve done my Hail Marys and all that. So I know it at its worst, and I also know people who were very devout and sincere and were trying to, you know, follow the Bible and so forth. It’s not my place to judge, generally speaking, every individual Roman Catholic. I can’t do that. Only God will. But I can judge the organization.

[14:20] And so now, when somebody is in the Roman Catholic Church, I’m going to eventually get to the answer to your question, You’d have to work layer by layer back to it. When someone’s in the Roman Catholic Church and you say, well, is that person saved? Should they leave the Roman Catholic Church? I say, well, they’re saved if they trust the merit of Christ and only the merit of Christ for their salvation.

[14:39] And should they stay in that organization? No, they should not. They should come out from among them and touch no unclean thing, as Paul put there, quoting Isaiah. God’s people ought not to be in organizations that defile the truth of God so terribly. And again, when somebody says, well, but my priest, da-da-da-da-da, and I say, but you’re under obligation to not be part of an organization that has any priest that blasphemes in that way and corrupts the Word of God and takes away the gospel and turns it into works righteousness.

[15:09] And so I encourage Roman Catholic people, I know that this seems so bizarre at the end of the 20th, I actually encourage them to leave the Roman Catholic Church and to find a church that’s true to the Word of God.

[15:19] and I even have the arrogance every once in a while to suggest they look at my denomination first because I think we have something to offer them and so forth but I do that because I say you need to judge on the basis of scripture so you know that Trent teaches such and such you know that Westminster Confession teaches such and such you ask yourself what’s in the Bible, what should you believe now when a priest tells them or one of these Protestant defectors to Romanism tells them no you shouldn’t judge this on your own. You should listen to the holy tradition of the church. We’re right back into the thick of it, aren’t we?

[15:54] Because, you see, what I’ve been doing by telling Romanists to read the Bible and compare for themselves, I’ve been giving them a Protestant approach to religion. But that is not the Roma-Catholic approach. Roma-Catholic approach is, no, everybody’s going to come up with different opinions, and that’s just going to create chaos. Everyone submit to the magisterium, to the ruling authority in the church. Listen to the Pope. Follow your priest. That sort of thing. So, yes, I try to get people out of the Roman Catholic Church, and I try to get them out, not on the basis of our teams better than yours, but if you’ll read the Bible, you will see that we are closer to the teaching of God’s Word than is the Roman Catholic communion. And, in fact, the Roman Catholic communion is not even Christian currency. It’s not gospel currency. This is not the gospel. It’s a false gospel. Okay, so what I’ve done is I’ve dealt with someone who’s in it, maybe grew up in it, and what kind of counsel I would give.

[16:44] now what do I do when I have people who have known whether in their heart of hearts or not but they’ve certainly known in their brains and their ears and so forth they have known the sweetness of God’s word and the truth of the gospel and they know that salvation is by the free grace of God and completely by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit and that they can offer nothing of their own and that even their good works are still fouled by their sinfulness and need the purification of Christ’s blood to be considered good in the eyes of God. They have heard that in a Protestant, hopefully a Presbyterian, Reformed church, and they give it all up and they go over into the Roman Catholic Church. Now what am I supposed to make of people who do that? Well, what are my options? One, they’re totally confused and they don’t understand what the issues are. That happens.

[17:34] I must tell you that in every case, let me just delimit this. In the last 10 years when we’ve seen Protestants going that direction, In every case where I’ve been involved in a discussion, and I’ve offered that as the most peaceful, favorable interpretation of what’s happening, I have been chewed out royally. What right have you to say that I don’t understand the issues and that I’m confused?

[17:56] Recently, I had a dialogue with Jerry Matatek on the John Stewart show. Jerry Matatek is one of the Presbyterian PCA ministers that left the PCA and entered the Roman Catholic Church. We had this dialogue, then went out to dinner with John Stewart afterwards. which probably y’all would rather listen to the conversation at dinner than the polite one we had over the radio. It was polite enough. It was pleasant enough and friendly.

[18:21] But it got kind of tense when the program manager for John Stewart, who was at dinner with us, asked me. She said, well, now, Greg, are you saying that Jerry here is not saved, that he’s not a Christian? Well, I tell you, you know, but you’re right on the spot. He’s sitting right next to me at the table.

[18:41] And so I tried to be honest, and I tried to be gracious, and I said, if Jerry truly believes what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, he’s going to hell. Because Paul said so. And I can’t correct Paul. But I also want to say that I want to believe with all my heart that Jerry does not really believe those things, and he’s confused. And that he knows very well from his upbringing and his earlier days that he has to trust Christ alone and not his good works and so forth. And so I want to believe that Jerry’s going to be in heaven with me. even though he’s made the mistake of working with this organization and so forth.

[19:14] And he got furious. There I was trying to lay down a peaceful way of saying, hey, this is life and death matter, but I can’t judge his heart. He got furious. He said, what right do you have to say that I don’t know what I’m talking about? I said, Jerry, I said that because I was hoping that you didn’t know what you were talking about and there might be some excuse for it. But I said, if you’re going to sit here and say that you believe that with all your heart, I’m going to tell you for the sake of your salvation, you will not be right with God on the day of judgment. You will not go through the judgment of God if you can’t have Christ stand up and say, I have died for all of his sins. And not just his pre-baptismal ones and on and on and on. Well, it got kind of interesting after that.

[19:58] But that experience, a little more dramatic there than elsewhere, but has always been the case. When I try to say the option that they’re confused, they get very angry about that. But I still believe that’s possible. I still think, in some cases, some of these people, I think, have been caught up, and it makes them kind of different. They’re doing this thing, and it gets them a lot of attention. And frankly, sin is so deceiving that that gets tangled around people’s hearts. And for the sake of their social, what, prestige? That’s not really the word, but for the attention it gets them, and they’re kind of unique and different, for that sake, they’ll make the mistake of going into the Roman Catholic Church.

[20:34] Other people, it seems to me, have backslidden so badly that the evil one takes advantage of the state of their heart, and though they do belong to Christ and will be recovered, whether before they die or at the point of glorification, they are in a backslidden condition, and they are easy prey then for the doctrinal error of the Roman Catholic Church. Because from a human standpoint, there’s so much that seems attractive. Look at the pomp and the circumstance and the long history and tradition. People can, when they’re in, I think, a very weak spiritual state, choose the wrong sorts of things, you know?

[21:14] God holds out in his word a very simple load of New Testament worship. You know, we trust the gospel and so forth, and we don’t have a lot of fanfare and all that. And the flesh, you know, often is appealed to. And you look at everything, boy, what a grand display. This is very entertaining. So some people, in a backslidden condition, do that.

[21:34] And a third possibility, and the one I’ve waited to say, because I don’t wish to be judgmental, but, I mean, I’m not, I don’t wish to answer to God, I don’t want blood on my hands on the day of judgment, because I refuse to tell people, in some cases, those who have done this do not know the Savior. I say, but I knew them previously, Dr. Bahnsen, they seem to have such a good confession, such sincerity, and so forth. Well, Hebrews, the sixth chapter, describes people like that. Hebrews, the 10th chapter, describes people like that, it is possible for people to have a taste of the powers of the kingdom of God, and yet not truly in their heart of hearts have been changed.

[22:10] So, when people have left the Protestant or Reformed Church to go into the Roman Catholic Church, I cannot tell you whether it’s out of confusion, a backslidden condition, or because their hearts are not really right with God.

[22:22] But I will say that the Church must judge. This is my opinion. I don’t think the Church at large will agree with me. But as I read the Bible and understand church government, the church at large must judge that they are apostate because they are unrepentant in their sin against the Savior by belonging to an organization, giving up their own vows of membership and belonging to an organization that doesn’t teach the truth in its purity.

[22:47] then they’ll tell you well it does teach the church the truth and its purity and if they would enter into a long period of education and counsel and so forth and show a teachable spirit then we can be very charitable and humble as to how we evaluate them in the meantime but when they make the decision that they know what the issues are and they’re going to go through in the Catholic church I think the church has to finally judge that finally not first of all not jumping to opinions the church has to finally judge they don’t know the same Now, finally, what your question is, how do we respond to people who have done that?

[23:22] Well, what does Jesus say you should do with those who don’t know the Savior? You should love them, have them into your home, evangelize them, talk to them, seek their salvation. I think our tendency, and one of the reasons why the church doesn’t practice excommunication as often as it probably should, is because we look upon excommunication as the church declaring this person’s going to hell no matter what. That is not the meaning of excommunication. You will not find any Reformed writer that will tell you that’s what excommunication means. Excommunication means that here on earth you have warned this person that they will not be right with God unless they repent. And all of God’s people need to take account of that and to respond in that way. So that the person might be recovered, might repent, and so forth.

[24:10] We don’t write this person out of our lives when they’re excommunicated. we all the more offer prayers and tears on their behalf in hopes that they’ll be recovered. And so if you’ve ever known someone who’s excommunicated, if you really love that person, then you pray for that person. And you spend the time when you deal with that person seeking their salvation. You evangelize them. That’s how you ought to respond to people who have left the Reformed Church to go into the Roman Catholic Church, I believe. I think you ought to continue to love them as those whom you hope Jesus will save and that you’re going to give what you can to them to make that possible. Your time, your prayers, your counsel, your compassion.

[24:52] Okay, now, these are really great questions, and I wish more people, more congregations would struggle with them. A question arises, and there are differences among Reformed interpreters on this, so let me put that out first.

[25:07] A question arises, the shunning passages in the New Testament, as they’re called, the ones Anabaptists are famous for, but Presbyterians ought to understand better than Anabaptists. When Paul tells us at a couple of places that we are not to have fellowship with a certain individual, the question arises, does that apply to those who are excommunicated or to those who have been suspended from the Lord’s Supper? As you see, in the second Thessalonians passage, Paul talks about not having association with the brother who walks in an unruly way, but exhort him as a brother, appeal to him as a brother. That suggests to me that what you have here is a case where the person is under discipline and for that reason is being shunned, but is still considered a Christian. When you excommunicate somebody, you no longer consider them a Christian. And so my own opinion and that of a number of others, but we’re not at all the only side to that question. My opinion is that when the church suspends a person from the lord suffer that the social expression of that suspension is we don’t eat with you in our homes either we don’t go to the movies with you we don’t fellowship with you because we want you to be ashamed of your behavior and now live up to your profession so that is a it’s a disciplining technique that hopes to bring the person to repentance before they have to be declared outside the body of christ now once they’re outside the body of christ they’ve been excommunicated jesus tells us that we’re to treat them as publicans and sinners and then how do you treat Republicans and sinners. You evangelize them. Now that’s my opinion.

[26:44] Trying to bring them back in. Yeah, you try to win them.

[26:47] Yeah, then you start socially being involved with them. In the same way, you can be involved with an unbelieving neighbor. The one thing you have to be, now if you hold this view, if you take this approach, you have to be very careful that your heart doesn’t deceive you.

[26:59] And what you do is you say, well, I don’t want to treat this person in the same way I would an unbeliever because, you know, for two years they were in my church with me and so forth. So you kind of go easy on them, quote-unquote, you know. Well, I’m telling you, for the love of Jesus, you can’t go easy on them. When they come to your house, you’ve got to bring it up. You say, I know this is awkward, but Bill, Mary, whoever it is, really, my heart without you, I don’t think that you’re right with God. So let’s talk about that. Well, you know what that will probably produce is their unwillingness to come over and have dinner with you very often, but if can do it in a Christ-like way, hopefully they will continue just as your unbelieving extra neighbor would come and so forth. Now, the other side of that, just so I try to be balanced here, I know some OPC ministers who I’ve talked to about this would say that when a person is excommunicated, you continue the shunning that was part of the suspension from the Lord’s table, because now that they can’t come to the Lord’s table and we don’t have any prospect of that being renewed after a period of time, that all the more do we need to let them know this is serious business and so we don’t have social fellowship with you and they may be right i have to tell you i up until a member of my family was excommunicated i held the other opinion pretty confidently and now i waver a little bit because it does from an emotional standpoint which has no authority but from an emotional standpoint and to say i want people to shun this family member so she gets the point so there are two opinions on that well no i i’ll give you my personal opinion on it and i i hope that i can stay out of trouble for telling you what i think is the truth on this in my presentation i hear this kind of talk a lot about well when people ask to be erased they are excommunicating themselves and the church should be satisfied with that and they’ll even go on to say in a sense that’s even worse than excommunication because you’ve done it to yourself and so forth and so on and i know they mean well I don’t think they’re trying to be malicious or deceive people or avoid the Word of God.

[29:01] But I don’t think that reasoning is cogent. In fact, if I had my way, we wouldn’t have erasure in our method. There’s nothing in the Bible about erasure. That is, as I see it, and it’s not just the OPC. It’s about every church has something like that. So I’m not trying to get down on the OPC.

[29:17] But I see erasure as a cop-out. It’s an accommodation to the awkwardness of church discipline. And so for the sake of social peace, we have this thing, you can get erased instead. Erasure is not the same as excommunication. Because in erasure, there is no public declaration by the church in the name of Jesus that this person is not going to be right with God on the day of judgment. And believe it or not, as hard as that is, that is for the good of the sinner. That they know the people of God are united and declaring publicly you are not right with God. Erasure is just kind of, oh, someone went out the back door and we’ve taken account of that fact.

[29:56] I don’t know, maybe Chuck would like to correct what I’m saying here. I do want to give equal time to the other side, but my personal opinion is people ought not to be erased, except in very bizarre circumstances. And when they are unrepentant in sin, erasure is not doing all that Jesus called us to do for sinners. Your hand was up, Chuck, were you going to… Oh, you were, this is the pointer to your wife’s hand.

[30:20] All right. A little short thing on that troubled question that Presbyterians haven’t settled. Okay. Yeah, they did. I was active in the debate in Presbytery on that. My own opinion is that the southern Presbyterian tradition on that is correct, and the northern Presbyterian tradition is, you know, they’re good Christian people, but they’re mistaken, I think. The northern Presbyterian position of Hodge was that a baptism was performed in the name of the triune God with water with the intention of doing what Jesus called on the church to do, that it’s baptism regardless of the circumstances, how abnormal or irregular they might be. Well, the problem is there are cults like Mormons that baptize with water in the name of the triune God with the intention of obeying Jesus’ command. And I don’t think any of us believe we ought to honor Mormon baptisms. Moreover, there are children who think they are doing what Jesus said to do, and they play church in the backyard, and they perform baptism on the Hodge View, because it’s with water, and they mention Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What’s that? Yeah. Okay.

[31:32] And so my argument was that the validity of baptism does not have anything to do with the administrator. I’m not Adonitist, you know, the traditional or the church historical question there. You may have an outright hypocrite or pagan who happens to be a priest or a minister who does the baptism. That doesn’t invalidate the baptism. But the baptism must be performed by the covenant community. It must be performed by the community of God’s gracious covenant.

[31:59] And so this comes back to the question then, what is a Christian denomination? Well, listen, $1 denominations can do baptism.

[32:05] They may be irregular. They may despise the covenant of grace and not baptize infants and on and on. But the point is, when they perform a baptism because the gospel preached in that church, then I think we have to honor that baptism when people come to it. But we do not honor the baptism. We don’t honor any of the sacraments of organizations that are not true churches of Christ. So when you have an apostate body, such as the Roman Catholic Church, then you don’t recognize their sacraments and that’s why i believe when a person comes to us out of romanism who truly trust christ as far as we can see in a credible profession we should baptize them because they have not been baptized yet well the catholics would say they’ve been baptized but hey mormons would say they’ve been baptized too and children playing in the backyard would say they’ve been baptized that doesn’t cut it it has to be done by a true church of christ maybe a weak one maybe a very strong one but it’s got to be a true church of christ so i believe in the holy catholic church the universal church of Christ anyone coming out of a true church that’s been baptized we don’t baptize again but I don’t believe that’s true of Romanism well the Presbytery voted on that issue and I don’t know if I have the numbers right, it’s like 1615 or 1213, something like that it was a one vote difference so after they took the vote one vote in favor of the northern Presbyterian position then they went on to say that because the Presbytery was so closely divided that they would leave it to each individual session to practice and make up its own mind.

[33:34] Which, for the sake of peace in the Church, I think was the right thing to do. But I do wish the Church would live out consistently its profession against Romanism, and therefore not accept the sacraments. You know, this is interesting. Nobody accepts the Mass. No one accepts what we would call the Lord’s Supper from the Roman Catholic Church. But then we turn around and we accept their baptism. It doesn’t make sense to me, but I’m in the minority from that.

[33:58] Oh, right here.

[34:00] Yeah, what Donna has done here in raising this issue, it seems to me, is shown that there’s really another wrinkle to it. It’s more than what I have talked about, because even if you agreed with all the principles I laid down, I say, if you did, there would still be the further question as to your own testimony to the world in having people from organizations that are involved in what the Bible calls abomination, homosexual sin, and yet they’re claiming to be Christians. Now, if you have them into your home, you may be making the testimony that you’re willing to accept what they’re saying and be at peace with that and so forth.

[34:37] And I agree with you. But I don’t think that pertains to the question of excommunication, per se. An individual that’s been in your congregation that’s been excommunicated, it seems to me, you might still have into your home to continue the counsel and the exhortation and the appeal for repentance. but you wouldn’t want to have somebody in the city that is known to be a practicing homosexual and said this is okay as a Christian into your home because you’re saying it’s not okay and I need to signal that to you.

[35:05] Yeah, and I’ve seen that as well and that’s often the case. You excommunicate people and they say, no, I’m still a Christian to confront them with their sin. Yeah, but I thought what you were bringing up is, you know, what does this say to the society around you or to the church maybe if you have them into your home? Well, hopefully the church would know that you have them into your home because you’re trying to see them converted. Okay. No, no, I hear you. No, but I would say that if you didn’t say anything other to them about the excommunication and just had them to your table, that that would be sending the wrong message. You’re absolutely right about that. And if the only way you can get the point across is to say, you’re not welcome in my home, you can’t sit at my table, then that would be it.

[35:49] But it seems to me there’s another option, and it’s the much more difficult one, And that is that you can invite them in, but then you have to use the opportunity in whatever way. Not to beat them over the head necessarily, but you’ve got to confront them lovingly, forcefully, charitably, but confront them with their sin. So that when they leave, they will have no idea that you’re having them into dinner met. You think it’s really okay to be excommunicated. So I think you could verbally get that point across.

[36:13] But of course, those who are not at the table who say, oh, I hear that the pastor’s family had him the excommunicated couple and da-da-da-da. but they might not know that that’s what you were doing and might draw the wrong conclusion, but then that gets into a whole different, you know, for the person, you must make it clear to that person that you love them for the sake of Christ and that you are doing this because you want to see them restored. And never give them the idea, well, we can sweep this under the rug. That was such an unpleasant thing, but it’s over and gone now. And I think a lot of people are uncomfortable in church discipline, and that’s the way they wouldn’t do that.

[36:47] Okay, here they are.

[36:48] ah you’re all watching the clock yeah avoid that but not because of that verse that verse is not dealing with that particular problem but there are other verses that tell you about wisdom and staying away from the house of a loose woman and so forth i mean proverbs so obviously if you’re in a situation where your good testimony can be besmirched by misunderstanding then you ought to do what you can to avoid it i don’t think you can altogether avoid it because the purest man who ever lived, the Lord Jesus Christ, was called a friend of harlots and drunkards because he spent time with these people, and so forth.

[37:26] And I think that probably will happen to Christian ministers. And that doesn’t mean we should go out and welcome it and act foolish and so forth. In a case like that, it seems to me you ought to take an elder or two with you to her home so there can’t ever be any questions about the propriety which it plays behind closed doors. Well, but I’m willing, and you should be willing, to have your freedom limited if it really will make him stumble.

[37:50] And the problem is, you see, you gave that as a premise, and I have to go back and say, explain to me, if I wear red, how is my weak brother going to sin? You see, the problem is that the fundamentalist church has convinced us, sadly, wrongly, misleadingly, that to offend a weaker brother means to make him uncomfortable or unhappy. And so why shouldn’t I have a beer at the pizza hall? because there might be another Christian in there who’s a weaker brother, and he might not think that he should do that, which the answer is he should mind his own business. And in fact, he’s not the weaker brother. He’s the stronger brother. He has scruples that he’s not going to violate at all. He’s not going to have a beer. He’s going to condemn me for doing so. He’s not offended. When Paul speaks of offending, he means making a person stumble into sin.

[38:42] Here’s how I can offend a weaker brother. I take somebody who’s a member of Alcoholics Anonymous. recently converted, joins my church. I have him over for dinner, and we’re having wine at dinner. I say, Bill, would you like a glass of wine? He goes, no, I’ve really had trouble with that in the past, and it needs to be better. Well, but now, hey, we’re all good Christians, and we’re having a glass of wine. It’s going to be perfectly okay. Don’t you think God will take care of you, Bill? And what I do is, by my example, then, I encourage him to do that, which is contrary to his conscience. He can’t do it in faith. And he’s worried that it’s going to make him stumble.

[39:21] Well, who am I to set an example? Now, for the sake of the weaker brother, not even to bring up the issue and make him feel awkward and so forth. See, Paul tells him, for the sake of love, I should give up my prerogatives and my privileges and so forth, you know, to help, you know, a fellow Christian. And I agree with that. And if there really were a person who’s going to stumble into sin because I wore a blue tie, I would say, well, when I go to that church, if it were true, I would not wear a blue tie. For the sake of Jesus, I would not wear a blue tie. I wouldn’t exercise my freedom to do that. So I want to positively insert that.

[39:54] Then I want to say also that I am really, I am offended, if you want to use that general sense of, you know, I’m kind of put out. I’m put out at the way the fundamentalist church uses the passages about the weaker brothers to tyrannize other people and to suggest there’s something wrong with their Christianity. It’s just not right. That isn’t what the Bible means. That’s right. And if they’re made uncomfortable by the freedom Jesus has given me, then the problem is there. I mean, not that I think I’d rub that. I mean, I could have a problem, too, if I go out of my way to order a beer, just like I’m watching that storm over here.

[40:30] Okay? We have to watch our own heart, what we’re doing. But if I, you know, with a good heart and faith, order a beer at a pizza hall, and some Christian, he says, hey, you know, he’s the pastor of the West Green Church. He’s having a beer. Boy, what a bad testimony that is.

[40:43] I know many people would say you shouldn’t do that I don’t think the Bible tells me I shouldn’t do that and now having said that one last thing, culturally it’s easy to give you this instruction in California and it would be virtually impossible to say the things I’ve just said without creating all sorts of ruckus in the South I found when I was in the South for three years ministering among Presbyterians that Presbyterians they’re active like Baptists to sprinkle their babies basically. I mean, they had just as many hang-ups with fundamentalism and so forth as the baths. It’s really sad. And so there, Presbyterian ministers I know, who would have a beer on a hot day or something like that, they would hide the beer in their refrigerator unless anybody would see it when they came over to the pastor’s home. We had a lot of education, a lot of growing up to do even in the Reformed Church on this matter. It’s not just the fundamentalists.

[41:38] The fact that the unbeliever knows God and yet is lost Okay. So what I am saying, okay, I’m glad you brought this up so I can be clear before I drive away from you. The unbeliever says, my philosophy of life is the following. And what I am telling you is that from a debate standpoint, argument standpoint, you can take what he says with his philosophy and show that if he were true to that philosophy, he couldn’t know a thing. That if he were consistent with his unbelieving worldview, he would be reduced to utter foolishness. Because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, et cetera, et cetera.

[42:14] However, in addition to what he says with his philosophy, in his heart of heart, he knows God. And because he knows God in his heart of heart, he does believe in the regularity of the world. He does believe in moral absolutes. He does believe in the laws of logic and things of that nature. So deep down in his heart, he has a basis for learning about the world. In fact, he may know more about English submarines than I do. He may be really intelligent about that stuff, and I know hardly anything. But he couldn’t know anything if he were true to his philosophy. Therefore, the way in which he learned so much about nuclear submarines finally comes back to his believing in the depths of his heart, what I am proclaiming in the gospel about God and about his position before God and who he is and so forth.

[42:58] So two things are going on. And in this morning’s message, that’s what I was trying to communicate.

[43:03] case. Paul says, they know God, and yet with their mouth, they will not glorify God, and so they are reduced to foolishness. Yeah, that’s another way of putting it, and that is, they can only know what they know because they’ve borrowed from us. And I like that.

[43:19] Dr. Dan Phillips has said in this a lot. I would just want to point out that it isn’t borrowing like they heard our testimonies, and they said, oh, that sounds good, and they kind of chucked that away, and they started using it. They knew it just like we knew it from the very beginning, from the created order and conscience, they knew God.

[43:35] And so, we can say to them, as we point it today, the only way you can balance this textbook, the only way you can make sense of these were submarines or whatever else, the opera, the only way you can make sense out of that is by borrowing from my worldview what you need, and then trying to disregard the rest. And I’m not going to let you do that. In this debate, I’m holding on to my ground, and now I want you to make sense of what you said about the opera, the submarine, whatever it means. Does that help? living on borrowed capital.

[44:02] I got a great idea. I think I can make big bucks with a hot fudge sundae shop. So I can see how it was laid out, the core menu, everything. I got a busy plan. Looks good. One problem, I don’t have any money. I can’t rest the space, can’t get the supplies, can’t hire employees and so forth.

[44:22] So I come to you and I say, what is this great idea for the hot fudge sundae shop? And you say, yeah, it looks like it will work. I say, I’ll tell you what. You will give me the seed money necessary for this so I can give them the business, get the employees, and so forth. I’ll put in the work. I’ll make this plan. It’ll function and so forth. And we’ll make money together. And I’ll pay you whatever we agree is going to do with it. Okay, you give me the money. I get the location. I decorate it. I get the employees. The supplies. People come in. It’s a great success. We’re doing great business.

[44:54] But you see, when people come in off the street, they say, well, this is a great idea for the Hot Fudge Sunday Stop. No, you really did a good job. And I said, yeah, I know. That was pretty smart of you, wasn’t it? I did you fine. I don’t imagine the fact that I couldn’t have done it without your capital. And then you show up and you say, boy, this is a great piece. This isn’t that great. I’d like to take my credit to profit. And I say, who are you? I did this all on my own. You’d be pretty offended, wouldn’t you?

[45:21] I didn’t think God feels when people use his good gift to understand nuclear submarines and giraffes and roses and everything else in this world and make big bucks doing it and getting famous, Nobel Peace Prize, whatever it is, and they don’t ever say, thank you to God. Paul says, they know God, but they do not give thanks. Borrowed capital. They’re going to get it all on their own, but they didn’t.

[45:48] Well, let me see. Do we have any other questions? Oh, dear. Okay, I’m going to take one more, and then we really have to stop because the ECUs are going to give out, yes. Let me see the specific comments.

[46:07] All right, the question has to do with my article on canonicity, and I’m just going to read the entire paragraph and then the part that you’re asking for comment on. To think otherwise, that is, to have a different view of how the canon came into being and how we’re to understand it, to think otherwise would be an actual effect to deprive the Christian church of the sure word of God.

[46:29] what I mean by that is if you don’t answer the challenges to the canon that I’m trying to deal with here and you say well I guess we don’t have an answer to these things you just can’t walk away from that and say no practical effect no harm no foul there’s great harm there because if Christians are unsure of the canon then they have to be unsure of their salvation only on the basis of God’s canonical word that we have any reason to think we’re saved and that would in turn a undermine confidence in the gospel, contrary to God’s promise in our spiritual necessities, that is, if we can’t settle the issue of the canon, then God didn’t tell us the truth when he said that we would have a pure word and a basis for confidence in our salvation, as well as be deprived of the philosophical precondition of any knowledge whatsoever, thus confining us in principle to utter skepticism. And that’s the part of this area is asking to comment on. Though it’s just one part of a very large article, essentially what I’m saying here is, if you do not have a canon established in the self-attesting way that I talked about, where God’s own authority authorizes the book to go into the Bible, if you don’t have a sure revelation from God whose boundaries are determined by God himself, then you’re right back into the philosophical quagmire with everybody else in the world, with unbelievers.

[47:53] And in summary of what I taught you the last few days, you would be deprived of the philosophical precondition of any knowledge whatsoever. You would not be able to answer and accept it, because ultimately, you wouldn’t have the conditions of rationality, the precondition to morality, logic, and conviction and freedom any more than anybody else would.

[48:12] If you don’t have a revealed word from God, you’re no better off than an unbeliever. And that’s what I’m saying in that sentence there. Does that help?

[48:20] So, in a sense, our view of the canon goes right along with our view of apologetics. And then, finally, what turns out is just finally the authority of God, whose authority authorizes itself. And that’s how we determine the canon and how we answer the skeptics and unbelievers and all the rest.

[48:38] Okay. We really do have to put an end to this sometime, although I hope, by not answering all of your questions, that I might invite it back sometime. I would really like to do that.

[48:49] Thank you.