Where is the basis of appointment?

The old debate on the issue about church leadership among the Reformed Baptists is always circling around the equality of the elders and the distinction among the elders. Seldom attention is given to the basis of the appointment of these leaders. We are weak and vague in this. The Reformed Baptists, generally, believe in the theory that the pastor is the leader[i]. Ephesians 4.11-12 is often quoted, accompanied by the image of the Good Shepherd[ii], as the basis for the calling of a pastor. However, anyone who has some basic idea about the art of exegesis would know that the immediate context of the passage can hardly constitute a command from the apostle as he has given to Timothy and Titus[iii]. Paul was encouraging the church to move on to maturity and unity by drawing her attention to the gift of “the apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor teachers.” These four offices mentioned were the apostolic band and they were given as a whole package. Exegetically, it is arbitrary to take the pastor teacher out from the band and make it an office for today. The question would rise from within the context, why choose the pastor teacher alone and why not the apostles, the prophets, and the evangelists? However, in a cleaver manner, the role of the pastor teacher has been singled out from the list, and please do not bother to ask who gave the permission to do that. Never mind also about the fact that big argument and a little twisting here and there had been done to the text, the important thing is that a basis for the calling of the pastors has been established.

Armed with this new “biblical basis”, these experts approach Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus on the appointment of elders in the local churches, and established the following theory.

1.       A pastor is a teacher and a good one.

2.       A distinction is therefore made in the Timothy and Titus texts that there were two types of elders; namely the teaching elder and the ruling elder.

3.        The teaching elder is  a good teacher and is called by God, whereas the ruling elder is invited by the former to assist him in the work.

4.       Another distinction is made that a teaching elder is a full time worker and should be salaried by the local church while a ruling elder is not[iv].

5.       The teaching elder is therefore the pastor.

So in a very simple manner, a basis for the calling of the pastor is established and the relationship among the elders is solved. So we can confidently convincing ourselves that we can have one pastor or teaching elder and many ruling elders be appointed in a local church, with the pastor as the chief  of the elders.

Unfortunately, the story does not stop here, because there is a new voice wanting to be heard from within the same fraternal. This group of believers agrees that the “gift text” indicates a basis for the call of the pastors. They also refer to Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus, but they do not do the hair splitting and twisting stance with the text. They view the “gift text” and Paul’s instruction essentially refers to the same persons who were called to be the pastors. According to this interpretation, the pastors and the elders are the same persons called by God to serve in the local churches. There is no difference between the two and the elders are the pastors. Ultimately, in a similar sentiment, that the pastor is still the designated leader in a local church.

I suspected that the apostles did not call for an “ordination” of the pastors when I was exposed to such debate. I can safely say to myself today that indeed my suspicion was right. The New Testament evidence clearly shows that there is no instruction from the apostles for the local churches to ordain pastors. Historically, I believe, “pastors” is a romantic idea created by the early Catholics and perpetuated by the Protestants till the present day. While the New Testament shows us that the apostles gave instruction to the local churches to appoint both elders and deacons only. The scripture does not show any evidence that there is a special distinction between the elders. This distinction is really a human arbitrary[v]. Elder is the highest recognition that the scripture had given to a servant of God serving in a local church. This would be also the best honor the local church can give to that man.

So, now we have three distinctive views on the basis of calling;

1.       The pastor is called by God while the elders are invited by the pastors to assist them in the local church.

2.       The elder is called by God and he is the pastor. Essentially these two are called to the same pastors’ office in the local church.

3.       A board of elders is called by God to oversee or supervise the life of the local churches. The New Testament recognizes only the elders’ office and nothing else.

Or strictly speaking, there are only two distinctive views; the difference is between a pastor leading a local church and a board of elders supervising a local church.

Why bother to establish another basis for appointment? Church members are already confused by the two existing views, why bother to produce another? Do I think that church members are not confused enough? I have two reasons why I want to be clear about the basis of calling. Firstly, it is our duty as believers to be clear headed about the scripture. If the leaders of the local churches are muddle headed, how are they going to supervise the local churches? Otherwise it will be the case of the blind leading the blind and eventually all will fall into the pit.

Secondly, it is for practical reason that we should be clear about the basis of appointment. Based on Paul’s instruction to Timothy and Titus, candidates would be appointed according to the list of qualification. However, we seldom pay attention to the fact that a serving elder can be disqualified by the list of qualification. Take for instance, when a pastor was accused of having committed an act of sexual harassment and he was confronted by some church members and was asked to leave quietly, but he refused. Now there is a loophole in this calling of a pastor, because he was a pastor and not an ordinary elder, and therefore did not come under the qualification list. He was called by God and only God can disqualify him because that was the basis upon which he was ordained as the pastor.

If the man was appointed as an elder according to Paul’s instruction then he would be monitored by the qualification list.  One of the requirements clearly stated that the elder must be a husband of one wife. It means that the man must be a man of one marriage. He must be faithful to his wife and not having a second wife or sexual relationship with another woman. He must only draw sexual pleasure from his wife in a loving relationship. By no means, he should draw such pleasure, whether it is by force, threat, ape, or sexual harassment, from other women. The man who had allegedly committed the act of sexual harassment should have either disqualified himself from the job and leaves quietly, or the local church would have ask him to leave.

I hope, with this present discussion, we can now focus on the basis of appointment, and not continue to circle round the choice between the distinction among elders and equality of the elders. For the two “so called” different views actually believe in the same thing and both would have the pastor as the leader. When we are able tell in no uncertain term that there is only one basis of appointment and that is for the elders, and then we would be able to determine the office and the job description of those who are called by God to lead the local churches. At the present moment, it is quite clear that our churches are operating without a basis. In practice, of course, it is not a matter of life and death, the churches would still move on without any basis, and the leaders can be called by different names.  However, it is because we regard the Bible as the rule over our practice, we cannot ignore the fact that we do not have a basis to appoint pastors to the local churches.

---

[i] We share the common sentiment with the Catholics and many evangelical churches in Malaysia.

[ii] Ezekiel 34; John 10

[iii] 1 Timothy 3.1-7; Titus 1.4-6.

[iv] 1 Timothy 5.17-18

[v] See my exegetical observation on the related texts in the article “Elders for the pastoral ministry”.

Where is the Holy Spirit[i]?

The doctrine of the Holy Wind is almost absent from the Reformed Baptist circle. The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith does not have a paragraph of comprehensive discussion on the Wind of the Lord, and this should be a great concern for the Reformed believers. John Calvin was known as the theologian of the Holy Wind. Reformed Baptists are proud to be Calvinist, but why is the doctrine of the Holy Wind almost left out in the Confession? I am not surprised that, as the result of this negligence, seldom one can hear Him being mentioned by the members and seldom one can hear Him being preached from the pulpit. This scenario was fixed probably as soon as the first Reformed Baptist church was founded in Malaysia. The church was established at the height of the “sign seeking”[ii] movement in Malaysia in the 80’s. On the contrarily, teaching was issued from the pulpit against the movement with its experiential doctrine or anybody who attempts to explore this experiential expect of the doctrine[iii]. The blasting was so effective that so much so members begin to shun away from the mentioning the Holy Wind and it was deem to be the right thing to do. As the result of this, the church has sent out a wrong message that Reformed Baptist people are “anti charismatic and the Holy Wind”. Are we? No, we are definitely not like that, but such definition is hard to remove.

Is the Holy Wind important to the Christians? The answer is a resounding “Yes”, but why nobody pays attention to Him? We all know that our Lord Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb and declared as the Son of God by the Holy Wind. He ushered our Lord Jesus Christ into a public ministry by John’s baptism. Our Lord continuously spoke to the crowd and performed signs and wonders by the Wind. The Lord reminded Nicodemus that none can enter the Kingdom of God except that he is born of the Wind. The Lord was raised from the dead by the exceedingly great power of the Wind. After the Lord was taken up, the Wind of God toke on the name and character of the Lord, and ever since He was known as the Wind of the Lord or the Wind of Christ. He established the first church in Jerusalem, and from there He spread the gospel throughout the Roman Empire. According to the gospel, the Wind of the Lord was present, from the beginning to the finishing end, in the saving work of God in the believers.

How should I describe this scenario? I would say, in the absence of a good doctrine of the Wind of the Lord, believers tend to look for substitute. This tendency was clearly shown in the choice of the Jewish believers for the custom of Moses over and against the Wind of the Lord[iv]. In a similar manner, this scenario is shown in the Confession. When we neglect the Wind of the Lord, we tend to resort to a hard and harsh self made regulation to rule our life. Indeed we have particularly established a set of religious regulative principle as a replacement of the doctrine of the Wind of the Lord. A hard doctrine has presented Christ Jesus as a teacher of the Law or a moral teacher who was promoting a conservative moral teaching. Presumably, all who believe in Him should follow His moral teaching. But the question is, was Jesus a moral teacher?  If Christ Jesus was merely a moral teacher, don’t we have many of such teachers in our own cultures and why must we follow Him? In fact, every other religion offers its moral teaching and why should Christianity be so different? If Christ Jesus was merely a good moral teacher or a teacher of the Jewish Law, I would not have been His follower. If Christianity is all about strict moral practice, then I would not have been a Christian, because I have KongZi (孔子Confucius), LaoZi (老子), MoZi (墨子), and the whole lot of the Chinese moral teachers and philosophers to choose from[v].

Christianity has offered me something that I could not find elsewhere. The good news that I received gave me the joy of salvation. When I came to Christ Jesus and He gave me His Wind and by whom I have my experience of repentance and an assurance of forgiveness, and by that encounter I was assured that I have entered the Kingdom of God. In a new dimension, He has transported me to heaven and made me sit together with other believers in Christ Jesus. He helps me to understand that I have been made right with God the Father by the blood of Christ. As a way to assure me of this certainty He has poured out the love of God into my heart and gave me peace and hope and reminds me that I am an adopted child of God. He gives me the joy that is like rivers of living water flow from within me. He has made clear to me that He wants to transform me into the likeness of Christ. He is eager to see the fruit of His labor. Without any delay and untiringly, from my first day as a believer, He began to labor hard in my life to bring out the character of Christ that is reflected in His love, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. He has expressed Himself clearly that He wants me to dwell deeply in Him and walk closely with Him, and to please Him always. He teaches me to worship God and teaches me to cry and pray to the Lord. He desires that I stay close to the fellow believers and He gives me gifts and teaches me the gospel and its ministry. This whole operation of the Wind of the Lord grants me a rich and meaningful and emotional experience.

If it is such a wonderful experience to have the Wind of the Lord in our lives, why is there still apprehension found in us? I gather that many feel uncomfortable with the word “freedom” that comes with the gift of the Holy Wind, and they also feel uneasy with the “sign seeking” movement that highlighted the experiential aspect on the doctrine of the Holy Wind. Unconsciously, they apply some kind of a curb on this freedom and they prefer not to talk much about the Holy Wind as far as possible.

Why the agitation? This is really unnecessary; Our Father in heaven is the one who grants the freedom and not us. God is not worried to grant the freedom and why should we worry for Him?  It is like what the Chinese wisdom says, “The eunuch is agitated while the emperor is not.” The gospel has made it so clear that anyone who comes to Christ Jesus would gain freedom from sin and death and would also gain freedom to worship God, but never any indication about freedom from morality. The Wind of the Lord is holy and righteous in character and He will not grant us a freedom that is contradicting His own character. The gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient to guide every believer to the path of holiness. The Wind of the Lord is capable of leading every believer to where He wants them to go. We must not under estimate the power of the Wind of the Lord and over estimate our human effort and the capability of the regulative discipline. Indeed, we have much to learn from Jonathan Edwards[vi] when come to knowing and trusting the Wind of the Lord, and learning how to conduct ourselves under the Lordship of the Wind. Even John Calvin and his contemporary had failed to show that they have fully grasped the freedom given by the Holy Wind[vii].

Ultimately, we have to turn to the apostles’ teaching. The apostles’ were concerned about the believers’ life on earth because they were pneumatic people and they have a pneumatic life[viii]. This pneumatic life is upright and good and free. This pneumatic life would meet the demands of the gospel and the demands of any moral teaching. However, the apostles did not focus on moral demands of the gospel as the main message in their ministry; instead their attention was on the believers’ pneumatic life. For the apostles, the horse was always before the cart. The apostles’ approach was gentle and patient, and ready to bear with all the nonsense of the believers. They reminded the believers that they were pneumatic people, and then they challenged them to live a life that was worthy of the Wind of the Lord. The apostles employed lots of persuasion, encouragement, motivation, and warning, while making the challenge. They used the famous adverb “therefore” (as the result of this) to highlight that the believers were different and special and they deserved to be treated differently. I would list down some texts that show the manner in which the apostles persuaded the believers.

1.       Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.  Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12.1-2)

2.       I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ….. This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind. (Ephesians 4.1-3; 17-32)

3.       Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. (Colossians 3.5; Read with in context of 3.1-4.6)

4.       Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12.1-2 and read its context  12.1-13.7)

5.       Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, as newborn babies, desire the pure milk of the word that you may grow thereby. (1 Peter 2.1-2)

The challenge before us today is that we must pay good attention to the Wind of the Lord and have a comprehensive grasp of the believers’ pneumatic life, if we wish to see effective result in our effort in personal growth, evangelism, missions, and church planting and building. We are in need of a comprehensive study on the doctrine of the Holy Wind, and then with the good finding we must fill in the missing part on the doctrine of the Holy Wind in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. We must be ready to provide answer to the related issues concerning the Wind of our Lord Jesus Christ. Right now, we are vulnerable because we do not have the answer.

---

[i] The word “Spirit” is not an accurate translation of the third person of the Godhead today. Modern mind would understand the word “spirit” as “alcoholic liquor” or “the invisible life principle in man and the animals”. The word “spirit” originally derived from the old Latin word “spirare” which means “breath or wind”. This Latin word was a correct translation of the Greek word “pneuma”. Unfortunately, this Latin root meaning has lost its place in the new English dictionary. In a misleading manner, based on the English translation, the Chinese and Malay Bible both translated it as the “holy soul” of God. Therefore, I would prefer to address the third person in the Godhead as the “Holy Wind” (Jn. 3.8).

[ii] It is commonly known as “charismatic movement”. However, I prefer that the word “charismatic” not to be monopolized by any movement or person.  Strictly speaking, the word “charismatic” is a biblical word and it is a definition of all the believers in Christ. The word “charismatic” derives from the Greek word “charis” which means “grace”. “Charis” is a very important word. Christians are saved by the grace of God and the church has been bestowed with many gifts (charismata) to carry out her duty.

[iii] Unfortunately, Martin Lloyd Jones was one of them and his series of sermons on “Joy unspeakable” was frequently quoted as dangerous. Ian Murray was criticized for defending Lloyd-Jones’ “experiential” attempt.

[iv] Acts 15.1; Gal.5

[v] The students of Confucius’ and Chinese philosophies commented that the gospel lacks depth in comparison with their moral teaching. They are right, in a way, because the gospel is not about moral teaching, but it is all about Jesus Christ being the Son of God and whoever believes in Him shall enter the Kingdom of God. The gospel is a critique of the philosophy and message of the moral teaching, just as it was a critique of the Pharisees’ philosophy and message. The gospel is also a critique of the common belief that “all religions teaches people to do good”.

[vi] Jonathan Edwards, “Religious Affections”.

[vii] The Reformers reserved capital punishment for believers who had violated certain doctrine and practice. John Calvin was one of such reformers. He set up church police to spy on individuals and families and he did not hesitate to punish when he found anyone has violated the church rules. He has betrayed his reputation as a theologian of the Holy Wind by swinging the big stick.  The doctrine of the Holy Wind and the big stick policy do not complement one another at ll. This big stick policy was the result of combining the church and the state and ruled them as one. Our Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles believed in the power of the Holy Wind and had never demand death sentence on any believer.

[viii]  Somehow the adjective “pneumatic” is found in the English dictionary. I found it appropriate as a substitute for the word “spiritual.” Pneumatic life is a life that has been created by the Wind of the Lord; “And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ” (1 Corinthians 3.1).

What does the Bible say?

Since the day I received the Lord Jesus Christ into my life in a Methodist Church I learnt to ask a simple question; “What does the Bible say?”[i] The intention of asking the question was to set a momentum for an in depth discussion and hoping that people’s attention would be drawn to the Bible, and eventually everybody would be asking the same question. This habit has been reinforced by my days spent in both the Pusat Latihan Kristian Malaysia (i.e. Malaysian Christian Training centre and it was later known as Malaysian Bible Seminary) and Seminary Theology Malaysia. I asked the same question when I prepared my messages, Bible studies, and whenever I was confronted by tough and tricky questions. I did it so often and so much so some church members told me off with the remark, “Don’t you have a mind of your own and why do you have to ask ‘What does the Bible say?’ ”

Unfortunately, wishes and reality do not really match that well, I hardly meet people who would respond according to my wishes. I admit that this question tends to offend people because it challenges their precious conviction. I cannot remember when was the first time I offended people by raising such question, but I remember some occasions when I offended people.

 I was in Parit Buntar and Nibong Tebal, two small towns located at the border of Perak and Penang, for a period of three years. It was the first opportunity for me to try out what I learnt from the seminary and I did it with much enthusiasm. Immediately, I applied all that I know about exegesis, interpretation and preaching, into preparing messages and Bible study. I asked the question “What does the Bible say” frequently to fish discussion. During one of the Bible studies on the book of Revelation, a young lady teacher suddenly burst into tears and accused me of being so “liberal” and not biblical. After some double check, I then discovered that the teacher was from the Gospel Chapel background and believed in the Dispensational view of interpreting the book of Revelation. My approach to the book of Revelation was plain exegetical observation plus lots of questions, and I was busy helping the group to look for facts and evidences from the book. All that I have done had actually put a big question mark on her conviction, without me realizing it.

At another time, I was in the Penang Island preaching on Ephesians 1.19-21, and as usual I made my exegetical observation and remarks, plus some questions addressing the dominant understanding pertaining to the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I was trying to show that the “sign seeking” point of view has got no good support from the Bible. I concluded that the New Testament understanding on the subject was not only accurate but also more superior. Can you guess what happened after the worship? My God, I was surrounded by a small group of young adult worshippers who were so angry and challenged me for a debate.

When I was in Melaka, preaching on 1 Corinthians 13, in the same manner, I raised questions on the common belief on the gifts of Holy Spirit and presented facts and evidences from the Bible, and then I put forward my exegetical observation and concluding remarks. The result was similarly hot.

When I was in Segamat, a small town in the state of Johor, I had the opportunity to cover a series of teaching on the person and the work of the Holy Spirit based on the epistles of 1 Corinthians and Ephesians. I asked the same question “What does the Bible say?” and provided facts and evidences from the Bible. I reminded church members not to entertain “hear say”. The belief and teaching of the Full Gospel Businessmen Fellowship was dominant in the lives of the church members and you can imagine what kind of result I would get before I finished my teaching. I have almost preached myself out of job.

Later I was invited to join the Reformed Baptist group and I went in with the impression that this group of believers would welcome my question. It started well and warm, but as time went by, I realized that after all Reformed Baptist believers do have problem with my question. During one minister conference, the founding elder was teaching on the subject of Christian Worship and insisted that only Hymns should be used in the public worship[ii]. When it was time for discussion, I asked my standard question and pressed for facts and evidences. I did not know I have offended the elder until sometime later. It was during a fraternal meeting the elder who was beside me cautioned me not ask too many questions, and then he told me that he actually wanted to give me a punch on my face[iii] when I raised questions at the Conference to challenge his conviction that only hymns should be sued.

The last straw was when I asked my children what they have learnt from the Sunday school and what must they do to please God. To my Surprise, they told me that we must keep the Law of Moses (The 10 Commandments) to please God. I was shocked because it was not my belief and I have never taught my children such belief. I reacted and I made a big blunder by confronting the issue strongly. At hind sight I should have dealt with the issue in a different manner and the end result might not be so drastic. Basically, I raised many questions and asked for facts and evidences, and instead getting the discussion that I wanted, the local church met and found me guilty of going against the Bible. This time, I have no choice but to leave. I have really preached myself out of job.

Later, I discovered that other elders were facing the same problem, but they prefer not to stir the hornet by asking too many questions. What else can I say? The question I was taught to raise is the culprit and the cause of my entire problem. I have to conclude that Christians, in general, do not like to be challenged by such question. If you do not believe in what I found and you can try by asking the question yourself.

---

[i] Rom.4.3; Gal.4.30

[ii] See my article on “How to sing?”

[iii] He is a Chinese Kung Fu expert.

Academic Blind Spots

What is a blind spot in the context of an academic and theological discussion? According to the Webster’s dictionary, it is a prejudice, or an area of ignorance that one has but is often unaware of. What is prejudice? Again, according to Webster’s; prejudice is a judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known, it is a preconceived idea. Or it is a judgment or opinion held in disregard of facts that contradict it, it is an unreasonable bias. Prejudice is therefore nonfactual. Prejudice is powerful and destructive when it is mingled with pride and passion. Our Lord Jesus Christ was, in a way, sent to the cross by the passionate prejudice of the Jews. We could say that much of the doctrinal disputes among Christians in church history were clashes of prejudices. Prejudice is not a thing of the past and it can be found in our thinking today. Indeed, there are plenty of blind spots in our thinking. All of us are guilty of holding on to one form of prejudice or another in our reasoning. The following are two examples of how prejudice operates. Be careful, they are dangerous when they are mixed with emotion!

The 1689 Baptist Confession of faith vs. the Bible

Since the Reformed Baptist church was established in Malaysia, founding members were taught that the Bible is the authority over our belief and practice, and at the same time they were also told to subscribe to the Confession as the authority over their faith and practice. Ever since, this two prong formula has become the trade mark conviction of the Reformed Baptist in Malaysia. This is a bit confusing. Which authority should the believers follow, the Bible or the Confession?

Common sense tells us that it is disastrous for any nation or organization to have two equal powers to be the authority. There will be war when this happen. To avoid this, the authority has to be unified and the role of the other power must be clearly defined and must submit to the unified authority. Take our country for instance, under the constitution, the King is given the constitutional authority and he is the symbol of national unity. The Prime Minister is given the executive power to lead the nation with the help of the Cabinet and the Parliament. The Police are authorized to maintain peace and order and the Defense Units are to protect the nation. The Court is authorized to ensure the constitutional right of every citizen in the nation is protected. In theory and practice, these various powers have to submit to the constitutional authority of the King.

Now, we have unknowingly claimed both the Bible and the Confession as our authorities. Presuming we have done the right thing but in actual fact we made a mistake by making such a claim. On one hand we uphold the Bible and at the same time we spit at the Bible by holding up high the Confession. How are we to persuade others to believe in the Bible when we ourselves do not believe in it? How can we condemn others for not respecting the Bible when we ourselves have no respect for the Bible? It is like the pot calling the kettle black. Or it is, according to a Chinese saying, like the fifty steps ran away soldiers laughing at the hundred steps ran away soldiers. The Bible and the Confession are not the same.  For the Bible is “given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim.3.16).  The Confession cannot command similar respect simply because it is a piece of human doctrine.  Worse of all, in some areas, its content does not reflect the teaching of the Bible accurately.

What must we do now? We have no other alternative except to recognize and accept the Bible as the only authority over our faith and practice. We must assign the Confession to another place. It will be better if we place it together with all other good Christian doctrines.  We must commit to a careful exegetical study of the Bible and develop a better understanding of the Bible. Then we must reexamine the Confession so to put it right with Bible and to make it relevant for today. The confession was the common consensus of the old and we need to produce a consensus for ourselves today. Only then we can move on, not blindly, but with a clear vision.

The Law vs. the gospel[i]

We often hear statements like “we must preach the Law first to impress upon the hearts of the sinners to fear God and His judgment, then we preach the gospel to bring them to Christ Jesus to seek salvation”, or “we must persuade sinners to believe in Christ Jesus and then teach them to obey the Law”, ringing from the Reformed circle and conservative believers. These statements remind us more of the passionate push for the Law by the Pharisees than the teaching of the gospel. These nonfactual statements puzzle normal thinking mind and raise more questions: What is wrong with the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Why are we so hostile towards the gospel? Why do we have to pitch the Law against the gospel?

There are two problems with these hostile statements. Firstly, it gives a wrong impression that the gospel is impotent and by itself it cannot convince the sinners to repent from their sins and believe in the Lord Christ Jesus. Whereas Paul, the apostle, told us that the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is the power of for salvation for those who believe. He also said that the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel without the help of the Law (Rom.1.16, 3.21). Secondly, it sends out a wrong message that the gospel is merely about comforting the sinners and therefore it has nothing by itself to demand allegiance from the sinners. The Bible, on the contrarily, tells us that the Lord demands every saved sinner to obey His gospel in his life (Rom.6.17, 10.16, Gal.3.1, 2 The.1.8, 3.14). We must bear in mind that we are called to begin with gospel and end with gospel. There is no need for anybody to change lane in the journey. We must also remember that we are called to propagate the gospel everywhere we go, and not to proclaim a confused message like the message that was proclaimed by the Jewish Christians (Acts 15).

Conclusion

Christian sound thinking is factual, while prejudice, preconceived idea and unreasonable bias are not, and they are bad for sound thinking and we must eliminate them from our study. When we remove prejudice from our thinking we will be able to see clearly and in a better position to return the Bible and the gospel of Lord Jesus Christ to the believers.

---

[i] See my article “The glorious gospel” for detail exegetical observation on the subject.

From Calvinism to Adapted Calvinism to Neo Calvinism

In this article I would like to deal with the question “What is Calvinism and who is Calvinist”. Calvinism essentially refers to Calvin’s conviction and philosophy that can be found in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (5 volumes), sermons, and other writings. Calvinism was clearly seen in the model of the Geneva Church that Calvin has established and controlled, and also in the running of the Geneva local government. According to Calvin’s conviction, these two institutions were not independent from one another. The approximation between the church and the state was not only as the result of him being both the ecclesiastical leader and a powerful politician, but also as the result of his conviction that a “national church” was a necessity to counter the Roman Catholic Church. This idea of a “national church” was commonly shared by almost all the reformers.

When Calvinism is defined by Calvin’s conviction and philosophy, and the way in which he managed both the Geneva church and the local government,  defining “Calvinist” would be quite straight forward. Obviously, Calvinist is one who has read and understood Calvin’s writings and sermons and accepted Calvin’s conviction as his own conviction. In this sense, Calvin and his close associates in Geneva and some other parts of Europe were the first Calvinists.

What about the Puritans who subscribed to both the teachings of Zwingli and Calvin? What about the Methodists who were under the leadership of George Whitefield? These believers were regarded as Calvinists by church historians, but were they actually Calvinists? Strictly speaking the Puritans were not Calvinists simply because they did not subscribed 100% to Calvin’s conviction. The fact that the Puritans, while subscribing to Calvin’s teaching, they also included Zwingli as their mentor, speaks clearly that certain part of Calvin’s teaching was not suitable for their struggle. They did not subscribe, but adapted Calvin’s teaching. Similarly, George Whitefield and his associates did not subscribe but adapted Calvin’s teaching for their ministry.

What about reformed faith in general and reformed Baptist conviction (The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith) in particular? I have established  that both the reformed faith and reformed Baptist conviction are no Calvinism in one of  my  articles[i]. Should there be any trace of Calvinism and it should be regarded only as adapted Calvinism at most, because it does not agree totally with Calvinism. This is obvious with reformed Baptist conviction. The word “reformed” is employed and not “Calvinist” simply shows that the early believers did not want to limit themselves with Calvin’s teaching alone. They preferred to have the freedom to select what they deemed as suitable from the other reformers’ teaching. The name “Baptist” suggests an independent local church and this is an obvious break away from Calvin’s and other reformers’ idea of a national church. Its conviction of believer baptism also played a role to distant themselves from Calvin’s permission to allow child baptism. Under such circumstance, do we still insist that reformed faith and reformed Baptists are Calvinists? Judging from history, reformed faith and reformed Baptist conviction is the result of a long process of adoption and adaptation of theological thinking. The whole process is dynamic and it cannot just be equated with Calvinism alone.

Strangely, yet, there is a dispute among the reformed people about Calvinism. At the global level, there is this group of conference speakers, with reformed background, who managed to attract to themselves a good following with their reformed teaching. Unfortunately, they have also attracted to themselves the unnecessary attention and criticism from certain party from within the reformed circle. They called them the New Calvinist because allegedly they have compromised the Calvinist conviction. Alarm has been sounded to the reformed believers to dissociate themselves from these New Calvinists. Such accusation can be heard also among the reformed Baptists locally. Reformed Baptists is such a small group of believers and yet we have fallen into this illogical dispute and division.

The question is, why bother to label another as New Calvinist when Calvinist does not exist? Why a reformed believer should condemns another reformed believer as New Calvinist? Strictly speaking, most of of the reformed believers are adapted Calvinists but never Calvinists. We do not uphold all the teaching of Calvin as the tenet of our faith. We have adapted Calvin’s teaching selectively . Our struggle therefore should not be between choosing either Calvinist or New Calvinist, but a firm commitment to preach the gospel fully as the Bible has taught it. We have to actively preach it to men and women who come from different cultures, different age groups, and different political situations.

---

[i] What is reformed faith?

What is reformed faith?

It is a difficult question to answer, because “reformed faith” means different thing to different people today. The scenario is like a few blind men are asked to explain what an elephant is after they have each got a feel of the animal with their hands. Some would say that reformed faith is a better alternative to evangelical belief. It has nothing in common with the “charismatic teaching”, and this has led some to regard it as narrow and anti Holy Spirit. Some say it is just another denomination, since there are Methodist, Anglicans, Lutheran, Assembly of God, and Gospel Chapel, and so there is the Reformed Church. Some would associate it with the 16^th century Reformation. The Reformed Baptist, in particular would refer to the 1689 Baptist Confession of faith as the authority of their faith.

Prior to answering the question, it is necessary to make a distinction between Reformation and Reformed faith. They are not identical though related. They represent two entirely different developments that belong to two different periods in church history. First of all, the Reformation is also known as Protestantism. It was a sociological, ecclesiastical, and political movement. It began in Germany in the early 16th century as a reaction against medieval Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, especially in regard to salvation, justification, and ecclesiology. The movement was held together by a common desire in denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the  principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth. These tenacious principles eventually became the core belief of more than 30,000 strong protestant followers throughout Europe. These followers, while holding on to this core belief, disagreed with one another on various other doctrinal issues as soon as the movement gained momentum in breaking away from the papal authority.

Then, Reformed faith was believably referring to the core belief of this movement. When the movement was divided by doctrinal dispute, the definition of “reformed faith” soon faded into the chaotic background. Later the name was once again being revived and associated with the teaching of Calvin and Zwingli during the time of the English Puritan in the 17^th century. This time around, the Puritan did not fight against the papal authority, but instead they fought hard to free themselves from the powerful hand of the Anglican authority. While the Reformers sought to deny the papal authority, the Puritan resorted to push for changes from within the Anglican Church. Some left the Anglican fold to pursue a greater freedom. The Puritan saw a greater need to minister to the inner man rather than the political situation. They produced a “pastoral theology” to minister to the spiritual need among the likeminded believers. This association was later confined more to Calvinism in the 18^th century, especially during the time of Methodist Evangelical revival that was under the leadership of George Whitefield and the Wesley brothers.

Reformed faith found its way into Malaysia in the early 20^th century or might be earlier and was commonly known as Calvinism. It was shared by some believers across various denominations. We can trace the influence of Calvinism on Christian thinking in Malaysia from various sources. One of them was the overseas students and Bible students who came home with their Christian learning.  Another one of them would be the Presbyterian Church. Reformed faith did not leave a good impression among the Christian community. The first Reformed Baptist congregation in Malaysia was pioneered by a group overseas student who returned from England, in the later part of 20^th century. This new church was supportive of Calvinism. The negative impression about reformed faith has not improved with the establishment of the first Reformed Baptist congregation.

What is reformed faith? Is it all about conforming to a doctrine that is known as “Calvinism”? Judging from the two periods of the Reformation and the struggle of the Puritan, reformed faith did not appear to be hanging on Calvinism alone. Indeed Calvin had contributed quite a fair share in shaping the movement, but he was not the only one to do that. His teaching was part of the whole movement. “Calvinism” was not the only banner the reformers carried. They were promoting something much larger than Calvinism. They were promoting the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were pursuing the freedom of worship as granted by the gospel. To these believers the gospel was far more important and much larger than just one shade of doctrine.

Only very few would equate reformed faith with Calvinism today. Under the close scrutiny of the Bible study, “Calvinism” has been proven “outdated” as a philosophy, and inaccurate as a piece of theology according to the standard of the gospel.  Moreover, Reformed Baptist believers would not be able to agree 100% with “Calvinism”. Reformed Baptist believers would disagree with Calvinism on the interpretation of the presbytery. Reformed Baptist believers would also find it hard to accept its idea of a “national church”. An acceptance of Calvinism minus any part that is regarded not suitable for present day application would result in an adapted version of Calvinism. An adapted version of Calvinism is no Calvinism.  If the Reformed Baptists can only accept an adapted version of Calvinism, then reformed faith cannot be equated with Calvinism.

There is a need to redefine reformed faith and to distant it away from any thinking that is narrow and does not reflect clearly the gospel of Christ Jesus. It is urgent that close examination should be carried out on every tenet that claims to represent reformed faith. Attention must be given to careful study of the Bible just as the reformers had worked out their philosophy from the Bible to challenge the papal authority. Reformed faith was a faith in Christ Jesus that brought changes into Europe. Can reformed faith give the world the same magic today?

We can now safely conclude that reformed faith is all about the gospel of Christ Jesus and never about Calvin, nor Luther, nor Zwingli. Reformed faith is for careful study of the Bible, and not for lip servicing the slogan that the Bible is the final authority of our belief and practice. Reformed faith is ultimately for radical change according to the demand of the gospel. Reformed faith would not be complete without the “reformed gut”. The good faith was there in the Bible, but without someone who was courageous enough to champion it, it would remain mere words. God had raised a generation of Christians who were courageous enough to do that. These Christians could, in no uncertain terms, said to one another, “Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also. The body they may kill; God’s truth abideth still, His kingdom is forever”.