4.18.2005
Topic of discussion: Covenant Theology.
Definition: The concept that God is driven by covenental relationships, in that he blesses and curses based on this special agreement between him and his people.
Main point: A higher view of "church" than is normally seen.
This is something that I've been learning about lately. I have always had a disdain for shallow commitments, and the fact that every church that I have attended has a roster that is an order of magnitude longer than its average weekly attendance. There have been others that have seen this as well, and try to fix it using programs, fads, or other innovations. But the one thing that they never bother to address is the overall mindset of "church."
The idea of covenant theology states that "church" is a covenant between God and the members of said church, and that membership in this covenant is something that is stronger, deeper, and more real than the almost club-like mentality that pervades the bible belt. By baptism into the church, you make an announcement, both to the congregation, as well as to God himself that you are one of his. You call him "Lord, Lord..." in a very real sense. Perhaps even more real than you want if you take this over lightly.
The seriousness of this concept comes in when (as obviously happens) one who is not a believer makes his way into the church membership. He has been baptised, and resides among the wheat of God, but is himself a tare. For this mockery, there is a more severe punishment than for those who never bothered with church or God.
The covenant relationship also takes into account the single greatest cause of conversion to Christianity in history: family. God's promise was to Abraham and his seed, and not merely to him, and although we are not saved by the faith of our parents, there are indeed blessings that are given to the children of believers. 1 Cor. 7:14 calls the children of even one believing parent "holy." This does not guarantee the salvation of the children of believers, but is a promise of blessing to them. Again, these blessings are not to be taken lightly by the family, for to whom much is given, much is required. The jews relished in their decendance from Abraham by blood, but had long since forsaken the meaning of "true Israel."
Through this covenent, we obtain a greater sense of brotherhood with our local body, for although we know that there are tares among us, we strive on toward the mark of our high calling, knowing that we are the body and the bride of Christ. We treat more seriously allowing those who would profess Christ (perhaps sincerely, perhaps falsely) into our congregation, for we desire purity and unity here on earth as best we can. We hold our brothers and sisters accountable, and press them to perseverance. We nurture and admonish them, not allowing a brother to continue in sin or ignorance. We love the families of each other, knowing that God has granted that our families are one in Christ. It is in this sense that the book of Acts speaks of the apostles being of one heart, and having all things common. They were keenly aware of their inheritance in Christ, and treasured it dearly. This is an attitude that needs to be revived in our churches today, so that we may present Christ with a pure and holy bride.
# posted by Sir Omer : 4/18/2005 09:26:00 AM
Comments:
<< Home
I would agree that we are often lulled into complacency in our Christian lives, usually by circumstances or even disposition. Any study I've seen of church membership, usually defines a core group of committed members that do the bulk of the church work, giving, attendance, prayer, etc. Expanding from that inner circle are the "semi-regular", the "infrequent", the "seldom", and the "unknown". I would guess this will be found in any church of any denomination across the country (not just SBC- in the bible belt)based on human nature. It's difficult to adequately minister to all people at their level in their Christian walk. Those mature Christians need to be ministered to, but they also should be concerned about nurturing those less mature in their faith, not to mention being a witness and ministering to those outside the church body.
I guess I'm a little disconcerted or almost insulted (I'm not sure of the word I'm looking for)by your comments on dwebb in the Covenant thread. Maybe there's more to it, but I don't disagree with anything you posted here on your blog about covenants. [I've read the arguments that use the old covenant(circumcision) - new covenant(baptism) connection to support paedobaptism (which I disagree with)] I guess I'm wanting you to get to the point? Covenants are described and taught all through the Old Testament. They all are fulfilled by, culminate in, replaced by the New Covenant in Jesus. If you're saying that we don't stress the covenant aspect enough and so, tend to take less seriously our relationship with Jesus (similar to a marriage ceremony vs. marriage covenant), I would agree with that admonition. Is there more to it? (obviously, or there wouldn't be such a split in denominations).
Waiting for the next installment,
MOM
I guess I'm a little disconcerted or almost insulted (I'm not sure of the word I'm looking for)by your comments on dwebb in the Covenant thread. Maybe there's more to it, but I don't disagree with anything you posted here on your blog about covenants. [I've read the arguments that use the old covenant(circumcision) - new covenant(baptism) connection to support paedobaptism (which I disagree with)] I guess I'm wanting you to get to the point? Covenants are described and taught all through the Old Testament. They all are fulfilled by, culminate in, replaced by the New Covenant in Jesus. If you're saying that we don't stress the covenant aspect enough and so, tend to take less seriously our relationship with Jesus (similar to a marriage ceremony vs. marriage covenant), I would agree with that admonition. Is there more to it? (obviously, or there wouldn't be such a split in denominations).
Waiting for the next installment,
MOM
# posted by 
: 4/21/2005 08:09:00 AM
: 4/21/2005 08:09:00 AM
I'm sorry if my comments came across badly. I intended them to be more matter-of-fact in that you (admittedly) hadn't had any theological training (and neither have I), and that, as far as I could tell, neither FBC or Meadowbrook had any sort of enforced accountability. They weren't supposed to be offensive, but informative as to the audience that I was trying to relate to.
I understand your comments of difficulty of ministry along a variety of people. My contention is that there should be more encouraging people to grow, rather than merely ministering to them where they are.
This was also intended to be not necessarily something that I completely hold to (as you said, padeobaptism is typically a logical conclusion of covenant theology), but rather a description of it on terms that I (and you) would be used to. I've never heard our congregation at FBC referred to as a "covenant membership," where as in presbyterian churches, that would be a more common term. Our term ends up being "church."
I suppose my large frustration is with my experience in the youth group, where I have seen the same kids to to camp every year, after living obviously non-christian lifestyles for the past year, and then suddenly deciding that they need to "recommit" or that they really weren't saved last time, and that they needed to get it right this time. This immature shaming of the cross of Christ is sad, and although my experience is mostly in youth groups, I am sure it happens in the full congregation as well. Overall, my post is a call to take more seriously our "commitment to Christ" in that we are truly claiming to be one of His. If this proves to be a lie on our part, as in the case of the perpetual recommit-ers, we have done nothing but cheapen the source of our salvation. We have made salvation into a motivational program or a self-help event, rather than a commitment to the body of Christ.
I hope this helps. Again, sorry for choosing my words poorly. I didn't intend to insult.
Love,
Chris
I understand your comments of difficulty of ministry along a variety of people. My contention is that there should be more encouraging people to grow, rather than merely ministering to them where they are.
This was also intended to be not necessarily something that I completely hold to (as you said, padeobaptism is typically a logical conclusion of covenant theology), but rather a description of it on terms that I (and you) would be used to. I've never heard our congregation at FBC referred to as a "covenant membership," where as in presbyterian churches, that would be a more common term. Our term ends up being "church."
I suppose my large frustration is with my experience in the youth group, where I have seen the same kids to to camp every year, after living obviously non-christian lifestyles for the past year, and then suddenly deciding that they need to "recommit" or that they really weren't saved last time, and that they needed to get it right this time. This immature shaming of the cross of Christ is sad, and although my experience is mostly in youth groups, I am sure it happens in the full congregation as well. Overall, my post is a call to take more seriously our "commitment to Christ" in that we are truly claiming to be one of His. If this proves to be a lie on our part, as in the case of the perpetual recommit-ers, we have done nothing but cheapen the source of our salvation. We have made salvation into a motivational program or a self-help event, rather than a commitment to the body of Christ.
I hope this helps. Again, sorry for choosing my words poorly. I didn't intend to insult.
Love,
Chris
I'm probably too sensitive. Sorry!As for the youth group, I would guess that most youth pastors would express the same frustrations with many of their youth. I know JJ has commented on that same thing concerning others and himself (adults have the same problem). He even made a renewed commitment recently to put Jesus first in his life. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I agree that we need to be more committed, but I don't see where Covenant Theology has to be necessary for that process. If you were a pastor or youth pastor, how would you go about it? Do we screen our membership so that they have to prove or make specific commitments before we let them join? Do we kick people out if they don't take it seriously? My first guess is that pastors find that the majority of their congregations are in the weaker, less mature state and that they have to spend more time ministering, teaching, motivating that group as well as teaching, nurturing new believers so that many times the more mature believers are...well, not ignored, but maybe left on their own. I also don't think this is a strictly Baptist phenomenon, but is probably in all church denominations. What do you think?
Love, MOM
Love, MOM
# posted by : 4/22/2005 11:10:00 AM
: 4/22/2005 11:10:00 AM
I don't see why either of the two things you suggested would be a problem. The bible provides guidelines in 1 Corinthians as to how to treat a member of the congregation who lives in unrepentant sin. Those who don't come regularly are also disobeying a biblical command: forsaking the gathering together of believers.
As to higher requirements for membership, I would be in favor of that as well. It would hopefully increase awareness of the (supposed) convert that s/he is basically making a mockery of Christ if s/he is insincere in their profession of faith. As Hebrews states, for those people, there is no more sacrifice for sin to be made. Catechesis is certainly a historical method for accomplishing this. Catholic, Lutherans, and I think Presbyterians all have some sort of denominational study requirements prior to obtaining membership in the church. I don't see how a few week class on the basics would be a huge deal for someone who is serious about following Christ. It would certainly result in a more mature membership, where the pastor would have a better grasp on the state of his congregation.
As I said in my original post, we should be more about the mindset of presenting the bride to Christ as pure as possible. There will surely be tares that only He will remove on judgement day, but there is some "presorting" that we can do here on earth as well.
What is the motive behind refraining from instituting the two actions that you incredulously suggested? Do we not want to step on people's toes? Do we want to make it as easy as possible to accept Christ? Is walking down an isle and signing a card all that Christianity is about? Jesus made a point of questioning the rich young ruler to the point of knowing whether his faith was real or not. I don't see why the church shouldn't do the same.
As to higher requirements for membership, I would be in favor of that as well. It would hopefully increase awareness of the (supposed) convert that s/he is basically making a mockery of Christ if s/he is insincere in their profession of faith. As Hebrews states, for those people, there is no more sacrifice for sin to be made. Catechesis is certainly a historical method for accomplishing this. Catholic, Lutherans, and I think Presbyterians all have some sort of denominational study requirements prior to obtaining membership in the church. I don't see how a few week class on the basics would be a huge deal for someone who is serious about following Christ. It would certainly result in a more mature membership, where the pastor would have a better grasp on the state of his congregation.
As I said in my original post, we should be more about the mindset of presenting the bride to Christ as pure as possible. There will surely be tares that only He will remove on judgement day, but there is some "presorting" that we can do here on earth as well.
What is the motive behind refraining from instituting the two actions that you incredulously suggested? Do we not want to step on people's toes? Do we want to make it as easy as possible to accept Christ? Is walking down an isle and signing a card all that Christianity is about? Jesus made a point of questioning the rich young ruler to the point of knowing whether his faith was real or not. I don't see why the church shouldn't do the same.
I've re-read these posts trying to sort some things out.
1. I guess the "insult" from the dwebb comment was that I had no theological training. I would say I have some, admittedly not on a seminary level, but I am able to follow along and understand what is being said (well, maybe not all that Westmin says). Ok, enough of that, I just wanted you to understand.
2. I don't think we disagree as much as it seems. I'm just wondering about the practical application of what you're suggesting. Actually, Matt 13: 24-30 says we are to leave the tares in place and let God sort them out at the time of harvest.
3. I'm thinking that we might want to have higher standards or commitments from those we place in leadership or teaching positions. Which I think (at least at FBC) we do (deacon nomination, staff obviously). Teachers might be based on knowledge of the person, not some formal selection process. I know in the children's and youth departments,new people have to go through a screening process (similar to a job reference check, but that is more for preventing pedophiles from creeping in).
What you seem to be suggesting sounds like it could turn in to some legalistic, Pharasaical(sp?), tribunal. Exaggeration, I know. Who decides what is a excommunicable offense? What if they repent? Is there a "3 strikes, and you're out" rule? What about forgiving 70 x 7? Your idea seems to leave out love and mercy. And then what about sins that are not easily seen or exhibited? What method were you envisioning?
4. I think membership requirements should be based on their profession of faith or statement of such, or letter from their previous church. But I do think we should do better at discipling those new christians and have some type of training for different maturity levels. We do have new believers classes about once a year. I think sometimes that's as far as some people get. I think we should offer some "what Baptists believe" classes. I do think we offer much in the way of bible studies, discipleship classes, but not a lot of people take advantage of them. How do you enforce discipleship?
Thanks for taking time to discuss this with "your mom". Ha, Ha.
MOM
1. I guess the "insult" from the dwebb comment was that I had no theological training. I would say I have some, admittedly not on a seminary level, but I am able to follow along and understand what is being said (well, maybe not all that Westmin says). Ok, enough of that, I just wanted you to understand.
2. I don't think we disagree as much as it seems. I'm just wondering about the practical application of what you're suggesting. Actually, Matt 13: 24-30 says we are to leave the tares in place and let God sort them out at the time of harvest.
3. I'm thinking that we might want to have higher standards or commitments from those we place in leadership or teaching positions. Which I think (at least at FBC) we do (deacon nomination, staff obviously). Teachers might be based on knowledge of the person, not some formal selection process. I know in the children's and youth departments,new people have to go through a screening process (similar to a job reference check, but that is more for preventing pedophiles from creeping in).
What you seem to be suggesting sounds like it could turn in to some legalistic, Pharasaical(sp?), tribunal. Exaggeration, I know. Who decides what is a excommunicable offense? What if they repent? Is there a "3 strikes, and you're out" rule? What about forgiving 70 x 7? Your idea seems to leave out love and mercy. And then what about sins that are not easily seen or exhibited? What method were you envisioning?
4. I think membership requirements should be based on their profession of faith or statement of such, or letter from their previous church. But I do think we should do better at discipling those new christians and have some type of training for different maturity levels. We do have new believers classes about once a year. I think sometimes that's as far as some people get. I think we should offer some "what Baptists believe" classes. I do think we offer much in the way of bible studies, discipleship classes, but not a lot of people take advantage of them. How do you enforce discipleship?
Thanks for taking time to discuss this with "your mom". Ha, Ha.
MOM
# posted by : 4/25/2005 05:58:00 PM
: 4/25/2005 05:58:00 PM
Interesting discussion.
As a self proclaimed "Covenant Theologian" I'd like to explain my view on this.
1) I believe that setting up additional rules for membership outside of what may be deduced from scripture is unwise
2) As such I believe scripture teaches that baptism is the initiatory rite whereby we become covenant members of Christ's body (NOT to be confused with eternal salvation).
2a) Baptism must be done in the name of the Trinity (Trinitarian Baptism) and therefore the use of a creed (like the Apostle's and Nicene creed which were originally used in Baptism) may be used to ensure a right understanding of the Trinity by those present. We DON'T baptize in the name of the father (Zeus), son (a non-historical Jesus), and holy spirit (eastern religion) understood as such (or any other non-orthodox understanding). Instead we baptize in the true Trinitarian name.
2b) If infants are baptized there is a promise made by the parents that they will teach the child to understand the meaning of his baptism when he is older.
2c) If adults are baptized they may confess a creed or answers some catechism questions that ensure the baptism is legitimate
3) Membership is based solely on Baptism.
4) Excommunication may occur when the actions of an individual merit his removal from the Church ("Body of Christ" but NOT eternal salvation). I'm still unsure when this would be necessary.
As a self proclaimed "Covenant Theologian" I'd like to explain my view on this.
1) I believe that setting up additional rules for membership outside of what may be deduced from scripture is unwise
2) As such I believe scripture teaches that baptism is the initiatory rite whereby we become covenant members of Christ's body (NOT to be confused with eternal salvation).
2a) Baptism must be done in the name of the Trinity (Trinitarian Baptism) and therefore the use of a creed (like the Apostle's and Nicene creed which were originally used in Baptism) may be used to ensure a right understanding of the Trinity by those present. We DON'T baptize in the name of the father (Zeus), son (a non-historical Jesus), and holy spirit (eastern religion) understood as such (or any other non-orthodox understanding). Instead we baptize in the true Trinitarian name.
2b) If infants are baptized there is a promise made by the parents that they will teach the child to understand the meaning of his baptism when he is older.
2c) If adults are baptized they may confess a creed or answers some catechism questions that ensure the baptism is legitimate
3) Membership is based solely on Baptism.
4) Excommunication may occur when the actions of an individual merit his removal from the Church ("Body of Christ" but NOT eternal salvation). I'm still unsure when this would be necessary.
Trevor, What's the difference in baptizing "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit(the Trinity, right?) and the "true Trinitarian name (which is ...?).
A agree with 1,2,2a (maybe),2c, 3,4.
Congratulations on your recent wedding and acceptance to grad school!
(Chris')MOM
A agree with 1,2,2a (maybe),2c, 3,4.
Congratulations on your recent wedding and acceptance to grad school!
(Chris')MOM
# posted by : 4/26/2005 02:22:00 PM
: 4/26/2005 02:22:00 PM
"Trevor, What's the difference in baptizing "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit(the Trinity, right?) and the "true Trinitarian name (which is ...?).
A agree with 1,2,2a (maybe),2c, 3,4."
All I meant by "the true Trinitarian name" was just "baptizing in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as understood by scripture and interpreted for us by tradition (Apostle's and Nicene Creed).
The words are not magic in and of themselves. If a baptism is to be a legitimate baptism the words must be understood to mean the REAL Father, REAL Son, and REAL Holy Spirit as the scriptures teach. We can't just say the magic words (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and expect the baptism to be legitimate if by each of those names we MEAN something OTHER than the scriptural understanding of those names.
Make sense?
I know I'm talking with Baptists here but baptizing infants makes total sense to me. Paul makes it clear that even if there is one believing parent the child is "holy". Peter claims in Acts that the very promise that was given to Abraham and David has been given to us "and our children". We have sure and real promises from God that our children are INCLUDED in his covenantal promises to us - in the same way they were included in the Old Testament with Israel. We are the New Israel "Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ." (Eph 2:12-13)
I believe baptism is God's sign of HIS (not ours) covenantal promise to us, His children. The rite of Baptism has replaced Circumcision "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Col 2:11-12)
As such I see no reason to deny our children membership into the covenant through baptism. They have inherited the promises and should be baptized just as the children of the Jews inherited the promises and were circumcised.
A agree with 1,2,2a (maybe),2c, 3,4."
All I meant by "the true Trinitarian name" was just "baptizing in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as understood by scripture and interpreted for us by tradition (Apostle's and Nicene Creed).
The words are not magic in and of themselves. If a baptism is to be a legitimate baptism the words must be understood to mean the REAL Father, REAL Son, and REAL Holy Spirit as the scriptures teach. We can't just say the magic words (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and expect the baptism to be legitimate if by each of those names we MEAN something OTHER than the scriptural understanding of those names.
Make sense?
I know I'm talking with Baptists here but baptizing infants makes total sense to me. Paul makes it clear that even if there is one believing parent the child is "holy". Peter claims in Acts that the very promise that was given to Abraham and David has been given to us "and our children". We have sure and real promises from God that our children are INCLUDED in his covenantal promises to us - in the same way they were included in the Old Testament with Israel. We are the New Israel "Remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ." (Eph 2:12-13)
I believe baptism is God's sign of HIS (not ours) covenantal promise to us, His children. The rite of Baptism has replaced Circumcision "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." (Col 2:11-12)
As such I see no reason to deny our children membership into the covenant through baptism. They have inherited the promises and should be baptized just as the children of the Jews inherited the promises and were circumcised.
Ok, I couldn't understand baptizing in the name of Zeus!?! What denomination does that?
We baptize according to Jesus' command in Matt 28:19. Our pastor usually quotes Rom 6:4 at our baptisms.
Sorry Chris for taking over your blog.
MOM
We baptize according to Jesus' command in Matt 28:19. Our pastor usually quotes Rom 6:4 at our baptisms.
Sorry Chris for taking over your blog.
MOM
# posted by : 4/27/2005 11:07:00 AM
: 4/27/2005 11:07:00 AM
Don't worry about it at all. Trev knows more about the official doctrine of CT than I do. I suppose what I have is what I would see as a practical application of how the principles there would or could apply to most churches.
I'll talk more about this later. I have a ton of reports coming up this next week.
I'll talk more about this later. I have a ton of reports coming up this next week.
When I was sitting in the loggia at Central Christian, waiting for Justin to get through with his initial interview, I thought to myself..."Ya know, this building is really pretty. The structure itself is gorgeous, but man made this building. We call it a church, but it's just a building." I still felt extremely attached to First Baptist, even the building. When I really thought about it though, I thought it's not this building that makes this place a church, it's the people inside of it. Then I thought, even when we leave our "church buildings" we are still the church wherever we go, even MORE so when we leave. Church isn't about gathering in the church building but yes, I agree, one must not forsake the gathering together of believers. As far as church membership goes, the body I am a part of now, does not believe one must be re-baptized in order to become a member. We have "no creed, but Christ" as our theme. For me, the entire relationship between members and their "church" should be summed up with Ephesians 5. It is a picture of the marriage relationship between a husband and wife, but ultimately between Christ and His church, His bride. It's up to each individual member no matter where they are in their walk to submit to Christ every day. If everyone did that, there would be no need for public recommitments. I see nothing wrong with personally saying, "I have strayed, I must return to my first love." but I don't think every time someone does this they need to come forward. Find one accountability partner or a small accountability group and share that with them. Yes, the church should be about encouraging growth and accountability, but this is most effectively done in small groups, it's too impersonal when tackled as a whole. As far as the semi-regular, infrequent, seldom and unknown attendees, the S.N.A.P. method works best. Take 4 Active members and give them each 1 name on a roll for each letter. S-Seldom Attendee, N-Non-Attendee, A-Active Attendee, and P-Potential Attendee. Have them pray for these individuals and invite, invite, invite. Soon, you will have developed 4 more active members. The goal is to eventually make everyone an active member.
Wendy, if you think that I was proposing that we should baptize into each church that we join, you were mistaken. I think that we are baptized once into The Church, the Bride of Christ, which is comprised of all believers throughout history. I'm sorry if I gave another impression.
I noticed Hebrews 8:13 in church Sunday, where it says the old covenant is obsolete. I haven't had time to research this further, but what does Covenant Theology do with this verse?
MOM
MOM
# posted by : 5/16/2005 09:21:00 AM
: 5/16/2005 09:21:00 AM
In the next chapter or so, it explains how the old covenant is obsolete.
As to the real definition of CT, I don't think I've figured it out yet. Every conversation I've had has simply confused me. I probably shouldn't have titled the post as I did. Either way, my sentiments remain.
Post a Comment
As to the real definition of CT, I don't think I've figured it out yet. Every conversation I've had has simply confused me. I probably shouldn't have titled the post as I did. Either way, my sentiments remain.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
