Saturday, 26 July 2025

What or whom do you love?

Do you love the comfort zone of the Christian church in a world of chaos?

Do you love the beautiful order and comprehensive of Biblical ideas and doctrine?

Or do you love Jesus?

It's quite clear that there are plenty of influential people in the orthodox world of Christianity today who love ideas, at least as much if not more than they love Jesus himself. 

Or at least, if they don't, they have a strange way of going about things in their ministries.

What, then, about I or you?

If our initial reaction is to deny that there's a real difference between these things, then Jesus reminds us otherwise; this problem was there in the first century:

“2 I know your works, your labour, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars; 3 and you have persevered and have patience, and have laboured for My name’s sake and have not become weary. 4 Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. 5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent." (Revelation 2:2-5)

The blessings of the Christian life, and the beauty of Christian truths are wonderful things. They are, though, simply rays coming from the sun. Jesus himself is infinitely above, and all other true beauty is coming to us from him. So let's admire God revealed to us in Christ first, and then admire what comes from him as part of our admiring of him. Let's love them because they lead us to him. Let's love them because they lead others to him too.

Thursday, 24 July 2025

The cessation of the miraculous/charismatic gifts

Recently I was asked to make a presentation upon why we should believe that the miraculous gifts of the apostolic era (especially particular people who were given a spiritual gift of speaking in tongues, or prophesying) ceased.

I've put the slides for my presentation on the "Resources" page of my website, together with a booklet I wrote on the subject in 2007. The presentation proceeds under these four headings:

1️⃣ Today’s “gifts” clearly differ from those in the Bible.
2️⃣ The Bible’s gifts are tied to the age and ministry of the apostles.
3️⃣ Having those gifts today would be against God’s revealed purposes.
4️⃣ Answering objections. 

If you think the arguments have faults or need sharpening, fire away - comments are open!

In praise of United Beach Missions

https://www.ubm.org.uk

Whether you have, or have not, previously come across United Beach Missions ("UBM"), let me commend them to you!

Firstly, it's an organisation in which the purpose is to serve others, and particularly, to serve the lost by reaching them with the gospel. There are many fine Christian organisations in the world, and the work of the Great Commission involves many different tasks. Nevertheless, all armies and nations are especially grateful for those on the front-line. Without the front-line activities, nothing else would or could exist. UBM makes it easy for busy people to get to the front-line, and take part in the work of Jesus Christ, coming and being where lost people are, showing love to them and declaring him to them.

Taking part directly in such work, even if it's just one or two weeks a year, is very good for our souls. Life is full of many responsibilities once you reach the adult world, and faithful servants must be careful to remember the primary and direct purposes that their Master has given to them in their service. The Master has given us many helps in this: the local church, its worship, his word, prayer, the Lord's Day - and these are all things that UBM stands for. Team members are not only given service opportunities, but service opportunity in the context of the local church, worship, teaching, training, fellowship and prayer within the team, and the Lord's Day is honoured.

As such, I find it very much preferable to most Christian camps for teenagers and young people. I don't want to denigrate them: it's surely infinitely preferable to go on a camp where there's teaching in a Christian community setting led by godly people, rather than to spend the time at home gawping at the world's media. And no doubt on all camps there is some measure of service as you do the washing up and clean the camp toilets (though I think some misguided souls have eliminated even these minimal duties). But UBM reflects the fundamental principle of how Jesus taught his disciples (and indeed, what wise people do in pretty much every walk of life): learning by doing. Learning by working alongside the experienced folks who are not simply telling you what should be done, but doing it too, leading by example, encouraging and showing.

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up, Paul told us in 1 Corinthians 8. It's too easy for one's Christian life to drift into focussing upon comfortably accumulating knowledge at a distance. Alongside the teaching of the church, there are books, conferences, podcasts - all available from our preferred celebrity pastors, and glowingly endorsed by all the big-wigs who inhabit their particular circles to assure us that we're in the right place. But in the end, we may end up resembling the overweight armchair sports pundit who knows everything about his preferred sport, and can explain in detail exactly how the game should have been won, but hasn't done any exercise for years and whose confident proclamations have no beneficial impact on anyone, anywhere. The Christian life turns into an intellectual game, in which the aim is to be more right than others, to stake out our position better than others do. Meanwhile, our actual spiritual muscles atrophy, and we're good for nothing except illustrating the folly of knowing our Master's will but not doing it. (The New Testament tells us directly, many times, that this policy will have disastrous results for us on the final day). Jesus spent his time with needy people, and gave up his life for theirs. The church today has built vast "comfort zones" where Christians can live their whole lives in ease and only rarely come into contact with the lost. In the "secular" West, of course, there are often many barriers to making meaningful contact, and it can take a long time to move from "building bridges" to actually driving something across them. Many give up along the way. UBM makes it easy: it's a straightforward Christian mission (it's there in the title), which is up-front about what it's doing, whilst forcing nobody to be involved in anything they're not comfortable with. Moreover, there are pathways through its associated organisations to keep on serving in various ways, at whatever stage of life.

Another way in which UBM keeps you humble is the other Christians that you'll meet. It is easy for us to become "wise in our own conceits". We have worked out all the details of the Christian life, and are wiser than the ancients, or so we think.... until such ideas are best exposed by reality. There are many Christians with fine knowledge and reputation, who serve little. But at the front-line of service, there are many Christians at all kinds of stages, holding many beliefs we find strange, dubious or flat-out wrong, who love the Lord and are full of zeal to serve him in all sorts of difficult circumstances. They resemble Christ and remind us of him. We are reminded of  what the Spirit of Christ is really like, and led away from the pride that had started to grow, that all the best Christians are found in our own circles and look quite like us and hold our opinions. In fact, we begin to see things differently: there are lots of us who have every advantage, but are going in the wrong direction... but others who, despite many disadvantages, are doing a lot better than us with what they have. God's wisdom, and God's choices of who he uses, humble and correct us. Moreover, by being actually exposed to people who see things differently (and not only exposed to people who already agree with us who describe the beliefs of others), we might find out that in fact we were wrong!

UBM is not perfect; unfortunately every person involved is a son or daughter of Adam. But, it does have a track record of serving on the front lines whilst simultaneously giving people (both young and old) opportunity for evangelistic service, fellowship and growth. May God keep and bless them for many more years to come.

(Footnote: my parents encountered UBM on a beach on a holiday when I was a child and found that in one of God's "coincidences", that the team leader lived in our home town. Later again "coincidentally" meeting the same church in an "in the park" service, we began attending there. Not long after that a visiting evangelist, strongly associated with UBM for many years, came to our church and talked to all the Sunday School classes. That day the Lord saved me through the gospel of Christ which he explained. Over a decade later whilst at university my first UBM team week was led by the same leader as on the original beach; and indeed the visiting evangelist spoke at my first UBM annual reunion).

Saturday, 19 July 2025

God wants us for ourselves

God doesn't want us for our talents, our time, our gifts or our energy. He doesn't need any of those things. He is himself eternal, infinite in power, infinite in wisdom and capability. He is himself absolute perfection in himself, not by anything that he does, seeks or finds, but in whom he is. He doesn't need us to be or become anything, because he already is. He is glorious.

And as such, it is not because of anything that he can gain from us that he sent his Son to die for us. It is out of pure love. He does not seek what belongs to us, but he seeks us, ourselves, that he may lavish his love upon us.

Christian service is a wonderful thing; but not because we are giving something to God in order to add to him. He is no Pharaoh, who demands a daily load from us, and is ready to beat us if we do not produce. He is wonderful in himself, and out of his generosity and goodness desires that we partake in his divine life. He saves us so that we might be joined to him, through our union with his Son. God so loved the world, that he gave, and in that giving, takes us to himself. If we see, we will give too: not because a quota of bricks has been demanded from us, but because such a glorious, all-encompassing, all-consuming divine life cannot but overflow in the same way to others: not because we want something out of them, but because the love that is in us, by its very nature, must flow out to them too. That is its nature, because it is God's nature. God loves us, not because of what is in us, but because of what is in him. For that reason, it is a love that cannot fail, no matter how much we do. He did not want us because he reasoned we would never fail. He wanted us so that his life might swallow up and overcome and dissolve all our failures, replacing them with his perfect love.

Stuart Olyott on Money

This is a pithy and precious summary of the Christian believer's attitude to money, as described throughout the New Testament: https://www.knowyourbiblerecordings.org/_files/ugd/6d6075_c5cdf7b33bdb480898a730e0592b6a5b.pdf. Here's a quote:

Unconverted people look on money as something they have earned, which belongs to them, and which they can spend as they like. This is true even of generous people. Unfortunately, when it comes to money, many Christians have an unconverted mindset. Little by little this mindset ruins them, until they are spiritually fit for nothing. 

From: https://www.knowyourbiblerecordings.org/notes-and-articles

Tuesday, 8 July 2025

Christian Nationalism, and the need for new hearts

As explained previously, I am no fan of "Christian Nationalism" (inasmuch as it's still possible to be for or against a label which increasingly appears to mean something different to each person who uses it. That in turn is a sign of a project that's dominated more by in-house debate rather than useful service of people in need).

It's certainly infinitely superior, for everyone, to have laws that are based on truth than laws based upon lies, and it's a good thing when the One who is the Truth is explicitly named and honoured by those under him. This observation, though, has only the slightest overlap with the Christian Nationalist idea that Christ has called churches in the West to take political power over nations, and that we are now at a stage where we can put such a plan into action.

In fact, such an idea completely contradicts important and central things that the Bible does clearly tell us.

One of the key lessons throughout the Old Testament is the need for a new heart. Without regeneration, we cannot even see the kingdom of God. Man's heart, after the fall, is blind, ignorant and deceitful - to such an extent, that there is no hope for man at all, unless he has a new heart. If the entire earth is washed clean in a cataclysmic judgment, man does not long retain the lessons. If people are scattered and divided across the earth and their languages confused because of man's pride, he soon puts it aside in his thinking. If a ruler's nation suffers plague after plague, he will carry on in his hardness of heart until all his people and even his own household is destroyed, rather than consider the wisdom of truly turning to the LORD.

But, but, what if man was given a perfect law, given directly from the mouth and finger of Almighty God himself? What if the people to whom it was given had seen his great signs and wonders, and been redeemed as slaves and brought into a wonderful inheritance, led there personally by the divine presence? What if his tabernacle were amongst them? What if he gave them peace from their enemies, insofar as they kept his law, giving them perfect freedom to walk in his ways, and brought them trouble only when they turned away from it, so that they would turn back? What if they actually heard his voice speak from the holy mountain? Surely, surely, then, they would be a wise people and walk in his ways forever?

No, they would not; because of their hearts. Only a New Covenant, in which the law is written upon their hearts, inscribed upon their very souls by the Spirit of God directly, can do this. Only by becoming part of this New Covenant can people be changed. Otherwise, they will love evil, and pursue it relentlessly, because it is what they admire and desire.

What, then, do "Christian Nationalists" hope to achieve by calling for laws that are explicitly based upon the Nicene Creed, whose fundamental principle is "Jesus is Lord", etcetera? Is it something more than an Internet parlour game for those apparently without enough other things to do in serving Jesus, or whose main aim is to gain followers after themselves by staking out their positions rather than doing the things Jesus actually told us to be doing? The very best laws, so the biblical narrative intentionally and explicitly teaches us, will not succeed in stopping the people under them from continually turning to rank idolatry. On the contrary, they will spectacularly fail. Even if God himself dwells in your midst, you will become a nation given over to grinding the faces of the poor, the most depraved vices, and open advocacy of what is evil, no matter how good your laws are (though if they are Bible-based, there is also likely to be a good dose of hypocrisy, the kind that God finds even an even worse offence than the above, around too).

So again, what are they hoping to achieve?

From what I can discern, at this point in discussion, a list of either/or fallacies and truths that aren't the pertinent ones to our actual context are likely to be trotted out. "So, you want ungodly laws!" "If you don't want ungodly laws, you're already a Christian Nationalist!" "We're just campaigning for to get rid of ungodly laws, what's wrong with that?" "It's Christ or chaos!" "He is the king of kings!" "You are supporting the secular consensus that is ruining us!", etcetera.

  • "So, you want ungodly laws": no, I want godly laws.
  • "If you don't want ungodly laws, you're already a Christian Nationalist!": no, the idea of building a "Christian nation" through political campaigning for better laws is a significant error. The Christian nation is the kingdom of God, which you enter through being born again, repentance and faith in Christ. The church is the city on the hill which acts in society as salt and light, but is not called upon to rule over it.
  • "We're just campaigning to get rid of laws, what's wrong with that?" That's a classic motte-and-bailey move; Christian Nationalists in their published literature are arguing for vastly more than this.
  •  "It's Christ or chaos!" - quite so, but please do not identify Christ with your particular campaign for political power, as that dishonours him and puts a barrier between people and coming to him. For the truth of that, please consult actual real-world experience, not empty theories; I don't think either of us find it convincing if  a Communist says "ah, but it just hasn't been implemented quite correctly yet, and the results would have been entirely the opposite if it had".
  •  "He is the king of kings!" - Amen, and please read the New Testament when he has told you is the time when you can reign with him, and stop asking if you can yet now sit at his right or left hand.
  •  "You are supporting the secular consensus that is ruining us!" - this is an empty slur. It's as likely to convince me as "you're just a wannabe theocrat who isn't happy unless he's policing the details of everybody else's lives" is to you (unless of course, you actually are).

If someone actually wants to see a nation that more closely reflects God's truth, the thing to do is to work on plans for spreading the gospel, to pray earnestly for God's blessing on those plans, and to put them into action, repeatedly. When I see Christian Nationalists online, their main interest seems to be in staking out their personal positions, drawing the already-converted into their folds, and enlarging their personal reach into more and more existing churches. The very thought of such a thing, in light of the fact that Christ will soon judge us for what we have done with the minas that he left in our hands, ought to make us tremble. Brothers and sisters, let us give ourselves to serving Christ by reaching the needy, and like the plague let us avoid empty talk, especially including empty talk about the law.

Tuesday, 1 July 2025

Is infant baptism a "natural and inevitable consequence of the fundamental pattern of covenantal integration" ?

 "The fact that identity is constituted in covenant bodies requires that we baptize our babies. Infant baptism is not explicitly taught in Scripture because it is such a natural and inevitable consequence of the fundamental pattern of covenantal integration."

Kip Chelashaw - https://xcancel.com/ChelashawKip/status/1940003362335867137#m

This is a favourite argument of many evangelical Presbyterians. The fundamental reason why, we are told, nothing teaches, requires or alludes to infant baptism in the New Testament is because it's something so integral to everything that a biblically-minded person would already think, that it would be entirely redundant. Not just in keeping with, but "because" it is so "natural and inevitable", it isn't mentioned.

Firstly I'd like to note and bank the true and in honesty unavoidable concession that "Infant baptism is not explicitly taught in Scripture". But is it, as asserted, taught implicitly?

What things does the Bible assume and for that reason not directly state?

I've never yet read an explanation from brethren who hold this belief as to why it is, in their understanding, that the New Testament does frequently and clearly state so many other fundamental beliefs. Infant baptism, we are told, is not taught explicitly because something so important is all-pervasive. But what about other all-pervasive, fundamental truths? Are they not taught explicitly either? Or not taught every often? Quite the opposite....

There is one God; the God of Abraham is the Creator of the world; his blessings are received by grace through faith based upon his own works and not ours; God will judge the world; God deals with people through covenants; the covenants climax and are fulfilled in the coming of the Messiah; etc., etc., etc. Although all of these things are as inherent and integral as you could get, yet, they don't therefore escape mention - on the contrary, they are mentioned early, often, and late, and often again. Of course they are: it was the intended purpose of Christ and the apostles he sent to manifest the truth openly and clearly, so that even a child could grasp the essentials. As wise teachers, dealing with weak, foolish and fallible human beings, Christ and his servants therefore made sure to lay out their teachings clearly and frequently. Moreover, since these things were in many cases being taught to those who were either strangers and foreigners (Gentiles), who were previously bathed in all kinds of wrong understandings, or who even as Israelites had been indoctrinated in very wrong ideas by the Pharisees or others, it was necessary to rewire them at every level.

The idea that because infant baptism is so obvious a teaching to those to whom the apostles wrote, that therefore it is not something that we'd expect them to openly mention, flies in the face of everything they did mention.

Things that the first Bible readers needed explicitly stated for them

I see this idea as something from Presbyterian fantasy-land (do feel free to share with me the things that you think come out of Baptist fantasy-land). Let us look at the actual churches and Christians we find in the New Testament. To the Galatians, the idea that justification was by faith alone apart from the works of the law, had become vague and cloudy; the very doctrine that underpinned their salvation was being twisted and lost. To the Hebrews, it was no longer entirely clear that Christ's coming meant that all the Old Covenant ordinances were annulled and done away with in Christ. To the Corinthians, the fact that our bodies would be raised from the dead, and that Christians should not consort with prostitutes, was something they were losing their grip on and needed strong instruction and exhortation over. And so on, and so on. In the gospels, Jesus must patiently and repeatedly explain to his hearers that God requires mercy, not sacrifice; that the fundamental commandments are of love; that it is no part of God's law that we treat human beings worse than animals; and many other fundamental things that are part of the warp and woof of all the Scriptures to that point. 

But, but, but.... all of these brethren, we are assured, of course never wavered for even a minute in their inevitable and unshakeable understanding that wherever there was a divine covenant, those whose immediate physical parents were covenant members must also be thereby be entitled to that covenant's sign. This was a point, we are solemnly assured, beyond the possibility of anyone's misunderstanding; merely appealing to the idea of a "covenant" was enough to make this perfectly plain. And anyone who doesn't see this just doesn't understand covenants at all. He is still a babe, and the apostles, supposedly, didn't stoop to explaining things necessary for babes.

Is not merely to state these ideas to expose their complete absurdity? The Corinthians, the Galatians, the Hebrews, the first disciples of Jesus, the crowds, etc., suffered from great darkness and prejudice (as is common  across the entire human race and our own personal experience too) on the most fundamental and basic topics of Scripture.... but somehow, all with the marvellous exception that they were fine covenant theologians who were beyond all possibility of error on any of the relevant details and important consequences? Are you being serious?

The fact that infant baptism is nowhere, whether directly or indirectly, alluded to (without painful contortions), is, in reality, a great embarrassment to the paedobaptist case. The fact that, where historically churches have practised it, they have done so on mutually contradictory and incompatible grounds, is equally embarrassing. Which is to say, if the Presbyterian "covenantal" argument were such a clearly Biblical one, then Lutherans, Roman Catholics, etc. would have been glad to take it up and add it to their arsenals. The fact that the Presbyterian argument for paedobaptism has to appeal at its heart (having conceded that there is nothing explicit) to a priori claims is not a strength, but a significant "tell".

You and your seed, according to Scripture

Kip's fundamental error above is not, in fact, in noticing that the covenant is "to you and your children"; he is quite correct to hold that when God promised to Abraham that he and his seed would be his people forever. The error which pervades Presbyterian argument for infant baptism is the failure to notice how the New Testament has, explicitly and consistently, explained the fulfilment of the concept of "seed", and what it means to be born into the covenant. It is not silent, but speaks loudly, telling us who the "children" are. That concept has, as with many others, attained a point of transformation and fulfilment in the New Testament. See Romans 9, Galatians 3, Matthew 3, John 3, and many others. The Scriptures explicitly clarify who are the seed of Abraham, and directly deny that physical descent alone, under the New Covenant, means that you are one of them. The promise is to Abraham and his children - and it is those who are of faith who are believing Abraham's children. The preparatory shadow of literal, physical descent gives way to the glorious intended final reality of being born again, by the Holy Spirit, into the final family of God (and this often results in earthly households divided against themselves). 

Fulfilment and reality

We do baptise babies: babes in Christ. But we do not baptise babes born only of the flesh, because there is neither command nor example to do so. If you've been following, that silence is something that cannot be accounted for, if you believe that Christ and his apostles wished every Christian family anywhere and ever to do so, no matter their level of maturity. If you study everything (and there is plenty) that the New Testament does say about baptism, then amongst all the rich variation, one constant is the note of fulfilment, of reality, of accomplishment, of a meeting of the sign and the thing signified. Baptism is tied together conceptually with the coming of the Holy Spirit and receiving him, repentance unto life, the exaltation of the Messiah, being born into his kingdom, etc.... but universally this is depicted in terms of experienced reality, not of a kind of covenantal promise that still looks ahead to the baptisee being initiated into the personal experience of it if he will, when he reaches a stage of being able to respond, believe and personally appropriate it. He always already believes and is glorying in what he already experiences; the Spirit is come, and the New Age has dawned, not objectively only, but personally, too.

Doctrines of the gaps

Infant baptism is a "doctrines of the gaps". Such doctrines end up functioning as hermeneutics. i.e. They are used as controlling paradigms to pre-interpret Biblical texts, instead of allowing the texts which explicitly and directly discuss those subjects to determine what our hermeneutics will be. Overlooking and minimising the many things we are directly taught, "doctrines of the gaps" come in, with the claim that they are the real background, the fundamental assumption which must control the reading of everything else. The "a priori" conclusions rewrite the actual conclusions that the apostles explicitly and directly wanted us to understand when they exegeted the meaning of Christ and the nature of the New Covenant to us. Then when those hermeneutics are worked out, they lead on to all sorts of other mistakes as they are applied in other areas.

Kip is a Protestant, not a Roman Catholic. Thus, when a traditional Roman Catholic denies the explicit and direct teaching of Romans 3-4 or Galatians 3-4 with his claim that the fundamental hermeneutical assumption of The Church (TM) leads us to see justification as being channelled through the sacraments, Kip will rightly urge his antagonist to try, for a moment, to take off his glasses and first deal with what it was the direct concern of the apostles in these and other passages to seek to assert, as revealed firstly by their context and wording; and then to re-shape his doctrine of the church in the light of that, and not the other way round. But Kip needs to do the same when he reads all the direct and intentional teaching in the Bible about the New Covenant, and its relationship to what went before, and how this transforms our understandings of covenant membership, birth into the covenant, being a child of Abraham, the privileges of covenant membership, etcetera. The traditional Roman Catholic asserts that every member of the people of God always understood in every age that the church on earth has a visible head, whom we must all be in direct submission to. Kip will urge him to try to understand the Newness of the New Covenant, and that we do indeed still have a head, and he is actually visible; but that does not lead to the conclusions about Popes that the Roman Catholic holds to. The matter is not pre-determined by what comes before, but rather the fulfilment explains for us how to understand the earlier stages of the plan. I similarly urge Kip and all those who hold his views to try to understand analogous things in respect of Christian baptism.