Beloved

1 Timothy 6:2 - "And those who have believing masters, let them not despise them because they are brethren, but rather serve them because those who are benefited are believers and beloved. Teach and exhort these things."

It's often useful to notice not only what is said as the main/direct point in a verse, but also what is assumed.

The above verse is an instruction from Paul to Timothy about what should be taught to believing slaves about how to relate to their masters - in this verse, particularly, believing masters.

"[T]hose who are benefited are believers and beloved."

Because, it is implied, all believers are beloved. If you are a believer, and you meet a fellow believer, or work alongside them, or under them, or whatever, then this is your attitude to them: they are beloved, for Jesus' sake. The Beloved One counts them as beloved, and so, of course, do all of his brethren.

The Christmas inn-keeper is a fictional character

The few words about his birth in the Bible indicate that the Son of God was born in a poor family home, not in a community stable for travellers which a fictional inn-keeper sent them to. 

It's much better to teach children to study the Bible carefully, than to leave them believing a sentimental version that they later find out has the flimsiest basis in the actual text (really, a misunderstanding built upon a single word): https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/jesus-was-not-born-in-a-stable-and-it-really-matters/

The sometime fantasy land of paedobaptist apologetics

Baptists who are Baptists by conviction (i.e. not simply by default, but who have taken the time to seek to understand and analyse paedobaptist arguments), will be aware that a good number of paedobaptist arguments effectively exist in their separate universe. They convincingly refute arguments that either nobody made, or if they did, they are a representative not of a serious or representative attempt to argue that baptism is intended for those who profess faith, but of some off-the-cuff comment that nobody would mistake for a serious argument, of the kind dealt with when seeking to get the best version of an argument.

Of this sort are arguments like "Baptists are Baptists because they are hyper-individualists who see the kingdom of heaven as following the American dream, but we paedobaptists believe in the community of God's people", or "Baptists believe that the Old Testament is a failed plan, but paedobaptists believe in the continuity of God's plans and people throughout the ages" or "Baptists think the church began with revivalist preachers preaching in tents in the 19th century", and such like over-simplifications. Well, fine, if someone does believe that, then do refute it, but please can you do so without the "Baptists believe" prefix?

Of this ilk is Douglas Wilson's recent blog post, "The Grace of All Forgiveness".

It opens: "Some have argued that baptism should be withheld from infants and children because they think it a sign, not of inclusion in Christ, but rather as a sign of ordination—as a sign of taking on the mantle of service for Christ."

Really? Who argued that, and where? Baptism is not a sign of inclusion in Christ, but solely of being appointed to serve him? And this is a viewpoint found significantly amongst Baptists?

Again, perhaps "some" have indeed argued this. But the suggestion to people that this is a representative or common viewpoint, or that recognising that "Baptist is a sign of inclusion in Christ" is a belief that leads one towards paedobaptism, is absurd.

I invite my paedobaptist friends to leave the fantasy land of what they too often tell themselves round in circles concerning the strange things Baptists believe, and to read some serious works of Baptist apologetics instead. Then we can mutually discuss our beliefs, and endeavour together to understand which more accurately represents the mind of the Lord.

The biblical duty of exiting a denomination that tolerates false teachers

In my previous post, "Avoiding false teachers", I noted that the Bible does not simply instruct us to avoid false teaching, but to avoid false teachers.

And this inevitably implies the further duty to exit compromised churches, partnerships and associations. i.e. To depart from denominations or groupings of churches which do not discipline and ultimately excommunicate false teachers. False teachers will arise, but the question is what happens to them when a disciplinary case is lodged.

Believing brethren in, to pick an obvious example, the Church of England, generally seek to avoid false teaching via not teaching it themselves, and teaching against it, and telling them hearers not to go and listen to false teachers. (I've never actually heard of a brother who even tried to lodge a disciplinary case against any of them).

However, the Church of England in general tolerates and propagates false teaching. In a Biblical organisation, this could be dealt with via disciplinary cases against the false teachers - for example, those who deny that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was both penal (a punishment for sins) and substitutionary (a punishment endured in the place of others), those who deny that sin will ultimately be punished through eternal punishment in hell, or those who deny that the Scriptures in their entirety are God's inspired word, without error.

Once an organisation no longer disciplines false teachers, by ejecting them, the only way that remains to obey God by separating oneself from false teachers, is by oneself voluntarily departing.

Avoiding false teachers

 "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies" - 2 Peter 2:1

Whilst looking at a related verse, I can't help but notice that whilst the Bible consistently warns believers to identify and avoid false teachers, the emphasis in modern times in the evangelical church (where indeed there is any such emphasis) is on identifying and avoiding false teaching. 

I think we are indulging the proud conceit that we're kinder to people in general and to Christ's sheep in particular than God is. Let's resolve to repent of this, and follow the ways of the Good Shepherd (who, when on earth, clearly practised the Biblical pattern rather than ours) instead.

The highest favour that heaven confers

"A minister when he comes to die, feels that the highest favour which heaven has conferred on him has been in turning his feet away from the paths of ambition, and the pursuits of ease or gain, and leading him to that holy work to which he has been enabled to consecrate his life." - Barnes' commentary on 1 Timothy 1:12

The Year of Our Lord, 2023

At the end of the year it's natural to look back, take stock, reflect on what has been done, and what has not been done. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why, as we understand as we read in Genesis 1, God divided our lives with years, seasons, months, weeks. They break up our lives, help us to give meaning to and perceive patterns in different phases, and have time to relate it back to our Creator's purposes for us.

But when we do that, we must not stop with only the reflection upon what we have done, and what we have not done. Because that will always be inadequate. At best we will only be able to say "we are unworthy servants; we did no more than it was our duty to do". From there we must proceed to rest in what Jesus has done for us. Our years will have had many inadequacies. But the righteousness of Christ in which we stand clothed in the presence of God, has no lack, no defects - it is perfect and entire. The offering he made for our sins, and the life that he lived to the glory of God - in these we can rest. We can say "it is enough, and much more". We can lay our heads down at the end of another year and say "Jesus is sufficient to lead me out of this year, and into the next, and as many as there shall be, until I see his face."

The Year of Our Lord 2023 dawns. May the glorious name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit be glorified throughout yet more of the earth. Amen.