Home » Posts tagged 'John the Baptist'
Tag Archives: John the Baptist
Can Restorationist Churches Be or Are They True?
This post provides a good accompaniment to the last three posts I’ve written here (one, two, and three). I’ll return to the first two of those posts, as they are the beginning of a continuing series.
************************
Successionism or Restorationism
The choices are not apostolic succession or no succession of churches. Apostolic succession is bogus, a lie, and a fraud. Apostles did not continue after John. Succession itself though is a biblical concept. True churches continued. Jesus promised that and enough history exists to validate it. If you don’t believe in succession, then you believe in restorationism, which is a commonality in cults. Look at all the religions of the 19th century that started in the United States, claiming to restore the lost church: Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), Churches of Christ (Campbellism, today also the Christian Church), Seventh Day Adventist, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The Charismatic Movement is also a restorationist movement. It says that the church lost its true or full relationship with and to the Holy Spirit. Charismatics speak of the “latter rain,” this era with a fresh outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
For someone to start a false religion, he needs a kind of blank canvass. He must take his religious etch-a-sketch, shake it, and start over. He starts from scratch, inventing something that almost always includes extra-scriptural revelation or authority of some kind.
“Total Apostasy”
Grounded in restorationism is “total apostasy.’ Everyone everywhere turned from the truth with perhaps a few exceptions imbedded in something of a false church. Wikipedia uses the terminology, “Great Apostasy.”
Protestants, which include Baptist English Separatists, take up the mantle of restorationism themselves. They at least wobble between a couple of competing ideas. Included in their restorationism is the terminology, “the reformed doctrine of justification,” as if the world lost justification for a period of time, enveloped in darkness and coming out in the light of the Protestant Reformation. Supporters have to say that the true church or the truth itself was in Roman Catholicism or that it was free floating on the planet somewhere maybe or maybe not.
The latter of the two explanations for lost Christianity or non-existent New Testament churches for an undetermined period of time, perhaps over a thousand years mainly turns into mysticism. A mystical church existed somewhere. It’s a tough one to admit, but they would say that mainly mystically within Roman Catholicism some kind of true church existed in a spiritual way. It’s a tough view to support.
What’s Left
Those who won’t believe in successionism are saying that the true church existed in a universal, visible apostate church that preached a false gospel. These apparent believers did not separate from that church. The “true believers” stayed in the church in defiance of the biblical gospel, meanwhile practicing multiple forms of false worship and taking everyone around them with them in this journey. It’s no wonder they get angry and just don’t want to talk about it.
I asked AI about the doctrine of justification and it concluded: “The doctrine of justification was indeed lost or significantly distorted for several centuries prior to the Reformation.” AI also reports: “Protestants generally do not believe in a formal succession of true churches from the first century until now.” Concerning restorationism in Protestantism, AI adds: “During the Reformation in the 16th century, Protestant reformers sought to return to what they viewed as the original teachings of Christianity as found in Scripture.” AI says that Protestants themselves are restorationists.
Support for Perpetuity
Matthew 16:18 and 28:20
One of the primary verses cited in support of the church’s perpetuity is Matthew 16:18, where Jesus states, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Jesus says that His church will endure against all adversities, implying a continuous existence throughout history.
In Matthew 28:20, Jesus promises His disciples, “And lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” This assurance indicates that Christ’s presence would accompany His church until the end of time, reinforcing the belief that there would always be a community of believers—His church—on earth. AI says: “Based on biblical texts and theological interpretations, the Bible does teach the perpetuity of true churches through history in every generation, affirming that there will always be a faithful remnant who adhere to Christ’s teachings.”
Other Reasons
On the other hand, scripture teaches against a total apostasy during the church age. 1 Timothy 4:1 says, “Some shall depart from the faith.” Some. Not all. All depart from the faith would contradict the promises of Christ. Like He preserves His Words, the Lord preserves His churches. Restorationism is a clear signal or cue of a false religion, denomination, or church.
Other arguments and reasons for a visible succession of true New Testament churches exist. Scripture does teach authority. Christ gives all authority to His church to baptize (Matthew 28:20). Jesus himself affirmed John’s authority when he asked the religious leaders about it, stating, “The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.” (Mark 11:30). The implication here is that John’s baptism had divine backing, which was essential for its validity. Those who accepted John’s baptism were seen as accepting God’s purpose for their lives (Luke 7:29-30) and recognizing his role in God’s plan.
Jesus Himself traveled 70-90 miles for baptism by John. Surely He could have had someone dunk Him under water or baptize himself. Jesus recognized the importance of authority in baptism. Baptism requires legitimate authority to be legitimate in practice.
I’m not advocating chain link authority, but the principle of authority as a matter of faith. This is how churches understood the authority for baptism. Roman Catholicism does not have this legitimate authority. Neither did Protestants receive legitimate authority from Roman Catholicism. Where did authority lie? It comes through churches independent of the state church with a true gospel and Christ as their Head. Scripture says they would continue and they did. Attacks on perpetuity and succession are tantamount to an embrace of restorationism, admitting that Jesus did not fulfill His promises.
English Reformation?
The English Reformation, a famous religious and political movement in England, almost anyone here reading knows started with King Henry VIII separating from Roman Catholicism because he wanted an annulment from his wife, Catherine of Aragon. The English Reformation itself for whatever its benefits begets religions or denominations clearly with no authority. It essentially impersonates Roman Catholicism with some slight tweaks. Then other groups spin off of it equally with no authority. This is painfully obvious and something rather to block out of the imagination.
Despite the truth about the English Reformation, many Baptists today embrace English separatism themselves like restorationists. It would have to go like this. Roman Catholicism was apostate so Church of England started something over anew, and then the Church of England wasn’t legitimate, so English Baptists dissented and began themselves something novel, fresh, and disconnected. They were against trying to restore something lost. They embrace that concept by saying nothing of perpetuity or succession exists, except, probably said in a whispery tone, within Roman Catholicism.
Bogus Attack on Successionism
I understand the attack on successionism. It’s akin to throwing the game board. If you can’t win, then nobody wins. The harsh and vitriolic attack on the Trail of Blood idea found in the pamphlet, The Trail of Blood, irks those with no perpetuity, no succession, and no authority. They don’t want anyone embracing it, so they deny it all and then leave scorched earth behind it. And what do these men leave everyone with? It’s not pretty.
Our church will not fellowship with restorationists. We cannot legitimize that view of the world or reality. Based on presuppositions and suitable enough history, restorationism can’t be true. I believe it is a different Jesus, because their Jesus couldn’t keep the church intact and could not. How does that fit a biblical view of God’s sovereignty? With His love, wisdom, and power, He just allowed true churches to die everywhere. How did they come back? In most instances, they would say from infant sprinklers who embraced a state church and much other doctrine and practical error. None of this is biblical or true.
John the Baptist’s Diminishment of His Own Water Baptism in Matthew 3
Matthew 3 provides the New Testament introduction of the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist. While John preached in the wilderness of Judea, the Pharisees and Sadducees came out to him for the purpose of baptism in the Jordan River. Matthew 3:7-12 read:
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
The Desire of the Pharisees and Sadducees for John’s Baptism
“To his baptism” in verse 11 may sound like a dative of direction or destination. It isn’t. It is the Greek preposition, epi, with the accusative noun, baptisma. The BDAG lexicon says the following about this usage of epi:
11. marker of purpose, goal, result, to, for, w. acc. . . . . baptism=to have themselves baptized Mt 3:7
John’s reaction to the Pharisees and Sadducees shows that he knew they were coming out for baptism by him. How he uses the Greek word, echidna, translated “vipers,” indicates that he referred to the vipera ammodytes, the sand viper. Because of very dry conditions, brush fires will begin and spread in the Jordan River Valley, pushing these poisonous reptiles toward the water. This is the picture John paints of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This elucidates their purpose.
Sand vipers slither to the Jordan River to escape brush fires. The Pharisees and Sadducees came for the purpose of John’s baptism. They thought it might provide another possible escape from future judgment of God. These religious leaders were quite willing to try one more religious ritual as another fire insurance policy. John wouldn’t baptize them. His baptism would not deliver them.
The Preaching of Repentance
John preached repentance. He immersed only the repentant. The Pharisees and Sadducees were not repentant. Their lives did not show the fruit of repentance. Repentance was a change of heart, conversion of the soul. It was more than token ritual so favored by false religion.
Later in verse 11, John says to the Pharisees and Sadducees, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.” “Into” translates the Greek preposition, eis, which indicates identification, such as when Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:2, “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” “Unto” is again the preposition eis. The children of Israel were not placed in Moses. Through their baptism in the Red Sea, they identified with Moses. John’s immersion in water identified the repentance of the recipients.
John the Baptist is saying, my baptism doesn’t save you. Baptism would not result in the salvation of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It would just be another ritual for them. If they repented, God would save them, and then John would immerse them. He baptized only previously truly repentant people.
The Natural Quality of John’s Baptism
If someone thinks that baptism will deliver him from hell fire, like the sand vipers slithered to the Jordan River to deliver them from brush fires, he was wrong. John makes that clear in the following verses. Using other metaphors, John says that God would cast them into the fire without repentance. John baptized, but he diminishes it before his listeners as a means of salvation. This should give strong pause to those adding baptism as a salvation requirement. John the Baptist himself didn’t do that.
Further, John contrasts what he does with water baptism and what Jesus does with Spirit and fire baptism. John represents his baptism as solely natural. It’s water. Water doesn’t make any kind of supernatural or spiritual change. He characterizes baptism with water as inferior to baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Those are greater than the baptism John performed. Jesus Himself would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
The Supernatural Quality of Jesus’ Baptisms
Compared to John’s
The Holy Spirit and the eternal fire of Hell are both supernatural. The two media with which Jesus baptizes are superior in quality and character to the one medium of John’s baptism. John was just a man. He could water baptize, but he couldn’t baptize with the third person of the Trinity like Jesus could and did.
In Jesus’ day, slaves would carry the sandals or shoes of their Master or Lord. John was so low compared to Jesus, he says, that he was not worthy even to do that kind of slave work for Jesus. Sure, he could baptize with water. That was a baptism suitable for his doing. Only Jesus could do such supernatural baptisms as the Holy Spirit and fire.
Holy Spirit baptism corresponds in John’s preaching to gathering the wheat in his garner. The garner was heaven in John’s figure and the fire was Hell. Anyone in John the Baptist’s audience that day he invited to repent, so that Jesus would gather them into His granary. If they did not repent, therefore not being a good tree that could bring forth fruit, Jesus would axe them down and toss them into unquenchable fire.
Later in Matthew 3, Jesus then shows up in the wilderness, bringing an entirely different situation for John the Baptist. When the Pharisees and Sadducees showed up, he didn’t want to baptize them. They needed to repent and they hadn’t. When Jesus showed up, John the Baptist didn’t want to baptize him either. Why? He only baptized repentant people and Jesus had nothing for which to repent. Instead then, John asked Jesus to baptize him.
The Characterization of Jesus
If anyone should repent, next to Jesus, John was the one who needed repentance. Jesus should baptize him and not John baptize Jesus. John’s desire not to baptize Jesus diminished his baptism in comparison to the work of Jesus. Through Jesus, you could receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. John’s baptism just identified its recipients with what mattered most, their repentance. Mere identification is lesser than the much greater transformation of a life through Christ’s redemption and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The Lord Jesus could and would also judge in the end with fire. The fan, the winnowing shovel, was in His hand. In the end judgment, He would divide the truly saved from those who are not. That is way above John the Baptist’s pay grade. John’s baptism was not salvific. It was not supernatural. John was just a man. He wasn’t God like Jesus was.
John was baptizing. When he compared himself with Jesus in John 3 to persuade his followers to follow Jesus instead, John argued (verse 36):
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
If you believed in Jesus Christ, you received everlasting life. If you didn’t, you received the wrath of God. Nothing John could do would provide everlasting life or the wrath of God. Belief brought everlasting life, not baptism.
Thought Experiment
The Pharisees and Sadducees came to John for baptism. They saw it as a fire escape, another ritual that would put more weight on the side of their own righteousness. It might ameliorate themselves against future judgment as an impressive deed.
As a thought experiment, let’s say John welcomed their desire for baptism, praised them for it. Their trek out to the Jordan River manifested their expression of need. They were admitting trouble for themselves, perhaps some need for cleansing. So John instead said, “Well done. In light of your recognition of deprivation, let me baptize you!”
Baptizing the Pharisees and Sadducees would play right into their hands. It would give them the wrong impression and false sense of security that baptism would save. John sent the message that baptism did not save. It was a symbol. It didn’t do anything like repentance and then Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit.
John’s unwillingness to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees because they did not show fruit unto repentance teaches against any saving effect of baptism. It is not a washing of regeneration. It is mere outward identification. Jesus later says it is also a righteous act of obedience. It wouldn’t save anyone, including the Pharisees and Sadducees. John was clear on this.
John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus and Sending Authority in Matthew 3
Paraginomai Versus Ginomai
The Greek verb paraginomai appears only three times in Matthew, an intense or emphatic form of a common verb, ginomai. All three occur in Matthew 2 and 3:
2:1, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.”
3:1, “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea.”
3:13, “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.”
The magi, those kingmakers from a powerful far eastern nation, came with royal authority and bringing kingly gifts. Herod recognized their authority. It troubled him. John the Baptist, the forerunner and herald of the King who would sit on the throne of David forever, came heralding or preaching. The King Himself, Jesus, came to begin His work in an official capacity.
Luke 7:20 uses the same unique verb, paraginomai, to describe John the Baptist ascending to his divine task, parallel with Matthew 3:1. The only usage in Mark, 14:43, sees an official, governing body of chief priests, scribes, and elders with Judas coming to arrest Jesus. The Apostle Paul uses paraginomai in 2 Timothy 4:16, saying, “At my first answer no man stood with me.” He described no one joining him in an official capacity in public court. It’s an obviously technical word to denote the function of a person who came into court to defend the accused (John Phillips, Exploring the Pastoral Epistles, p. 454).
Official Capacity
The only use of paraginomai in Hebrews (9:11) reads:
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.
This verse describes Christ, the anointed one, come an high priest, so again in a high, official capacity, so with authority. In the New International Commentary on Hebrews, Paul Ellingworth says concerning Hebrews 9:11, The use of paraginomai instead of the usual ginomai suggests “an official public appearance” (p. 449). So also Harold Attridge in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, commenting on the dramatic nuance of the word (paragenomenos, participle of paraginomai), says, “He has arrived on the heavenly scene as High Priest” (p. 245).
John the Baptist was a man sent (apostello) from God (John 1:6). That verb (“sent,” apostello) is also very technical, expressing the nature of an envoy or an ambassador. Jesus asked (Matthew 21:25), “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” The implication in Matthew by Jesus (cf. Mk 11:30, Lk 20:4) was that God authorized the baptism of John. He got it from heaven.
The Lord Jesus came like John with sending authority. Jesus said, “As my Father hath sent (apostello) me, even so send I you” (John 20:21). God also expects sending for all His workers. It’s more than reading the Great Commission, saying you’ve got it because you read in Matthew 28:18-20. That command went to a plural, “Go ye.” One should assume that “ye” meant people in the group. It did not imply that anyone or everyone could go with His authority (“power”). “You” is also plural in John 20:21.
Romans 10:15
The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 10:15,
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
The word “preach” is kerusso. This is the same word applied to John the Baptist and his preaching. The kerux is someone to announce the Lord’s coming, to give His message, and to prepare the way for Him. Again, Romans 10:15 asks of the plural, “they.” Who “sends” (apostello) “them”? Christ sends as Head of His church.
John the Baptist “came” in an official capacity. God “sent” John in an official capacity. The New Testament uses the same terminology for every believer. How shall they hear without a kerux? How shall they kerusso except they be apostello? God the Father sent John and Jesus directly. Jesus then sends true believers by means of the church. He heads the church. God sends believers only through true churches.
A Special Cast of Characters
Ones Christ sends constitute a special cast of characters and yet not one, not one because it applies to everyone. Every one bringing glad tidings or the gospel of peace should be and must be sent. That should be every member of a church, a member of Christ’s body with Him as Head.
As a personal example, individual churches sent my wife and I. A true church sent us in 2020 from California to Oregon. The same true church sent us in 2021 from Oregon to Utah. In 2022, a true church in Utah sent us from Utah to Indiana. The church in Indiana sent us for a few months to England at the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023 Since February 22, 2023, my wife and I function as heralds with authority of or from our church in Indiana. We requested and received letters, which we possess, from three total churches in all this (California, Utah, and Indiana).
God sent John. He came. Sent and came are unique words of sending. God sent Jesus. He came. The same pattern applies to the work of every true believer.
How serious would you take the sending of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States? If the United States of America authorized you for a legitimate task, would you acknowledge the honor bestowed? Can you recognize the greater honor of the Lord Jesus sending you through a true church?
Recent Comments