by Sam Waldron | May 28, 2020 | New Testament, Practical Theology
Chapter 4 of John Mark’s Remarkable Career—His Pivotal and Tragic Place in the Disagreement between Barnabas and Saul
This is the 6th part of a 9 part series, you can find the other 5 parts here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
It is the account of the disagreement between Barnabas and Saul in Acts 15:37-39 which we are now considering. It is not my purpose to analyze that disagreement in detail. We do need to look at it with regard to our present purpose of understanding the life of John Mark.
Acts 15:37 Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also. 38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work. 39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.
Have you ever thought about this situation from the viewpoint of John Mark? I had not until I was thinking about it recently. Ask yourself, What would it have been like for John Mark in this situation? He was rejected by the Apostle Paul; the cause of sharp disagreement between Paul and Barnabas; the subject of prolonged discussion between Paul and Barnabas; and—no doubt—the focus of public conversation in the Christian community at Jerusalem. You can imagine how difficult the situation became for John Mark! Whatever we think of Barnabas leaving as he did, leaving was almost a necessity for John Mark. How could he stay in Jerusalem? He would be the occasion of disagreement, discussion, suspicion, and endless questions. This would not be good for him or for the church. Barnabas’s decision to take John Mark with him to Cyprus and get him out of this emotional pressure-cooker—whatever else it was—was a deliverance for John Mark. It removed him from a very difficult, perhaps unbearable, and certainly embarrassing situation. Far away in Cyprus where this difficulty was not well-known, John Mark might have time to pray, reflect, and, if necessary, to repent.
At this point in our account of the life of John Mark one could not be blamed for thinking that any usefulness for John Mark was finished. The days of effective labor for the kingdom would never return for John Mark—that is what we must, it would seem, necessarily conclude. Nevertheless, praise God, the career of John Mark turned out much differently than we might have expected or feared.
We learn how easy it is to be stained with a bad reputation and the difficulties it may create for you! Can you imagine people shaking their heads at the mention of John Mark? Abandoning the Lord, deserting the missionaries, he was thought to be unstable as water. And then the terrible disagreement it provoked between Paul and Barnabas! What a scandal and he was in the middle of it! Little and surely not sufficiently had John Mark the difficulties that would result from his unstable desire to run home to Momma in Jerusalem. And perhaps the most spiritually deadly aspect of it all was that John Mark deeply struggled with believing this assessment and agreeing with the worst opinion of himself.
We learn how badly we need sympathetic Christian brothers to help us see our sins and repent and find restoration through Christ! I cannot resist the notion that Barnabas, the son of encouragement, was the means in no small measure of John Mark’s recovery. He took John Mark to a place where he could recover. He gave him the sympathetic ear which enabled him not to be crushed into despair by his sins. I am sure he was faithful to guide him to the place of repentance, faith, and forgiveness in Christ.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | May 19, 2020 | Civil Government, Ecclesiology, Law
The Separation of Church and State?
These blogs have been a polemic against the original Reformed and Westminster view of church and state. Before I conclude these blogs, I want to give a brief and simple description of a scriptural and proper view of religious liberty. I will be speaking, therefore, of the separation of church and state. There is a proper and biblical separation of church and state. Let me be clear that I am not speaking of separating the state from God. The separation of church and state does not entail “the separation of God and state.”
The Presumption of Such a Separation:
We must begin by reminding ourselves of the redemptive history of the Theocratic Kingdom. With the expiration of the partially restored Theocratic order in A. D. 70, all civil authority in the world ceased to be Theocratic in the proper sense. God is no longer the unique king of any civil entity. No nation is now mandated to adhere to a specially revealed civil order. While the moral principles enshrined in the civil laws of the Old Covenant remain authoritative, no nation is bound to the detailed, civil order of Old Testament Israel. This is the explicit teaching of the 1689 Baptist Confession: “To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.”
Add to all of this the destruction of the Temple as the earthly throne of Yahweh, and one must also conclude that no longer are church and state a united entity. The redeemed community no longer has a civil structure. Thus, the divine establishment of the Gentile civil authorities means that the separation of the civil and ecclesiastical institutions in human society is now God’s preceptive will. The alteration of this order will be signaled only by the return of Christ. Thus, the separation of church and state is assumed and commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ when he directed that we should “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).
The Arguments for Such a Separation:
Many arguments could be brought forward in defense of religious freedom or soul liberty. I will only mention two:
(1) Dictating religious belief and worship is not the task or function of the state. It is outside the sphere of the civil authorities. The state is to preserve civil justice and peace and protect men from violence to their bodies or property. This is the teaching of the Bible (Rom. 13:3, 4; Mt. 22:21; I Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:14; Ps. 82:1-4, 58:2, Deut. 4:27; Gen 6:11, 12, 9:5, 6; Ps. 72:14, Ezek. 7:23, 45:9; Prov. 21:15, 24:11, 12, 29:14, 26, 31:5). Men may and do differ as to religious belief without disrupting the peace or offering violence to others. The weapon of the civil authority is the sword (Rom. 13:1-7). Swords are not good weapons—they are not even the right weapons—with which to mold or rule men’s consciences. Civil authority rules men’s bodies, not their souls (Neh. 9:37).
(2) If a state is to dictate religious belief or worship, this inevitably requires the State to rule the church or the church to rule the state. Both church and state, however, are now independent under God. Since the Bible teaches the sphere-sovereignty of both the state and the church under God, to require the state to restrain violations of the first table of the law necessarily violates the teaching of Scripture.
The Limits of Such Separation:
Are there limits to religious freedom? The obvious answer is certainly! When anyone’s professed religion disrupts civil justice or peace and threatens violence to the body or property of someone else, then it exposes itself to the legitimate action of the state. Such “religious liberty” must be restrained. It is no one’s religious right to beat their children to death. It is no one’s religious right to have an abortion on demand. Many other examples might be provided of religiously held “rights” which should not be permitted.
We can uphold the great truth that Christ is King over all things. We can affirm that civil government must rule in light of the whole Word of God. We can assert that the 1st Table of the Law should be enforced by the father on his family, by the church on its members, and by the individual on himself. We can uphold and affirm all of this, but we to do so we need not revert to the dangerous viewpoint of the union of church and state. That view enshrined in the original Westminster Confession destroys religious liberty and a proper separation of church and state.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | May 13, 2020 | Civil Government, Ecclesiology, Law
Christ Is King!
In my first two blogs, I have attempted to point out the dangers which lurk in the waters of the original Westminster and older Presbyterianism. Someone might ask at this point about the fact that Christ is King over all things including the realm of civil authority. Is it necessary to jettison religious freedom in order to uphold the universal reign of Christ? I think that is a good question. It deserves a good answer. Thankfully, one is available.
Let me restate the question. Isn’t the civil authority to rule according to the Word of God? If so, how can it allow religious freedom? Must it not, therefore, enforce the first table of the law? If God forbids idolatry, for instance, must not the state also forbid and penalize idolatry and, therefore, proscribe Mormonism, Islam, Hinduism, and, indeed, any religion which does not profess to worship the Christian Trinity?
Here a crucial distinction must be enunciated. It is certainly true that civil authority is subject to the Word of God, but this does not mean that it is the duty of the civil authority to enforce every part of God’s Word with its own authority. Several illustrations will make this clear.
Ephesians 6:4, for instance, requires, “And you fathers bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Is the civil magistrate required to enforce this? No! Why? Because the Word is not his authority? No! But because He is not a Father. in 1 Peter 5:2 pastors are exhorted to shepherd the flock of God. Should the civil magistrate enforce this? No, because he is not a pastor.
Lest anyone think that this is just a Baptist or American way of thinking. Let me quote that great Scotsman and Presbyterian John Murray. He well says, “Since the civil magistrate is invested with this authority by God and is obliged by divine ordinance to discharge these functions, he is responsible to God, the one living and true God who alone has ordained him. The magistrate is, therefore, under obligation to discharge the office devolving upon him in accordance with the revealed will of God. The Bible is the supreme and infallible revelation of God’s will and it is, therefore, the supreme and infallible rule in all departments of life. The civil magistrate is under obligation to recognize it as the infallible rule for the exercise of civil magistracy.”
Murray continues: “It must be recognized, however, that it is only within his own restricted sphere of authority that the civil magistrate, in his capacity as civil magistrate, is to apply the revelation of God’s will as provided in Scripture. It is only to the extent to which the revelation of Scripture bears upon the functions discharged by the state and upon the performance of the office of the civil magistrate, that he, in the discharge of these functions, is bound to fulfil the demands of Scripture. If the civil magistrate should attempt, in his capacity as magistrate, to carry into effect the demands of Scripture which bear upon him in other capacities, or the demands of Scripture upon other institutions, he would immediately be guilty of violating his prerogatives and of contravening the requirements of Scripture.”
Murray goes on: “The sphere of the church is distinct from that of the civil magistrate … What needs to be appreciated now is that its sphere is co-ordinate with that of the state. The church is not subordinate to the state, nor is the state subordinate to the church. They are both subordinate to God, and to Christ in his mediatorial dominion as head over all things to his body the church. Both church and state are under obligation to recognize this subordination, and the corresponding co-ordination of their respective spheres of operation in the divine institution. Each must maintain and assert its autonomy in reference to the other and preserve its freedom from intrusion on the part of the other.” [John Murray, Collected Writings, 1:253-54.]
Let me, then, ask the key question again. Why is the civil magistrate not to enforce the “first Table of the Law”? Is it because he is somehow not subject to the Word of God? No! He is not to enforce it because it is not within his jurisdiction to do so. Simply put, it is not his job! He must protect the religious liberty of all those subject to him by guarding their liberty, but it is not his duty to enforce religious uniformity on his subordinates. Though He rules in light of the Word of God, it is not his right to enforce religious uniformity on those under him. To put this in other words, it is not within the sphere of his sovereignty to do this. The body and not the soul is the concern and the sphere of the civil magistrate. Cf. Nehemiah 9:37.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | May 12, 2020 | Civil Government, Ecclesiology, Law
What Lies Beneath!
Most people are not experts on the history of Presbyterianism. This means that they might not realize that the mild and mannerly Presbyterianism with which we are familiar in the USA is not necessarily representative of the views of the original Reformed and Presbyterian views of church and state. The dear man of God which voiced those views in the webinar may not want all the practical implications of his confession. His confession—the original Westminster—still says what it says and practically implies what it implies. If he confesses it, then he must live with it and promote it. The fact is that the original Westminster is no friend to the religious liberty that Reformed Baptists and other Baptists hold dear.
Let us look then at what the original Westminster actually says. Take special note of the parts I have placed in bold italics.
In chapter 23 and paragraph 3 the privilege of interfering in the affairs of the church is plainly asserted. There it states: “The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.”
In Chapter 20 and paragraph 4 of the original Westminster a similar provision is made for the persecution of those contradicting the state religions. Of them it says: “for their publishing such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the civil magistrate.”
How can the state do such things without seriously compromising the church’s sovereignty under God–without making the church a slave of men? It cannot! If a state is to dictate religious belief or worship, this inevitably requires the State to rule the church or the church to rule the state. Since the Bible teaches the sphere-sovereignty of both the state and the church under God, to require the state to restrain violations of the first table of the law necessarily violates the teaching of Scripture. Furthermore, and of course, such a union of church and state inevitably destroys freedom of religion and the religious and soul liberty of Christians.
American Presbyterians, to their credit, saw these problems. Therefore, they became committed to a more biblical view of the separation of church and state. For this reason, they revised these statements of the original Westminster. Here is that revision. It is held by most Presbyterians in the USA. It may be found at http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_text.html. There it is described as the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION OF FAITH incorporating the American Revisions as adopted by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.
First, let us notice the significant change which takes place in Chapter 20, paragraph 4. Here is the revision of 20:4: “for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.” Notice the deletion of any reference to their being proceeded against by the power of the magistrate.
Here is the parallel section of 23:3. Take special note of the sections I have placed in bold italics: “Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”
Clearly, American Presbyterians recognized and revised the dangerous statements of the original Westminster. What lies beneath the fine-sounding phrases of the original Westminster and the original Presbyterian view of church and state is a view and practice hostile to religious liberty. And it is not just Baptists who think so. So also did American Presbyterians themselves.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Sam Waldron | May 7, 2020 | Civil Government, Ecclesiology, Law
What Dangers Lurk!
I found myself last week in a Webinar on the church’s response to the Covid 19 Crisis. In particular, the theme revolved around the idea of civil disobedience with respect to civil orders for churches to cease assembling for the time being as a medical quarantine. I was on a panel hosted by Scott Brown with five other pastors. These pastors represented various views of this matter and different approaches to the theological foundations which should guide the church and its pastors in making decisions on this matter.
Let me say that I found much to respect, appreciate, and agree with in the statements of these men. Surprisingly, though we came at this matter from somewhat different theological directions, it seemed to me that in our actual decisions and responses there was a high degree of practical agreement and unity. I suppose this was the case because all of us were foundationally committed to a Reformed approach to the Scriptures.
This respect and appreciation included the careful statements of one brother whose church (as he made clear) holds the original 1647 version of the Westminster Confession. (This is made explicit by the website of his church.) I deeply respect his affirmation that Christ is King over all things including not only the church but also the state. This is biblical and timely truth. I also respect his insistence on the civil magistrate governing not only in terms of the 2nd, but also the 1st Table of the Law. Such sentiments have a fine and Christian sounding ring to them! As a Reformed Baptist I am all for the observance of both tables of the law. I mourn the widespread violation of the first four commandments by many modern, professing Christians.
But Reformed Baptists did not receive religious freedom until 1688, the year of the glorious revolution in Great Britain. The reason for this was that the kind of view of church and state enshrined in the original version of the Westminster Confession was until then accepted and enforced by civil law. I think we must beware of what is deeply implied in the notion that the civil government is to enforce the 1st Table of the law. Historically, Baptists have been opposed to such a notion. The reason for this was because they understood that this notion is directly opposed to a right understanding of the separation of church and state and religious freedom—and specifically their religious freedom! There are reasons that Baptists took the lead in pushing for the Bill of Rights in our country and insisted that it include the free exercise of religion. There are lurking dangers in the original Westminster view of this. In my next few blogs, I want to open up the problem with the original Westminster and suggest a biblical alternative.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
