The Baptism Debate

Introduction

All that should matter in this life is the fact Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior of the world. Sadly enough for some church goers it is not. They would much rather spend their time arguing over what can be called second tier issues. What issues do you allow to rule your experience with the church or most importantly with Christ? Take baptism for example, in your church there is probably a particular standard that is adhered to and by you being a member you support it. But would you condemn a fellow Christian who attends a different church because they practice differently? When it comes to the controversy surrounding baptism D.M. Lloyd Jones wisely says, “Is it not perfectly obvious, before we go any further, that this subject cannot be finally decided, that it is not one of those subjects concerning which you can give an absolute and unmistakable proof? If it could, there would never have been all this controversy and there would not have been denominational distinctions.”^[1]

With all of that being said we must still take the time to investigate for ourselves and come to our own conclusion of what Scripture is telling us, without blindly following our denominational history. Throughout this essay there will be comparisons and contrast drawn between different views regarding the purpose and merits of baptism, who should receive baptism, and the different modes of baptism. Personally this essay has been a challenge for me, as a member of a PCA church. In the end hopefully a biblical and well balanced understanding of baptism has been presented. If a random person were to walk up to you and ask, “Why were you baptized?” and then followed it with “Is there any benefits to it?” how would you respond?

The Purpose and Merits of Baptism

In helping us to understand what the purpose is we will first take a look at what it is not. Nettles says, “The first caricature sees baptism as nothing more than a personal insurance policy that the one baptized will go to heaven; the second reduces baptism to receiving a name or to getting into the membership of a particular church within a certain cultural expression.”[2] Now that we have established what baptism’s purpose is not, we must examine what it is. According to the Baptist view, baptism is a symbol of Christ saving work. There are those who will argue that baptism is merely a symbol and holds little to no spiritual significance, while others believe we become regenerated through our baptism, and another sees it a mysterious encounter with God.

Nettles argues, “Baptism represents the confident reliance on the judgment that Christ took for us, which judgment becomes our salvation. Baptism itself does not remove the damnable filth but expresses one’s confidence that only the propitiatory death of Christ saves.[3] It can also be stated that the Baptist view, points to baptism symbolizing a person’s acceptance into a congregation. Castelein in Understanding Four View on Baptism rebuttals this argument with, “One important truth needs to be added: the church (both in its universal essence and local expressions) is the body of Christ. The Scriptures do not warrant separating incorporation into Christ by faith from a later incorporation into a local church by baptism.”[4]

The Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that upon baptism man then begins the process of regeneration, making it a necessary act to receive salvation. Lloyd Jones expresses that, “No sacrament is essential to salvation: if you say it is, you are aligning yourself with the Roman Catholics. Protestants have always said that while baptism and the Lord’s Supper are commands of the Lord, and we should therefore practice them, they are not essential. They do not add grace, they simply point to it and bring it to us in a special way.”^[5]

That special way would fall into the Reformed view, because “…Reformed theology views baptism as a mysterious encounter with God that takes place through a rite involving physical elements and special ceremony. Through this encounter, God graciously distributes blessings to those who participate by faith and also judgment to those who participate without faith.”[6] It is usually argued that the Reformed view believes that baptism is sacramental and covenantal. This response in the end comes across rather ambiguous and very confusing. When reading on the Reformed understanding of baptism, one cannot help but notice that there is a heavy reliance on creeds and confessions.

One of the best summations I have heard about baptism comes from,. J. I. Packer, who believes,

“Baptism carries these meanings because first and fundamentally it signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-12); and this union with Christ is the source of every element in our salvation (1 John 5:11-12). Receiving the sign in faith assures the persons baptized that God’s gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live henceforth in a new way as committed disciples of Jesus.”^[7]

After hearing all of these different views my understanding is our baptism signifies our union with Christ, while telling others we have come to trust the Lord for our eternal salvation, and it’s a promise of assurance of our justification.

Who Should Be Baptized?

This is a question that has caused heated debate, and it would seem that the New Testament points more in favor to a believer’s baptism over the padeo-baptism argument. When we scour the New Testament we can find no direct place where we are told to baptize infants. Elwell supports this by saying, “To be sure, there is no direct prohibition of infant baptism in the NT. But in the absence of the direction either way it is surely better to carry out the sacrament or ordinance as obviously commanded and practiced than to rely on exegetical or theological inference for a different administration.”[8]

Often times supporters of infant baptism will choose to cite Acts 2:39 to support their view of the covenant extending to their physical family. Again Lloyd Jones notices that,

“Clearly, by ‘children’ Peter does not mean physical descendants, he does not mean the children of those listening but, in effect: ‘The promise is not only for you who are immediately here, now, but is for the next generation and the generation after that and after that and it will continue down the running centuries. And it is not only for Jews but also for those who are afar off’—the Gentiles, those who are outside the commonwealth of Israel. Indeed, it is for ‘as many as the Lord our God shall call’.”^[9]

After defining what is to be the purpose of baptism and its meaning, the case for infant baptism seems that much weaker; because when we view the majority of accounted for baptisms in the New Testament we can see that they follow a very specific pattern of preaching, repentance, and then baptism. “Accordingly, the only appropriate candidate for the witness of baptism is someone who has something about which he can bear witness (Acts 2:38; 8:12–13, 36–38; Eph. 4:5).”^[10] It has been argued that to baptize babies into faith is dangerous because if they grow up and leave the faith it brings condemnation on them.[11] In regards to this argument Lloyd Jones answers with,

“Similarly, people often say something like this: ‘Look at the thousands of children who were baptized when they were infants. p 43 They were accepted into the Christian Church but subsequently they lapsed, proving that they were never really Christians at all.’ The answer again, of course, is exactly the same. That has happened, alas, thousands of times with people who were baptized on confession of faith when they were adults. We must be very careful as we handle these arguments because the same point can be raised on both sides. We must not base our arguments on observations but, as we have been trying to do, on the Scriptures.”^[12]

Proponents of infant baptism will cite the fact that circumcision is for all of God’s people in the Old Testament, and baptism is the correlating sign for the New Testament. One thing that they tend to neglect is that the idea of the mark of the covenant has gone from being physical to spiritual. One key text that padeo-baptist tend to rely on for their circumcision/baptism argument is Colossians 2:11-12. Salter says of this text that, “…baptism and spiritual circumcision are connected with spiritual cleansing and new life. In this respect they are unlike physical circumcision, which is sharply distinguished from spiritual circumcision and its concomitant realities. Paedobaptists have blurred the distinction between the physical and spiritual that Paul sees so clearly.”^[13] Supporters of infant baptism also choose to cite references in the Book of Acts 16:15 and 33 in attempts to say that when it mentions whole households that it includes infants also. We have no way of knowing for sure who was in the household so this is a case of speculation.

There are also attempts to say that the holiness of the parents can be passed on to the children as long as their parents are believers based upon 1 Corinthians 7:14. Two very theologically sound men J. I. Packer and D. M. Lloyd Jones have very different views about the meaning of this verse in particular. Packer contests that, “…one partner has become a Christian by invoking the certainty that the children of such a marriage are relationally and covenantally “holy,” that is, are dedicated to and accepted by God in company with their one Christian parent. So the principle of parent-and-child solidarity still stands, as Peter also indicated in his Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:39).” ^[14] In regards to Packers assertion we have already mentioned Lloyd Jones view of Acts 2:39, so there is no need to repeat it here.

In the end there is no empirical evidence that tells us to baptize infants while we were given the specific command of the Lord to make disciples and baptize them (Matt 28:19-20). So that leaves me agreeing with Boyd & Eddy, when they say, “Without exception, baptism follows faith and constitutes the first act of discipleship made by a responsible person who has decided to follow Jesus.”[15]

The Mode of Baptism

The mode of baptism has become a topic of great debate over the last several hundred years. While it is argued that the word “…baptiziō its cognates often refer to immersing or dipping, these terms are also used to describe washing and cleansing.”[16] While conversely the Holman Bible Illustrated Dictionary says,

“But overwhelmingly the most prominent use of the word refers to the first response of obedience by a new follower of Jesus. The word “baptize” is itself a loanword borrowed from the Greek term baptizo. Few scholars contest that the meaning of the term is “immerse,” and not “to pour” or “to sprinkle.” In classical Greek, the word is used, for example, to describe the sinking of a ship that is, therefore, “immersed” or totally enveloped in water.”^[17]

According to Packer, “No prescription of a particular mode of baptism can be found in the New Testament. The command to baptize may be fulfilled by immersion, dipping, or sprinkling; all three modes satisfy the meaning of the Greek verb baptizo and the symbolic requirement of passing under, and emerging from, cleansing water.”^[18] What is to be found more interesting are the multiple ways the word baptizō can be understood. Lloyd Jones gives us a great example with these words,

“If you read Luke 11:37–38 you will find this: ‘And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner.’ The word used there is baptizō and clearly it does not mean that they were surprised that he did not go and have a complete bath. No, it was the custom of the Pharisees, before they sat down to eat, to hold their hands under running water. They thought it was essential and were surprised that our Lord, instead of holding His hands under running water, immediately sat down. So there is the suggestion of sprinkling.^[19]

It has also been alluded to, that Old Testament cleansings can relate to baptism. If that is the case when we understand those cleansings we know that they very rarely involved full immersions but sprinklings. When the priest would make offering on the altar he would sprinkle the corners of the altar. “In the Old Testament things were set apart, purified, consecrated and sanctified by sprinkling. The horns of the altar were sprinkled with blood, and blood was sprinkled in front of the curtain of the Holy Place (Lev. 4).”^[20]

With all things being considered both forms of baptism should be acceptable, because when we understand, “In Romans 6, Paul refers to burial to show the absolute character of death.”[21]

Conclusion

This essay has attempted to prove the purpose of baptism, by showing our union with the Lord Jesus Christ, and that it should be only for adult believers who are able to make a conscious decision to do so. While I believe that both modes of baptism are acceptable it should be the heart of the person receiving baptism that is more important than the means in which it is received. Baptism while not being essential to our salvation is vital to our relationship with the Lord because he told his disciples, ““If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15 ESV)

Bibliography

Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Cross, F. L. and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Elwell, Water A., ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic, 2001.

Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Edited by Brand, Chad, Charles Draper, Archie England et al. Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003.

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. The Church and the Last Things. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1998.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Nettles, Thomas J., et al. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Edited by John H. Armstrong. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.

Packer, J. I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1993.

Salter, Martin. "Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship Between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11–12". In Themelios: Volume 35, No. 1, April 2010. United Kingdom: The Gospel Coalition, 2010.

Schaff, Philip and David Schley Schaff. History of the Christian Church. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Strawbridge, Gregg ed. The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003.

---

^[1] David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Church and the Last Things (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1998), 35.

[2] Nettles, Thomas J., et al. Understanding Four Views on Baptism. Edited by John H. Armstrong. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) 20.

[3] Ibid,38.

[4] Ibid, 51.

^[5] Lloyd-Jones, The Church, 36.

[6] Nettles, Understanding, 59.

^[7] J. I. Packer, Concise Theology : A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1995).

[8] Water A.Elwell, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (Grand Rapids,MI: BakerAcademic, 2001)131.

^[9] Lloyd-Jones, The Church, 40.

^[10] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 168.

[11] Elwell, Dictionary,134.

^[12] Lloyd-Jones, The Church, 42-43.

^[13] Martin Salter, "Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship Between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11–12" In , in Themelios: Volume 35, No. 1, April 2010 (United Kingdom: The Gospel Coalition, 2010), 29.

^[14] Packer, Concise,

[15]Gregory A. Boyd, and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002)218.

[16] Gregg Strawbridge, ed. The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. Phillipsburg: (Presbyterian and Reformed, 2003)115.

^[17] Brand , Holman, 167-68.

^[18] Packer, Concise.

^[19] Lloyd-Jones, The Church, 44.

^[20]Ibid, 45.

[21] Strawbridge, The Case, 116.

WHAT WENT WRONG: THE THEOLOGY OF FRIEDRICH SCHLEIERMACHER

Introduction

Have you ever stopped and considered how you view the Bible? No, then take a moment and do so. Now, did you tell yourself that it is the inspired word of God, or is a bunch of stories that people use to make them feel better about themselves? What you think of the Bible will determine, how you think of God. During the Enlightenment and the early part of the eighteenth century, the way people understood the Bible became a big deal.

Ever since the first several centuries after Christianity’s star began to rise, there has been controversy over the Scriptures themselves, especially about what should be considered as Scripture. However, it would be during the eighteenth century that Kant and others like him would begin to deny validity of the Bible and its need in our lives. Kant basically believed that since we cannot see God we cannot trust that he exists, and in the end all we can do is try to lead good lives.

During the early to mid-nineteenth century there was a German man named Friedrich Schleiermacher, who while trying to do a noble thing would end up tearing a hole in the heart of the gospel. He would attempt to reconcile science and religion to one another without ever staying true to either side of his argument. Hodge in his systematic theology says, “The supernaturalists, who believed in the Bible, charged him with substituting the conclusions of his own philosophy for the dictates of Christian consciousness. And the philosophers said he was true neither to his philosophy nor to his religion. He changed from one ground to the other just as it suited his purpose.”^[1] This essay hopes to take a look at the man and his theology and see where he happened to go wrong.

The Man

While most homes in today’s society seem to lack any religious influence, this was not the case prior to and even somewhat after the Enlightenment period. This is the time when Friedrich Schleiermacher was born; while there is no exact date we are told he was born in 1768. Schleiermacher was, “a native of Breslau in Silesia, he was the son of a Reformed army chaplain, and, after his parents’ conversion to the *Herrnhuter Brethren, was educated at their college at Niesky and their seminary at Barby.” ^[2] By him being the son of a Reformed chaplain, we can assume that he had a very strong theology instilled into him from a rather early age. Gonzalez points out that: “Although Schleiermacher was Reformed, Moravian Pietism did leave its mark on his theology.” [3] While he was a student at the university he was introduced and became very interested in the arguments of Immanuel Kant.

When he was close to thirty years old he left his job as a tutor and an assistant pastor with his uncle to go to Berlin and become the chaplain of Charity Hospital there. During this time he was struggling with his own understanding and was starting to feel torn between theology and philosophy. It would be during this time that the insights of the Romantics would help him find his own voice from the debacle the rationalism had created.[4] Shortly thereafter in 1799 he would go onto write his famous On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. For a time Friedrich was an assistant professor at the University of Halle, during his time there he would write several different works; one on Plato would be influential for years to come. His time at the university would be overshadowed the Napoleonic Wars and the French invasions. In 1809 he returned to Berlin where he “…was a professor of theology and also minister of the Trinity Church. The church itself was an early venture in ecumenical relations. It was shared by the Reformed and Lutheran churches, which the king of Prussia was anxious to bring together as an instrument of unification and renewal. Schleiermacher represented the Reformed Church.” ^[5]

In 1821 he wrote his most influential work, The Christian Faith as an attempt to write a systematic theology for both of the churches. It would be this work that would epitomize the last days of his life. After learning about the man, its time to examine his theology and see what went wrong.

His Theology

Throughout most of his life his theology was constantly evolving because he felt the need to “…bring together the academic world, the church, the state, and family life.”^[6] Over time Schleiermacher’s focus would become less of what the Bible had to say and more about feelings. Gonzalez points out,

“His main argument was that religion is not a form of knowledge, as both the rationalist and orthodox believed. Nor is it a system of morality, as Kant implied. Religion is grounded neither in pure nor in practical or moral reason, but rather in Gefühl—a German word that is best translated, although not quite accurately, as feeling. The Speeches did not clarify the content of such feeling, and Schleiermacher undertook that task in his more mature work, The Christian Faith. There he clearly shows that this is not a sentimental feeling, nor a passing emotion or a sudden experience, but is rather the profound awareness of the existence of the One on whom all existence depends—both ours and that of the world around us.”[7]

Schleiermacher’s ideas at the time were not making a huge impact but later in the nineteenth century and even until modern times he has found a following. While most historians give us a glimpse into his theology, Charles Hodge in his systematic theology has a whole section dedicated to Schleiermacher’s theology (especially his Christology and Anthropology). His teaching on feeling is most well known, but what makes his teaching even more dangerous is his denial of the Trinity, and his teaching on the person and work of Christ. During this time most churches were using creeds and other things to affirm what they believed, and heresies were departures from these affirmations; but the doctrine of the two natures in Christ, and three persons in God, he believed to be misleading, and the resurrection, ascension and return in judgment inessential.[8]

It is a sad state when a man who claims to follow Jesus denies all of the aspects of what makes up the doctrines of Christian faith. Hodge states, “The first objection to Schleiermacher’s theory is that it is not and does not pretend to be Biblical. It is not founded upon the objective teachings of the Word of God. It assumes, indeed, that the religious experience of the Apostles and early Christians was substantially the same, and therefore involved the same truths, as the experience of Christians of the present day.” ^[9] In the end Schleiermacher felt he was doing something important and powerful for the kingdom of God, while in reality he

“… greatly influenced Christianity through three major achievements. First, he made religion socially acceptable to those who no longer took the Bible and its doctrines seriously by showing its appeal to man’s aesthetic tendencies. Second, he attracted to theology countless young men who were interested in religion primarily as an expression of man’s imaginative spirit. And third, for a time he changed biblical criticism from historical to literary analysis.”^[10]

Conclusion

It would be his so called achievements that would lead him to being known as “The Father of Liberal Theology”. It would be his theology that would influence the likes of Ritschl and Kierkegaard, he would find some of his greatest challengers “in the twentieth century, Karl Barth and Emil Brunner voiced the criticism of many when they pointed out that Schleiermacher’s theology, being man–centered, neglected the revelation of God in his Word.”^[11]

When we stop taking the Bible as our greatest authority and place our own feelings in its place we deny our need for God. Also, by denying who Christ is and his atoning work we basically tell others and ourselves that we are capable of redeeming our own souls. As long as we hold the Bible in great respect and trust that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV)

As Christians the ultimate goal is to live a life according to what Scripture teaches while also surrendering to the Holy Spirit. In all things come back to the Bible and if you must choose between a feeling and what Scripture teaches, go with Scripture and you will never go wrong.

Bibliography

Brown, C. "Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst Daniel". In Who's Who in Christian History. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992.

Cross, F. L. and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Eckman, James P. Exploring Church History. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002.

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianty Volume II: The Reformation to the Present Day. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2010.

Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Johnson, Paul. A History of Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976.

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Nashville: Nelson, 1995.

---

^[1] Charles Hodge, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 443.

^[2] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 1474.

[3] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianty Volume II: The Reformation to the Present Day. (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2010) 389.

[4] Ibid, 389

^[5] C. Brown, "Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst Daniel" In , in Who's Who in Christian History, ed. J.D. Douglas and Philip W. Comfort (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1992), 611.

^[6] Ibid, 611.

[7] Gonzalez, Story, 389.

[8]Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976) 375.

^[9] Hodge, vol. 2, Systematic, 443.

^[10] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 143.

^[11] Brown, Who's Who, 612.

Gospel of Mark Bible Study pt 4

The Decline of Christianity in Europe

Introduction

Things in life deteriorate that’s just the way life goes. The brand new car your neighbor purchased ten years ago is beginning to show signs of age. When it comes to the process of deterioration we can very easily see the signs that it has begun, especially when it takes place on material items. But, my question for you is how easy is it to recognize when it is disguised? Your very own body may be feeling the effects of arthritis or some other disease; and how many people actually see it?

The same can be said of relationships, they can appear healthy and fruitful from the outside but the root is decaying. There are plenty of other examples that can be used in this scenario, but what is one place that has hidden its decay well until recently? The churches of Europe, have been in a drastic down swing over the last century. This is not to say that every country in Europe is having a massive collapse, some countries are thriving while others are dwindling out of existence at an alarming rate. One author makes the statement, “…unless long-stable trends are reversed, major British denominations will cease to exist by 2030.”[1]

Some of the hardest things to track in life are the intangibles. There are people on both sides of the argument that want to say that the church in Europe is no worse for the wear, while others say that it may soon reach its demise. There are several factors that may hold some truth to it meeting its demise; they include the church and state being tied together, the enlightenment, and the rise of secularism.

The Tie That Binds

The state that Christianity in Europe is in today did not happen overnight, it was a process that has taken numerous years to reach this point. Sadly enough it all pretty much started back when Constantine became the ruler of the empire. Lutzer says, “With Constantine in power, Christianity was no longer a sect within the empire but became synonymous with the empire. One would now be a Christian by simply being born into the empire, not necessarily by having personal faith in Christ.”[2] By not allowing there to be a separation of the church and state, and calling all people in the empire “Christian”, the numbers would not reflect an accurate account of true believers in the church.

History has proven that when a leader of any country is given ecclesiastical rule it can do great harm to the church. Because he or she pushes their agenda of what they feel should be the majority and there is no room for growth or change. Collin Hansen in his article European Christianity’s “Failure to Thrive” says, “Rome’s fall, Constantinople‘s forsaking, and Christendom’s eventual collapse during the Reformation era’s wars of religion reveal the perils of uniting the church so closely with temporal earthly regimes. Bluntly put, the church that lives by state power, dies by state power—its fortunes are too closely tied to political vicissitudes.”[3]

The Age of Reason

If the separation of the church from the state was the beginning, the Enlightenment was the next step in the gradual demise of European Christianity. Living centuries after the Enlightenment has taken place we may not understand what it is being described. To break it down it is made up of “…two things: rejection of biblical and ecclesiastical authority, and unlimited trust in human reason. Neither of these was a new idea on the scene of history: both were also typical of the Renaissance and humanism.”[4] Even with learning on the rise amongst the peoples of Europe, and this time would be called the Age of Reason it did not spread at a rapid rate. Shelley says, “The term should not suggest that every blacksmith and village priest suddenly assumed the airs of an intellectual. Many Christians lived and died in the faith of their fathers, totally unconscious that a new age had dawned. But the outlook and direction of Europe had changed.”[5]

One of the hot beds for this change was France, and one of the captains at large was John Locke. He would go on to espouse his beliefs of God and that if you could not prove it, it should not be trusted. On top of that “… many Enlightenment thinkers repudiated all religion, including Christianity, as superstitious. They thought that religion needed to be replaced with a rational system of ethics.”^[6] While it may seem that anything dealing with God has come under attack during that time, Shelley says that: “Curiously enough, atheism was not at all fashionable in this “polite society.” Most of the prominent “infidels” who ridiculed Christianity during the eighteenth century believed in a “Supreme Being” but regarded it superstitious to hold that he interfered with the world-machine. This belief was called deism.”[7] Two of the biggest challengers to the work of God were Voltaire and Kant. Voltaire was not an atheist as many today try to assert he was a deist and has been known to have said, “That if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent one.”[8] Kant, however, would take that sentiment and go further saying, “…you do not know for certain that God exists, but you live as if He does!”^[9]

Unfortunately, this type of thinking would even penetrate into the church and effect the way the gospel would be presented. Apparently “Many Reformed ministers were influenced by these ideas and preached sermons that resembled lectures on Greek mythology, Roman history, contemporary science—sermons that aimed at the glorification of man and human knowledge.”[10] Deism would deal a hearty blow to the church which would lead into a future of theological liberalism that began to eat at the heart of the Christian faith; they would accomplish this by questioning the validity of the New Testament. However, this revolution would not stop there.

“Liberal theology next began a quest for the historical Jesus. Its theologians asked, since we cannot trust the New Testament, what is the ground on which we can build our understanding of Jesus? Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) called for the “demythologizing” of the Gospels, the peeling off of the husks, to find the kernel of truth. That Jesus existed, Bultmann argued, is about all that can be claimed as certain. The antisupernaturalism of the Enlightenment reached its peak with Bultmann.”^[11]

Recent History

The Enlightenment has forever altered the way Europeans and some other parts of the world view religion. It has been said that “Over the years France has exemplified the convergence of academic skepticism and popular unrest that has produced empty church pews across the continent.”[12] With people groups of Europe wishing to keep their “spirituality” separate from other aspects of their life, they have perpetuated the idea of secularism and in turn sped up the rate of decline in the church. Bruce says that: “The proportion of people claiming Christian beliefs is considerably higher than the proportion of people who actively support the Christian churches, but those data show a steady decline in the popularity of Christian beliefs that shadows the decline in church adherence.”[13]

I would chose to argue that while people have become disenfranchised with the church it has nothing to do with the body as a whole but the social pressures they chose to adhere to. We can either choose to worship God as he tells us to or we can chose a form of idolatry that suits us best. “If one form of religion declines, another should take its place.”[14] Religion can be made up of any type of worship you wish to offer to anything you declare worthy of it. In Europe, the religion of Islam has had a rather rapid rise, while atheism has also grown. With the church failing to evangelize the people, the good news is not going out and new converts are not able to bolster the numbers inside the church.[15]

Conclusion

Christianity in Europe at one time appeared to be thriving because of its ties to the government not realizing that very relationship would begin to usher in its demise. Along with the Enlightenment that puffed men up and took upon themselves roles of judge against God and his word. While Europe has been a detriment to itself in terms of Christianity, the rest of the body of Christ that can see what is happening needs to rise up and take a firmer stance to bring back this member that we may become one whole. If we sit back and watch Christianity deteriorate in Europe without a care, what may happen next? When the church you attend or Christianity as a whole in your city, state, or country begins to vanish, will you sit idly by?

Bibliography

Bruce, Steve. "Christianity in Britain, R.I.P." Sociology of Religion 62, no. 2 (June 1, 2001): 191-203. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 8, 2011).

Cross, F. L. and Elizabeth A. Livingstone. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. rev. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Eckman, James P. Exploring Church History. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002.

Greeley, Andrew M. "Religious Decline in Europe?." America 190, no. 7 (March 2004): 16-18. Military & Government Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed September 8, 2011).

Hansen, Collin. "European Christianity's "Failure to Thrive"." Christianity Today Library. August 8, 2008. http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/news/2003/jul18.html (accessed September 9, 2011).

Hill, Jonathan. Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Lutzer, Erwin. The Doctrines That Divide. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Shelley, Bruce L. Church History in Plain Language. Nashville: Nelson, 1995.

Timmer, John. "Dutch Calvinism. (2), Eighteenth-century decline." Reformed Journal 28, no. 4 (April 1, 1978): 23-26. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 9, 2011).

---

[1]Steve Bruce, "Christianity in Britain, R.I.P." Sociology of Religion 62, no. 2 (June 1, 2001): 191-203. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 8, 2011) 191 .

[2] Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998) 122.

[3]Collin Hansen,. "European Christianity's "Failure to Thrive"." Christianity Today Library. August 8, 2008. http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/news/2003/jul18.html (accessed September 9, 2011)2.

[4] John Timmer, "Dutch Calvinism. (2), Eighteenth-century decline." Reformed Journal 28, no. 4 (April 1, 1978): 23-26. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 9, 2011) 24.

[5] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language. (Nashville: Nelson, 1995) 314.

^[6] James P. Eckman, Exploring Church History (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002), 72.

[7] Shelley, Church, 316.

[8] Ibid, 317.

^[9] Eckman, Exploring, 74.

[10] Timmer, Dutch, 25.

^[11] Eckman, Exploring, 75.

[12] Hansen, European, 1.

[13] Bruce, Christianity, 201.

[14] Ibid,192.

[15] Here is a link to the current Pope admitting there was not enough evangelization during is generation. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/08/29/my-generation-did-not-evangelise-enough-says-pope/

Technorati Tags: Decline of Churches in Europe,Demise of Christianity. Impact of the Enlightenment

Understanding Prototokos in Colossians 1:15

For centuries the deity and humanity of Christ has been argued. Going all the way back to the late fourth century when the Nicene Creed was put together as an answer to Arius’ teaching. However, even before that, the Apostle Paul in Colossians 1:15 was dealing with that same heresy in the local church. The word that has played the most havoc on this issue is firstborn or prototokos, which can refer to birth right, existing before or superior. Vaughn emphasizes,

“It may denote either priority in time (cf. Moff., Am. Trans.) or supremacy in rank (NIV). In the present passage perhaps we should see both meanings. Christ is before all creation in time; he is also over it in rank and dignity. The major stress, however, seems to be on the idea of supremacy.”[1]

The vast majority of commentators and authors agree with the view that its origins are not dealing with order of birth but with superiority. Lutzer says,

“Even if the word be translated firstborn, this would not imply that Christ was the first being to be created. Though Jacob was younger than his brother, Esau, Jacob was the firstborn. It is not a matter of time but status determines who the first born is. Christ is the preeminent One.” [2]

In light of all of this we can see Christ preeminence and also ask ourselves the question that if Christ is a creation, how then can he sustain all other created things (v16)? To top things off, Walvoord and Zuck show us, “The “Firstborn” received worship of all the angels (Heb. 1:6), but creatures should not be worshiped (Ex. 20:4-5). (5) The Greek word for “Firstborn” is prōtotokos. If Christ were the “first-created,” the Greek word would have been prōtoktisis.^[3] In the end Christ is the one who receives the full inheritance of the Father because he was the firstborn. Those of us who believe in Christ will get to share in that with him but all power and glory will solely belong to him.

---

[1] Curtis. Vaughn, "Colossians." In The Expositors Bible Commentary, Vol 11, by Frank E. Gaebelin. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981)182.

[2] Erwin Lutzer, The Doctrines That Divide. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998) 32.

^[3] John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983-), Col 1:15.