EVANGELISM • LEADERSHIP • MISSIOLOGY • CHURCH HEALTH View this email in your browser

Art Rainer, like his father, turns out a lot practical material on his blog everyweek.  Here is one related to stewardship he recently posted and I wanted to share it here. The post should contain the links to his webpage if you click on the picture below.  -Enjoy Pastor Garrett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 Signs You Need to Reevaluate How You Handle Your Finances Avoiding Financial Disaster Starts Today photo credit:  Sign Of The Times – Foreclosure  via  photopin   (license) O ver time, it becomes easy to get lulled into thinking your financial picture is fine and completely normal. You grow accustomed to the way things are and rarely question if there is a better way. But subtly, your financial situation is eroding. And if not addressed, you will come face-to-face with a financial disaster. Before a financial disaster arrives, there are some warning signs. Here are six signs that you need to ree

Repeatedly, the New Testament writers exhort local churches to be unified—to be of one mind. Paul writes to one local church, “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there may be no divisions among you, but that you may be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10; see also Rom. 12:16; 2 Cor. 13:11; 1 Pet. 3:8).  As we gather together in our local churches and give ourselves to hearing the voice of God through his preached Word, we’re shaped into one body. We are united in understanding and purpose. And that unity testifies to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ (John 17:21).  But if we listen with our own interests and agendas in mind, if we develop “private interpretations” and idiosyncratic views, we risk shattering that unity , provoking disputes over doubtful matters, and weakening our corporate gospel witness. Anyabwile, T. M. (2008). What Is a Healthy Church Member? (pp. 21–22). Wheaton, IL: Cr

As members of local congregations,  we are called to be kind, compassionate and forgiving (Eph 4:32; Col 3:13).  We are not to grumble against one another (Jas 5:9) but rather are to bear with one another (Eph 4:2), live in harmony (Rom 12:16), and so be united (Matt 12:25; John 17:21,23; 1 Cor 1:10).  We are to honor one another, be devoted to one another (Rom 12:10), and be humble to one another (1 Pet 5:5).  We are to confess our sins to one another (Jas 5:16), serve one another (Gal 5:13), and pray for one another (Jas 5:16).  We are to have an equal concern for each member (1 Cor 12:25) regardless of status or wealth (Jas 2:1–4). As members of the local church, we are called to be hospitable to one another in our homes (1 Pet 4:9) and meet together regularly in our assemblies (Heb 10:25).  We are to meet with the express purpose of edifying one another (Heb 10:25; 1 Cor 14:26; 1 Thess 5:11) and encouraging one another (1 Thess 5:11; Heb 3:13).  We are called to speak to

A good pastor must pray that the Lord would sanctify him and his people in the truth. If a pastor does this, he follows the greatest example possible. The Chief Shepherd prayed for sanctification in the truth in his High Priestly Prayer:  “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth” (John 17:15–17, 19).  Robert Murray McCheyne concluded that the people in his charge needed nothing more from him than his holiness. perhaps McCheyne grasped something of Jesus’s own heart. Jesus sanctified himself for the disciples so that they would be sanctified in the truth.  The sanctifying truth that Jesus had in mind was the truth of God’s Word. The Savior prayed, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). And so, those who follow the Chief Shepherd as under-shephe

EVANGELISM • LEADERSHIP • MISSIOLOGY • CHURCH HEALTH View this email in your browser

WHAT’S GOOD ABOUT HAVING A GLAD GOD IN THE GOSPEL? The happiness of God is first and foremost a happiness in his Son. Thus when we share in the happiness of God, we share in the very pleasure that the Father has in the Son. Ultimately this is what makes the gospel good news. It opens the way for us to see and savor the glory of Christ. And when we reach that ultimate goal we will find ourselves savoring the Son with the very happiness that the Father has in the Son. This is why Jesus made the Father known to us. At the end of his great prayer in John 17:26 he said to his Father, “I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.” The love God has for the Son will be in us. That is, the love for the Son that will be in us will be the Father’s love for the Son. We will not merely love the Son with our paltry ability to love. But our love for the Son will be infused with the divine love bet

Although our appeal is to Scripture, our Pœdo-Baptist friends must really not suppose that the testimony of the Church is all in their favour, for certainly for two or three centuries if not more, the baptism of infant children was not the general practise of the Christian church. It was opposed by Tertullian at the latter end of the second century or the beginning of the third; and at a far later date than this, we find baptism administered to persons of mature years. ... But we find that several of the most eminent and pious fathers of the Church were not baptized until they had arrived at maturity and were thoroughly Christian men.  In the fourth century flourished Gregory of Nazianzum, Ambrose of Milan, Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine; these eminent men, who were afterwards such great theologians, were all them the sons of Christian parents, at least of Christian mothers, and yet not one of them was baptized until mature age, and until each of them had strong religious

To baptize infants, Reformed paedobaptists are inconsistent with their own definition of baptism. With little variation Calvin, Murray, and Marcel define baptism as cleansing, mortification, and union with Christ. Significantly, they each appeal to the necessary response of faith on the part of the one baptized. Therefore, baptism, according to their careful NT exegesis, represents an individual’s commitment to Christ.  Each of them goes on to argue, however, for the baptism of infants who have not exercised faith and therefore have not been cleansed of sin, have not mortified (or are not in the process of mortifying) the flesh, and are not united to Christ. For example, how does Calvin stress baptism’s role in uniting a believer with Christ and still advocate the baptism of infants, who lack faith and therefore are not united to Christ? François Wendel rightly notes that “Calvin seems to be making union with Christ dependent upon reception of baptism, whereas almost everywhere

Calvin, Murray, and Marcel each turn to Jesus’ welcoming of the little children in Matt 19:14 as justification for infant baptism. This incident from Jesus’ ministry, however, has nothing to do with paedobaptism. Certainly, this passage shows the Lord’s love for children. But Jesus uses the little ones as an example of his requirement for childlike faith. Baptism is not in view at all.  Thus, D. A. Carson notes:   Jesus does not want the little children prevented from coming to him (v. 14), not because the kingdom of heaven belongs to them, but because the kingdom of heaven belongs to those like them (so also Mark and Luke, stressing childlike faith): Jesus receives them because they are an excellent object lesson in the kind of humility and faith he finds acceptable. As Timothy George concludes, “Jesus took a special interest in children, received them into his arms, and blessed them. He did not baptize them.”  So we should welcome, love, and nurture children, teaching the

Calvin, Murray, and Marcel each use the material of the NT to “corroborate” what they previously argued about the nature of the sacraments and the covenant of grace. When they define baptism alone, they rely on the NT. But when they try to apply this biblical definition of baptism to the practice of baptizing infants, they are unconvincing since the NT gives us no warrant for paedobaptism. When they seek to justify infant baptism, they disregard the NT epistolary material that teaches specifically what baptism represents. This may be because none of these passages (e.g., Rom 6:3–4, 1 Pet 3:21) mentions infants; indeed, their exclusion of infants is almost explicit since infants cannot be said to have faith in Christ. Thus the covenantal reading of the Bible by Reformed paedobaptists results in an importing of OT constructs into the NT contrary to NT teaching. Their understanding of the new covenant is not new enough. [1] …the appeal to Acts 2:38–39 fails to read Peter’s words in

In the NT, it is beyond question that circumcision is abrogated as a sign of membership in the church. Circumcision, in light of Christ’s coming, is no longer a covenantally significant sign and thus is not required for believers, whether they are Jewish or Gentile (see Acts 15:1–35; Gal 1:6–9; 2:11–16; 6:15; 1 Cor 7:18–19).  In Christ, the previous covenants have come to fulfillment, and, as such, the covenant sign of circumcision is no longer necessary; it has served its purpose. Now, in Christ, and the creation of the “new man” (Eph 2:11–22), the law-covenant has been fulfilled and the God-given divisions tied to that law-covenant have been removed so much so that Paul can proclaim, “ Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation” (Gal 6:15) .  In this new era, a new covenantal sign, baptism, has been established to testify of the gospel and to identify one as having become the spiritual seed of Abraham, through faith in Messiah Jesus. B