​On a recent trip to England my wife and I were travelling somewhere and stopped at Ashby De La Zouch, a small market town in the midlands, for a walk and a bite to eat. As we explored we went inside the local Church, St. Helen’s. Here, without looking for it, I realized I was standing over the marker of a famous evangelical Christian, Selina, the Countess of Huntingdon (1707–1791). How incredible!

Selina’s usefulness made her the subject of many works, both popular and academic. (Click here to see a book, here to watch a children’s story, and here to read a summary blog).

Here is a brief summary of her life:
​
Selina was born into a well to do family and married into an even greater one, moving in such circles as the King! Thus she had both great wealth and influence. Always a moral woman, she learned her works could not save her and she was converted in 1739 and was “all aflame for Jesus.” Though an Anglican she became associated with Methodism, knowing the Wesleys and George Whitefield. Later, through her own study, she followed Whitefield and support Calvinistic Methodism. She became an influential leader in the Evangelical Revival, particularly by the desire that all she knew, including the nobility, would become Christians. Because evangelical clergy were frowned upon she used her peerage to appoint evangelical clergy as her “chaplains.” She also built some 60 chapels were evangelicals could preach (later known as The Countess of Huntingdon Connexion) and funded other works. She also funded Travecca College (1767), a place for training evangelicals. A woman of great piety (and wealth), she lived simply so that Jesus might be known. She was buried with her husband and three people in attendance. Though she is largely unknown today, she is well known to the Lord (2 Cor 6:9).

As a church we believe in and practice church discipline (henceforth CD) (Handbook 10.0). This is because we are a believers’ church comprised of members who have made and continue to make a credible profession of faith (Statement of Faith-The Church; Church Covenant; Handbook 7.0). We not only believe in the Gospel but a Gospel order, which includes CD. These are flip sides of the same coin.
[Corrective[1]] Discipline, in a worldly sense, may simply be defined as “the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour, using punishment to correct disobedience” (Oxford). Biblically, the word discipline (paideia) means to train a child to reach maturity.

In Christian theology and ethics all precepts ultimately flow from principles and these from the person of God. A study of CD at the level of precept (especially in our culture) can lead to an emotional knee jerk reactions (intolerance, unaccepting, etc) but understanding the heart of what CD flows from reinforces our understanding and informs our practice.

God is both a God of mercy and justice, grace/love and truth (e.g. Ex 34:6–7; Jn 1:17; 1 Jn 4:12).

It may be said that His discipline is directed against unbelievers in His wrath and wayward believers in His correction. Speaking of the latter Heb 12:7b–12 says:

“God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.”

God is the perfect disciplinarian.  

A Believer’s Church- A Christian is one who has believed the Gospel and been added to the church through baptism. We can see the believing nature early in Acts, such as Acts 2:41. Unlike the Old Covenant people and many systems of Christianity today that uphold a mixed nature of God’s visible people (i.e. believers and unbelievers), the New Covenant people are a believing community. While it is true false professors creep in and that the Lord knows those who are His, we have an obligation to ensure membership is based upon a credible profession.

Perseverance of the Saints- The Bible teaches that those who are truly the Lord will ultimately not fail in the faith but persevere to the end. This means that the Church holds members accountable in the Lord. Only those who give a credible profession of faith and practice may be counted as part of it. If assurance is persistently and unrepentantly removed, the assurance of membership must likewise be withdrawn.
​
The church is a believing community that is given shape through regenerate membership (baptism and discipline).

There are a number of related Bible verses/passages that speak to the subject of Church discipline. Some of the most noteworthy are:

I.The Correct Spirit: The Lost Sheep precedes Mt 18; Gal 6:1; Lk 17:3
II.As A General Command: 1 Cor 5:9–13; 2 Thes 3:6
III.A Typical Threefold Process: Mt 18:15–20; Tit 3:10
IV.The Authority to Bind (bring into membership) and Loose (exclude from membership): Mt 16:16; Mt 18:19
V.The Example of the Man Excluded and then Restored because of Incest, 1 Cor 5:1 ; 2 Cor 2:5–11
VI.The Example of the Judgement of Ananias and Sapphira: Acts 5:1–11
​
Those professing believers who persist in unrepentant sin, whether in faith or practice, must be excluded.

​Ultimately CD is for the glory of God (doing what God has said); the purity of the church (ensuring it remains a believers’ church); the good of the sinner (not allowing them to walk in false assurance) and the fear of the church (a renewed call for us to confirm our calling and election). (See Five Minute Moment, June 13, 2021, here). 

​[1] There is also formative discipline (e.g. training in godliness) and restorative discipline (reconciliation). 

In a recent blog I noted statistics regarding the visible decline of Christianity in Canada. This raises the question, ‘What Happened to Christian Canada?’
​
In a book by this title historian Mark Noll reached the conclusion that we exchanged a Christian vision of Canada for a multi-cultural one. This is true. Canada was a bi-lingual, Anglo-European, Protestant-Catholic nation. Our identity, while different (and sometimes divided), was also one in heritage. While multi-culturalism (language, ethnicity, religion, etc) is not all of itself wrong, this new vision for Canada was an intentional subversion of the existing Christian vision by cultural Marxism (e.g. the thoughts of Antonio Gramsci [1891–1937]). Christian values were assaulted and a Christian vision was replaced by a vision that divided, and accelerated by individualism, made Canada far easier to control to ideological ends.  
 
While Noll is correct, his social theory is not the whole story as he alludes in his conclusion.

One must recognize that even at its height all of Canada was never truly Christian, there was much nominalism, of people buying into the Christian vision or attending church culturally but not truly and spiritually. One must believe the Gospel to be a Christian.

Still, many denominations faithfully preached the Gospel and so it could be assumed that many Canadians truly were Christian. However, with the arrival of theological liberalism in Canada (which accelerated in the 1920s), countless Canadian denominations, pulpits and churches became arid wastelands that gave the appearance of Christianity yet without Christ. Long before an assault from without can an attack from within. William Booth of the Salvation Army foresaw this shift in the 1800s when he said of the 20th Century:

“The chief danger that confronts the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, heaven without hell.”[1]

If truth is not presented it cannot be trusted and it therefore does not transform.

There is nothing less attractive than nominal Christianity, no meaning, no joy, no fruit of faith, no substance. As more and more Canadians became nominal Christians is it any wonder ‘Christianity’ was spit out? Like the story of the Return of the Unclean Spirit in Mt 12:43–45 Canadians spit out nominal Christianity only to embrace other isms far worse than the first.

People began to look to the old worldly isms of materialism, commercialism and individualism in increasing degrees. (A corporatism in Christian Canada gave way to the extreme individualism of today).

Christianity was also beset by other isms such as Darwinism, Communism, atheism, the Sexual Revolution and post-Modernism. (It is interesting to note how a decline in the number of children necessitated an immigration policy that supported multi-culturalism).

While the full answer is even more complex than this some major contributors to the decline of Christian Canada were recasting our identity (cultural-Marxism), liberalism, nominalism along with various other isms.

No doubt some genuine Christians of the past bear spiritual and social responsibility for allowing us to drift away from orthodoxy and slip into nominalism as a nation, thus allowing this shift to take place (a giant can only be toppled if it blindly believes itself unstoppable).

 The faithful remnant in Canada (e.g. the Church), now often bolstered by new Canadians who are already Christian, must rise to be the vanguard of society’s wellbeing (salt and light, Mt 5), do honour to our Christian heritage and offer a bright hope and alternative vision for the future. However, this will not be done through worldly means (2 Cor 10:4) but by the faithful preaching of the Gospel and lives lived to the glory of Christ. This is how the early Church began and transformed the Roman and European landscape. This is how we must win Canada today; one soul at a time.


[1] https://caringmagazine.org/the-best-18-quotes-from-william-booth/

Very recently I came by two different sets of statistics related to the visible decline of Christianity in the West, one was a local newspaper article and one was by the BBC.
​
The BBC article reported that for the first time less than half of the population of England/Wales identified as Christian down to 46.2% in the 2021 Census from 59.3% in the 2011 Census (Britain does their censuses every decade). What is more, those who claim no religion are approaching those who claim to be Christian at 37.2%.[1] However, a more accurate indicator as to the state of Christianity is not the census but those who attend a church service semi-regularly at 1.5%.[2] As not everyone who goes to church is a Christian (i.e. they may be a “seeker” or nominal, as shall be seen), an generous estimate as to the number of Christians in the UK could be as liberal as 1% (670,000). 46.2% vs. 1% is a BIG difference!

In Canada there is a similar trend. Our recent census figures show 53.3% identify as Christian compared to 67.3% in 2001. The more accurate gauge as to the true number of Christians is church attendance. The following chart shows the decline of those who attend weekly service:

Today, partly because all religions are included in studies and partly because the measurement moved from weekly to monthly (itself telling) it can be difficult to truly gauge numbers. One study put monthly religious attendance at 23% (including all religions). Stats Canada (2019) noted 31% of professing Christians were in church monthly (2.283 million or 6% of the population).[3] We might halve that to get a rough weekly figure of 1.14 million or 3% of the population. So liberally in 2019 (pre-pandemic), 3% of the population may have been Christian vs. 63.2% in the census. That is a BIG difference!

That means 3 out of 100 people you meet in Canada may be Christian!

What the media, ever the naturalist, fails to distinguish is between true Christians as God sees them and visible Christians as the world sees (2 Ti 2:19). The world likes terms like practicing vs. non-practicing Christian, etc. Muslims think of the entire West as Christian, either because of its past or its censuses. Rather the Bible speaks of Christians and non-Christians.

Just because I call myself a cat doesn’t make me one. Just because I sit in a garage doesn’t make me an automobile. So too, just because I call myself a Christian or go to Church doesn’t make me one.
We must not think naturistically like the world but see spiritually as the Bible teaches. We need to have discernment. The Bible has not left us blind to discern the marks of a genuine believer.[4]

Jesus said we would “know them by their fruits” and that not everyone who said “Lord, Lord,” would enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mt 7). Likewise in 2 Cor 13:5 Paul urges the Corinthians to “test yourselves” and the possibility of failing “to meet the test.” Not all “Christians” are Christians. Similarly, Revelation speaks of “synagogues of Satan,” Jewish gatherings that visibly should have embraced their Messiah and been friendly but had rejected Him and so spiritually were not friendly. Indeed like many things in life we need this distinction to see the difference between real Christians and true Churches and nominal Christians and false Churches.

The Bible is filled with “tests of assurance,” marks that we are to use to evaluate (not be judgemental) as to whether someone is a Christian. You might read 1 John, which is filled with them, but the following may suffice. We know a Christian by three basic marks: by their lips (Ro 10:9–10), by their lives (Gal 5:22–23); by their baptized into the visible Church (Acts 2:38, 41).

Let’s wisely evaluate both our own lives and those who claim to be “Christian.”


[1] This group is commonly known as “the dones;” those who are still spiritual but not religious. They constitute an interesting demographic for evangelism.

[2] https://www.churchofengland.org/media-and-news/media-centre

[3] https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-006-x/2021001/article/00010-eng.htm

[4] See Edwards Religious Affections if you’d like to do much deeper on this subject. Edwards was caught up in the 1st Great Awakening. He thought optimistically of all those who’d professed to be “converted.” In his book he looks at the Biblical marks of genuine conversion.

Traditionally Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism have been recognized as the main visible branches of Christianity. However, since the rise of Pentecostalism, with all of its distinctives, it is worth asking if Pentecostalism is part of Protestantism or unique enough to be its own branch of the visible family tree?

A Brief History
Coming onto the scene through an indebtedness to dry and dead nominal liberal Protestantism, the holiness tradition and Baptist leaders, Pentecostalism had its origin at a ‘Bible study’ in Topeka Kansas in 1901 on gifts of the Spirit. More famously it gained attention through a ‘revival’ in Azuza Street, California in 1906. Not without an early moral rocky road Pentecostalism soon burst onto the world stage, largely indebted to the subjectivity and experientialism of Romanticism and Post-Modernism. It progressed through 3 phases: Pentecostalism (think denomination), the Charismatic Movement (think Pentecostal doctrines entering traditional denominations) and the New Apostolic Reformation (a belief God is reforming His Church through a return to a revival like in Acts with apostolic figures). Though not universal it has deeply imbibed the Word of Faith movement and Health and Wealth message. Today Pentecostalism is a broad movement with some 600 million adherents (though about ¼ of all Pentecostals are not Trinitarian).

Three Caveats:

1. The question the following chart seeks to answer is not whether Pentecostals are Christian in the widest use of that term but whether they are Protestants (i.e. are their views distinct enough from classic Protestantism to be considered a fourth branch of Christianity).
2. The chart does not aim to support or elaborate on the matters presented.
3. On both sides there may be generalizations.
4. The aim is to be charitable and fair.

​A Chart of Contrasts:

From a cursory survey of key areas of faith and practice, much like the differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, it is apparent that Pentecostalism, while related to Protestantism historically and in many ways similar, is in fact a fourth branch of visible Christianity. This is especially so where the “Health and Wealth” and “Word of Faith” movements are felt strongest and may be less apparent in more settled Pentecostal denominations or where the charismatic stage is less strongly exerted upon a individual/church/denomination.

Apocrypha means “the things hidden away.” Jews used to hide old copies of revered books rather than burn or destroy them. As a result the term came to be synonymous with highly esteemed. Thus the Apocrypha originated as highly esteemed books that weren’t Scripture. There were 12 (or 15, depending on how they are divided):

1. 1st Esdras
2. 2nd Esdras
3. Tobit
4. Judith
5. Additions of Esther
6. Wisdom
7. Ecclesiasticus (or Sirach)
8. Baruch
9. Epistle of Jeremiah
10. Additions of Daniel
    1. Susanna
    2. Bel and the Dragon
    3. Song of Three Young Men
11. The Prayer of Manasseh
12. First and Second Maccabees

Between the OT and NT, in the Greek period, numerous religious texts, written in Greek, were produced. These in turn eventually found their way into the Greek OT (the LXX or Septuagint). However, Jesus, the NT authors, the Apostolic Fathers (the generation who knew the apostles) and 1st Century Jews all did not consider the Apocryphal texts as Scriptural.

When Jerome was compiling his Latin version of the Bible based off of the Hebrew, (completed c. AD 405) he followed the Greek tradition to insert them, however, he included prefaces that stressed their deuter-canonical (sub-canon) status of these books—that they were not Scripture and that the Hebrew list of Scripture represented the “clean jar”:

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.

This distinction was lost on many and throughout the Middle Ages and numerous Roman Catholic doctrines were built upon references in the Apocrypha. For examples:

• 2 Macc 15:13–14 speaks of the dead praying for the living
  • …And Oni′ as spoke, saying, “This is a man who loves the brethren and prays much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah, the prophet of God.”…
• Tobit 12:9 and Sirach 3:3 speak of good works atoning for evil deeds
  • For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity[a] and of righteousness will have fullness of life;
  • Whoever honours his father atones for sins,
• 2 Macc 12:40–45 speaks of purgatory
  • …and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out…

At the time of the Reformation (c. 1517) it was not only the doctrine of justification that became an issue of dispute but also the subject of authority: tradition or Scripture. What was Scripture, upon which alone true doctrine was to be found in? In the quest for the original sources (ad fontes—to the sources), a stripping away of Catholic tradition, the Reformers revisited this story and returned to the Canon of Jesus, or the Jewish Canon. (The Catholics, at the Council of Trent [1543–63] did the opposite by elevating the Apocrypha to make it fully Canonical). (Some Protestants, such as Anglicans, continued to include the Apocrypha but included them in a separate section. Their 39 Articles, VI, state: “And the other Books [the Apocrypha] the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”

In review there are 5 reasons to reject the Apocrypha as Scripture (however helpful it may be historically):

1. Jesus never cited it
2. It reads differently; pointing to its inferior quality
3. It contains doctrines that contradict the rest of Scripture (i.e. purgatory)
4. The warning of Jerome
5. Its origin/ that it is not part of the original Hebrew Bible

More than a mere quibble, this is a fundamental issue. What constitutes Scripture, the books we base our faith and practice, indeed stake our eternity upon? Christianity stands or falls not only on whether the Bible is true but also the question of what is Scripture. Is it the NT only, the OT/NT, including the apocrypha? Is the Canon open or closed, etc? (Revelation says it is closed).

There is great importance in defining what is the authoritative and inspired canon/rule of the Christian faith. This is why historic Baptist statements of faith, including our own, specify the number of books that make up the Bible, including the OT:

• 1689 Baptist Confession:
  • 1.1- The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,1 although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and His will which is necessary unto salvation.2 Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diversified manners to reveal Himself, and to declare (that) His will unto His church;3 and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now completed.4
  • [Then it quickly moves to state what these books are] 1.2: “Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these…[list of 66 books of the OT/NT]… All of which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life”
• 1953 FEB Statement:
  • 1- The Bible- “We believe that the Bible is the complete Word of God; that the sixty six books as originally written, comprising the Old and New Testaments, were fully inspired by the Spirit of God, and that they are, therefore, entirely free from error; that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice and the true basis of Christian union.” (Emphasis added)

Though this question is not as pressing for many Christians today, still from time to time it arises, or we hear of the Apocrypha and wonder what it is. At the very least, it is helpful to know as Christians why we believe what we believe and what this is based upon, i.e. the 66 books of the OT/NT, together the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

​Now you know!

As we conclude our Old Testament (OT) portion of C2C here in 2020 there are a couple important questions that we might consider.

Why does the Jewish OT or Bible (called the Tanak), differ in its arrangement of the books from the Christian OT?

When was the Old Testament canon (rule of faith) finalized and how?

Though somewhat technical questions it is hoped that in answering them believer’s will be strengthened in their knowledge of the Scriptures and thus their faith.
​
Arrangement
Here is the order and books of the Christian OT and Hebrew Bible (the TaNaK[1], see Bible Project). Essentially the OT is broken into four sections, whereas the Tanak is divided into three. (It is interesting to note Jesus referred to this trifold division in Lk 24:44):

Notice they are the same number of books (39) but in a very different order. Why the difference, especially if this was the accepted order of the Hebrew Bible in Jesus day?
​
Sometime in the 3rd and 2nd centuries there arose a large Jewish community in Greek speaking Alexandria (Egypt) who translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek. It is called the Septuagint or LXX (both mean 70) after the legend that 72 independent translators (6 from each of the 12 tribes) translated the entire project identically (thus giving evidence of Divine oversight). What is true is that they re-ordered the Hebrew Bible so the Hebrew and Greek versions, though containing the same books, were ordered differently. The Greeks, ever the masters of logic, categorized the books under headings, and many books under those according to length. As this video explores, the Hebrew Bible had other historic and theological reasons for how it was arranged. It is also interesting how the arrangements end, the Hebrew with Chronicles (itself a summary of the Tanak; a return to the Promised Land and a prefiguring of Christ) and the Greek with Malachi (the promised day of the Lord).

Though Jesus would have known the Hebrew order, most of the early Christians spoke Greek and so followed the Greek version. When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin by AD 405 he followed this tradition and so the Greek pattern was all but established as the Christian ordering.

Canon
Canon is Greek for rule. What books are recognized as inspired and authoritative? The Jewish community, guided by the Holy Spirit, came to recognize the above list as canonical some 200 years before Christ, who affirmed the same in Lk 24:44 (along with multiple other sources).

Regardless of the order, as Christians we can be confident that our OT books have come to us under God’s sovereign hand, and that these books, and these alone, constitute our rule of faith as the Old Testament; or as 2 Tim 3:16b puts it are therefore the “inspired word of God, profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

Now you know!

So that it isn’t simply a big black hole, allow me to recount the basics of the story between the Testaments.

The last book of Malachi was written sometime around the era of Nehemiah in the post exilic period (c. 450s). From this period—for some 400 years—the prophets were silent. During this period Judea was often ruled over by a series of empires: the Persians who then fell (c. 331 BC) to Alexander the Great and the Greeks; and following the breakup of his empire into smaller ones, first the Ptolemaic Empire (Egypt) followed by the Seleucid Empire. This Greek period lasted from 331–164 BC. The Greeks brought their language and culture, which would be so important during the New Testament period. The Hebrew Scriptures were even translated into Greek by Jewish scholars in Alexandrea (Egypt), so dominate was the language. However, the Jews in Judea rebelled when the Seleucids set up “an abomination” in the Temple and the Jews were forbidden to practice their religion. An aged priest, named Mattathias and his five sons led a revolt. After his death his eldest son, Judas Maccabeus, continued and won independence in 164 BC. From the Greeks, Persians and Babylonians, all the way back to King Jehoiakim/Zedekiah, this was the first time the Jews had been independent in centuries.

However, there was nothing new under the sun; their hearts remained unchanged. During the Maccabean period, successive rulers became increasingly authoritarian, corrupt, immoral and pagan. This descent became so bad that eventually some of the Jewish leaders invited the Romans—of all people—to come and restore order, which they did in 63 BC under General Pompey. They stayed for centuries to come in an uneasy arrangement. In 37 BC, partly as a political favour and partly because he was partially Jewish, the Romans appointed Herod “the Great” to be king over all of Palestine. He built Caesarea Maritima (where Paul was imprisoned), greatly improved Jerusalem and remodelled the Temple into the exquisite structure it was in Jesus’ day. This was the Herod who slaughtered all the little boys in search of Jesus. The various Herods who appear later in the NT were his descendants.

Now you know!