Into The Word https://intotheword.ca Fri, 08 May 2026 07:59:46 +0000 Fri, 08 May 2026 07:59:46 +0000 hourly 1 3600 SnapPages.com A Commentary on the CCT Process Within the FEB https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/10/05/a-commentary-on-the-cct-process-within-the-feb Mon, 05 Oct 2026 07:16:40 +0000 https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/10/05/a-commentary-on-the-cct-process-within-the-feb
By Paul Carter

Spurgeon used to say of John Bunyan, “Prick him anywhere – his blood is Bibline;” 1 after two years on the Affirmation of Faith Committee and another 18 months on the CCT Committee I think you could prick me anywhere and I would bleed Baptist polity. I’ve spent way more time than I ever imagined thinking about what an elder is, what a pastor is, what a deacon is and why it matters. I’m thankful to have been a part of these various committees, and also thankful that our work is drawing to an end. It has been hard, long, difficult, frustrating, but necessary work that was done faithfully, prayerfully and passionately by a group of people who love Jesus and who care about the health and vitality of his church.

It was truly an honour to be included.

I don’t intend to summarize the timeline for the various online and in person meetings associated with the AoF and CCT processes. To read the review of the process prepared by The Fellowship and made available to member churches, see here and here.

Shortly after our last in person meeting, I mentioned to our FEB President Steve Jones  that I thought it might be useful for a few of us to write a commentary on our experience and to share our perspectives on the documents that it produced. There has been so much speculation and so much concern about this process – understandably so – that some reflections from those who were a part of it from day one might help our people to understand why we landed where we did.

This article represents my attempt to provide some context and framing.

To be clear others could, and I hope will, write their own commentaries and they might recall things differently than I do and they might offer different hypotheses for why we made the decisions that we did. That is only to be expected. I am not presenting this as any kind of “authoritative analysis.” This is my take and nothing more. This is an account of what I remember, what I was feeling at the time, what I was hoping for throughout and what I decided at the end that I could live with. If it helps you better understand and appreciate the documents that we produced, then it will have served its purpose.

From the AoF to the CCT

The Affirmation of Faith Committee, or AoF for short, met for roughly two years with a mandate from The Fellowship to update and improve our statement of faith. The original Affirmation of Faith came about largely as a compromise between fundamentalist Baptists and reformed Baptists. (N.B. I recognize that all such labels can be heard as offensive or judgmental. I use them here for the purposes of taxonomy only) It was also written to buttress The Fellowship against certain movements in the wider culture. As such, there were areas of obvious emphasis and areas that were clearly, though unintentionally underdeveloped. To give one example, the original AoF does not explicitly affirm the humanity of Christ because it was the divinity of Christ that was under assault in the mid-20 the century, whereas issues of anthropology only became front burner concerns in the 2020s. One of the issues around which there was immediate and unanimous agreement within the committee was the need to more fully articulate the humanity of Christ so as to undergird what we wished to affirm with respect to biblical anthropology.

The AoF team came together with a mandate to maintain the heart and soul of our original statement, while also addressing gaps, defending against new threats from the culture  and
updating language and terminology where required. A strong preference was expressed for maintaining the original phrasing wherever possible. We were also frequently reminded to “make it sing.” We wanted this document to sound less like law and more like liturgy. With this complex and multi-faceted mandate in mind, we set to work.

My own preparation for involvement with this committee involved studying a wide variety of
historic and current Baptist confessions. I suspect that part of the reason I was invited to
participate is that I had recently co-written two faith statements for other organizations. Each member of the committee emerged as having an area of particular expertise. There was “the grammar guy”, the “make it sing” person; I think I was generally recognized as the “historical reference” guy. I arrived at the first meeting with The Baptist Confession of 1689, The New Hampshire Confession of 1833, The Baptist Faith and Message 1925, 1963 and 2000 all lined up on my computer, ready to be called upon as reference points if necessary.

As the conversation progressed, I became aware of the deep complexity that exists within our fellowship of churches. There are real and significant differences between the regions. Within regions there are real and significant differences between churches that have more of an American Fundamentalist heritage, as opposed to those with more of an English Reformed Baptist heritage. These differences were most noticeable in two categories: eschatology and ecclesiology. The Fellowship had decided at its inception in the 20 th century that it would not divide over the particulars of eschatology, and our statement was intentionally vague on those matters so as to accommodate that; it became clear to me that our challenge in the 21 st would be to decide whether or not similar compromises would be acceptable and workable in the area of ecclesiology.

It did not surprise me at all that the one article in the new AoF that did not receive adequate
support from National Conference was the article on the church. I would have been shocked if it had passed. Throughout the AoF process I discovered that we have (at least) three different polity systems operating within our fellowship. The following represents my summary of those various systems, in so far as I can perceive and distinguish them:

1. Pastor and deacons. In this system the only “elder” is the pastor. He is responsible for
spiritual matters such as preaching, pastoral care and prayer. The deacons oversee the
finances and the building. There may be a benevolence committee to oversee food
ministry and care for the aged and infirm.

2. Elders and deacons, with the pastor and associate pastors being understood as elders.
(Version 2 b. of this system would see only the Lead Pastor being considered an elder.
This is sometimes referred to as “Senior Pastor Complementarianism.”) In this system
there are elected elders who oversee the church, inclusive of doctrine, discipline and
finance, and the pastor(s) are considered staff elders. The only real distinction between
pastors and elders is that pastors are typically vocational, such that the term “pastor”
means basically “staff elder”. The deacons oversee benevolence ministries.

3. Trustees, pastor and staff. In this system a group of trustees function as directors of the
corporation, providing financial and legal oversight. The pastor is the sole elder and
serves as the day-to-day overseer of the spiritual affairs of the church. Underneath the
pastor there are a variety of staff members who may or may not be referred to as “pastor”
but who do not have oversight authority.

These polity differences appear to cross reference generally with the regional and historical factors referenced above such that, while each option exists in every region, options 1 and 2 are predominate in central and eastern Canada with options 2b. and 3 predominating in western Canada. These polity differences lead to significant variations in terminology and practice, making it unlikely in the extreme that we would pass an article on ecclesiology without having done the groundwork now being undertaken by the CCT; but of course, hindsight is 20/20.

To read the full AoF, with notes on all the changes and edits, see here. The article on the church, the only one not to pass, reads as follows:

The Church

We believe that the universal church, the Body of Christ, comprised of all true believers in
heaven and on earth, is expressed on earth in local churches. We believe a properly ordered local church consists of believers, baptized by immersion, who have been called out from the world, separated to the Lord Jesus; and voluntarily associated for the ministry of the word, the mutual edification of its members, the propagation of the faith, the observance of the ordinances, and the doing of good works. We believe it is a self-governing body responsible for exercising its own divinely awarded gifts, precepts, and privileges under the lordship of Christ, the Head and Chief Shepherd of the church. We believe that its officers are biblically qualified elders, who shepherd and oversee God’s flock, and deacons, who serve and support.

Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 2:41-43; Ephesians 4:3-6; Titus 2:14; Romans 12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-7, 12-13; Ephesians 4:11-16; Hebrews 10:24-25; 1 Peter 5:1-3; 1 Timothy 3:1-15; Titus 1:5-9; Acts 6:1-7

As you can well imagine, the last sentence of this article required the greatest share of our time and attention. There was a hesitance on the part of several committee members to use “elder” and “pastor” in the same sentence in any way that would seem to equate those terms. These concerns were particularly common amongst those that came from churches reflecting polity options 2b. and 3. For reference sake, the Baptist Confession of 1689 says here:

“… the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and
gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances and execution of power of duty, which he entrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders and deacons.”

The word “bishop” was used unapologetically by the early Baptists as a synonym for “overseers” and is used in the Baptist Confession of 1689 interchangeably with the world “elders”; thus the two offices recognized are bishops/elders/overseers and deacons.

In fairness to those who did not wish to use the word “pastor” as a synonym for “elder” in our statement, it should be noted that the Greek word usually translated “pastor” is more commonly used as a verb in the New Testament, in order to describe what elders do; so for example, it says in 1 Peter 5:1-2:

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight (1 Peter 5:1-2 ESV)

In that passage Peter tells elders to shepherd (or pastor – the words are equivalent) the flock of God as an aspect of oversight. Thus, elders pastor. But that is different than saying that elders are pastors and pastors are elders. To make a simple but effective analogy: all cats are animals but not all animals are cats. It is true that all elders ought to pastor, but it is not necessarily true that all who pastor are elders. The word “elder” is associated with a formal, authoritative, oversight office in the New Testament, whereas the word “pastor” is used as a verb to describe a set of actions associated with the oversight of elders.

That difference matters.

As such, after a great deal of discussion, the group settled on a very carefully worded sentence that I think is both faithful to the text and transferable to our current ecclesiological context:

We believe that its officers are biblically qualified elders, who shepherd and oversee God’s flock, and deacons, who serve and support.

I think it is a shame that this article did not pass as written. Had there been more discussion about the meaning of the various terms and the spectrum of permissible applications, I suspect it would have.

Whether or not it should have passed, it did not pass, and as such, the National Council put
together a CCT (Complementarian Congruence Team) in order to pursue a shared understanding of what the practice of “complementarianism” should look like within our fellowship of churches, with the ultimate goal of improving the article and providing further operative clarity through the bylaw and associated definitions. It was comprised of several members of the original AoF Committee as well as several new people who reflected common viewpoints and practices within our wider constituency.

The CCT Process

I must confess that our first day of meetings as a committee depressed me a great deal. I was shocked by the level of diversity in our practice as a national fellowship. To be clear, I am not opposed to diversity and I don’t believe that everyone has to agree with me on matters of ecclesiology in order to be a true Christian, but to work effectively as a fellowship of churches requires a certain level of agreement. I can shake hands with my evangelical Anglican friend, but I can’t plant churches with him. I can pray daily for my Pentecostal egalitarian pastor friend, but I can’t run a seminary with her. To do the kinds of things we are trying to do as The Fellowship of Evangelical Baptists in Canada we need to be on the same page on some things, and it appeared to me in that first meeting as if that was not the case.

I must also confess that I felt that the process was somewhat “rigged” at that first meeting. It seemed obvious to me that who you put on a committee determines what that committee will eventually decide. It appeared to me as if the committee had been designed to produce a particular outcome. I went to bed that evening worried that I was participating in a bit of political theatre, as opposed to a true process of study, prayer, deliberation and recommendation.

The second meeting represented something of a turning point for me. Maybe it was because we started to get to know each other. I know myself well enough to recognize that I argue differently with people I love. I tend to frame their position in the best possible light, and I tend to be more optimistic with respect to their intentions and underlying agendas. It was during the second day of meetings that I felt like we began to recognize each other as brothers and sisters in Christ who had honest differences of opinion about what the Bible requires, permits and forbids with respect to church governance. As we got to know each other and to hear each other’s personal stories, the temperature in the room dropped considerably. Positions were still being shared forcefully and passionately, but the tone was noticeably different.

There was a significant breakthrough near the end of that first group of in person meetings. The group appeared to achieve consensus around the fact that the oversight office in the church, however labelled, should be restricted to biblically qualified males only. As I recall, there was only one person in the room who indicated a need for more time to process that.

That was the turning point in the conversation.

From that point on the discussion turned mostly to wording and application. How tightly can we define the word “elder”? How tightly can we connect “pastor” and “elder”? What about churches that use the word “deacon” for what most of us mean by “elder”? Can we affirm male and female deacons without requiring some standardized use of these terms? What about churches that have pastors who are not considered authoritative overseers? What about churches with only one elder? Are we as concerned about plurality as we are about gender?

Those were intense conversations, but they were collegial and constructive, and we were all feeling a sense of forward momentum.

When it came down to the final wording of the proposed article and the associated by-law, I
believe we all had the sense that we were far closer to “congruence” on these matters than when we started, but we were also honest enough to recognize that there is still a challenging level of diversity within our fellowship with respect to terminology and practice. We all voted for the final statement, if I recall correctly, but none of us seemed entirely comfortable with it. Some saw it as a bit too restrictive. Some saw it as leaving several important things unclarified. I believe I characterized it at the time as: “the best statement we can achieve with our present level of agreement.”

I stand by that assessment.

Here is the article as revised and presented by the CCT:

The Church

We believe in the universal church, the Body of Christ, comprised of all true believers in
heaven and on earth, which is expressed on earth in local churches. We believe a properly
ordered local church consists of believers, baptized by immersion upon their confession of
faith, who have been called out from the world, separated to the Lord Jesus; and
voluntarily associated for the ministry of the word, the mutual edification of its members,
the propagation of the faith, the observance of the ordinances, and the doing of good
works. We believe local churches are self-governing bodies responsible for exercising their
God-given gifts, precepts and privileges, and implementing their Spirit-guided decisions
and directions under the lordship of Christ, the Head and Chief Shepherd of the church. We
believe that its officers are biblically qualified male pastors/elders, who oversee God’s
flock, and deacons, who serve and support.

Scripture Support:
Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 2:41-43; Ephesians 4:3-6; Titus 2:14; Romans
12:3-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-7, 12-13; Ephesians 4:11-16; Hebrews 10:24-25; 1 Peter 5:1-3;
1 Timothy 3:1-15; Titus 1:5-9; Acts 6:1-7

The key change there is found within the final sentence. For comparison’s sake, see the last line in the article as proposed and unpassed in 2025 followed by this new submission:

We believe that its officers are biblically qualified elders, who shepherd and oversee God’s flock, and deacons, who serve and support.

We believe that its officers are biblically qualified male pastors/elders, who oversee God’s flock, and deacons, who serve and support.

In this new statement we have identified the authoritative oversight office as being occupied by “pastors/elders”, as opposed to “elders, who shepherd and oversee” in the 2025 version. This serves to connect the word “pastor” to “elder” though one will have to read the accompanying bylaw to understand the nature of that connection.

Here is the by-law as revised and presented by the CCT, with slight changes made by National Council for the purpose of legal conformity:

Bylaw Article 4.1(a)(iii)

Notwithstanding the provisions in 1.3(c), it accepts that the office of pastor/elder in the
church is reserved for biblically qualified men recognized by the church for oversight of
the doctrine and discipline of the church; notwithstanding that some churches may have
pastors who are not elders; further, it accepts that the office of deacon is open to biblically
qualified males or females, provided they are engaged in ministries of service and support.
It accepts that terminology and governance structures may vary in MEMBER churches,
provided that oversight of the doctrine and discipline of the church remains with those men
biblically qualified for the office of pastor/elder;

Thus, the bylaw clarifies that the authoritative oversight office in the church is to be filled only by biblically qualified men who are pastor/elders. This leaves open the possibility of a church having pastors who are not elders and who do not exercise authoritative oversight and who therefore need not be biblically qualified males. It helpfully defines what a deacon is and what deacons do so as to positively affirm that the office is open to both men and women.

Here are the by-law definitions as presented by the CCT:

New Bylaw Definitions:
Pastor/elder: Those who occupy the office of overseer of the local church’s doctrine
and discipline reserved for biblically qualified men, notwithstanding the provisions in
1.3(c).

Deacon: A person appointed to the office of exercising a ministry of service and support in
the local church.

Pastor: According to the practice of some local churches, a person shepherding in the local
church under the oversight of pastors/elders.

The definitions helpfully connect the office of pastor/elder to the specific responsibility of
authoritative oversight of the church’s doctrine and discipline. It codifies that the office of
deacon is for the purposes of service and support in the local church. It recognizes that some churches have pastors who are not “pastor/elders” and who do not exercise authoritative oversight in the church.

The Case For the Statements as Presented:

An argument can be made that the statements produced by the CCT represent a significant step forwards toward congruence and should therefore be adopted, notwithstanding the need for further dialogue around the issues of terminology and application. It is true that you cannot have a fellowship of churches without a certain amount of flexibility on such matters. Terminology develops as a result of shared history and experience, and those things vary group to group and region to region and there should be some recognition of that. To be a national fellowship will require good natured and generous compromise on a variety of matters, as demonstrated to us all in the accommodations made around eschatology in our original Affirmation of Faith. A strong argument could be made that we should imitate the example of our founders by exercising the same level of flexibility, within biblical boundaries, with respect to our current differences in the area of ecclesiology. While I don’t believe in unity at the expense of truth, I do believe that we see through a glass darkly, and therefore, I’m sympathetic to the argument in favour of adopting the statements as written, while pursuing further clarity and commonality on these matters
moving forward.

The Case Against the Statements as Presented:

There are significant deficiencies in the statements as written. The statements permit churches to have pastors who are not elders, as such, there will be churches with female pastors, and that will be interpreted by many as a failure to uphold a consistent complementarianism. In addition, these statements do not clearly require that the preaching of the sermon within the gathered worship service be done by a biblically qualified male elder and so some churches will have female preachers operating under the oversight of male elders. In fairness, few of our churches have a clearly articulated policy around this. Can only elders preach in your church? Do male seminary students, who are not elders, ever preach? What about retired pastors? What about guest preachers? What about missionaries home on furlough, be they male or female? The CCT felt that it was beyond our purview and capacity to adjudicate these matters, however, many will view the absence of clarity on these issues to be a reason to vote against the statements as written. To many it will seem somewhat ridiculous to refer to ourselves as a complementarian fellowship while having churches with female pastors who preach the sermon on Sunday at the main worship gathering.

Summary and Personal Recommendation:

As I stated above, I believe that the article, bylaw and definitions as here stated represent the best we could produce with the level of agreement present on our committee. Committees are democratic. Statement A is proposed and voted on. If it doesn’t get a strong majority of votes, then Statement B is proposed and voted on until the group is able to produce something that can be accepted by the majority of members. Inevitably, the statements become less clear, and the bar gets a little lower with each iteration and amendment. In our final meeting I stated my opinion that we had taken this process as far as we could given the makeup of the committee and the amount of authority we’d been given. It was now up to the National Council and the delegates at National Conference to do the rest.

I wrote earlier in this article that I initially felt that the committee had been designed to produce a particular outcome; but I think I would say now that it rather accurately reflected the diversity that truly exists within our fellowship of churches. I now see, or at least believe, that the committee was put together as a “focus group” or “trial run” so as to get all the hard work and tough conversations out of the way in a smaller and more manageable context. In essence, we had the arguments so that you don’t have to.

And we did.

Several of us in the room pushed hard for a statement that clearly and unambiguously related the words “pastor” and “elder” in such a way as to eliminate the use of the title “pastor” for any individual who was not also understood as an elder. To be clear, this would put pressure on churches that have 23-year-old male Youth Pastors, who are not elders, just as much as it would on churches that have 40-year-old female Women’s Ministry Pastors, who are not elders. There was a significant minority within the group that felt that this ambiguity should be addressed and a clear policy articulated within either the article or the bylaw and definitions.

Pushing back on this perspective were those who argued, with conviction, that the Bible does not speak of an “office of pastor” (and nor do the early Baptist Confessions), rather this is a contemporary usage that should not be imposed on other churches who have adopted a different usage. The key issue, they contended, is that the authoritative officers in charge of discipline and doctrine must be biblically qualified male elders.

We couldn’t come to agreement on those issues as a committee and I don’t suspect that we will be able to do so as a national body, as such, I believe that further work and discussion are required. What we’ve produced represents a fairly low level of agreement that I do not believe will be sufficient to support the sort of robust ministry fellowship that most of us aspire to. As such, my personal recommendation is to pass the article as written, but to debate, table and subsequently revise the bylaw and definitions. The bylaw revision and definitions as written will codify a level of diversity and confusion that will be unsustainable for us as a fellowship of churches. That’s probably not what anyone wants to hear, but I believe it is the path of wisdom.

Unity is hard, but it is always worth fighting for.

Throughout this process my own convictions have not shifted, but I have become more
sympathetic to the perspectives of those “on the other side.” I would hate to see our fellowship divide over this issue, particularly when progress is being achieved, understanding is being gained and generous, but faithful compromises are being made. But there is more work to be done. Specifically, there needs to be more conversation about our use of the word “pastor”. As historians will point out, the popular adoption of this term by Protestants is fairly recent; there is far more historical precedent for the use of the words “bishop”, “elder”, and “presbyter” than there is for “pastor”. As biblical scholars will point out, it is difficult to make an airtight case that the word “pastor” was understood as precisely equivalent with the word “elder” in the New Testament era. It is clear that elders were expected to be pastoral in their oversight, but it is not clear that there was a group of people called “pastors”. And yet, communities can make decisions about terminology on the basis of reasonable inference and sanctified common sense, and it is likely past time for us to do that in this case.

My prayer is that we will make the commitment to do this work together.

For the glory of the Lord and for the good of all those he has entrusted to our care.

O God help!

Pastor Paul Carter

If you are interested in more Bible teaching from Pastor Paul you can access the entire library of Into The Word episodes through the Audio tab on the Into the Word website. You can also download the Into The Word app at the App Store or Google Play.

1 “Mr. Spurgeon as a Literary Man,” in The Autobiography of Charles H. Spurgeon, Compiled from His Letters, Diaries, and Records by His Wife and Private Secretary, vol. 4, 1878-1892 (Curtis & Jennings, 1900), p. 268.



]]> https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/10/05/a-commentary-on-the-cct-process-within-the-feb#comments 2 Should New Testament Believers Practice Fasting? https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/05/08/should-new-testament-believers-practice-fasting Fri, 08 May 2026 08:04:02 +0000 https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/05/08/should-new-testament-believers-practice-fasting
It is interesting to note that while feasting is a fixed and permanent aspect of biblical religion, fasting is occasional and provisional.

We see that very clearly in two passages, one in the Old Testament and one in the New. In the Book of Zechariah, a delegation from Bethel comes to Jerusalem to seek wisdom from Zechariah and the other leaders as to whether or not the several fasts instituted during the exile should be continued now that a remnant has returned and the temple is being rebuilt. The Lord takes the occasion to correct their overly ritualistic and formal approach to spirituality, telling them that justice and mercy were more important aspects of biblical worship (Zechariah 7:9-10). He does finally answer their original question in chapter 8:19, saying:

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: The fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of Judah seasons of joy and gladness and cheerful feasts. Therefore love truth and peace.” (Zechariah 8:19 ESV)

Thus, the fasts that were created to commemorate and lament the destruction of the temple were now to be transformed into feasts. The fasts were occasional (due to the destruction of the temple) and provisional (discontinued once the temple was under reconstruction). The feasts were to continue in perpetuity.

Similarly in the New Testament there is the story about the disciples of John coming to Jesus and asking:

“Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?” (Matthew 9:14 ESV)

Jesus’ answer points out the occasional and provisional nature of fasting. He says:

“Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the garment, and a worse tear is made. Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.” (Matthew 9:15–17 ESV)

Jesus states that fasting is appropriate during seasons of lament and longing. The saying “when the Bridegroom is taken away from them” refers to the time after Jesus’ arrest up until his glorious resurrection. Leon Morris says here:

“There can be no doubt that by the bridegroom he means himself, nor that is taken away refers to his death.”[1]

The death of Jesus will throw the disciples into a time of lament and mourning. But once he is restored to them through resurrection – their fasting will be transformed into feasting! From that point on, their lives should be characterized by rejoicing.

Once the religion of the Bible passes through the deep valley of the cross and up into resurrection on the other side, the old forms and ceremonies will need to give way to those better suited to the major themes of joy and thanksgiving that will now be characteristic of the movement. Michael Green says here:

“Jesus is clear that his coming marks a discontinuity with all that. (All the forms and practices of Judaism) The old skins cannot contain the new wine he is bringing. Old regulations about ceremonial defilement cannot stand before the joy of forgiveness, fellowship, excitement and new direction which the coming of the kingdom inaugurates.”[2]

That is why fasting is not a major point of discussion in any of the New Testament Epistles. The Apostle Paul does not commend it or address the practice of it in any of his letters.

Would it be wrong for a New Testament believer to engage in a season of fasting?

To be clear, fasting for health purposes or as part of a weight loss regimen is not the concern of this inquiry. Rather, the question that is imagined here has to do with the New Testament believer wondering whether it would ever be appropriate for him or her to engage in a season of religious fashion, such as we see in the Old Testament.

I think the most faithful answer to that question would have to be a qualified NO. It would not be wrong to engage in a time of fasting, provided that the fasting was limited in duration and related to a particular loss or connected to a season of focused, intentional prayer. However, it should not go on too long, it should not involve unnecessary display (Matthew 6:16-18) and it should be careful not to discredit or obscure our faith in the resurrection. Paul said to the Thessalonians:

“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope.” (1 Thessalonians 4:13 ESV)

Lament is a minor chord in the Christian system, with joy as our major key. The focus of our worship is the grateful reception of the grace of God given to us in the person and work of Christ. We eagerly hear. We gladly respond. We gratefully give. Our sacraments are sacraments of celebration. Baptism is about new life. The eucharist or Lord’s Supper is about thanksgiving. These are the new wineskins given to us to contain the new wine of the gospel – thanks be to God!

Pastor Paul Carter
]]> https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/05/08/should-new-testament-believers-practice-fasting#comments 0 Do I Have to Forgive Someone Who Has Never Repented of What They Did to Me? https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/05/08/do-i-have-to-forgive-someone-who-has-never-repented-of-what-they-did-to-me Fri, 08 May 2026 08:01:25 +0000 https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/05/08/do-i-have-to-forgive-someone-who-has-never-repented-of-what-they-did-to-me
Do I have to forgive someone who has never repented of what they did to me?

This question usually comes up when a person has encountered what Jesus says in Luke 17:3-4:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him, and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.” (Luke 17:3-4 ESV)

There it does kind of sound like forgiveness is conditional upon repentance: “if he repents, forgive him”. However, that text needs to be held in tension with what Jesus says in passages like Mark 11:25:

“And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses” (Mark 11:25 ESV).

There is no mention here of the offender confessing their sin and demonstrating repentance; it merely says that the person praying should forgive whatever grievances they may have against another. Similarly, in Matthew 6 there is no mention of any action being taken by the offender before forgiveness is granted. Jesus says simply and straightforwardly:

“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:14-15 ESV).

In addition, we have numerous examples in the New Testament of people forgiving others without any mention of the sins and abuses being acknowledged by the offending party. As Jesus was being nailed to the cross, he said:

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34 ESV).

Likewise, Stephen, as he was being stoned to death, called out saying:

“Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7:60 ESV).

Therefore, it would be difficult to argue that the Bible does not require us to forgive people until they repent of the sins, they have committed against us.

Rather, I think it would be better to say that we should begin the process of forgiving others immediately, recognizing that we may not be able to proceed from there to full reconciliation until there is appropriate acknowledgement and growth from the other party.

Reconciliation is a bridge that has to be built from both sides, but forgiveness – in terms of letting go of any desire and plan for revenge, praying for the abuser, wishing well toward the offender – is work that we can begin in our own hearts right away, mindful of the mercy we have received and wary of the costs associated with on-going bitterness and resentment.

God help!

Pastor Paul Carter
]]> https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/05/08/do-i-have-to-forgive-someone-who-has-never-repented-of-what-they-did-to-me#comments 0 3 Reasons Why the Resurrection Matters https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/05/08/3-reasons-why-the-resurrection-matters Fri, 08 May 2026 07:59:46 +0000 https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/05/08/3-reasons-why-the-resurrection-matters

By Paul Carter

There are certain events that can change the course of an entire generation. Historians often speak about how the Great Depression in the 1930’s and the Second World War in the 1940’s worked together to forge what we call now the Greatest Generation. Those people were unflappable. They had been beaten like heated iron between the hammer and anvil of those two great events.

The Baby Boomers were affected by Vietnam, Watergate and the Sexual Revolution. Those great events inclined many people in that generation toward cynicism and self-indulgence and collectively they resulted in a massive expansion in divorce. Baby Boomers get divorced at a higher rate than any generation before them – and any generation after them[1].

The Millennials grew up in the aftermath of 9/11 and then had the rug pulled out from underneath them, financially speaking, by the Great Recession in 2006-2008 just as they were entering into the housing market. The experts say that these events inclined many people in that generation toward anxiety and resentment.

Events affect us and the bigger the event, the greater the effect it can have on us. It would be difficult to think of an event that has a greater impact on the course of human history than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Nearly 2.4 people on this planet will soon be celebrating Easter. It cannot be denied that the ripples of the resurrection continue to reverberate across the ages. Discussions about the resurrection tend to revolve around two major questions:
  1. Did it really happen?
  2. Does it really matter?

For an excellent article arguing for the historicity of the resurrection, see here. The purpose of this article will be to introduce three reasons why the resurrection matters.

The Resurrection Matters Because it Communicates the Sufficiency of the Cross


On Good Friday many churches sing the old hymn ‘Jesus Paid It All’. They affirm together that:

Jesus paid it all,
All to Him I owe;
Sin had left a crimson stain,
He washed it white as snow.

What an encouragement it is to know that Jesus paid it all! But how can we know? How can we be sure that his payment was accepted? Wayne Grudem puts it this way:

“By raising Jesus from the dead, God the Father was in effect saying that he approved of Christ’s work of suffering and dying for our sins, that his work was completed, and that Christ no longer had any need to remain dead. There was no penalty left to pay for sin, no more wrath of God to bear, no more guilt or liability to punishment – all had been completely paid for, and no guilt remained. In the resurrection, God was saying to Christ, “I approve of what you have done, and you find favour in my sight.””[2]

Jesus walking out of the tomb on the third day was like that message you receive on the Interac machine after you stick your card in and enter your PIN. You wait an anxious moment and then it says: “Payment accepted. Please remove card.” That’s what the empty tomb is! It is God saying that Jesus paid it all. Payment accepted. Nothing more for you or me or HIM to do – praise the Lord!

The Resurrection Matters Because it Guarantees life Beyond the Grave 


In 1 Corinthians 15:19-22 the Apostle Paul is assuring the Corinthians that the Christian faith is about more than how to live in the here and now; it’s also about life, joy and glory on the other side. He says:

“If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:19-22 ESV)

In this passage Paul refers to Jesus as the firstfruits – a religious metaphor that would have been particularly compelling to first century Jews. The Jews were in the habit of bringing the firstfruits of their harvest to the Lord as an offering. The firstfruits represented the whole. It was a way of saying: “Just like this initial bundle belongs to you, so too we understand that everything we have belongs to you.” D.A. Carson and G.K. Beale in their “Commentary on the New Testament Use Of The Old Testament” say here that:

“Paul uses the image to underline the link between our fate and the fate of Christ; Christ’s resurrection is not an isolated event, but rather guarantees something even more stupendous.”[3]

What an incredible promise! The Apostle Paul is saying that the resurrection of Jesus guarantees the resurrection of every other person connected by covenant to him – thanks be to God!

The Resurrection Matters Because it Proves that Everything Jesus Said Was True


Jesus said some pretty unbelievable things; he said:

“I am the bread that came down from heaven.” (John 6:41 ESV)

“I am the light of the world.”  (John 8:12 ESV)

“I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.” (John 10:9 ESV)

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.” (John 10:11 ESV)

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6 ESV)

“I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live” (John 11:25 ESV)

What would any rational person say to another human being who said things like that? What would you say? You would say PROVE IT! You would demand some kind of evidence or demonstration of authority that would warrant such extravagant claims because normal people don’t say the sorts of things that Jesus said. When people claim to be the door into other realms and kingdoms, that usually means that they are having a medical event. The correct response to something like that would be to call 911. Normal, healthy people don’t say the sorts of things that Jesus said – unless they are prepared to back it up. How could a person do that? How could a person prove, for example, that he was the resurrection and the life?

He could die and on the third day rise from the dead.

That would be a compelling argument. That would strongly suggest that he was not just a person having a medical event, he was in fact the Son of God, sent from God to save, heal and restore the people of God. It would strongly suggest that he was exactly who he said he was.

That’s why the resurrection matters, because it proves that Jesus was who he said he was and that everything he said was in fact, the very Word of God to us.

The resurrection is an event that ought to rock your world. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead means that the cross works! It satisfies the wrath of God against human sin and rebellion. It can wipe your slate clean! It can pay your debt! It can purchase a fresh start and a new standing! The fact that Jesus rose from the dead means that death is not the end – it wasn’t for Jesus and it won’t be for any person united to Jesus through covenant faith. The fact that Jesus rose from the dead means that everything Jesus said can be trusted. He came from God. He returned to God. The Father co-signed every cheque he ever wrote and every promise he ever made. Jesus can be trusted. His word is the Word. He really is the way, the truth and the life.

When you understand that; when you connect all those dots, a basket of very important questions will begin bouncing around your brain:

How can I be joined to the person and work of Christ?
How can I have my sins credited to his account?
How can I be assured that I will be with him in heaven when I die?
How can I become his disciple?
When the crowd in Jerusalem on Pentecost began asking Peter questions like these, he responded to them saying:

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” (Acts 2:38-39 ESV)

Repent and be baptized.

Turn away from whatever it is you are doing and whoever it is you are following and put your faith in Jesus Christ! Declare your allegiance to him today — personally, privately and publicly — and you will be saved. You will be fused by covenant to him such that wherever he goes, you go; such that his fate is your fate; such that his glory will be your glory.

Thanks be to God!

Pastor Paul Carter
]]> https://intotheword.ca/blog/2026/05/08/3-reasons-why-the-resurrection-matters#comments 0