"Our forefathers were far less tolerant than we are, and it is to be feared that they were also more honest. It will be a sad discount upon our gain in the matter of charity if it turn out that we have been losers in the department of truthfulness.
There is no necessary connection between the two facts of growth in tolerance and decline in sincerity, but we are suspicious that they have occurred and are occurring at the same moment.
We freely accord to theological teachers a freedom of thought and utterance which in other ages could only be obtained by the more daring at serious risks, but we also allow an amount of untruthfulness in ministers, which former ages would have utterly abhorred. . . .
Our love to the most unlimited religious liberty incites us to all the sterner abhorrence of the license which like a parasite feeds thereon.
the plea of spiritual liberty, of late years certain teachers who have abjured the faith of the churches which employ them, have nevertheless endeavored, with more or less success, to retain their offices and their emoluments. . . .
Our complaint is . . . not that the men changed their views, and threw up their former creeds, but that having done so they did not at once quit the office of minister to the community whose faith they could no longer uphold; their fault is not that they differed, but that, differing, they sought an office of which the prime necessity is agreement.
All the elements of the lowest kind of knavery meet in the evil which we now denounce. Treachery is never more treacherous than when it leads a man to stab at a doctrine which he has solemnly engaged to uphold, and for the maintenance of which he receives a livelihood. . . .
It is frequently bewailed as a mournful circumstance that creeds were ever written; it is said, "Let the Bible alone be the creed of every church, and let preachers explain the Scriptures as they conscientiously think best." Here again we enter into no debate, but simply beg the objector to remember that there are creeds, that the churches have not given them up, that persons are not forced to be ministers of these churches, and therefore if they object to creeds they should not offer to become teachers of them; above all, they should not agree to teach what they do not believe."
BY Spurgeon
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Calvin on sound doctrine
2 Timothy 1:13 - Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
Hold the form of sound words. Some explain it thus: Let thy doctrine be, as it were, a pattern which others may imitate. I do not approve of that view. Equally removed from Paul’s meaning is Chrysostom’s exposition, that Timothy should have at hand the image of virtues engraven on his heart by Paul’s doctrine. I rather think that Paul commands Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which he had learned, not only as to substance, but as to the very form of expression; for — the word which Paul employs on this occasion — denotes a lively picture of objects, as if they were actually placed before the eyes. Paul knew how ready men are to depart or fall off from pure doctrine. For this reason he earnestly cautions Timothy not to turn aside from that form of teaching which he had received, and to regulate his manner of teaching by the rule which had been laid down; not that we ought to be very scrupulous about words, but because to misrepresent doctrine, even in the smallest degree, is exceedingly injurious.
–– John Calvin, from his commentary on 2 Timothy
Hold the form of sound words. Some explain it thus: Let thy doctrine be, as it were, a pattern which others may imitate. I do not approve of that view. Equally removed from Paul’s meaning is Chrysostom’s exposition, that Timothy should have at hand the image of virtues engraven on his heart by Paul’s doctrine. I rather think that Paul commands Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which he had learned, not only as to substance, but as to the very form of expression; for — the word which Paul employs on this occasion — denotes a lively picture of objects, as if they were actually placed before the eyes. Paul knew how ready men are to depart or fall off from pure doctrine. For this reason he earnestly cautions Timothy not to turn aside from that form of teaching which he had received, and to regulate his manner of teaching by the rule which had been laid down; not that we ought to be very scrupulous about words, but because to misrepresent doctrine, even in the smallest degree, is exceedingly injurious.
–– John Calvin, from his commentary on 2 Timothy
Monday, November 28, 2005
Postmodern openness
Phil Johnson is one of Andrea and I's former pastors. He is a gifted writer and a good preacher. This was a great article he recently wrote for www.phillipjohnson.blogspot.com
I know I don't post very often. In part because the best stuff i have to offer/say is found in my sermons (www.fbccarmel.com). I preached yesterday on Jude 3 in the AM and on "The Agonies of Gethsemane" during the PM communion service.
This article fits in perfectly with my series on Jude. Please give me feedback regarding my most recent sermon "The Contenders" from Jude 3........
"The favorite buzzwords of the postmodern spirit all sound so warm and friendly, don't they? Conversation, dialogue, openness, generosity, tolerance. Who wouldn't want to participate in discourse with someone who truly prized human values such as those?
On the other hand, the very same Zeitgeist has demonized a host of other essential biblical values, such as authority, conviction, clarity, and even truth. In the milieu of the emerging discussion, this second category of words has been made to sound harsh, unreasonable, arrogant, and extreme—if not downright evil.
Moreover, postmodern human values are increasingly being defined in a way that expressly precludes eternal biblical values. For example, the prevailing opinion nowadays is that you cannot be "open" and certain at the same time. A person who speaks with too much conviction is ipso facto deemed an "intolerant" person. Above all, anyone who recognizes the full authority of Scripture and insists that God's Word deserves our unconditional submission will inevitably be accused of deliberately trying to stymie the whole "conversation."
This is not to suggest that disagreement per se is prohibited in the postmodern dialectic. Quite the contrary, "deconstruction" is all about disputes over words. Postmoderns thrive on dissent, debate, and contradiction.
And (giving credit where credit is due) it should be noted that postmodernists can sometimes be amazingly congenial in their verbal sparring with one another.
One thing the participants in the postmodern "conversation" simply will not tolerate, however, is someone who disagrees and thinks the point is really serious. Virtually no heresy is ever to be regarded as damnable. The notion that erroneous doctrine can actually be dangerous is deemed uncouth and naive. Every bizarre notion gets equal respect. Truth itself is only a matter of personal perspective, you see. Everything is ultimately negotiable.
Now, if you want to join the postmodern "conversation," you are expected to acknowledge all this up front—at least tacitly. That's the price of admission to the discussion. Once you're in, you can throw any bizarre idea you want on the table, no matter how outlandish. You can use virtually any tone or language to make your point, no matter how outrageous. But you must bear in mind that all disputation at this table is purely for sport. At the end of the day, you mustn't really be concerned about the truth or falsehood of any mere propositions.
Some "conversation." The ground rules guarantee that truth itself will be a casualty in every controversy, because regardless of the substance or the outcome of the dialogue, participants have in effect agreed up front that the propositions under debate don't really matter.
Entering the "conversation" at all is tantamount to breaking the seal on a software package. The moment you do it, you have putatively given your consent to the postmodernist's ground rules. If you then violate those rules—meaning if you take any doctrine too seriously or insist that Scripture is really authoritative—you will be savaged as someone who is cruel, intolerant, unenlightened, and hopelessly arrogant.
That's why it is well-nigh impossible to have an authentic, meaningful conversation with a devoted postmodernist and ever see anything genuinely resolved. The postmodernist by definition has no real hope or expectation of arriving at the truth of any matter. That's not the goal of the postmodernist exercise. It's not even a desirable objective. The only real point is to eliminate certitude altogether. This is done not by settling disputes, but by silencing or assimilating everyone who resists the unrestrained free flow of the postmodernist idea-exchange.
Truth is under attack on countless fronts today. What's popular these days—even among professing Christians—is glorying in ambiguity and uncertainty. Precious few are still committed without reservation to the truth and authority of Scripture. The very last thing I would willingly do in times like these would be to pledge a moratorium on candor or agree to a ceasefire with people who delight in testing the limits of orthodoxy. See Nehemiah 6:2-4." BY Phil Johnson www.spurgeon.org
I know I don't post very often. In part because the best stuff i have to offer/say is found in my sermons (www.fbccarmel.com). I preached yesterday on Jude 3 in the AM and on "The Agonies of Gethsemane" during the PM communion service.
This article fits in perfectly with my series on Jude. Please give me feedback regarding my most recent sermon "The Contenders" from Jude 3........
"The favorite buzzwords of the postmodern spirit all sound so warm and friendly, don't they? Conversation, dialogue, openness, generosity, tolerance. Who wouldn't want to participate in discourse with someone who truly prized human values such as those?
On the other hand, the very same Zeitgeist has demonized a host of other essential biblical values, such as authority, conviction, clarity, and even truth. In the milieu of the emerging discussion, this second category of words has been made to sound harsh, unreasonable, arrogant, and extreme—if not downright evil.
Moreover, postmodern human values are increasingly being defined in a way that expressly precludes eternal biblical values. For example, the prevailing opinion nowadays is that you cannot be "open" and certain at the same time. A person who speaks with too much conviction is ipso facto deemed an "intolerant" person. Above all, anyone who recognizes the full authority of Scripture and insists that God's Word deserves our unconditional submission will inevitably be accused of deliberately trying to stymie the whole "conversation."
This is not to suggest that disagreement per se is prohibited in the postmodern dialectic. Quite the contrary, "deconstruction" is all about disputes over words. Postmoderns thrive on dissent, debate, and contradiction.
And (giving credit where credit is due) it should be noted that postmodernists can sometimes be amazingly congenial in their verbal sparring with one another.
One thing the participants in the postmodern "conversation" simply will not tolerate, however, is someone who disagrees and thinks the point is really serious. Virtually no heresy is ever to be regarded as damnable. The notion that erroneous doctrine can actually be dangerous is deemed uncouth and naive. Every bizarre notion gets equal respect. Truth itself is only a matter of personal perspective, you see. Everything is ultimately negotiable.
Now, if you want to join the postmodern "conversation," you are expected to acknowledge all this up front—at least tacitly. That's the price of admission to the discussion. Once you're in, you can throw any bizarre idea you want on the table, no matter how outlandish. You can use virtually any tone or language to make your point, no matter how outrageous. But you must bear in mind that all disputation at this table is purely for sport. At the end of the day, you mustn't really be concerned about the truth or falsehood of any mere propositions.
Some "conversation." The ground rules guarantee that truth itself will be a casualty in every controversy, because regardless of the substance or the outcome of the dialogue, participants have in effect agreed up front that the propositions under debate don't really matter.
Entering the "conversation" at all is tantamount to breaking the seal on a software package. The moment you do it, you have putatively given your consent to the postmodernist's ground rules. If you then violate those rules—meaning if you take any doctrine too seriously or insist that Scripture is really authoritative—you will be savaged as someone who is cruel, intolerant, unenlightened, and hopelessly arrogant.
That's why it is well-nigh impossible to have an authentic, meaningful conversation with a devoted postmodernist and ever see anything genuinely resolved. The postmodernist by definition has no real hope or expectation of arriving at the truth of any matter. That's not the goal of the postmodernist exercise. It's not even a desirable objective. The only real point is to eliminate certitude altogether. This is done not by settling disputes, but by silencing or assimilating everyone who resists the unrestrained free flow of the postmodernist idea-exchange.
Truth is under attack on countless fronts today. What's popular these days—even among professing Christians—is glorying in ambiguity and uncertainty. Precious few are still committed without reservation to the truth and authority of Scripture. The very last thing I would willingly do in times like these would be to pledge a moratorium on candor or agree to a ceasefire with people who delight in testing the limits of orthodoxy. See Nehemiah 6:2-4." BY Phil Johnson www.spurgeon.org
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Jude 3
I am preaching this Sunday on Jude 3. This may be the most powerful text i have ever preached from....I can't wait for Sunday!!!!!!!!!!
The Contenders (Jude 3)
“To Protect and (Pre)serve”
the faith, that was once for all delivered to the saints.
The Contenders (Jude 3)
“To Protect and (Pre)serve”
the faith, that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Friday, November 18, 2005
Similarities between 2 Peter and Jude
2 Peter 2:1-33 Jude 4-18
2 Peter 2:6 Jude 7
2 Peter 2:10 Jude 8
2 Peter 2:11 Jude 9
2 Peter 2:12 Jude 10
2 Peter 2:18 Jude 16
2 Peter 3:2-3 Jude 17-18
2 Peter 2:6; “and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter;”
Jude 7; “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”
2 Peter 2:12; “But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed.”
Jude 10; “But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.”
2 Peter 2:18, “For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error”
Jude 16; “These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.”
2 Peter 2:6 Jude 7
2 Peter 2:10 Jude 8
2 Peter 2:11 Jude 9
2 Peter 2:12 Jude 10
2 Peter 2:18 Jude 16
2 Peter 3:2-3 Jude 17-18
2 Peter 2:6; “and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter;”
Jude 7; “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”
2 Peter 2:12; “But these, like unreasoning animals, born as creatures of instinct to be captured and killed, reviling where they have no knowledge, will in the destruction of those creatures also be destroyed.”
Jude 10; “But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed.”
2 Peter 2:18, “For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error”
Jude 16; “These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage.”
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Understanding the Sufficiency of the Scriptures: By Jerry Wragg
Pastor Jerry Wragg impacted my Christian life in such remarkable ways. He was the finest mentor I ever had (outside of my parents).
This blog he recently wrote is totally worth your time: READ ON.........
from http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12723103&postID=113203049972981888
JerryW said...
"I really hesitated offering this response because it is way too long, and is largely experience-driven (my own). But it raises questions that I believe have been on the heart of every believer on both sides of the continuation vs cessation issue (sorry, Phil Johnson, for bringing this up again). Incidentally, if you’re from a cessationist background but your claim is that your continuationism is only exegetical without having changed how you actually relate to God (e.g. revelations), then you either haven’t held the view very long or you aren’t practicing what you claim to believe. In fact, I can’t imagine why someone would conclude that scripture teaches continuationism without vigorously pursuing such interaction with the Creator, especially if it guarantees daily, albeit less authoritative and reliable, data directly from on high.
Be that as it may, on to my personal experience (what a knife-edge to walk). I have lived my entire Christian life being sanctified, making crucial decisions, raising a family, facing an evil culture, shepherding the flock of God, praying, seeing God work intimately in my life, knowing His pleasure, smarting under His discipline, learning to be selfless, cultivating humility, being powerfully led by His Spirit, becoming more courageous in bold evangelism, establishing deep doctrinal convictions, loving Jesus Christ and His cross beyond words, and experiencing the overwhelming wonder of worshiping my God---all exclusively through the instrument of the “living and abiding word of God” in His hand! What does this prove? Only that until its biblical arguments are convincing, none of what continuationism promises holds any necessary attraction for me. If God does reveal Himself “freshly” for my practical daily walk by some other means than the Bible I sure haven’t missed it. The Lord is as “fresh” to me now as ever! Does He strongly compel me to do this or that and go here or there? His word assures me that He does, by means of the Spirit’s sanctifying grace (as I yield to His written will – Eph. 5:18), by the mind of Christ renewing my fleshly reasoning (as I obey the truth - 1 Cor. 2:15; 2 Cor. 10:5), by doctrinal convictions cured over time (as I develop discernment – Heb. 5:14), and by the refining of my faith (as I entrust myself to Christ’s written promises, providential care, and saving love – Rom. 8:26-30). Some may ask, “what about those everyday practical ‘forks in the road’ where the dilemma of making a ‘wrong’ decision seems to demand ‘clearer insight into the future’”? For me, such cases are fairly routine and I resolve them in two ways: (1) I exhaust all possible avenues of wisdom commanded in scripture, namely, seeking wise counsel, applying any biblically explicit principles, examining subtle motives and unbiblical ideas that cloud my thinking, and trusting that the Spirit is working out His sovereign will in my life. Having first given the matter these considerations and found no more compelling clarity, I move forward in faith (even if I’m not quite sure, hence the faith!); (2) The previous steps build a deeper discernment over time so that such considerations begin to occur imperceptibly. No more “answer” is needed, nor do I believe one is offered by the Lord. Otherwise, how would I come to know and trust the promised goodness of God in the “waiting”?
On that note, I have often wondered why so many Christians seem to “need” specific clarity from God in the daily issues of life. If an intimate walk with Christ demanded a whole set of daily, personal revelations guaranteeing the “best path for me” how would I ever learn simple entrustment? Moreover, wouldn’t I be held responsible for carrying out every prescriptive detail of the revealed plan? And since I already lack faith where the scriptures are concerned, wouldn’t my immaturity quibble even more over God’s specific path for me because “His ways are not my ways…and His thoughts are higher than my thoughts”? In addition, how would I ever have enough spiritual insight to comprehend what He has ordained for me in each moment of my life, and how could I bear the burden of failing to line up with it all? And if inner promptings are direct revelations from God to me personally and I fail to obey to the detail, haven’t I violated His directly revealed will in the same manner as disobeying His written word? But some will say, “Isn’t it the same issue when cessationists fail to follow a “strong conviction” to witness to the guy at the bus stop”? No, because though God has directly commanded that we call all men to repent, He has not revealed his perfect and specific will for each circumstance. Upon further reflection, I may be guilty of selfishness and self-preservation by not responding to inward convictions I have come to believe over time (e.g. compassion for the lost, selfless and courageous evangelism), and must learn to respond more discerningly to Kingdom-opportunities. But I am in no danger of rebellion against a direct “word-for-the-moment” revelation. Quite frankly, I haven’t been able to keep up with all that scripture commands or promises as it is, so I’m compelled to believe that there is much more yet to be “experienced” as I behold wondrous things from His word and tremble to heed them. So far, God has strengthened my faith by His word alone apart from such specific revelations. If I’ve missed such a crucial resource as fresh, divine revelation for my sanctification during the last twenty-three years, you would think that glaring perversion, gross spiritual atrophy, serious doctrinal confusion, and frequent ruinous decisions would litter the landscape of my Christian experience (evidences all too common among many who live by revelations outside of scripture). After all, if a believer neglects any other spiritual discipline (including the use of spiritual gifts in the body), even for a short time, the watered seed of dereliction does bloom! Yet, in every persistent battle with the flesh (e.g. pride, weak faith, ignorance, laziness, unforgiveness, idolatry, and more) and my own daily struggle to humbly trust the Lord for His perfect will (a work-in-progress known all too well by my family and close friends) I have found scripture a ready and utterly sufficient weapon against the enemy, and a thorough implement for spiritual surgery. True, continuationists may make the same assertion, but not without being inconsistent. Continuationism necessitates the conclusion that cessationists have missed the personal work of the Spirit available to all believers, and therefore are floundering in a sea of non-dynamic adherence to ancient words alone. As a logical consequence, cessationist-churches must be “quenching the Spirit[‘s]” most significant work by emphasizing the specific application of ancient scripture over the contemporary and individual-specific revelations given directly by God. I fail to see how these conclusions can be avoided given the continuationist’s claim that private revelations occur today.
So what do we make of those nagging “checks and promptings” in our “spirit”? Are “strong impressions” (i.e. to witness to someone, to listen to a radio preacher, to be a missionary, to speak a serendipitous word of encouragement, etc.) to be taken as “direct” revelations from the Lord? For the continuationist, the answer is yes, not only because of an alleged lack of a verse or passage to the contrary (never mind that cessationism has yet to be dispensed of with so little an offering), but also because these revelations represent a needed specificity the Bible, it is claimed, never intended to offer. I would submit, however, that the answer depends on what is meant by “direct”. For instance, the singular testimony of scripture regarding Christian growth is that as one’s understanding of biblical truth deepens through obedience, strong conviction, passion, and discernment increases exponentially (Heb. 5:14; 1 John 2:13-14). Now, if I’m inwardly (indeed, almost audibly) compelled at some moment to share Christ with someone, must I conclude that the Lord has directly revealed His future will to me for that moment? Isn’t it possible (even more probable) that I am simply being “directed” through biblical convictions which the Spirit has seasoned through obedience over time, for His providential and effective use at that particular moment? Or, perhaps I’m experiencing a range of normal, biblical thoughts brought on by a combination of biblical truth and Christian experience? Our minds (inner man) work this way in every other arena of life, why must we suddenly spiritualize every strong “notion” and divinize each inner “impression”? Perhaps some clarity can be gained by looking at the way our conscience works. The scripture’s teach that the conscience strongly “condemns” or “affirms” us, depending upon how we respond to the strongest inner standards of conviction we believe (Rom. 2:14-15). Such condemnation and affirmation may be so inwardly powerful that it seems like audible “screaming”! Yet, no one would claim (I hope) that the promptings of the conscience are direct revelations from God. In fact, it is dangerous to give the conscience ultimate authority since it can be wrongly trained, sending false alarms where no sin exists, or no alarms when real guilt is present. It seems to me that inner convictions operate in a similar fashion. The more biblically refined my convictions, the more Spirit-driven my strong “impressions”. But if I mistake sensitive and mature spiritual convictions for “direct revelation” from God I will most assuredly “hear” God’s will where He has not spoken, and miss His clear written direction in pursuit of more than He offers in the Bible. Another example may help---if I have strong “impressions” about specific ways to apply the biblical admonition “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church”, am I receiving direct revelation specifically for my marriage? If not, how do I know the difference, since it is claimed that God gives “fresh revelations” for the practical areas of my life? And if, on the other hand, by applying scripture to my marriage I have strong convictions about ways to love my wife more biblically, what is lacking? As I see it, the idea of direct, divine, freshly revealed specifics for my life cannot be a both/and proposition. Either I believe that all inner thoughts specific to my life are directly given by God to complement the general principles of His written revelation, or they are the fruit of a Spirit-trained mind being “led” by obedience-produced convictions.
More to the point…these “promtings” and “impressions” are easily explained as God’s providential leading in a spiritually seasoned believer whose biblical convictions “speak to them” in the milieu of daily living. These strong thoughts can result in experiences ranging from the mundane to the seemingly impossible. They DO NOT demand the belief that God has directly spoken beyond scripture. His providence working through obedient believers is all that is needed (Phil. 2:12-13) to experience His leading. Lest we think this is only an issue of semantics, I believe what continuationists call “fresh revelation” is actually the Spirit’s providence combined with strong biblical convictions at best, or the accommodation of weak faith by desiring a “sensation” of knowing God’s specific will at worst.
In light of the above, my experience (apologies for the argument from experience) with Christ has now become the “trained-behavior” that keeps me wondering if continuationism is more the result of wanting something that obedience to the written word already affords.
My point is not that experience rules my conclusions, only that my experience continues to prove what God’s word overwhelmingly claims, namely that it provides everything the Christian needs until glory."
This blog he recently wrote is totally worth your time: READ ON.........
from http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=12723103&postID=113203049972981888
JerryW said...
"I really hesitated offering this response because it is way too long, and is largely experience-driven (my own). But it raises questions that I believe have been on the heart of every believer on both sides of the continuation vs cessation issue (sorry, Phil Johnson, for bringing this up again). Incidentally, if you’re from a cessationist background but your claim is that your continuationism is only exegetical without having changed how you actually relate to God (e.g. revelations), then you either haven’t held the view very long or you aren’t practicing what you claim to believe. In fact, I can’t imagine why someone would conclude that scripture teaches continuationism without vigorously pursuing such interaction with the Creator, especially if it guarantees daily, albeit less authoritative and reliable, data directly from on high.
Be that as it may, on to my personal experience (what a knife-edge to walk). I have lived my entire Christian life being sanctified, making crucial decisions, raising a family, facing an evil culture, shepherding the flock of God, praying, seeing God work intimately in my life, knowing His pleasure, smarting under His discipline, learning to be selfless, cultivating humility, being powerfully led by His Spirit, becoming more courageous in bold evangelism, establishing deep doctrinal convictions, loving Jesus Christ and His cross beyond words, and experiencing the overwhelming wonder of worshiping my God---all exclusively through the instrument of the “living and abiding word of God” in His hand! What does this prove? Only that until its biblical arguments are convincing, none of what continuationism promises holds any necessary attraction for me. If God does reveal Himself “freshly” for my practical daily walk by some other means than the Bible I sure haven’t missed it. The Lord is as “fresh” to me now as ever! Does He strongly compel me to do this or that and go here or there? His word assures me that He does, by means of the Spirit’s sanctifying grace (as I yield to His written will – Eph. 5:18), by the mind of Christ renewing my fleshly reasoning (as I obey the truth - 1 Cor. 2:15; 2 Cor. 10:5), by doctrinal convictions cured over time (as I develop discernment – Heb. 5:14), and by the refining of my faith (as I entrust myself to Christ’s written promises, providential care, and saving love – Rom. 8:26-30). Some may ask, “what about those everyday practical ‘forks in the road’ where the dilemma of making a ‘wrong’ decision seems to demand ‘clearer insight into the future’”? For me, such cases are fairly routine and I resolve them in two ways: (1) I exhaust all possible avenues of wisdom commanded in scripture, namely, seeking wise counsel, applying any biblically explicit principles, examining subtle motives and unbiblical ideas that cloud my thinking, and trusting that the Spirit is working out His sovereign will in my life. Having first given the matter these considerations and found no more compelling clarity, I move forward in faith (even if I’m not quite sure, hence the faith!); (2) The previous steps build a deeper discernment over time so that such considerations begin to occur imperceptibly. No more “answer” is needed, nor do I believe one is offered by the Lord. Otherwise, how would I come to know and trust the promised goodness of God in the “waiting”?
On that note, I have often wondered why so many Christians seem to “need” specific clarity from God in the daily issues of life. If an intimate walk with Christ demanded a whole set of daily, personal revelations guaranteeing the “best path for me” how would I ever learn simple entrustment? Moreover, wouldn’t I be held responsible for carrying out every prescriptive detail of the revealed plan? And since I already lack faith where the scriptures are concerned, wouldn’t my immaturity quibble even more over God’s specific path for me because “His ways are not my ways…and His thoughts are higher than my thoughts”? In addition, how would I ever have enough spiritual insight to comprehend what He has ordained for me in each moment of my life, and how could I bear the burden of failing to line up with it all? And if inner promptings are direct revelations from God to me personally and I fail to obey to the detail, haven’t I violated His directly revealed will in the same manner as disobeying His written word? But some will say, “Isn’t it the same issue when cessationists fail to follow a “strong conviction” to witness to the guy at the bus stop”? No, because though God has directly commanded that we call all men to repent, He has not revealed his perfect and specific will for each circumstance. Upon further reflection, I may be guilty of selfishness and self-preservation by not responding to inward convictions I have come to believe over time (e.g. compassion for the lost, selfless and courageous evangelism), and must learn to respond more discerningly to Kingdom-opportunities. But I am in no danger of rebellion against a direct “word-for-the-moment” revelation. Quite frankly, I haven’t been able to keep up with all that scripture commands or promises as it is, so I’m compelled to believe that there is much more yet to be “experienced” as I behold wondrous things from His word and tremble to heed them. So far, God has strengthened my faith by His word alone apart from such specific revelations. If I’ve missed such a crucial resource as fresh, divine revelation for my sanctification during the last twenty-three years, you would think that glaring perversion, gross spiritual atrophy, serious doctrinal confusion, and frequent ruinous decisions would litter the landscape of my Christian experience (evidences all too common among many who live by revelations outside of scripture). After all, if a believer neglects any other spiritual discipline (including the use of spiritual gifts in the body), even for a short time, the watered seed of dereliction does bloom! Yet, in every persistent battle with the flesh (e.g. pride, weak faith, ignorance, laziness, unforgiveness, idolatry, and more) and my own daily struggle to humbly trust the Lord for His perfect will (a work-in-progress known all too well by my family and close friends) I have found scripture a ready and utterly sufficient weapon against the enemy, and a thorough implement for spiritual surgery. True, continuationists may make the same assertion, but not without being inconsistent. Continuationism necessitates the conclusion that cessationists have missed the personal work of the Spirit available to all believers, and therefore are floundering in a sea of non-dynamic adherence to ancient words alone. As a logical consequence, cessationist-churches must be “quenching the Spirit[‘s]” most significant work by emphasizing the specific application of ancient scripture over the contemporary and individual-specific revelations given directly by God. I fail to see how these conclusions can be avoided given the continuationist’s claim that private revelations occur today.
So what do we make of those nagging “checks and promptings” in our “spirit”? Are “strong impressions” (i.e. to witness to someone, to listen to a radio preacher, to be a missionary, to speak a serendipitous word of encouragement, etc.) to be taken as “direct” revelations from the Lord? For the continuationist, the answer is yes, not only because of an alleged lack of a verse or passage to the contrary (never mind that cessationism has yet to be dispensed of with so little an offering), but also because these revelations represent a needed specificity the Bible, it is claimed, never intended to offer. I would submit, however, that the answer depends on what is meant by “direct”. For instance, the singular testimony of scripture regarding Christian growth is that as one’s understanding of biblical truth deepens through obedience, strong conviction, passion, and discernment increases exponentially (Heb. 5:14; 1 John 2:13-14). Now, if I’m inwardly (indeed, almost audibly) compelled at some moment to share Christ with someone, must I conclude that the Lord has directly revealed His future will to me for that moment? Isn’t it possible (even more probable) that I am simply being “directed” through biblical convictions which the Spirit has seasoned through obedience over time, for His providential and effective use at that particular moment? Or, perhaps I’m experiencing a range of normal, biblical thoughts brought on by a combination of biblical truth and Christian experience? Our minds (inner man) work this way in every other arena of life, why must we suddenly spiritualize every strong “notion” and divinize each inner “impression”? Perhaps some clarity can be gained by looking at the way our conscience works. The scripture’s teach that the conscience strongly “condemns” or “affirms” us, depending upon how we respond to the strongest inner standards of conviction we believe (Rom. 2:14-15). Such condemnation and affirmation may be so inwardly powerful that it seems like audible “screaming”! Yet, no one would claim (I hope) that the promptings of the conscience are direct revelations from God. In fact, it is dangerous to give the conscience ultimate authority since it can be wrongly trained, sending false alarms where no sin exists, or no alarms when real guilt is present. It seems to me that inner convictions operate in a similar fashion. The more biblically refined my convictions, the more Spirit-driven my strong “impressions”. But if I mistake sensitive and mature spiritual convictions for “direct revelation” from God I will most assuredly “hear” God’s will where He has not spoken, and miss His clear written direction in pursuit of more than He offers in the Bible. Another example may help---if I have strong “impressions” about specific ways to apply the biblical admonition “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church”, am I receiving direct revelation specifically for my marriage? If not, how do I know the difference, since it is claimed that God gives “fresh revelations” for the practical areas of my life? And if, on the other hand, by applying scripture to my marriage I have strong convictions about ways to love my wife more biblically, what is lacking? As I see it, the idea of direct, divine, freshly revealed specifics for my life cannot be a both/and proposition. Either I believe that all inner thoughts specific to my life are directly given by God to complement the general principles of His written revelation, or they are the fruit of a Spirit-trained mind being “led” by obedience-produced convictions.
More to the point…these “promtings” and “impressions” are easily explained as God’s providential leading in a spiritually seasoned believer whose biblical convictions “speak to them” in the milieu of daily living. These strong thoughts can result in experiences ranging from the mundane to the seemingly impossible. They DO NOT demand the belief that God has directly spoken beyond scripture. His providence working through obedient believers is all that is needed (Phil. 2:12-13) to experience His leading. Lest we think this is only an issue of semantics, I believe what continuationists call “fresh revelation” is actually the Spirit’s providence combined with strong biblical convictions at best, or the accommodation of weak faith by desiring a “sensation” of knowing God’s specific will at worst.
In light of the above, my experience (apologies for the argument from experience) with Christ has now become the “trained-behavior” that keeps me wondering if continuationism is more the result of wanting something that obedience to the written word already affords.
My point is not that experience rules my conclusions, only that my experience continues to prove what God’s word overwhelmingly claims, namely that it provides everything the Christian needs until glory."
Friday, November 11, 2005
Is Piper wrong here?
I really liked this letter......... Read on
A Pastor's Opinion as to Bethlehem Baptist Church's Unfortunate and Dangerous Decision
By Dr. Roy Hargrave
Senior Pastor
Riverbend Community Church
Ormond Beach & Palm Coast, Florida
On August 9, 2005, the Council of Elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minn., approved the following motion (23 "yes", 1 "no"): “The Elders recommend to the church that the Constitution and By-Laws be amended in accordance with revision 08-09-05 as amended by the Elders (on 08/09/05), of the document entitled Baptism and Church Membership at Bethlehem Baptist Church”.
To my knowledge, this motion has not yet been approved by the congregation at Bethlehem. Information that is cited in this “open” letter, concerning the details of this recommendation by the Elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church, may be found here.
An Open Letter to Bethlehem Baptist Church:
It is with a high regard for the Bethlehem Baptist Church and its senior pastor, Dr. John Piper, that I make the following observations. My motive is not out of malice or the desire to stir up a controversy among the brethren. On the contrary, it is with great fear and trepidation that I seek to enter into disagreement with a man that I consider one of the great stalwarts of the faith in our day.
John Piper has been greatly used of God in ways that are both known and unknown. He has been a catalyst for reformation among young men and women around the world, and he possesses what many of us believe to be a God-given influence which is presently unequaled among leaders of the reformed faith (especially Baptists). The consequences of this influence have not left Bethlehem Baptist Church unaffected by his contagious passion for the glory of God and the salvation of the lost.
I have spent two weeks in that wonderful church. Bethlehem's witness for Christ and His glory impacted my life and ministry in ways that I cannot describe. I love that church and its pastor, who I believe has been and continues to be a mighty weapon in the hands of God. Dr. Piper has been used of God for a renewal of vision and passion for a God-enhanced theological and practical approach that affects everything from preaching to missionary zeal. It is his sanctified heart and mind that God has bestowed upon him that sets him apart from the mass of preachers in our day. He is a man of God who should be held in high regard among the brethren.
And though John Piper would never seek such favor among us, we must acquiesce to God’s Word in 1 Thess. 5:12-13, “ . . . esteem them (those who diligently labor among you . . . and give you instruction) very highly in love . . .”.
I must also qualify my objections by stating definitively that Bethlehem Baptist Church is a local, autonomous congregation and possesses the governmental liberty to make determinations without regard for external influence. It does not mean, however, that those decisions are biblically correct.
I must also stipulate that my determination to make this an "open letter" to Bethlehem Baptist Church is due to the widespread distribution (internet and other means) of that church's decision on changing its qualifications for church membership. It has been Bethlehem's desire (for which I am extremely glad) in recent years to have a broader influence on the evangelical world through the means of publishing, internet access and conferences that make responses like this inevitable.
Though Bethlehem has the freedom and authority to make this decision, it has ramifications which may be broader than ever imagined. This is certainly true for those of us who are Baptists. As a Southern Baptist pastor for the past 32 years, I think I know somewhat about the kind of negative feedback which will occur in our ranks among those who come from a more Arminian perspective.
For those who may not know it, Southern Baptists are in the underlying throes of a theological conflict. There is everything from Pelagianism (at least semi-Pelagianism) to Hyper-Calvinism in our ranks, and great confusion is in our future if this matter is left unattended. We have everything from cold, dead, passionless theologues to high-flying preachers who baptize their converts in baptistries shaped like red fire engines. One of the SBC's past presidents has even stated that we are now practicing “infant baptism” through the abuse of Vacation Bible School evangelism.
I don’t want to leave the impression that there is nothing positive happening in our ranks. On the contrary, there are a number of good things happening in our midst. I'm talking about things that especially relate to a renewal among our young college and seminary students for a passion for God’s glory and a restoration of the biblical gospel. These young minds and hearts are apparently sick of the fluff and hollowness of a man-centered theology and the carnal use of human manipulation resulting in a bloated church membership and false conversions.
This leads me to the point of this decision at Bethlehem, especially for Southern Baptists. This renewal among our Baptist young men and women has been greatly aided by the conviction and forthrightness of Dr. Piper. Some would even argue that no other person has been as influential as Dr. Piper for this on-going reformation. I would certainly be hard-pressed to name anyone who has been used of God among Southern Baptist youth to the extent that Dr. Piper has in the past decade.
Now in light of Bethlehem's decision to receive some into the congregation who have been baptized as infants, we must part with Dr. Piper and Bethlehem. It will certainly be used by those who still possess enormous influence in our denomination to draw young Baptist students away from reading Piper’s works and listening to his sermons. I heard it stated over four years ago by a well-known leader in our ranks that this “Calvinism in our midst will always lead to a full covenantal theological approach which ultimately practices infant baptism.”
Of course, we who embrace the precious Doctrines of Grace responded by saying that was ludicrous. We may have been wrong. Granted, the ignoring of our own history in Southern Baptist life has led many to be blinded to the fact that the great stalwarts like Boyce, Dagg, Manly and Broadus, as well as Lottie Moon, were Calvinists. Coincidentally, these valiant Baptists never turned away from the Baptistic understanding of believer’s baptism. Of course, those who possess wisdom will not "throw the baby out with the wash." Many of us will continue to read Dr. Piper’s works and listen to his sermons. But this does not diminish the negative impact this unfortunate decision will cause in our ranks.
All the above is worthless speculation if there is no substance to my disagreement with Bethlehem’s decision. Besides reading the anticipated amendments to Bethlehem’s By-Laws concerning the approval of receiving some who have been baptized as infants (without immersion after regeneration), I have read and re-read the appendices which set forth arguments (primarily from Dr. Piper) that seek to justify the substance of the decision in this matter.
Again, I must reiterate my understanding of the church's authority as a local church to make such arguments and approve of such practices. However, the church's high visibility, especially among Baptists, demands a response from those who will be affected within their denominations.
There are three areas of concern that I would hope Bethlehem would consider.
First, there is the matter of biblical authority and accuracy. Granted, while all who would claim a full and infallible interpretation of Scripture would rightfully be considered arrogant, it still remains a legitimate goal of all who believe the Bible to seek a rightful dividing of it. Disagreements over interpretive issues occur on a regular basis among men of God who sincerely seek the Truth, but when that truth is known, there must be no room for capitulation.
John Piper has said unequivocally that the immersion of believers is the only legitimate and proper understanding of New Testament baptism. He has also preached explicitly against the covenantal view of baptism replacing circumcision as the sign of entering the New Covenant. Clearly, he has stated, (to paraphrase) faith is the required entrance into the enjoyment of this New Covenant. This is certainly the view which has been held among Baptists for centuries.
Also, Bethlehem has stated in its documents: The teaching and practice of baptism at Bethlehem Baptist Church is defined in Section 12 of the BETHLEHEM BAPTIST CHURCH ELDER AFFIRMATION OF FAITH. The key paragraph states: We believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Lord by which those who have repented and come to faith express their union with Christ in His death and resurrection by being immersed in water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is a sign of belonging to the new people of God, the true Israel, and an emblem of burial and cleansing, signifying death to the old life of unbelief and purification from the pollution of sin. Thus, the official Bethlehem position is that only baptism by immersion of believers will be taught and practiced by the church. Customarily, therefore, all members of the church will have been baptized by immersion as believers.
It is, therefore, without controversy that Dr. Piper and Bethlehem interpret the Scripture as stating that only believer’s baptism through immersion is the legitimate mode and method of New Testament baptism. If this is plainly believed (as it appears to be) by the elders and membership of Bethlehem, then what form of reasoning would lead them away from the accuracy and authority of Scripture? Perhaps I simply don’t understand. But it seems, in my opinion, to demonstrate a subtle compromise of known truth, which will establish a dangerous precedent.
Secondly, though Dr. Piper and Bethlehem possess what Baptists believe to be a biblical view of practice in the church, they may be guilty of "incrementalism." This term is used by some to describe the slow and subtle movement away from biblical authority. In Spurgeon’s day, it was called the “downgrade.”
I don’t want to put Bethlehem’s decision in the dark light of the incipient liberalism of the 19th Century. But to put it bluntly, if the Bible, in Dr. Piper's own words, teaches believer’s baptism only, then what possible reasoning could be used to practice what is self-designated as the acceptance of “the minimum doctrinal and life standards for membership"?
Now, I must hasten to agree, in principle, with the spirit of the statement. Obviously, it would be unwise for any church to expect new converts and members to be theologians and expert practitioners of New Testament ecclesiology. However, the letter of the above statement is questionable in light of the determination to permit the allowance of error (according to the church's own theology), due to a possible “violation of their (the new members') conscience.” In this case, I don’t think the word “doctrinal” should be in the statement, since what they are allowing is not doctrinal but experiential.
I do not want to misrepresent the matter as Bethlehem sees it, so here is the reasoning in this matter in that church's own words. However, we believe it is fitting that membership in the local church (distinct from leadership in the local church) should have prerequisites similar to the prerequisites for membership in the universal church. In other words, we believe it is unfitting to deny membership to a person who, by faith in Christ, gives evidence of regeneration.
I don’t mean to appear condescending when I say this, but aren’t there some members of the “universal church” who are unlearned and immature to the extent that they will not submit to the authority of a local church?
We could argue about the legitimacy of the conversion of these people, but I think we would all admit that some truly saved people are not members of a local church for wrong reasons. Of course, chastisement is certainly in their future, but that does not change the fact that they exist. Another problem I have with this line of Bethlehem's reasoning is the failure to recognize the distinction between the local church and the universal church.
How often does the Bible speak about the universal church? Very little, and usually in a future perspective. For instance, the innumerable body of believers around the throne of God in the book of Revelation is a future vision. The point is, the Bible, when speaking specifically of “church,” is usually referring to the local manifestation of the universal body, which is the local church or congregation. It must be understood, that the requirements of entrance into the universal and local church are clearly distinctive. All, or at least most, would agree that entrance into the universal body of Christ is the work of regeneration resulting in conversion, justification and glorification.
But entrance into the local church is very different. For instance, regeneration is not necessarily required for entrance. Before readers blow a fuse on this one, let me explain. We know that true regeneration is only known by God and the one regenerated. When “converts” are allowed entrance into the local church, we are limited in our judgment as to the fruits which are "meet for repentance." We cannot be certain of another person’s salvation when he/she enters the local church. If we could, there would be no "tares" in our midst. Even the most ardent church in this matter of seeking to discover the external manifestations of true conversion fail at times to judge properly. As pertaining to the present controversy, while entrance to the universal church does not require believer’s baptism, entrance to the local church does.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter said to the seekers, “Repent and be baptized . . .” The Word also adds in Acts 2:41 (NASB) So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
This qualification of baptism need not be debated, for Bethlehem has agreed to the biblical nature of it by stating, unequivocally, “We will not admit into membership persons who refuse to practice any form of baptism at all.” This statement, in my opinion, creates a theological dilemma for Bethlehem. First, how can this be reconciled with the church's desire for entrance into the local congregation to be synonymous with membership in the universal church while requiring a requirement for local membership which is not required for entrance into the universal church? Is this regeneration resulting in conversion and justification alone? Secondly, it creates a quagmire by requiring, inconsistently, I might add, a baptism, which by Bethlehem's own admission, is unscriptural. This is incrementalism--reasoning which is not only against the clear teaching of Scripture but against reason itself.
To this point, I have expressed my concerns in a brief fashion as to the question of biblical authority and the danger of incrementalism. Now I must close with my third and final argument. I must be extremely careful at this point because I may be entering into motives which I cannot possibly discern. Therefore, I will only speak in general terms without accusing our dear brothers and sisters at Bethlehem of something that is probably not true of them.
I have observed, among Baptists who have embraced the Doctrines of Grace, a unique camaraderie with those with whom we disagree on other theological matters. One of the causes of this is the enormous hostility we sense from our own Baptist brothers who think of us as almost “cultish”. This offends many Reformed Baptists, who often feel more kinship with Presbyterians (and others) than with our own. This is unfortunate in one way and commendable in another.
It is unfortunate, especially among our own in the SBC, that we should all examine the truth we preach in our own denomination. We should do so before judging the likes of those who only embrace doctrines which many of our seminary professors comply with every year by signing what is called the Abstracts of Principles. This document states, among other things, that Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life--not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ--in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.
It is commendable that we should embrace, love and fellowship with our converted brothers of different stripes--especially if they believe that salvation is a free act of God’s grace whereby in Christ alone is there salvation through faith alone. Our Presbyterian brothers and others should be our friends, even though we disagree about some matters of importance, though not vital to salvation and entrance into the universal church.
But for us, as Baptists, or for that matter, for them, as Presbyterians, to contradict what we hold to be according to God’s Holy Word as Truth is a dangerous proposition. We have former Presbyterians at Riverbend Community Church, but they have submitted to the authority of the local church and followed the Lord in believer’s baptism through immersion. If their consciences do not allow for it, we gladly invite them to stay under the ministry of the Word in our church (though not as members). If they can’t, they can leave and go where their consciences are not pricked. I may be wrong, but I see confusion reigning when we allow for something we know is unbiblical by nature so as not to violate someone’s conscience.
What are our children growing up under our ministries going to learn from this? We often hear that actions speak louder than our words. I hope that Dr. Piper, the Elders and members of Bethlehem Baptist Church will reconsider this monumental decision. If they do not, I will still love, pray for, read and learn from these great saints of God. But I will thoroughly disagree with their decision concerning entrance into a local church and what many of us believe to be their unwitting deterioration of valuing the absolute authority of God’s Word in all matters of faith and practice.
(Eccl 10:1 NASB) Dead flies make a perfumer's oil stink, so a little foolishness is weightier than wisdom and honor. Let us all take heed, lest while we guard against the monstrosities of soteriological error, we let the little foxes spoil the vines in our vineyard.
Humbly Submitted,
Dr. Roy Hargrave
Senior Pastor
Riverbend Community Church
A Pastor's Opinion as to Bethlehem Baptist Church's Unfortunate and Dangerous Decision
By Dr. Roy Hargrave
Senior Pastor
Riverbend Community Church
Ormond Beach & Palm Coast, Florida
On August 9, 2005, the Council of Elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minn., approved the following motion (23 "yes", 1 "no"): “The Elders recommend to the church that the Constitution and By-Laws be amended in accordance with revision 08-09-05 as amended by the Elders (on 08/09/05), of the document entitled Baptism and Church Membership at Bethlehem Baptist Church”.
To my knowledge, this motion has not yet been approved by the congregation at Bethlehem. Information that is cited in this “open” letter, concerning the details of this recommendation by the Elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church, may be found here.
An Open Letter to Bethlehem Baptist Church:
It is with a high regard for the Bethlehem Baptist Church and its senior pastor, Dr. John Piper, that I make the following observations. My motive is not out of malice or the desire to stir up a controversy among the brethren. On the contrary, it is with great fear and trepidation that I seek to enter into disagreement with a man that I consider one of the great stalwarts of the faith in our day.
John Piper has been greatly used of God in ways that are both known and unknown. He has been a catalyst for reformation among young men and women around the world, and he possesses what many of us believe to be a God-given influence which is presently unequaled among leaders of the reformed faith (especially Baptists). The consequences of this influence have not left Bethlehem Baptist Church unaffected by his contagious passion for the glory of God and the salvation of the lost.
I have spent two weeks in that wonderful church. Bethlehem's witness for Christ and His glory impacted my life and ministry in ways that I cannot describe. I love that church and its pastor, who I believe has been and continues to be a mighty weapon in the hands of God. Dr. Piper has been used of God for a renewal of vision and passion for a God-enhanced theological and practical approach that affects everything from preaching to missionary zeal. It is his sanctified heart and mind that God has bestowed upon him that sets him apart from the mass of preachers in our day. He is a man of God who should be held in high regard among the brethren.
And though John Piper would never seek such favor among us, we must acquiesce to God’s Word in 1 Thess. 5:12-13, “ . . . esteem them (those who diligently labor among you . . . and give you instruction) very highly in love . . .”.
I must also qualify my objections by stating definitively that Bethlehem Baptist Church is a local, autonomous congregation and possesses the governmental liberty to make determinations without regard for external influence. It does not mean, however, that those decisions are biblically correct.
I must also stipulate that my determination to make this an "open letter" to Bethlehem Baptist Church is due to the widespread distribution (internet and other means) of that church's decision on changing its qualifications for church membership. It has been Bethlehem's desire (for which I am extremely glad) in recent years to have a broader influence on the evangelical world through the means of publishing, internet access and conferences that make responses like this inevitable.
Though Bethlehem has the freedom and authority to make this decision, it has ramifications which may be broader than ever imagined. This is certainly true for those of us who are Baptists. As a Southern Baptist pastor for the past 32 years, I think I know somewhat about the kind of negative feedback which will occur in our ranks among those who come from a more Arminian perspective.
For those who may not know it, Southern Baptists are in the underlying throes of a theological conflict. There is everything from Pelagianism (at least semi-Pelagianism) to Hyper-Calvinism in our ranks, and great confusion is in our future if this matter is left unattended. We have everything from cold, dead, passionless theologues to high-flying preachers who baptize their converts in baptistries shaped like red fire engines. One of the SBC's past presidents has even stated that we are now practicing “infant baptism” through the abuse of Vacation Bible School evangelism.
I don’t want to leave the impression that there is nothing positive happening in our ranks. On the contrary, there are a number of good things happening in our midst. I'm talking about things that especially relate to a renewal among our young college and seminary students for a passion for God’s glory and a restoration of the biblical gospel. These young minds and hearts are apparently sick of the fluff and hollowness of a man-centered theology and the carnal use of human manipulation resulting in a bloated church membership and false conversions.
This leads me to the point of this decision at Bethlehem, especially for Southern Baptists. This renewal among our Baptist young men and women has been greatly aided by the conviction and forthrightness of Dr. Piper. Some would even argue that no other person has been as influential as Dr. Piper for this on-going reformation. I would certainly be hard-pressed to name anyone who has been used of God among Southern Baptist youth to the extent that Dr. Piper has in the past decade.
Now in light of Bethlehem's decision to receive some into the congregation who have been baptized as infants, we must part with Dr. Piper and Bethlehem. It will certainly be used by those who still possess enormous influence in our denomination to draw young Baptist students away from reading Piper’s works and listening to his sermons. I heard it stated over four years ago by a well-known leader in our ranks that this “Calvinism in our midst will always lead to a full covenantal theological approach which ultimately practices infant baptism.”
Of course, we who embrace the precious Doctrines of Grace responded by saying that was ludicrous. We may have been wrong. Granted, the ignoring of our own history in Southern Baptist life has led many to be blinded to the fact that the great stalwarts like Boyce, Dagg, Manly and Broadus, as well as Lottie Moon, were Calvinists. Coincidentally, these valiant Baptists never turned away from the Baptistic understanding of believer’s baptism. Of course, those who possess wisdom will not "throw the baby out with the wash." Many of us will continue to read Dr. Piper’s works and listen to his sermons. But this does not diminish the negative impact this unfortunate decision will cause in our ranks.
All the above is worthless speculation if there is no substance to my disagreement with Bethlehem’s decision. Besides reading the anticipated amendments to Bethlehem’s By-Laws concerning the approval of receiving some who have been baptized as infants (without immersion after regeneration), I have read and re-read the appendices which set forth arguments (primarily from Dr. Piper) that seek to justify the substance of the decision in this matter.
Again, I must reiterate my understanding of the church's authority as a local church to make such arguments and approve of such practices. However, the church's high visibility, especially among Baptists, demands a response from those who will be affected within their denominations.
There are three areas of concern that I would hope Bethlehem would consider.
First, there is the matter of biblical authority and accuracy. Granted, while all who would claim a full and infallible interpretation of Scripture would rightfully be considered arrogant, it still remains a legitimate goal of all who believe the Bible to seek a rightful dividing of it. Disagreements over interpretive issues occur on a regular basis among men of God who sincerely seek the Truth, but when that truth is known, there must be no room for capitulation.
John Piper has said unequivocally that the immersion of believers is the only legitimate and proper understanding of New Testament baptism. He has also preached explicitly against the covenantal view of baptism replacing circumcision as the sign of entering the New Covenant. Clearly, he has stated, (to paraphrase) faith is the required entrance into the enjoyment of this New Covenant. This is certainly the view which has been held among Baptists for centuries.
Also, Bethlehem has stated in its documents: The teaching and practice of baptism at Bethlehem Baptist Church is defined in Section 12 of the BETHLEHEM BAPTIST CHURCH ELDER AFFIRMATION OF FAITH. The key paragraph states: We believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Lord by which those who have repented and come to faith express their union with Christ in His death and resurrection by being immersed in water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is a sign of belonging to the new people of God, the true Israel, and an emblem of burial and cleansing, signifying death to the old life of unbelief and purification from the pollution of sin. Thus, the official Bethlehem position is that only baptism by immersion of believers will be taught and practiced by the church. Customarily, therefore, all members of the church will have been baptized by immersion as believers.
It is, therefore, without controversy that Dr. Piper and Bethlehem interpret the Scripture as stating that only believer’s baptism through immersion is the legitimate mode and method of New Testament baptism. If this is plainly believed (as it appears to be) by the elders and membership of Bethlehem, then what form of reasoning would lead them away from the accuracy and authority of Scripture? Perhaps I simply don’t understand. But it seems, in my opinion, to demonstrate a subtle compromise of known truth, which will establish a dangerous precedent.
Secondly, though Dr. Piper and Bethlehem possess what Baptists believe to be a biblical view of practice in the church, they may be guilty of "incrementalism." This term is used by some to describe the slow and subtle movement away from biblical authority. In Spurgeon’s day, it was called the “downgrade.”
I don’t want to put Bethlehem’s decision in the dark light of the incipient liberalism of the 19th Century. But to put it bluntly, if the Bible, in Dr. Piper's own words, teaches believer’s baptism only, then what possible reasoning could be used to practice what is self-designated as the acceptance of “the minimum doctrinal and life standards for membership"?
Now, I must hasten to agree, in principle, with the spirit of the statement. Obviously, it would be unwise for any church to expect new converts and members to be theologians and expert practitioners of New Testament ecclesiology. However, the letter of the above statement is questionable in light of the determination to permit the allowance of error (according to the church's own theology), due to a possible “violation of their (the new members') conscience.” In this case, I don’t think the word “doctrinal” should be in the statement, since what they are allowing is not doctrinal but experiential.
I do not want to misrepresent the matter as Bethlehem sees it, so here is the reasoning in this matter in that church's own words. However, we believe it is fitting that membership in the local church (distinct from leadership in the local church) should have prerequisites similar to the prerequisites for membership in the universal church. In other words, we believe it is unfitting to deny membership to a person who, by faith in Christ, gives evidence of regeneration.
I don’t mean to appear condescending when I say this, but aren’t there some members of the “universal church” who are unlearned and immature to the extent that they will not submit to the authority of a local church?
We could argue about the legitimacy of the conversion of these people, but I think we would all admit that some truly saved people are not members of a local church for wrong reasons. Of course, chastisement is certainly in their future, but that does not change the fact that they exist. Another problem I have with this line of Bethlehem's reasoning is the failure to recognize the distinction between the local church and the universal church.
How often does the Bible speak about the universal church? Very little, and usually in a future perspective. For instance, the innumerable body of believers around the throne of God in the book of Revelation is a future vision. The point is, the Bible, when speaking specifically of “church,” is usually referring to the local manifestation of the universal body, which is the local church or congregation. It must be understood, that the requirements of entrance into the universal and local church are clearly distinctive. All, or at least most, would agree that entrance into the universal body of Christ is the work of regeneration resulting in conversion, justification and glorification.
But entrance into the local church is very different. For instance, regeneration is not necessarily required for entrance. Before readers blow a fuse on this one, let me explain. We know that true regeneration is only known by God and the one regenerated. When “converts” are allowed entrance into the local church, we are limited in our judgment as to the fruits which are "meet for repentance." We cannot be certain of another person’s salvation when he/she enters the local church. If we could, there would be no "tares" in our midst. Even the most ardent church in this matter of seeking to discover the external manifestations of true conversion fail at times to judge properly. As pertaining to the present controversy, while entrance to the universal church does not require believer’s baptism, entrance to the local church does.
On the day of Pentecost, Peter said to the seekers, “Repent and be baptized . . .” The Word also adds in Acts 2:41 (NASB) So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
This qualification of baptism need not be debated, for Bethlehem has agreed to the biblical nature of it by stating, unequivocally, “We will not admit into membership persons who refuse to practice any form of baptism at all.” This statement, in my opinion, creates a theological dilemma for Bethlehem. First, how can this be reconciled with the church's desire for entrance into the local congregation to be synonymous with membership in the universal church while requiring a requirement for local membership which is not required for entrance into the universal church? Is this regeneration resulting in conversion and justification alone? Secondly, it creates a quagmire by requiring, inconsistently, I might add, a baptism, which by Bethlehem's own admission, is unscriptural. This is incrementalism--reasoning which is not only against the clear teaching of Scripture but against reason itself.
To this point, I have expressed my concerns in a brief fashion as to the question of biblical authority and the danger of incrementalism. Now I must close with my third and final argument. I must be extremely careful at this point because I may be entering into motives which I cannot possibly discern. Therefore, I will only speak in general terms without accusing our dear brothers and sisters at Bethlehem of something that is probably not true of them.
I have observed, among Baptists who have embraced the Doctrines of Grace, a unique camaraderie with those with whom we disagree on other theological matters. One of the causes of this is the enormous hostility we sense from our own Baptist brothers who think of us as almost “cultish”. This offends many Reformed Baptists, who often feel more kinship with Presbyterians (and others) than with our own. This is unfortunate in one way and commendable in another.
It is unfortunate, especially among our own in the SBC, that we should all examine the truth we preach in our own denomination. We should do so before judging the likes of those who only embrace doctrines which many of our seminary professors comply with every year by signing what is called the Abstracts of Principles. This document states, among other things, that Election is God's eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life--not because of foreseen merit in them, but of his mere mercy in Christ--in consequence of which choice they are called, justified and glorified.
It is commendable that we should embrace, love and fellowship with our converted brothers of different stripes--especially if they believe that salvation is a free act of God’s grace whereby in Christ alone is there salvation through faith alone. Our Presbyterian brothers and others should be our friends, even though we disagree about some matters of importance, though not vital to salvation and entrance into the universal church.
But for us, as Baptists, or for that matter, for them, as Presbyterians, to contradict what we hold to be according to God’s Holy Word as Truth is a dangerous proposition. We have former Presbyterians at Riverbend Community Church, but they have submitted to the authority of the local church and followed the Lord in believer’s baptism through immersion. If their consciences do not allow for it, we gladly invite them to stay under the ministry of the Word in our church (though not as members). If they can’t, they can leave and go where their consciences are not pricked. I may be wrong, but I see confusion reigning when we allow for something we know is unbiblical by nature so as not to violate someone’s conscience.
What are our children growing up under our ministries going to learn from this? We often hear that actions speak louder than our words. I hope that Dr. Piper, the Elders and members of Bethlehem Baptist Church will reconsider this monumental decision. If they do not, I will still love, pray for, read and learn from these great saints of God. But I will thoroughly disagree with their decision concerning entrance into a local church and what many of us believe to be their unwitting deterioration of valuing the absolute authority of God’s Word in all matters of faith and practice.
(Eccl 10:1 NASB) Dead flies make a perfumer's oil stink, so a little foolishness is weightier than wisdom and honor. Let us all take heed, lest while we guard against the monstrosities of soteriological error, we let the little foxes spoil the vines in our vineyard.
Humbly Submitted,
Dr. Roy Hargrave
Senior Pastor
Riverbend Community Church
Thursday, November 10, 2005
“The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths for a New Awakening.”
Iain H. Murray is one of my favorite modern-day writers. He has written some amazing Christian biographies on Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon, Edwards, and Pink (to name just a few). I try and purchase everything this Christian author writes. His book “Evangelicalism Divided” is one of my all-time favorites. It should not surprise you then to hear this article is dedicated to Murray’s newest book “The Old Evangelicalism: Old Truths for a New Awakening.”
In the preface Murray writes, “I have entitled the book ‘The Old Evangelicalism,’ not because that is explicitly the theme, but because the material consistently shows that, on a number of fundamental truths, the evangelicalism of the last hundred years contrasts unfavorably with what went before.”
We live in a society that wants to constantly disconnect the present from the past. This worldly mindset has sadly snuck into the Church as well. Many professing Christian leaders are destroying the time-honored traditions of the past (such as true biblical preaching). Many Pastors have made the connection between this type of thinking and the Seeker Friendly/Emerging Church movement. (Pastor MacArthur explained this clearly during Shepherd's Conference 05). If not kept in check this philosophy often begins to tinker with biblical theology and sound doctrine as well. (Not to mention hermeneutics, see the new "Redemptive Hermeneutic" advocated by men like Rob Bell of Mars Hill).
In light of passages like Jude 3 (which I will be preaching on November 27th) this is tragic. Believer’s have been called to defend and preserve a body of fundamental doctrines (the gospel), which Jude calls, “The faith, which was once for all delivered (or passed down) to the saints.” This is one of the most important verses in all of Scripture.
A.W. Tozer put it this way, “Nothing is new that matters and nothing that matters can be modernized. The old way is the true way and there is no new way.” This is precisely why Charles Spurgeon told his seminary students, “To be effective preachers you must be sound theologians.” Sound theology is not just important to preachers. To live an effective God-honoring life we must know the Truth. To function as a Christ-exalting church we must know the Word and apply it appropriately. Maintaining a healthy marriage that implements the roles and goals of the Bible requires sound theology. The list above could go on and on.
I close with a Spurgeon quote that Murray includes to further illustrate the importance of historic theology in light of this New Evangelicalism: “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he had revealed to others….A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might save many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences.”
May all of us seek to rediscover this “old evangelicalism,” so we too can help usher in a “new awakening.”
“Soli Deo Gloria”
Caleb Kolstad
In the preface Murray writes, “I have entitled the book ‘The Old Evangelicalism,’ not because that is explicitly the theme, but because the material consistently shows that, on a number of fundamental truths, the evangelicalism of the last hundred years contrasts unfavorably with what went before.”
We live in a society that wants to constantly disconnect the present from the past. This worldly mindset has sadly snuck into the Church as well. Many professing Christian leaders are destroying the time-honored traditions of the past (such as true biblical preaching). Many Pastors have made the connection between this type of thinking and the Seeker Friendly/Emerging Church movement. (Pastor MacArthur explained this clearly during Shepherd's Conference 05). If not kept in check this philosophy often begins to tinker with biblical theology and sound doctrine as well. (Not to mention hermeneutics, see the new "Redemptive Hermeneutic" advocated by men like Rob Bell of Mars Hill).
In light of passages like Jude 3 (which I will be preaching on November 27th) this is tragic. Believer’s have been called to defend and preserve a body of fundamental doctrines (the gospel), which Jude calls, “The faith, which was once for all delivered (or passed down) to the saints.” This is one of the most important verses in all of Scripture.
A.W. Tozer put it this way, “Nothing is new that matters and nothing that matters can be modernized. The old way is the true way and there is no new way.” This is precisely why Charles Spurgeon told his seminary students, “To be effective preachers you must be sound theologians.” Sound theology is not just important to preachers. To live an effective God-honoring life we must know the Truth. To function as a Christ-exalting church we must know the Word and apply it appropriately. Maintaining a healthy marriage that implements the roles and goals of the Bible requires sound theology. The list above could go on and on.
I close with a Spurgeon quote that Murray includes to further illustrate the importance of historic theology in light of this New Evangelicalism: “It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he had revealed to others….A respectable acquaintance with the opinions of the giants of the past, might save many an erratic thinker from wild interpretations and outrageous inferences.”
May all of us seek to rediscover this “old evangelicalism,” so we too can help usher in a “new awakening.”
“Soli Deo Gloria”
Caleb Kolstad
Monday, November 07, 2005
Piper on Missions
Answers to Objections to Going into Missions: What I Said at Missions in the Main Hall
November 2, 2005
When I spoke at Missions in the Main Hall Sunday night, I tried to give a biblical response to possible obstacles that are in the way for some people that may keep them from moving forward toward missions. My prayer is that God would use these responses to call more of you to go. Here are eight objections and a biblical response.
1. “I am not smart enough.”
“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:20-21)
“Consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-27)
2. “My body and my personality are not strong enough.”
“But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.” (2 Corinthians 4:7)
“[Christ] said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)
3. “I am not a good speaker.”
“Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Corinthians 1:17)
“Moses said to the Lord, ‘Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.’ Then the Lord said to him, ‘Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak.” (Exodus 4:10-12)
4. “I am afraid of the horrors I read about in the newspapers.”
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore (katartisei—“mend” or “repair” your horribly disfigured body when the lions in the coliseum are through with you), confirm, strengthen, and establish you.” (1 Peter 5:8-10)
5. “I am afraid I won’t be fruitful”
Your responsibility is not to be fruitful but to be faithful.
“And [Jesus] said, ‘The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.” (Mark 4:26-29)
“I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” (1 Corinthians 3:6-7)
6. “There is plenty to do here.”
True, but there is a division of labor and God calls some to MISSIONS, not just evangelism. The difference is seen in Romans 15:19-24:
“So that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I [Paul] have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named. . . Now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions . . . I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain.”
How could Paul say there was no room for work when there were millions in that region to be evangelized? Because evangelism is not missions.
7. “I am not married.”
The best spouse is found on the path of obedience. “An excellent wife [or husband!] who can find? She [and he!] is far more precious than jewels” (Proverbs 31:10). The finding is exceedingly hard. It will happen on the road of obedience.
8. “I fear that when I get there it might turn out I made a mistake and will come home with shame.”
Which is worse, shame for having endeavored to follow Christ in missions, or fear to venture? Shame before others for making a mistake will not hurt you; it will humble you and can make you more useful in a new situation. But fear will make you useless everywhere. Consider Ecclesiastes 11:4 and what it says about risk: “He who observes the wind will not sow, and he who regards the clouds will not reap.” Meaning: without taking the risk of sowing when the seed might be blown away and reaping when the rain might ruin the harvest, you will starve.
Oh, how precious is the freeing word of God,
Pastor John
November 2, 2005
When I spoke at Missions in the Main Hall Sunday night, I tried to give a biblical response to possible obstacles that are in the way for some people that may keep them from moving forward toward missions. My prayer is that God would use these responses to call more of you to go. Here are eight objections and a biblical response.
1. “I am not smart enough.”
“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” (1 Corinthians 1:20-21)
“Consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-27)
2. “My body and my personality are not strong enough.”
“But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.” (2 Corinthians 4:7)
“[Christ] said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Corinthians 12:9-10)
3. “I am not a good speaker.”
“Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Corinthians 1:17)
“Moses said to the Lord, ‘Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either in the past or since you have spoken to your servant, but I am slow of speech and of tongue.’ Then the Lord said to him, ‘Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak.” (Exodus 4:10-12)
4. “I am afraid of the horrors I read about in the newspapers.”
“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore (katartisei—“mend” or “repair” your horribly disfigured body when the lions in the coliseum are through with you), confirm, strengthen, and establish you.” (1 Peter 5:8-10)
5. “I am afraid I won’t be fruitful”
Your responsibility is not to be fruitful but to be faithful.
“And [Jesus] said, ‘The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the ground. He sleeps and rises night and day, and the seed sprouts and grows; he knows not how. The earth produces by itself, first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the grain is ripe, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.” (Mark 4:26-29)
“I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” (1 Corinthians 3:6-7)
6. “There is plenty to do here.”
True, but there is a division of labor and God calls some to MISSIONS, not just evangelism. The difference is seen in Romans 15:19-24:
“So that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I [Paul] have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named. . . Now, since I no longer have any room for work in these regions . . . I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain.”
How could Paul say there was no room for work when there were millions in that region to be evangelized? Because evangelism is not missions.
7. “I am not married.”
The best spouse is found on the path of obedience. “An excellent wife [or husband!] who can find? She [and he!] is far more precious than jewels” (Proverbs 31:10). The finding is exceedingly hard. It will happen on the road of obedience.
8. “I fear that when I get there it might turn out I made a mistake and will come home with shame.”
Which is worse, shame for having endeavored to follow Christ in missions, or fear to venture? Shame before others for making a mistake will not hurt you; it will humble you and can make you more useful in a new situation. But fear will make you useless everywhere. Consider Ecclesiastes 11:4 and what it says about risk: “He who observes the wind will not sow, and he who regards the clouds will not reap.” Meaning: without taking the risk of sowing when the seed might be blown away and reaping when the rain might ruin the harvest, you will starve.
Oh, how precious is the freeing word of God,
Pastor John
Thursday, November 03, 2005
A Wise Email From the Pew
I’ll be honest, I have a teaching on the church by Dever on tape and have seen him speak twice…I love his perspectives and insight and heart. He is clear, articulate and very simple and straightforward…even a dumb guy like me can understand what he is saying and where he is going with his points. Unlike Mohler, who I love, but talks even over the head of Sproul in his use of the English language…I only wish I were as smart as either of those guys.
His quote of Andy Stanley “going verse-by-verse is easy” (emphasis mine). Stanley went on to ask, “Do you know what your responsibility is as a pastor? It is to minister to felt-needs not to preach verse-by verse through Scripture.” is almost directly from the mouth of Rick Warren. When we were in the process of leaving our previous church, the pastor sat me down and asked me why we were leaving. I laid out the reasons clearly, and one of them was his desire to NOT teach / preach expositionally. He then popped in a VHS tape of Rick Warren speaking at a pastor’s conference at Saddleback…some 1500 pastors. Warren said very clearly and emphatically the same exact thing Stanley says above. Warren went on to say preaching expositionally is old, outdated and should NOT be done…the people need to have their felt / needs spoken to. My reply to that was simple…humanity’s greatest “need” is to have their sin dealt with, not figure out how to have a good day. He disagreed and 30 minutes later I left and never came back to that church. That church is Heartland Church at 96th and I-69.
We (the church) are really confused as to what constitutes “church life”…aren’t we? I love Dever’s simple approach to his ministry…preach the Word. I know you can appreciate this, and I know both of you know there is more to it than that. But if you aren’t preaching the Word, everything else is just chasing your tail and doesn’t glorify God.
Mark T
His quote of Andy Stanley “going verse-by-verse is easy” (emphasis mine). Stanley went on to ask, “Do you know what your responsibility is as a pastor? It is to minister to felt-needs not to preach verse-by verse through Scripture.” is almost directly from the mouth of Rick Warren. When we were in the process of leaving our previous church, the pastor sat me down and asked me why we were leaving. I laid out the reasons clearly, and one of them was his desire to NOT teach / preach expositionally. He then popped in a VHS tape of Rick Warren speaking at a pastor’s conference at Saddleback…some 1500 pastors. Warren said very clearly and emphatically the same exact thing Stanley says above. Warren went on to say preaching expositionally is old, outdated and should NOT be done…the people need to have their felt / needs spoken to. My reply to that was simple…humanity’s greatest “need” is to have their sin dealt with, not figure out how to have a good day. He disagreed and 30 minutes later I left and never came back to that church. That church is Heartland Church at 96th and I-69.
We (the church) are really confused as to what constitutes “church life”…aren’t we? I love Dever’s simple approach to his ministry…preach the Word. I know you can appreciate this, and I know both of you know there is more to it than that. But if you aren’t preaching the Word, everything else is just chasing your tail and doesn’t glorify God.
Mark T
The Master's Seminary
TMS???
It is healthy for all of us to acknowledge the short-comings in our own lives, in our own local churches, and even at our own alumni seminaries. This (TMS) blog site has been doing a lot of this lately. We have been pretty hard on our school.
I’m going to share a story that I think beautifully illustrates the leadership our school is blessed to have. The Master’s Seminary, in many ways, is really shaped by the influence and direction of three men: Dr. MacArthur, Dr. Mayhue and Dr. Busenitz. I praise God for bringing these men together to lead our great seminary.
My dad was called to FT ministry late in his life. Yet when God decided to call him, my Dad did not hesitate to obey. He moved our family of 6 from a small city in Wisconsin to the evil city of Los Angeles. :) It was an enormous step of faith on my parents end yet God was faithful every step of the way (Joshua 1:9).
When our huge U-Haul trucked into L.A. we received notification that the seminary students who were scheduled to move us in were not able to help us out anymore. Yet in God’s amazing providence He provided. Dr. Busenitz, Karen, and his two sons came over and helped us move in all our stuff. Dr. Busenitz, the Dean of Students, rolled up his sleeves to serve his students. He left his Th.D at the door and helped a family in need of assistance.
These are the type of men TMS has leading the school. Servant-leaders who truly love the Church; Gifted men who’d die for the truth; Men of integrity.
Yet Pastor Begg reminds us, “The best of men are still men at best.” The faculty at TMS is fallible and may on occasion make some big mistakes. The school is definitely not perfect (I believe more of that has to do with the student body then the faculty). Men like me, don't do very much to help the reputation of a fine institution.
All I know is that, warts included, the Master’s Seminary is the finest Bible institution that I know of. I thank God every day for allowing a loose-canon like me the opportunity to study at TMS.
It is healthy for all of us to acknowledge the short-comings in our own lives, in our own local churches, and even at our own alumni seminaries. This (TMS) blog site has been doing a lot of this lately. We have been pretty hard on our school.
I’m going to share a story that I think beautifully illustrates the leadership our school is blessed to have. The Master’s Seminary, in many ways, is really shaped by the influence and direction of three men: Dr. MacArthur, Dr. Mayhue and Dr. Busenitz. I praise God for bringing these men together to lead our great seminary.
My dad was called to FT ministry late in his life. Yet when God decided to call him, my Dad did not hesitate to obey. He moved our family of 6 from a small city in Wisconsin to the evil city of Los Angeles. :) It was an enormous step of faith on my parents end yet God was faithful every step of the way (Joshua 1:9).
When our huge U-Haul trucked into L.A. we received notification that the seminary students who were scheduled to move us in were not able to help us out anymore. Yet in God’s amazing providence He provided. Dr. Busenitz, Karen, and his two sons came over and helped us move in all our stuff. Dr. Busenitz, the Dean of Students, rolled up his sleeves to serve his students. He left his Th.D at the door and helped a family in need of assistance.
These are the type of men TMS has leading the school. Servant-leaders who truly love the Church; Gifted men who’d die for the truth; Men of integrity.
Yet Pastor Begg reminds us, “The best of men are still men at best.” The faculty at TMS is fallible and may on occasion make some big mistakes. The school is definitely not perfect (I believe more of that has to do with the student body then the faculty). Men like me, don't do very much to help the reputation of a fine institution.
All I know is that, warts included, the Master’s Seminary is the finest Bible institution that I know of. I thank God every day for allowing a loose-canon like me the opportunity to study at TMS.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
The Power of the Word: By Jerry Wragg
This was an excellent post by Jerry Wragg:
"Here's the bottom line---Preachers who regularly taste the grace of God's word in their personal sanctification (including failure and renewal) could never have so little trust in its power. These self-styled champions of relevance betray some level of personal weakness for which the solution has not been scripture, repentance, and a new holy zeal, but rather a re-casting of God's commands in more culture-friendly tones (which of course eases the tension or guilt they may have over stubborn sin-patterns in their own life).
The result is a new "church" environment where the lowest common spiritual character is deemed "normal" for believers (a clear violation of Phil. 3:17; 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Eph. 5:1, etc.).
Anyone striving to "be holy [themselves] in all [their] behavior" (1 Pet.1:15) is quickly labeled "irrelevant", then marginalized because, after all, "no real Christian today can live like that"! And, who could argue with this thinking since every true believer feels the weight of failure, weakness, and stubborn sins? No one can claim to have “obtained it, or…become perfect”.
Yet, the sanctifying grace of God is found in a relentless pursuit of Christ's glory fully formed in us (Phil. 3:12-16). Paul clearly says to "keep following in line" in the standard of maturity we've already reached...then "press on" again.
The church growth movement, while filled with many sincere but undiscerning followers of Christ, is really a movement of those who are losing their resolve to biblically strive, and have adopted secular ideas about “normal” Christian morality. We could say that it’s not really a “growth” movement at all---It’s a “stunted growth” movement…an atrophied church…a group made up of numerous undiscerning bandwagonites, a fair amount of discouraged, withering saints, and a majority of moral unbelievers.
When we come along and speak of the power, sufficiency, and relevance of holy scripture…it is an increasingly strange sound in their ears!"
Preaching to the choir,
"Here's the bottom line---Preachers who regularly taste the grace of God's word in their personal sanctification (including failure and renewal) could never have so little trust in its power. These self-styled champions of relevance betray some level of personal weakness for which the solution has not been scripture, repentance, and a new holy zeal, but rather a re-casting of God's commands in more culture-friendly tones (which of course eases the tension or guilt they may have over stubborn sin-patterns in their own life).
The result is a new "church" environment where the lowest common spiritual character is deemed "normal" for believers (a clear violation of Phil. 3:17; 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Eph. 5:1, etc.).
Anyone striving to "be holy [themselves] in all [their] behavior" (1 Pet.1:15) is quickly labeled "irrelevant", then marginalized because, after all, "no real Christian today can live like that"! And, who could argue with this thinking since every true believer feels the weight of failure, weakness, and stubborn sins? No one can claim to have “obtained it, or…become perfect”.
Yet, the sanctifying grace of God is found in a relentless pursuit of Christ's glory fully formed in us (Phil. 3:12-16). Paul clearly says to "keep following in line" in the standard of maturity we've already reached...then "press on" again.
The church growth movement, while filled with many sincere but undiscerning followers of Christ, is really a movement of those who are losing their resolve to biblically strive, and have adopted secular ideas about “normal” Christian morality. We could say that it’s not really a “growth” movement at all---It’s a “stunted growth” movement…an atrophied church…a group made up of numerous undiscerning bandwagonites, a fair amount of discouraged, withering saints, and a majority of moral unbelievers.
When we come along and speak of the power, sufficiency, and relevance of holy scripture…it is an increasingly strange sound in their ears!"
Preaching to the choir,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)