Here's a great giveaway from the new Credo Magazine site:
The first issue of Credo Magazine, "The Living Word," will release sometime this week, featuring articles and interviews with theologians like Timothy George, John Frame, Bruce Ware, Gregg Allison, Robert Saucy, Owen Strachan, Fred Zaspel, Tim Challies, Matthew Barrett, Tony Merida, Michael A.G. Haykin, Thomas Schreiner, and many others. View the Table of Contents here.
In our excitement we are giving away a book package each week! This week’s book giveaway is from B&H Academic and includes the following:
Perspectives on the Sabbath: Four Views. Contributors include: Christopher John Donato, Charles P. Arand, Craig L. Blomberg and Skip MacCart.
Moral Apologetics for Contemporary Christians: Pushing Back Against Cultural and Religious Critics. By Mark Coppenger.
The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament. By Eugene H. Merrill, Mark Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti.
Yesterday I watched a 15-minute interview between Mark Driscoll, Joshua Harris, and Francis Chan. Francis is preparing to leave a thriving ministry at Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley to start a church plant in inner city L.A. In the meantime, he plans to spend some time in a third world country to gain a fresh perspective and see things apart from the hustle and bustle of American life. His goal in this whole endeavor seems to be to follow Jesus, to get back to early church life, and to strip away the misconceptions of how ministry should be done.
In the interview, Driscoll asks Chan some very penetrating questions: How do you know that in several years, you're not going to grow dissatisfied with this new endeavor as well? Is there a danger that we have exchanged the error of a prosperity theology with the error of a poverty theology? In other words, since we know God often sanctifies us through poverty, simplicity, and suffering, have we decided that riches, complexity, and health are intrinscially bad? Should we feel guilty or ashamed by these things and deliberately avoid them?
This conversation hits the nail on the head, and echos cautions made by Mark Dever to David Platt at the IX Marks at 9 seminar in Orlando last June. See also Kevin DeYoung's review of Radical, where he says,
We must do more to plant the plea for sacrificial living more solidly in the soil of gospel grace. Several times David [Platt] talks about the love of Christ as our motivation for radical discipleship or the power of God and the means for radical discipleship. But I didn’t sense the strong call to obedience was slowly marinated in God’s lavish mercy. I wanted to see sanctification more clearly flowing out of justification.
Most of us are still far from the danger of a poverty theology, and still have much to benefit from the almost prophetic lifestyle and ministry of Platt and Chan. But I appreciate Driscoll's warning against a Catholic form of asceticism that may be subtly at work here which could ultimately undermine the gospel itself.
The International Mission Board is setting up an advisory team of four men to help oversees church plants with theological training. This is an excellent direction to move in. Churches are so often planted overseas without adequate follow-up, discipleship, and equipping of leaders. More emphasis on sound doctrine is always a good thing.
Here's an excerpt from the news release:
What happens all too often is that we come in and we blow the Gospel out there … and pop the question really quickly, ‘Will you trust Jesus?’ And the person may respond, but that DNA from the beginning is unhealthy. … We don’t want to see that believer or church fall away.”
Arnett has witnessed firsthand how dangerous a lack of theological training can be. While teaching at a seminary in Togo, West Africa, he started a church with a national Baptist partner. But Arnett didn’t realize this man, who was leading the new church, was mixing the Gospel with elements of African traditional religion — the worship of spirits in nature and of ancestors.
Pastor and hymn writer John Newton once said, "I am more of a Calvinist than anything else; but I use my Calvinism in my writings and my preaching as I use this sugar." Taking a lump, and putting it into his tea-cup, and stirring it, he added, "I do not give it alone, and whole; but mixed and diluted."
That seems to be a pretty healthy view of Calvinism in my opinion. The doctrines of grace are delightful, and if we are to be faithful to the Scriptures we must preach them. But like sugar they can come across too strong if served undiluted to God's people.
While I don't make Calvinism a hobby horse, I did decide recently to preach a 5-part series on the Five Points of Calvinism. But I decided not to couch it in those terms. I approached it instead as an inductive, "behind the scenes" look at our salvation. In this way, I hoped to elevate God's sovereign grace in salvation and challenge some common Arminian assumptions without using labels or arguments that might immediately raise alarm. I was thankful for the result and heard some very positive feedback from our church family.
Here are all five sermons with online audio and download links. I pray these will prove helpful and encouraging to the Body of Christ.
The International Missions Board has an amazing story today out of North Africa. Here's an excerpt.
Hospital doctors discovered that Ali had a perforated colon — an extremely rare condition in younger men without trauma or previous infection, and Ali had neither. Castle couldn’t explain how it happened, but Ali had a theory: He believed his illness was the product of a curse placed on him by an Islamic witch doctor. Things got worse after the surgery...
You can read the exciting conclusion of this story here.
I am not a charismatic. I believe the sign gifts of the Holy Spirit (i.e. tongues, prophecy, miracles, healing) ceased by the end of the first century AD for several reasons: (1) the purpose of these gifts was revelatory and to authenticate the apostle's ministry (2 Cor. 12:12). (2) Paul said these gifts would go away (1 Cor. 13:10). (3) the later years of the New Testament already seem to indicate the sign gifts were fading out (e.g. Phil. 2:27; 1 Tim. 5:23).
But that does not mean cessationists like myself deny the reality of miracles. I have never heard a cessationist say miracles do not happen. Our Almighty God can and does still perform miracles according to His Sovereign will and even sometimes in direct answer to our prayers. But note, the story above and other joyous incidents around the world are something quite different from the apostolic gift of healing, where for example Paul was performing extraordinary miracles in Acts 19:11-12.
Mohler observed that the world has changed dramatically in the last 60 years, and that the SBC is at a crossroads. If we continue to embrace a corporate mentality, the SBC will quickly become extinct. But if we return to a more biblical model of doing church, our brightest days may lie ahead. The Great Commission Task Force has been given a unique opportunity to talk about denominational structure and efficiency, but this conversation must be founded upon a strong theology and unflagging commitment to the Great Commission.
Here are my full notes from his message:
The President's Forum on the Future of the SBC Al Mohler, President of Southern Seminary August 19, 2009
Introduction What does it mean to be a Southern Baptist in the 21st century? First, an expression of gratitude to all those who have been faithful over the years, and to all those who have been giving, praying, going, sending John 9:4 says "work the works of Him who sent Me while it is day" - a very urgent warning about time. Asking about the SBC is an urgent and strategic question about the gospel and the Great Commission. Yet many feel an urgency that we should be doing more. The issue is faithfulness.
Some Historic perspective 1845 - founders in Augusta established a mission statement for the "eliciting, combining, and directing of energies toward the propagation of the Gospel." Missions was the reason for the SBC. Home Mission Board was originally designed to reach the frontier. America did not exist the way it does now. Late 1800s - began to meet annually; SBC begins to broaden; seminaries established 1914-1919 - Great shift of logic in SBC; a new word entered our vocabulary: "efficiency." Efficiency experts rose in America - time, systems, organizational management. An infusion of a business culture entered into the life of our denomination. It is helpful and relevant, but has limited application in spiritual matters. 1925 - Executive Committee was established. Necessity for an ongoing, coordinating entity. Also year Cooperative Program was established. 1926-27 - Executive Committee was given enormous expansion of powers. 1950s - Formation of Committee to Study the Total Church Program, chaired by Douglas Branch. Goal: to recommend a massive restructuring. Used the Booz Allen Hamilton consulting firm. Again, "efficiency" was the main concern. Some of the recommendations: an office building in Nashville (headquarters); inter agency council; program assignments to entities. What would be our mission? "To bring men closer to God through Jesus Christ." 1995 - Program and Structure Committee - reduced entities from 19 to 12. Mission "SBC exists to facilitate, extend, and enlarge, Great Commission ministries of local churches." Sounds less bureaucratic, more richly theological, and urgently evangelistic. 2009 - A Great Commission Task Force was assigned to bring recommendations of how churches may be more effective in the Great Commission.
Consider 1945. By this time, the SBC had developed a programmatic identity. The basic ethos/energy was programmatic unity (you're SBC because you do certain things, have certain features, uses certain literature, etc.). It was assumed you hold to certian doctrines. A corporate management mentality. This came out of a social context. Post war, the SBC became something like a Catholic Church of the South. A cradle-to-grave approach to Southern Baptist identity (starting with "pre-cradle roll"). Sunday was at least a four-fold activity. Youth choirs. Missions organizations. Offering envelopes with check boxes. College and Universities had Baptist Student Union. Families had Camps, Brotherhood, WMU. Retirement Centers even established. The planning concept: "The key church (or model church)." Had all organizations. Reported in Annual Church Profile. Resulted with great solidarity, denominational identity, incredible intactness/tightness in SBC identity. Any use of resources "outside the program" (using different curriculum, attending a non-SBC conference center) were immediately suspect. There was enormous spiritual security in all this. There was a tribal, cultural identity. An enormous brand loyalty. But now the world has changed on us, and the world that produced that identity is long gone.
The SBC today - Two Analogies
The SBC as General Motors - William Durant developed GM as a cradle-to-grave employer. Everyone became 'inside.' You never have to leave the corporation. Small distinctions, but many similarities. Centralized headquarters with centralized "offerings." Dealders were distributed throughout the country. GM overtook Ford because of its aggressiveness, and led in auto sales for 77 years. Managerial dynamic, the envy of every other company. But now, has transformed into a new corporation owned by US taxpayers and pension stock. Lost market share and is the second largest bankruptcy in human history. It fit the 50s and 60s really well, but doesn't fit any more. Are we trapped in the same organizational logic?
The SBC as Shopping Mall - this was made possible by the automobile. First built in 1950. A complete reversal of downtown logic, with pedestrians walking down the street, entering storefronts. Significant advantage: enclosed space, protected from the elements. Anchor tenants attract shoppers. The logic is that you're "going to the mall." The action and identity is inside. By 2008, 1175 enclosed mall in the US. Displaced almost all other retail context, rivaled only by "big box stores." #1 item sold is women's clothing. But not one enclosed mall has opened in America since 2006. Retail logic has collapsed - lifestyle centers. Retailers now want their name out front. The identity is now primarily the "store" rather than the shopping "center." The SBC is a huge "mall." Two anchor stores: IMB and NAMB. Inside the mall are many other things going on. The loyalty is to this huge "thing" that is only explicable from the inside.
There were certain gains from these models, resulting in many people getting to the mission field, but the question we need to ask is, "What is changed, and why have we not?" and "Has the logic of this particular organizational pattern been eclipsed by something else?" Does it seem like an age gone by?
The SBC now faces several questions. We must choose one direction or another.
Are we going to be missiological or bureaucratic? Only missiological fits the Lord Jesus Christ. Otherwise, we will find ourselves out of touch with churches and the world we're trying to reach. The logic of bureaucracy will never take us where we need to go.
Is our identity tribal or theological? We've had many shared theological convictions. SBC tribal identity is no longer the norm. A theological identity will lead to missiological.
Is the basis of our cooperation convictional or confused? We must "grow up" theologically. Must distinguish first order issues. A clash of worlviews now occurs very early in life.
Is our logic going to be more secular or more sectarian? Will we stand out from the culture around us? The SBC did not once need to be sectarian in the South, but that has changed, and we need to reach areas outside the Sun Belt. The church of the Lord Jesus is in a sense always sectarian, comprised of reside aliens never fully at home in the culture.
Are we going to become younger or dead? We're losing at least 2/3 of our young people between adolescence and adulthood. This is a generation that has reduced religion to "moralistic therepeutic deism." We need a level of evangelism and discipleship beyond what the SBC has traditionally seen. The SBC birth rate has shrunk.
Are we going to be more diverse or diminished? Becoming more diverse will require a lot of strategy and uncomfortability. This means we won't be singing out of the same hymnbook. By the year 2050, 25% of all Americans will have a Hispanic grandparent.
Will we become missional or missiological? We can no longer be merely methodological. The church is found faithful when found missional.
Will we be more strategic or anemic? Local churches must be a missiological think tank for our community. More intentioned.
Will we be more bold or more boring? This generation will not be satisfied with boring (same thing, same way, no surprises). The NT Gospel is bold. We're going to have to take risk, which is uncomfortable, especially for a denomination already struggling. Need bold leadership. The comfort zone will lead only to death.
Are we going to be happy or bitter? The SBC has a reputation for denominational crankiness, even in our annual meetings. Don't be cranky for the wrong things. We're going to have to say hard things that appear unloving, intolerant. We cannot afford to waste the opportunity to reach our neighbors by being cranky over extraneous things. There needs to be a love and commonality. There should be evident joy among God's people.
Two problems with the Cooperative Program. The SBC has both perception problems and reality problems. Only a small portion of CP giving actually makes it to missions.
Our greatest goal is not merely to cooperate. Any entity can do this. The whole purpose is reaching the nations. Are we going to be relevant in the modern world.
We cannot simply tell churches in a new age what they must do and how they must live. We must earn their trust. We are partners of the churches. They must be liberated to give as they will, or they will not give at all.
Concluding thoughts
We are still too North American centric.
We need to return to the primacy of the early church. Where are churches urgently, passionately understanding the mission of God. Our identity is not in the "giving." The giving must be at the end, not the beginning.
We first need a theological rationale. Corporate logic comes at the very end. The SBC is at one of those very interesting moments - primarily made up of "PC guys." The "Apple guy". They don't use the same logic. We cannot be seen as backward and cranky, committed to the wrong cultural identity. We need to be missional. Our mission must be to gather to work with other Christians to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot gauge church health by raw numbers on a profile. The question is "does this church have what the NT church has"?
The SBC is at a great crossroads. Discussion of structure cannot come first. Our ethos/mission comes first. Structures must remain open and flexible for the rest of our lives.
Let's not be caught in the dark, realizing we missed a great opportunity while it was still day.
Looking for books to add to your personal or church library? Do you want to read, but aren't sure where to begin or what's good? Monergism offers a list of 40 books they consider "both devotionally and theologically rich and have deeply impacted our ministry such that we want to set these apart as recommendations to you as a good place to start building a Christ-honoring library of books for your home."
These are not light Christian reading, but rich classics. Here's the list:
I've only read about eight of these books so far. Several others I own, but have not read yet. Overall, the list does represent some excellent material, both past and present.
As always, read with discernment and search the Scriptures like a Berean (Ac. 17:11). Some of these titles will present a Reformed eschatology and ecclesiology, while I believe the Bible consistently teaches a more Baptistic ecclesiology and dispensational eschatology. But overall, I think this list would be very edifying and strengthening to your walk.
Pastor David Sqyres brought up a couple important points in response to Wednesday's post on the fairness of God's election.
First, David noted, "I'm not sure if the issue is that of it being 'fair' or 'unfair' but of it being Biblical. If it's Biblical, we accept that God is just and fair beyond our understanding."
Excellent point. It is true that God determines what is fair. He is the very basis and absolute standard of what is fair, just, and right in this world. Thus Paul warns in Romans 9:20 "Who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?" We should be content to trust in the divine will regarding election because this is what the Bible teaches. Yet, it does put our hearts to rest to see that God is in fact fair (even from a human perspective), and that He is consistent in all His nature and dealings as both a loving and holy God on the matter of election. So, although we need to be extremely humble and careful in questioning God's fairness over the matter of election, I believe the question does help us better understand how all His attributes work together in harmony to accomplish our redemption.
David brought up another point: "I might note, if I may... that all of the verses cited refer to God's choosing for salvation. It does not speak of a negative election; ie: Predestine for hell." This raises a great question. Does God elect some to salvation and elect others to damnation?
In short, I believe God sovereignly and graciously chooses some to be saved, while passing over others to suffer the just wages of their sin. It is not as though humans were neutral creatures, and that God arbitrarily elected some to suffer in hell and in the same way elected others to enjoy eternal bliss in heaven. Rather, the Bible says we were all deserving of hell because of our sin, but that God graciously chose to snatch some out of the pit and save us by the atoning work of His Son on the cross.
The term double predestination has been used to refer to the dual concepts of election and reprobation in Reformed theology. This is largely a pejorative term which leads to misconceptions of the Calvinist (or Reformed) doctrine. It has been used as a synonym for a "symmetrical" view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in an equally parallel mode of divine operation.
The distortion of double predestination suggests a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry, which may be called a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation; and in the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.
This distortion makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly moves man to do. This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as Hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.
The classic position of Reformed theology views predestination as double in that it involves both election and reprobation but not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather predestination is viewed in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin.
Wayne Grudem says it this way:
When we understand election as God’s sovereign choice of some persons to be saved, then there is necessarily another aspect of that choice, namely, God’s sovereign decision to pass over others and not to save them. This decision of God in eternity past is called reprobation. Reprobation is the sovereign decision of God before creation to pass over some persons, in sorrow deciding not to save them, and to punish them for their sins, and thereby to manifest his justice...reprobation is viewed as something that brings God sorrow, not delight (see Ezek. 33:11), and the blame for the condemnation of sinners is always put on the people or angels who rebel, never on God himself (see John 3:18–19; 5:40). So in the presentation of Scripture the cause of election lies in God, and the cause of reprobation lies in the sinner. Another important difference is that the ground of election is God’s grace, whereas the ground of reprobation is God’s justice. Therefore “double predestination” is not a helpful or accurate phrase, because it neglects these differences between election and reprobation. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 686f)
After quoting Romans 9:18, Baptist theologian James Dagg explains,
The natural tendency of human depravity is such, that the heart grows harder under the general mercies which God bestows, unless he superadds to all the other benefits which he confers, the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit, by which the heart is changed. This renewing grace he gives or withholds at his sovereign pleasure.
And Calvin himself writes,
Since God inflicts due punishment on those whom he reprobates, and bestows unmerited favor on those whom he calls, he is free from every accusation; just as it belongs to the creditor to forgive the debt to one, and exact it of another. The Lord therefore may show favor to whom he will, because he is merciful; not show it to all, because he is a just judge. In giving to some what they do not merit, he shows his free favor; in not giving to all, he declares what all deserve. (Institutes, III, xxiii)
So the answer to our original question is "yes." God does elect some to damnation. But not in the same way He elects some to eternal life. Election and salvation is a free and unmerited gift, an act of grace contrary to what we deserve. Reprobation, on the other hand, is the rightful payment for what we already deserve. It is God sovereignly (and in some sense even reluctantly) bypassing or witholding His mercy and grace in order to manifest His glory and justice.
Election and reprobation are difficult topics for our hearts and minds to bear, but they should drive us to worship God in His sovereign grace and to evangelize the lost with greater urgency and compassion.
Last Sunday, I preached on John 15:16, where Jesus declared, "You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you."
The idea that God sovereignly chooses some for salvation while bypassing others, and that this choice is not conditioned upon any future faith or works of the believer, is known as "unconditional election." I believe in this doctrine because the Bible clearly and consistently teaches it (cf. Deut. 7:7-8; John 10:3; Ac. 13:48; Rom. 8:30; Eph. 1:5; 1 John 4:10).
But some wonder how God's election can possibly be fair. Doesn't God's choice eliminate our sense of "free will" or human responsibility? Is it possible a person could want to be saved, but not be elected by God? Charles Spurgeon answers this objection in a very helpful way:
But there are some who say, “It is hard for God to choose some and leave others.” Now, I will ask you one question. Is there any one of you here this morning who wishes to be holy, who wishes to be regenerate, to leave off sin and walk in holiness? “Yes, there is,” says some one, “I do.” Then God has elected you. But another says, “No: I don’t want to be holy; I don’t want to give up my lusts and my vices.” Why should you grumble, then, that God has not elected you to it? For if you were elected you would not like it, according to your own confession.
If God, this morning, had chosen you to holiness, you say you would not care for it. Do you not acknowledge that you prefer drunkenness to sobriety, dishonesty to honesty? You love this world’s pleasures better than religion; then why should you grumble that God has not chosen you to religion? If you love religion, he has chosen you to it. If you desire it, he has chosen you to it. If you do not, what right have you to say that God ought to have given you what you do not wish for?
Supposing I had in my hand something which you do not value, and I said I shall give it to such–and–such a person, you would have no right to grumble that I did not give it to you. You could not be so foolish as to grumble that the other has got what you do not care about. According to your own confession, many of you do not want religion, do not want a new heart and a right spirit, do not want the forgiveness of sins, do not want sanctification, you do not want to be elected to these things: then why should you grumble? You count these things but as husks, and why should you complain of God who has given them to those whom he has chosen? ("Election," Spurgeon's Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 75-76)
In the second half of an exchange between Southeastern Seminary faculty members, Nathan Finn offers some important cautions to our non-Calvinist brothers.
Here are three important warnings Finn gives to those who embrace a more Arminian understanding of matters such as freedom of the will and the extent of the atonement:
First, be sure to articulate the gospel unambiguously in your preaching and evangelism...The gospel is not “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” or “Jesus can straighted [sic] out your messed-up life.” This is just lingo...The gospel is the story of all that our Creator God has done through the perfect life, atoning death, and victorious resurrection of Jesus Christ to rescue sinners from destruction and redeem a fallen world...
Second, be sure to never give the impression that the decision to become a Christian is a mere decision. Sometimes I hear non-Calvinists imply that “all you have to do” if you want to be a Christian is believe in Christ. This makes it sound like faith is a simple free will decision that can be made apart from the gracious work of the Holy Spirit...
Finally, be careful not to turn your strategies into sacraments. I have in mind here two popular practices: altar calls and “sinner’s prayers."... I am not so much concerned with either of these strategies as I am the way they are sometimes applied...
Finn concludes with a clarion call to Baptist unity around the gospel between both Calvinists and non-Calvinists:
In closing, let me say loud and clear that I am committed to linking arms with all Southern Baptist individuals and churches that love the gospel and want to see the good news proclaimed to all people. In my understanding, Calvinism is a secondary issue that should not preclude different churches from participating in the same network of churches. Our denominational unity should be around a common commitment to the theology of the Baptist Faith and Message, a commitment to the Baptist vision of the church, and a burden to see the gospel proclaimed in all parts of North America and to the ends of the earth. Insofar as we unite around these things and do not divide over Calvinism (or other secondary issues), we will press forward in a Great Commission Resurgence for the sake of the gospel and the glory of the living God.
If his readers heed the cautions Finn has set forth in this letter, I believe there will indeed be great room for unity and progress between Calvinist and non-Calvinist Southern Baptists in the years ahead.
Tom Ascol also called for gospel unity in a post this morning:
...Let's work together to come to deeper understandings and applications of the gospel. We may disagree at points, but such disagreements, if handled with gospel grace, can work to strengthen our grasp of divine truth rather than to further divide us. That is my hope, and that is my prayer.
I also hope that my Baptist Identity brothers and sisters will see fit to join in the pursuit of this kind of vision. The concerns that some in this camp have rightly articulated can be served through a renewed emphasis on the Great Commission because the healthiest streams of our Baptist heritage have always been gospel-centered. We need not give up our distinctives to major on essentials. In fact, Baptists have never shined brighter than when they have majored on the gospel.
I really do believe that, despite our differences, Southern Baptists can work together if we can agree on the centrality and power of the gospel for all of life. I am convinced that a growing number of Southern Baptists believe this, too. Because of this, I anticipate better days ahead...
Dr. Alvin Reid of Southeastern Seminary has penned an open letter to those of us known as "Calvinists." Reid does not attempt to dissuade us from our theological views, but rather gives a gracious, and I believe appropriate, warning.
Here are his four exhortations. I agree wholeheartedly with every one of them.
Embrace humility. You have an obvious hunger for truth and for theological depth, which is commendable. But when your love for truth smacks of condescension, even to the point of arrogance, you do no one any good...
Avoid implying that Calvinism and the gospel are synonyms. Sometimes I hear Calvinist speakers argue (or at least imply) that Calvinism and the gospel are identical, and if one does not affirm the tenets of Calvinism he denies the gospel. Not only is this theologically arrogant, it is unkind...
Do not hesitate to call for non-Christians to turn to Christ in faith... I would submit some of you are far better at criticizing your brothers who give public calls for decision than at offering a biblical alternative for such calls. Some of you seem to have a practical agnosticism concerning personal conversion.
In your conferences and other meetings, especially those directed primarily to Southern Baptists, consider involving some speakers who may not agree with you at every point...I would also submit that if we could today see an awakening sweep our land through the work of both modern-day Whitefields and modern-day Wesleys, we could bury a hatchet or two and learn from one another.
These are the faithful wounds of a friend (Prov. 27:6). Thank you, Dr. Reid. May God help us all grow more humble and charitable as we partner together for the Great Commission.
Are "sign gifts" like tongues, prophecy, miracles, and healing still available for Christians today? If not, then how do we explain when miracles still seem to occur?
Here are 25 reasons my theology professor, Dr. Craigen, gives that the sign gifts have ceased. There is some overlap here, and some arguments are stronger than other, but there's a tremendous amount of weight when seeing all these reasons together:
The apostles and prophets were at the 'foundation stage' of the church (Eph. 2:20).
Signs and wonders were clustered around the apostolic ministry (2 Cor. 12:12).
The sign gifts confirmed new revelation (Jn. 14:11).
The closed canon of Scripture (Rev. 22:18-19) calls into question if supernatural confirmation is still needed.
Even the Apostle Paul and others seemed to experience a 'fade-out' of miracles (e.g., Phil. 2:27).
The church is never exhorted to copy the signs and wonders of Christ and the apostles.
A new healing paradigm is given in James 5:14-20 for the local church.
Working miracles "at will" passed off the scene.
A focus on God's providence in church and individual lives.
History shows only three periods of significant miracles: Moses, Elijah/Enoch, and Jesus/Apostles.
The Word of God is fully sufficient without further confirmation.
The preaching of the Word draws forth reaction/response (John 6).
Rejoicing at salvation was considered better than casting out demons (Lk. 10:17-20).
The preaching of the truth is cognitively/rationally grasped.
The New Testament miraculous gifts were conferred upon the disciples of Jesus.
Pentecost was unique (an abundance of miracles would minimize this watershed event).
No apostles today means there was no conferral of miracles beyond the original twelve.
False messiahs and false signs and wonders can and will arise (Mt. 24:24).
The use of Jesus' name falsely can and will occur (Mt. 7:15-23).
The idea of being 'slain in the Spirit' is a type of activity never attested in Scripture.
If miracles become the norm, then they are no longer miracles.
Prophecy and tongues went out when the 'mature church' came online (1 Cor. 13:8-13).
Joel 2 and Acts 2 relate the Day of the Lord and the Millennial Kingdom, so it was partially fulfilled at Day of Pentecost.
The Word of God does what raising the dead cannot do (Lk. 16:19-31).
The Gospel has power in itself to save without signs and wonders (Rom. 1:16-17).
There's nothing quite like the satisfaction of seeing a project come to completion. Whether it's turning in a major term paper, adding the last bit of finish to a hand-crafted piece of furniture, making the final stitches to a massive embroidery project, or watching your child graduate from high school, it's so rewarding to step back from your work and say, "By God's grace, I've done my best. And the results look good."
As a master craftsman, God Himself took great pleasure in the completed work of creation: "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31).
Nevertheless, most of our days amount to just making small dents in incomplete projects. Rarely do we get that profound sense of accomplishment. But David Nelson reminds us to enjoy the work God has given us, and to find rest in spite of the "unfinishedness" of our lives...
[H]uman labor is by its nature mostly unfinished business. It is one of the exigencies of temporality that many of the tasks we pursue are, for the largest part of their duration, unfinished. It is true that certain work is done over the short term while other work is a long term project. If, for example I set out to grill a cheese sandwich, I have good reason to believe I will complete that labor in the short term, lest I end up with a grilled cheese blackened beyond description or usefulness. Yet other tasks are longer term propositions. Building a new house is not a task quickly completed, and it requires a series of starts and stops, day by day, in which workers determine to finish certain things and leave other things to be completed in due order. Part of the process of work, therefore, is the messy “unfinishedness” of our labors that tend to keep us in the office “after hours.” Some of us will do well to learn to leave what is unfinished for another day, and to rest well in spite of our dissatisfaction with what is undone.
...[L]eaving the office at the end of the day, and the rest that we pursue subsequent to that departure, is a sign of trust in God. It is so in that we are willing to labor hard during the day, and then leave what is unfinished for the day following, trusting that God will sustain us to do so, or indicate that there is other work to be done or, ultimately, that our labors in this age have come to an end.
Pastor David Sqyres over in Twentynine Palms has written a good article on the Documentary Hypothesis (aka JEDP theory) of the Torah, and the harm such liberalism brings to the Body of Christ. Go have a look.
This is an excellent move by the Evangelical Theological Society:
Bruce Ware, professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary, took the reigns as president of ETS this week at the organization's annual meeting in Rhode Island. Ware is the first member of the Southern Seminary faculty to serve as ETS president...
Ware was elected vice president of ETS by a unanimous vote of fellow scholars at the 58th annual ETS meeting in Washington, D.C. in 2006. After one year of serving as vice president and one year as president-elect, Ware began his term as president during the 60th annual meeting of ETS this week at the Rhode Island Convention Center in Providence. Read complete story.
The results are in: our nation has elected Barack Obama to be the next President of the United States. It certainly will be interesting to see where President Obama takes us in the years ahead. Will America become a socialist nation? Will abortion rights expand? Will the Supreme Court grow increasingly antagonistic toward religious liberties? Will Obama's leadership be "tested" early in his term by a major terrorist attack? Only the Lord knows what will happen, and it profits us nothing to worry (Matt. 6:34).
Thankfully, all things - including democratic elections - are guided by the provident hand of God. Wayne Grudem defines providence this way: "God is continually involved with all created things in such a way that he (1) keeps them existing and maintaining the properties with which he created them; (2) cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and (3) directs them to fulfill his purposes." (Systematic Theology, p. 315)
Three times in the past four days, God has reminded me of His providence:
As Abraham led his beloved Isaac up Mount Moriah to be a sacrifice, he reassured him, "God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son" (Gen. 22:8). I was encouraged by this on Saturday in a message by R. C. Sproul.
As Joseph recalled the betrayal of his brothers and the years spent as a slave and prisoner in Egypt, he told his brothers "Now, therefore, it was not you who sent me here, but God...you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good" (Gen. 46:8; 50:20). I was reminded of this yesterday in a sermon by Dr. Will Varner.
And just earlier today, I read this quote from Spuregon posted by the Sola Panel: "I believe that every particle of dust that dances in the sunbeam does not move an atom more or less than God wishes—that every particle of spray that dashes against the steamboat has its orbit as well as the sun in the heavens—that the chaff from the hand of the winnower is steered as the stars in their courses. The creeping of an aphid over the rosebud is as much fixed as the march of the devastating pestilence—the fall of sear leaves from a poplar is as fully ordained as the tumbling of an avalanche."
God is provident in all things. Even these timely reminders were due to the provident hand of God. And tonight, in the wake of this historic election, I take fresh comfort in God's providence. He is still in control of His universe, He is still building His church, and He is still directing all things to fulfill His good and wise purposes.
I came across this quote by J. I. Packer in his classic work, Knowing God. It's absolutely stunning to consider the depth of God's love for us.
God was happy without humans before they were made; he would have continued happy had he simply destroyed them after they had sinned; but as it is he has set his love upon particular sinners, and this means that, by his own free voluntary choice, he will not know perfect and unmixed happiness again till he has brought every one of them to heaven. He has in effect resolved that henceforth for all eternity his happiness shall be conditional upon ours.
Thus God saves, not only for his glory, but also for his gladness. This goes far to explain why it is that there is joy (God’s own joy) in the presence of the angels when a sinner repents (Lk 15:10), and why there will be “exceeding joy” when God sets us faultless at the last day in his own holy presence (Jude 24 KJV). The thought passes understanding and almost beggars belief, but there is no doubt that, according to Scripture, such is the love of God.
Well, our son Dylan is becoming quite the big boy. He's feeding himself, using the potty, speaking coherent sentences, and beginning to pray out loud (with our word-by-word guidance) as part of his bedtime routine. So, I felt it was finally time this morning to introduce him to a catechism.
As we were finishing up breakfast, I told Dylan with an excited tone that we were going to start learning some verses and questions out of the Bible. Then, we spent the next five minutes or so reciting Genesis 1:1 and the first catechism question: "(Q) Who made you? (A) God made me." Dylan seemed to enjoy it, though an hour later, when I asked him, "Dylan, who made you?" He answered, "I made me." This is going to take a lot of patience and repetition. :)
The resource our family is using is called the Truth and Grace Memory Book, published by Founders Press. There are three books in the series altogether: Book 1 is for two-year olds through fourth graders; Book 2 is for fifth through eighth graders; Book 3 is for ninth through twelfth graders. Each book involves three areas of memorization: Scripture verses, hymns, and catechism questions.
For many of us, "catechism" is a completely foreign concept. So in his introduction, Tom Ascol explains,
The phrase 'Baptist catechism" may sound strange to many contemporary Baptists. Some may even consider it to be a contradiction of terms. The truth of the matter, however, is that 'catechism' is not a Roman Catholic or Lutheran or Presbyterian word. Rather, it is the anglicized version of the Greek word, katekeo, which simply means 'to instruct.' It appears, in various forms, several times in the Greek New Testament (it is translated as 'instructed' in Luke 1:4 and Acts 18:25).
Obviously, then, anyone who has been instructed has in some sense been 'catechized.' But the word came to refer to a specific type of instruction early in church history. In the early church new Christians were taught the essentials of the faith by learning how to answer specific questions. Certain catechetical questions were grouped together and came to be referred to simply as a 'catechism.'
...By learning a whole, well-constructed catechism a child (or adult for that matter) will be introduced to the overall biblical scheme of salvation. Such discipline will frame the mind for receiving and understanding every part of the Bible. A good catechism helps one to read the Bible theologically. (pp. iv-v)
Our family is just getting started, but I'm very excited about doing this together as a family in the coming years. I believe it will be an important part of raising our children in the "discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph. 6:4), and will benefit Natalie and I in our own knowledge of God's Word.
The movie Apollo 13 tells the inspiring story of a lunar landing mission that turns into a dangerous survival mission. Toward the end of the movie, as the three astronauts head back to earth, they find themselves straying off course. They have to perform a tricky burn to realign their trajectory. With their navigation system already destroyed, they must rely entirely on their quick reflexes and the naked eye. Their only reference is a portion of the surface of the earth. If the astronauts lose sight of that reference point, they will shoot off into space and face certain death. In a similar way, David Wells says in the fourth chapter of The Courage to Be Protestantthat most Americans have lost their point of reference and are suffering the tragic results.
To many people today, life is nothing more than a series of random, chaotic, and often cruel events. Why? Because we have lost sight of our center. Wells explains that rather than acknowledging God and ordering our lives around Him, "we start our life's journey on the alternative premise that he is not there, or that he has not spoken, or that he does not care. We do not reckon on his providential and moral presence. We begin as if life were empty and without a center and as if we were empowered by our choices to make of life what we will. And so we create our own center, we create our own rules, and we make our own meaning. All of this springs from an alternative center in the universe. It is ourselves" (pp. 99-100).
This means that the language of "evil" has largely vanished, and that "sin" and "guilt" have been eliminated altogether (pp. 100-101). Meaning and morality are no longer fixed and universal, but have now become private and subjective, based almost entirely upon "feelings" (p. 107). And people are now crumbling under a pressure they were never intended to bear. "The self that has been made to bear the weight of being the center of all reality, the source of all meaning, mystery, and morality, finds that it has become empty and fragile. When God dies to us, we die in ourselves" (p. 112).
Wells sets this modern, self-centered perspective in sharp contrast with a biblical, God-centered perspective. "Biblical writers, by contrast, declare that the only reason there is life and hope is that there is a center. It is in the triune God, the maker and sustainer of all things and the one in whom we find reconciliation through the Son. When we know him, life fits back into a meaningful pattern and we are filled with hope about its end" (p. 98).
Our world only makes sense if we have a right understanding of both the "Inside God" and the "Outside God." The "Inside God" refers to His nearness, His daily involvement in creation, or what theologians call His "immanence." This God is not found inside ourselves, but rather is a Person we can know deeply through His Word. The "Outside God" refers to His loftiness, His otherness, or what theologians call His "transcendence." These attributes of God are also essential to His nature and cannot be removed without creating a different god altogether.
Wells concludes by showing why it is so important to center our worldview around God: First, it is only through God's moral purity that we have any standard of moral law (p. 127). Second, is it only through God's holiness that "sin" has any meaning or culpability, and that we can properly diagnose our problem. Third, the cross only has meaning in light of God's holiness. Fourth and finally, it is only because of God's holiness that He is able to deal with evil in the world.
I finished this chapter having a greater appreciation for the holiness and justice of God. These doctrines are largely ignored in the church, but Wells has shown how our understanding of sin, salvation, eternity, and the universe itself hinge upon our understanding of a just and holy God. May more churches be faithful in preaching and living out these fundamental doctrines.
This review has gone long already, but I can't resist sharing one more quote which I found so good:
We have enough Bibles for every household in America a couple of times over. We have churches galore; religious organizations; educational institutions; religious presses that never stop pouring forth books, Sunday school materials, and religious curricula; and unparalleled financial resources. What don't we have? All too often we don't have what the Old Testament people didn't have. A due and weighty sense of the greatness and holiness of God, a sense that will reach into our lives, wrench them around, lift our vision, fill our hearts, make us courageous for what is right, and over time leave behind its beautiful residue of Christlike character" (pp. 132-33).
Amen! That's what we need in the modern evangelical church. For those of you reading along, please take a moment to click on the "Comments" link below and share a favorite quote or insight from chapter four. For next week, we will be reading chapter five on "Self."
Today, we pick up in chapter three of The Courage to Be Protestant. This week's chapter is simply entitled "Truth."
David Wells spends the first half of this chapter showing how people have become terribly disconnected in our postmodern world. Although we have achieved lightning-fast communication, new technologies for social networking, and unprecedented choices and material comforts, we have somehow lost our "transcendent point of reference" (p. 61). All sense of tradition, virtue, and value has been lost. The essential roles of craft, community, and family, in shaping a person have been replaced by mass production, urbanization, and empty individualism.
This is what David Myers calls the "American paradox" - that we have so much, and yet so little. People are wealthy, but all alone. And this "self into which all reality has contracted is now empty and insubstantial but tinged with the sacred" (p. 69). In other words, people are searching for something spiritual and sacred within themselves, but have lost all sense of absolute truth.
Rather than confronting this situation and offering a real alternative, many churches have exacerbated the problem. Pastors are now saying things like "We need to be more modest" (p. 77) and "Christianity is about the search, not about the discovery (p. 77). [Similarly, I heard Rick Warren say in an interview that a "fundamentalist is somebody who stops listening." That sounds very much like the idea that absolute truth is arrogant and extremist, and that we should always remain "open" to the validity of other beliefs and perspectives].
The common thread among many academic scholars and emergent church leaders is that "Scripture cannot be fully authoritative at the level of its functioning in the life of the church today. We are in fact autonomous, freed from its language and constraints as we shape our own understanding, in our own way, in the postmodern world" (p. 87). Wells says that most people treat truth like the speed limit. It is somewhat arbitrary and bendable (p. 79).
The Bible, on the other hand, gives a far different perspective on truth. God Himself is utterly true and pure, and thus His self-revelation is entirely truthful (p. 75). The message of the gospel was "a proclamation about truth for all. The gospel, which is the same gospel for all people, in all ages, and at all times, is 'the word of truth' " (p. 76). "Christianity, in short, is from first to last all about truth! It is about he who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life" (p. 76). We should engage the culture, but never capitulate our claim to truth (p. 92). After all, the church is the very "pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
So, far from ignoring or denying or being embarrassed by truth, the church of God should boldly stand up and proclaim the truth. "What truth?," you may ask. Truth about God, Self, and Christ, the very topics that Wells will address in coming chapters. We will look at chapter four together next week.
This chapter is a critical one. I cannot think of a more important subject than what Wells is addressing here. It really becomes the foundation for everything else that he will say. Please take a moment now to click on the "comments" link and share your own thoughts of the chapter. Don't feel obligated to write something long or profound. Just a quick impression or short quote is sufficient. I look forward to hearing from you.
, Vol. 2, p. 75-76)
. It's absolutely stunning to consider the depth of God's love for us.
