The World From Our Window

Spurgeon on Pastors Using OT Parables as NT Illustrations

2009-08-04T09:11:00.008-05:00

Here is an interesting and convincing argument from the Prince of Preachers, a brief excerpt from the introduction to his sermon from Genesis 42:1-2, "Corn in Egypt":

God in his wisdom hath so made the outward world, that it is a strange and wonderful picture of the inner world. Nature has an analogy with grace. The wonders that God does in the heart of man, each of them finds a parallel, a picture, a metaphor, an illustration, in the wonders which God performs in providence. It is the duty of the minister always to look for these analogies. Our Saviour did so. He is the model preacher: his preaching was made up of parables, pictures from the outer world, accommodated to teach great and mighty truths. And so is man's mind constituted that we can always see a thing better through a picture than anyhow else. If you tell a man a simple truth, he does not see it nearly so well as if you told it to him in an illustration. If I should attempt to describe the flight of a soul from sin to Christ, you would not see it one half so readily as if I should picture John Bunyan's pilgrim running out of the city of destruction, with his fingers in his ears, and hastening with all his might to the wicket gate. There is something tangible in a picture, a something which our poor flesh and blood can lay hold of; and therefore the mind, grasping through the flesh and the blood, is able to understand the idea, and to appropriate it. Hence the necessity and usefulness of the minister always endeavonring to illustrate his sermon, and to make his discourse as much as possible like the parables of Jesus Christ.

Now, there are very few minds that can make parables. The fact is, I do not know of but one good allegory in the English language, and that is, the "Pilgrim's Progress in Parables, pictures, and analogies are not so easy as some think; most men can understand them, but few can create them. Happy for us who are ministers of Christ, we have no great trouble about this matter; we have not to make parables; they are made for us. I believe that Old Testament history has for one of its designs the furnishing of the Christian minister with illustrations; so that a truth which I find in the New Testament in its naked form taught me as a doctrine, I find in the Old Testament cast into a parable. And so would we use this most excellent ancient book, the Old Testament, as an illustration of the New, and as a means of explaining to our minds the truth that is taught to us in a more doctrinal form in the New Testament.

Read the sermon in its entirety HERE. By the way, John MacArthur has adopted this same philosophy, usually employing the OT as illustrative material for the NT truth.

Your Pastoral Preference - Multiple Choice

2009-05-19T08:06:00.003-05:00

Most know the difficulty of finding a good church. Inevitably, we all have to play a little "give and take" when it comes finding a church home. No church will have everything that we are looking for. A church is made up of fallen and depraved people. This includes their leadership too! But if the overall scope of the church is faithfulness to Christ, obedience to Scripture, loving and edifying one another, the purity of the church, and more than anything - faithful proclamation and exposition of the Word then it would be my inclination to overlook some preferential issues that we could honestly live without.

Question for this Tuesday morning - Does it matter more to you that your pastor is a Calvinist, Dispensationalist, or....none of the above (how that would not matter to someone is beyond me).

Choose from the following:

A. It's more important to me that my pastor is a strong adherent to the doctrines of grace. I could live with the fact that he is not a strong dispensationalist.

B. It's more important to me that my pastor is a strong traditional dispensationalist. If he leans Arminian that is fine with me.

C. It simply does not matter to me.

Any takers here???

A Brilliant Distinction Between Historic and Hysteric Fundamentalism

2009-05-18T19:35:00.004-05:00

Just when we thought it was safe again to call ourselves "fundamentalists" yet another person trying to cling to the subculture of hysteric fundamentalism has risen from the ashes to "warn" of the "evils" of younger fundamentalists falling into the clutches of Calvinism. While it is not surprising to hear this type of rhetoric from those trying to cling to the already dying movement of the militant brand of fundamentalism of yesteryear, it was a bit surprising to hear this coming from a meeting of the Fundamentalist Baptist Fellowship International where Pastor Dan Sweatt of Berean Baptist Church in Lilburn, Georgia gave a message entitled "Young and Restless". This message has been critiqued, applauded and dissected by others within in the blogosphere so that will not be my aim here. I only know a couple of men associated with the FBFI movement. Both of whom I hold in high regard and both represent what I would call the historic brand of fundamentalism.

I will, however, focus on what I feel was a brilliant assessment by Dr. Kevin Bauder of the sermon and an unveiling of the message's weaknesses and characterizations of young fundamentalists who lean Calvinistic. You can read the essay in it's entirety here.

Allow me to post a couple of excerpts from the article that I thought were insightful:
If you are a younger person listening to Pastor Sweatt, please do not think that you have to accept his perspectives in order to be considered a fundamentalist. Furthermore, if you are a Calvinist listening to Pastor Sweatt, please do not think that fundamentalism has no room for you. On the contrary, fundamentalism has always had a strongly Calvinistic strand, and it always will.

Nevertheless, Pastor Sweatt has placed us in a very difficult situation. In a public venue, as a spokesman for fundamentalism, Pastor Sweatt has impugned the doctrinal integrity of his brethren. He has made charges without evidence and uttered recriminations that are simply false. Those of us who are leaders within fundamentalism have a stewardship, and we cannot afford simply to sweep this scandal under the rug.

You can hear Pastor Sweatt's message here. I realize that I am one of many who have blogged on this message. Blogs transcending lines from young fundamentalist, a couple with fundamentalist ties in the past here and here and even someone who is considered evangelical have all taken notice of Dr. Bauder's take on this. So I'm certain that I am not offering anything new here.

But what baffles my mind as someone who considers himself a young Calvinist fundamentalist (who some would call a "former" fundamentalist) is how this movement over the years still fails to humbly learn the lessons that needed to be learned over the past several decades that showed the isolated sects of the movement completely abandoned the principles of historic fundamentalism for a "shock and awe" and cult of personality movement that settled for aberrant theology, shallow methodology and a dictator structured ecclesiosology.

Was Jesus A Real Substitute? More Reflections on Particular Redemption

2009-05-05T14:31:00.007-05:00

Substitutes. In our world, they are viewed as inherently deficient.

Sugar substitutes may save the lives of diabetics, but they possess a rather long-lasting aftertaste, and we're told they may even contribute to additional health problems. Sugar substitutes are better than no sugar at all, but they just don't match the taste and texture of sugar. They are, in many ways, deficient.

The same could be said for substitute teachers (sorry to those of you who are substitutes!) ... although it may not always be the case. We all recall how our classmates responded to a substitute teacher. The sub rarely taught anything new. He never required the class to complete assignments. Usually, the sub's job was to keep the students from inciting a riot, or shooting one another's eyes out with spitballs and homemade paper footballs.

Substitution, though, is an essential doctrine to Christianity, and contrary to our culture's view of substitutes, Christ's death as our substitute is in no way deficient. Instead, Christians laud the biblical view of substitution--even though it's a bloody reminder of our sin. In the Old Testament, lambs died as a substitute for believing Jews. In the New Testament, Christ died as a substitute for believers past, present, and future. Romans 5:8-9 clearly teaches substitution: Christ took our place, so that we are spared the need to die there.

"But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God."

It's a precious and essential doctrine to our salvation. Christ died in the place of sinners. And in doing so, as a real substitute, Christ accomplished and secured something--actually some things--universally beneficial on behalf of those for whom He died:

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21)."

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree'" (Galatians 3:13).

"Who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him" (1 Thessalonians 5:10).

"Who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works" (Titus 2:14).

"By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers" (1 John 3:16).

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2).

It's the Greek word "hupo" and it means "in the place of" or "on behalf of." It means an actual flesh and blood substitute ... like that substitute flesh and blood teacher came and actually stood in your classroom in your teacher's place. And because Christ really died as a flesh and blood substitute on behalf of and in the place of sinners, consider what the aforementioned Scriptures promise:

1) The wrath of God against our sins has been satisfied, absorbed, and saturated by Christ.
2) We know--experientially--God's love.
3) We've been redeemed from lawlessness, and are being purified so that we zealously pursue good works.
4) We might live with Him.
5) He took the curse for us so that we might be freed from it.
6) We possess the righteousness of God in Christ.

Those are real promises, based upon a real flesh and blood substituion--Christ dying in our place. Yet for all who purport an "unlimited or universal redemption" view, Christ cannot be a real flesh and blood substitute. Why? Because there are people for whom Christ substituted Himself who don't enjoy any of the benefits of that real flesh and blood substitution. And if that real substitution did not result in securing those benefits in the lives of all for whom Christ substituted Himself, there must be something deficient and defective about the substitute--just like the sugar and classroom substitutes. How could Christ die as a flesh and blood substitute for those who are facing in hell the same wrath He faced in their place on the cross?

What's so dangerous about purporting a "universal substitution" view? It seems to destroy (or at least confuse) the meaning of "substitute," and it may well lead to an abberrant view of Christ as being deficient as a substitute. Nothing could be more dangerous to the reality of our faith than a defective substitute who did not actually substitute Himself in the place of sinners.

We then are left to embrace one of two views: either Christ's died in the place of real people and thereby secured the benefits of a substitutionary atonement for them (real and particular redemption), or Christ's death was less than actually substitutionary in nature because it did not secure the benefits of a substitutionary atonement on behalf of all for whom He died (universal or unlimited redemption).

Real-life, flesh and blood substitution has actual benefits attached. With Sweet-N-Low or Splenda, you get the taste without the calories. With a substitute teacher, you get a real living human to facilitate the class. True substitution, then, provides real-life benefits.

"For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him" (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10).

So that. Christ died for us ... so that ... we might live with Him. There is no actual substitution without actual accompanying benefits.

If that's not the case, I'm going to get fat ... really fat. One of my neighbors loves to bring me cheesecake laced with Splenda!

Pronouns and the Cross: Romans 5 and Limited Atonement

2009-04-21T10:31:00.007-05:00

Pronouns.

My high school grammar teacher would be pleased that I possess such an infatuation for them--especially when it comes to defending the great doctrinal truth of substitutionary atonement. You see, did Christ really die in the place of real people--releasing them from the sentence of death? Did He face God's wrath in their stead? All conservative theologians would answer a definite and resounding yes!

Yet their enthusiasm for this same doctrine mysteriously wanes when the subject of limited atonement arises. Their "unlimited" view of the atonement (read: unlimited in hypothetical scope, limited in actual efficiency) borders on denying the real substitutionary death of Christ if, as they say, Christ died as a substitute for all people--even those currently facing God's unsatisfied wrath in hell.

When pressed for the reasoning behind their universal view, many "unlimited" proponents use the "well-show-me-a-verse-that-always-limits-the-atonement-ONLY-to-the elect" argument. This, of course, is nothing more than a not-so-well crafted deflection tactic--a tactic that would require them to renounce their view of a pretribulational rapture (most unlimited, universal atonement proponents would be pretribulationalists). Just as there is not a single verse that limits the atonement only to the elect, there is not a single verse that specifically states Christ's second coming will occur in stages, and that the rapture will occur before a seven-year tribulation period. Yet, they will defend their rapture position with great fervor and vehemency--while deriding your "limited atonement" as a purely (il)logical argument that lacks sufficient scriptural support.

This is where pronouns become huge--especially first-person plural pronouns like "we" and "us" and "our." As you remember from Language Arts class, first-person plural pronouns speak of a specific group--and are to be distinguished from third-person plural pronouns like "you (all)" and "they". Recognizing the specific intent of these oft-overlooked pronouns will make the doctrine of particular redemption come alive--especially when considered within their specific context.

For example, I was taught that Isaiah 53:6 was indisputable proof of an unlimited atonement ... and at first-glance, I would agree: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." After all, all means all all the time, right? No. In this text, the all is a qualified all. Isaiah is not stating that the Lord laid on Christ the iniquity of all people--including those in hell. He is saying that the Lord laid on Christ the iniquity of us all. Us. There it is. First-person plural. All of us. Not all in an unqualified sense, but all in a qualified, first-personal plural sense. All in a specific, limited, group sense. For a much more detailed treatment of the entire Isaiah 53 passage in regards to particular redemption, see THIS.

So this past Sunday I preached from Romans 5:1-11 on the subject of "Don't Waste Your Suffering." Never before had I seen the relationship between our justification and the purpose for our sufferings (to awaken within us a desire for glory through producing endurance, proven character, and hope).

But that wasn't all I had missed from the passage; I had missed those first-person plural pronouns I had become so infatuated with in Isaiah 53. And then it hit me--like a proverbial ton of theological bricks: those who had paved the "Romans Road" must have embraced the same particular redemption I embrace. There it was. In black and white on the page before me. I could spend the next two-hundred and fifty words explaining it to you, but I'm quite sure you are capable of picking up on the first-person plural pronouns (especially verse 8)--and their relationship to justification and Christ's death.

So here is the Apostle Paul in God's own words (first-person plural pronouns are in bold for effect ... not because I think you can't identify them!):

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Praise God for first-person plural pronouns. Because Christ died for us while we were still sinners, we have peace with God ... access to God ... and the hope of God. We are recipients of God's love (through the Spirit), and are spared God's wrath. We, who were His enemies, are not killed, but spared through Christ's life.

And smack-dab in the middle of this great text on the blessings of justification is a telling statement on Christ's death: "But God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Christian History Fans Only, Please

2009-04-15T14:31:00.002-05:00

With the sad news of Christian History and Biography ending publication of the printed magazine, Christianaudio.com steps in to save the day by unleashing an unbeatable value and must-have collection for any Christian historian. Here are the details:

Greetings!

It was with great sadness that we received the news that Christian History and Biography Magazine was ending the print version of their magazine, announced late last year. Their outstanding publication offered well-researched and thoughtfully written articles covering a wide range of history and people.

Before they ceased publishing the magazine, Christianity Today International and christianaudio partnered together to record a few audio versions of some of the most popular of the 100 magazines published during the last 25 years. The magazines regarding Luther, The 100 Most Important Events in History, and How We Got Our Bible are just a few of the excellent titles we recorded and continue offering christianaudio customers the chance to listen to.

These magazines are wonderfully narrated and offer a great introduction to some of the most important events and people in Christian History. And, for the rest of April, we are offering all of them for the special low price of $4.98! Hurry, because this savings of nearly 70% expires on April 30, 2009 (midnight PST).

christianaudio.com

Listen Enjoy Think Grow

Good Friday - Christ Becomes a Curse For Us!

2009-04-10T09:00:00.005-05:00

As R.C. Sproul does so often, he brilliantly illustrates the curse that Christ bore on the cross for the sins of all who would ever believe. This video lays out very clearly the truth of the atonement and also does it in a very dramatic and illustrative way.

Ponder and meditate upon the truth of this verse as you watch this video - Galatians 3:13 - "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree")" (NKJV)

HT: Kevin DeYoung

Redemption and Limited Atonement

2009-04-08T13:48:00.005-05:00

It has been some time since we have tackled here on the blog the "800 pound gorilla" of the doctrines of grace - Limited Atonement. Since most of us start out as iron clad and died on the wool Arminians who magnify the "free-will" of man or our own "decision to ask Jesus into our heart" the whole issue of particular redemption, definite redemption or limited atonement is a difficult one to accept at first. The first thought that comes to mind is a limited God or worse yet, an unloving God who refused to make salvation possible for all of humanity.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Limited atonement actually glorifies God in salvation. It takes the doctrine of salvation from being a mere possibility (and gamble) to actually being an accomplished, finished and completed fact. I'll also go this far, you actually see that along with all of the other wonderful God-accomplished facts regarding our salvation that required God's action and procurement we find that the atonement was no different. Jesus did NOT make my salvation possible on the cross...He SECURED IT, and He secured it for all who would ever believe (the elect)!

In the small little book with an incredible amount of substantial truth on the atonement John Murray in his classic work "Redemption Accomplished and Applied" spells this out brilliantly -

"If we concentrate on the thought of redemption, we shall be able perhaps to sense more readily the impossibility of universalizing the atonement. What does redemption mean? It does not mean redeemability, that we are placed in a redeemable position. It means that Christ purchased procured redemption. This is the triumphant note of the New Testament whenever it plays on the redemptive chord. Christ redeemed us to God by his blood (Rev. 5:9). He obtained eternal redemption for us (Heb 9:12). "He gave himself for us in order that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify to himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works (Titus 2:14)......Christ did not come to put men in a redeemable position but to redeem to himself a people. We have the same result when we properly analyze the meaning of expiation, propitiation, and reconciliation. Christ did not come to make sins expiable. He came to expiate sins - "when he made purification of sins, he sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high" (Heb. 1:3). Christ did not come to make God reconcilable. He reconciled us to God by his own blood."
Redemption Accomplished and Applied, John Murray (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 1955) 63

So what is the atonement? Just an eternal "roll of the dice" or a secure and accomplished fact for all who would ever believe?

They're Coming To Take Me Away ...

2009-04-08T09:41:00.003-05:00

There's a first for everything, I guess, including being labeled a new-evangelical.

Although I must admit, I am disappointed--I would much rather be labeled an old evangelical!

The intended-to-be-inflammatory (but no offense taken) accusation comes from the keyboard of longtime reader and commenter Kent Brandenburg (HERE):

* How is SharperIron still fundamentalist? How is it that real fundamentalists still associate with SharperIron?

This is curious to me. I am not intending to offend anyone, by the way. I know I will, but I’m not intending to. Why don’t fundamentalists themselves point this out? They push and endorse a tremendous amount of new-evangelicalism on that blog. They don’t practice separation. On their blogroll they have the Southern Baptist Ben Wright, who is in Mark Dever’s church. They have the new-evangelical, Andy Naselli, the assistant to D. A. Carson, who attends a new-evangelical church. When you read the rest of their blogroll, including Joe Fleener, The World From our Window, and the Jay Adams blog now, they either constantly endorse new-evangelicals, or in the case of Jay Adams, he is one. On Joe Fleener’s blog, he had links to Psalms set to blatant rock music. I commented to point that out. He didn’t say a word to me; just deleted the comment. SharperIron is infatuated with, and I mean in the way of loving, conservative evangelicals. They rarely bash an evangelical and are always smacking fundamentalists. I sense a disdain for the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship there. How is it a fundamentalist blog?

My open question to Kent: since he is using the term new-evangelical in a pejorative sense; and since he often disagrees with the people and positions we publish here; and because he is fundamentally a fundamental fundamentalist, why does he continue to read and participate with the new-evangelical World From Our Window (perhaps he would support an official name change here)? Doesn't his participation here make him ...

I'd like to finish the last sentence, but the fundamentalist police are knocking at my church door. They are demanding to see my credentials. Perhaps I should burst out into song, "They're coming to take me away ... they're coming to take me away ... to the FUNDY FARM (see photo), where all is well."

We could make it a quartet: Joe Fleener, Andy Naselli, Jay Adams, and me.

New Bauder Audio on the Church, Purity, and Unity

2009-04-07T20:31:00.002-05:00

From Dr. Bauder's recent talks at the Illinois/Missouri Association of Regular Baptist Churches conference: HERE.

Titles of the talks:

The Flock and the Fold: Basic Church Unity | John 10

The Church as Temple:The Importance of Unity | 1 Corinthians 3

The Pure Church:Does Church Discipline Work Today? | 1 Cor. 5

The Successful Church:What Are the Measurements? | Eph. 4:13

Biblical Separation in Practice

This is the first time I have been privileged to hear Dr. Bauder live and unplugged. Needless to say, my heart was challenged and blessed. That is great news for those of us who have been a bit wary of the subject matter at the upcoming national GARBC Conference!

And Dr. Bauder may be the brightest mind in fundamental evangelicalism (or is that evangelical fundamentalism?)!

A few bonus Bauder sermons are also available HERE.

Shocking Changes that Have Come About

2009-04-01T08:12:00.005-05:00

Some things have come to light in my life today that I think I need to go public with:

1. I now believe in the free will of man being the determining factor in man's salvation.

2. I will only read, memorize, preach from and use the KJV. All other translations are perversions and the KJV is the only inspired word of God for English speaking people.

3. A Christian does not need to show any lasting fruit in order to be truly converted and regenerate.

4. I'm being allured to the Emergent movement and I'm having a hard time accepting any truth as being propositional and absolute.

5. The atonement was universal in its intent and wasn't specifically intended to be applied to the sins of the elect.

6. A Christian has two natures and can even enter into a state of being a "carnal" Christian.

7. Faith now comes before regeneration and God only reacts to our decision to receive Christ.

8. Even though the Bible says that man is totally dead in his trespasses and sins he still retains an "island of righteousness" that allows him to either choose or reject Christ based upon his own will and decision.

All this to say:

Happy April Fools Day!!!!!!!!!

Taking Notes on the Sermon: Edwards and Lloyd-Jones Say NO

2009-03-30T09:51:00.002-05:00

From Jonathan Edwards' pen:

"The main benefit that is obtained by preaching is by impression made upon the mind in the time of it, and not by the effect that arises afterwards by a remembrance of what was delivered." [quoted in The Salvation of Souls, eds. Richard Bailey and Gregory Wills, 11]

From Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

"The first and primary object of preaching is not only to give information. It is, as Edwards says, to produce an impression. It is the impression at the time that matters, even more than what you can remember subsequently.It is not primarily to impart information; and while you are writing your notes you may be missing something of the impact of the Spirit." [from HERE]

For many in our congregations, the task of filling in blanks has become an exercise in blank prediction (guessing which words belong in the blank before the preacher gives the answer) or blank phobia (the fear of blank blanks), or even blank apathy (not caring about the blanks)! Often, the listeners are so concerned with filling in the blanks correctly that they miss the worship that is to be taking place through the proclamation of the Word.

So are Edwards and Lloyd-Jones onto something here? Or are they a bit too strict in their understanding of preaching as an act of corporate worship?

Mark Driscoll Squares Off in Nightline Debate Tonight

2009-03-26T13:33:00.006-05:00

If you want to stay up for a while watching your bracket survive or die after the games tonight I would recommend that you tune in for a lively and theological debate later this evening on ABC's Nightline on the existence of Satan.

Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle Washington gives a clear and distinct presentation of the gospel that you don't want to miss. He definitely makes the most of his opportunity to focus on Christ being the ONLY real alternative to our spiritual enemy and our own spiritual deadness. I have made no secret in the past about some concerns I have had about Driscoll and some of the language that he uses behind the pulpit. Nevertheless, I must give credit where credit is due. He does a brilliant job in proclaiming our Savior and it was exciting to see and hear Driscoll biblically lay out what the doctrine of evil and the solution in Jesus Christ.

If you don't want to stay up and watch it tonight you can view the whole debate HERE.

Not Abandoning a Pastoral Call While Blogging

2009-03-26T08:54:00.004-05:00

Some truth to think about before our fingers hit the keyboards of our computers:

2 Timothy 2:23-25 - "Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. 24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness." (ESV)

May we by the grace of God manifest this not only in our pulpits but also in our homes, personal lives and on our blog!

What Is Dispensationalism? Can Dispys Come to an Agreement?

2009-03-26T00:01:00.000-05:00

Some of you will undoubtedly accuse me of beating a dead horse; but before you do, I want to remind you that many around here are convinced that dispensationalism--classic darb-scof-afer dispensationalism--still lives.

Therefore, literally speaking, I could not be beating a dead horse!

Still, I am puzzled that I have yet to find (NOTE: anecdotal evidence, not scientific evidence) a widely-accepted definition of dispensationalism. Perhaps I am dense (my wife has often thought so) ... or perhaps I was blind (Isaac Newton says so) ... or perhaps I am so blasted stubborn that even if it bit me in the nose, I would refuse to acknowledge it (have you ever seen my nose?).

So ... how would you define dispensationalism?

While you ponder that question ... and while you attempt to define the fluid, splintered movement often known for its inner disagreements rather than its agreed-upon tenets ... here are some helps for you (you are welcome!):

*John (Leaky) MacArthur: "Dispensationalism, by the way, is simply a title for theology that recognizes a literal nation Israel to be restored in the future." (From HERE.) Yet another definition from MacArthur: "That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God's promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews)." (From HERE.)

*Charles (Bishop) Ryrie (from pages 43-47 of Dispensationalism Today, Moody, 1965):
Grammatico-historical hermeneutics applied to all Scripture
The Christian church and Israel distinguished from each other
The glory of God seen as the center of history
*The (I hope they are my) Brethren: "Dispensationalism is a period of stewardship during which man is tested during God’s dealings with him." (From HERE.)

*(Look to the [Middle] East, it must be the) End Times Dot Org: "A system of theology that sees God working with man in different ways during different dispensations." (Read HERE.) According to this site, the distinctions of dispensationalism are:

1 - A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.
2 - A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation
3 - The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.

Now it's your turn. How do you define the movement and theology of which you are a part?!

Which Dispensationalist Said it? It Will Surprise You!

2009-03-25T00:01:00.000-05:00

"The time of the Second Coming of Christ is the key that unlocks all 'Dispensational Truth.'"

The same man has proven himself to be a faulty prognosticator (although nearly all dispensationalists have been encouraged to purchase his classic book):

"If our inference is correct, then it follows that the Return of the Lord will take place before the close of this present century. How much before is uncertain. If the Millennium is to be ushered in in A. D. 2000, then the 'Rapture' must take place at least 7 years before that."

More troubling eisegesis:

"... the 'Prayer of Faith' (James 5:13-16) for the sick is not primarily a promise to the Church but to Israel ..."

"The manner of the 'creation' of the Pre-Adamite Earth is not revealed in the Scriptures. They simply declare that--'in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' We have to fall back then upon Science."

"The creation of the 'Original Earth' was in the dateless past. It was doubtless a most beautiful earth, covered with vegetation and inhabited with fish and fowl and animal life, and probably with human life."

"The six days' work as described in Genesis 1:3-31 is not a description of how God made the Original earth, but how He restored it from its 'formless and void' condition to its present state. If the flood of Noah's day was only local and affected only that section fo the world, then the geography of the restored earth was problably the same as that of the earth today."

Christ to rapture the church prior to A. D. 2000? An entire hermeneutic admittedly formulated upon the time of the Second Coming? The book of James is for Jews? Falling back upon Science for an explanation of the earth's origins? A sin-cursed world and race before Adam's fall? A local Noahic flood? The above is a brief, but telling sampling of exegetical fallacies from the first twenty-four pages of the book.

So who is this respected and revered dispensational leader and author?

10 Good Reasons to Keep Looking Up

2009-03-24T08:58:00.006-05:00

You will receive a new body (I Cor. 15:52).
You will get a custom dwelling place. Every house on Earth requires fixing, but the home He prepares for you will be perfect (Jn. 14:2-3).
You will be like Christ, so you will be unable to sin (I Jn. 3:2).
You will get to know Bible saints, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Mt. 8:11).
You will speak to loved ones who died in the faith (I Thess. 4:13-18).
You will live in a perfect world. What lies ahead is so much better than what exists today (Rev. 21).
You will never again suffer heartache, pain, death, broken relationships, or the like (I Cor. 15:26; Rev. 7:16-17).
You will fall for the final time. But rather than falling short, you will fall on your knees in praise (Rom. 7:15-25; Phil. 2:10).
You will participate in awesome worship (Rev. 5:11-14; 7:9-12).
You will see God (Job 19:26; I Jn. 3:2)

Top Ten Reasons the Dispensationalist Did Not Cross the Road

2009-03-24T00:01:00.003-05:00

10. Thought he would be raptured before he got there anyway.

9. Thought that the other side was for the ‘Israel’, and this side was for the ‘church’.

8. Charles Ryrie was still on this side of the road, why cross?

7. Thought it was pointless since Jesus was just going to bring him back after 7 years.

6. Like the OT prophets and the church age, he was unable to see the other side.

5. He was afraid that if he went, there would be nothing to restrain the man of lawlessness.

4. He was not a part of the dispensation of ‘crossing’.

3. Dallas Theological Seminary hadn’t yet published anything telling him how to do it.

2. Thought there was a two thousand foot gap between the 69th and 70th step.

1. By taking a consistently literal approach, he thought that ‘cross the road’ meant something about the crucifixion.

This can't-miss Top Ten is from the keyboard of C. Michael Patton. For more hermeneutic-humor, check out Michael's Top Ten Reasons the Emerger Did Not Cross the Road, and The Top Ten Reasons the Reformed Theologian Did Not Cross the Road.

Perhaps it's apparent that Michael is a progressive dispensationalist!

Changing the Trend of Historic Racism in Fundamentalism

2009-03-23T18:29:00.007-05:00

I will never forget the disillusionment and confusion that I felt the first time I heard a pastor use the infamous and hateful "N" word when referring to an African-American. I was a very young Christian at the time. The remark was justified and excused in my own mind by me simply thinking that this man had good reason to feel this way and that perhaps I was the one who didn't see things the way that I needed to. I was easily influenced and wanting to soak up all I could from older more seasoned Christians. It immediately became apparent that there was an unwritten rule within many fundamental circles (notice I did NOT say all) that white fundamentalists had a right to forbid other white young people to date or marry those who happened to be black....even if they were biblically qualified.

This gets worse....in fact, a lot worse. While sitting in a classroom at the fundamentalist institution that I happened to be attending one of the professors actually used the passage in Genesis 9:25 to justify slavery and the fact that blacks were an inferior race! Does anyone else here see the exegetical fallacy that this creates? Not only was that a complete misinterpretation of the text....it was also downright heretical! There's more...by the time I had been in this particular college for a few years I had known just about every ethnic and racial joke one could think of. I didn't hear these jokes at my job, rather, I heard them from some faculty and staff members! Sad, truly sad.

But this line of thinking was nothing new. Read these words from one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century (John R. Rice):

"Socially, it is better for both Negroes and whites to run with their own kind and intermarry with their own kind. This mixing of races widely differing is almost never wise...Thus if a girl would do wrong to marry a Negro boy, she would be wrong to keep company with him, mixing regularly in social life."
1954 "Sword of the Lord"

Since it has been years since I've read the "Sword of the Lord" I cannot verify if they have ever recanted or publicly repented of this incredibly hateful and unbibiblical rhetoric. I hope they have. If they haven't, they need to! I still know and love many in the IFB movement and my prayer is that this sort of hateful thinking has not transcended any generational lines.

My way of thinking regarding this matter began to change (only by God's grace) when I began dating my future wife Christina (who happens to be Mexican). It always seemed interesting to me that the same standard my college had on African-Americans was not placed on those of us who were dating Hispanics. Were Hispanics not a different race? Or, is it the fact that their melanin levels were not as high as those of our black brethren? The slam dunk though was the fact that Scripture teaches NOTHING regarding race being a biblical qualification for marrying someone.

In his book "What He Must Be" Voddie Bauchman lays out three main truths that exposes what racism inherently denies:

1. Racism Denies Our Oneness in Adam (Acts 17:26)
2. Racism Denies Our Oneness in Noah (Genesis 7:11-13)
3. Racism Denies our Oneness in Christ (Gal. 3:26-29)

This is not a dead issue even in our own churches. Sadly, there are still many who would rather their children bring home a caucuasion person rather than a Christ-centered person! May we approach this sin of hatred with the same passion, biblical authority and zeal that we would any other sin related issue!

In the end, racism makes the Gospel look hateful and unattractive. It forces Christians to adopt a paradigm of hate and superiority towards others. It denies the universal effects of sin and exposes the utter depravity of man's heart. Let me leave you with a quote that I think summarizes the whole issue very succinctly:

"At the heart of racism is the religious assertion that God made a creative mistake when He brought some people into being."
Friedrich Otto Hertz

The Arminian Version of Amazing Grace

2009-03-20T13:38:00.004-05:00

My friend and accomplished theologian and song writer Steve Camp recently posted this and I found it too irresistible to pass up. Hope you find this to be some good Friday afternoon humor:

Amazing Graceworks! How sweet the sound

that saved a blissful bloke like me

I was kinda lost, but now I'm found

Was a bit blind, but now I see

Twas graceworks that taught my heart to cheer

the best that lied within;

And it was graceworks that calmed my fears

And conquered all my sin

Both God and I have done our part

To make redemption mine

My freewill faith removed my stoney heart

And earned me eternal life

So when we’ve been there ten thousand years

'Cause of all the graceworks we have done

We’ve no less days to share God's praise

Than when we first begun

HT: Steve Camp

Dr. Kevin Bauder on the Survival of Conservative Christianity

2009-03-20T13:10:00.005-05:00

A few months ago I signed up for Dr. Kevin Bauder's (President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth Minnesota) weekly newsletter entitled “In the Nick of Time”. This is a weekly periodical that is released every Friday. You can sign up to have this sent to your email weekly HERE.

Dr. Bauder is someone that I’m extremely thankful is on our side (the side of conservative/fundamental Christians). He is bold, articulate, honest, and credible as a scholar. Below are some good thoughts on the survival of conservative Christianity:

“If conservative Christianity is true – as I believe it is – then it is the very Christianity that the world most needs. Moreover, the people who understand it and love it are few. Like it or not, my friends, it is up to us to make a difference, not by pleasing ourselves, and not by making ourselves inconspicuous, but by exercising leadership.

I have no illusions about the prospects of success. If we are frank about our beliefs (and we ought to be), then not many churches or institutions will want us. Even those that tolerate us are likely to misunderstand us. We may find ourselves having to start from scratch again and again. I do not intend to suggest that this is a contest that we can or should win.

But, as T.S. Eliot remarked, there are times when we do not fight to win. We fight to keep something alive. In some future day, the dark ages must end, and when they do, the Christians of that day will need the gospel in its integrity. They will need the whole counsel of God. They will need the boldness that comes from recognizing God’s sovereignty over human affairs. They will need ordinate affection and meaning. Our job is to keep these things alive – to conserve them – for that future generation."

You can read the article in its entirety HERE.

Bauder reminds us that while we will not be the most popular or populated movement, we will still have a truth to be contended for.

Letter To A Dying (GARBC) Church

2009-03-20T10:51:00.006-05:00

In 2004, Dr. James MacDonald and the ever-sprawling, multi-campus Harvest Bible Chapel rescued then-GARBC Crossway Baptist Church in Niles, Illinois, from the clutches of death. In MacDonald's words, Crossway Baptist took the leap into Harvest's "staffing, leadership development, building renovation, live worship, and teaching by video" by voting "to never vote again."

Since giving up their right to vote, this church has exploded numerically. They now average 1400 in weekly attendance, and 40 baptisms per year. MacDonald sums up the church's success with this statement: "Sadly, many churches in the position they were in do not make the courageous decision they made."

What was that courageous decision MacDonald lauds? To give their land, building, assets, people, money, and their vote to a multi-site sprawling mega-church who is sure to rescue them from certain ecclesiastical extinction.

Sadly, MacDonald does not attribute the church-rescue to God's grace or power or strength--or even the effectiveness of God's Word. Rather, MacDonald seems to attribute the church's drastic five-year-turnaround to that vote in 2004--the vote to join his multi-site church. His staffing, leadership development, building renovation, live worship, and teaching by video seem to be the key to any struggling church's success.

Read MacDonald's words (and a poignant hypothetical letter to any other dying church) HERE.

Do Nothing Leadership (Quote)

2009-03-18T12:20:00.002-05:00

"He wasn't a bad leader because he made poor decisions; he was a bad leader because he made no decisions."

11 More Things That You'll Never Learn in Seminary

2009-03-17T20:11:00.006-05:00

I've never gone to seminary. I've never even been in a seminary classroom. Most pastors have an educational and ministry background that blows mine out of the water. In fact, my route to the ministry was a very unique one. One that I would not recommend that others take. But I do know this...I am called of God to preach His Gospel. And so far, not having a prestigious grouping of letters after my name has not hindered my ministry (at least I don't think it has but perhaps others would disagree). Again, I am NOT downplaying the importance of education. I envy those of you who had the privilege to go to seminary and learn from the brilliant theological minds who help equip you with the tools that you needed for an effective ministry.

While most will go to seminary and benefit from learning Greek and Hebrew some will not. We are at a natural disadvantage and are forced to be vociferous readers and students. We have to be. Our backgrounds do not afford to do otherwise.

I use this as an introduction and a follow up to a post that Deepak Reju of 9 Marks Ministry posted a few days ago entitled "17 Things that Seminary Never Taught Me". I'm going to take this opportunity to add 11 more from a list of my own:

1. How to comfort someone whose son has just committed suicide.

2. How to deal with a false accusation.

3. How to clear your mind from the stress of ministry when you get home.

4. How to tell someone who thinks they're saved that biblically they show no fruit of being regenerate.

5. How to deal with someone who storms into your office, loses their temper and storms away over something incredibly insignificant. (This one was over a church bulletin!)

6. How to plead with parents to not allow their child to marry an unbeliever.

7. How to discipline yourself to stay zealous and excited about your own personal devotional life.

8. How decide which conference (of the 1,000,000 to choose from) would be a wise use of my time and resources.

9. How to deal with being misunderstood and having your motives misjudged.

10. How to prioritize the imperative of understanding your calling as the shepherd of your own home as your greatest calling and pastoral qualification.

11. How to pastor those who hate the Chicago Cubs (this requires a lot of patience folks!).

Please do not misunderstanding me here. I absolutely LOVE pastoring and serving at the church that God has entrusted to me. And please believe me when I tell you that the benefits of ministry far outweigh the negatives. God has given me a gracious, loving and patient group of people to pastor. Perhaps I'm off here and seminaries do indeed offer courses on this. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

If He Wants to Marry My Daughter....

2009-03-15T20:13:00.006-05:00

Those of us who are fathers sometimes cringe at the thought of walking our daughter down the isle on their wedding day. Not a day goes by where I do not passionately pray for my children's future spouse. Honestly, the concern here is not whether they will marry someone influential, wealthy, nice looking, or with a promising career. The real concern is whether they will make the tragic mistake of prioritizing convenience and comfort over godliness and biblical qualifications. God has been incredibly kind to me in giving me a wife who reflects the inward and outward joy of knowing Christ. May God in His grace do the same for our children!

Voddie Baucham's new book "What He Must Be" tackles this issue head on. Let me give you a few excerpts that I found challenging and helpful:

"If this is true (and I believe it is), then fathers must do more than just send their daughters off into the world and "hope they come back with a good one." We must take our responsibility seriously. We must walk with our daughters through this process of finding a suitable husband. We must also actively protect our daughters from men who do not measure up to God's standard. If we don't the consequences will be dire."
Voddie Bauchman Jr., What He Must Be (Crossway Books, 2009), 14

"I believe God has spoken rather decisively in his Word about what our daughters should look for. Moreover, I believe there are some non-negotiables that our daughters must be looking for. There are some things a man simply must be before he is qualified to assume the role of a Christian husband. For instance, he must be a Christian (2 Corinthians 6:14); he must be committed to biblical headship (Ephesians 5:23ff); he must welcome children (Psalm 127:3-5); he must be a suitable priest (Joshua 24:15), prophet (Ephesians 6:4), protector (Nehemiah 4:13-14), and provider (1 Timothy 5:8; Titus 2:5). A man who does not possess - or at least show strong signs of - these and other basic characteristics does not meet the basic job description laid down for husbands in the Bible."
Ibid. 17

"The result of this is a generation of young men and women who view marriage as a temporary arrangement as opposed to a lifelong covenant. As a father, I must protect my daughter from men who think this way. I must also see to it that I do not allow such thinking in my sons. A young man who is worthy of a wife will have a clear understanding of the covenantal nature of marriage. He will also have a healthy apprehension when he thinks about the magnitude of his responsibility should he assume the role of a husband and father. He must know the weight he is taking on his shoulders and be willing to accept it. He must be a man who is willing to endure hardship for the sake of his family should he be called upon to do so."
Ibid. 23

If you are even remotely concerned about who your children will marry then this book is a must for your bookshelf! May we all as parents be proactive in biblically determining what the circumstances will be when we are asked one day - "Who gives this bride away?"

Am I Still A Fundamentalist?

2009-03-12T15:36:00.006-05:00

You tell me after reading these next ten statements:

1. I go to movies and rent them.

2. I hate wearing ties....even with white shirts.

3. I'm not even close to being KJV only and think this ridiculous teaching has corrupted fundamentalism and in many ways has taken away much of its credibility.

4. I'm a 5 point Calvinist.

5. I enjoy incredible fellowship with non-Baptists.

6. I enjoy incredible fellowship with non-dispy's.

7. I listen to secular music.

8. The church I pastor usually changes the schedule of our Sunday evening service on Super Bowl Sunday to an afternoon service.

9. We showed the movie Fireproof for one of our services (Sunday evening).

10. And, if I were given tickets to the Super Bowl I would probably miss Sunday night church for it (and that might go for Cubs World Series tickets too).

Now before you think I am being sarcastic and over the top I want you to consider something here...there is NOTHING here about compromising on anything that the original "fundamentalists" believed (especially regarding essential doctrine). Yet, in the sub-culture of American fundamentalism that has drifted so far from doctrinal essentials we find a more disturbing trend of allegiances to unbiblical externals.

Israel, My Glory Magazine Associated With Christian Zionism Website

2009-03-11T15:41:00.003-05:00

According to the website, ChristianZionism.org, "Eighteen of the most significant Christian Zionist organizations have come together and created www.Christian-Zionism.org which is dedicated to telling the true story about Christian Zionism."

According to THIS PAGE, Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc. (which publishes the magazine, Israel, My Glory) has joined the Christian Zionist effort with seventeen other Christian Zionist organizations for the following purposes [also read HERE]:

Anti-Christian Zionist groups, books, and articles are attempting to poison the public against Christian Zionism. www.Christian-Zionism.org will refute anti-Christian Zionism propaganda and reframe Christian Zionism in a positive light.

www.Christian-Zionism.org is a clearing house for Christian Zionism articles, information, organizations, and events. We encourage you to learn more about all of our Christian Zionist organizations in the Organizations section of the website. We also encourage you to sign up for our email updates under the Subscribe Now section of the website.

www.Christian-Zionism.org also provides extensive pro-Israel resources. Please visit the Resource and Links sections of the website to watch videos from Israel, download posters and cards, and learn about Israeli history.

According to wikipedia, Christian Zionism ...

"...is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy.

Some Christian Zionists believe that the "ingathering" of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. This belief is primarily, though not exclusively, associated with Christian Dispensationalism. The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christian, as a means fulfilling a Biblical prophecy has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation. The term Christian Zionism was popularized in the mid-twentieth century. Prior to that time the common term was Restorationism."

Renald Showers, a scheduled keynote speaker at the 2009 GARBC National Conference, represents the church ministries division of The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry--a ministry which publicly embraces the label and theology of Christian Zionism.

My Open Response to Ken's Opinion: The GARBC's Proposed Articles of Faith Revision

2009-03-11T13:57:00.005-05:00

Kenneth,

NOTE: To our readers – please do not misunderstand this response to Kenneth. This is a friendly dialogue and discussion that I have chosen to do here on the blog to present what I believe are differing views represented in our association. Our discussion here is a little window into many friendly and often intense discussions that we have had in recent months. Do NOT misconstrue this as tension or hostility in our relationship. I consider Kenneth a strong partner in Gospel ministry and our families enjoy a close friendship in the Lord that I treasure! I share Kenneth’s sentiments about the GARBC and I am thankful for the leadership and strong committed history that our association has displayed for the glory of Christ!

A few thoughts here…I have not been a member of the GARBC for a long time – nearly five years as a pastor and about five years before that as a member and leader in a GARBC church. So I admit that I may be speaking here as a novice. I will say that I both agree and disagree with your assessment here. Let me clarify before you think I am beginning to sound like John Kerry….

Yes, there does need to be more clarification on the depravity of man. Especially when you consider the fact that this would have serious implications on how we do evangelism, our approach to biblical counseling, and even our practical day to day ministry. If we as an association remain ambiguous about what Scripture teaches regarding man’s condition before God – dead, helpless and at enmity with God then we will have a complete misunderstanding of God’s grace and man’s inability to seek after a holy and righteous God. I’m totally with you on that one.

However, where I think the wheels fall off of your argument is when you say that there is an apparent “overemphasis” on eschatology in our association. Perhaps I’m off here, but I simply do not remember in recent years in the Baptist Bulletin, GARBC website, Nat’l Conf. reports or from those I have had in my church any sort of “overemphasis” on eschatology. The most recent resolution that comes to mind for me is the one that Dr. John Hartog III wrote at last year’s conference in Iowa. This, incidentally, won unanimous approval from the delegates in attendance (of which Kenneth was a part of).

Using the silence argument to support your view that eschatology is not an important issue or one that does not merit further articulation is a rather weak one. Following that line of thinking would cause to abandon any statement on the Trinity since that “word” is not found in Scripture. Another word that you and I both like is “depravity”. We do find that one in Scripture but in a different context than what we would usually use it in (Lev. 18:17; 19:29 & 20:14 ESV).

I support the fact that our association is putting a clear distinction between the Rapture and the Second Coming and I continue to scratch my head wondering why you wouldn’t when I consider the fact that you clearly stated that you yourself are an avowed pre-mil/trib person yourself. Different contexts call for different emphasis from time to time. Today, churches need to be more diligent and articulate in pointing out what their doctrinal statements teach what they believe about Scripture - clear definitions of marriage, the church’s position on divorce and remarriage, the role of men and women in the church and especially baptism in light of well known evangelical leaders having clear disagreements and ambiguity on the issue.

While eschatology may not be something you consider to be a matter of “first importance” in the context of a local church, it remains to be a prominent subject in both the Old and New Testaments. To ignore the importance of eschatology and particulars associated with it would be to ignore the issue of hermeneutics altogether. Frankly, as I’ve stated before, it would be difficult for me at this time in my life to be able to be a part of a church that ignored the issue of hermeneutics and eschatology in the name of “unity”.

My Opinion: The GARBC's Proposed Articles of Faith Revision

2009-03-11T12:11:00.006-05:00

Opining carries with it the ever-present danger of being misunderstood, and the even greater danger of being misrepresented.

Yet there are times when, for the sake of truth, critical opining is a necessary practice.

Before I share my opinion regarding the proposed changes to the GARBC's Articles of Faith, let me publicly proclaim my love for our association. I was born into it ... reared in it ... trained in it ... and have pastored in it for the past 13 years. I've attended nearly every Annual Conference since 1985 (with the exceptions of those held in California, and one in Florida). I'm planning to attend this year's conference with my family--even though the subject matter is certain to stir some consternation and controversy (classic, Judeo-centric dispensationalism--and I don't mean that pejoratively). I love our association. I respect its leadership. I eagerly embrace its valuable history--which is why I do not share the same enthusiasm for the proposed changes to the GARBC Articles of Faith.

The GARBC Council of Eighteen (our association's leadership council) has recommended several changes to the eschatology portion of the articles of faith. The association leadership has described these changes as "minor" and "not a revision of our beliefs ... but a clarification in the way we describe long-held views among our churches on the doctrine of eschatology" [entire reasoning for proposed changes available HERE].

I do not question the motives of our association's leadership in proposing the change. But I am perplexed by the stated reasoning for the proposed change. Later in the aforementioned article, the reasoning driving the change becomes even more apparent:

Our Articles of Faith do not live in a vacuum. The theological landscape around us progressively changes in ways that demand our continued clarity. Pastor Tom Alexander, a Council of Eighteen member who serves on the policy committee, described a problem he was having in his new members’ Bible study. “I found myself going over the wording of our doctrinal statement very carefully with the new members because it was hard for them to understand,” Alexander says. “Every time we got to that section, I had to do a lot of explaining. I needed to clarify the difference between the Rapture, which we believe could happen at any time, and the Second Advent, which we believe could not happen at any moment (because it occurs after the Tribulation).”

The reasoning presented in this paragraph is both puzzling and confusing. The GARBC clarified their conviction on the immanency of Christ's return back in 1953. The Articles of Faith have included immanency since the mid-70's--the same period in which the GARBC was unwilling to take a stand on total depravity [see pages 28-31 of THIS DOCUMENT]. This action and lack of action speaks volumes when it comes to the emphasis of our association's doctrinal standards. Specific matters of eschatology are important enough to repeatedly clarify, while the seemingly fundamental doctrine of total depravity and human inability is repeatedly (and purposefully, in the name of unity) ignored. When specific matters of the timing and sequence of future events in eschatology trump the condition of unregenerate man and the salvation Christ has secured through His death, something is amiss, and our emphasis is skewed. The total depravity and sinful condition of man is not a tertiary doctrine, while many of our association's founders considered the timing and sequence of eschatological events to be non-essential matters [see page 23 of THIS DOCUMENT].

So while I am a premillennialist, and a pretribulationalist, I am concerned over the perceived over-emphasis of eschatology in our association. At our 2008 association conference, the messengers overwhelmingly approved a "birthday congratulations" to the current political state and government of Israel because "God most certainly has not cast [His covenant people] away." Now we are told that the GARBC Articles of Faith regarding eschatology are "difficult to understand" because they do not adequately clarify the difference between the Rapture and the Second Advent. Perhaps that is not a problem traced to a human-authored statement of faith, but to the fact that Scripture itself never employs the term Rapture. Repeated re-clarifications in our association's eschatological views will not solve this problem of confusion when it comes to teaching eschatology to God's people. One must employ faulty logic to believe that it will.

Times do change; new theological and doctrinal wars appear on the battlefield of truth; sometimes clarifications are necessary (as often is the case on this blog!); but what we as an association emphasize will be what defines us. I, for one, do not want to be defined by what the future may hold; I want to be defined by what my Savior has done in the past. My qualms are not with the eschatological views of our association, but with the apparent eschatological emphasis it is determined to employ. Such an emphasis did not define our association in its infancy, and it should not define our association today.

DISCLAIMER: The picture is provided for comical purposes only!

The Unhealthy Practice of Pastoral Sabbaticals

2009-03-10T16:41:00.005-05:00

It seems to be an ever-increasing common occurrence.

Those in ministry have been told that because of the stress of ministry and the ongoing danger of burnout, sabbaticals should become a regular part of a pastor's routine (these sabbaticals are to be in addition to the pastor's annual vacation allowance). Churches have been encouraged to grant their pastor a six-month sabbatical every seven-or-so years. And this isn't a bell being tolled in liberal, out-of-touch mainline denominations; it's becoming a widely accepted practice within conservative evangelicalism (read HERE and HERE).

While the motive driving pastoral sabbaticals may be laudable; and while the term "sabbatical" carries a biblical connotation of commanded rest, I remain unconvinced that regularly scheduled pastoral sabbaticals are a good (or godly) practice.

Here's why:

1) Although Scripture instructs Christians to make physical and spiritual refreshment a regular practice, nowhere does Scripture instruct pastors to take special extended times of refreshment. Nowhere in the pastoral epistles (or in the entire canon) are sabbath principles extended for those in vocational ministry. God has commanded all believers to rest one day each week. There is no biblical mandate, reason, or example of vocational ministers taking extended sabbaticals from their places of ministry.

2) The reasoning behind extended pastoral sabbaticals appears to be inherently flawed. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not in favor of pastoral dryness or burn-out. But the problem with pastoral dryness and burn-out is not due to a lack of pastoral sabbaticals, but to a lack of biblical priorities in the pastor's life. The sabbath principle is to be observed weekly. If pastors would discipline themselves to practice weekly sabbaticals, extended sabbaticals would be unnecessary. Likewise, pastoral freshness is cultivated in a regular routine of Bible Study, reading, sermon-listening, and fellowshipping with the people in his ministry context. So while rest and refreshment are necessary, they are to take place within the context of ministry--not outside of it (see Mark 6:31-56)!

3) The problem with extended pastoral sabbaticals is that they tend to enable pastors to continue to mis-prioritize and mismanage their time and leadership responsibilities. There are many causes of pastoral weariness, dryness, and burn-out, but many cases of these pastoral maladies are easily traced to one or more of the following:

1. An unwillingness or inability to delegate ministry responsibility. Here's what I've learned about many churches: if the pastor wants to do everything, many times the church will let him! I praise God that I pastor a church that will not let me do so. So pastors, give people the opportunity and privilege to join with you in God's work. The old addage, "If I want it done right, I'll do it myself" may be a partial-truth, but it tends to leave God out of the equation. Remember, the church you pastor is His work (Matthew 16:18).

2. An inherent tendency to micromanage. Some pastors are master delegators, but micromanagers. They don't do everything, but they have their hand in everything. From the choir songs to the Nursery schedule to what's on the menu for the upcoming potluck, the pastor knows it all, and has to OK it all. The problem with micromanaging is that church leadership is to be a shared responsibility (see Acts 6). While I am not advocating pastoral ignorance or an unbiblical hands-off approach to ministry, pastoral burnout is often traced to the tendency of leaders to micromanage.

3. An unwillingness to include his family in ministry responsibilities. As a boy, I always enjoyed accompanying my father on hospital or nursing home visits. Although I wish I had given more attention to what my Dad did and said while he was there, I learned much about ministry (and life) from being with my Dad while he was doing ministry. Many pastors feel it necessary to take a sabbatical because they ignore or neglect their families in the name of ministry. Extended sabbaticals may very well enable them to continue doing so.

4. An unwillingness to care for their physical bodies. Some pastors wear their bodies out in the name of the kingdom, and are lauded by their congregations for doing so. They reserve little time for rest, relaxation, and exercise in a normal week. And so, extended sabbaticals serve the purpose of providing the pastor "catch-up" time for his body. The problem is that the human body does not catch-up on time and sleep lost in the name of ministry. The once-a-week sabbath principle serves a spiritual and practical purpose.

5. An inability to handle the pressures or trials of ministry. Ministry is tough. Anybody who has any ministry experience can identify with the difficulty and stress of the calling. When it comes to handling ministry difficulties biblically, the answer is not to run. It's not a sabbatical. God's Word does not instruct anyone--including pastors--to deal with life's pressures and difficulties by taking an extended vacation! God's Word is clear: Christians (including pastors) handle life's problems and difficulties by trusting in Him, availing themselves of His sufficient grace (2 Corinthians 12:9-10), and continuing in the work to which God has called them (how long? see Isaiah 6:8-13). When life gets tough ... take an extended break from the ministry and responsibility God has called you to. Is that really the message we want to send to the people in the pews? Should they ask their employer for a six-month sabbatical every seven-or-so years?

While these things may come across as harsh and uncompassionate for those struggling in a difficult ministry, I assure you they are not intended to come across as such. The real questions are these: Is God's Word sufficient in dealing with the "toughies" of ministry, without taking an extended sabbatical from the church and ministry? Is God's grace sufficient to meet every pastor's needs to fulfill his calling well? If so, why would we enable pastors to step outside the bounds of God's Word, and expand the sabbath principle without a biblical mandate to do so?

God has graciously given us all we need for life, godliness, and ministry (2 Peter 1:3). Let us avail ourselves of the means of grace He has granted for a lengthy, healthy, and fulfilling ministry ... and leave the sabbaticals to one-day-a-week sabbaths--the way God intended them to be!

**Note: This post was intended to be brief, and to fit within the 1 - 2 minute reading window. When realizing its length, I attempted to divide this into two posts. Doing so would be detrimental to the subject matter at hand. Therefore, I have included the entire lengthy post! I plead for your indulgence and forgiveness!

Suffering, Sovereignty and the Depravity of Man - Voddie Bauchman

2009-03-06T16:12:00.003-06:00

This is a brilliant and God-centered portion of a message that deals with the so called "problem" of suffering with a correct view of a holy and righteous God in light of His Word. Pay close attention to the correct question being posed here in light of Scripture's teaching on justice, wrath, condemnation, mercy and grace:

Practicing What You Preach When Suffering Hits Home

2009-03-05T22:12:00.005-06:00

When my mother passed away on April 8th, 2002 I was not a pastor. I had never preached or had a part in a funeral. It was also the first time that I had ever lost someone close to me to death. There is no doubt in my mind that the grief and suffering that I experienced through that time with my mother's long battle with colon cancer and her eventual death better prepared me for pastoring a church in the future.

Today, after nearly five years in the ministry it has been my privilege to be a part of several funerals. In my first couple of years of ministry I felt like I was doing funerals nearly every month. The church that I pastor voted me in by a vote of 38-0 in October of 2004. About 33 of those 38 votes were gray headed saints of God. Of course, there is nothing wrong with age. But we all know that the older we get the chances of our death greatly increase. Hence, the large number of funerals that I did in my first years of ministry.

Funerals for me have always been a great source of comfort, assurance in the gospel and joy that a dear saint of God is now "absent from the body and present with the Lord". I have never preached the funeral of an unregenerate person (to the best of my knowledge). If the Lord tarries, I'm sure that precedent will change.

Yesterday while I was home for lunch my wife received a phone call from her twin brother that brought the news that her mother had passed away that morning at the age of sixty-six. To make it an even more sobering event is the fact that we are not convinced that she was ever truly converted. Hence, this is an even sadder event that reminds me of God's mercy for the elect and the finality of death (Hebrews 9:27).

There is not a week that goes by where I do not admonish God's people to trust in a sovereign and righteous God who is also a good and gracious God. Not "good" because of what He gives to us or does for us. Rather, "good" because that is His intrinsic character and being. His ways are good and His mercy endures forever. Now, at a moment of grieving, I find as a pastor the issue of "practicing what I preach". This is a clear reminder of our desperate need of God's grace, our church family, the promises of God's Word and the presence of His Spirit at work in our lives. Now, we as a family have this test to actually live it out in our own lives.

We ask that you pray for comfort for my wife Christina, our children Joseph and Hannah who will be attending their first family funeral, opportunities to share the gospel and soft hearts to hear the gospel. Suffering and God's sovereignty is not just a nice theological subject, but something that is to be fleshed out and lived out in our own lives.

If This is Contemporary Fundamentalism, Count Me In

2009-03-03T21:11:00.001-06:00

From the keyboard of the brightest mind in contemporary Baptist fundamentalism:

Conservative Christians recognize that they have received a doctrinal and moral patrimony. They wish to leave this legacy to be enjoyed by their children for generations to come. In order to conserve their heritage, they must pledge themselves both to guarding the integrity of the gospel and to perpetuating the whole counsel of God. They soon discover, however, that they cannot perform these tasks unless they learn to depend upon the wisdom and benevolence of a sovereign God.

For nearly two centuries, American Christianity has been overpowered by a fascination with visible effectiveness. At the latest, this fascination stems from Charles Finney, who made visible success (defined in terms of the number of decisions) into the test of spiritual wisdom. Finney himself succeeded wildly in these terms, and he created a mythology of success that has become the very atmosphere of American evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Finney argued, and many American Christians have agreed, that the spirituality of any preacher, program, church, or method should be gauged by the results that it produces.
Finney’s pragmatism is the carrot that lures American Christians. The stick that drives them is the crisis mentality. This mentality shows up in a variety of ways. You have surely encountered more than one of them. If we don’t send more missionaries (now!), then the doors will surely close in the 10-40 window. If you fail to persuade your neighbor to trust Christ (today!), then he will certainly blame you publicly on Judgment Day. If we don’t vote for our candidate (in this election!), then America will be gone beyond retrieval.

Continue reading Kevin Bauder's article HERE.

Your Problems Are Not That Bad...Really!

2009-03-03T13:45:00.004-06:00

The economy is bad.

Many have lost their jobs or have been laid off for a long period of time.

The stock market is lower than it has been in over twelve years causing the portfolio of many to take a serious beating (including my own!).

Huge banks are at the mercy of government bailouts.

Yet, solving these problems still fails to solve the most monumental of all problems if someone does not know Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord - having peace with God through Christ (Romans 5:1). I am reminded today as we read and watch the news that has mostly become discouraging and dreadful of the words of the Heidelburg Catechism (1563):

Question: What is your only comfort in life and in death?

Answer: That I am not my own, but belong - body and soul - in life and in death - to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. He has fully paid my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven; in fact, all things must work together for my salvation. Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life and makes me whole-heartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.

Romans 8:37-39 - "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (ESV)

A Complimentarian Encouragement for Women to be Bold

2009-02-26T16:02:00.005-06:00

I've been enjoying reading through "Women's Ministry in the Local Church" co-authored by Ligon Duncan and Susan Hunt. Many times in conservative evangelical churches we assume that most understand the distinction between the sexes and God's plan for men and women in the local church. But when you look at many churches....especially in their leadership, you find the men in both the home and the church failing to live up to their biblical responsibilities.

The following is an excellent encouragement for women in their churches to encourage their pastors to proclaim boldly the truth about both men and women being created equally in the image of God, yet having distinct roles that should be embraced thankfully and humbly.

"Sisters in Christ, I challenge you to regularly encourage your ministers and elders to be faithful to Scripture, especially in the areas that they are most afraid to touch. Frankly, one of those areas is male/female role relationships in the home and in the church. Some good and godly ministers and elders are somewhat intimidated about declaring the truth of God in these areas precisely because they respect their sisters in Christ. They fear that they will appear to look down on women or to think of themselves as superior or to have fallen into some sort of traditional chauvinism. Women have the opportunity to encourage them by repeatedly saying, "We expect you to teach us the full teachings of God's Word, even when it is uncomfortable for us and even when it is not politically correct. We want to hear all God has to say to us."
J. Ligon Duncan and Susan Hunt, Women's Ministry in the Local Church, (Crossway Books, Wheaton IL, 2006), 48.

Amen and amen! May God give us both men and women who understand their biblical roles that are dictated by God and not by culture!

Three Authors I Can Always Read

2009-02-23T21:14:00.010-06:00

Just like you, I have books that I like and dislike. There are some that I fail to finish, and others that I have a difficult time putting down and inevitably pick up again and again for reference.

There are three authors whose books have influenced my thinking and theology more than anyone. All three are well known and well read so they won't come as a big surprise.

1. Jerry Bridges - No one has influenced my theological thinking on the issue of progressive sanctification more than Bridges has. I often refer back to his book "Pursuit of Holiness" in my own personal study and preaching. Bridges avoids the legalistic pitfalls that most authors fall into when dealing with the issue of everyday practical Christian living. His most recent book "Respectable Sins" is a must for everyone's library!

2. Erwin Lutzer - There are two books that Lutzer wrote that I often use as reference and encouragement. The first is his wonderful articulation of the historic debates within Christendom "Doctrines that Divide". In this book Lutzer brilliantly articulates the wonderful doctrines of grace. I would encourage everyone on the atonement spectrum to humbly read his explanation of limited atonement. It is brilliant and to me incredibly accurate. The other one is a bit less well known but one that I read early on in my ministry - "Pastor to Pastor". This practical little book helped me in a great way to see the personal and many times discouraging side to ministry in a biblical light.

3. J.I. Packer - If you have never read his masterpiece "Knowing God" you are robbing yourself of an incredible nourishment to your soul. I personally have a goal of going through that book at least once a year. It was that good! Also, for a biblical work that shows a Calvinistic approach to evangelism Packer's "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God" is a must read....especially his explanation of the antimony of sovereignty and responsibility.

Honorable mention:
John MacArthur
D.A. Carson
R. Kent Hughes
Warren Wiersbe
Arthur Pink
J. Gresham Machen
Joshua Harris
Kevin DeYoung
John Piper
Phil Ryken
Mark Dever
Wayne Grudem
Jay Adams
Ken Sande
Anything by Charles Spurgeon

NEW POLL! Does Your Church's Hermeneutic Matter?

2009-02-23T07:54:00.005-06:00

This is a quick multiple choice question that won't take much time. Just curious to know if it matters to you what your church's hermeneutical stance is.

So here are the choices:

A. No, it doesn't matter to me - I couldn't care less if my church was pre/a/post/or pan Mil. Hermeneutics is a non-essential to me in the context of my local church.

B. It matters somewhat just as long as there are no extreme views such as preterism or ultra-dispensationalism. Outside of extreme views I'm comfortable with most views.

C. Yes! It matters greatly to me that my church takes a doctrinal stance on a literal/historical/grammatical interpretation of Scripture. Since much of the New Testament deals with prophecy it would only be fitting for me as a church member to be a part of a church that takes this seriously as well.

Remember, I am NOT talking about broad fellowship within the Body of Christ. This is a poll asking about fellowship within the context of a local church.

Unlike others who create polls without ever giving their own answer I will go ahead and give mine - C. To me, it is simply unrealistic to think of joining a church body that has a shoddy or inconsistent hermeneutic. If a church's soteriology and other doctrinal positions matter then you could only conclude that their hermeneutic would too!

Quick Poll: The Prodigal Son

2009-02-13T09:51:00.004-06:00

This is purely unscientific. Anecdotal. It proves nothing. But it's fun, and will provide some interesting fodder.

So here is the question ... it requires a simple one-word answer via the comments section.

Was the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 a believer (albeit backslidden) or an unbeliever?

One word answers ... that's all it takes. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Of course, if you would like to write more, have at it!

Real Life Reconciliation: Evidence of the Gospel's Power

2009-02-12T09:01:00.001-06:00

HT: Justin Taylor

Easy-Believism In Its Own Words

2009-02-11T09:51:00.016-06:00

Yesterday I posted a portion of an article from the free grace publication, Grace In Focus. In the article, Lon Gregg sets out to answer the following questions:

"Just how correctly informed need one be about Jesus before believing in Him for eternal life? Is there some 'right' Jesus whom I must come to know before my faith in Him will be effectual?"

So what’s the big deal about the Gospel and how much information one must know to be saved? Lon Gregg says not necessarily much information is necessary in order for one to be saved. The virgin birth is optional knowledge--as is the cross-work of Christ, and the fact that He was the promised Messiah and the Son of God. Gregg goes as far as to imply that there is no “right Jesus whom I must come to know before my faith in Him will be effectual.” (emphasis added)

Gregg’s views—which he erroneously bases upon a few verses in the Gospel of John—are the inevitable result of poor exegesis, and are eternally dangerous.

Why?

First, Gregg's assumptions about the Samaritan woman's lack of information are unfounded and erroneous. Her statements to Christ show that she had a working knowledge of the law (she referred to her father as Jacob, John 4:12; and attempted to cover-up her adultery, vs. 17), the history of redemption (vs. 20), the Prophets (vs. 19), the Temple sacrificial system (vs. 20), and that the Messiah would be called Christ and bring deliverance (vs. 25). Gregg fails to sufficiently interact with the passage, and conveniently ignores these facts! It should also be noted that each of the apostles whom Christ called also possessed ample information regarding the Law, the history of redemption, Temple worship, and the promise of the Messiah.

Second, Gregg seems to erroneously assume that all who followed Christ were true believers. John himself offers evidence that this is not the case—see John 6:66-69. Gregg is forced to do so because of his erroneous view of "knowledge" and "belief." For Gregg, those two words are synonymous. To acknowledge something as true is to believe in a saving way. So a sinner is converted by simply acknowledging facts as truth. Not only is this classic easy-believism; it is a direct contradiction of what Christ Himself stated (see John 6:30-37).

Third, Gregg repeatedly employs a puzzling term when it comes to the object of saving faith in Christ. He states: "one must not necessarily ... know much about Christ ... or ... believe orthodox truth." Not necessarily? Really? So is it necessary for some ... but not for others? It is ironic that Gregg is attempting to answer the question of what information is necessary to believe ... and does so by repeatedly stating what's not necessarily necessary!

Fourth, Gregg denies that orthodoxy is inextricably linked to saving faith. To do this, Gregg subtly changes the object of saving faith--it's not the person and work of Christ; rather, one must simply believe Christ's promise to save. Therefore, all who put their faith in Christ's promises are saved. Gregg fails to understand that one cannot separate Christ's claims or promises from His person. Either Christ was the virgin-born Son of God, or His claims are untrue and His promises unfulfilled. Scripture clearly and repeatedly defines the object of saving faith as Christ Himself (Acts 16:31; John 14:1-6; Acts 4:12, etc.).

Gregg clearly delineates his affirmation of easy-believism when he states later in his article:

"... for eternal life, Christ need be known only as its Giver, no matter how that conviction arises, no matter how ignorant the believer may be of the underpinnings of the promise, and no matter even if he may hold to errors about Christ at the same time ... In short ... you're believing in the right Jesus if, whatever you may know--or not know--about Him, you're convinced He gives you eternal life when you believe in Him for it."

Fifth, if like Gregg, we develop a theology of the Gospel from only a few examples in the book of John, what have we said about the Gospel in Luke or Mark or Philemon? Do different writers teach a different Gospel?

Sixth, in Gregg's explanation of what information is necessary for salvation, where is sin? Where is the cross? What was the woman at the well saved from … and to … and how? A Gospel without sin is a Gospel without power; and a Gospel without power is no Gospel at all (Romans 1:16-17).

It's a scary thing to reduce the Gospel to a mere unnecessary acknowledgment of nothing about the person and work of Christ. Dumbing down the Gospel will never result in more converts; it will only result in people who know about the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6), but do not believe in Him and are not trusting in Him (2 Timothy 1:12) as their Savior from sin (Romans 6:18, 22). Remember, even the demons believe (James 2:19), along with Simon (Acts 8:9-20); but their knowledge and faith did not result in salvation ... only damnation.

That's how the easy way always ends.

What a Difference Six Months and Six Years Make - A-Rod and Michael Phelps

2009-02-10T18:59:00.009-06:00

Baseball season is just around the corner and I have a couple of predictions for our faithful readers - 1. My beloved Cubs will inevitably find the most tortuous way of getting our hopes up and then subsequently rip our hearts out by finding new and unique ways to choke in the end. And 2. - My email inbox, voice mail box, Facebook wall, text messages and church answering machine will be full of messages from pathetic Cardinal and White Sox fans rubbing it in about my beloved Cubs breaking our hearts again. But this year I'm prepared, and quite frankly, I am committed to not taking this year too seriously as I have in years gone by. And please hold me accountable with this!

This brings me to a very sad and disappointing time in the world of sports. Six years ago I was convinced that Alex Rodriguez was the best player in the game of baseball. He was something special to watch (and still is). He possessed a golden glove, a pin point arm and a lethal bat. He seemed to be baseball's golden boy that had everything going for him outside of postseason accomplishments. When the Texas Rangers were rumored to be shopping him after the 2003 season I was hoping the Cubs could pull something off. Today, I'm glad they didn't. In 2004 when he was traded to the Yankees I thought he and the Yankees made a grave mistake. Very few (outside of Reggie Jackson) go to the Bronx and do well. Most cave under the pressure unless they have been brought up in the system (e.g. Derek Jeter).

Now, everything that A-Rod has done is stained under a cloud of the dishonest use of performance enhancing drugs. Someone of his caliber should have realized that his ability without the illegal substances virtually guaranteed him not only an astronomical amount of money, but also a guaranteed spot in Cooperstown. Now he only gets one of those....the money that is. Most believe that it will be difficult for him along with the likes of Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, McGwire and Palmiero to ever get into the HOF.

It amazed me that some were giving Rodriguez credit for being "honest" about his steroid use. A-Rod was cornered and I speculate pressured by the Yankees (and rightfully so) to come out and be forthright. Denial has done nothing but hurt the likes of Bonds, McGwire and Clemens. Today, Alex Rodriguez is faced with an almost irreparable image due to his own dishonesty and desire to take short cuts to be "the best." This is truly a sad day for all who love the beloved sport of baseball.

Six months ago Michael Phelps was the sports icon of the world. To this day, I'm not sure I will ever see one athlete dominate in such a unique fashion as Phelps did back in August winning 8 gold medals. Today, due to one photo taken of Phelps with a marijuana bong in his mouth he is faced with the long road of rebuilding a tarnished image that may take years to reconstruct. One cannot help but be reminded of the how fast riches and fame come and go (Prov. 23:4-5).

No true believer in the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ should rejoice about this. It should sadden all of us that on a daily basis the depravity of man is on display in the public arena. But let us also be reminded of a powerful truth for those of us who call Christ Jesus our Lord:
Proverbs 15:3 - "The eyes of the LORD are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good." (ESV)

Six years or six months for that matter cannot compare with an eternity of knowing and enjoying God forever. I'm thankful that although someone's standing may be shattered socially, through the power of the Gospel they can be transformed spiritually! (2 Cor. 5:17)

What Must One Know About Christ To Be Saved?

2009-02-10T14:51:00.004-06:00

Recently, one of our church members handed me a newsletter from Grace In Focu s. He was interested in my take on the author's rebuke of John MacArthur's 'revision' of Luke's Prodigal Son account.

As I was preparing to dive into the MacArthur portion of the newsletter, the front page caught my attention. In bold letters, a brief quote appeared smack-dab in the middle of the page:

"... the evangelism tool ... the Gospel of John, has clear answers ... According to John, one need not know much about Jesus Christ to obtain eternal life."

As much as I admire MacArthur, defending his views of the Prodigal Son must take a back seat to the subject of the gospel and saving faith. If we can't get the gospel right, the Prodigal Son's story serves no practical purpose. So I began to read Lon Gregg's thoughts on the following questions:

"Just how correctly informed need one be about Jesus before believing in Him for eternal life? Is there some 'right' Jesus whom I must come to know before my faith in Him will be effectual?"

Gregg then sets out to prove that a sinner need not assent or acknowledge much about the person or work of Christ in order to possess saving faith:

"According to John, one need not necessarily know much about Jesus Christ to obtain eternal life. The famous Samaritan woman, apparently knowing only that Jesus knew all about her (John 4:29), drank living water--believed in Him--and received eternal life. The blind man in John 9 lacked only the knowledge about the identity of the person standing before him (John 9:36-38) before He cam to faith. At his very first moment of meeting Jesus, the disciple Nathanael believed in Him (John 1:50) on the basis only of a single remark from Jesus about His pre-acquaintance with him. Not a whole lot of content was demonstrated in these new believers! They knew virtually nothing about Jesus' person or work other than that He is the Messiah who gives eternal life to all who believe in Him.

Further, according to John, the little bit one does know about Jesus need not necessarily be orthodox to be effective. Speaking on the first day of his acquaintance with Jesus, the disciple Philip expresses what for John is a saving conviction about Him (John 1:45; cf. 20:31). In the same breath, however, Andrew calls his Savior "son of Joseph," a patent unorthodoxy. While this ignorance about Jesus' true parentage could surely be expected of someone in his very first day of faith--this ignorance even helps mark the story as genuine!--the fact remains that the Jesus whom Andrew believed was not, to his mind, virgin born. But John did not consider Andrew's ignorance to be an obstacle to faith in Jesus. Indeed, John felt Andrew's faith was substantial enough to hold it out as a model; misunderstanding Jesus' person need not keep the believer from the truth of His promise."

I promised to keep these posts short ... requiring only a minute (or two!) of your precious time. So I will forgo my critique of Gregg's gospel until tomorrow.

Feel free to offer up your critique in the meta!

Super Bowl Thoughts: The NFL's Growing Problem

2009-02-01T22:51:00.004-06:00

My team wasn't in it. They haven't been since Super Bowl IV, when KC-favorite Len Dawson led the Chiefs to an upset victory over the heavily favored Minnesota Vikings. That happened on January 11, 1970; a full 21 months before I was born.

Super Bowl 43 (can't read Roman numerals larger than X) did not disappoint. The energy was expected. The defenses delivered. The quarterbacks took command with the game on the line.

But this Super Bowl will not go down as one of the greatest games of all time--and it won't be because of the game itself. It will be because of the poor officiating.

Now before someone screams "sour apples" because I was pulling for Kurt Warner to win a second Super Bowl, consider this: I have been secretly pulling for the Steelers for the past five or so years. I love Bill Cowher, and would be thrilled if he leaves the CBS Pregame Team for the Chiefs sideline in 2009.

So this isn't a sour-apples reaction to a great game with a disappointing outcome; it's the lamenting of a disappointing and growing problem on the NFL scene. Consider the following examples of the black cloud hanging over the NFL following Super Bowl 43:

1) On the final play of the first half, as James Harrison ran an interception back for an apparent touchdown, two fouls occurred but were not called: first, Kurt Warner was held by DeShea Townsend while attempting to make the tackle. Second, a two-handed block in the back occurred in full view of an official attempting to keep up with the play. If either penalty would have been called, the Steelers would not have scored an all-important touchdown on the final play of the first half.

2) The roughing the passer call on Arizona's Rogers Dansby--for a two handed push on the Steeler QB immediately following the release of a pass--should have been a no-call. Later, Kurt Warner was crushed by a Steeler defender who, after Warner had released the pass, took two steps before blindsiding the QB. No flag was thrown.

3) Arizona's Adrian Wilson was flagged for a personal foul for running into the holder on a third quarter Steeler field goal attempt. Replays showed Wilson was blocked into the holder, therefore negating the personal foul penalty ... as would have been the case if he were blocked into the kicker.

4) James Harrison should not only have received an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for repeatedly punching a Cardinal player during a fourth quarter punt, NFL rules dictate Harrison should have been ejected immediately.

5) The Cardinals challenged two poor calls throughout the course of the game. Both calls were overturned, the first on an apparent first quarter Steeler touchdown; the second on a Kurt Warner incomplete pass (originally called a fumble). The Steelers did not use any of their challenges.

6) The Arizona Cardinals were assessed 106 yards in penalties. The Steelers? 56 yards.

7) The final play of the Cardinals season will be discussed indefinitely, and will leave a sour taste in the mouths of many fans. The game itself was magical and exhilerating--expecially the final 10 minutes. But a dark cloud will linger over the game because of the Kurt Warner "fumble" with 5 seconds to play. Although replays appeared to show Warner's arm moving forward when the ball squirted loose, the referee not only ruled the play a fumble, but failed to review the play (replays are initiated by the booth in the final two minutes of each half). Admittedly, should the call have been reversed, the Cardinals would have had only one chance to score, but would have done so from the Steeler 29 yard line because of the unsportsmanlike penalty on LaMarr Woodley for removing his helmet.

Rather than simply reviewing the play to assure all inolved that the correct call had been made, both teams and a nation of fans will be left to wonder if the call was correct, and if the outcome may have been different.

It's sad that a great game ended in such an anti-climactic, questionable fashion.

But this is nothing new for the NFL in 2009. Poor calls have not only cost teams touchdowns; they have affected the outcomes of games.

It's too bad a great Super Bowl was no exception.

Cedarville University Back In The News

2009-01-30T10:41:00.006-06:00

Thanks to one of our five faithful readers, Greg Long, for pointing me to the latest news regarding Cedarville University.

As many of you are aware, a "conservative" Cedarville Bible Prof was terminated in July of 2007. In April of 2008, the University president and board of trustees refused to heed the counsel of an institutional appeal committee which sided with the terminated professor. The same president and board of trustees have been named in a lawsuit by the terminated professor.

Recently, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) released its report on the investigation of the University's actions. The report finds fault with the Cedarville president, board of trustees, and academic administration. For those who are interested, you will find the AAUP's report HERE.

Honestly, the report is very involved (as it must be), and those who are distanced from the situation will find the reading a bit tedious. The University's response on the other hand, is short and to the point.

Employing the literary tactic of excessive, exorbitant, extreme, unreasonable, and unconscionable adjective usage, the University categorically denies any wrongdoing, and labels the AAUP report as "an astounding volume of errors" because the AAUP employed "a fatally flawed process, designed to preserve pre-determined conclusions consistent with the AAUP's historical bias against religious schools."

Access Cedarville's response HERE.

The ongoing saga at Cedarville University provides us with an opportunity to examine our own lives and views of God-ordained authority structures. How do we view accountability? Do we embrace it, or do we run from it? Our Lord has ordained authority structures (Romans 13:1-5) for the ultimate good of His people, and for the fame of His name. Beware of shunning godly counsel (which can come from unbelievers!). Beware of sacrificing the cause of Christ on the altar of saving face. Remember, God has called His church to be "blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world" (Phil. 2:15).

The entire Cedarville University situation is a sad thing. Whether in the church or academia or on the assembly line, bickering and in-fighting never serves kingdom purposes--especially when the world is forced to pass judgment on our own sins.

Habakkuk knows how painful it is to watch the ungodly pass judgment on God's people.

The Therapuetic Understanding of Sin

2009-01-30T07:30:00.001-06:00

What happens when we move away from the Bible as our sole authority for faith and practice? We turn to the mankind and its godless understanding of the world for direction. In yesterday's post I pointed you to the Washington Post article in which Ted Haggard declared that therapy was God's answer to his prayers for help. Really? And what did God "teach" him concerning his past struggles and behavior?

"And I call it my sin," he says. "That's my sin. I'm not saying everybody is a sinner that does it. I'm just saying with my standards and my values, it was a sin against me and God. For me."

Gayle gives it a moment, then shoots him a look and points to herself.

"And me," she says.

Basically what he did was wrong - sin - because it violated his own personal standards and values. In this redefinition of sin he does believe he sinned against God, but he guts that statement of all meaning by claiming that not "everybody is a sinner that does it." If his behavior is violation to God's standard than everybody who behaves the same way is in violation of God's standard and is therefore a sinner. But if his behavior is ONLY a violation of his own personal standards than not everybody who behaves this way is in sin. And that is his fundamental belief. That is what he learned in therapy. And if this therapy is Freudian in any way, than all Ted needs to do is change his standards and values and he won't be "sinning" any longer.

Also notice that he left his wife out of his "sinned against" list. [She obviously didn't agree.] It was probably just a Freudian slip, but it does point to an actual consistency in his belief system. If he only violated his own standard, than in what way did he "sin" against his wife?

When you move away from the Bible's standard for definition than not only is sin up for grabs but so is sexuality. Gayle, Ted's wife, said:

"So this whole idea of sexuality being complex: I can see that it is so wrong of us to compartmentalize us and to label people. I am hoping that through all of this we'll learn how to, instead of label people and put them in categories, that we'll learn to really listen to each other and really see each other and have compassion for each other. Because the last thing we need to do is burden people who are just trying to work out their lives."

That is a pretty nebulous statement, but it appears that she believes we should move from labeling people (sinners, homosexuals, etc.) and just have an open dialogue of understanding and compassion.

So in what way was therapy an "answer to prayer"? It taught Ted and Gayle how to move away from God's absolute, eternal standard found in the Bible to a personalized standard which allowed them to redefine anything and everything. The god of this world is certainly in the business of answering prayers.

Jay Adams Reaffirms the Importance of Limited Atonement (TULIPBURGER)

2009-01-29T10:57:00.005-06:00

This from the new blog at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies. Once again, Adams lays out the biblical logic that the death of Christ in its intent and effect gloriously accomplished the atonement for ALL who would ever believe:

"Jesus didn’t come to make salvation possible—He came to “seek and to save that which was lost.” God was satisfied with His death for everyone for whom He died. He didn’t die needlessly for millions who would reject Him. He knew all that the Father had given Him, and said that not one of them would be lost. They would all be saved. After all, if Jesus’ death for sin really did satisfy God’s justice for any, it would also do so for all. So, if He died for all—all would be saved. Of course, we know that isn’t true. Yet, if universal atonement were true, then God could hardly punish men and women for eternity for whom Christ had already suffered the punishment. There is no double jeopardy. And therefore, there is no burger unless it is a TULIPBURGER!"

Enjoy your TULIPBURGER!

Question of the Day

2009-01-29T07:40:00.003-06:00

Yesterday while reading my friend Timmy Brister's blog over at "Provocations and Pantings" I came across an astoundingly thoughtful question on the Lordship of Christ. I'm interested in getting your thoughts on this question which I think will tell much about where we stand on Christ's Lordship:

"Is it possible to have life in Christ without love for Christ?"

HT: Timmy Brister

Please discuss in the comments section.

Non-Dispy Caricatures of "Two Ways" of Salvation

2009-01-28T08:05:00.004-06:00

Really, I have no ax to grind in this argument and I stated clearly yesterday that there are numerous nondispensationalists that I love, respect, admire and appreciate. That is what I want to make clear before I attempt to document something here that Kenneth requested on my post from yesterday. Kenneth has asked....and Kenneth will receive:

"The presupposition of the difference between law and grace, between Israel and the Church, between the different relations of God to men in the different dispensations, when carried to its logical conclusion, will inevitably result in a multiple form of salvation - that men are not saved the same way in all ages."
Clarence B. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 34.

"If any man is saved in any dispensation other than those of Promise and Grace, he is saved by works and not by faith! [The dispensationalist] is clearly left with two methods of salvation on his hands - works for the majority of dispensations, faith for the rest - and we have to deal with a fickle God who deals with man in various ways at various times."
John Wick Bowman, "The Bible and Modern Religions: II, Dispensationalism," Interpretation 10 (April 1956): 178.

"Statements of this sort invariably appear in the writings of Scofield and Chafer in the context of their explications of the church/Israel dichotomy. All of these statements make it clear that Scofield and Chafer followed their church/Israel dichotomy even when considering soteriology."
Michael Williams, "This World is Not My Home" (Mentor Imprint, 2003) 207
(It is interesting that this author writes this when the evidence is quite the contrary from Chafer both in his Systematic Theology and other writings!)

Here is another outrageous excerpt from the same book where the author makes the egregious claim that the dispensational hermeneutic is gnostic!
"The drama of redemption within the dispensational view is gnostic, for it envisions redemption as the escape of the soul from the world to God."
ibid., 220

Where is the charity and grace extended with a statement like that? Connecting dispensationalism with the premiere heresy of the early church is anything but productive!

In fact, this past weekend while talking with a friend of mine at our children's basketball games who is struggling to pin down his own hermeneutical persuasion opened up the conversation by immediately proclaiming - "Dispensationalism teaches two-ways of salvation!" It is nice to know now where this "straw man" comes from! However, it is also nice to diffuse this argument with the facts!

Therapy! Just What the Doctor LORD Ordered

2009-01-28T07:30:00.001-06:00

With an upcoming HBO documentary Ted Haggard will be all over the news once again and from what I've seen so far, not much good will come out of it - for him, his former local church and the Church of Jesus Christ. But it does give us a chance to see contemporary "Christianity" miss the point once again. Near the beginning of this Washington Post story, Haggard says:

"My spiritual life was wonderfully empowering for me in the midst of the struggle. But it wasn't the solution," he says.

"I needed a therapist."

Decades in the ministry failed to prepare him for this.

"I thought, 'I don't need to go to a therapist!' I mean I didn't even understand therapy. 'Jesus is the solution to everything!' " he says. "And I personally believe now that this process has occurred so that I would get the therapy I needed. I believe my therapy is the answer to 30 years of prayer about this subject. And so I am very grateful for the decision of the overseers and the restorers and I'm so thrilled about the way my life is now. I'm the man now that -- no, no, no, that's not true. I am becoming the man now that everybody thought I was then."

Here is the first error of much contemporary evangelical thinking. God's Word is not sufficient for the particular cultural and personal struggles that we face today. Therefore, we need therapy. To be fair, he doesn't really define "therapy" so we can't be sure exactly what approach his therapist took, but it is obvious that the main point was missed. The Word of God understood and applied appropriately in the power of God is exactly what Ted Haggard needed. Therapy is not the solution, Christ and His Word is!

He goes on to say:

"There were a few times when I talked to other people about it, but they were always within the religious leadership community, and they always gave me bad advice," Haggard says, with what only sounds like a laugh. "I talked to one old man of God, told him about it, and he said, 'You just need to be busier in the church."

"And talked to another about it, and he said, 'Have you memorized Romans 6?' "

Here is the second error of much contemporary evangelical thinking. That life's problems can be solved with a little Scripture, a little prayer, a little redirection and a whole lot of talk about Jesus. That kind of approach might work for our self-confidence problem when playing High School basketball, but it will fail miserably when applied to homosexual desires. Ted Haggard found that out through personal experience. When will he come to realize that the "therapeutic" approach will ultimately fail as well?

When faced with these two faulty options it doesn't really matter which one is used. Both end in failure.

The New 'World From Our Window'

2009-01-27T09:51:00.001-06:00

Back in December, I promised a new format to The World From Our Window readers (all three of you).

Beginning today, we are rolling out the change.

We here at The World From Our Window understand your time is valuable. We understand that we are but theological peons in the blogosphere. We realize that the three of you who read what we write do so out of courtesy and love, not out of necessity because you can't live without us.

Therefore, The World From Our Window authors will keep our posts short and sweet and to the point. They will be no longer than what you can comfortably read within 60 seconds. That means 250 words or less. That means no beating around the proverbial (not literal!!) bush. That means raw, uncut, and real--no fluff. That means more time for you ... and for us!

We hope you find this new format agreeable, and that all three of you will continue to read faithfully.

Dispensationalism and Two Ways of Salvation

2009-01-27T08:01:00.005-06:00

Since the popular mantra today is to attack a dispensational approach to hermeneutics I thought that I would address one of the most popular ones - That dispensationalism teaches TWO ways of salvation - one of the Old Testament and one for the New Testament. This attack became popular due to a note in the Scofield Reference Bible that non-dispy's have used to "prove" this point:

"As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation."
- Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford, 1909), 1115n.2.

Even the most ardent dispensationalists would tell you that this is not the best wording that could have been used by Mr. Scofield. Nevertheless, the question must be asked, Does C.I. Scofield really represent the hermeneutic of dispensationalism as a whole? No, not hardly. Scofield is not the spokesman for a dispensational view of hermeneutics any more than Hank Hanegraaff is for the preterist position. This by far, is one of the most far fetched and FALSE accusations made by non(anti) dispensationalists.

Are dispensational theologians the only ones who have worded things in an unhelpful way? Here is a quote from a well known covenant theologian who seemingly takes a "two way" approach to salvation -

"From the Mosaic period and onward, non presumptious sins (Lev. 5:3) were specifically forgiven via the ritual law (v. 10; cf. Ps. 19:13); and other intentional violations were included as well (cf. Lev. 5:1, 4)."
Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, 414

Looking at that from the surface and failing to look at the whole scope of what this man has written would lead me to believe that he holds to a "two ways of salvation" view. To be fair, that is hardly the case. Just as any covenant theologian would tell you that salvation has always been of grace a dispensationalist would say the exact same thing.

Where we would differ though is on the issue of progressive revelation. The FACT of the matter is that in the Old Testament before the coming of Christ OT saints did NOT have the same knowledge of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ that we do who live today. That is a fact, and not an attempt to play mental gymnastics with our hermeneutic.

Has anyone ever heard a covenant theologian, progressive dispensationalist, or a new covenant theologian quote this from Lewis Sperry Chafer? -

"Are there two ways by which one may be saved? In reply to this question it may be stated that salvation of whatever specific character is always the work of God in behalf of man and never a work of man in behalf of God. This is to asset that God never saved any one person or group of persons on any other ground than that righteous freedom to do so which the Cross of Christ secured. There is therefore, but one way to be saved and that is by the power of God made possible through the sacrifice of Christ."
"Inventing Heretics Through Misunderstanding," Bibliotheca Sacra 102 (January 1945): 1.

Now it may just be me but I personally do not know of one covenant theologian who would disagree with that soteriological statement. Do you? Salvation has ALWAYS been through Christ alone. However, the knowledge of Christ is NOT the same as the knowledge that NT saints have.

Personally, I do not have a problem with someone who is persuaded to believe the CT, PD or NCT position. I struggle with their hermeneutics but by no means do I question their orthodoxy. I just ask that the disagreements and accusations be fair and accurate. It has become the "cool" thing today to abandon a dispensational approach to Scriptural interpretation. But what is important here brethren is an honest, humble and accurate discussion that abandons our presupposed strawmen and appreciates the contributions of both sides to the cause of Christendom.

Will Somebody Please Answer This Question ...

2009-01-26T10:51:00.006-06:00

Saturday evening, while reading during our family devotion time, the Kids 4 Truth devotional highlighted Deuteronomy 7:9 which reads:

"Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations ..."

Because a friend and I have been engaged in an ongoing eschatalogical discussion, I immediately recognized the similarity between Deuteronomy 7:9 and Revelation 20. Many--nearly all--dispensational pretribulationalists point to the precise wording of Revelation 20 as ample proof of an earthly, literal 1,000 year millennial period. They are quick to describe their position as the 'literal hermeneutic.'

Here is the question my friend will not (and cannot!) answer: Do dispensationalists employ the same interpretive principles to Deuteronomy 7:9? Does God mean that He will keep His covenant to a literal thousand generations?

Although I may be mistaken, I would imagine that dispensationalists will acknowledge that "a thousand generations" is not to be interpreted literally, but figuratively. Yet "a thousand years" in Revelation is to be taken very literally. That's a puzzling interpretation--especially in light of the genre of Deuteronomy (law & historical narrative) and Revelation ("apocalyptic and symbolic" according to dispensationalists Walvoord and Zuck).

Regarding the dispensational understanding of Deuteronomy 7:9, I quote from page 227 of The OT Bible Knowledge Commentary (Walvoord & Zuck):

"The thousand generations is a proverbial expression meaning 'endlessly' or 'forever.'"

Here is a quote regarding the dispensational interpretation of Revelation 20 from page 980 of The NT Bible Knowledge Commentary (Walvoord & Zuck):

"It should be noted that the term 'a thousand years' occurs six times in chapter 20 [of Revelation] ... While amillenarians and others have tended to view this as nonliteral, there is no evidence to support this conclusion ... Since other time designations in Revelation are literal it is natural to take 'a thousand years' literally also. If the term 'a thousand years' designates a nonspecific but long period of time, the present Age between Christ's two advents, as amillenarians hold, then one would expect John to say simply that Christ would reign 'a long time' ..."

Why the difference in dispensational interpretations of these two texts, especially in light of their respective genres?

Is Dallas Seminary Prof Disagreeing With Public Church Discipline?

2008-12-18T21:01:00.003-06:00

FoxNews recently highlighted a Florida church's discipline of admittedly adulterous member, Rebecca Hancock, and apparently interviewed Dallas Seminary research prof Darrell Bock. His comments leave the reader wondering whether or not he agrees with the church's discipline procedure and action.

Here are Bock's comments. You make the call:

Darrell L. Bock, a research professor for the Dallas Theological Seminary, said that public admonishment is not uncommon in churches that focus on discipline but added, "Most churches would handle this much more privately than this particular community is choosing to do."

This kind of process normally would happen after "much more private interaction" with the person, Block said, and is normally reserved for church leaders as opposed to "a normal member of the church."

More importantly, he said, the actions are unusual given that Hancock had severed her relationship with the church.

You may access the FoxNews.com article HERE.

Perhaps Bock's comments have been misrepresented by the article's author. If so, it would be helpful for Bock to publicly clarify his comments since they appear to be critical of a local church's handling of this issue.

We're Not Dead ...

2008-12-02T11:20:00.006-06:00

... just hibernating!

Due to the overwhelming demand of three people, THE WORLD FROM OUR WINDOW will be re-opening, re-convening, and re-congregating for official business in the near future.

I hesitate to give you a date--in the unlikely event that my wife makes me post something before then (like she has done today!).

Anyway (I hate that over-used cliché-ish wannabe conjunction), just a quick note to let everyone know that although our WINDOW has been closed for some time, it will be open before long.

So to our three faithful readers who are demanding our return, please check back frequently. Our re-opening will unveil a new format and theme here at THE WORLD FROM OUR WINDOW.

Until then, I pray this brief post will appease our faithful readers (and my demanding wife!!!).

Happy belated Thanksgiving wishes to all three of you (readers, not wives)!

A Reader Poll on Israel, Prophecy, and Dispensationalism

2008-08-14T10:21:00.004-05:00

It's been a sparse summer around here. Writing juices have dried up, and both time and ideas are hard to come by.

So I turn to you--the reader--for a bit of blog fodder.

There seems to be a resurgent interest and infatuation with Israel among Dispensational Premillennialists. Perhaps it's the inevitable result of John MacArthur's straight-forward and (somewhat) controversial "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a (Dispensational) Premillennialist" talk at a recent Shepherds' Conference. In this talk, MacArthur tauted the fulfillment of a literal territorial land promise to the Jews as the pinnacle proof of God's faithfulness. In other words, God cannot be faithful if He doesn't give the Jews a rather large parcel of turf in the Middle East. And God will do so in the Millennial Kingdom--not to be confused with the New Heavens and New Earth.

All of which brings me to the point of this post. While Dispensationalists are quick to acknowledge that God has set the Jewish nation aside during this dispensation (choosing rather to work in and through the Church--comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles), they seem to intimate that the present-day State of Israel is somehow key to God fulfilling His covenantal land promises in the Millennial Kingdom. In anticipation of the coming Kingdom, the State of Israel is to be protected, guarded, and lauded (including the GARBC's "birthday congratulations" to the present-day State of Israel).

So here is the poll question (not that poll results determine truth, but just for a little prophetic fun): Which statement or statements describe the present-day State of Israel's involvement in biblical prophecy?

a) The present-day State of Israel is a precursor to the return of Christ. Things have fallen into place in the Middle East, precipitating Christ's return.

b) As with any other present-day earthly nation, the present-day State of Israel has nothing to do with biblical prophecy. God's faithfulness is not bound to or dependent upon the present-day State of Israel.

c) Present-day Israel and its people should be lauded and loved because they remain God's covenant people. There are special blessings promised to people and nations that express kindness to the State of Israel.

d) 'Judeo-centric Eschatology' (a term employed by Barry Horner in his book, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged) is key to a correct understanding of biblical prophecy. Any eschatological view that does not include an appreciation for the present-day State of Israel and a future land kingdom for the Jews is anti-Semitic.

Now it's your turn. Let's have a little fun today!

P. S. -- For those attempting to pigeonhole my eschatological views, please understand that every worthwhile journalist (not that I am one!) attempts to veil his own views when asking others for theirs.

Tom Ascol, Southern Baptists and Inflated Membership Numbers

2008-08-13T13:11:00.004-05:00

From Christianity Today:

With its 16.2 million members, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. But on any given Sunday, most Southern Baptists are missing in action. According to statistics released by the SBC in April, the average worship attendance in the convention is 6.15 million—10 million shy of the membership total. That is a problem, says Tom Ascol, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida. Ascol believes that Southern Baptist churches have sinned by maintaining inaccurate membership rolls, and by tolerating inactive members.

Ascol was one of the most vocal supporters of a resolution favoring regenerate church membership that was approved at the convention's annual meeting in June. Regenerate church members have accepted Christ, been baptized, and are active in a local congregation. Proponents said that too many church members failed to meet that description. Ascol also successfully pushed for an amendment that calls on congregations "to repent of any failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any failure to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members." He said the resolution is the first step toward restoring church discipline. It's the next step—actually deciding who will be removed from membership—that will test the SBC's resolve to discipline."

The article continues ...

"Newly elected SBC president Johnny Hunt agreed that Southern Baptists have to do a better job of reaching out to members who have fallen away. But he cautioned against full-scale purging of the membership rolls. for one thing, he said, few church members are in worship every single Sunday. First Baptist Church of Woodstock, Georgia, where Hunt is pastor, averages 6,800 in Sunday attendance. But over the course of a month, he added, about 10,000 of the church's 16,500 members will attend at least one service."

Continue reading HERE.

Perhaps Hebrews 13:17 applies here?

Free Audiobook: Augustine's 'Confessions'

2008-08-07T14:41:00.001-05:00

This just in from Christianaudio.com:

Greetings!

The end of summer is fast approaching. Ah... nothing like getting back to school! Well, if you are in school that is. But even if you are not, the final days of summer are perfect for reading. And the coming of fall brings to mind cool cozy nights sitting in front of a warm fire reading (or listening to) a good book. We have just the ticket.

Thank you for looking over this month's Free Audiobook of the Month and Author Special!
_____________________________________________________________________________

Saint Augustine's Confessions

Saint Augustine's contributions to Christian theology are second to no other post-apostolic author in the whole sweep of church history. Yet along side his doctrinal treatises, Augustine tells a story of his life devoted to Christ as his only satisfaction. The Confessions is at once the autobiographical account of Augustine's life of Christian faith and at the same time a compelling theology of Christian spirituality for everyone. Among the most important classics in Western literature, it continues to engage modern readers through Augustine's timeless illustrations and beautiful prose. Augustine's Confessions is a book to relish the first time through and then profoundly enjoy over a lifetime of revisiting.

Browse to our Free Download Page to receive this offer.

Select the Download format and add it to your cart. Then use the coupon code AUG2008 during checkout to receive your free download.

NOTE: If you are using an iPod, make sure you select the M4B format

Our Price: $0.00
List Price: $26.98

The Validity of Short-Term Missions Trips - Yea or Nay?

2008-08-06T08:59:00.007-05:00

About three weeks ago the Lord in His grace allowed me to take the first missions trip of my life to Mexico City. I'm still pondering and rejoicing over the impact that this trip had on me personally in a number of ways. I'll share a couple here:

1. Seeing the Body of Christ in another part of the world - though Mexico is far from being on the "other side of the world" it is still far from being the U.S. in a myriad of ways. It was refreshing to see the excitement and zeal of fellow believers in a distant land.

2. Actually being hands on with missionaries that we support - let's be honest here, when most in our churches think of missionaries (notice I said "most"), they usually envision a family pulling up in a car that is about to break down and then presenting a long slide show of poor and run down neighborhoods in a third world country. What we often fail to realize is that in many areas of the world the Body of Christ is vibrant, zealous and growing in maturity. On top of that, the Church is flourishing in many areas of the world where persecution and resistance is strong towards the Gospel.

Some personal reflections and challenges the Lord laid on my heart from my time in Mexico:

The need to abandon my own attachment to the American mindset of materialism and comfort. The mission field can expose the idols of one's heart like very few things can.
My own personal need to evangelize more - both in my community and to those the Lord brings into my life. The main question we need to ask ourselves about evangelism is "Why?". Why are we not doing it? More than likely it is simply due to the fact that we are not taking Romans 1:16 at face value. At least that's the case for me.
Being exposed to different cultures expands your mindset and widens your boundaries in areas that we usually do not like to move out of here in the States.
Missionaries are some of the most content and happy people in the world. Usually because they have made the break with the one idol or stronghold that was keeping them from having a passion for God and His glory in all things. My time with our missionaries and those they work with was a blessing to my own heart and life.
The cost of the trip financially cannot outweigh the impact that it will have on your life personally. Don't let dollars and cents stand in the way of doing something that will impact you and possibly change you dramatically.
I need to stop using so much slang in my Spanish. I'm thankful for the fact that years ago I had the opportunity to learn another language. But this trip exposed some inherent weaknesses in my Spanish - namely my use of slang and weaknesses with my reading. Thankfully, all of that can be worked on and improved in time.

Most will probably attest to the fact that they have done some sort of short term missions before. With the impact that this trip had on me I would love to make this a part of my yearly ministry. This would benefit my church, myself and our missionaries tremendously for the glory of God!

Me and Sam Hornbrook - our missionary that we support in Mexico city.

Rapture in 2011?

2008-07-31T10:55:00.006-05:00

Harold Camping seems to think so....again! - you can read about it here.

Please do not tell me that this is a classic case of dispensationalism gone a muck. This is where a literal hermeneutic turns into a psychic hermeneutic. It is sad when those who take eschatology to an extreme end up making those of us who look and long for the victorious and triumphant return of Christ to this earth look silly and pompous.

This should remind us of a few things here:

There are some things about eschatology that we do not understand. Right?

Date setting and irresponsible speculation forces us to read something into eschatological texts that are not there.

Let's be sure to be prudent and biblical when teaching about our Lord's return.

Looking for the Rapture is much different than setting dates for the Rapture. Knowing that our Lord could take us home as an imminent event that could happen at any time should produce in us an awareness and reality about the brevity of our own life and an expectation of a glorious eternity!

The God Who Forgives (Psalm 103:8-10), Part 6

2008-07-25T19:46:00.000-05:00

8The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
In my estimation, this refrain is one of the major themes in the Old Testament and in all of Scripture. When critics say there is no gospel in the Old Testament, I would point them to this refrain. It’s repeated 9 times explicit and it occurs in the law, history, poetry, and prophets—focusing on the way God interacts with sinners. David presents the truth of the gospel in verses 8-10 and then provides application for us and then returns in verses 13-14 to more doctrine.

“Merciful” is always used of God and no one else. This word “incorporates two concepts: first, the strong tie God has with those whom he has called as his children (Ps 103:13). . . .The second concept is that of God’s unconditioned choice (hanen grace). God tells Moses that he is gracious and merciful to whomever he chooses (Ex 33:19)” (TWOT Lexicon). Thus his mercy (1) creates an unbreakable family tie with those it touches and (2) is initiated by His sovereign choice.

His graciousness focuses on his unconditional compassion. He shows us favor inspite of ourselves. What more good news could we have asked for? The Lord who owes us nothing gives us everything.

Next, the idea that God is slow to anger goes against everything some liberal critics would have us believe about God especially in the OT. There are some who would draw a strict dichotomy between the loving Jesus in the New Testament and the angry God in the Old Testament. However, this should not be. D.A. Carson says,

Somehow they think [God] runs on a short fuse, never very far off from an outburst that can wipe out a nation or two. . . . [God, however,] delays judgment. On the first signs of genuine repentance, he turns from wrath, for the Lord is ‘slow to anger, abounding in love.' It is almost as if God is looking for reasons to be as forbearing as possible.

God has an overflow of covenant love. This is love unlike any love we know. A love that cannot end because it is sealed by God with a covenant. Paul says, “Nothing can separate us from the love of God.“ The strength of this love proceeds from the gospel and the death Christ died on the cross. Further, there’s enough love for everyone who will come. What hope for sinners! There’s not a sin that falls out of the reach of God’s love. If you are here today and the power of sin overwhelms you, lay your sin at the cross and rest in his covenant love!

9 He will not always chide, nor will he keep his anger forever. 10He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities.

Verses 9 and 10 really parallel each other and say similar things. David says the Lord will not chide. Chide is a word that’s unfamiliar to us but simply means God will not bring a legal case against us and in verse 10 “He does not deal with us according to our sins.“ These are true not because God looked over our sin but because our punishment was received upon Christ. It’s for this reason that God will not accuse us because Christ has already been accused.

Then David says God‘s anger is temporary with believers because Christ absorbs all the eternal wrath that was due us. This is the truly amazing suffering of the cross. It’s not the physical torment which is what we often focus on. We think if people truly understood how painful his death was then they would see Christ. But that’s not the case. If people truly understood how dark and perverse their own hearts were and how repulsive their sin is to a holy God and how much anguish Christ suffered bearing our wrath on the cross, then they might see. May the Lord open our eyes to these truths!

It’s when we minimize our sin that we minimize the gospel. For Christ there could be nothing more unbearable than being separated from His Father and being placed under His wrath. Who could have planned such an escape except God?

Soli Deo Gloria

The God Who Forgives (Psalm 103:7), Part 5

2008-07-23T17:04:00.000-05:00

7He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the people of Israel.
Example: OT, physical redemption from Egypt (v. 7)
David provides an example from the OT. This focuses on the theme of rememberance. God’s working in the OT was done specifically so that future generations would see what was done in the past and have their faith strengthened for the future (Numbers 15:39; Deuteronomy 4:10). He has not kept His identity secret. The amazing thing is God would have been God had he left us to ourselves and never gave us a revelation but “he made known his ways.” The word “ways“ is the word commonly used through the Psalms for the law. So David is saying that God has given us a revelation of his redemption in His word particularly through the example of Moses and the children of Israel in Egypt.

Not only does God reveal himself to the Church in the Old Testament, He continues to reveal himself to us today. It is thus implied that we are commanded to seek after the knowledge of God. David commands us in Psalm 34:8, “Taste and see that the Lord is good.“ Think of the chidlren of Israel before their redemption from Egypt. They had grown up hearing about God but had never seen his powerful hand at work. After their redemption from Egypt they had experienced God. When we see ”the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6) and the scales fall off our eyes, we too can say we’ve seen God experientially.

Oftentimes the physical redemption of Israel in the OT is used as a stepping stone for a better understanding of the spiritual redemption God provides for his people. David used something intensely personal in Israel‘s history in preparation for the major theme—the Gospel Uncovered.

Soli Deo Gloria

Missions Trip to Mexico City

2008-07-19T11:09:00.010-05:00

For many, the thought of going on a short term missions trip is old hat and perhaps something that they have done several times. For novices like me, it exposes the fact that I have not been outside the United States since I was five on a vacation to Canada. So needless to say I was pumped about this trip and excited that my church graciously allowed me to do this. I'm visiting with our missionaries Sam and Jamie Hornbrook who have served with Baptist-Mid Missions for the past seventeen years here in Mexico City.

Yesterday, after my arrival, Sam took me to one of the saddest examples of religious idolatry you will ever see - The Basilica to the Virgin of Guadalupe. This site would be the Mecca of Roman Catholicism and unbiblical Christianity here in Mexico. I've posted some pictures of this to show you the sad truth of our lost world that walks in darkness outside of Jesus Christ.

Relics for sale! Can you believe this?

Please pray for me as I preach tomorrow in Spanish for the first time in a while. I'm having a great time down here ministering to the Body of Christ in Mexico.

Monergistic or Synergistic Regeneration? Sproul Explains

2008-07-17T15:11:00.003-05:00

While returning from a luncheon appointment with a young man in our church, I tuned in to R. C. Sproul's Renewing Your Mind radio broadcast and was pleased to hear him addressing a commonly misunderstood and frequently attacked doctrine--the doctrine of monergistic regeneration.

Sproul's explanation of God's sovereign work of regeneration within the sinner is not only the best explanation I have heard of the doctrine. A listen would be well worth your while.

To whet your appetite, here are a few quotes from Sproul's address:

"What we're saying here is that rebirth is a monergistic work, not a synergistic work. That it is done by God, and by God alone."

"A dead man cannot cooperate with his resurrection. Jesus did not go into the tomb of Lazarus and say, 'Lazarus, let's discuss this. And I need you to help me overcome the dreadful implications of your recent demise.' Lazarus was helpless and hopeless because he was dead."

"The work that is done in bringing a person from spiritual death to spiritual life is something that only God can do. Now after He changes that heart of stone; and after He brings us alive, then are we involved? We must believe; we must repent; we must seek after the things of God. But the point is, we won't do that, because we can't do those things until first the initiative is accomplished by God--whereby God changes the disposition of our hearts; quickens our souls so that now we respond by embracing Christ and fleeing to Him."

"Regeneration precedes faith. If regeneration is the beginning--if it's the first step--then obviously it comes before the second step. It's not like dead people have faith, and because they have faith God agrees to regenerate them. But rather, faith is the fruit of this action God performs in our hearts. 'While you were dead in your trespasses and sins,' Paul says in Ephesians, 'you were quickened.'"

To listen to Sproul's explanation of the historic doctrine of monergistic regeneration, click HERE ... and hear how God is glorified in His sovereign work of salvation. Soli Deo Gloria!

The God Who Forgives (Psalm 103:6), Part 4

2008-07-16T22:14:00.001-05:00

David begins with an offering of personal praise and continues by offering praise for the gospel and more specifically for REDEMPTION.

6The LORD works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed.
Foundation for Praise: Righteousness Provided (v. 6)
Again David uses the personal name for God and so continues the pattern. In case we tend to see our redemption impersonally David labors to change our mindset. The praise for redemption is made possible because God has worked a righteousness and justice for us.

The word “work“ appears almost insignificant. However, one commentary notes, “When used of God, the word [“work“] frequently emphasizes God’s acts in the sphere of history. These contexts stress one of the most basic concepts of OT theology, i.e., that God is not only transcendent, but he is also immanent in history, effecting his sovereign purpose” (TWOT Lexicon). David‘s first comment is about the way in which God provides the redemption—stepping in soveriegnly and effectively. God is not one who has great plans but cannot effect them. David proclaims in Psalm 115:3, “Our God is in the heavens; He does all that he pleases.“

The first thing the Lord works for his people is a righteous. They cannot provide this for themselves. This is an alien righteousnes which means it comes from outside of themselves. We know from the testimony of Scripture that it comes from Christ himself. When the Lord has a people estranged by their sin, he steps in and provides exactly what’s needed—a righteousness from His own Son. "The right Man on our side" is Christ.

The second thing the Lord promises is justice. So all of our received slights and wrongs; all crimes unpunished or unknown. All wrong doings will be judged rightly. There’s no deals with this Judge. Because of the seriousness of sin, there can be no letting it slide. That’s why Christ came to pay the penalty for those who would believe. Either Christ payment is accepted or the payment will be made eternally in Hell but justice will be satisfied.

Soli Deo Gloria

The God Who Forgives (Psalm 103:3-5), Part 3

2008-07-14T21:44:00.003-05:00

David is preparing us to see the Lord by describing what He has done. He establishes firmly it’s God who is the one worthy of praise because only God could do these things.

3who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases,
God Forgives Sin & Heals Disease
Notice the expanse of what David is saying, “God forgives all of your inquity.“ The word includes both our depravity and guilt—which excludes nothing. This is not like some contests where some restrictions apply.

Are we starting to feel the weight of what’s being said? The Puritans had an acute understanding of sin and how our sin related to God. One Puritan writes in his prayer:

Blessed Lord Jesus,
Before thy cross I kneel and see
The heinousness of my sin,
My inquity that caused thee to be
’made a curse,‘
the evil that excites the severity
of divine wrath
Show me the enormity of my guilt by
The crown of thorns,
The pierced hands and feet,
The bruised body,
The dying cries.
Thy blood is the blood of incarnate God,
Its worth infinite, its value beyond all thought.
Infinite must be the evil and guilt
That demands such a price.

Sin is my malady, my monster, my foe, my viper,
Born in my birth,
Alive in my life,
Strong in my character,
Dominating my faculties,
Following me as a shadow,
Intermingling with my every thought,
My chain that holds me captive in the
Empire of my soul.
Sinner that I am, why should the sun give me light,
The air supply breath,
The earth bear my tread,
Its fruit nurish me,
Its creatures subserve my ends?
Yet thy compassions yearn over me,
Thy heart hastens to my rescue,
Thy love endured my curse,
Thy mercy bore my deserved stripes.
Let me walk humbly in the lowest depths
Of humiliation,
Bathed in thy blood,
Tender of conscience,
Triumphing gloriously as an heir of salvation (“Precious Blood“ Valley of Vision).

We have to understand the magnitude of our sin. I would submit that anything done apart from the motivation of God’s glory is sin (Romans 3:23). So when we tell a white lie we are falling short of God’s glory and when someone lives a good life apart from the gospel (Prov 21:4), she falls short of God’s glory. We can see then how serious our condition is. Our entire being is made up of sinfulness. So much so, in fact, that Isaiah says “our righteousness are like filthy rags" (Isaiah 64:6). That’s what’s forgiven when David says, “All our inquities.“

Next he says God “heals all your disease.“ This can be a physical sickness but it’s can be also carry the idea of grief or the mental anguish caused by sin and the grief we experience because of that. I am inclined to favor the latter as David’s primary meaning because it’s this kind of grief which the Lord universally heals now and it’s this grief that Christ took upon himself on the cross. One commentary points out Is 53:10 which speaks of God putting Christ to grief. It’s the same word. So just as our griefs are healed by Christ so Christ is given our suffering and grief on the cross. The Lord will one day heal both are physical and spiritual disease when we see him face to face.

4who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy,
God Redeems us from Pit & Protects us with Covenant Love
The idea is God saves us from the trap we were in like a shepherd who rescues his sheep from the brambles. However, to continue the analogy the shepherd not only rescues his sheep, but he continually guides, prods, and protects his sheep. The motivation David says is God’s covenant love.

5who satisfies you with good so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.
God Satisfies with Good & Renews Youthful Vigor
What’s the one thing everyone’s looking for? Satisfaction. That’s why America attracts so many people. We are a country where the pursuit of happiness is a possibility. Here David says the Lord provides the ultimate satisfaction. What’s the good promised? According to Romans 8:28-29 it’s “[Being] conformed to the image of his Son.“ For every man then the only lasting satisfaction and happiness comes in knowing Christ.

Here David ends his prologue of praise. We’re finished looking at the postcard and now David takes us to see the reality. It looked magnificent on the postcard but now we’ll see it firsthand.

Soli Deo Gloria

Driscoll On Fundamentalism

2008-07-14T14:01:00.001-05:00

While reading the recently-released Young, Restless, Reformed, I stumbled upon Mark Driscoll's intriguing comments regarding Fundamentalism. The following is an excerpt from page 146:

"I'm not a fundamentalist. I don't think they're any fun at all. I'm a missionary. Fundamentalists avoid culture. Missionaries study it an effort to reach people. If I were going to China to be a missionary, no one would complain. They wouldn't say, look at that, Mark's wearing Chinese clothes. He's speaking Chinese words. He's listening to Chinese music. Gosh, what is that guy? A liberal? No, he's in China.

"The truth is that Seattle is as lost and pagan as China. And if we're going to send missionaries to China, we have to send missionaries to Seattle. We need to give them the same freedom that we do missionaries in China.

"Fundamentalism is really losing the war, and it is in part responsible for the rise of what we know as the more liberal end of the emergent movement. Because a lot of what is fueling the left end of the emerging church is fatigue with hard-core fundamentalism that throws rocks at culture. But culture is the house that people live in, and it just seems really mean to keep throwing rocks at somebody's house."

MacArthur's Surprising View on Christians Dating Unbelievers

2008-07-10T15:51:00.006-05:00

The following was taken from the Grace To You website. It is a brief excerpt of a transcript in which John MacArthur is addressing issues pertaining to women, marriage, and dating.

It would be helpful to get the entire context of MacArthur's talk before making a judgment on his view. You can access the entire talk HERE.

How many of you could give testimony that you were saved first and through you your husband was saved...put your hand up. Higher so we can all see. Yeah, see, there's an unbelieving husband sanctified by a believing wife. Now if God says let that kind of relationship be a beautiful thing so that they can get saved, if a marriage can work to an unbeliever, certainly a friendship could, right? Even a roommate.

You say, "Well, what about dating? What about dating an unsaved person?" The Bible doesn't say anything about dating period. What about dating an unsaved person? I would say it's more important to why you wanted to then whether you did or not. Wouldn't you? Why do you want to date an unsaved person? Well, this is a person that I care about, this is a person that I know, this is a person that I'd like to come to Jesus Christ. So what's a date except a time to be together as a friend. Good. If you say, "Well, I like his looks...woo‑woo‑woo." All you're going to do is ask for trouble, right? I mean, if you can keep it platonic I think you've got something to go on.

You say, "Well I want to get him saved and I like his looks, too." Then date him, bring him to church. I don't think the Bible says that we're to totally cut off...I think we would be very very legalistic to say that a Christian should never ever under any conditions date a non‑Christian. You know, one of the most revealing things that ever happened to me was the time I dated a non‑Christian. I did that twice. I'll never forget either one of those girls. One of them went out and she started to smoke. And you know, that's not a big thing but if you don't smoke it's not a good thing, it's just "puffff" you know. And she thought, and I was embarrassed, you know, kind of. And I thought, "Boy, you know, that's, you know." One guy says, "Nothing worse than a woman who smokes. Who likes to lean down and kiss a girl and smell a Camel?" Anyway. But the other one was a girl that was obvious after about five minutes what her intentions were. And, you know, little Johnny the pastor's son was...you know, but those were my two experiences. And out of that I made this personal determination...I'm going to date Christian girls from here on. I think maybe God may have even a better purpose than you dating an unsaved person, of course.

And there are times, for example, I can name three or four people that are saved directly as a result of a Christian girl who really cared about them from a spiritual standpoint. And as a friend they met at school, they went out together and the girl took the initiative to present Christ and the young man was saved. We cannot discount that possibility. Again I say, it's a question of motive. If the reason you go out is just purely the physical attraction, I think there's a possible danger. If you can allow for the spiritual dimension, a legitimate friendship. Maybe you could give yourself a guideline here, you that are still in this position. I don't think that I would be anxious for my own daughter to date a non‑Christian that she didn't know. Right? I'm not too sure I'd let her date anybody she didn't know, but a non‑Christian that she really did not know, I'd rather that it be somebody that she knew and had met and cared for as a person so that there was enough of a relationship so that they could have an evening together without it deteriorating. I think that may be some kind of a guideline.

For the record, the aforementioned surprised me. I must admit that I depart from MacArthur on this point for the following reasons:

1) It can be used by young people as rationale for entering a deeply loving and meaningful relationship they cannot consummate in marriage without sinning.

2) It fails to address the dangers of one giving his/her heart and affections to someone who does not share their view of and affection for Christ. It's not like we are talking about one's view of or affection for a Toyota vs. a Dodge. We are talking about our view of the all-consuming glory of the One who owns us--and our affections. If that unbelieving date is not for Christ, he or she is against Him (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8). No unbeliever is neutral when it comes to Christ.

3) It does not give adequate weight to the Scriptures regarding the holiness of affections (see James 1:8; 4:4; 4:8; 1 Corinthians 15:33-34; 2 Corinthians 6:17; 1 Peter 1:15-16; 1 John 2:15-17).

4) It does not take into account our society's purpose for dating. It's not friendship; too often it's using someone to fill a need in one's life. At best, contemporary dating is--and I don't intend to sound crude--test-driving a potential mate.

5) It seems to give too much weight to personal and corporate (i.e., "everybody raise your hands...") experience rather than the principles of Scripture. It (and I want to be careful here) almost seems as if MacArthur is using an "I did it ... and many of of you did it ... and it worked out into a beautiful thing" pragmatic approach.

For clarification sake, I will make one final point: I am not calling for an ultra-fundamentalist kind of separation from the world in an isolationist, legalistic sense. I am attempting to apply biblical wisdom and principles to the societal madness we call dating.

HT: Chris Whited

The God Who Forgives (Psam 103:1-2), Part 2

2008-07-07T21:30:00.003-05:00

1 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name!
How would you start off a Psalm if the point was to offer encouragement to someone struggling and depressed with their sin? David starts off praising the Lord. This fits in nicely with the general pattern of scripture. All of our life should be God-glorifying (I Corinthians 10:31). The Lord’s prayer begins with praise (Matthew 6:8-13). So David’s Psalm starts off with praise.

This praise overflows out of his own life expereince and is very personal to David. He cries out, “Bless the Lord oh my soul!“ This last phrase suggests the praise comes from the inner most part of David.

So this is not an arm-chair theologian speaking to us about God impersonally. This is the David who murdered a man, numbered the people; the David who was chased by Saul for many years, betrayed by counselors and friends, and involved in extended family turmoil. He is praising the Lord because the Lord has saved him despite who David was apart from God’s grace.

It’s also very personal because David uses the very personal name for God—Jehovah that focuses on God as our personal Redeemer. We’ll see this name sprinkled through out the Psalm.

2 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits,
David has already alerted us that beginning with praise is important but he adds to this idea by suggesting praising the Lord allows us not to forget what he’s done for us. This is a significant motiff through out the history of Israel. The Lord is constantly commanding his people to remember what he’s done for them in the past which is supposed to give their faith strength for the future (Numbers 15:39; Deuteronomy 4:10).

When David commands us “Don’t forget!“ It’s not the forgetfulness of the loved grandparent who has Alzheimer and has things slip from their mind. It’s the forgetfulness of a teenager whose parents have given them strict instruction on when to return home and the child willfully ignores their command. David is saying, “Don’t ignore what the Lord has done!“

Not clearly seen in the English, “benefits“ is ominious in a way because the word can be negative or positive depending on its grammar. Negatively, the word carries the idea of retribution for an enemy and, positively, a show of favor. Clearly David is praising the Lord for showing favor. But it’s as if David is hearkening back to the blessing and cursing passages of the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 11:26-28). He’s saying, “Don’t ignore what the Lord has done for his people but for those who are his enemies there is only wrath.“

My father was in the Navy and stationed on a ship for a lot of those years so often times he would be deployed for months at a time. He would always bring us stuff from the places he visited. We might get a postcard from here a soveinire from there. Well David brings us a postcard of something beautiful—Christ and the Gospel. He is wetting our appetite for what’s to come.

Soli Deo Gloria

Children's ESV Study Bible

2008-07-07T11:11:00.004-05:00

If you are a parent who struggles with what kind of bible to purchase for your children then you and I have a lot in common. For a few months I have been debating what kind of bible to purchase for our seven year old daughter Hannah. I cannot recommend to you enough the ESV Children's Bible.

Spanning the ages of elementary to junior high, this is unlike many children's bibles that you see on the market today. Absent are the many cheesy and shallow applications of biblical truth to a child's life. Present is a strong gospel presentation at the end of the bible with a strong adherence to the doctrines of grace along with some good helps with a child's progressive sanctification. You will appreciate the fact that the editors of this children's bible have avoided the use of shallow man-centered theology and emphasize the sovereignty of God along the person and work of Jesus Christ.

My prayer is that God uses this to grow our daughter into His likeness for His glory.

The God Who Forgives (Psalm 103), Part 1

2008-07-06T19:45:00.004-05:00

I had the opportunity to preach at my church, Emmanuel Bible Church, which was a blessing and intimidating. I know I haven't blogged in a long (OK very long time!) but over this next week I will be post excerpts from my sermon and will Lord willing continue blogging on a more regular basis. You can listen to the audio of my sermon here.

Introduction
I invite you to join me in court where a man sits on trial. He has committed a grusome crime. He was charged with murdering a man. Let’s find a seat in the crowd and listen as the jury gives its verdict.
The foreman stands. The crowd is quietly tense. The foreman unfolds a piece of paper which will either aquit or condemn this man. There’s complete silence.

The foreman speaks, “Concerning the charge of first degree murder. The jury finds the accused guilty.“ The word “guilty“ rings through the courtroom. The crowd cheers and weeps at that word.

The judge quiets the courtroom. “Order please!“ The gavel rings loudly. “I would like to say some closing words. First, I want to applaud the jury for their verdict. I agree with their findings. Second, the sentencing is as follows. This crime must be punished by death.“ The previous noise was only intensified.

“However, someone has come forward to take our crimanal‘s place. This Man will receive the death sentence. He will be the guilty. I further order the court clerk to scratch the guilty man’s name from the record and in his place record this Man’s name, Jesus Christ.“

You probably filled in the blanks but David the accused not only murdered the man but slept with his wife who bore a child through their sin. This man is the author of our Psalm. However, this is not only David. It’s Everyman. It is you and it is me. You could leave the charges blank and fill in any of our sins. What then does David offer as relief for those living under this verdict? David offers a pattern of praise focusing primarily on the gospel.

Soli Deo Gloria

GARBC Takes Faithful Stand on Literal Hermeneutic - 2008 Resolution on Israel

2008-07-03T09:27:00.003-05:00

Dr. John Hartog III did an absolutely outstanding job on defending and articulating a defense of a literal hermeneutic in a recent resolution regarding our association's stand with Israel and firm conviction that there is a future fulfillment and an unconditional covenant made with Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3) that is yet to be fulfilled. Take a look and let us know what you think!

As a result of God’s sovereign choice, the people of Israel are beloved for the sake of the patriarchs (Romans 11:28). God entrusted them as a people with His oracles (3:2). He adopted them as sons; He revealed to them His glory; He brought them into a covenantal relationship with Himself; and He blessed them with the Torah, the temple service, and the promises (9:4). Also, the people of Israel are the ones through whom the Messiah, Who is over all, entered into this world according to the flesh (9:5).

These gifts of God to Israel and His sovereign election of this people are irrevocable (Romans 11:29). Thus, God most certainly has not cast them away (11:1), nor has He renounced His promise that the Land belongs to the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob forever (Genesis 13:15; Exodus 6:8).

In light of these Biblical truths, we reaffirm our steadfast adherence to our Articles of Faith that express our shared belief “in the sovereign selection of Israel as God’s eternal covenant people” (Article XVIII).

Recently, on May 8, 2008, the Jewish people of the modern State of Israel celebrated the 60th anniversary of their independence as a nation. In response to these celebrations, we, the messengers of the churches in fellowship with the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, meeting for our 76th Annual Conference on the campus of Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary in Ankeny, Iowa, during the days of June 24–27, 2008, congratulate the people of Israel for their sixty years of industry and tenacity.

In six short decades, Israel has become a leader in various sectors of manufacturing, banking, technology, and arid agriculture. All the while, Israel has defended herself against aggressions close at home and from censures coming from afar. These constant difficulties in no way diminish Israel’s accomplishments but instead heighten the magnitude of her achievements. Israel has done so much, with so little, against so many, in so short a time. Indeed, this is a cause for celebration.

We also commend Israel’s desire to be a free, sovereign, and prosperous country that guarantees religious freedom for all of its citizens and provides a secure homeland for all those who wish to emigrate from the Jewish Diaspora. We concur with our American president, George W. Bush, who declared before the Israeli Knesset on May 15, 2008, that “we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East [i.e., Israel] than [against] any other nation in the world.”

Many of us have traveled extensively throughout the country of Israel, and we wish to express our gratitude for the ways in which the Israeli government has preserved and protected the holy sites and the archaeological remains. We appreciate the ease of travel, the modern amenities, the sense of security, and the ease of accessibility that we have found on our pilgrimages to these places of Biblical and historical interest.

Furthermore, we resolve to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” (Psalm 122:6). We will pray in response to the current political unrest, terrorist attacks, and border disputes. Most importantly, we will pray for the spiritual needs of both the Jewish and the Palestinian peoples of Israel, “for neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (Romans 10:1; Galatians 6:15, 16).

By faith, we look forward to the prophetic future when the Jewish people “will be regathered in the Holy Land and, after the completion of the Church, will be saved as a nation at the second advent of Christ,” when He shall return to this earth as the deliverer out of Zion “in power and great glory to sit upon the throne of David and to establish the millennial kingdom” (Articles XVIII and XIX; Isaiah 9:6, 7; 59:20; Matthew 24:30; Luke 1:32, 33; Romans 11:26). No one will bring hurt or destruction anymore upon God’s holy mountain, because “the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9). How we eagerly anticipate this future age of messianic bliss!

Meanwhile, we will worship our great, trustworthy God, Who will fulfill these prophecies. He will do so not because the church, Israel, or the nations deserve such blessings, but because He has determined to sanctify Himself among the nations and before Israel by demonstrating His faithful love. We will testify to the love of Christ for all peoples, and together with Saul of Tarsus we will exclaim, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! . . . For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Romans 11:33, 36)

Approved by the Messengers in the annual business session. Signed by the National Representative on behalf of the Council of Eighteen.
To: His Excellency Sallai Meridor, Ambassador of Israel
3514 International Dr. NW
Washington DC 20008
[This resolution was approved unanimously on June 25, 2008 by the messengers to the 2008 GARBC Conference in Ankeny, Iowa.]

I find it interesting that this vote was "unanimous"....meaning that Kenneth (who was present at the meeting) must have voted favorably for this resolution!

"The Day of the Lord" and Dispensationalism

2008-07-02T15:21:00.007-05:00

Here's an interesting irony.

Amillennialists actually take something literally that Dispensationalists don't--the Day of the Lord.

For the Dispensationalist, the Day of the Lord cannot refer to a literal day, but only to an extended period of time. Why? Because of what 2 Peter 3:10 says:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

For the Dispy, that's a problem. 2 Peter 3:10 clearly states that on the Day of the Lord, several things happen. First, the Lord comes like a thief (this is explained more fully in the Olivet Discourse--Matthew 24 & 25 and alluded to in Acts 2:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:2, and Malachi 4:5).

Second, the heavens will pass away with a roar and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, exposing earthly works (implying a divine judgment). Then appears to be the key word for the Amillennialist because it denotes a relation between events and a rapid succession in those events--all within the context of a literal day.

For the Dispensationalist, the rapid succession of these events (all occurring within a literal day) creates a significant problem (which they explain away by stating that "with the Lord one day is as a thousand years..."). There's no time for a seven year tribulation. There's no mention of multiple judgments and resurrections. There's no thousand-year millennial kingdom.

So how does one solve a problem like 2 Peter 3:10? You don't take the word day literally ... but symbolically, leaving ample time for seven years of tribulation, multiple returns, judgments and resurrections, and a thousand year reign of Christ upon earth.

Amillennialists, I'm sure, find this very ironic!

P. S. -- Although it's entirely possible that I have failed, I have attempted to accurately represent both eschatological views. Because you--our readers--are well-informed and well-versed in eschatological minutiae, please feel free to correct any erroneous thinking!!

Is Family Planning Biblical? Continued...

2008-07-01T11:20:00.003-05:00

Brother Hank has written another great article on family planning that I commend to you. In it he writes,

God created marriage for a purpose: to glorify himself in Christ. Included in that overarching purpose are many other intimately connected purposes such as unity, relationship, procreation, pleasure, spiritual growth, gospel testimony, protection against sin, etc. So, in any consideration of family planning, it must first be understood that these are indeed God’s purposes. God is the one who made sex unitive. God is the one who made sex pleasurable. And God is the one who made sex procreative. In seeking to find our purpose in family planning, we must take great care never to undermine God’s purposes in the process.

What is God's purpose for sex? Have you ever thought about it? Have you ever considered it from that perspective?

Sex was created for God's glory, and therefore how God will be glorified when we use His good gift within the confines of marriage (male and female) in accordance with all of its purposes. So what are God's purposes for sex? [This is not an exhaustive list.]

Unifying a husband and a wife (Genesis 2:23-24)
Procreation (Genesis 1:28)
Pleasurable/Satisfying (1 Corinthians 7:1-3)
Protecting (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)

If these are biblical purposes for sex is it appropriate to separate one purpose from another? If I separate the unifying, pleasurable and protecting aspects of sex from the procreative aspect of sex, have I caused unbiblical divorce in the doctrine? It appears to me that I have. We can't emphasize one purpose above another or our doctrine becomes unbiblical in some form. We must hold them all together in unity.

Most Christians would agree that sex is given in marriage as a unifying, pleasurable and protecting gift from our gracious Lord, but would not see procreation in the same light. They would view it as an option, a choice, a possibility or even an inconvenience. I don't think it is and I don't think the Bible views it as such either.

Is Family Planning Biblical?

2008-06-30T07:54:00.005-05:00

Brother Hank from Lawn Gospel writes many challenging and thought-provoking articles on all things reproductively related. I highly recommend his most recent article to all of our two remaining readers here at TWFOW. (Mike and Ken, you will benefit from this.)

Here is a quote to whet your appetite. Enjoy.

Many in the Church today begin their consideration of the family (if they really ever consider it at all) awash in a sea of unchecked and unchallenged cultural assumptions - ranging in everything from the idea that children are mere accessories to marriage, to the acceptance of the epidemic use of permanent sterilization methods (vasectomy and tubal ligation) after a couples’ arbitrary “child quota” has been met. These assumptions have foundations, no doubt, but they are not Scriptural. But unfortunately many Christians don’t seem to mind.

Continue reading HERE.

GARBC National Conference Highlights, Days 2 & 3

2008-06-27T00:01:00.002-05:00

Due to time restrictions and a huge need for sleep, here are the brief highlights from days 2 and 3 of the GARBC National Conference in Ankeny, Iowa:

Jerry Lancaster, Pastor of Starkey Road Baptist Church in Seminole, Florida, addressed the topic of "A Prophecy of the Cross" from Psalm 22.

"Too many people in our world see Jesus only on the cross or in the manger, and not through the lens of the empty tomb."

"Be careful of overemphasizing the physical suffering of Christ on the cross because: (1) many suffered as much physically as Jesus. And (2) Jesus instructed the daughters of Jerusalem not to weep for Him, but for themselves and their children. Jesus does not need--nor does He want--our sympathy."

"The soldiers beneath the cross were living by chance; the Savior upon the cross was living by plan. They were gathering the things of this world while Jesus was dying to give sinners the next world."

Duke Crawford, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, addressed "The Accomplishment of the Cross" from Galatians 1:1-5:

"The cross points down in Galatians 1:4, displaying God's grace to man. The cross points up in Galatians 1:5, displaying God's glory. Before we can see His glory, we must taste His grace."

"The cross opens our hearts to God's grace and our eyes to God's glory."

"God is the good news that makes the good news good news forever and ever and ever."

"Perhaps the problem with our preaching of the cross is not that we preach it too infrequently; but that we don't preach it thoroughly."

Arial Abadiano, President of PARTNERS International in the Philippines addressed "The Enemies of the Cross" from Philippians 3:17-21:

"Christ did not go to the cross to reveal our glory; Christ went to the cross to reveal the Father's glory."

"Sometimes what we believe and preach about the cross is not incorrect; it's incomplete."

"Much of the problem with contemporary evangelical missions is that we are more interested in the souls of men than we are the glory of God."

Dr. Gary Anderson, President of Baptist Mid-Missions addressed "The Preaching of the Cross" from 1 Corinthians 1 and Galatians 6:

"The only recognition Paul sought was that of a servant of Christ's."

"Genuine humility revels in being used."

"A genuinely humble man cannot be humiliated (see Philippians 2)."

"We must believe with all our hearts that the preaching of the cross is our only means of having a soul-saving, nation-shaking, eternity-shaping influence for Christ."

Days 2 & 3 were spiritually nourishing, intellectually stimulating, and physically draining. Although many church members wish us a happy vacation before we leave, I inform them that these conferences are anything but a vacation.

Still, our family has enjoyed the opportunity to reacquaint ourselves with old friends (and college roommates) and to make new ones.

The conference has been a spiritually refreshing time of sharpening our focus upon the center of human history and God's grand eternal plan: Jesus and His cross.

And although I may not always agree with some of my association's theological leanings and tendencies (in regards to hermeneutics ... and some emphases), I am thankful to be part of a group that continues to proclaim Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

To God be the glory for Jesus and His cross!

For the Sake of the Gospel, Put the Cell Phones Away

2008-06-25T16:31:00.005-05:00

I wonder how Spurgeon would have dealt with the matter of cell phones ... and BlackBerry's ... and PDA's infiltrating the church.

Some of you are aware that I am currently attending our association's Annual Conference in Ankeny, Iowa. Attending conferences affords me an opportunity that I otherwise rarely enjoy--sitting behind people in a worship gathering. It also has opened my eyes to the existence of a major problem among today's conference-goers (and presumably Sunday's churchgoers). It's the constant text messaging.

Today I sat behind a row of seven people--two of which were engaged in rather lengthy text message conversations (at least their fingers were moving in rapid succession along their BlackBerry's buttons; and if it wasn't text-messaging, it was that blasted bubble game). Here's what that means:

1) If the row in front of me is an accurate representation of all rows at our association's conference (and of your church), then nearly 1/3 of churchgoers are involved in virtual conversations with others rather than hearing from God.

2) Today's experience was eye-opening, to say the least. Sitting in front of me were pastors, pastor's wives, pastor's kids, and college presidents. If these ecclesiastical and educational leaders are engaging in virtual conversations when the Word is being spoken, how many "regular" Christians are doing so in the gatherings of the church?

3) BlackBerry's have displaced Bibles on the laps of this generation's Christians (Christian leaders, nonetheless). Perhaps we are more interested in reading others' thoughts than we are hearing God's. Perhaps we are more interested in being heard than hearing from God.

Perhaps two of the seven individuals sitting in the row in front of me were responding to life-altering emergencies.

Or perhaps the presence of BlackBerry's in the laps of churchgoers is a sign of a much greater and deeply life-altering emergency: we are raising a generation of BlackBerry educated, biblically illiterate children and youth. They are the ones sitting beside us in church.

For the sake of the Gospel and our children's souls ... please put the BlackBerry's away.

Blogging the GARBC National Conference, Day 1

2008-06-24T23:41:00.005-05:00

Coupla introductory things:

1) I continue to enjoy the summer blog hiatus.

2) These posts on my association's National Conference do not officially end this long-needed blog-break.

3) For the few (but faithful) readers who have remained through this painfully sparse summer on the blog ... and for the fewer still who know what the letters GARBC represent (General Association of Regular Baptist Churches), this series of brief reporting posts are for you.

Now for the good stuff:

1) Our association's annual conference was originally scheduled for Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The rain God dumped on Iowa changed those plans (the big debate around these parts is whether Iowans represent the just or the unjust of Matthew 5:45!). The conference was relocated to my alma mater, Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary in Ankeny, Iowa.

2) Our association's National Representative (read: leader, CEO, General Manager, President, or whatever leadership title fits your fancy) kicked off the conference with an address from Hebrews 2:7-18, entitled, "A Plan Fit For The Savior" (the conference's theme is "The Glory of the Cross"). Following are a few loosely transliterated quotes from Dr. John Greening's address:

"The cross seems to be the most unfitting place for glory."

"Jesus Christ and His cross are at the center of everything--from the universe to history to our local churches. Let's be careful to keep Him there in our preaching."

"Much of today's evangelical preaching lauds the horizontal reconciliation provided through the cross; yet the clear thrust and intent of reconciliation is vertical: Christ--in His cross--reconciled sinners to God."

"Because sinners are dead in their trespasses and sins, their only hope is for Jesus Christ to breathe His life into them."

Dr. Greening's address emphasized the amazing and marvelous grace God has shown us in Christ. Without intending to stir up any conference controversy, I must admit that Dr. Greening's address seemed overtly Calvinistic (and monergistic). Of course, it would be nearly impossible to preach from Hebrews 2 (even the semi-controversial verse 9) without the address sounding overtly Calvinistic! In all seriousness, Dr. Greening's address on the glory of Christ's cross stirred both my intellect and my emotions.

To God be the glory in Jesus' cross!

That's the Day 1 wrap-up from the GARBC National Conference in Ankeny, Iowa.

Greatest Conference Anticipation: I am anxiously awaiting Dr. Myron Houghton's Thursday workshop entitled "A Baptist's Perspective on Reformed Theology." Could there be some pre-4th fireworks??!!!

Coupla concluding things:

1) What I'm currently reading:

Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). The authors link to our blog (not sure why ... except that these men of God must be full of grace!). A review will be forthcoming. Until then: buy it and read it. You'll be glad you read Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck's first tag-team work. Lord-willing it won't be their last.

MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response by Sam Waldron. It's controversial--I like that. It's gracious--I like that, too. It's Reformed and biblical--I really like that!

2) Who I'm rooting for:

The Cardinals. Perhaps it's the Cubs' year. But then again, they are the Cubs. Seems like another disappointing season isn't too far-fetched.

Oh, yeah, and the Royals are experiencing a bit of a resurgence over the past two weeks. We'll see if it lasts.

I will close this somewhat random post with a unscientific poll. Which of the following is most likely to happen?

1. The Kansas City Royals enjoy a winning season in 2008.

2. The Chicago Cubs finally break their decade of futility and win it all in 2008.

3. John Piper invites blog-mate Mike Hess to speak at the 2010 Pastors Conference.

You make the call!

Good Argument Against Evangelical Political Causes

2008-06-11T09:52:00.004-05:00

"The so-called Religious Right had great plans to reverse the moral trends of our nation. We are told that we have helped elect presidents and have impacted public policy and even the selection of judges. But by identifying these gains as those won by the "Religious Right," namely, Christians who are in cahoots with a particular party, we have made this nation believe that the church is a political base rather than the dispenser of the Gospel. Any gains we have made (mixed at best) came about at the price of the loss of the Gospel in the wider culture. We have cheapened Christ before a watching world."
-Erwin Lutzer, Is God on America's Side (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008), 51-52

Since we will NOT endorse any political candidate here at this blog we might as well make it abundantly clear that neither major presidential candidate inspires much by way of what evangelical believers stand for. There is a danger for those of us who live in a democracy. A danger that teaches political involvement somehow enhances the cause of the Gospel. No friends, if anything it has hindered our cause and has gotten many a pastor and congregation off course.

For as much as I detest Senator Obama's deplorable position on abortion and wonder why many in the evangelical world have become alarmingly enamored with him I can assure you that a win by him will NOT catch God off guard. Let us be reminded in this heated political season that it is a common fallacy among many a believer to think that politics can somehow enhance the cause of the Gospel.

230-23

2008-06-05T09:26:00.005-05:00

This was the final tally of the congregation's vote to dismiss a pastor who refused to administer Communion to unbelievers. This pastor had served at this church for twenty three faithful years, was a well respected theologian and had lovingly shepherded his church through the Scriptures as to what the Lord's Table represented and who it was for.

Who was this pastor? None other than Jonathan Edwards, perhaps the most well respected and highly regarded theologian in American history was dismissed from his church by a vote of 230-23 because a man who knew he was called of God would rather be right doctrinally than live comfortably in compromise.

YouTube: The Lord's Prayer

2008-05-09T10:29:00.007-05:00

This is the result of a God-given natural ability, a lot of time in church and a love of music. Enjoy!

UPDATED

I just had to give you one more. I couldn't help myself.

Living Together from the World's View: A Helpful Pastoral Resource

2008-05-09T09:21:00.003-05:00

OK. Don't get mad at the messenger because you need to read this.

Sometimes its helpful to know what arguments the world is making in an attempt to rationalize their sin and diminish Biblical authority.

The following article reveals several of those arguments regarding cohabitation prior to marriage.

From FOXNEWS.COM:

Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell do it. So do Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins.

And these days, it's not just the celebrities. More and more unmarried couples are living together, and research indicates that most people have tried it.

The distinction between cohabitation and marriage is eroding in many contemporary societies. For years now, the number of couples choosing to live together without getting married has steadily increased.

Like it or not, cohabitation is here to stay; up to two-thirds of American households began as "starter marriages."

But is it smart to move in together when you aren't married?

There are pros and cons to this arrangement.

"Living in sin" is not a new idea. According to Stephanie Coontz, author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," the only difference between cohabitation and legal marriage in ancient Rome was the partners' intent.

For more than 1,000 years, the Roman Catholic Church recognized commitment by simply taking the couple's word. If a man and woman had privately agreed to marry, then they were seen as a married couple. Many modern-day thinkers have felt the same way. American anthropologist George Peter Murdock once defined marriage as "a global institution involving a couple cohabitating, engaging in sexual activity, and cooperating economically." For many couples, the actual act of officially tying the knot is just a technicality.

I can already hear the natives getting restless on this matter, ready to blast me on our blog. Just as with my previous examination of casual sex, I will likely be attacked for promoting an agenda meant to corrupt society.

As a sex educator, I have always strived to give people the facts so that they can make their own sexual decisions based on their own value system. Unlike many of my critics, I'm not here to moralize or judge.

Continue reading HERE, and then feel free to comment on Ms. Fulbright's opinions.

Just remember ... don't shoot the messenger!

Is the 2007 Heisman Trophy Winner a Calvinist?

2008-05-06T08:41:00.001-05:00

Perhaps it's true. Here's a bit of anecdotal evidence from ESPN.COM:

Florida quarterback Tim Tebow took the microphone, scanned the 14 rows of grim-faced men sitting in folding metal chairs and recognized the familiar hue of blue.

"How many Gator fans do we have in the house today?" Tebow asked.

After more than half the men raised their hands, Tebow added, "All right, those who didn't raise their hands, that's who I'm preaching to today...."

"Everybody is telling me I've made it," Tebow told the inmates. "They tell me, 'Tim, you have success and you've made it.' I've won the Heisman Trophy, so I've got it made, right? One day, people are going to forget about me. One day, people are going to forget about the Heisman Trophy, the jump pass and the national championship. One day, this [championship] ring is going to rust. There are only four things that are going to last forever: God, his word, people and rewards.

"Because I'm so passionate about it, and because I learned that gift so early, I don't want to go to heaven and hear Jesus tell me, 'Tim, why didn't you tell someone else about it?' It's a choice each of you have to make. I can't make that choice for you. Your friend can't make that choice for you. It's up to you. No matter how bad your life has been, eternity can be great. It's not how you start, fellas, it's how you finish...."

During Tebow's spring break in March, he traveled to his father's Filipino orphanage for five days. He spent time with orphans, spoke about his faith in schools and market places, and even assisted doctors during medical procedures. Tebow said he removed cysts from patients and performed a few circumcisions.

"It's pretty nerve-racking at first, but you get your hands under control and do the work," Tebow said. "It's pretty cool."

Tebow, 20, considers his work at home as rewarding. On April 19, he spent more than eight hours inside two of Florida's state prisons, standing shoulder to shoulder with violent and non-violent offenders. At Gainesville Correctional Institute, Tebow's right tackle no longer was protecting his blind side. Four correctional officers stood several yards away in a grass yard -- and they didn't even carry guns.

"No matter where I am, if I'm preaching to Muslims or in a prison, if you're in the will of God, that's safer than driving down the interstate," Tebow said. "That's how I feel about it. He's in control of whatever happens. I'm thinking more about their needs than my needs. They need to hear what I'm sharing, so I don't think about any sense of fear. The Lord has it under control, and he'll take care of me."

Read the entire story HERE.

Oh and by the way, Tebow was homeschooled!

Have You Heard Who's Contributing to the New ESV Study Bible?

2008-05-02T20:31:00.003-05:00

If not, the entire list of contributors is available HERE.

Just to whet your appetite, here are the men who comprise the Editorial Oversight Committee of the new ESV Study Bible:

The following people comprise the Editorial Oversight Committee, which developed the concept, selected the 93 contributors, and provided general oversight and final approval of the content and design of the ESV Study Bible.

Executive Editor
Lane T. Dennis
Ph.D., Northwestern University
Chair of the ESV Translation Oversight Committee, President, Crossway Books and Bibles

General Editor
Wayne Grudem
Ph.D., University of Cambridge
Research Professor of Bible and Theology, Phoenix Seminary

Theological Editor
J. I. Packer
D. Phil., University of Oxford
Professor of Theology, Regent College (Vancouver, Canada)

Old Testament Editor
C. John Collins
Ph.D., University of Liverpool
Professor and Chair of the Old Testament Department, Covenant Theological Seminary

New Testament Editor
Thomas R. Schreiner
Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary
James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Project Director, Managing Editor
Justin Taylor
B.A., University of Northern Iowa
Associate Publisher, Crossway Books and Bibles

Good Samaritans Play College Softball: Here's Proof

2008-05-01T22:21:00.001-05:00

Maybe you've heard; maybe you haven't.

Either way, this is a must-see five minute video highlighting one of the most memorable acts of good sportsmanship in collegiate athletics.

Before you watch, consider this: the young lady who tore her ACL rounding first base after hitting a home run--this was the first and only home run of her college career. Just makes the story that much better.

Around the Blogosphere: A Couple Must-Reads

2008-04-30T08:52:00.009-05:00

A number of people continue to ask if the Calvinism/Arminianism debate is necessary. Are the differences that great? Is the Bible really that clear? Isn't it much easier (and even more biblical) to choose neither option?

Although Dr. Bauder does not argue for either side (something I hope he will do in the near future) I believe he does a great job at laying out the importance of taking a side. There are real, biblical questions that demand real, biblical answers. And as Bauder lays it out if you reject one side it automatically puts you on the other side. There is no epistemologically humble middle ground. You might be a "three-point Arminian" or a "four-point Calvinist" but in such a case you would also be a "two-point Calvinist" and a "one-point Arminian."

Some fundamentalist leaders have recently and publicly registered their objections to Calvinism, but they prefer not to be called Arminians. They believe that both Calvinism and Arminianism are man-made systems that predetermine one’s interpretation of Scripture. These leaders wish to start at the other end, with Scripture, and to arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the study of the text. Consequently, they prefer to be called Biblicists.

Fortunately, these recent pronouncements are irenic in tone. This is a token that fundamentalist theology is maturing. Not long ago, it was difficult to find criticism of Calvinism that did not end in a rant. If these recent publications are an example, however, we are now able to discuss Arminianism and Calvinism in a deliberate and thoughtful manner.

Nevertheless, the term Biblicist seems to have only limited usefulness in this debate. Which of us does not try to start with Scripture and to draw conclusions by studying the text? Which of us wishes to set aside any of the Bible in favor of a human system? No, we are all Biblicists here.
Since we are conversing as Biblicists, I would like to raise a question. Which problems do we Biblicists have to solve in order to be entitled to say that we have a biblical answer to the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism? I would like to suggest four specific problems for which we must find biblical solutions.

Continue reading HERE.

Another article that demands your attention is by Jay Younts. This article is quite possibly his best post to date. He combines parenting and apologetics in a masterful way. A reader named Kyle asks Jay about his response to the National Day of Silence (a day to support the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] kids who are being targeted with violence at school).

Kyle, my question to you is, “Does God have the right to determine how people should relate to each other sexually?” If you answer “No,” then you have made God out to be just another person with an opinion, with no more authority than you or I have. He is no God at all. But if you believe that there is no God, then on what basis do you say that violence against others is wrong? Why is your opinion right and mine wrong? If you want to condemn bigotry and prejudice, then you must have some standard that defines bigotry and prejudice. This standard must be based upon something other than just a personal preference if you want to regulate the actions of others. Otherwise, you are attempting to force your will on other people simply because it is your will.
I am glad to denounce discriminatory violence based upon biblical standards. However, because of that same standard I must also urge you to consider whether gay, lesbian, and bisexual behaviors are appropriate. My belief that this activity is wrong is not a personal preference but is consistent with biblical teaching.
You make an appeal for peace, but even peace is something that has no meaning unless it can be rooted in something larger than our own personal beliefs. I know this answer may not be satisfying to you, but biblical Christianity does give a basis from which to speak against discriminatory violence. At the same time, the God who gives this standard also has things to say about sexual behavior. I appeal to you to embrace God’s standard—not only in condemning discriminatory violence, but also for sexual conduct.

Continue reading HERE.

Some History on Amazing Grace

2008-04-28T10:00:00.004-05:00

This brought some fresh perspective on a familiar and universally loved hymn.

[HT: James White]

Parental Encouragement

2008-04-22T08:28:00.010-05:00

Parents, if you are not regularly reading Jay Younts at The Shepherd Press Blog, than you need to start. Today! He gives some great instruction on the importance of giving instruction to your children when they are young.

Parents, you must see this vital connection between how you give instruction to your young children and how they will respond to temptation as teenagers. The young people depicted in the Linkin Park lyrics in the previous post have no regard for their parent's instruction. Because of this they are vulnerable. This dynamic is essential to grasp, especially in dealing with young children and toddlers. Your focus must go beyond behavior. If your instruction is primarily about stopping squabbles, then what you will achieve is a temporary stalemate. Your children may stop squabbling, but their hearts are unprepared for the attacks that will come. They will not be obeying because God must be obeyed; they will be obeying because it is in their best interest to obey. The use of these same criteria of decision making will not offer protection for them as teenagers, but entrapment. The earlier stalemates may yield devastating defeats later on.

Continue reading HERE.

I Blame This Morning's Earthquake On John Piper ...

2008-04-18T09:01:00.006-05:00

This morning's earthquake was quite the experience.

The now-downgraded 5.2 quake's epicenter was 100 miles east of our home. The quake lasted 45 seconds and was severe enough to startle Joanna and me awake at 4:36 this morning to the sound of windows rattling and an eerie rumbling.

Although we Midwesterners rarely feel the effects of the tectonic plates moving, this is the second quake we've experienced in the past three years.

I blame John Piper for interrupting my much-needed good night's sleep (after 48 hours of Together For The Gospel), and here's why: in the introduction of his address to the 5,000 T4G attendees, John stated that his aim for us was that we "rock" and "shake" the world.

I never imagined so many Covenant theologians would take John so literally!!!!!

There will be more forthcoming on the T4G Conference ... so stay tuned!

Until then, let each of us stand in awe of the God who causes the earth to tremble:

"May the glory of the LORD endure forever; may the LORD rejoice
in his works, who looks on the earth and it trembles, who
touches the mountains and they smoke!"

Psalm 104:31-32 (ESV)

UPDATE: It's 10:15 AM, and we just had a brief 30-second aftershock.

This Weekend's Must-Hear Hymn

2008-04-05T22:21:00.000-05:00

It's available HERE (you've gotta make your way through a bit of Jayhawk rap-opaganda before you get to the really good stuff ... but the whole thing is worth a listen).

ROCK, CHALK, JAYHAWK!!!

Sorry Roy Williams ... tonight you watched a real college basketball team ... and they weren't wearing Carolina pansy blue!

Bill Self ... thanks for making us forget Roy Williams. Monday you will do what Roy couldn't do in 15 years of KU Basketball!!!!!!!!!!

The Church of Oprah Exposed

2008-04-03T09:11:00.001-05:00

It congregates daily in the middle of the afternoon, and millions of Christians faithfully attend. Is that a problem? Consider this:

So what is this? It's the new face of Eastern Mysticism and Existentialism.

HT: CE

Davidson Phenom Stephen Curry Wears Testimony on His Shoes

2008-03-29T21:41:00.002-05:00

ESPN.com has the intriguing story:

"I can do all things."

If you write that in black ink on your red Nike sneakers and step out onto the floor at the NCAA tournament, you'd better be able to back up words like that.

And so far, Stephen Curry has done just that. Davidson's sophomore guard is the unquestioned star of March Madness 2008, leading the Cinderella Wildcats out of a No. 10 seed to within a win of the Final Four with a trip of stirring upset victories over Gonzaga, Georgetown and Wisconsin. And he's has put up gigantic numbers in the process, averaging a tournament-leading 34.3 ppg on 50.8 percent shooting. In the second half of Friday night's Sweet 16 contest against the Big Ten champions, he personally outscored Wisconsin 22-20....

But as for the writing on his shoes, it's certainly not the product of a me-first mentality or an overblown ego lurking beneath a shell of false modesty. There just wasn't enough room on the sole to finish the quote.

"Oh, that," Curry said. "It's Philippians 4:13. 'I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.' It's always been one of my favorite Bible verses. … I realize that what I do on the floor isn't a measure of my own strength. Having that there keeps me focused on the game, a constant reminder of who I'm playing for."

And as the modest star's accomplishments grow, so too does his status as a basketball-playing role model. If Friday night's enormous crowd at Ford Field was any indication, there are already young children out there who aspire to be the next Steph Curry, kids who already own his No. 30 jersey.

"Don't play for anybody other than your family, or God, or whatever you believe in," said Curry when asked if he had any advice to offer. "It's easy to get caught up in playing for the crowd, trying to play a game you're not capable of. I found myself doing that a little bit in high school and early in my college career. I try harder not to do things that are over my head, not do anything too special. I'm more of a blue-collar guy."

Read entire story HERE.