Last month Ryan Kelly and Kevin DeYoung posted an essay on The Gospel Coalition (TGC) blog (that originally appeared in the spring 2014 issue of Affinity) defending the existence of interdenominational or extra-ecclesial partnerships. Though the essay addresses a few different examples of these kinds of partnerships, the main focus is on TGC. After a quick historical look (that, oddly, focuses primarily on state-sponsored efforts) they briefly discuss Together for the Gospel before providing a quick synopsis of TGC and then attempt to answer several criticisms that have been leveled against TGC. Whether or not they are successful at understanding and answering these criticisms is not under consideration here. Instead, I’d like to consider an interesting statement about TGC and Dispensationalists.
In the midst of defending TGC against the charge of being either too narrow and exclusive or too broad or ambiguous in its doctrinal stance, they discuss the nature of TGC’s Founding Documents:
“TGC circumscribes certain doctrinal positions and not others, because some are central to the preaching of the gospel (for example, penal substitution, the uniqueness of Christ, eternality of hell); some differences evince deep hermeneutical differences, and are practically necessary for something like a preaching conference (complementarianism); and some so affect our understanding of God’s glory and grace that they must be made explicit (Reformed soteriology)….TGC’s Confessional Statement falls within the broader Reformed tradition, and, as noted earlier, it is particular regarding monergistic soteriology, complementarianism, inerrancy, a historical Adam, and double imputation in justification; yet it is unspecific as to eschatology, church polity, sacraments, miraculous gifts, and the like. The Foundational Documents could not be fully embraced by hard-line dispensationalists, Lutherans, emergents, or mainline liberals. However, among the council there are Presbyterian, Reformed, Episcopalian/Anglican, Baptist, Free Church, and nondenominational, all of which must agree with what is contained in the Foundation Documents. At a little more than 2,300 words, the confessional statement is not aiming for the kind of doctrinal specificity found in the Westminster Confession of Faith or The Second Helvetic Confession. The points of doctrinal specificity in TGC’s documents are intentional, as are the areas of silence.”
Though I’m not certain what they mean by “hard-line dispensationalists,” I find the listing of four categories of “Christians” who could not fully embrace the Foundational Documents interesting: “hard-line dispensationalists, Lutherans, emergents, or mainline liberals.” The latter two would not be able to embrace the documents because they do not affirm things like inerrancy, penal substitution, the uniqueness of Christ, etc. In other words, they could not be part of TGC because they effectively deny the gospel. I’m not certain why Lutherans would be excluded (perhaps this is a reference to the controversy of the Lutheran view of sanctification espoused by former TGC blogger Tullian Tchividjian), but it seems odd that they and “hard-line dispensationalists” would be excluded along with those who have practically rejected the gospel.
So why would “hard-line dispensationalists” be excluded? Dispensationalism has no distinct teaching on areas related to “monergistic soteriology, complementarianism, inerrancy, a historical Adam, and double imputation in justification.” Many Dispensationalists—from a variety of flavors of Dispensationalism—would affirm all of those things. Where Dispensationalism offers a unique understanding in theology centers first of all in ecclesiology (e.g., what is the church, when did it start, what is its relationship to Israel) and secondarily in eschatology (e.g., when will the rapture occur, what is the nature of the kingdom, etc.) Those two areas seem to be matters where these authors claim TGC has remained silent: “[TGC’s confession] is unspecific as to eschatology, church polity, sacraments, miraculous gifts, and the like.”
Why are “hard-line dispensationalists” excluded then? My guess is that, despite Kelly and DeYoung’s claims, TGC has taken a stand on eschatology. As Kevin Bauder has noted, most traditional dispensationalists (perhaps this is what is meant by “hard-line”) do not believe that the kingdom has been inaugurated, while TGC’s Founding Documents explicitly claim that it has.
My question: why include a specific statement on the kingdom of God in the confessional statement but not specific statements on things like “church polity, sacraments, miraculous gifts, and the like”? Where does an inaugurated form of the kingdom fit in their explanation for what doctrinal specifics are included? Is it “central to the preaching of the gospel”? Is it a difference that “evince[s] deep hermeneutical differences, and [is] practically necessary for something like a preaching conference (complementarianism)”? Does it “so affect our understanding of God’s glory and grace that [it] must be made explicit”? I don’t see how it fits in any of those areas. So why include a statement in a confession designed to unite believers around the gospel that excludes a large number of believers who fully embrace the gospel?
We are pleased to announce that Josh Peglow of Silverdale, WA is the winner of our recent book giveaway. The books will go in the mail today. Thanks to all who entered.
Last week, Pope Francis made headlines by announcing in his weekly address that we will be able to see our pets in heaven. Specifically, he pontificated, “Paradise is open to all of God’s creatures.” Since this statement is sure to set the theological world abuzz, I thought I would use this week’s blog post to help delineate some key theological implications of this statement:
(1) Since Paradise is only “open to” all of God’s creatures, it is clear that the Pope is not advocating Pet Universalism, but something on the order of Hypothetical Pet Universalism or possibly Pet Amyraldism. It seems unlikely, however, based on the Pope’s track record, that he affirms the dread doctrine of Limited Pet Atonement.
(2) As such, we must conclude that some pets do not meet the criteria for regeneration. Based on other Roman Catholic materials, it seems fairly clear that baptism is a critical piece of the puzzle. I am convinced that it is theologically necessary to conclude that while most dogs will go to heaven, cats universally go to Purgatory and thence to hell. This is because all cats refuse to submit to baptism—especially baptism by immersion. In my former life as a catvangelist, I found this to be consistently true.
(3) The foregoing suggests that cats have been “given over” to a reprobate mind (Rom 1:24). Paul’s words later in the chapter are particularly instructive: while dogs do sin, they always look guilty afterward and seek forgiveness. Cats, on the other hand, “knowing that those who do unrighteous deeds deserve death, not only continue to do these very things, but also approve of those who practice them.” Cats definitively prove the doctrine of total depravity.
I could go on, but I thought the blogosphere would be the perfect place to collect additional materials toward a theology of pets. When you’re all done, I will collect all of your responses and forward them to the Vatican.
Nothing serious, please—any responses that are not at least a little bit funny will be snagged and summarily deleted by our blog enforcer.
In the spirit of the season, we’ll be giving away a couple of books to one of our readers very soon. Here are the books:
Christians in an Age of Wealth by Craig Blomberg
Workbook in Romans by Kenneth Berding
If you’d like to be entered in the drawing, just leave a comment below mentioning one book you’ve read this year. The entry period will end at 5 pm EST, Tuesday, December 16, 2014. We’re planning to announce the winner sometime on Wednesday.
In the latest issue of the Michigan Daily, the campus newspaper of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Claire Bryan runs an intriguing article, “Born to Believe?” The basic thrust of the article is that part of the human tendency toward “being religious” stems from the presence of a particular gene in our DNA sequence, viz., VMAT2. Those who have this gene have an elevated sense of “self-transcendence,” or “the interest people have in searching for something greater in this world, beyond their own personal experience,” usually reflected in a “desire for things like compassion, art, creativity, expression, spirituality.”
The author does not deny the influence of cultural background in individual expressions of religion, but affirms that “accepting this environmentally molded spirituality that is taught to you may be affected by the way you were born and the genes you have.” She concludes, “‘Being religious’ may not be in my control entirely. It may be the biological science of my body and beyond some of my own means.”
Of course the person who wrote this little article is theologically challenged (retarded is the word that came immediately to mind, but that word is not political expedient any more). All people, being endowed by their Creator with the imago dei, are born with lively and true religious impulses that we suppress or exchange for lies due to sin (Rom 1:18ff). So Ms. Bryan is flat-out wrong in her assessment.
But what I found particularly intriguing in this article is how it surfaces the great tension of the Aristotelian worldview held by many in the university community. For these, nothing is attributed to chance, much less to God, because everything about me is the product of biological, physical, chemical, and genetic patterns in combination. In such a system, no one can be culpable for who he is, because he can’t help it! And so we must allow left-handed people to be left-handed, allow vegans to be vegans, and allow homosexuals to be homosexuals. To suggest that any of these recessive traits should be “corrected” is the height of arrogance and intolerance: a denial of the liberty of authenticity. “People must be allowed to be themselves,” is the mantra of our day.
But no one can live with the implications of such a worldview. It might work on a limited scale, but surely not on a universal one. We don’t, for instance, appeal to genetic predispositions in allowing murderers to kill, pedophiles to abuse, or kleptomaniacs to steal; instead, we build correctional facilities to remediate such people. Nor do we shrug our shoulders upon meeting alcoholics, chain smokers, and compulsive gamblers and say, “Oh well, it can’t be helped. That’s just the way they are!” Instead, we offer means of correcting destructive behaviors and changing the way people are. And, ironically, it is unlikely that this university newspaper, which has ostensibly discovered that religious people can’t help being religious, will dissuade its own professors from attempting to “correct” the religion of their religious students or even attempting to disabuse them of their religious proclivities entirely.
No worldview save the Christian worldview is demonstrably free of such inconsistencies. And so let us promote it enthusiastically.
I heard recently of a church seeking a new pastor. Some said, “We want a pastor whose preaching is practical and encouraging.” Others said, “We need a doctrinal, expositional ministry.” Still others prefer preaching heavy on confrontation. It is easy to identify what some people want in the preaching they hear (sometimes they will tell you!), but what, exactly, do they need? Pastors, we should strive as preachers to provide preaching that truly meets peoples needs.
Now, I am not talking about felt needs, as in the “give them what they feel they need and they will come,” seeker-driven church model. Neither am I talking about the need of the moment preaching that identifies cultural trends and is constantly addressing the latest headline. Nor, just what we think they need, based on our perceptions or personalities. I am talking about seeing the needs God has designed the Scripture to meet and then providing preaching that, in a balanced way, reflects that design. God has given us a simple pattern to follow in Scripture’s stated purpose that can guide us in providing preaching that meets people’s needs.
2 Timothy 3:16-17, a very familiar passage, says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (NASB). The Bible is God’s revealed means for the growth of lives into maturity, and preaching this Word, according to the purposes for which it has been given, will produce mature people. We know that in all of Scripture we find passages that are particularly good for teaching doctrine, or for correcting wrong thinking or behaving, or encouraging practical growth in sanctification. However, sometimes we fail to realize as well that in every part of Scripture, there is truth to be taught, reproof to be given, correction to be made, and practical training to be provided.
When you approach your study of the Word for preaching, ask yourself questions about the text that reflect these purposes, and then preach them all in the sermon. This will help provide a well-balanced preaching and teaching ministry that meets the needs of the people God has given you to shepherd. It will also help us avoid the tendency to over-emphasize certain types of preaching based on our personalities and our or others’ preferences.
This may seem too simple and too obvious to qualify as a “homiletical model.” Maybe so, but are you willing to try it? Here are some steps for application. First, review your notes before preaching and mark the categories in the margins or headings of your notes. Understand the text drives the sermon, so some texts will be more heavily weighted in one area or the other. Each text will have its “big idea,” but all of the people’s needs can be met from each text as well. Second, ask several trusted members (including your wife and children) to take notes on your sermons for a month—specifically looking for the four general purposes—teaching (truth to be believed), reproof (confrontation of wrong belief or behavior), correction (truth that specifically corrects what is reproved and edifies), and instruction in righteousness (practical application in righteous living). See how balanced your preaching is between these categories in the minds of your hearers, and be willing to make adjustments. Finally, talk to people about your sermons. Ask them what they learned and how they think that should make a difference in their lives.
God has told us what people need, so let’s provide preaching that meets people’s needs!
When one thinks of the primary sins in our world today, we tend to think big, pointing to sins like murder, abuse, sexual sins, and possibly blasphemy or idolatry. Very few of us, I think, would leap up to suggest that the sin of ingratitude should supplant these vices as more primary.
The Apostle Paul, however, is deeply concerned about the sin of ingratitude. Not only does it earn a spot on one of Paul’s famous “sin lists” (2 Tim 3:2), but it also stands in Romans 1:21 as the capital crime in the downward spiral of depravity that has marked the human condition from its inception: “They did not give thanks to him.”
We should not be surprised by this. Since the greatest commandment is to love God supremely (Matt 22:37–38), then the foremost sin is failing to observe the great commandment and preferring instead gods of our own choosing (so Rom 1:21ff). Before man can construct alternative gods and alternative ethical systems, he must first deconstruct the God that is unavoidably plain to him; before the floodgates of vice can open, Paul says, one must first be guilty of the more primary sin of ingratitude. It is for this reason that ingratitude takes its ignoble place in Scripture as the dark vestibule not only to idolatry but to all that is evil.
And so it is eminently appropriate that we set aside a day for thanksgiving each November. It is a day set aside to curb vice by fulfilling the first and greatest commandment. Ebenezer Scrooge may have learned how to “keep Christmas well” (whatever Dickens may have meant by that), but perhaps the more primary virtue is learning to keep Thanksgiving well.
Churches that are concerned for artistic excellence in worship will often employ unregenerate musicians to “lead in worship.” Though these individuals do not know God, as skilled musicians they are able to offer fine presentations in the worship service. Is this a biblical practice? If churches are concerned about offering fine presentations in their worship service, will they be forced to enlist unregenerate people to lead in worship? The answer to this question can be a resounding “no.” But if we are to offer that “no,” we must understand what we mean by “artistic excellence” and what we mean by “leading worship.”
Worship cannot be offered by those who do not know God through Jesus Christ. Thus, it would be impossible to have an unregenerate person leading in worship, since leading would include participating in worship—something an unregenerate person cannot do. Thus, the issue would be whether or not a church’s emphasis on “artistic excellence” would risk enlisting the unregenerate to utilize their skill in facilitating the worship of the regenerate.
This is where 1 Corinthians 12 provides an important reminder. Paul points out that God has carefully designed the body so that each member is integral for the health of the body. No member can claim that they do not need the body nor that the body does not need them. In fact, God has given spiritual gifts to the church in order to edify the body, to unify the body, and to manifest the reality of God’s presence in the world.
These three purposes help shed some light on the differences between a natural ability and a spiritual gift and on when someone gets his/her spiritual gifts. A spiritual gift is different from a natural ability because it displays the Spirit, but also because it is designed for the edification of the Church. There is a difference between a person who utilizes teaching in a business or school and someone who utilizes it in the church. The first is a “natural” ability (still given by God), while the second would be a spiritual gift.
Since a spiritual gift is a manifestation of the Spirit, it cannot simply be something someone had prior to salvation. Spiritual gifts are either bestowed at or energized at conversion—when one receives the Spirit. It may be that a natural ability, which is still a gift from God but not a spiritual gift, is energized by the Spirit at conversion for the good of the church. For example, a person may have been a compassionate person before he/she was saved, but at salvation the Holy Spirit takes that compassion and energizes it to minister to others in the church. It may also be that at conversion or sometime thereafter a new gift is given to a person since verses 7 and 11 state that the Spirit gives them as He wills. Thus it is possible that He could choose to add or subtract spiritual gifts when He thinks it will better manifest Himself and edify and unify the church.
I’m inclined to think artistic ability could be a spiritual gift (since there is no definitive list of gifts in the New Testament). But that would mean that either a person gains artistic ability at conversion or, more likely, that artistic ability is now energized for the good of the church. An unregenerate person would not possess that spiritual gift and would not, then, be able to edify and unify the church in its worship. So a church should not enlist the unregenerate in the hopes of accomplishing what only the regenerate can do.
What should a church do if it does not have people with artistic ability to lead in worship? Again, Paul points out that God is in charge of distributing the gifts (v. 11). God has ensured that each church has within itself what it needs to glorify God at that time, which is why it would be best to think of “artistic excellence” along these lines—doing the best with the resources (talent, time, money) that you have. Thus, what artistic excellence means will be different for each church, but each church should be striving for it with the resources God has given.
In his commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, John Calvin discusses Jesus’ statement that the “Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matt 6:8). Calvin addresses the question of why believers should pray if God already knows what we need. He suggests the following as at least a partial answer:
Believers do not pray, with the view of informing God about things unknown to him, or of exciting him to do his duty, or of urging him as though he were reluctant. On the contrary, they pray, in order that they may arouse themselves to seek him, that they may exercise their faith in meditating on his promises, that they may relieve themselves from their anxieties by pouring them into his bosom; in a word, that they may declare that from Him alone they hope and expect, both for themselves and for others, all good things (Calvin, commentary on Matt 6:8).
When praying, believers never tell God something he doesn’t already know. But God has chosen to use prayer as a means by which God’s people express their dependence upon their Father who knows all things and can actually do something about the most puzzling problems of life.
Students sometimes ask me the difference between the hermeneutics employed by Covenant, New Covenant, Progressive Dispensational, and Traditional Dispensational theologian/exegetes. Perhaps the easiest way to answer is to offer an example of one of the most heavily disputed topics of Scripture, viz., the Abrahamic Covenant. After detailing four basic approaches to these covenant promises, I will offer three key informing OT texts, each selected and highlighted, but otherwise not annotated, to emphasize the reasons why I hold to the last hermeneutical approach:
A supersessionist hermeneutic says that the land promise to Abraham’s natural seed is a recapitulation of the Covenant of Grace that will be fulfilled when a group of people who are not Abraham’s natural seed receive something other than the land promised.
A typological hermeneutic says that the land promise to Abraham’s natural seed is a genuine but temporary historical reality that falls away in disinterest after God discloses a new, culminating, and much greater inheritance (a new heaven and new earth) for the greater, spiritual seed of Abraham.
A complementary hermeneutic says that the land promise to Abraham’s natural seed will be fulfilled exactly as promised to ethnic Israelites in the Millennium/Eternal State, but that a share of this reward will also accrue to Abraham’s spiritual seed, who become new and equal partners of an expanded Abrahamic promise.
A literal hermeneutic says that the land promise to Abraham’s natural seed will be fulfilled exactly as promised to ethnic Israelites in the Millennium/Eternal State, and that all the peoples of the earth are afforded substantial subsidiary blessings through the obedience of faith.
Genesis 12:1–3: The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
Genesis 13:15–17: The LORD said to Abram, “Lift up your eyes from where you are and look north and south, east and west. All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”
Genesis 15:2–6: Abram said, “O Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.” Then the word of the LORD came to him: “This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir.” He took him outside and said, “Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
Obviously much more can be said, but it’s a blog post, not a book. I trust that this can serve as a faithful summary and preliminary defense.
Most of us are familiar with how 2 Cor 5:7 reads in the KJV, “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” If you do a Google search on this verse, you will find explanations of what this means, such as, “the Bible challenges us to ‘walk by faith, not by sight,’” or you are to “walk by faith, not by sight,’” or you ought to “walk by faith, not by sight.’” You have probably heard the same kind of thing in sermons. Just to clarify, the word walk in this verse is, of course, used in the metaphorical sense of “live”; so the NIV, “For we live by faith, not by sight.” Thus, Paul’s words are taken to be an exhortation or command to “live by faith.” According to this view, we are challenged to rise above our normal Christian experience, and rather than operating from a worldly perspective (“living by sight”), we should conduct our lives and make our decisions based upon our faith and trust in the God and his Word. There is nothing wrong with this idea in and of itself. It is theologically accurate to say and to insist that the Christian must always seek to live by faith and trust in God and his promises, and not be motivated by only what he or she can see and hear in their present circumstances.
The problem is: this is not what the text says, nor what it means. Paul is not commanding the Corinthians to “live by faith”; he is making a statement: the Corinthians are living by faith.
Our text is also popular in the Word of Faith movement, which I won’t take time to describe at this point. Another popular TV preacher in that movement, Frederick Price, closes every sermon by citing 2 Cor 5:7.
But in all these instances, this text has been stripped of its context and a new meaning assigned to it. Paul is not saying that we “should live by faith” or that we “ought to live by faith.” No, he directly and unequivocally says that we, all believers, do, in fact, live by faith. But why does Paul make this statement?
Verse 7 is rightly understood to be a parenthesis in the thought of vv. 6-8.
(6) Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. (7) For we live by faith, not by sight. (8) We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
Let us go back for a moment to the beginning of chapter 5 in order to get the broader context. Paul begins in v. 1 by explaining what happens to a believer who dies, “if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed.” Fortunately, Paul says, we can look forward to a resurrection body, “a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.” But until then “we groan” (v. 2), knowing that our present bodies are subject to ailments, injury, and disability. And since we know that “as long as we are at home in the body we are away [in a spatial sense] from the Lord” (v. 6), we “would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (v. 8). All believers here on earth are presently “away from the Lord” in the sense Paul means in v. 6.
But Paul’s reasoning in vv. 6 and 8 could leave the wrong impression. That’s why he interrupts v. 6 with 7 before he completes his thought in v. 8. The “for” that begins v. 7 is what the standard Greek dictionary (BDAG) calls a “marker of clarification.” One could easily take Paul’s statement in v. 6 to mean that since believers are presently “away from the Lord,” they enjoy no fellowship with him at all. But, of course, that is absolutely false, for, you see, Paul says (v. 7), “we presently live in the realm of faith ["by faith"], not in the realm of sight.” Paul is contrasting actually seeing the Lord (“at home with the Lord”) with our present experience of believing in the Lord without seeing him (“away from the Lord”). For now believers “live in the realm of faith,” trusting in the Lord whom they have not seen, but one day they will “live in the realm of sight.” This is same sort of contrast we see in John 20:29 and 1 Pet 1:8.
So although we are presently “away from the Lord,” this does not mean that we are cutoff from fellowship with the Lord. But for now we live “in the realm of faith,” which is no hindrance to communion with our Savior, though truly we look forward to the day when we will live “by sight.” Then, as the hymn writer puts it, our “faith shall be sight.”
[This entry was originally posted on Feb 1, 2012]
In honor of Reformation Day, here are a few resources you might want to check out. Ligonier Ministries has made a number of Reformation-related e-books and audio/video resources available to download for free (until 11:59 pm, Oct 31, 2014).
Over on Amazon, several books by Martin Luther are currently free in electronic format.
Works of Martin Luther, vol. 1 (contains his 95 Theses)
Bondage of the Will (abridged ed.)
With the election hard upon us, it is a good time to be reminded that nothing we do can rightly be divorced from the sufficient governance of Christian Scripture. No pockets of neutrality exist in any sphere of life, including our politics. While the battery of issues facing voters today is exceedingly complex, one option always proves better than the rest—and it is safe to say that were the incarnate God to join us in the polling booth next week, he would be able, in his perfect wisdom, to discern in every case the best possible option in view of all the facts available.
Of course, we possess neither all the facts nor the wisdom necessary to perfectly harmonize and synthesize those facts. As a result, we Christians tend to vote provincially, and we do not all vote the same. This does not mean (necessarily) that one voting bloc is sinning and the other is not. Still, moral ought does exist in politics: there are some choices that are better than others, and some choices that are flat out wrong.
Most Christians will admit this, conceding that the Bible should inform our voting decisions at some level. We can’t vote for a platform of pure evil. But platforms of pure evil are rare: all candidates exhibit at least some common grace, and a goodly percentage of them are sincere in pursuing what is, at least in their best opinion, most advantageous to their jurisdiction or to the country.
In their various stewardships of common grace, however, politicians tend to privilege certain virtues over others, and we voters do the same. Some of us privilege national security, others economic stability, others moral values, job security and a safe workplace, education, freedom, protecting the environment, assisting the disenfranchised (whether ethnically, generationally, medically, or financially), or the advance of the Gospel. All of these are arguably good things, and if asked to do so, we could all arrange them in an pecking order ranging from the issues most important to me to the issues least important to me.
In Christian ethics, however, the unaided self is never awarded such broad liberties. Instead, the Scriptures are declared to be the Norma Normans non Normata, sufficient for every expression of godliness. Obviously, the Scriptures do not give us the names of the best candidates, but they do give us more guidance than a list of “good stuff that you can prioritize however you want.” Specifically, the Scriptures offer us a short list of duties of government commended in Scripture as duties of government that take precedence over all other “good things” that our government might accomplish. These primary duties include…
(1) The Protection of Citizens from Violent Death. This is the sole occasioning concern that led to God’s original establishment of human government (Gen 9:6), and it has been a primary reason for the formation of nearly every human government since. And lest there be concern that this purpose has been usurped, we see Paul revisiting this theme, asserting that the emblem of human government is the “sword” of protection/justice leveled against “wrongdoers” (Rom 13:4). The first concern of any government is to protect its citizens from violence. Peter concurs (1 Pet 2:14).
(2) The Establishment of an Environment in Which the Gospel Can Advance. In his first letter to Timothy, Paul urges believers to pray that their governors would create an environment where believers may pursue holiness and godliness without harassment (2:2); an environment conducive to the announcement and embrace of the gospel (v. 4). Note that Paul does not expect the state to establish or even to favor the Christian religion, but he expresses hope for a climate in which the Gospel is able to flourish without restriction. This being Paul’s primary hope and only recorded prayer for human government, it follows that this is a primary duty of human government.
(3) Finally, the Promotion of Moral Good. This theme, found in both Paul and Peter’s calls for governors to commend those who do good (Rom 13:3–4; 1 Pet 2:14–15), is the broadest of God’s prescribed purposes for government. The specific “good” is not given, but the word group used here (ἀγαθός) favors the nuance of beneficence over the nuance of righteousness. As such, government is to praise and encourage, by its policies, the private practice of charity and benevolence, and thereby serve as a societal “minister of good.”
This is by no means an exhaustive list of things that human government may legitimately do; indeed, the Bible seems to allow the government to assume rather broad powers. But by privileging these three concerns, the Scriptures offer specific guidance to Christian voters today about what should be their principal voting concerns.
Resource materials from 2014 Mid-America Conference on Preaching, “Striving Together for the Faith of the Gospel,” are now available for free download. Included are audio recordings (mp3) from all general sessions and workshops, as well as printed notes (pdf) from the workshops.
Last year we were jolted when the Supreme Court struck down one of the central pillars of the “Defense of Marriage Act,” effectively releasing whatever brake was still restraining same-sex marriage. This week we moved one step closer to trouble for our churches when a lawsuit was leveraged against a pair of Idaho ministers who operate a wedding chapel and refused to accommodate a same-sex couple.
No, the situation does not involve a church (it’s a commercial wedding chapel) or pastors (it’s a mom and pop ministerial team peddling their wares); still, the threat to our churches just slid closer. Pastor, are you ready? And is your church ready? If not, consider the following:
- If you rent out your church buildings commercially to marrying couples outside your membership (i.e., publicly), recognize that the time bomb is already ticking. It’s just a matter of time before your church is faced with a compromising situation—which is to say, assuming you don’t bend under pressure, a potentially litigious situation. My advice? Get out of the wedding chapel business entirely. This policy may well put a dent in your church’s budget and/or damage a relationship or two, but it will also close a door that potentially leads to catastrophic litigation.
- No matter what you do decide, document your policies carefully to avoid problems and implement them consistently. Is the building available for the marriage of members only? Document it. For a church member and a non-member of like faith and practice? Document it. For other believers who submit to marriage counseling and to specific protocols? Document it. And having prepared your documents, do not make exceptions to them, even when your most influential deacon brings his gushing niece by to rave over the flowing lines of your cute little sanctuary. The enemies of the Gospel are actively looking for churches without governing policies, and also for churches that inconsistently implement their governing policies. Take the time to shore up this vulnerability.
- Finally, Pastor, if you have been licensed by the state to perform weddings, realize that you are in some sense an officer of the state. With that position come privileges and advantages for both you and your church. Make preparations now for the possibility that you may lose those privileges and advantages if you and/or your church refuse to do all that the state asks of you.
I would like to think that the distant drums are a false alarm. And I hope that you don’t hear me announcing that all churches everywhere need to PANIC! But we’d be foolish not to prepare for the possibility of such problems as the nation continues to stumble and “slouch toward Gomorrah.”
In the midst of Paul’s argument for the bodily resurrection of believers, he offers a proverb: “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’” (1 Cor 15:33). At first it seems a bit out of place—why would Paul be concerned about who the Corinthians are hanging around? Isn’t his focus on what they believe? Paul’s point is that your associations can influence what you believe, and what you believe influences your behavior. That’s one of the reasons why God instructs his believers to practice separation. A failure to separate from false teachers can lead believers to be corrupted by that false teaching—even if they currently have their doctrine correct.
In a sermon on this passage, Alistair Begg gives his pastoral exhortation to believers who do not separate from false churches, urging them to apply this verse.
If you hang around with these people who say there is no resurrection of the dead, although you think there is, you’ll start to believe just as they do. And when you start to believe as they do, then you will start to behave as they behave. And he said “I want you to understand it, bad company corrupts good character.”
Incidentally and in passing there is a word here I believe that had never struck me in studying this passage before. But there is a word here for these solid Christians who determine that they are going to stay in liberal churches where the minister does not believe the Bible and does not teach the Bible. And they’re staying there, they say, because they’re going to turn it around. I admire their zeal. I call in question their strategy. Why? Because of this statement: “Bad company corrupts good character.” You cannot sit and listen to nonsense week after week after week without imbibing a significant amount of that nonsense. And over twenty years of observation, I have yet to see a group turn a church around but I have seen many within those groups lose their flame, lose their passion, lose their light, lose their edge. Cause they wouldn’t apply the proverb clearly. It is the responsibility of every straight-shooting Christian to sit consistently under the effective, useful, clarifying, relevant preaching of the Word of God (33:26-34:49 of If There Is No Resurrection).
The Mid-American Conference begins this Thursday, October 16, at the Inter-City Baptist Church, 4700 Allen Road, Allen Park, MI. The theme is “Striving Together for the Faith of the Gospel.” The speakers are:
- David Doran, Pastor, Inter-City Baptist Church & President, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
- Jim Newcomer, Associate Pastor, Colonial Baptist Church, Virginia Beach, VA
- Chris Anderson, Pastor, Killian Hill Baptist Church, Lilburn, GA
- Brian Fuller, Pastor, Trinity Baptist Church, Concord, NH
- Lukus Counterman, Gospel Grace Church, Salt Lake City, UT
- Ken Endean, President, International Baptist College, Chandler, AZ
- Mark Brock, Pastor, Crossway Baptist Church, Bakersfield, CA
- Mark Snoeberger, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
- John Aloisi, Assistant Professor of Historical Theology, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
- Ben Edwards, Executive Pastor, Inter-City Baptist Church & Instructor in Pastoral Theology, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
- David Doran, Jr., Pastoral Assistant for Outreach, Inter-City Baptist Church
- Exalting Christ in Everything at All Time (Philippians 1:18-30)
- A Gospel Disregard (2 Corinthians 5:16-17)
- Grace Works (Ephesians 4:1-6)
- Fellow Workers for the Truth (3 John)
- Properly Set Apart for the Gospel (Acts 13:1-3)
- Cultivating Mission-Minded Unity in the Congregration
- Cooperation Without Compromise?
- 2:42 Life Groups: An Idea for Small-Group Discipleship
- Multi-Ethnicity in the Local Church
- Guarding Moral Integrity
- Building a Culture of Evangelism
- In the Word Together: One to One Bible Reading
- Factors for Building a Cohesive Church from 1 Corinthians 12-14
- The Gospel and Sanctification
- Building Unity Around Historic Confessions
- Worldview Evangelism: Understanding and Engaging Underlying Beliefs
For more info see here.
A few weeks ago, Mark Snoeberger had a post arguing that in the matter of salvation, especially the issue of regeneration, there are only two possible options, which he labeled as Calvinism and Arminianism. As might be expected, there was some push back to the idea of this two-option-only proposal. Mark also alluded to an ongoing series of blog posts on this issue titled “Why I’m Not a Calvinist…or an Arminian,” which is currently up to five parts. I would like to try and reinforce the point that Mark was making.
The real issue comes down to the question of who saves us. Does God save us, or do we, with some help from God, save ourselves? That’s rather stark, so let me expand upon that. What I mean, and what I’m trying to get at, is who is the ultimate decider in the matter of our salvation? Is God the one who ultimately decides if I end up in heaven or hell, or am I the one who ultimately decides if I end up in heaven or hell? Quickly, someone will say that both God and I decide. There is truth there, but there can be only one ultimate decider, one person who makes the final determination.
This binary choice I am insisting on is nicely captured in the U of the acronym TULIP, where the U stands for unconditional election. Grudem says, “The reason for election is simply God’s sovereign choice…. God chose us simply because he decided to bestow his love upon us. It was not because of any foreseen faith or foreseen merit in us” (Systematic Theology, 679). Calvinists of all persuasions believe in unconditional election: “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world” (Eph 1:4). God’s choosing or election of the individual to salvation is not conditioned on anything within the individual himself—thus unconditional.
The other, and the only other possibility, is conditional election, which says God’s election is conditioned on something within the individual. God is said to elect those to salvation whom he foresees will have faith in Christ. This is the viewpoint of Arminianism.
In Calvinism faith is the result of election; in Arminianism election is the result of faith. All evangelicals, whether Calvinist or Arminian, believe in salvation by grace. All agree that we are sinners and because of depravity need God’s grace: efficacious grace in the case of the Calvinist, or prevenient grace in the case of the Arminian. In Arminianism prevenient grace is given to all people, or at least to all who hear the gospel, and enables them to be saved by cooperating with God’s grace (synergism), but this prevenient grace may be rejected. Again, there are only two choices. Either God’s grace is efficacious and ultimately overcomes the individual’s depravity and brings him to faith in Christ (Calvinism), or God’s grace is just prevenient, that is, it is sufficient to overcome depravity, but the individual may reject this grace (Arminianism).
This binary choice is untenable, unthinkable for many. There must be another way, a third position (tertium quid), particularly a middle way (via media) between these two harsh extremes. But there is none. In Calvinism God ultimately chooses (unconditional election) and gives grace (efficacious) to bring the sinner to Christ. The sinner makes a real, genuine choice for Christ, but only because of God’s prior choice. God is the ultimate decider. In Arminianism the sinner cooperates with grace (prevenient) and chooses God (conditional election). In Arminianism God is not the ultimate decider. If the sinner chooses God, God must choose to save the sinner, but if sinner rejects God, God cannot choose to save the sinner. God simply ratifies whatever decision the sinner makes. God is not deciding anything. The sinner is the ultimate decider.
Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that the sinner chooses Christ. The sinner is not coerced into a decision for Christ. The major difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is what ultimately and finally causes a depraved sinner to choose Christ. Imagine Joe and Jack, identical twins, attend church together and sit together in the same pew week after week listening to the gospel being proclaimed. Maybe their hearing of the gospel goes on for many years. But Joe eventually responds to the message, receives Christ, dies, and goes to heaven. Jack rejects the message, never receives Christ, dies, and goes to hell. Why does Joe go to heaven and Jack to hell? What is different about these two similar, in many ways identical, men, who both heard the gospel over many years? Why does Joe say “Yes” and Jack say “No”? What rational person wants to go to hell?
One answer is that God chose Joe (unconditional election) and gave him grace (efficacious) that caused him to believe. He owes his salvation completely to God (monergism). Joe cannot boast in his salvation (1 Cor 1:28–29; Eph 2:8–9). This is Calvinism.
The other, and only other possible, answer is that God chose Joe because Joe chose God (conditional election). God looked down the corridors of time and saw that Joe would one day believe the gospel, so he elected Joe. But actually God did not make any independent choice. If Joe chooses God, God must choose Joe, but if Joe rejects God, God cannot choose Joe. God simply ratifies whatever choice Joe makes. Joe has the same grace (prevenient) necessary to believe the gospel as his brother Jack. According to this view, everyone who hears the gospel has the prevenient grace necessary to believe the gospel. But if that is so, how do we explain why Joe accepted the gospel and Jack rejected it? The only answer is that there is something in Joe, something superior in Joe (intelligence, merit, goodness—something) that caused him to believe—something that Joe had but Jack lacked. This difference between Joe and Jack is not due to God. God does exactly the same thing for both Joe and Jack. They had the same opportunity, the same grace (prevenient). The only conclusion that can be drawn is that in some way Joe must be better than Jack. Joe did not do it all, or most of it, but he deserves some credit. This is Arminianism.
One may not like the labels Calvinism and Arminianism and can rail against them all day long. But they historically represent the two evangelical options for the salvation of sinners. Either God is the ultimate decider: He gets all glory. Or the sinner is the ultimate decider: he deserves to share in that glory.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Even though in conditional election God does not really elect anyone—he simply ratifies the sinner’s decision—some Arminians have rejected conditional election since for them any sense of God choosing individuals for salvation is too repugnant and contrary to their concept of man’s free will, which is the animating principle behind Arminianism. They promote what they call corporate election, which insists that God does not choose individuals, but the church. But as Arminian Brian Abasciano admits: “Nevertheless, corporate election necessarily entails a type of individual election because of the inextricable connection between any group and the individuals who belong.” In other words, corporate election is a form of conditional election since membership in the elect church is conditioned upon the individual’s faith.
Roger Olson, who is probably the most prominent Arminian theologian in America, has said: “Isn’t there a ‘middle ground’ between Calvinism and Arminianism? A: No, there isn’t, not that is logically coherent. In fact, Arminianism is the middle ground between Calvinism and ‘semi-Pelagianism,’ which is the heresy (so declared by the Second Synod of Orange in 529 and all the Reformers agreed) that sinners are capable of exercising a good will toward God unassisted by God’s grace” (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/07/arminianism-faq-1-everything-you-always-wanted-to-know).
Last month a new book was released titled A Conservative Christian Declaration. Co-authored by six men (Kevin Bauder, Scott Aniol, David de Bruyn, Mike Riley, Ryan Martin, and Jason Parker) this fairly short volume (92 pp.) is intended to articulate “a fully orbed conservative Christianity that includes both doctrine and practice” (6).
Although six men are listed on the book’s cover, Scott Aniol appears to be the guiding force behind the book. In the introduction, he writes, “in July 2013 I gathered together a group of pastors and ministry educators to discuss the future of conservative Christianity” (6). This book was written as a result of that meeting.
After the book’s introduction and preamble follows a list of fifteen “Articles of Affirmation and Denial.” The bulk of the book is then comprised of short explanations of these articles. Here are the topics covered in the articles:
Article 1: On the Gospel
Article 2: On the Whole Counsel of God
Article 3: On Transcendentals
Article 4: On Ordinate Affections
Article 5: On the Appetites
Article 6: On Beauty
Article 7: On Scripture Regulated Worship
Article 8: On Works of the Imagination
Article 9: On Harmony and Variety in Ordinate Expression
Article 10: On Meaning
Article 11: On Popular Culture
Article 12: On the Cultivation of Christian Tradition
Article 13: On Today’s Congregational Music
Article 14: On Our Children
Article 15: On Local Churches and the Sovereignty of God
As these headings suggest, the writers did not intend for this declaration to provide a complete statement of basic Christian doctrine. They explain, “This statement does not fully articulate the fundamentals of the Christian faith. We look to the traditional creeds and confessions for that” (7). Assuming the fundamental doctrines of orthodox Christianity, this declaration focuses on a number of issues that the writers believe need to be reaffirmed in our current cultural context. In the book’s preamble the authors say,
Historically, Christians have committed themselves to perpetuating biblical Christianity by pursuing absolute truth, goodness, and beauty. These transcendent realities, which are grounded in the character of God, are expressed through his works and his Word. In every age, Christians have determined to believe God’s truth, live out God’s goodness, and love God’s beauty, preserving these transcendentals by nurturing expressions, forms, and institutions capable of carrying their weight.
More recently, many Christians have abandoned their commitment to these ideals and are therefore failing, in one respect or another, to pursue fully orbed biblical Christianity. The result is a shrunken creed, a waning piety, and a worship that has become irreverent and trivial. We object to this religious reductionism and desire to reclaim the entire heritage of Christian doctrine, obedience, and adoration (10).
The fifteen articles of this declaration are intended as a partial remedy to this decline. The text of several historic creeds as well as a list of significant confessions of faith are included in the five appendixes which round out the book.
You may or may not agree with everything in the book, but it’s worth checking out. For the time being, it looks like the only place you can purchase a copy is through Amazon.
Among the many promises of John 14–17 are several that anticipate heightened activity by the Holy Spirit in the apostolic era. These have long been a source of both comfort and confusion to NT believers. Assurances that the Spirit would assume new functions of “bringing to remembrance” Christ’s words (14:25–26) and empowering the testimony of the disciples (15:26–27) gave confidence to the early church that Christ had not abandoned his people when he ascended to be with the Father. But they also raise questions about the nature of the Spirit’s work. Are these promises offered generally to all NT believers? And if so, were OT saints summarily denied these benefits as they struggled to bear witness to the superiority of Yahweh? IOW, can we expect the Spirit to do more spectacular things for Christian believers as they witness for him today than he did for earlier generations of God-worshipers?
The answer to this question is complex, and I cannot hope to give a comprehensive answer in a single blog post. But the conundrum is reduced at least in part when we correctly see at least some of the promises of John 14–17 as having a narrower scope than is often assumed. While Christ is surely using these chapters to prepare the whole Christian church generally for his departure, some of the promises he makes in this pericope have a restrictive application. Note, for instance, that some of the promises are limited to those who had been “with Christ from the beginning” (15:27) and who could be “reminded” of things that Christ had personally “spoken to them while still with them” (14:25–26). IOW, some of these promises anticipate what Larry Pettegrew has labeled an “apostolic anointing”—a special dispensation of Spirit activity to be “breathed out” on the Twelve (20:22) as they set out on their peculiar mission as foundation blocks for the brand new Christian community denominated “the Church.”
Of particular interest here are Christ’s oversight and the Spirit’s equipping of the Apostles to produce the New Testament canon. Note the following:
- As with his ministry to the writing prophets of old (Amos 3:8), some of the Spirit’s promised function is efficacious (15:26–27). The apostles spoke/wrote of necessity what were God’s own words (cf. 1 Cor 2:11–13; 2 Pet 1:19–21). Here is no promise of memory jogs made generally available for Christians at large as they testify humanly for God, but a special promise that the Apostles would testify necessarily and in errantly as authorized spokesmen for God.
- The Spirit’s work was also comprehensive in scope (the “all things” of 14:26 and 16:13). We’ve already seen from the context that the “all things” can be restricted to the words that the disciples had personally heard Christ say, but we can probably reduce it still further: They did not necessarily remember Christ’s every word (e.g., “Hi Mom” or “Hey Peter, please pass the salt”), but rather everything in that special category of “things necessary for life and godliness” (2 Pet 1:3–4) that “thoroughly equips” the believer for “every good work” (2 Tim 3:17). The promise reflects one of biblical sufficiency.
- The Spirit’s work was also derivative in nature (16:14–16). What I mean by this is that he was not offering his independent and original services to the apostles, but was carefully taking divine thoughts expressed first by the Father and thence by Christ and expressing them in spiritual words (cf. 1 Cor 2:10–13) that live on in the divinely inspired and humanly unoriginal words of Scripture (2 Pet 1:19–21).
Some believers hesitate to accept this interpretation, preferring instead the occasional spiritual memory prompts that they hope the Spirit will miraculously bestow as they witness for Christ. But the promise here is much greater than this! Here instead is Christ’s promise that he would, through his Spirit, oversee the inspiration of the NT Scriptures, offering a personal imprimatur on those words as the very Word of God containing everything necessary for life and godliness. This is indeed a grand promise for the Christian Church as it labors faithfully in the physical absence of our Lord Christ. And in this promise we have something far more scintillating than individual and existential experiences of the divine to which many modern expressions of the Christian religion have reduced. We have God’s sufficient Word transmitted, recorded, canonized, and preserved!