TMS Alumni

How To Fail As A Christian Teacher: Top 20

2010-05-04T06:57:00.000-07:00

Feel free to add your ideas to my top 20 list of how you can fail as a Christian teacher (btw, this post is modeled after Derek Brown's post, How to Waste Your Theological Education, which I highly recommend that you read).

1 Approach teaching as a job, and not a ministry.

2 Consider each student as a number, and not as a ministry opportunity.

3 Try to manipulate the students so that they will give you a good mark on your "course evaluation."

4 Don't spend any personal discipleship time with the students - you only need to teach them in class.

5 Try to confuse the students with difficult material so they will think you are really smart.

6 Have no compassion for less gifted students.

7 Do not show how your lectures glorify God or are applicable to ministry. You only need to disseminate information.

8 Don't work toward replacing yourself.

9 Try to get students out of your office as soon as possible.

10 Do not pray for your students.

11 Don't teach students the strongest arguments of their theological counterparts.

12 Teach them that your theological critics are naive and have devious motives.

13 Don't ever admit that you are wrong, and if you are asked a question that you do not know the answer to, then answer that question by responding to a question for which you do know the answer.

14 Always seek to have preference as a professor. If challenged, always be sure to say, "Do you know who I am?"

15 Make your students memorize irrelevant material. It doesn't matter if they will never use the material in ministry, or that they will easily forget it, but what matters is that you can say you tested them on that material.

16 Never make comments on your students' papers to help them become better writers, just put a grade.

17 Write for the academy, never for the Church.

18 Don't waste your time making your lectures interesting by using Keynote/Powerpoint, because your students aren't worthy to be your students if they can't simply listen to you reading your lecture.

19 Don't let your students think that their families are more important than school.

20 Don't care enough about minorities or women to correct them. Political correctness and the appearance of tolerance/openness is more important than love.

"I will not utter a word in it's defense"

2010-04-19T17:51:00.000-07:00

In the early 1900’s, Arnold Sommerfeld had trouble accepting Einstein's theory of relativity. He was skeptical.

So Einstein replied to Sommerfelds skepticism on a postcard dated February 8, 1916. Einstein wrote, “You will be convinced of the general theory of relativity as soon as you have studied it. Therefore I will not utter a word in its defense."¹

Likewise, it is not rational nor intelligent to disbelieve something you have never actually read. So if you have trouble believing the Bible to be God’s Word, all I ask is that you find out for yourself by reading it.

Endnote

Antonina Vallentin, The Drama of Albert Einstein (Garden City: Doubleday, 1954), 70.

Current land rights of Israel?

2009-08-18T21:40:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Dr. Thomas' article, "Dispensationalism's Role in the Public Square," in the latest issue of TMSJ (Spring 2009). I found his summary of the five interpretive systems very helpful. He also shows convincingly that dispensationalism has had a significant role in the shaping of US foreign policy and social justice toward Israel. But as I finished the article, I wondered, "Does Israel currently have any divine right to the land?"

On page 38, Dr. Thomas says the land rights apply to that future generation when all Israel will be saved: "the land benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant...belonged exclusively to the generation of national Israel who at His second coming will embrace Jesus as Israel's promised Messiah."

This seems to agree with an article written several years ago by John Piper, who said "a non-covenant-keeping people does not have a divine right to hold the land of promise."

Yet Thomas' article as a whole seems to condone historic US support for Zionism and a foreign policy that has treated the Book of Genesis as a perpetual Jewish "title deed" to Palestine.

If Israel does not have any divine land rights until they collectively embrace their Messiah, should this alter our US foreign policy in any way?

Love & Discipline

2008-12-19T09:47:00.001-08:00

It was recently reported that Grace Community Church, in Jacksonville Florida, is going through quite a trial right now. Foxnews.com reported that GCC is in the midst of a church discipline matter - the story became national news as of last night (story here). We can thank the Lord for the church's resolve in this matter. This is, no doubt, a rather tangled matter - but we do pray that God's glory would be revealed through the faithful perseverance of his people...

Mike Beasley - www.thearmoury.us

What is the pastor's duty toward Prop 8?

2008-10-01T12:12:00.000-07:00

Those of us in California are well-aware of the Supreme Court ruling last May that legalized same-sex marriage.

We also know that voters will have an opportunity to overturn this decision in November by supporting Prop 8, which would define marriage as between "one man and one woman" in the state Constitution. But the opposition is highly motivated and very well-funded.

Obviously, our ultimate goal as pastors is not to get an amendment passed, but to communicate the gospel that alone has the power to change lives, rescue people from sin, and write God's law upon their hearts.

My question is this: what do you, as TMS alumni, believe is the proper duty of the pastor and the local church regarding Prop 8? Should we simply pray and encourage people to vote? Or should we take a more vocal and active strategy, mobilizing people to get involved in the campaign, donate money, distribute literature, and volunteer time? Has anyone else attended one of the pastor's satellite conference calls? If so, did you find it helpful?

I've heard of one church in Sacramento that has literally cleared its entire church calendar to focus on Prop. 8. That's probably too extreme. But on the other end of the spectrum, some pastors have basically remained silent because they don't want to get distracted from gospel ministry, or don't want to unduly offend homosexuals in their community who they are trying to reach for Christ.

In May, Al Mohler said the Supreme Court decision to remove the ban on same-sex marriage is "both revolutionary and radical. It sets the stage for a much broader reorganization of human society... The stakes now could not be higher." How should pastors engage in this high-stakes debate? I would be grateful for your thoughts.

“I Guess God Must Have Some Reason for It”

2008-07-12T06:24:00.001-07:00

How many times, during or after a trial, have you heard someone say, “God must have some reason for this”? I am convinced that we need a paradigm shift in our understanding of suffering. We should not think, “I guess God is allowing this,” but rather, “God is doing this.” This takes the trial from the area of arbitrariness to specificity. God doesn’t just allow things to happen because nothing would happen apart from Him. The next step is then to begin considering what God is doing through the trial. Cf. James 1 and God and Calamity.

Farnell, Nofer, and My Fellow Gladiators

2008-06-09T11:49:00.000-07:00

Gladiators, "We who are about to die salute you." No doubt many of you are still nursing wounds inflicted by Dr. Farnellius in the arena. What a debt we owe to our beloved professor for beating us senseless for a year and a half, and he did so with a smile on his face. If I didn't spend so much time on debka.com I might have become a real Gladiator by now:) All kidding aside, I really do feel blessed to have been baptized into the Greek world by Dr. Farnell. I am sure you do as well.

Speaking of which, I am looking to get my hands on several copies of Fred Nofer's New Testament Greek Made Functional. Does anyone now how I can order these?

As I think of Dr. Farnell a line from Lethal Weapon (TV version) comes to mind "You really are Crazy". Thankfully he is crazy for the cause of Christ!

"What we do in life echoes for eternity!"

2008-05-03T22:07:00.000-07:00

In recent weeks Dr. Sam Waldron, Professor of Theology and Dean of the Midwestern Center for Theological Studies, has been blogging about Barry Horner's excellent book, Future Israel. In his last two entries on the subject Waldron has expanded his critique to include a paper I presented at ETS in 1999.

I've finished the first of what will probably be three entries on my blog in response. The first one is here at www.narnia3.com/index.html . As always, I would be happy for any comments from anyone here who might be interested.

PS: It is also a good time to begin preparations for the annual seminary Study Trip to Israel. Dr. Mayhue is leading the trip that leaves next week. Next year I'll be handling the trip and I'd love having as many alumni who can come along. You can email me at dswanson@tms.edu for information. The 2009 trip will run (approximately) from May 12-29.

Willow Creek Arts Conference June 11-13

2008-05-01T11:54:00.000-07:00

I received the brochure for the Arts Conference at Willow Creek just a few days ago. Our elder in charge of worship suggested I read the brochure. He described how it saddened him. I normally do not give this type of mail much priority in my reading stack. However, at his suggestion, I read it. It is truly a piece of work!

Rather than cite some moving verse of Scripture as the basis for the conference, the brochure headlines with a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson. I was not surprised to see the conference headed by a woman who would be violating 1 Timothy 2:12-13. Willow Creek follows an egalitarian theology.

I was surprised, perhaps I should not have been, to see that one of the conversationalists speaking would be Gilles Ste-Croix, the Senior VP of Creative Content for Cirque du Soleil. He does not usually frequent Christian circles--much less teach. Perhaps he is a strong evangelical firmly rooted in God's word? I'd be interested to hear if he is. I doubt he is; however, I'd like to know if I'm mistaken.

Imagine my greater surprise to see that Brian MClaren was another of the conversationalists speaking. MClaren isn't sure of much these days except that almost nothing is clear in the Bible and that only he and others of his ilk are capable of clear communication (that puts him a cut above the Author of the Bible that is so unclear). But he's a talented guy! He's humble, too! Just ask him.

Some of the seminars are referred to as "conversations"--no doubt tipping the hat to emergents. Much has been made by some about Willow Creek repenting of its ways... but market share is market share and what one must do to attract customers one must continue to keep customers. Willow Creek must return to its usual path like a dog returning to its---well you get the picture. The more things change the more they remain the same at Willow Creek.

It is sad to see "the church" in decline these days. Egalitarianism aside (as the usual assault on biblical authority), I am somewhat surprised to see such a blatant disregard of 2 Cor. 6:14ff. It appears that at least one unbeliever will be teaching and exercising authority over the participants.

Reading down the brochure, the others speakers are the usual suspects one would expect to see at a Willow Creek enterprise--- with perhaps one or two surprises which may cause us to pause and consider, "what are those guys doing there?"

Can things become more secular at Willow Creek, inc? Maybe, but I hope not. In the mean time let us pray for minimal damage, theological and otherwise, to the attendees, the speakers, and their flocks.

Thank you

2008-04-17T18:32:00.000-07:00

I just want to say "thank you" to Robb Brunansky and Ray Mehringer, and to anyone else who helped organize our T4G alumni luncheon yesterday. Thanks for serving us by taking the time to think this through, to reserve the room, and to spread the word to all of us. What a sweet time of fellowship! I was quite surprised to see so many familiar faces at the conference, and encouraged to hear how God has been working in each of your lives and ministries. God has used you to "refresh my spirit" in ministry (1 Cor. 16:18).

TMS Alumni Lunch at Together for the Gospel

2008-04-10T19:41:00.001-07:00

Brothers,

A lunch has been planned and scheduled at Together for the Gospel. The details are as follows:

Greetings! This year TMS will again be hosting a lunch at Together for the Gospel (http://www.t4g.org) in Louisville, KY. The lunch will be at Buckhead Mountain Grill (707 West Riverside Drive; 812-284-2919) which is a few miles from the Kentucky Convention Center. It is actually across the Ohio river in Indiana. Anyway, the lunch will be April 16 from 12:00 - 2:30 pm. We've reserved a room for 100 people and the cost is $10.99 a person. If you will let the receptionist, Beth, know if you are planning on attending by April 11th by returning this email with a "yes" or "no" that would help us manage the numbers. Wives are welcome to join us for this lunch as well. Until I hear from you . . .

Email bcoley (at) tms (dot) edu to RSVP. Looking forward to seeing you all next week!

TMS Professor Wins Franz-Delitzsch-Award 2008 for . . .

2008-02-24T06:15:00.000-08:00

Below is an announcement from "The Master's Dividend":

Dr. Michael J. Vlach, Assistant Professor of Theology at the Master's Seminary, is the recipient of the Franz-Delitzsch-Prize 2008 for his study "The Church as a Replacement of Israel: An Analysis of Supersessionism," Ph.D.-Dissertation, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, North Carolina, 2004.

During the recent months the jury for the “Franz-Delitzsch-Prize 2008,” composed of faculty members of the Freie Theologische Akademie, Giessen, Germany, evaluated and critiqued all of the entries submitted for consideration.

On behalf of the entire TMS family, we congratulate Dr. Vlach.

For more on Dr. Vlach and his dissertation, go to www.theologicalstudies.org

Congratulations Dr. Vlach!

Together for the Gospel

2008-02-16T19:46:00.000-08:00

I'm planning on attending the 2008 Together for the Gospel conference in Louisville in April. Are any other TMS alumni planning on attending? Perhaps we could all get together one evening for dinner or something. If anyone is interested, let me know in the comments. Soli Deo Gloria!

Does Hebrews Speak of the Coming Kingdom?

2008-02-15T13:59:00.000-08:00

Hebrews is a book that Covenant theologians love to turn to in order to demonstrate that the OT was all types and shadows and thus all the promises made to national Israel concerning a coming kingdom with Messiah reigning on earth are fulfilled in the NT Church. However, the geopolitical imagery of the OT promises are transformed into strictly spiritual antitypes as fulfilled by the Church and any thought of a national future for ethnic Israel is dispensed with. So goes the strict supercessionist hermeneutic. There is no material aspect to the Davidic kingdom in Covenant theology. Thus, it may come as a surprise to some that the writer of Hebrews speaks of the Messianic kingdom in terms of material and territorial fulfillment.

In Hebrews 1, the writer seeks to set the stage for the superiority of Christ in all things. Apparently the recipients of the letter had a distorted angelogy and a diminished Christology that needed correcting. The writer highlights Jesus as the Son of God superior to angels and worshipped by them. Furthermore, he highlights the Son as also the supreme king and ruler of a divine kingdom. This is brought out in the quotation in verse 8 from Psalm 45. “But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.’” This is preceded by an often overlooked verse 6 speaking of when the Father, “again (palin) brings the first-born into the world.” The term translated “world” here is oikoumene, a rare NT term for the writer to use. Its primary meaning is, “inhabited earth.” Thus, we must conclude that this verse is speaking of the return again of the Son to this present earth as inhabited by post-parousia humanity.

Now all this might not seem significant until we turn to chapter 2. The writer picks up the comparison again between angels and the Son of God in verse 5. Notice carefully what it says, “For He did not subject to angels the world to come, concerning which we are speaking.” The “world” in this verse is once again the rare term oikoumene. These instances are the only 2 times the writer uses this term. Notice the future tense. It is the world to come. It speaks of a material inhabited earth yet in the future. The writer seeks to show that this world will not be subjected to angels but to the Son of God who has an everlasting throne and kingdom (1:8). Verses 6-8 elaborate upon this point:

“But one has testified somewhere, saying, ‘What is man, that Thou rememberest him? Or the son of man, that Thou art concerned about him? ‘Thou hast made him for a little while lower than the angels; Thou hast crowned him with glory and honor, and hast appointed him over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.’ For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.”

The NASV treats verse 8 as if it is “man” who has “all things” subjected to him. But the context of the comparison of the Son with angels in chapter 1 continues and the indications of Christ as the subject in the verses following verse 8 (i.e. verses 9-10) militate against this. The phrase “all things” is picked up again in verse 10 as clearly applying to the reign and authority of Jesus, “made for a little while lower than the angels” (vs. 9). However, my attention is drawn to verse 8: “'Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet.’ For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see all things subjected to him.” In the style of Midrash the author quotes Psa. 8:6 and then comments upon it. The force of the interpretation is that the Father has subjected “all things” to the Son. The Son has inherited a kingdom over which He rules and reigns. He reigns now from the right hand of the Father (see chapter 1, verse 13). But not all things have been subjected to Him just yet. The kingdom has been inaugurated but not quite consummated. When shall “all things” be subjected to the Son-King? I believe verse 5 makes it clear - in the inhabited earth yet to come. This nicely dovetails into Paul thoughts concerning the kingdom of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (consider especially the parallels to verses 27 and 28 where Paul himself quotes Psa. 8:6 and applies it to the reign of Christ).

The writer of Hebrews indeed shows how much of the OT was couched in types and shadows that are now done away with since the first advent of Christ, being fulfilled in Him. However, much of the OT contains straightforward prophecies and anticipations of direct fulfillments of material and territorial promises that cannot be understood any other way than through a material-spiritual kingdom that Christ also fulfills. The writer of Hebrews is aware of both kinds of fulfillment as I believe chapters 1 and 2 of the book demonstrate.

Using illustrations

2008-02-15T11:22:00.000-08:00

I recently wrote a post on sermon illustrations on my blog, The Desert Chronicle. Hope you'll stop by and give your input. I'm curious to know how seminary prepared you in this area, and what you've learned since then.

Super Bowl Thoughts

2008-02-05T09:45:00.000-08:00

I am a Chicago Bear fan through and through but I was pulling for my boy Tom Brady to win this one. I also really don't care for the Manning clan so i was not going to pull for the Giants with Eli at the healm.

Now alot could be said about Sunday's Super Bowl. I want to focus this post on what happened at the end of the game. It was a strange ending because all the coaches and players thought the game was over after Brady's last second Hail Mary was incomplete. The referees said "not so fast everyone" because their was one second on the game clock that had to be played out (lame, i know).

One sportswriter wrote, "As much as I like Belichick, his actions in the final seconds of the game were boorish at best and arrogant at worse. With two seconds left on the clock Belichick headed to the field for his handshake ... and then bolted. He didn't have the sportsmanship and decency to wait until the clock hit zero. It was yet a further display of arrogance by a franchise that has long been one of the models in sports." The Patriots of course had just gone from being the greatest team of all time (or one of the greatest) to the greatest team to NOT win the Super Bowl!

When the Indianapolis Colt's choked again in this year's playoffs no one was more classy than coach Tony Dungy. He went to midfield and spent a lot of time congratulating coach Norv Turner. Dungy lost the game with class and humility.How do you explain the difference between Dungy and say coach Belichick's reactions? Let's not make this more difficult than it needs to be...It's Jesus Christ!Coach Dungy knows that LIFE is alot bigger then football. It was a really hard loss for him, just like it was for Belichick...But i have the impression that to many unbelievers the NFL is a major idol. Winning and losing becomes everything. The game meant alot more to Bill then it did to Tony; and you know that is no knock on Dungy.

Plus coach Dungy lives his life for Jesus Christ and thus deals with trials in a way i would not expect unbelivers to match. The whole world saw this when Dungy lost his son last season.Coach Belichick is perhaps the best coach in the NFL. That doesn't mean however that he knows how to lose with class or that he will ever be the NFL sportsman of the year. If you ask Coach Dungy to explain the differences between he and Bill I wouldn't be surprised if he told you the same thing: it's Jesus Christ!

The Gospel Is the Power of God

2008-01-29T20:12:00.004-08:00

This is a post from my new blog focusing on gospel-related issues:

What is the gospel? While churches are busy trying to be relevant to our ever-changing culture, I am convinced that answering this question with clarity and conviction is the crying need of the hour. Pastors all across this nation have congregations filled with broken, needy people. Marriages are fracturing and children are rebelling. Many people are suffering financial difficulty, some on the verge of losing their homes. Countless congregants have resorted to “sanctification by medication” because they are unable to cope with the challenges of living in 21st century America. Any pastor who cares at all about his flock feels a burden to help these sheep. I fear that in our attempt to help minister to people’s needs, we have forgotten what the gospel actually is. We have shelved the antidote to the deadly disease all humanity has from conception (sin) in an attempt to make the dying feel more comfortable on their way to destruction. We need to be reminded what the gospel actually is and pray that God will make us actually believe it.

In Romans 1:16 the Apostle Paul wrote, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Many church-goers have heard or read this verse. Some have even memorized it. I’m afraid that few believe it. Often, when I’ve heard people quote this verse, they focus on the first part. They don’t want to be ashamed of the gospel. That is significant. What is most critical, though, is why Paul was not ashamed of the gospel – because it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes. Meditate on that for a minute. The gospel is the power of God. The message of Christ crucified and risen is the might of Almighty God. If we want to know the power of God that saves people from their sin and washes them from iniquity (like fractured marriages, disobedience to parents, poor stewardship of finances, chronic joylessness/depression and anxiety) and sanctifies them and safeguards their souls for final and ultimate salvation at the resurrection of the dead, we need to bleed the gospel. We need to preach the gospel. It is the power of God to free sinners from sin and give them life, real life, in Christ.

Is "Secular Humanism" Dead?

2007-12-28T10:12:00.000-08:00

Something I posted on my blog: http://www.narnia3.com/mt/Blog/Archives/000152.html

Review of The Golden Compass

2007-12-12T22:02:00.000-08:00

Here is a review of the new movie, The Golden Compass, for any who might be interested. http://www.narnia3.com/mt/Blog/Archives/000149.html

Critique and Review of Velvet Elvis

2007-10-30T16:19:00.000-07:00

Recently the staff at The Bible Church of Little Rock suggested a review the book "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell would be beneficial to our church family. We did so recently on a Sunday evening.

If anyone is interested the MP3 is available from the Sermon Downloads section of BCLR's website: http://www.bclr.org/

Blessings,

Pat Howell

We Can Do Better, Can't We?

2007-10-12T08:12:00.000-07:00

With the rise of the emergent church as a reaction (in part) to a cold, deadish, theologically correct but soulishly austere kind of evangelicalism, there is a definite diminution of the priority of Biblical theology. Not surprisingly but tragically, the reaction of many evangelical’s to this development is pendulum-like. Without question, Biblically orthodox theology IS the foundation for the church. And for the record, I embrace and teach an exegetical theology that is systematically expressed.

Moreover, my ambition is to preach expositorily recognizing that my responsibility is to be both faithful to the text and to edify my hearers. If I do not communicate the authoritative, transcendent, and profound nature of God’s truth, I have failed. If my hearers do not understand what I’m saying, if I am esoteric, arrogant, harsh, confusing, overly technical, or simply boring, and if my content comes across in any way as unrelated to their everyday lives, I have failed.

But a critical distinction must be made. Theological acuity is not an acceptable substitute for genuine, mature, Christ-likeness and the fruit of the Spirit in one’s life—especially the preacher/teacher/leader. Should not theological depth lead first to humility and then to a more profound worship experience? THEN to ministry and the proclamation and defense of the faith once delivered to the saints? Some preaching seems to suggest that the preacher is the author of truth and not God—some fail to recognize that authority in the pulpit is derived, not innate. Some preaching, rather than being borne of humility and worship appears be self-righteous. Spurgeon once observed that some preachers “preach about hell as though they are glad people are going there.” Truth is like nitro-glycerin. When properly handled, truth accomplishes its intended purpose. When mishandled, all manner of confusion and destruction result.

I am aware —in my own experience and by observation—that knowledge of the truth alone engenders pride and condescension (that means looking down on people :-). But knowledge of the Holy One cultivates humility. And when expressed in love, such knowledge builds up and draws people toward Christ, or at least the truth is presented clearly enough for the non-elect to reject it. This is critically important—for it should be the truth that is rejected and not a sad and misleading caricature of Christ, the Scriptures, or the Church. (For those to whom it may matter, I am a Schaefferian pre-suppositionalist and a Calvinist who recognizes that God uses means to accomplish His sovereign will).

Are there churches that are theologically faithful, spiritually vibrant, and culturally attuned so that they speak the Truth in a language that contemporary people understand? Are there churches that do not require jumping through cultural hoops in order to worship and hear Biblical truth that is preached in a clear and compelling manner? (Or is there a numbing solace in the notions that bring a superficial balm to what is really a deep wound? Hearts are hard; Times are Difficult; We’re in the Last Days; People do not want the Truth—(when was that Truth wanting era again?). Maybe, we’re the problem. As Pogo said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

Generally, traditional church music, almost formal attire, vocabulary and nomenclature, and whole of a churchy ambiance are uncomfortably foreign to most people unfamiliar with the typical evangelical church and increasingly unpopular amongst the evangelical population in general. I affirm that the church is for Believers and not bound to appeal to the unsaved, but my point is this: Many evangelical’s are culturally obtuse and thus disconnected from those they are commanded to reach. So whether in or outside of the church, how are we doing at actually reaching people with the gospel?

HOWEVER, there is another matter requiring thoughtful consideration. I fear that we will—or perhaps better—are losing the next generation of the church—those who are looking forward and not backward. These who as a result of our ministry and emphasises may be confusing Evangelical Church Culture with Biblical Christianity. Those who want to know God and yes—experience—Him, as spoken of so often by the likes of David, Paul, and Jesus, Himself. Form and function are necessary considerations, but they are poor substitutes for spiritual vitality borne of walking in the Spirit.

Is it possible that many American Christians endure or tolerate their church services, rather than find them compelling and meaningful to their souls? What kind of a church loses people to places like Mars Hill—be it Michigan or Seattle? And yes, I know there is a difference between those two churches and am glad for it. But know this about me. As I write this piece, I have not read or heard anything by Driscoll or anyone from his circles. The only Emergent piece I have read is Velvet Elvis and that for a critique on a Sunday evening for our church.

My frustrations are borne of my own experience of being a Christian and in Evangelical/Fundamental circles since 1975, not because I read some trendy book or have embraced some trendy movement. (My one caveat is that the years I spent at Grace Community Church were a wonderful exception to this experience. I chuckle when I hear folks describe Grace as legalistic. Grace is a great example of how a traditionally oriented church provides excellence in worship and ministry. But, when I hear someone say Grace is legalistic, I know immediately that this person has never been exposed to real legalism in a church).

Nevertheless, I perceive that we are on the cusp of an era and opportunity to proclaim and teach the timeless truths of Scripture to this and coming generations—and we should be mindful that some cultural trappings may actually retard our ability to evangelize and edify.

People are coming FROM somewhere to attend churches that are very different from the church’s they left. It is unfortunate that people leave one church for another—but there must be reasons why people are motivated—and in some cases eager—to do so. On the other end of the spectrum, I recently read of a church being recommended as “good” because it was conservative—i.e., they use the KJV and its “skirts only.” Puullllleeeeaaaaasssssssse.

We train missionaries to be culturally astute but then blithely ignore our own culture in American churches and pulpits—deriding such attention to culture as capitulation to the world. What’s up with that? But really, we do not ignore culture at all. We seek to preserve our own—regardless of how archaic it may be. We sanctify "our" way—as opposed to "their" way.

I understand and affirm that there are reasonable preferences that can be maintained to the blessing of those who prefer them. And, I recognize that what is contemporary today—will become passé at some point. Fine. Then the onus will be on us/or that generation to embrace change when it is required and not preserve their fading culture. (Culture changes mind you—not the foundations of Biblical theology).

Culture changes, but Biblically the old adage is true. “If it’s new, it ain’t true.” But culture is something different altogether. There is nothing wrong with a church being traditional, but perhaps we should be mindful that what is now traditional was once contemporary. Let's just be careful that it is the Truth that we seek to proclaim and not the perpetuation of a preferred cultural era with all its attendant features. (It is curiously humorous that today “Emergent and Emerging Church” folks refer to the “Church Growth” folks as the older generation that is out of touch with the culture). [And often clothed in polyester, I might add].

Professing Christians are a funny bunch, aren’t we?

As the world observes us, what must they think?

There are reasons why many evangelical churches are NOT reaching people with the gospel. There are reasons why people are leaving traditional churches for more contemporary churches. I do not advocate a diminution of the priority of theology in any way—but being contemporary in preference and/or practice does NOT necessitate a slide down the slippery slope to theological liberalism and apostasy.

Our position must be one of both/and—theologically faithful and ministerially effective in a contemporary context. I mean for example, all music was contemporary at one point, wasn’t it? HOWEVER, there is so much more to this issue than music. We do not do well building real relationships with lost people—and perhaps with one another as well. We are virtually isolated or at least well insulated from the culture and as a result, we are almost unable to converse with people. We are uncomfortable and tense because we fear that we cannot relate to them in any way—this is certainly a fallacy and may perhaps be attributed to a somewhat charitable perspective regarding our own fallen humanness.

Or perhaps it is an unrecognized cultural elitism, or ignorance, or simply fear. But certainly, we can improve on this, can’t we?

I am SO past traditional church culture.

I SO desire to be faithful to the authority and perspicuity of Scripture.

I SO desire that the world sees more of Christ in the church and less politics, less hostility, less indifference and less disconnection from the world in which we live.

It is possible to be a growing, mature, stable, Christian in the world and not be of the world. But isolation is not the answer. Preservation of a decades old culture is not the answer. HOWEVER, neither is cultural integration at the expense of Biblical truth and genuine sanctification.

Surely, we can do better, can’t we?

Pat Howell

Have You Ever Had One of Those Weeks?

2007-10-08T21:56:00.001-07:00

Here is something that I wrote on my blog today that some of you may find helpful. I called it "Have You Every Had One of Those Weeks?"

Educational Resource: iTunesU

2007-09-18T15:48:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to take classes at Reformed Theological Seminary, or Duke, Yale, Stanford, MIT, or . . . Berkeley? Thanks to Apple, you can. For free! Listen or watch classes on religion, history, philosophy, or wherever your interests lie. This resource has just been released, so I know that many more institutions will be involved in the future.

How to learn: first download iTunes for your Mac or PC here. After the program is downloaded, open iTunes and click on “iTunes Store” in the left sidebar. When the store opens, you will find the “iTunesU” link at the top of the left sidebar. Click and learn!

Yet another Apple innovation that is beneficial for your sanctification.

Jesus Is Our Only Anchor

2007-09-15T20:39:00.000-07:00

I appreciate what Rob wrote in the previous post on this blog. I was reminded of the truth he graciously stated in a fresh way this past weekend. Ross King came to the church I pastor, and it was an amazing time of worship. He also sang at a church a buddy of mine pastors in town. One of the songs he sang is called "Anchor," which is a humbling and freeing reminder of our total dependence upon Christ and Christ alone. I've included a video of it. I hope you're blessed by it like I was.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Robb

Why We Need a Chief Shepherd

2007-09-10T05:56:00.000-07:00

It has been good to be a "church member" for the last two years. Not participating in the public ministry of the Word has been many times emotionally excruciating to say the least. And while this 'sabbatical' of sorts has had its difficulties and lessons, the one that stands out above them all is that I need a Chief Shepherd.

While I gave verbal assent to this truth often, I'm not so sure it was a part of the very fabric of my pastoring. Every pastor wants to shepherd every part of every person...to be the "go to guy" when problems occur in marriage, parenting, work, etc. Oh how I did this so often. This stems in part, however, from a righteous desire stirred up in me by the Holy Spirit who called me, and also from my inherent pride which deceives me into thinking I can do more than I really can. Dirty Harry was right after all. "A man's got to know his limitations."

Through some reflections on my last two years, this welcomed truth has been brought home to me lately as I have sat faithfully attending, serving where I can, shepherding my family, working my job, and all this while looking into the horizon wondering what God will bring next by way of pastoral ministry. It will come soon enough. The Lord is stirring the waters and it's exciting to watch.

Meanwhile these various aspects and elements of my life have been submitted to my pastor who is also a dearest friend. Yet while he shepherds my family in many areas, he seems unable to shepherd my "calling" with the same capability. There have been two opportunities to communicate the Scriptures to God's people here in two years, and that through the participation of a new members class. No opportunities to teach with any regularity are offered, and there seems no place for me in the future when it comes to the preaching of the Word.

These could be seen as complaints on my part. In reality, they are confessions of frustration. It is the lack of opportunities which come without rationale, biblical or otherwise, that create a context for the bewilderment. It has become clear, at least to me, that beneath the surface there is an unwitting 'talmud of the call' flowing as an undercurrent. Extra-biblical things are made equal with biblical texts, sometimes obscuring or eclipsing them. The end of it all is anxiety and tears...the one sinful, the other genuine, but both very real and human.

There are many men in my same position. I wonder myself sometimes how I got to be where I am. How can twelve years of full time pastoral ministry be legitimately called into question if there is no disqualifying sin or character issue at stake? Somehow it is. And I suppose that at bottom it probably doesn't really matter. If God's providence brought me here, He will use this season for His glory, and not in any vague sense of the expression. I believe this thoroughly and submit to it, albeit sometimes unhappily.

However, this truth is now more clear than never. I need a Chief Shepherd. No pastor can shepherd every part of every person. Yet pastors expect they can, and believers expect them to do so. Somehow Jesus has been "benched" while pastors exert themselves, sometimes to burnout, in order to serve every need. And this occurs all while church members feel frustration in their own hearts at their pastor's lack of phone calls, visits, or care in general.

The need is to preach Christ...to magnify Him...to reflect on how He shepherds. The Lord is my shepherd. He is my senior pastor, my chief shepherd. The Lord is my shepherd. He is my personal shepherd, intimately involved in pastoral care over me. The Lord is my shepherd. He leads and guides and protects and guards every part of me every time. In short, I don't lack anything with Him.

My pastor was not and never will be tempted in every way...yet without sin. But my Shepherd was. My pastor has never learned perfect obedience to the Father in all things. But my Shepherd has. My pastor has never prayed for me faithfully in my needs. But my Shepherd does. My pastor cannot be everywhere I need him to be when I need him. But Jesus can and is. My pastor is not powerful enough to move mountains in my life. But Jesus is. My pastor does not know everything possible and actual so as to help guide me through life's decisions with complete accuracy. But my Senior Pastor does.

If I learn this one thing before returning to the pastorate, it is the best thing to learn. Jesus is not a pinch hitter or a substitute teacher. He's not the B-team or the second string. He's not the last resort or the weekend date. He is everything. He is transcendent as head over all things in heaven and earth. But He is also imminent since in Him I live and move and have my being. Will pastors point their flock to Him? Or will they point the flock to themselves? To do the former is to live in rejoicing. To do the latter is to point a loaded gun at yourself. And not only will it go off in your face, but every round will be expended. Such a mindset, unwitting or purposeful, will always mean hemorrhaging wounds for both pastor and congregation alike.

Thank God that this minor trial has mean that I "have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls" (1 Peter 2:25) "Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever" (Hebrews 13:20-21).

Book Review and Recommendation: Bones of Contention

2007-09-08T16:13:00.001-07:00

Many in our culture today believe that the theory of Evolution should never be questioned or criticized. For such people it is as though Darwinism is as certain as the fact that the earth goes round the sun. In fact, I too had this same attitude throughout my life as a young atheist. As one who was raised on a diet of evolutionary theory, I can understand such dogmatic mindsets. After all, I too was not only an evolutionist and atheist - but I was an evangelistic atheist who sought to "convert" poor Christians to the majority viewpoint. All of this is now a part of my past - before I became a Christian, and before I ever endeavored to examine the subject outside of the pale of our modern education system in which nothing is accepted as true unless it pays direct homage to that popular deity Evolution, and its revered prophet - Charles Darwin. It is because of this background of mine that I found Bones of Contention, by Marvin Lubenow, to be a challenging read. The challenge that I encountered had to do with the fact that references to Neanderthal man, Java man and Homo erectus (among others) conflicted harshly with the academic social-engineering of my youth - where alternative viewpoints to Darwinism are not allowed to be mentioned. The challenge that I had was to read this book while leaving my past programming behind - a process that is always necessary whenever one wishes to evaluate evidence by the value of its merit, rather than by the value of its legendary status within a society. In fact, this is one of the central values of Lubenow's work. He helps the reader to analyze the scientific data that is used in support of evolution, but without the bias of those who would have us to forgo any critical analysis of Darwinism. This is a wonderful book for any Christian to read - as well I would not only recommend it for adults, but for mid to late teens, as a way to prepare them for the Darwinian jungle that awaits them in the real world. Lubenow gives a clear and rigorous presentation of the history of Evolution. From the days of Darwin to the present, Lubenow reveals the precarious evolution of the philosophy of Darwinism by revealing how "Any series of objects created by humans (or God) can be arranged in such a way as to make it look as if they had evolved when in fact they were created independently by an intelligent being." p. 21.

He also notes that popular opinions in our society are often governed by an undiscerning public that believes in the infallibility of contemporary scientists as though they were "paragons of objectivity who have no philosophical axes to grind." p. 18. Lubenow calls the reader to an open and honest evaluation of the empirical data that is often messaged and manipulated in order to facilitate the premise of evolution. As a result of his research, he has concluded the following:

"We have all seen pictures of the impressive sequence allegedly leading to modern humans - those small, primitive, stooped creatures gradually evolving into big, beautiful you and me. What is not generally known is that this sequence, impressive as it seems, is a very artificial and arbitrary arrangement because (1) some fossils are selectively excluded if they do not fit will into the evolutionary scheme; (2) some human fossils are arbitrarily downgraded to make them appear to be evolutionary ancestors when they are in fact true humans; and (3) some nonhuman fossils are upgraded to make them appear to be human ancestors." p. 21.

Lubenow is careful to point out that Darwinism is a subjective philosophy that is designed to reduce the universe (biotic and abiotic) to that which is the product of an unguided, naturalistic process (p. 191). Without empirical data, evolution stands as nothing more than an atheistic philosophy. Even Darwin comprehended the tenuous nature of his proposed theory. What he developed on ink and paper was a philosophy whose fate would rest in the hands of future scientists:

"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking down the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been effected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which may be urged against my views." Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter 9, On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.

It is this crucial interval of research, from the days of Darwin to the present, that Lubenow reveals to the reader. Overall he shows that Darwin began with nothing more that ink, paper, and wistful hope; and to this day, his followers have advanced his legacy with nothing more than ink, paper, and unscientific dogma.

M. J. Beasley, '95, www.thearmoury.us

Run Felix! Run!!

2007-09-01T07:56:00.001-07:00

Run Felix! Run!

I have very little interest in track and field but i always try and keep up with the women's 200. One of our seminary professor's daughters is the best 200m runner in the world. Dr. Felix (from the Master's Seminary) has a daughter that can flat out fly. Her name is Allyson Felix. Check out the great story below...For the full story go to www.cbssportsline.com

OSAKA, Japan -- Jeremy Wariner was his dominating self. Allyson Felix was just as awesome. When Wariner won the 400 meters in a personal best of 43.45 seconds and a margin of .51 over LaShawn Merritt to lead a U.S. sweep, the result was almost a given. For Felix there was still the thrill of the new.

With the biggest margin of victory in a major international competition since the 1948 Olympics in the women's 200, Felix surged away from Jamaica's Veronica Campbell to win by a massive .53 margin. Her 21.81 was the fastest time in eight years."

I have been waiting for so long to run such a time, to run under 22 seconds," Felix said.

Baptism and the New Covenant

2007-08-31T07:08:00.000-07:00

Check out Matt's work on Baptism and the New Covenant at http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/

Is Baptism the Sign of the New Covenant?
Let me start by saying that I have no theological axe to grind on this issue, and I am not trying to protect or attack any particular doctrinal view in raising this question. I am simply trying to think and speak more biblically about the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
With that said, my question is this: Is baptism the sign of the New Covenant? This seems to be the common assumption, but I think it is an assumption worth challenging. As I have begun to wrestle with this—and I am only now in the beginning stages—I have come to four conclusions:
First, the Bible does not use the word “sign” in connection with the New Covenant. The two candidates for the sign of the New Covenant would seem to be water baptism and the Lord’s Supper. But since neither one is explicitly referred to as the “sign” of the New Covenant, it is difficult to be dogmatic one way or the other....

Join the discussion at ET.

A Nation of Hypocrites

2007-08-20T19:25:00.000-07:00

I am amazed at all the negative press surrounding Mike Vick's recent guilty plea. I think back to when President Clinton lied under oath about his adultery with Monica (and other ladies). I remember that through all this mess the nation embraced the President and his approval rating actually went up during much of this controversy. "Hey it was his personal life and who says adultery is that big of a deal anyways?"

Some people will argue that the President did not violate any Federal law when he choose to break his covenant vows with Hillary/God...of course who really cares about God's Law. Have you ever read the 10 commandments? The end of Romans 1 explains much of this so i won't go back into history past more than i need to.

Now i am not justifying what Mike Vick did to those animals (pit bulls). God created animals for a purpose, not the same purpose as man, but none the less I think most people would agree pets shouldn't be massacred for losing dog fights. (Of course many would argue domestic animals shouldn't be fighting in the first place). Don't misread this blog: Mike Vick was wrong and needs to be punished according to our nations laws. The thing that concerns me is how hypocritical our nation is. People justify so many clear cut sins these days it amazes me that many of the same people get crazy over something like this. How can you justify a woman's right to murder an innocent baby? How can you justify doctors who do this full time? If you try and equate the value of human life with animal life you have some major issues. It may be argued that both are precious, but humans were created in the image of God. Humans have souls. I could cite lots of examples to further prove my point but i will let you think of your own.

We live in a nation full of self-righteous hypocrites. The gospel is needed as much now as ever before.

John MacArthur on Larry King and CNN Special

2007-08-20T17:16:00.001-07:00

John MacArthur will be on Larry King tonight. There should be two airings, so check your local listings. I think this is a promo show for Christiane Amanpour's special, God Warriors. The Christianity segment of this series will be on August 23rd.

Bible History

2007-07-31T08:20:00.001-07:00

If you're interested in Bible history I just discovered a new Bible museum about 3 minutes from our house. The guy there (most likely atheist) told me I could take pictures. So I put a few of my pics on the web. They are of the 1488 Prague Bible, the 1506 Venice (Czech) Bible, and the Bible (also Czech) Kralicka (1601). Click here for the pics!

Calling All TMS Graduates

2007-07-12T14:33:00.000-07:00

This is the yearly post-graduation reminder to all TMS alumni that you are eligible to be a contributor to this blog. Simply email me (see my profile) and I will get you set up.

In Memory of John Hus

2007-07-06T03:34:00.000-07:00

Today in the year 1415, John Hus was burnt at the stake for his stand for the truth. Today is also a national holiday in the Czech Republic to commemorate his sacrifice.

Former Czech President Vaclav Havel stated in a speech to the Vatican on Dec. 17, 1999, that “for hundreds of years, the name of master Jan Hus has been inscribed in the mind of the nation especially for his deep love of truth.”

The Czech national moto is a quote from Hus, "truth prevails" or "truth conquers." My favorite Hus quote is, “Faithful Christian, seek the truth, hear the truth, learn the truth, love the truth, speak the truth, adhere to the truth, defend the truth to death; for truth will make you free from sin, the devil, the death of the soul, and finally from eternal death.”

“I am a Panmillennialist”

2007-06-26T15:10:00.000-07:00

How many times have you heard this line? The conversation usually goes something like this: “I am a panmillennialist because I believe everything will pan out in the end.” Why do people say this? Maybe because (1) they don’t care for controversy; (2) they are simply ignorant of the issues; or (3) they hold to some form of eschatological relativism where the end result (Jesus’ return) is the sole object of hope.

While I recognize the lighthearted nature of the above comment, I would like to offer some suggestions why it is not tenable.

(1) The inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17). If all Scripture is truly God-breathed, then how can we disregard what God says about the kingdom?
(2) The perspicuity of Scripture. If God intends Scripture to be understood, then diligent study should yield a satisfactory millennial position.
(3) The preponderance of Scripture. The volume and detail that Scripture gives to the subject of the kingdom does not allow for eschatological agnosticism.
(4) The promise of Scripture. Revelation 1:3 “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.”

P.S. How long has it been since you have heard a sermon on Revelation?

William E. Blackstone (author of Jesus is Coming): “The greater part of this Scripture consists of prophecy, and if Christians would give more attention to it, they would not find themselves distracted from present service, but ‘they would find much light thrown on their present path, much practical encouragement given to their ministry.’ Their faith would rest upon a broader and deeper comprehension of God’s character and ways, and their spiritual horizon would stand out in clearer outline than before.”

Gospel Sex

2007-06-23T00:22:00.001-07:00

1 Corinthians 7:1-5 says:

7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.”

This is a passage that has often been used by husbands to shift the burden of responsibility for their immorality onto their supposedly under-sexed wives. Pastors are not immune. Countless counseling situations are seen through the lenses of sexually frustrated men, quick to quote these verses, and leave it at that. But Paul won’t have it. If your husband does that, simply take him back to 1 Co. 6:16-17 where Paul compares being “one flesh” with a woman with being “one spirit” with Jesus. What that assumes is that the sex he’s talking about in this chapter isn’t the same thing as the immorality he condemned in chapter 6 – the self-serving, get-your-needs-met-and-roll-over kind of sex; “food is for the body and the body for food”. This is Hebrew sex; not just the uniting of two bodies but the uniting of two souls, the mingling of two lives. It’s an act of physical oneness that mirrors, pictures, illustrates, embodies, incarnates a spiritual oneness. It’s Gospel sex, a reflection of the oneness we have with Jesus by the Holy Spirit.

And that intimates the shocking suggestion that the reason your wife isn’t as willing as you are “to be intimate” is because you don’t want intimacy. You want to share your body, but not so much your soul. You want to receive pleasure, but you don’t want to receive your wife – her problems, her pains, her joys, her hopes, her sorrows. You have all the expectations of a sexual Gnostic, as though your wife’s body could be separated from her soul. You don’t really want to be “one flesh” – you just want to have sex. And the problem with that is that this is not the sort of marriage that will protect you from sexual immorality, because if that’s all you want, what’s the difference between sex with your wife and sex with anyone else? You’re trying to fight your selfish lust in the world with your selfish lust at home. How can you break your addiction to selfish sexual pleasure unless you begin to see your sexual acts as about a person instead of an orgasm? It won't work. Anyone can give you pleasure. You don’t need your wife for that. You can do that on your own. If you want to experience the kind of sex that will deliver you from your sinful lusts, you’re going to have to start acting like you’re married someplace other than the bedroom. You’re going to have to stop chasing the cheap imitation of sex-without-relationship (what the Bible calls "immorality) and start drinking deeply from your wife.

Beware arming yourself with the Bible in order to batter your spouse and feed your own flesh: it’s like a sword without a hilt or a handle – it cuts even the ones who wield it. Take it from one whose hands have been bloodied.

Only Servants

2007-06-01T12:39:00.000-07:00

What follows was my first letter as pastor to Trinity Road Chapel, the dear folks under my care. May this letter assist you in your role to see yourself more and more in the light of Ephesians 4--as only a servant.

I vaguely recall hearing as a boy the radio and television reports of the last years of the United States involvement in the war in Vietnam. It was a tumultuous period in the history of the country, with antiwar demonstrations and draft dodging common in the news. Yet, even though protests were being made against the war, in the town where I lived, just outside a military base, nothing but the strongest support was given. Of all my boyhood memories of the early 1970s, one thing that distinctly stands out is the interest that town showed for prisoners of war and those missing in action.

As the war ended, the men who had been held captive, the prisoners of war, were released. Images of these men walking off planes, falling to their knees and kissing US soil, even before hugging and kissing family, are indelibly imprinted in my mind.

In time, many told their stories, sharing their accounts of imprisonment and torture under the control of their wartime enemy. I read and listened with keen interest as each related their struggle to survive, their will to live and longing for freedom from their harsh conditions. For them, liberty could only come by being released from the control of their captors.

Hearing the experiences of those prisoners of war instilled within me a strong will to live in freedom. Even death was preferred to any sort of captivity. That is, until I became a believer in Jesus Christ.

No one had to tell me before I was converted that I was an enemy of God—I knew it instinctively. There were things I wanted to do that He disapproved of—my conscience told me that—but I did my best not to allow guilt or any fear of judgment to invade my freedom. I wanted to do as I pleased and for a season, I felt the freedom to seek out my desires without restraint. I was free, or so I thought.

Thankfully, at the age of twenty-one, the Lord demonstrated His conquering grace in my life. I was brought to see myself as a sinner and under condemnation. And in broken, trembling words, I begged God for forgiveness. Instead of receiving the punishment I deserved, the Lord mercifully forgave me and changed me.

Ignorant as I was of the scriptures, it took time to discover what all had actually happened to me. In reading the Bible after becoming a believer, especially in the sixth chapter of Romans, I discovered something that startled me—I had been living my whole life in captivity as a slave to sin!

Even more startling, I learned that being saved meant continuing life as a servant, under captivity to Jesus and His will. I discovered I was now His, and not my own. But there is something completely different about this captivity—this captivity is freedom! Galatians 5:1 says that “it is for freedom that Christ has set us free.” And in this freeing captivity, I found a life of joy and gratitude in fistfuls. Never would I have thought myself to be so glad a captive!

Understanding these metaphorical connections of our sin and salvation to slavery and freedom has proved a rich experience for me, and I look forward to declaring to you those truths more deeply and to our rejoicing together in the liberating life of service we have in Jesus Christ.

In this month of beginning my service (there’s that word again!) as pastor of TRC, there is one more captivating passage I wish to share with you. It is a passage that has become central to my thinking about my role as a pastor and it is a fitting introduction for this, my first article in “The Witness.”

Ephesians four is a familiar place of study for church leaders as they understand the Lord’s framework for congregational life and growth. I’ve examined the passage many times and will soon embark on a detailed study of it here at TRC. But as with many, I typically began my study at verse 11, “It was he who gave some to be apostles…”

It wasn’t until I looked at verses 7-8 that I understood the context of God’s gifts to the church of apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor-teachers. The image presented in those verses is of a conquering Jesus who has proved victorious at war. His victory came through the ironic shame and suffering of the cross and was made manifest in His resurrection and ascension. Though once despised and thought defeated in death, He is alive, exalted and reigning over everything!

The warrior imagery continues in verse 8 with an allusion to Jesus taking the spoils of war. The warriors and wealth of His enemy are now His, and under His will to dispense. And that is precisely what He has done. As a good king, He has taken His captured captives and sent them out into useful service to provide help and development to His people.

That is why verse 11 says Jesus “gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.” These men, gifted as they are, are in essence, prisoners of war, captives set aside for service. These servants are given to the church so that it might develop in the grace and knowledge of Jesus and thus, serve also, bringing about growth and unity within the body of Christ.

In my boyhood imaginations, I feared ever becoming a prisoner of war. Nothing other than death could have been dreamed worse. Now I gladly own that role. It is with great joy that I assume this month my active duties as pastor—prisoner of war—of Trinity Road Chapel. I am at your service in tribute to our King Jesus.

How hard can it be?

2007-05-31T01:15:00.000-07:00

It is true, to ride in armor would be hard work for me. But, on the other hand, I should like to see the horseman who could sit still for an entire day and merely look into a book, even if he had nothing to worry about, to compose, to think, or to read.

Ask a writer, preacher, or speaker what labor writing and speaking are; ask a schoolmaster what labor teaching and training boys is. The pen is light, that is true; nor is any tool of any of the trades easier to get than the tool of the writer, for all you need is goose feathers, and plenty of these may be had anywhere for nothing. At the same time, however, the best part of the body (which is the head) and the noblest of its members (which is the tongue) and the highest of its faculties (which is speech) must here bear the burden and do most of the work. In other occupations only the fist or the foot or the back or some other such member has to work. Meanwhile people can cheerfully sing and freely jest, which a writer certainly must forego. Three fingers do the work, people say of writers; but a man’s entire body and soul are at work.

Martin Luther

Does T. D. Jakes Really Reject the Trinity? Can You Prove He Is A Modalist?

2007-05-29T12:57:00.001-07:00

I’ve had a lot of people ask this question and so I thought I would give what I believe is the strongest evidence for this claim. It involves an audio file of Jakes preaching, taken from Alpha and Omega Ministries. I have copied and pasted the section from my thesis on T. D. Jakes.

The best example of Jakes’ true belief concerning Jesus and the Father centers around John 14:11. In this verse, Jesus said, “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me . . . .” In a blatant misrepresentation of Scripture, Jakes collaborates with a female reader quoting this verse:
Jakes: I am going to rack your head, I’m going to scramble your heads . . . .
Reader: “Believest thou not that I am the Father?”
Jakes: Don’t you understand that “I am . . . .” – Oh!
Reader: Oh!
Jakes: “I am . . . believest thou not that I am the Father.”
Attempting to express amazement at Jesus’ confession that He was the Father, Jakes and his reader cry out with surprise, as though this was new revelation previously undiscovered. However, considering there is no Modal translation of the Bible, Jakes must have prompted the female reader to omit the preposition “in” while reading Jesus’ words, “I am in the Father.” His willingness to take away from the Word of God in order to make his interpretation work is a tactic that draws the condemnation of Scripture itself (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov 30:6; Jer 26:2; and Rev 22:18-19).

(Simon Escobedo and Eddie Dalcour, “Oneness Pentecostalism: The Teaching of T. D. Jakes Exposed,” Summer 2002, http://www.straitgate.com/aom/ (25 July 2002).

God is Great, and Greatly to be Praised

2007-05-22T14:27:00.001-07:00

I'm sure that you are aware of the growing popularity of Christopher Hitchens' recent book - god is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything. Evangelistically speaking, this should be viewed as an opportunity to speak to the lost about the truth that God is in fact Great. Hitchens' book heralds atheism as the cure for the "cancer of religion" and yet, disturbingly, no-one has really taken his work to task - not seriously anyway. In fact Hitchens recently debated Al Sharpton at the New York Public Library (website, audio) regarding the contents of god is not Great. As you might imagine, it was a mockery, the climax of which came during the Q & A session at the end where Ayan Hirsi Ali was given the honor of the final question:

Ayan: "Mr. Sharpton - I became an atheist and if brother Sharpton answers my question, I might go back to faith. Um, Mr. Sharpton, you repeated many times tonight that you did not want to talk about religion but you wanted to talk about God. Is it unfair then to ask you to give us the evidence of His existence - is it, for instance, unreasonable for you to tell us if He, or she or it created this world order - who created him then?"

Sharpton: - "who created...?"
Ayan: - "God - who was before Him?"
Sharpton: ..."well..."
Ayan: "let me finish my question...Isn't it odd that you carry a Christian title and that you refuse, even for once tonight, to defend the church and the contents of the Bible."
RESPONSE from the audience - Loud Applause
Sharpton: "Because we are here to discuss Mr. Hitchens' book..."

Sharpton said much more than what I have supplied here, but I will spare you the details. In the end the man said nothing at all. What would have been a wonderful Gospel opportunity for many around the globe was shamefully squandered. Again, I submit to you - this national debate is a Mars Hill opportunity for the church; or at least it should be.

Concerning Hitchens' book, it is interesting to note that many of his criticisms of religion (i.e., man-made religion), are often correct. This truth makes his book a very strange read to be sure. On the one hand, his premises and conclusions are wrong; however many of his intervening critiques are somewhat true. After all Hitchens does take on the perversities of money-hungry televangelists, of the false religion of Roman Catholicism and of the political-Christian movements in our nation that so often confound the Gospel message. He also soundly takes on the ridiculous hypocrisies of Al Sharpton, as well as perversions that go on in the name of the money-centered marketing of professing Christendom. To his credit he lambastes the ravages of C. G. Finney and the scars of the Burned-over District in New York. Personally, it is in these critiques that I find Hitchens to be more correct than he realizes. Any biblical Christian would rebuke these things too and thus one can hardly fault him for such complaints. But it must be stated that he also rejects the reality of Jesus Christ and the Bible itself, and thus he demonstrates that his complaints about false religion are erroneously conjoined with the genuine article.

Additionally, I must say that there are enough straw-man arguments in it to constitute a fire hazard and the underlying logical fallacies are quite frustrating and numerous. One of the more glaring errors comes when Hitchens criticizes Billy Graham's message that was delivered in memory of the fallen of 9/11, on September 14th 2001 at the National Cathedral. I myself remember that speech quite well; at the time I criticized aspects of it, especially emphasizing the grossly ecumenical environment in which it was presented. However when I commented on his message, I utilized the transcript in order to make sure that I was criticizing what was actually said; Hitchens, on the other hand, took the license to do something very different:

"[Billy Graham's] absurd sermon made the claim that all the dead were now in paradise and would not return to us even if they could...there is no reason to believe that Billy Graham knew the current whereabouts of their souls, let alone their posthumous desires." god is not Great, p. 32.

When I read his account of the speech, I accepted his critique as having a valid point; that is, until I re-examined the contents of what Mr Graham said. Unfortunately for Mr. Hitchens, Mr. Graham did not say "all the dead" but instead said this:

"...many of those people who died this past week are in heaven right now, and they wouldn't want to come back."

While it can be argued (and I would agree) that Mr. Graham's statement may be too generous (he can't possibly attest that many were in heaven as a fact), however, Hitchens' substitution of the word "many" with "all" takes the statement to a very odd extreme. This may be a genuine mistake; if not it is libelous, especially since he took the time to blame Graham for the very word that Hitchens himself supplied.

I would also warn the reader that the reference work in god is not Great is, not great, and leaves the reader often wondering where his assertions are coming from. In fact, after the above example, one should wonder about any of his references, whether recorded in the end-notes or not. There are also a number of rather slippery guilt-by-association arguments that would make even a moderately trained debate instructor reach for the red pen. The most frequent of which is his employment of this construct of strained logic:

Premise - many foolish things have been done in the name of religion.
Conclusion - therefore, "religion poisons everything."

As Christians we know that the source of all sin and foolishness is the evil that is in the hearts of men (Romans 3:15). But just taking Hitchens' argument at its face value, it must be understood that his statement is logically invalid. Just to illustrate the matter, it would be a categorical mistake to say that a. Many adults who commit crime in our nation were at one time in their youth involved in team sports; b. Therefore team sports constitute the source of their crimes. Beyond such strained reasoning, as above, there appears to be (embarrassingly) an archaic invocation of the now defunct theory of Recapitulation (Ernst Haeckel) on page 221. In addition to this there are comments like these:

"You can believe in a divine mover if you choose, but it makes no difference at all, and belief among astronomers and physicists has become private and fairly rare." p. 70.
"It [religion] is also fully aware of the ever-mounting evidence, concerning the origins of the cosmos and the origin of the species, which consign it to marginality if not to irrelevance." p. 229.

Finally, there is one moment in the book where Hitchens, whose own father had "not especially loved his strict Baptist/Calvinist upbringing," demonstrates that he does not even understand the Christian message of the Gospel whatsoever:

"Imagine...that you can picture an infinitely benign and all-powerful creator, who conceived of you, then made and shaped you, brought you into the world he had made for you, and now supervises and cares for you even while you sleep. Imagine, further, that if you obey the rules and commandments that he has lovingly prescribed, you will qualify for an eternity of bliss and repose...why does such a belief not make its adherents happy?" pp. 15-16.

It is not just here, but throughout the whole book that Hitchens presents religion as being a philosophy of merit based salvation. When I first read the above summary, I thought to myself: I can't imagine that either - who could be happy with this? Doctrine such as this leaves people "distressed and dispirited" (Matt. 9:36), especially when their hope for redemption is founded upon their ability to climb the works-righteousness ladder crafted by religionists like the Pharisees (Galatians 2:16). When Hitchens crafted the above paragraph, I'm sure that he wasn't thinking that he was excluding biblical Christianity - but in reality, he was. But this reality should be a rebuke and reminder to us all that Mr. Hitchens, and others like him, need to hear and see the true Gospel message as proclaimed and lived by the children of God. They need to understand that there is mere religion, and then there is genuine Christianity; there is the religion of works righteousness and then there is the true hope of the world - Jesus Christ who is the righteous Advocate and Propitiation for those whom the Father gave to Him before the foundation of the world (1 John 2:1-2, John 6:39). God is great, and greatly to be praised for His great gift to the world: Jesus Christ our Lord.

For the full review of his book, including video links to the aforementioned debate:

From the Ashes of Anlong Veng

Rise Up, O Men of God!

2007-05-21T02:35:00.000-07:00

May a reading of the following article make your heart burn for revival and cause you to hold tenaciously to those truths God has so wonderfully visited with His blessing.

How England Was Revived in the 18th Century by J.C. Ryle

That a great change for the better came over England during the 18th century is a fact that I suppose no well-informed person would ever attempt to deny. You might as well attempt to deny that there was a Protestant Reformation in the days of Luther, a Long Parliament in the time of Cromwell, or a French Republic at the end of the 18th century. There was a vast change for the better. Both in religion and in morality, the country gradually went through a complete revolution. This is a great fact that even the irreligious cannot deny, however they may attempt to explain it.

But, by what means was this great change effected? To whom are we indebted for the immense improvement in religion and morality that undoubtedly came over the land? Who, in a word, were the instruments whom God employed in bringing about the great English reformation of the 18th century?

The government of the country can lay no claim to the credit for the change. Morality cannot be called into being by laws and statutes. People have never yet been made religious by acts of government. In fact, the parliaments and administrations of the 18th century did as little for religion and morality as any that ever existed in England. Nor did the change come from the Church of England as a body. The leaders of that venerable institution were utterly unequal to the times. Left to herself, the Church of England would probably have died of pride and inactivity.

Nor did the change come from the independent churches of the dissenters. Content with their recently won freedoms, that worthy body of men seemed to rest upon their oars. In the general enjoyment of their new rights of conscience, they forgot the vital principles of their forefathers as well as their own duties and responsibilities.

Who, then, were the reformers of the 18th century? To whom are we indebted, under God, for the change that took place? The men who wrought deliverance at this period were a few individuals, most of them clergymen of the Established Church, men whose hearts God touched about the same time in various parts of the country. They were not wealthy or highly connected. They had neither money to buy adherents nor family influence to command attention and respect. They were not put forward by any church, party, society, or institution. They were simply men whom God stirred up and brought out to do His work without previous concert, scheme, or plan.

They did Christ’s work in the old apostolic way by becoming the evangelists of their day. They taught one set of truths. They taught them in the same way, with fire, reality, and earnestness. They taught them in the same spirit, always loving, compassionate, and like Paul, even weeping, but always bold, unflinching, and not fearing the face of man. They did not wait for sinners to come to them, but rather they sought sinners. Instead of sitting idle until sinners offered to repent, they assaulted the high places of ungodliness like men storming a breach, giving sinners no rest so long as they held to their sins.

The movement of these gallant evangelists shook England from one end to another. From the beginning, people in high places made it known that they despised them. The educated class sneered at them as fanatics.

The humorists made jokes and invented sarcastic names for them. The Church of England shut her doors on them, and even the dissenters turned the cold shoulder on them. The ignorant mob persecuted them. But the movement of these few evangelists went on and made itself felt in every part of the land.

Many were aroused and awakened to think about religion. Many were shamed out of their sins. Many became frightened at their own ungodliness. Many were converted. Many who declared their dislike of the movement were secretly provoked to imitation. The little sapling became a strong tree; the little creek became a deep, broad stream; and the little spark became a steady, burning flame. A candle was lighted of which we are now enjoying the benefit.

The feeling of all classes in the land about religion and morality gradually assumed a totally different complexion. And all this, under God, was effected by a few unpatronized, unpaid adventurers! When God takes a work in hand, nothing can stop it. When God is for us, none can be against us.

The Sword of Preaching

The instrumentality by which the spiritual reformers of the 18th century carried on their operations was of the simplest description. It was neither more nor less than the old apostolic weapon of preaching. The sword that Paul wielded with such mighty effect when he assaulted the strongholds of heathenism 1,800 years ago was the same sword by which they won their victories.

To say, as some have done, that they neglected education and schools is totally incorrect. Wherever they gathered congregations, they cared for the children. To say, as others have done, that they neglected the sacraments is simply false. Those who make these assertions only expose their entire ignorance of the religious history of that period. But beyond a doubt, preaching was their favorite weapon. They wisely went back to first principles and took up apostolic plans. They held, with Paul, that a minister’s first work is to preach the gospel.

They preached everywhere. If the pulpit of a parish church was open to them, they gladly availed themselves of it. If it could not be obtained, they were equally ready to preach in a barn. No place was too unworthy for them. In the field or by the roadside, on the village grass or in a marketplace, in lanes or in alleys, in cellars or in attics, on a tub or on a table, on a bench or on a horse block, wherever hearers could be gathered, the spiritual reformers of the 18th century were ready to speak to them about their souls. They were instant in season and out of season in doing Christ’s work, and crossed sea and land in carrying forward their Father’s business. Now, all this was a new thing. Can we wonder that it produced a great effect?

They preached simply. They rightly concluded that the very first qualification to be aimed at in a sermon is to be understood. They saw clearly that thousands of able and well composed sermons are utterly useless because they are above the heads of the hearers. They strove to come down to the level of the people and to speak what the poor could understand.

To attain this, they were not ashamed to sacrifice their reputations as learned men. They willingly used illustrations and anecdotes in abundance and, like Jesus their Master, borrowed lessons from every object in nature. They carried out the maxim of Augustine, “A wooden key is not so beautiful as a golden one, but if it can open the door when the golden one cannot, it is far more useful.”

They revived the style of sermons in which Luther and Latimer were so eminently successful. In short, they saw the truth of what the great German Reformer meant when he said, “No one can be a good preacher to the people who is not willing to preach in a manner that seems childish and vulgar to some.” Now all this, again, was quite new in their age.

They preached fervently and directly. They cast aside that dull, cold, lifeless mode of delivery that had long made sermons boring. They proclaimed the words of faith with faith, and the story of life with life. They spoke with fiery zeal, like men who were thoroughly persuaded that what they said was true and that it was of the utmost importance to your eternal interest to hear it.
They spoke like men who had a message from God for you, who felt that they must deliver it, and that they must have your attention while they delivered it. They threw heart, soul, and feeling into their sermons, and they sent their hearers home convinced that the preacher was sincere and wished them well. They believed that you must speak from the heart if you wish to speak to the heart, and that there must be unmistakable faith and conviction within the pulpit if there is to be faith and conviction among the pews. All this was a thing that had become almost obsolete. Can we wonder that it took people by storm and produced an immense effect?

The Substance of Preaching

But what was the substance and subject matter of the preaching that produced such wonderful effect in the 18th century? I will not insult my readers’ common sense by only saying that it was simple, earnest, fervent, real, genial, brave, lifelike, and so forth. I would have it understood that it was eminently doctrinal and distinct. The strongholds of that century’s sins would never have been cast down by mere earnestness and negative teaching. The trumpets that blew down the walls of Jericho were trumpets that gave no uncertain sound. The English evangelists of the 18th century were not men of an uncertain creed. But what was it they proclaimed? A little information on this point may be useful.

For one thing, the spiritual reformers of the 18th century constantly taught the sufficiency and supremacy of Holy Scripture. The Bible, whole and unmutilated, was their sole rule of faith and practice. They accepted all its statements without question or dispute. They knew nothing of any part of Scripture being uninspired. They never flinched from asserting that there can be no error in the Word of God, and that when we cannot understand or reconcile some part of its contents, the fault is in the interpreter and not in the text. In all their preaching they were eminently men of one book. To that book they were content to pin their faith, and by it to stand or fall. This was one grand characteristic of their preaching. They honored, loved, and reverenced the Bible.

Furthermore, the reformers of the 18th century constantly taught the total corruption of human nature. They knew nothing of the modern notion that Christ is in every man, and that all possess something good within that they have only to stir up and use in order to be saved. They never flattered men and women in this fashion. They told them plainly that they were spiritually dead and must be made alive again, that they were guilty, lost, helpless, hopeless, and in imminent danger of eternal ruin. Strange as it may seem to some, their first step toward making men good was to show them that they were utterly bad, and their primary argument in persuading men to do something for their souls was to convince them that they could do nothing at all.

Furthermore, the reformers of the 18th century constantly taught that Christ’s death upon the cross was the only satisfaction for man’s sin, and that Christ died as our substitute, the just for the unjust. This, in fact, was the cardinal point in almost all their sermons.

They never taught the modern doctrine that Christ’s death was only a great example of self-sacrifice. They saw in it something far greater and deeper than that--they saw in it the payment of man’s mighty debt to God. They loved Christ’s person, they rejoiced in Christ’s promises, and they urged men to walk after Christ’s example. But the one subject concerning Christ that they delighted to dwell on above all others was the atoning blood that Christ shed for us on the cross.

Furthermore, the reformers of the 18th century constantly taught the great doctrine of justification by faith. They told men that faith was the one thing needful in order to obtain an interest in Christ’s work for their souls. They declared that before we believe, we are spiritually dead and have no interest in Christ, but that the moment we do believe, we live and are entitled to all Christ’s benefits. Justification by virtue of church membership - justification without believing or trusting - were notions to which they gave no merit. 'Everything if you will believe, and nothing if you do not believe': this was the very marrow of their preaching.

Furthermore, the reformers of the 18th century constantly taught the universal necessity of heart conversion and new creation by the Holy Spirit. They proclaimed everywhere to the crowds whom they addressed, “You must be born again.” Sonship to God by baptism or while continuing to do the will of the devil they never admitted. The regeneration they preached was no dormant, motionless thing. It was something that could be seen, discerned, and known by its effects.

Furthermore, the reformers of the 18th century constantly taught the inseparable connection between true faith and personal holiness. They never allowed for a moment that any church membership or religious profession was the least proof of a man being a true Christian if he lived an ungodly life. A true Christian, they maintained, must always be known by his fruits, and these fruits must be plainly manifest and unmistakable in all aspects of life. “No fruits, no grace” was the constant tenor of their preaching.

Finally, the reformers of the 18th century constantly taught, as equally true doctrines, God’s eternal hatred against sin and God’s love toward sinners. They knew nothing of a heaven where the holy and unholy are both able to find admission. With respect to heaven and hell, they used the utmost plainness of speech. They never shrank from declaring, in plain terms, the certainty of God’s judgment and wrath to come if men persisted in impenitence and unbelief - and yet they never ceased to magnify the riches of God’s kindness and compassion, and to entreat all sinners to repent and turn to God before it was too late. Such were the main truths that the English evangelists of those times were constantly preaching.

These were the principal doctrines they were always proclaiming, whether in town or in the country, whether in church or in the open air, whether among the rich or among the poor. These were the doctrines by which they turned England upside down, made farmers weep until their dirty faces were streamed with tears, arrested the attention of peers and philosophers, stormed the strongholds of Satan, plucked thousands like brands from the burning, and altered the character of the age.

Call them simple and elementary doctrines, if you will. Say, if you please, that you see nothing grand, striking, new, or peculiar about this list of truths. But the fact is undeniable that God blessed these truths to the reformation of England. What God has blessed, man ought never to despise.

Blogger Beware: An 18th Century Guide to Debating Doctrine

2007-05-17T01:40:00.000-07:00

The letters of John Newton are some of the richest treasures bequeathed to our generation. I'm most pleased the Banner of Truth is issuing an expanded edition of these letters brimming with pastoral wisdom.

One of my favourites is the one titled "On Controversy," where he cautions a friend who is about to enter into public debate over a point of doctrine. Newton advises him in several areas, asking him to consider the effect of his words. Newton's letter deserves a careful reading, especially in today's blogosphere, where many remarks are offered publically before they are weighed carefully.

Dear Sir,

As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, nay friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle. But I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a coat of armor; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great armory provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted, that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

1. As to your opponent, I wish, that, before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab, concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself.

In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace, (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit,) he is a more proper object of your pity and compassion than of your anger. Alas! "he knows not what he does." But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the Gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his.

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, those who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy; but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose, "if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth."

If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling-blocks in the way of the blind, or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their prejudices, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

2. By printing, you will appeal to the public; where your readers may be ranged under three divisions. First, such as differ from you in principle. Concerning these I may refer you to what I have already said. Though you have your eye upon one person chiefly, there are many like-minded with him; and the same reasoning will hold, whether as to one or to a million.

There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to religion, to have any settled system of their own, and yet are pre-engaged in favor of those sentiments which are least repugnant to the good opinion men naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrines; but they can form a tolerable judgment of a writer's spirit. They know that that meekness, humility, and love, are the characteristics of a Christian temper; and though they affect to treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no beneficial influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the Gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments.

The Scriptural maxim, that "the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God," is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service to the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth's sake. If we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer: and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.

You will have a third class of readers, who, being of your own sentiments, will readily approve of what you advance, and may be further established and confirmed in their views of the Scripture doctrines, by a clear and masterly elucidation of your subject. You may be instrumental to their edification, if the law of kindness as well as of truth regulates your pen, otherwise you may do them harm.

There is a principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a befitting zeal in the cause of God. I readily believe, that the leading points of Arminianism spring from, and are nourished by, the pride of the human heart; but I would be glad if the reverse was always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of an humble mind. I have known some Arminians-—that is, people who, for lack of clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace—-who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord. And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility that they are willing in words to debase the creature, and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of.

Whatever it is which makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party—-is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines, as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature and the riches of free grace. Yes, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold up our adversaries to ridicule—and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress this wrong disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify. I hope your performance will savor of a spirit of true humility, and be a means of promoting it in others.

3. This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient, they appear to be so in our day, when errors abound on all sides, and every truth of the Gospel is either directly denied, or grossly misrepresented. And yet we find but very few writers of controversy, who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which at most are but of a secondary value. This shows, that, if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause, and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made! Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray, for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you: he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who, "when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not." This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, "not rendering railing for railing, but, contrariwise, blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called." The wisdom which is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the lack of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors.

If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow-creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of Gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord Almighty, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts, that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

Hybels Leaves Congregation Hungry for Truth

2007-05-15T13:54:00.000-07:00

I published this on my blog, but a friend encouraged me to post it here.

A survey conducted among Willow Creek attendants had revealed "mind-blowing" results, as Hybels put it. It asked how satisfied attendants were with how Willow Creek serves them at various stages in their spiritual development. Pre-Christians, or people who are still seeking and exploring Christianity, rated Willow Creek "very high." Ratings dropped slightly among new Christians but were still "fantastic." Adolescent Christians rated the church as good. But fully devoted followers of Christ indicated less satisfaction, saying they are not sure the church is helping them as much at this stage in their life.

"We want more of the deep truths of God," they said, according to Hybels. In Vision 2010, Willow Creek leaders will be altering the way they coach to teach attendants how to be "self-feeding individuals" early on in their spiritual development. Rather than expecting to be spiritually fed each week with a 35-40 minute sermon on Sundays, congregants will start learning how to take responsibility for their own feeding. Everything else – the worship services and the classes at Willow Creek – will just be "whip cream" on top. Click here for full article.

How amazing to see that the most satisfied individuals at Hybels' church are the unbelievers! Shouldn't that tell him that he has failed as a pastor? He has left his sheep hungry. Maybe he should read the gospels again and see what Jesus says about feeding the sheep.

What is so sad about the whole ordeal is that he continues to do the same. It is encouraging that he wants to teach his people how to study the Bible, but he himself has no interest in teaching them the deep truths of God! The professing believers in his church say "give us something to eat" and he says "you will have to learn how to feed yourself, becauase I won't do it!"

Emerging Church

2007-05-11T12:54:00.000-07:00

Like many of you, I am greatly disturbed by the Emerging Church Movement and its increased influence in the city in which I live and our nation as a whole. Scot McKnight, one the leaders of the movement, recently lectured at Westminster Theological Seminary on the Emerging church. His lecture got me so fired up I had to write something in response. I would really like some feedback on what I've written, so if anyone would volunteer to read it for me and give me feedback, I would greatly appreciate it. Email me at robb[at]cbcwichita[dot]org if you are interested, and I'll send you a PDF of the essay. Once I have it completed, I will post a link for anyone to download it to use, copy, distribute, and so on, but before I go public, I'd like the help of friends to look for chinks in the essay. Thanks.

Virginia Tech Outreach

2007-04-25T06:20:00.000-07:00

Below is a summary from TMS alumni Mark Vaughan of the Virginia Tech outreach. You can check out photos of the outreach here or click on the link at their church website.

Wow! I am overwhelmed with praise to God for the abounding joy of an incredible Gospel outreach on the Virginia Tech campus on Sunday afternoon and evening (4/22/07)! We thank God for those who donated materials and prayed!

Many prayers were answered as the VT community was served by a couple hundred believers from the area. Though believers enjoyed each other, they were incredibly faithful to get out of their comfort zone and go talk to students and strangers as we strived to show the love of Christ. As a pastor, my heart was overflowing with joy and gratitude to God for His good fruit in and through His people. And it is always a thrill to talk to so many people about Christ!

We probably gave out over 3/4 of the materials and refreshments on Sunday and most of the rest were gone quickly after Monday morning's balloon memorial by VT students. Of all the materials, only 500+ of the original 4500 "Where's God When Things Go Wrong" booklets were left at day's end yesterday (Monday). Those remaining booklets should be gone by the end of the week. 500 more CDs of MacArthur's interview arrive tomorrow (Wednesday) and those should again go quickly.

God alone knows the eternal fruit He will bear through all these investments. We are glad to trust Him with results and to pray earnestly that He will save many lost souls and build up many believers through the materials and the personal conversations and displays of love.

Here's a list of what was donated to distribute...
From Grace Community Church (http://www.gracechurch.org/) and Grace Books International (http://www.gbibooks.com/)...
-- 4500 copies of John Blanchard's "Where's God When Things Go Wrong?" (You can read it online at http://www.cvbbs.com/)
-- 338 copies of "If I Were God I'd End All the Pain"
-- 133 copies of "At A Time Like This"
-- 200 ESV Bibles
-- 1000 ESV New Testaments
From Grace to You (http://www.gty.org/)
--2000 copies of John MacArthur interview on the VT tragedy, aired on Grace to You radio program on 4/20/07.
-- 250 copies of MacArthur's book "Can God Bless America?"
-- -- 250 copies of MacArthur's book "Why One Way?"
-- 1000 evangelistic "Stop" tracts
From Desiring God Ministries (http://www.desiringgod.org/)
-- 200-300 copies of John Piper's "Where's God?" CD
From a member of Calvary Memorial Church
-- 100’s of “Million Dollar Bill” “Billion Dollar Bill” “Zero Dollar Bill” Bible Tracts

Additionally, many refreshments were given out. In addition to what was provided by Main Street Baptist in Christiansburg at the drill field site, CMC estimated at least 2500 lbs of bottled water and juice, 1920 bottles of water, 1440 of juice, candy, apples, oranges, and other snacks including Cheetos, Doritos, pretzels, popcorn, crackers, and homemade cookies.

We also praise God for the joy of fellowship with other churches and organizations that were involved, including the following...
Graduate Christian Fellowship--VT host organization
Christian Leadership Network--VT host organization
Blacksburg Christian Fellowship
Calvary Memorial Church of Roanoke
Grace Church of Roanoke
Harvest Baptist Church of Blacksburg
Main Street Baptist Church of Christiansburg
Mineral Springs Baptist Church of Vinton
NANC (nanc.org) / CCEF (ccef.org)
Redeemer Presbyterian Church of Blacksburg
The Master's College (California) Biblical Counseling Department
Trinity Church of Roanoke

I praise our mighty and gracious God for the pleasure He gives us to serve Him. I thank you for sharing my joy by praying for us. To God be the glory, great things He has done!

By grace alone,
Mark VaughanPastor, Calvary Memorial ChurchRoanoke, VAhttp://www.calvarymemorialroanoke.org/

Encouragement to pray for revival in London--and where you are.

2007-04-20T09:09:00.000-07:00

Do You Believe This?

Informed of His friend Lazarus’ illness, Jesus declared, “This sickness is not to end in death,” and decided to remain where he was staying for a couple more days. Though His remarks and behaviour confused and startled the disciples, Jesus knew God was ordaining a circumstance that would increase His glory. In the tomb where Lazarus lay, all appeared final and hopeless, as death does, but it wasn’t to be; Jesus was about to manifest His power there and offer proof He was Messiah.

But a barrier stronger than death lay outside the tomb—unbelief in the human heart. When Jesus met Martha just outside Bethany, He asserted, “I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in me will live even if he dies.” Then He asked her a penetrating faith question, “Do you believe this.” Though she replied she did, confusion came over her and she departed to ask Mary to talk with Jesus. When they met, Mary cried out through her tears, “If you had been here, my brother wouldn’t have died!” To her and the rest, Lazarus was dead, and that was that.

But Jesus knew God’s purposes. Before a weeping crowd and doubting clamourers, Jesus called for the cave’s stone to be removed. Imposing her doubt against this intrusion of her brother’s grave, Martha protested that Lazarus’ body had certainly begun decomposing. To that Jesus replied, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

Lest anyone doubt who He was and what His mission meant, Jesus prayed to the Father, and then commanded, “Lazarus, come forth!” And when Lazarus walked out, pulling off his wrappings, those who saw what Jesus had done believed in Him.

If you’ll allow me, I would like to make a connection between this call to faith and the situation of churches today. All around London, near-empty chapels remind us just how far away we’ve come from a not-too distant time of fullness and life. And even in churches that appear more healthy (larger anyway), many distractions and demands on time are dulling the hearts. Centres once blazing with gospel fire appear nearly extinguished. So desperate is the situation that some among us might even be tempted to say like Mary, “Lord, if you had been here, our chapels would not have died!”

But with God all things are possible. And in this season of decline, I hear our Saviour saying, “Do you believe?” The call is not to despair, but to live in faith. Faith that comes from the surety of God’s Word. Faith that is strengthened through prayer. Faith that is exercised in persistent gospel efforts despite the paucity of the present response.

Spurgeon declared in one of his sermons,

“Before the Lord blesses a church, he prepares it for the blessing. A number of sailors wrecked on a desert island are thirsting for water; but suppose a shower comes at once, it will be wasted blessing. They must be so thirsty that they are led to put up an apparatus for catching the water when it comes; otherwise the water comes too soon, and is lost. I love to see a church in such state of agony for God’s grace that it has got, as it were, the reservoirs ready to hold the grace when it comes.”

This same spirit holds residence in my heart. The situation is bleak, no argument there, but the same God who touched dire times with a fullness of blessing and power still lives. The Word carries the same sharpness to pierce all unbelief. The same Holy Spirit is able to bring a season of refreshment to God’s people.

Jesus asked, “Do you believe this?” And today He repeats the question to us. Do we believe this?

O, yes, Lord, we do believe, help our unbelief. Make us a people prayerful and proclaiming. Make us a church ready and waiting for the blessing. Make us a church that has filled the valley with ditches, prepared to catch the rain when it comes.

Lord, we do believe this!

Pray for Outreach at Virginia Tech

2007-04-20T07:08:00.000-07:00

Mark Vaughan, an alumni of TMS and Virginia Tech who is pastoring a church in nearby Roanoke, is organizing the following outreach in cooperation with other local churches:

(This is part of an email to church members)
…As for what we'll do--it's something whole families and young and old can do. Hand out great materials. Casual.

Come and go as you please. Some of you may want to come earlier and leave, others come later. Whatever. Those who wish to talk or pray with students can do so as God directs and provides opportunity. The main thing is to show the love of Christ and being ready to evangelize, encourage, weep, pray, whatever and get good stuff in their hands. We may never know the final outcome with them. Many will leave in 3 weeks when the semester ends anyway. But, bottom line, it will be fun. Additionally, we have just received a pledge of $1200 toward our outreach that will also allow us to provide some refreshments or something. Volunteers to coordinate that part? See how big this ball is getting? :)

As for materials, here's what we have to distribute:
--4500 copies of John Blanchard's "Where's God When Things Go Wrong?"
--1500-2000 copies of John MacArthur interview with Phil Johnson on the tragedy
--200 copies of John Piper's "Where's God?" CD
--200-250 copies each of MacArthur's books, "Can God Bless America?" and "Why One Way?"
--338 copies of a booklet/tract "If I Were God I'd End All the Pain",
--133 copies of a tract/booklet "At A Time Like This" [Matthias Media materials]
--200 nice ESV Bibles, 100-1000(?) evangelistic tracts from Grace to You.

ALL THIS WAS DONATED

Praise God and let's pray!

News Straight from Blacksburg

2007-04-18T06:18:00.001-07:00

I have a friend who ministers on campus at VT. Here is his latest email: http://truthbuckler.blogspot.com/2007/04/news-straight-from-blacksburg.html

and a second update today (4/19/07) http://truthbuckler.blogspot.com/2007/04/blackburg-update-2.html

John MacArthur in Court

2007-04-17T06:26:00.000-07:00

Click here to see the pics.

Testimony from a Missionary to Muslims

2007-04-14T03:57:00.002-07:00

At a conference on the Island of Mindanao in the Philippines I was challenged by several testimonies given by Filipino missionaries working among Muslims. It took me several hours to edit the audio and is by no means a studio quality job, but I think it is worth listening to and I hope that you will take the time to down load and listen to it. I edited it down to about 7 and a half minutes. You will hear some of the reality that our brothers live with everyday. What you won't hear is that these men and women are often going out with a lot of love and zeal, but very little solid training.

People like the man giving the testimony are just the kind of people I desire to come along side of and train. These workers are passionate and ready to give their lives for the Lord. I want to sharpen them so that they will bring God more glory as He uses them more powerfully and strategically. At the same time I realize that I need help in doing this. I graduated from TMS in 02 and have been here in the Philippines for almost 3 years. We just got the go ahead to start the process for launching a TMAI training center here. Perhaps some of you brothers or some from your flocks will consider praying about coming out here and joining me on a team to reach the Philippines, Asian and other 1040 window countries for Christ. Shoot me an email if your interested or have any other questions. Be blessed.

Memorial Service for Mike Gardiner

2007-04-11T17:01:00.000-07:00

Sunday, April 15, 2007
6:00 p.m.
Carson Bible Church
23601 Main Street
Carson, CA 90745

More info is available on the church website: Carson Bible Church
per Joel Wood

On Mike Gardiner

2007-04-07T15:04:00.001-07:00

Below is a message that Bradley M. Pixley requested be posted here:

"I had the privilege of spending some time yesterday afternoon at the hospital with Mike Gardiner's wife, Amy, Mike's parents and brother, Amy's sister, and many of Mike's friends. It was a time of grief, for sure, but great was our rejoicing over the fact that our friend has received the reward he so longed for--eternal life in and with Christ. Mike was a personal friend as well as a faithful instructor in the Bible Institute at my church. I met him as I was just beginning my ministry at Anza Baptist Church in Torrance, CA (a neighbor city to Carson). Mike and I became fast friends. Mike was a true man of God--the best kind of friend a man can have. I was richly blessed to know him.

There are three specific things you can pray for:
(1) Amy, Mike's wife, has serious injuries herself. She is holding up well, but has many difficult days ahead. To respect her privacy, I won't elaborate on her injuries, but suffice it to say she is in the hospital because she needs to be in the hospital. Her physical recovery will be difficult. So, pray for physical strength and healing and pray for God to continue to sustain her spiritually as well. Pray that her grief would continue to guided by the truth of God's Word.
(2) Carson Bible Church has some serious considerations to wrestle with as well. Pray that they will uphold Amy in the days ahead, bearing her burdens. Pray that they will give due consideration to how to care for the widow that God has entrusted to them. Judging by the folks I met yesterday, Carson Bible is a loving congregation. They seem to esteem Mike highly. I feel confident that they will strive to do what is right in God's sight in this situation. So, pray that God will guide them accordingly and guard their unity as the body of Christ in the difficult days ahead.
(3) Joel Wood is the youth pastor at Carson Bible. He and Mike were best friends. So, Joel is having to deal with the death of his best friend while he strives to be a shepherd to the entire church body. I do not know if Joel will assume primary preaching responsibilities or not (temporarily or otherwise), but it is a possibility I would think. This means that Joel's ministry will be undergoing radical changes by necessity. Pray that God would continue to enable him with the strength and fortitude to shepherd the dear folks at Carson during the difficult days ahead.

I do not yet know of details about services for Mike, but I will provide updates as they come my way. I do know that Amy, Mike's family, Joel, and the folks at Carson Bible Church appreciate your concerns and prayers. Please continue to carry their names before the throne of grace of our Almighty God!

Bradley M. Pixley
Pastor
Anza Avenue Baptist Church

Mike Gardiner: Home with the Lord

2007-04-06T12:38:00.000-07:00

I just received a note from Dr. Busenitz that Mike went into the presence of the Lord this morning. I don't have any other details. He was the pastor of Carson Bible Church, in Carson, CA. I imagine that the church will have some info eventually. www.carsonbiblechurch.com

So it's GOOD Friday

2007-04-06T05:01:00.000-07:00

This meditation is posted in honor of Mike Gardiner. Mike is currently in the hospital recovering from a major car accident (see previous TMS alumni post). One of the things that always encouraged me about Mike (from our time in seminary together) was his passion for the glory and the supremacy of Jesus Christ! Mike is a guy in the mold of Edwards and Piper. He understands what this life is all about. Join us in praying for Mike this morning!

Today is one of my favorite days of the year. Today is GOOD Friday. As i stopped to meditate on the events surrounding this celebration i realized that alot should be said about this particular day. Let’s admit it friends the world really does not get this “holiday.”
Many think it is crazy enough that we Christians actually believe in the historical nature of Jesus’ atoning death on the cross (let alone his resurrection). Much could be said by way of apologetics here.

But beyond these things we have to honest and admit that it’s still a little strange that we call this particular day “GOOD”. What’s so good about our Messiah, the sinless Lamb of God, being brutally murdered by Jew and Gentile sinner alike? Have we lost our minds?
You see we really can’t even talk about this day without bringing in Biblical theology. This particular Friday is GOOD because on this day many thousand years ago the second Adam died vicariously in our place (Rom 5); He bore the wrath of God that we deserve (1 John 2:2); He endured the shame that we deserve (Phil. 2); He accomplished something we could never accomplish (2 Cor 5:21), etc, etc.

Beyond all these amazing realities is the essential connection between Good Friday and Easter. This Friday is now celebrated as GOOD Friday because of what happened on Sunday! Jesus conquered Sin, Satan, and death itself (1 Cor 15) when he rose again. God showed his complete satisfaction in the substitutionary death of Christ by raising him up on the third day according to the Scriptures.

In my estimation we can not forgot this connection. One of the primary reasons why good Friday is so GOOD is because of “Easter” Sunday. One of the reasons why the resurrection of Jesus is more way more significant than all the previous resurrections is because of what happened on GOOD Friday!

Brothers i pled with you to preach the message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified tonight! Stir the souls of your congregation to worship the Lamb who is worthy and pray for genuine revival in the hearts of those unbelievers who will no doubt attend your Friday and Sunday services.

Just don’t forget that one of the main reasons why today is GOOD is because of what happened on Sunday.

Low in the grave he lay, Jesus my Savior,
Waiting the coming day, Jesus my Lord!

Up from the grace He arose;
With a mighty triumph o’er his foes;
He arose a victor from the dark domain,
And he lives forever, with his saints to reign.

He arose! He arose! Hallelujah! Christ arose!

Prayer for Mike Gardiner

2007-04-05T20:07:00.000-07:00

Mike Gardiner (TMS 2005), pastor of Carson Bible Church was involved in a car accident and the report I have is that is in very critical condition with significant head injuries. His wife, Amy, was also in the car, but she apparently was not seriously injured. Just a note to remember Mike and Amy in prayer.

Church Polity and the Baptist tradition

2007-04-05T07:27:00.000-07:00

Since this blog is rarely used i will post part 2 of my essay on Baptists and Church Polity.

Church polity was a hotly debated issue in the early Baptist church and it is one that continues to rage to this day. “The early Baptist church emerged in seventeenth-century England as autonomous units. Each church had an ordained leader (minister, pastor, or teacher) and deacons elected by the members. Some churches also had elders while others appointed messengers to organize new churches or minister to those churches lacking a leader” (Baptist Life, p. 47). It is best to admit that there were many different forms of church government within the early Baptist movement. In other words, deacon-led, elder-led, and congregation-led churches probably all existed early in Baptist circles.

It appears that many Baptist churches were in fact governed by elders. Former professor of church history at the Master’s Seminary, James Stitzinger, believes that Baptists had multiple elders in their polity up until Hiscox wrote his New Directory (a church polity manual) in the late 1800s. Pastor Mark Dever notes that, “Throughout seventeenth-century England, Baptists affirmed the office of elder. In 1697, Benjamin Keach wrote of ‘bishops, overseers, or elders,’ clearly implying that these New Testament titles refer to one office” (By Whose Authority? Elders in Baptist Life, p. 18). In 1767, one of the great Baptist theologians, John Gill, wrote the massive systematic theology textbook, Body of Divinity. In his book, this English Baptist leader writes, “These pastors and teachers are the same with bishops, or overseers, whose business it is to feed the flock; they have the episcopacy or oversight of, which is the work pastors are to do; which office of a bishop is a good work, and is the only office in the church distinct from that of deacon.—And these bishops are the same with elders …” Later he adds, “These pastors, teachers, bishops, and elders, are called rulers, guides, and governors. A pastor, or shepherd, is the governor and guide of his flock; a teacher and a ruling elder are the same, 1 Tim. 5:17” (Body of Divinity, Vol. II, p. 575). John Gill clearly taught that there are only two offices in the church: elders and deacons. Elders are responsible for teaching, leading, and shepherding the flock of God, while deacons are more accountable for the physical needs of members within the church.

In his book, By Whose Authority, Mark Dever documents a continuity of belief in elder-governed churches from the first president of the Southern Baptist Convention, W.B Johnson, to William Williams (1874), a member of the founding faculty of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, to the renowned Charles Spurgeon (By Whose Authority? pp. 19-21). In 1907, A.H. Strong, author of a popular Reformed Baptist Systematic Theology, summarized his position a little differently: “In certain of the N.T. churches there appears to have been a plurality of elders…There is however, no evidence that the number of elders was uniform, or that the plurality which frequently existed was due to any other cause than the size of the churches for which the elders cared. The N.T. example, while it permits the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not require a plural eldership in every case…There are indications, moreover, that, in certain churches, the pastor was one, while the deacons were more than one, in number” (Systematic Theology, p.916). Suffice it to say, many Baptist preachers and theologians understood that the New Testament model was elder-governed churches. Some differences existed among Baptist theologians as to whether this meant a plurality of elders leading the church (e.g., Benjamin Keach and John Gill) or whether it was acceptable in some instances to have just one (e.g., A.H. Strong).

Baptist History Project

2007-04-04T06:12:00.000-07:00

I open this brief essay by concurring with the words of Dr. Thomas Nettles, “It is with difficulty that men strive to define ‘Baptists.’” (By His Grace and for His Glory, p. 13). It is easier to list some of the influential leaders who have been part of the Baptist movement (Smyth, Bunyan, Carey, Gill, Broadus, Spurgeon, Strong, Henry, Nicole, Mohler, Piper) than to define what a “Baptist” is or is not. Any attempted definition must include a discussion of history, church polity, and doctrine. The primary goal of this short work, therefore, is to answer the following questions: When did the Baptist denomination originate? Have Baptists historically supported the concept of a plurality of elders leading and governing the church? For how long have Baptists taught the “Doctrines of Grace,” also called by some, “biblical Calvinism”?

We begin with the origin of the Baptist denomination. Some argue that Baptists reach back to the apostolic era (the Successionist theory and/or Landmarkism). People holding this view typically believe that only Landmark Baptists have followed the New Testament pattern of church life. They would also argue that they have always remained separate from the Catholic Church while tracing their lineage directly back to John the Baptist. This view cannot be substantiated historically (contra J. M. Caroll’s 1930s book, The Trail of Blood).

Others argue that Baptists belong to the Congregational branch of Protestantism from post-Elizabethan England. This theory believes modern Baptists originated with certain English Separatists who left or were simply forced out of the Church of England. This is a plausible explanation with some good historical support (see Joe Flatt’s, What is a Regular Baptist, p. 2). A third view contends that early Baptists were an offshoot of the Anabaptist movement. Proponents of this view reason that contact with Dutch Mennonites in the early seventeenth century led to the Baptist movement. Dr. William Brackney points out that “[d]ocumentation of the Baptist tradition commences when the first ‘baptizing,’ congregations, so-called, began to appear about 1608 [emphasis mine]. Through John Smyth and Thomas Helwys a connection with the heirs of the Radical Reformation can be established” (Baptist Life and Thought: A Source Book, p. 15). It appears that Baptists originated around 1608 or 1609. The first Baptist congregation to organize in America was founded by Roger Williams in Rhode Island in 1638 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists). A common thread running through this movement is the Baptist commitment to orthodox biblical theology, congregational autonomy, and baptism by immersion.

To be continued at http://preacherboy316.blogspot.com/

A Word from the TMS President

2007-03-13T10:41:00.000-07:00

I think we are all aware by now of Dr. MacArthur's lecture at the Shepherd's Conference on premillennialism. Knowing how this has created a firestorm of debate all over the Internet, I thought it would be good to hear again from the TMS president regarding eschatology and the spirit we should have when approaching the subject:

“...it is worth emphasizing again that eschatology…is more enveloped in mystery than any other theological discipline. This is true by God’s own design…Since Christ Himself said He did not know the timetable of His return, isn’t this a matter on which it behooves us all to show the utmost humility" (The Second Coming, 17-18)?

Shepherd's Conference 2007

2007-03-03T05:25:00.001-08:00

Keynote speakers will be John MacArthur, John Piper, Al Mohler, Steve Lawson, Mark Dever, and Ligon Duncan. See the details here. See you there!

NT use of the Old

2007-02-22T12:54:00.000-08:00

Check out Randy's excellent work at http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/

"The next chapter in Preaching the Old Testament carries a lengthy title (“Toward the Effective Preaching of New Testament Texts That Cite the Old Testament”) but an important message. According to Roy E. Ciampa, passages that quote from or are based upon OT texts provide special challenges and unique opportunities for the preacher. Therefore, his thesis is as follows:
In order to effectively use a New Testament text that quotes the Old Testament, a preacher will want to help the embedded Old Testament text play the same role with their audience that it played with the original audience. (152)

His arguments can be framed around the following questions. Why did NT authors quote the OT?

According to Ciampa, the OT is quoted for a variety of reasons, such as the following (152):
to defend or support their theological arguments,
to clarify an issue using an illustration from the OT,
to reveal the significance of a contemporary event or reality,
to bring credibility to an author, showing his abilities to interpret Scripture,
to establish a sense of rapport with the readers."

What's Wrong with America?

2007-02-06T14:33:00.000-08:00

What's wrong with America?

I could not believe some churches wanted to broadcast the Super Bowl at church during their Sunday evening services this past weekend. Of course this is packaged as a wonderful chance to reach unbelievers. Offer people a huge screen, free snacks and at halftime you try and keep them in their seats long enough to have someone sneak in the gospel message. I can appreciate the heart of those trying to be missional. Of course, the old bait and switch approach to evangelism is really nothing new. Reaching out to the community is a wonderful idea and sometimes the traditional church needs to be more creative. I don't believe Super Bowl Sunday Night is one of them.

So what happened when the Super commercials came on? I mean think about it! Many people are more interested in the ads than the actual game. I did not even really watch the TV ads this year (primarily because i was too nervous about the actual Bear's game), but i saw enough to confirm my fears. You want to project 9 foot images of pretty ladies running around in their underwear AT CHURCH?!? It is bad enough when people don't change the channel at home. Too many commercials focus in on sexual things, bathroom humor, etc, etc. Just watch an hour worth of prime time TV on any channel and you'll get the picture. I would be ashamed if my Church showed a bunch of perverse images in the sanctuary. Let's have a little more discernment Church.

Of all the smut that was shown during the Super Bowl CHECK OUT what was boycotted. I actually saw this comercial and thought it was wrong for different reasons (see below)....

"A commercial for Snickers candy bars launched in the Super Bowl broadcast was benched after its maker got complaints that it was homophobic.The ad showed two auto mechanics accidentally kissing while eating the same candy bar and then ripping out some chest hair to do something "manly." One of the alternate endings on the Snickers Web site showed the men attacking each other. The Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation complained to the maker of Snickers, Hackettstown-based Masterfoods USA, a division of Mars Inc., which also makes M&M's and other candies.

The Web site also featured video of players from the Super Bowl teams reacting to the kiss."This type of jeering from professional sports figures at the sight of two men kissing fuels the kind of anti-gay bullying that haunts countless gay and lesbian school children on playgrounds all across the country," Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese said in a statement.GLAAD spokesman Marc McCarthy said Tuesday the group believed "this kind of prejudice was inexcusable."

Masterfoods spokeswoman Alice Nathanson issued a statement in which she said the company would stop running the ad on television and the Web site."As with all of our Snickers advertising, our goal was to capture the attention of our core Snickers consumer," Nathanson wrote."

Church homes

2007-01-27T10:29:00.000-08:00

I have some friends who are moving to Las Vegas, NV and to Austin, TX. If you know of any solid churches in those cities please let me know.

Thanks kindly,

Caleb Kolstad
www.fbccarmel.com

Edwards and the Affections (Part 2)

2007-01-26T08:04:00.000-08:00

This is the second of two posts I offer in reflection upon Jonathan’s Edwards’ masterful treatise on The Religious Affections. Two matters rise above others that strike me in Edwards’ treatment of genuine spiritual and godly affections.

First - true regeneration produces Spirit wrought humility. True believers have a sense of their own insufficiency and sinfulness. Edwards distinguishes between “legal” and “evangelical” humiliation. The former is what natural men experience due to the “common influence” of the Holy Spirit. The latter is the result of the “special influences” of the Holy Spirit upon the regenerate. Natural men experience guilt and a sense of accountability before a just God, but they do not have a sense of their own depravity from which guilty sins lie. Sin is not repugnant to them as it is in the believer. They do not humble themselves and exalt God’s holiness at the same time. Though they recognize their guilt, there is no inclination of the will toward a spiritual understanding of their condition or desire for any spiritual alteration.

In contradistinction, the spiritual man is not only brought low but also inclined to yield himself to the glory of God. The natural man when convicted of his guilt loses nothing of his pride. Edwards writes of the false professor, “There are many that are full of expressions of their own vileness, who yet expect to be looked upon as eminent and bright saints by others, as their due.” The one who exhibits hypocrisy he says, “trusts in what is inherent in him, to make him shine in God’s sight, and recommend him to God: and with this encouragement he goes before God in prayer; and this makes him expect much from God; and this makes him think that Christ loves him, and that He is willing to clothe him with His righteousness; because he supposes that He is taken with his experiences and grace.” Such are sorely deluded in Edwards’ estimation.

Further summarizing Edwards’ view of true Christian humility, the one who merely exhibits natural humility is based upon the degree to which he believes he has stooped below his dignity and worthiness. Spiritual humility is the opposite. It thinks it has not stooped low enough to meet the state of unworthiness that is proper to one’s real status. Thus in false humility, there is a pride in one’s humility because a person thinks it has been such a noble thing to stoop below his worth. True humility stems from thinking less of one’s self then what we expect of natural men. However, this self-abasement is a more proper view of one’s self because it stems from spiritual apprehension of the true nature of one’s unworthiness before such a holy God.

Under conviction of sin, one with false humility thinks he has been more convicted then is warranted; that his sins are smaller then they really are. In genuine humility, one thinks he is very little convicted and laments that he feels no more conviction for the sin he has; that his sin is greater then what he feels convicted of. True humiliation in the spiritual person never thinks he is highly sensible to the presence of sin, rather that his sensibleness to sin is very low. Thus truly humble people are more aware of their pride then their humility. They also think of themselves as worse than others and paint others as better then themselves. The hypocrite however, is always observing pride in others and never in himslef. He thinks everyone else has a log in their eye while he has only a speck in his own. Hypocrites make much of their humility, talking much of it and making displays of it for others to see in their speech, demeanor, dress, etc... The truly humble person hides his humility and does not speak of it or try to display it because the reality is, he does not believe he has it.

The whole of Christian experience is marked by this humility. Edwards says, “Gracious affections flow out of a broken heart… A truly Christian love, either to God or men, is a humble broken-hearted love. The desires of the saints, however earnest, are humble desires. Their hope is a humble hope; and their joy, even when it is unspeakable and full of glory, is a humble broken-hearted joy, and leaves the Christian more poor in spirit, and more like a little child, and more disposed to a universal lowliness of behavior.”

Secondly - a matter of utmost importance comes last in Edwards’ treatment. The reason for this is that all the other signs of genuine faith are the foundation of and subequently lead of necessity to this final matter. He believed it is the principal evidence of whether or not one is truly a believer, and it should come as no suprise. If love for God is the principal affection of the true believer, the only way to know for certain is the fruit it produces. If love is the root of godly affections, proper Christian behavior is the fruit. In fact, all graciously endowed affections lead to the same result. Edwards says, “There is no one grace of the Spirit of God but that Christian practice is the most proper evidence of the truth of it.” Edwards exposits Matthew 7 and 12, especially Jesus’ teaching regarding bad trees and bad fruit and good trees and good fruit. One does not judge a tree by its branches, its trunk, its size, its leaves or even it blossoms no matter how pretty they might be, rather simply by its fruit.

Furthermore, one does not judge a tree by the shape, color or size of its seed. We probably can’t tell what the seed of an apple tree looks like; but we know it from its fruit. But here is the interesting thing – only apple seeds will make apple trees and the ultimate test that the seed is indeed an apple tree seed is because it produces apples. The spiritual seed planted within every believer necessarily produces spiritual fruit. A man may say he has had a wonderful conversion experience and has embraced Christ as his savior speaking eloquently of the wonderful things that come from his heart, but how can we trust his profession? How do we know his heart? If his heart has been truly changed it will result in the fruit of actions that correspond to a genuine Christian testimony. If God has planted the seed of truly gracious and godly affections they will result in godly behavior. If one says he loves Christ and has embraced Him as his savior would not that love result in actions that speak louder then mere words? That is the true test of gracious affections. If love is the greatest of all godly affections then godly love put into practice is the greatest test of its genuineness.

Trusting Christ is properly evidenced by following after Him, forsaking all else to do His bidding. The word trust itself implies such action. Trust means to depend on something outside one’s self that is of a dependable or trustworthy character. The test of one’s dependence is to risk some action that you would otherwise fear to do unless you were assured that it fully rested on the dependent and trustworthy character of the one whom you depend on. The failure to act and so to buck all risks in the action indicates that one does not fully trust the one he claims to depend on for overcoming all the risks involved. Abraham is the greatest example of this kind of faith, both in his initial calling by God and in his action to sacrifice Isaac. The whole of Hebrews 11 is faith evidenced by such action.

Edwards demonstrates this principle in the following illustration. Suppose a king surprisingly offers a distant island as a gift to a man if he should simply dispense with his current occupation and affairs and venture off to the island sight unseen. The man exercises faith if he risks all he possesses in his current state and moves to the island based simply upon the king’s word. However, no one thinks him to really believe the king if he stays home hoping secretly that the promise will be his with no action on his part. He risks nothing and does nothing that might cause him failure should the word prove untrue. The test that he believes the word of the king is true with absolute certainty is the risk he takes in forsaking all to move to the island. Edwards says, “The proper evidence of gracious desires and longings, and that which distinguishes them from those that are false and vain, is, that they are not idle wishes and wouldings [Edwards’ term]... but effectual in practice to stir up persons earnestly and thoroughly to seek the things they long for.” And so Edwards very forcibly argues in parallel to James that gracious Spirit wrought affections necessarily produces Spirit wrought actions to the degree that such affections are genuine.

This only but touches the tip of the iceberg of Edwards’ consideration of true Christianity. Like most who probably read this blog, I have made it a habit to read as many good books as I have time and inclination to do. I certainly do not claim to have any credentials by which one should trust my recommendation, but I have never read a book outside of Scripture that has so impacted me as The Religious Affections. I commend to you this work that is worth more than ten good books produced today. Read it, read it again and digest it thoroughly. You will not be disappointed.

Responding to the Exodus of Evangelical Youth

2007-01-25T14:40:00.000-08:00

Brothers, I am hosting a blog discussion on the problem that the evangelical church is facing of teens leaving the church in droves. I would love to see what you all are thinking about concerning this and what your plan is to combat the exodus. Come join the discussion at my blog.

Interview with Dr. Peter Enns

2007-01-25T07:42:00.000-08:00

Dr. Peter Enns is the professor of Old Testament and Biblical Hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He's the author of the NIV Application Commentary on Exodus and contributed to the D.A. Carson edited Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 1: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism with his excellent essay on expansions of Scripture. I recently had an email exchange with Dr. Enns, whose most recent book Incarnation and Inspiration: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament I reviewed in three parts (which are available here, here and here). Actually, it might be more accurate to say that I responded to some other reviews - the book in question has raised no small amount of controversy in the Reformed world. Having recognized popularly prevailing gnostic notions of Biblical inspiration, Enns seeks to balance the equation with a robust explanation of Scripture's humanity - not with a view to canceling out it's divine nature, but in the hopes of deriving a nuanced analogy with the incarnate Word of God Himself. In our exchange he kindly agreed to be interviewed for my blog. Go check it out.

BUT FIRST . . . read Scott's post on Jonathan Edwards, below this one and be sure to catch part two when it arrives!

Edwards and the Affections (Part 1)

2007-01-24T21:50:00.000-08:00

I had the privilege to participate in the recent winterim at TMS on the life and theology of Jonathan Edwards as taught by Dr. John Hannah. Some have urged me to post a blog entry on my experience with the class and particularly with Edwards himself. What I offer here in no way compares to what one will gain by carefully and thoughtfully reading Edwards. I apologize that I do not have any fancy graphics to go with this post. I am by no means a pro blogger. Due to the length of the material, I will divide the entries into two posts.

Edwards’ participation in the Great Awakening in the mid-1730’s and early 1740’s gave him the advantage of observing first hand hundreds of the thousands of people that made professions of faith in Christ at this time in New England. Edwards studied the revival intently in order to understand the nature of conversion. He sought to explore how the experiences of people squared with what Scripture says about distinguishing between real and false conversion. The mature fruit of Edwards’ labor on this question resulted in His justly famous work The Religious Affections. The work attempts to assess the distinguishing marks of genuine conversion and subsequent Christian experience. He examined those matters that did not clearly answer the question one way or the other and then put forth 12 positive signs that distinguish true conversion from false. There are core issues Edwards addresses in the positive signs that I believe have profound pastoral implications for us today.

Edwards begins all his important works with definitions. The key definition for understanding The Religious Affections is the word affections. Many have equated Edwards’ use of this term with our more modern word emotions. I think this is a mistake. He defined affections as “the more vigorous and sensible exercises of the inclination and will of the soul.” Affections are those fundamental desires of the heart that either incline or disincline us to particular matters of import. The more importance something is perceived to have the more vigorous our reaction to it either favorably or unfavorably. Affections include love, hate, joy, grief, humility, jealousy, anger, patience, etc… He believed genuine faith consisted in having particular affections marked by a distinctly favorable and godly disposition towards divine matters. I am reminded of Proverbs 4:23 – “Watch over your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life.” The heart and not the mind Edwards would say is the mission control center of human activity. Edwards was battling the encroachment of Enlightenment thinking that emphasized the mind over the heart. Edwards wrote, “He that has doctrinal knowledge and speculation only, without affection, never is engaged in the business of religion.”

However, it is overly simplistic to think Edwards pitted mind and heart against one another. Edwards had a much more complex view of human psychology than the popular bifurcation between mind and heart. Each always acts in conjunction with the other so that there is a sort of circle of dialog between the two. Thus the affections of the heart are inextricably tied to the faculty of understanding. Misunderstanding leads to misplaced affections. True understanding leads to proper and God glorifying affections in the true believer. I believe this notion is lost on much of modern Evangelicalism and especially within classic Reformed circles. We are greater products of the Enlightenment than perhaps we care to admit.

This leads to my summarization of what Edwards regarded as the fundamental marks of a true believer. First, Edwards makes a distinction between natural affections of the unregenerate and those that are unique to the believer. All natural affections stem from self-interest and have as their object that which concerns ultimately only one’s self. All godly affections delight in God for who He is in Himself and so He becomes the central object of godly or spiritual affections. This does not mean that one does not gain some self-interest in being attracted to God, but that is secondary to delighting simply in God for who He is in and of Himself (Psalm 63:1-8). One may have a natural love for God Edwards calls a “love of beneficence.” This is a love that is extended due to the benefits it accrues for the self. He contrasts this with a “love of complacence.” This is a love that delights fundamentally in the object of love. It is this sort of affection, a pure delight in God for who He is, that is the foundational mark of the true believer. It reflects the greatest command of Scripture Christ Himself put forward, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matt. 22:37). The believer may have a love of beneficence, in that he delights in the personal benefits of the gospel, but this is preceded and under-girded by a love of complacence, something Edwards says an unregenerate natural man cannot have. The fact is a genuine rejoicing in the benefits of the gospel is nothing other than a rejoicing in the greatness of God. As John Piper has so aptly put recently, “God is the Gospel.”

Such love must in turn be preceded by a proper perception of God. A proper perception of God is impossible apart from divine revelation and regeneration (i.e. Word and Spirit). In order to see God as He rightly is in Himself, one must have spiritual eyes to see. Thus spiritual understanding invites spiritual affections and both are a product of the Holy Spirit. This means that a natural man may have a natural affection for God in so much as he believes God may serve his own interests, but such affection is unremarkable. True affections for God stem from the unmitigated perception of His excellence and beauty as Edwards would say. In other words, the glorious perfections of God are suddenly opened up to the new believer in a way he could never previously see or understand. Edwards calls this new perception, the “new sense.” It is not enough to have some indifferent knowledge of God no matter how correct such knowledge may be (i.e. revelation without illumination). Rather, the spiritual man is enamored with God in the same way Isaiah was in the Temple vision or Peter was in Luke 5 and John in Revelation 1.

This kind of affection is also marked by a kind of depth that is unrivaled in any other object that might contend for one’s affections. The whole treatise on The Religious Affections is really an exposition of 1 Pet. 1:8, “though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory.” The test of such affections as described here finds its locus in the crucible of affliction. Edwards noted that many converts during the Great Awakening professed a great love for God at first who only later proved how little they truly loved God. Once difficulty cast a shadow upon the perception of God’s obligatory support of self-interest a new object for the affections was sought. Such professors suffered from a love of beneficence not complacence.

Tommorrow I will post on two important features of Edwards' work that are necessary corollaries to this fundamental affection of love for God in the true believer.

Same Sex Relationships and the Church

2007-01-19T10:39:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: I just did a follow-up post on the issue of sexuality.

Having enjoyed Kim Fabricius' continuing propositions series at Faith and Theology, I was excited to see him recently address the issue of homosexuality in the Church. Same-sex relationships, of course, remain one of the most divisive issues in Christendom (as demonstrated by the gaining fissures within Anglican Communion), producing far more heat than light on all sides of the debate. Given such an atmosphere of off-putting rhetoric, any salient theological insight should be received with gratitude, and I'm thankful for Kim's efforts to crystallize the deeper issues which concern both the ancient voices and those of contemporary dissent.

I obviously dissent from Kim's position on the issue, though - so I posted four antitheses at Soylent Green, if you're interested.

War of the Words

2007-01-18T12:19:00.000-08:00

One of the hallmarks of evangelical Christianspeak is a term upon which our patron saint, Billy Graham, has built his career - it's the word "saved". You might recognize its usage in popular phrases such as, "Are ya SAVED tonight?", "When did you get saved?" and (my favorite) "That guy needs to get saved". It is, in fact, such a ubiquitous stand-in for describing evangelical Christians that a satirical movie by Brian Dannelly could lampoon us (rather successfully) under that simple monosyllabic banner. To be a Christian is to have been "saved". The more doctrinally fastidious would be quick to point out all of the corresponding components to that past event, to be sure - namely, present sanctification and future glorification; but generally salvation should be regarded as a past-tense fact. Sanctification is a term that belongs to the outworking of that past fact, and glorification is a term that belongs to the consummation of it.

It might strike you as strange, then, that in comparison with today's evangelical terminology that the word "saved" is in considerably modest circulation within the pages of the New Testament. Not only is this the case, but to the chagrin of the more dogmatically inclined, the salvation terminology of the Bible doesn't comport with the rigidly chronological categorization everyone is so familiar with (justification, sanctification, glorification). In fact, the Biblical word "salvation" speaks primarily not of a past event, but a (certain and secure) future hope (cf. Mt. 10:22, Ro. 13:11, 2 Tim. 2:10, Heb. 9:28, 1 Pet. 1:9). The lesson here is that theologians, even very good theologians, use Biblical words differently than the Bible uses that same terminology. This isn't because they're doing something evil or underhanded, but because they are trying to draw together all of the diverse strands of Scripture into one discernible whole - and that can be very helpful. But if people don't understand that the Biblical writers themselves didn't mean exactly the same thing these theologians mean by these words, it can result in confusion - and even more often that that, contention.

Before listing some passages to prove that point, though, it's important to notice that the Biblical passages which contain those words most familiar to systematic theology - words like justification, sanctification, adoption, regeneration, etc. - are not the only passages in the Bible which speak to those theological topics. Justification, for instance, deals with concepts of judgment, wrath, righteousness, law and covenant. Studying about justification, then, means more than just looking up every time the word shows up in the Bible. It means rooting out the concepts attached to that word. But more to the point, once you do find all the occurrences of these words, you need to know that they aren't even used the same way in every passage. The word "sanctification", for example, doesn't mean the same thing in 1 Co. 6:11 as it does in 1 Co. 7:14. That's an incredibly important point. It means that not only do theological words (like justification, sanctification and glorification) not mean the same thing in the Bible as they do in systematic theology - but they don't always mean the same thing even in the Bible itself.

With those caveats out of the way, and getting back to the issue at hand, once you begin looking up words like "salvation", "justification" and even "glorification", the time line mentioned above unravels. In fact, every term used by systematic theologians to describe our salvation - all of them - have an “already—not yet” pattern. Whatever saving activity is being described, it is generally (and variously) presented as beginning at a point in time, carried through the present and brought to final fulfillment or realization at the end. Numerous passages could be listed, but I'll list just a few - notice in the passages selected how the word differs both from usage in other passages listed and from common theological currency among Christians.

Salvation is past (Eph. 2:8), present (1 Co. 1:18) and future (Mat. 10:22).

Redemption is past (1 Pet. 1:18), present (Col. 1:14) and future (Eph. 4:30).

Regeneration is past (Titus 3:5) and future (Mat. 19:28, Rev. 21:5).

Forgiveness is past (Jn. 20:23), present (1 Jn. 1:9) and future (Mt. 18:34-35).

Adoption is past (Eph. 1:5) and future (Ro. 8:23).

Justification is past (Ro. 5:11), present (Ro. 6:7 - "freed"= lit. justified) and future (Mt. 12:37).

Sanctification is past (1 Co. 6:11), present (Ro. 6:22) and future (1 Thess 5:23 - see also 2 Thess. 2:13).

Glorification is past (Ro. 8:30, i.e. proleptically), present (1 Pet. 1:8) and future (2 Thess. 1:10-12).

Much carnage has resulted among Christians because of the fundamental failure to ask what someone means by the words they're using. So the next time the theologically meticulous and doctrinaire among us (yeah, I'm included) are tempted to take someone to task for their theological imprecision, we can ask ourselves whether it's wise to indict the New Testament writers along with them.

The Trinitarian Basis for Joy

2006-12-21T12:58:00.000-08:00

I recently received the current edition of The Master’s Seminary Journal (17:2) and enjoyed reading Dr. Mayhue’s editorial in the front. Notice what he says about the Trinitarian basis for joy:

“Joy is rooted in God’s Trinitarian nature with a view to flourishing, blossoming, and bearing fruit in the Christian’s life. God the Father is the object of joy (Pss 35:9; 43:4; 1 Pet 1:8); God the Son mentors joy (Heb 12:2); and God the Holy Spirit prompts joy (Rom 15:13)."

Leviticus 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul

2006-12-13T00:21:00.000-08:00

I am now nearing the end of my Ph.D., completing a dissertation titled: "The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Jewish and Pauline Interpretation." I have been fascinated for some time now with Paul's understanding of the law and the relationship between faith and works, and so I chose this topic in order to better grasp these crucial topics. I also wanting to have a thorough first-hand knowledge of the original sources for early Judaism (i.e. intertestamental Judaism). I have had a wonderful experience here in Aberdeen and will miss--to some extent--the Ph.D. life. I hope to submit my dissertation sometime in early Feb, if not before (!), and thus have my oral examination perhaps in March sometime. Please pray with me, brothers, that 1) my disseration is a sweet aroma to God and will magnify the glory of Christ, 2) will illuminate the truth of the scriptures, and 3) will end up serving the church in some capacity. I pray that every jot and tittle of my work has been pleasing to Christ, and that his name has been magnified by my study.
For those who may be interested, I have attatched a rough outline of my dissertation. Please let me know if you have any comments, questions, concerns, etc., and again, I really need your prayers in these final stages!

The Use of Leviticus 18:5 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation
Preston M. Sprinkle

Introduction

1. Introduction (1k)

2. History of Research (3k)
2.1 Paul and the Law
2.2 Significant Treatments of Lev 18:5
Nils Dahl(?)
J. Vos
Alan Gignac
Louis Martyn
Joel Willitts
Simon Gathercole
Fredrick Avemarie
Francis Watson

3. Methodology (4k)
3.1 Criteria for Detecting an Allusion to Lev 18:5
3.2 Passages where Lev 18:5 has not been alluded to, though commonly thought that it has
3.3 Texts to be examined
3.4 Method of study

Prolegomena

Chapter 1. Leviticus 18:5 in Leviticus, Ezekiel, and Nehemiah

1.1 Lev 18:5 in Leviticus (5k)
1.1.1 Introduction
1.1.2 Md)h – The person
1.1.3 Mt) h#(y – does them
1.1.4 Mhb yxw – will live by them
1.2 Conclusion

1.2 The Use of Lev 18:5 in Latter OT Tradition (8k)
1.2.1 Ezekiel
1.2.1.1 Introduction
1.2.1.2 Lev 18:5 in Ezekiel 20
1.2.1.3 Lev 18:5 in Ezekiel 18, 33, and 36-37
1.2.1.4 Conclusion
1.2.2 Nehemiah
1.2.2.1 Introduction
1.2.2.2 Lev 18:5 in Neh 9:29
1.2.2.3 Conclusion

1.3 The Use of Lev 18:5 in the LXX (3k)
1.3.1 Leviticus
1.3.2 Ezekiel
1.3.3 Nehemiah
1.3.4 Summary

Summary

Part One: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Early Judaism

Chapter 2. The Use of Lev 18:5 in the Dead Sea Scrolls (16k)
2.1 The Damascus Document (7,600)
2.1.1 Introduction
2.1.2 Theological Tendenz
2.1.2.1 Free Will and Predestination in Qumran and the Damascus Document
2.1.2.2 CD 2:14-3:20: The Restoration of the Faithful Remnant
2.1.3 Lev 18:5 in CD 3:15–16
2.1.3.1 The Text and Original Context
2.1.3.2 Leviticus 18:5 and Eschatological Life
2.1.3.3 Deuteronomic Theology, the Restoration of Israel, and Leviticus 18:5
2.1.4 Conclusion

2.2 4Q266 (4,000 words)
2.2.1 Introduction
2.2.2 The Setting of the Expulsion Ceremony
2.2.3 Leviticus 18:5 and The Prayer of Expulsion
2.2.3.1 The Text and Context
2.2.3.2 Divine and Human Agency
2.2.3.3 The Meaning of Life
2.2.3.4 Crossing the Boundaries and Forfeiting Life
2.2.4 Conclusion

2.3 4Q504 (4,400 words)
2.3.1 Introduction
2.3.2 Deuteronomic Theology and Its Scriptural Foundation
2.3.3 Leviticus 18:5 and the Sunday Prayer
2.3.3.1 Text and Context
2.3.3.2 Wilderness Rebellion and the Forfeiture of Life
2.3.3.3 The Blessing of Life: Deteronomic or Eternal?
2.3.4 Conclusion

Chapter 3. The Use of Lev 18:5 in the Psalms of Solomon (8k)
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Background Issues
3.3 Theological Tendenz
3.3.1 Eschatological In the Psalms of Solomon
3.3.2 The Obedience of the Righteous and the Mercy of God
3.4 Lev 18:5 in Pss. Sol. 14:2-3
3.4.1 The Text
3.4.2 Eschatological or Regulatory Life?
3.4.3 Obedience, Mercy, and Leviticus 18:5
Excurses: Pss. Sol. 9:5
3.5 Conclusion

Chapter 4. The Use of Lev 18:5 in Pseudo-Philo (7,700k)
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Deuteronomic Theology and the Irrevocable Covenant
4.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Joshua’s speech (L.A.B. 23:10)
4.3.1 Text and Context
4.3.2 Leviticus 18:5, Mercy and Obedience
4.4 Conclusion

Chapter 5. The Use of Lev 18:5 in Philo’s De Congressu 86-87 (7,000k)

5.1 Introduction
5.2 De Congressu 1-88
5.3 Philo’s Use of Leviticus 18:5
5.3.1 The Text
5.3.2 Leviticus 18:5 and the True Life
5.3.3 Law, Life, and Salvation
5.4 Conclusion

Summary/Conclusion (1k)

Part Two: The Use of Lev 18:5 in Paul

Chapter 6. The Use of Lev 18:5 in Galatians (12k)
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Review of Approaches
6.2.1 Law Gospel (1)
6.2.2 Law Gospel (2)
6.2.3 Non-Soteriological
6.2.4 Salvation Historical
6.2.5 Textual Contradiction
6.3 Leviticus 18:5 in Gal 3:11-12
6.3.1 The Law’s Inability to Grant Life
6.3.2 The Law in Salvation History
6.3.3 The Law and Human Effort
6.3.4 Leviticus and Habakkuk: Contradiction, Tension, or Intertextual complement?
6.3.5 Galatians 3:10-14: A Reading
6.4 Conclusion

Chapter 7. The Use of Lev 18:5 in Romans (12k)
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Review of Approaches
7.2.1 Antithetical Approach
7.2.2 Correlative Approach
7.2.3 Arguments for Antithetical Approach
7.3 Paul’s Interpretation of Lev 18:5 in Rom 10:5
7.3.1 Law, Life – and Death, in Rom 7:5-12
7.3.2 Paul’s Use of Lev 18:5 in Light of Prophetic Tradition
7.3.2.1 Paul’s Prophetic Critique of Lev 18:5
7.3.2.2 Lev 18:5 in Prophetic Perception
7.3.2.3 Summary
7.4 Deuteronomy 30:12-14 as Antithetical to Lev 18:5
7.4.1 The Prohibited Quest and the Doer of Leviticus
7.4.2 Paul’s Elimination of the “Doing” Language from Deuteronomy
Excurses: Deut 30:12-14 in Baruch and Philo
7.4.3 Summary
7.5 Conclusion

Summary/Conclusion (1k)

Conclusion: Summary and Comparison

The Use of Lev 18:5 in Early Judaism and in Paul (5k)

Implications for Paul and the Law (3k)

Conclusion (1k)

Books Explaining the Gospel

2006-12-10T20:16:00.000-08:00

Have you ever been asked this question before, “I have an unsaved friend that I would like to get a book for that clearly explains the Gospel – do you have any recommendations?”

I am just curious what books you would recommend (assume the person is not interested in reading the Bible) that would best explain the Gospel in a simple and straight forward manner.

ETS and Inerrancy

2006-11-28T09:57:00.000-08:00

Recently the Evangelical Theological Society has claimed the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy as a non-negotiable necessity for existing members. This isn't really news, in one sense, since the society has always included inerrancy, along with Trinitarianism, in its spartan self-definition. The news comes in the intended effect of such a move; namely, the expulsion of all members holding to some version of open-theism.

If you're an evangelical, as I am, you might not be shocked that they would want to do such a thing - but if you were present for the recent tribunal of Clark Pinnock and John Sanders (some of the evangelical architects of the view), you might be surprised at the ensuing discussion. Several members, most who repudiate open theism, actually opposed the motion for their removal for the same reason that I oppose the aforementioned direction the society is heading. In short, the weight being placed on the doctrine of inerrancy is far too great, doing a disservice to both the doctrine of inerrancy and the Biblical authority which evangelicals have historically defended.

The society is trying to use inerrancy to guarantee certain interpretive results, which, in the end, mutilates the doctrine. If the reliability of Scripture is functionally equated to certain theological positions there is no principal reason that, for example, Arminians couldn't be accused of denying inerrancy (they don’t believe in deterministic election). But the real problem for the largely Calvinist society is that the opposite could just as easily be said if Arminians happened to hold a more powerful persuasion. There are, of course, Arminians who hold to inerrancy, and who also happen to believe that the Scriptures inerrantly teach a certain brand of human free-will! The point is that using inerrancy to defeat their position is smuggling interpretive decisions through the back door. It's lazy at best and an egregious abuse of power at worst (which is ironic, given evangelical mistrust of ecclesiastical hierarchy).

For a good many open theists the issue comes down to differing understandings of genre and metaphor - they’re not saying that certain passages are erroneous; rather, they think that passages about God changing His mind mean what they say, and that it would be a violation of the text (!) to interpret them otherwise. Their failure, in my view (I'm not an open theist) is an interpretive failure, not a necessary denigration of the nature of Scripture. Robert Chisholm, a conservative OT scholar from Dallas Theological Seminary (also not an open theist), has made this same observation, and in various OT presentations, has been a voice of reason about the issue. The end result of this logic is that every position can claim an opposing view to be a “denial of inerrancy”, since every position will putatively be put forward as "the clear teaching of Scripture".

But the issue extends beyond the treatment of certain passages into the interpretive framework by which they are being approached. Are those who subscribe to a certain species of speech-act theory as a general hermeneutic “denying inerrancy” just because they don’t think that all language is properly binary (true/false)? Their beliefs about the nature of language make the label of “inerrant” on the whole of Scripture a simple category mistake (i.e. how can a command be “free from error”? It can be reliable toward some end, but not “true” or “false”). At this point it's clear that the doctrine of inerrancy, if used this way, has become too bloated: not only does it seek to affirm the reliability of Scripture, but a theory of language and interpretive framework as well! So not only is it the case that inerrancy shouldn’t be given a position of hermeneutical arbitration, but it can’t function in that way. Inerrancy can guard against people who say that certain texts are “wrong” in their theological import - but it can’t guard against people who say that the Bible is, in fact, infallibly claiming one thing or another.

Could I sign the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy? Absolutely. Should open theism be excluded from the society on those grounds? Emphatically not. The issue isn't whether God's foreknowledge is taught in Scripture (I believe it is), or whether its denial is theologically dangerous (it is) - the issue is the ground of such objections. The precedent of using inerrancy to combat the opposition is completely wrongheaded, and persisting in these tactics will be a course that members will live to regret.

Mentoring Elders

2006-11-24T05:58:00.000-08:00

Do any of you use any other textbook(s) besides Strauch's "Biblical Eldership" (and the OT & NT) to mentor potential elders?

What would you recommend (or NOT recommend)? Any suggestions or thoughts would be appreciated (seriously). :)

Happy Thanksgiving!
Caleb

John Armstrong?

2006-11-17T08:23:00.000-08:00

Can any of you tell me where John Armstrong currently stands in the Evangelical world? I have heard lots of reports but do not what is true and what is myth.

Can you point me to any resources? Do you have any good quotes, etc?

Thanks kindly,

Caleb

A living picture of the Gospel

2006-11-15T21:03:00.000-08:00

After about six hours of waiting in lines and several heart tests later, we were finally able to see the doctor. Charlita and Ariel know that their son has some kind of problem with his heart, but I could see the shock in Charlita’s face when the doctor told her that Chariel needs surgery to repair his defective heart. She asked him if they could just give him some “gamot” (medicine). The doctor held back a surprised smile and said no. I could tell that she was in deep thought as she stood motionless while trying to grasp what this all meant. Her eyes began to water, but she held back the tears and did her best to compose herself as she listened to the doctor. Dr. Manrique explained the results of the tests that Chariel had taken. His heart has various defects including an obstruction in one of the valves and it is enlarged (I believe because it has been struggling to get more oxygen into his blood).

The good news is that the defects in his heart are not beyond repair, but fixing it is going to require two surgeries. I’m not a doctor, but I will attempt to explain the situation as best I can. If you would rather not read my feeble attempt at describing the technical details about the heart just skip down a few paragraphs.

The heart has four chambers; right and left atrium on the top, and right and left ventricle on the bottom. Normally, (starting from the right ventricle) the blood travels through a valve to the lungs so that it can be oxygenated. Then it returns to the heart through the left atrium, passes through a value and proceeds to the left ventricle. From there it is pumped through another valve to the aorta which distributes the blood to the various parts of the body to deliver oxygen and nutrients. The blood then returns to the right atrium to repeat the process.

In Chariel’s case, some defect is basically allowing some blood to bypass the lungs and go straight to the body without being oxygenated (making his fingers and toes blueish) or unoxygenated blood is mixing with oxygenated blood through a hole in the between the right and left atrium.

I believe the reason Chariel needs two surgeries is that one of his heart valves is too small to handle the increased blood flow that would result from the repairs to normalize his heart. This means that the surgeon will have to first do a temporary shunt to reroute some of the blood flow until the valve grows large enough (in a year or two) to be able to handle the increased blood flow expected to result from the second operation. The second operation will repair the defect in the heart and remove the shunt from the first operation.

We found out that the cost of the first surgery will be about $3000 and the second surgery will be about $7000-$8000. We are applying for government assistance, but we don’t know if they will help us in part, in whole, or at all. If you have read my blog before, then you probably know that Charlita, Ariel, and Chariel are 1 of about 15 families living under a bridge in Manila. They have no running water or electricity. It’s doubtful that Charlita and Ariel could come up with the $10-$11 thousand dollars in their entire lifetime. Ariel told me that he usually only gets work a couple of times a week and often goes weeks without work. Based on that, I estimate that during a good month (one in which when he finds work at least two days every week) he would make about $48 dollars a month. That’s about $1.60 a day for the whole family to live on! While driving home I told them that I don’t know how we will pay for the surgeries, but not to worry, God will provide. I probably would not normally say that, but from some reason I believe He will this time.

When we got back to the bridge several of the families there came to me to find out the latest with Chariel. As I began explaining to them the situation I again saw that Charlita did not fully understand the seriousness of Chariel’s condition. For a second time she appeared to be shocked. This time she was shocked when she heard me tell the others that the doctor said Chariel’s longest life expectancy would probably been in his teens if he did not have these surgeries. They were probably to numb to even being thinking about their little three year hold having his chest opened and having human hands working on his heart.

I think that everyone living at the bridge was shocked when they heard the cost of the operation. I could hear many of them repeating the words, “That’s over a half million pesos!” I could understand the sense of hopelessness that Charlita and Ariel must have felt when they heard what seems to be a price beyond their ability to pay for the life saving operations for their only child. What a powerful way that God has given me to share with them how God is experienced in paying for debts that are beyond our ability to pay. I will use this opportunity to share with them how God paid the penalty of our sins with the life of His only Son. They have heard the gospel through my friend Pastor Sonny and me several times, but now they will get to see a living illustration of it.

My wife Jessica and I were able to cover the 5,000 pesos for the heart tests, but the cost of the surgeries is beyond what we can do on our own. I now plead with you and all who read this to let God use you to show his love for His people at the bridge. Consider proclaiming to this family and community how great God is by making a sacrifice to help Chariel. Lets illustrate the gospel together not only in words, but also in deed.

JGRChJ 3 (2006)

2006-11-14T13:53:00.000-08:00

The most recent issue of JGRChJ has now been posted and is set for print publication in early December. Download is open till the publication is out.

Volume 3 (2006)

3.1	Craig Evans	Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity
3.2	Richard Van Egmond	The Messianic ‘Son of David’ in Matthew
3.3	Ronald Weed	Aristotle on Justice (δικαιοσύνη): Character, Action and Some Pauline Counterparts
3.4	Michael Wojciechowski	Paul and Plutarch on Boasting
3.5	Barry F. Parker	Romans 7 and the Split Between Judaism and Christiainity
3.6	Craig S. Keener	Paul’s ‘Friends’ The Asiarchs (Acts 19.31)
3.7	Lois K. Fuller	The ‘Genitive Absolute’ in New Testament/Hellenistic Greek: A Proposal for Clearer Understanding
3.8	Jonathan M. Watt	Contextual Disconnection in Bart Ehrman’s Lost Christianities
3.9	Sean A. Adams	Luke’s Preface and its Relationship to Greek Historiography: A Response to Loveday Alexander
3.10	Robert Stephen Reid	Ad Herennium Argument Strategies in 1 Corinthians

Installation Service

2006-10-27T08:31:00.000-07:00

Brothers,

Our church (First Baptist Church of Luverne, MN) is finally having the installation service for me this Sunday (Oct. 29th). And we're having Prof. Keith Essex to preach our morning service and the installation service in the afternoon. If possible, can you please pray for us?

Also, any words of encouragement via email (jimkang2006@gmail.com) would be greatly appreciated.

Jim Kang

Greek Syntax: John 3:16

2006-10-25T10:34:00.000-07:00

Logos posted this usage of OpenText.org for Greek students of the Bible. John 3.16, “For God so loved the world”. In the OpenText.org Clause Analysis, that phrase is a Primary Clause (PC), and the word translated “loved” (ἀγαπάω) is the Predicator (P) of the Primary Clause.

If you wanted to find other situations where the underlying Greek word (ἀγαπάω) is used similarly, you could search the New Testament for all instances of ἀγαπάω. You’d find over 100 of them.

Rick Brannan from Logos recorded a video of it.

Video: Flash, with sound, 8:47, 10.6 MB

The Culture of Jihad

2006-10-21T12:15:00.000-07:00

A recent documentary powerfully portrays the ideologically driven culture of radical Islam.

Obsession: Radical Islam Part 1 - What the West needs to know
Obsession: Radical Islam Part 2 - The Culture of Jihad
Obsession: Radical Islam Part 3 - The Media of Terrorism
Obsession: Radical Islam Part 4 - Jihad in the West

Part 5-8

Exhortations to Ministers

2006-10-17T20:41:00.000-07:00

Here's a word of encouragement from a Puritan pastor to all present pastors:

“My reverend and honoured brethren in the ministry. You are engaged in a glorious service. God has put great renown upon you. He has entrusted you with two most precious jewels, his truths and the souls of his people. Never was this honour conferred upon any angel to convert souls! What princely dignity can parallel this? The pulpit is higher than the throne, for a truly constituted minister represents no less than God himself…the office is sacred. The ministry is the most honourable employment in the world…Let the sons of the prophets wear this as their crown and diadem…when the Word of God is preached, the bread of life is distributed, which is more precious than ‘thousands of gold and silver’ (Psalm 119:72). It is not the hand that scatters the seed which makes it spring up, but the dews and influences of heaven. So it is not our preaching, but the divine influence of the Spirit that makes grace grow in men’s hearts. We are but pipes and organs. It is God’s Spirit blowing in us that makes us the preaching of the Word by a divine enchantment allure souls to Christ.”

Thomas Watson, The Beatitudes (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000), 20-23.

TMS Alumni

2006-10-16T12:38:00.000-07:00

TMS Alumni
Has TMS prepared us for life in the ministry? I just learned one more way that it has. Yesterday at 7am we experienced a 6.6 (or so) earthquake. My wife and I took our children to the nearest doorway just like we learned while I was at TMS.
Thankfully, there was no serious damage or injury.
Today I am sitting in my office looking out the window at the beautiful ocean and dazzling blue skies just a little more thankful for being prepared for the rigors of life in the ministry.

Mahalo nui (Thank you much),

Daniel Costales
Hilo, HI

Pastoral Ministry Survey

2006-10-14T14:48:00.000-07:00

I had a survey sent out to the alumni emai list we have at the seminary. I'm compiling some statistics to a wide range of pastors and I would appreciate your input. If you did not get a email on the survey (only 15 questions so it won't take you long) email me and I'll send it to you. Feel free to post the survey to any lists or blogs you may be working with as well. The larger the sampling the better information I'll be able to mine from it.

Thanks

Preaching and Doctrine

2006-10-13T21:04:00.000-07:00

"The truth is, no preaching ever had any strong power that was not the preaching of doctrine. The preachers that have moved and held men have always preached doctrine. Preach doctrine, preach all the doctrine that you know, and learn forever more and more; but preach it always not that men may believe it; but that men may be saved by believing it."

Phillips Brooks, The Joy of Preaching, p. 103.

Confronting or Conforming?

2006-10-13T20:23:00.000-07:00

Someone told G. Campbell Morgan (predecessor to D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones) that the preacher must catch the spirit of the age. Immediately this great preacher answered, “God forgive the preacher who does that. The preacher’s business is to confront the spirit of the age, not to conform it.”

2006-10-09T15:16:00.000-07:00

Many of you know that October 15 marks the 50th Anniversary of Grace Community Church. This week has been active with a missions conference for all of the GCC missionaries. Sunday will “feature outstanding preaching, special music, and a presentation to the congregation” (see GCC website). I will be traveling out to California for this occasion and hope to see you there!

The Obedience of Christ

2006-10-03T09:06:00.000-07:00

I have heard in times past that there are some men from TMS who reject the doctrine of the imputation of the active of obedience of Christ to the believer. Any thoughts on this subject?

Quotable Piper

2006-09-30T20:21:00.000-07:00

"The preacher's mantle is soaked with the blood of Jesus and singed with the fire of hell."

John Piper, "Why Expository Preaching Particularly Glorifies God"

Brothers, may the blood of Jesus permeate and the fire of hell ignite our preaching this Lord's day for the glory of God and the good of His people.

Questions Preachers Should Ask in the Study and Answer in the Pulpit

2006-09-27T10:49:00.000-07:00

I wrote yesterday at Foolishblog about preaching to a mixed audience - how we as preachers need to recognize that both Christians and non-Christians are present at all of our sermons. In light of that situation, I want to work toward some "questions preachers should ask in the study and answer in the pulpit."

Of course, we all have a set of basic questions we ask, whether we state it that way or not - e.g. "what does this text mean?" (see the list I use here). What I am seeking to do here is add some new questions to that list. So here's a few to start it off - add your own in the comments: What words or concepts in this message need to be introduced and explained (rather than just used) to understandable to a person who has no prior knowledge of the Bible or Christianity?

How does the gospel relate to this passage/topic? How can the sermon not only include a quick 60-second version of the gospel, but weave the gospel throughout the sermon?
What objections will the non-Christian mind have to these concepts? How can the sermon answer these objections?
How could this message be misunderstood to reinforce inaccurate stereotypes about Christianity? How can those misconceptions be avoided and inaccurate stereotypes shattered by the gospel?
How can the sermon show the "cultural christians" in the audience the difference between religious works and the gospel?
Will I preach in a way that shows not only God's truth but God's character and attitude toward his people?
How would Jesus Christ preach this sermon to this congregation?

That's a start. What others can you think of? Post a comment.

Eric Zeller | foolishblog.com

Libronix Books

2006-09-25T15:12:00.000-07:00

I discovered this at the A-Team Blog today - a link for some electronic books. Perhaps many of you are aware of this already, but the folks at stilltruth.com have some Libronix books available for free. You’ll have to go there to see their list, but they have the works of Jonathan Edwards, John Owen, John Flavel along with some other individual works. I have already downloaded many of these and I must say that they appear to be very well formatted. What a rich resource - many thanks to stilltruth.

Mike@thearmoury

The Business of Death

2006-09-22T06:46:00.000-07:00

[Note: In describing the following events, I am not suggesting that all mortuaries are the same, or that there is no place for these services - however, over the years I have come to realize that it is important for people to be better informed of their individual rights so that they can be better prepared in the event of a death in the family. For pastors - we all should be knowledgeable about the laws which govern death and burial in our own state.]

In 1997, my father passed away while I was living in Minnesota. When this happened, our whole family boarded a plane and returned to California. I had never dealt with death in our immediate family before this. In fact, I had never performed a funeral service up till this time - this would be my first. Unfortunately, my father had made few preparations before his passing - there was no will and no indication about his burial preferences; his finances, taxes and property debt had to be deciphered by going through his paperwork. There was a life insurance policy that we eventually found that would help with the funeral expenses - I’m glad that we didn’t throw that box away.

The whole event was very sad - if I weren’t a Christian, it would have been crushing. Having to perform my father’s funeral without any assurance of his eternal state; having to sort through the maze of paperwork, receipts and files in order to determine his financial liabilities; and having to deal with a mortuary over the handling of his body - all of this was a rather bitter pill to swallow. With this experience I found that the prospect of having to do business with a mortuary can be particularly offensive. To be quite blunt here - when having to deal with the pain of death, the last thing that someone should have to do is do business with mortuary salespeople. What I experienced at the mortuary, I wasn’t at all prepared for. I literally felt as though I had been transported into the worst sort of used car dealership imaginable. When I attended their “counseling session” on behalf of my deceased father, I was quickly presented with a list of options and packages for either burial or cremation. The timing of this meeting couldn’t have been better though. I had just come to the end of my research about my father’s financial standing, and realized that I would have to handle most of the out of pocket funeral expenses until the insurance premium could offer assistance. Because of this, I realized that we needed to be very frugal in our dealings with the mortuary. Thus, I was amazed at how easy it would have been to sign some papers, amidst the emotion of the moment, and find ourselves with a debt that would have been overbearing. That I recall, their “options” ranged anywhere from $4000.00 to well over $15,000.00 for a simple casket and burial - of course, the sky’s the limit if you want it to be. What was also disturbing was the carefully crafted sales pitch that came with our “counselling session”; the eerie “Casket Room” with the special lighting; and the pressure of the salesman who would whisper things like, “Oh, but this would be a wonderful way to remember your father!” (as if to say - “anything less would be a disgrace”).

To make a long story short, I ended up getting some very good help from a friend who performs autopsies. This person warned me about doing business with the mortuary and helped me to understand that mortuaries typically veil your rights and freedoms when it comes to the transport and burial of a body, or even the spreading of cremains. But in order to understand what your individual rights are, you would need to contact your state’s Board of Funeral Service and read the local statutes which govern your area. Here is a website that has compiled such links for the United States: link.

As a note to pastors who may read this - this is an important thing to become aware of, especially when you experience a death of a member in your church (or one of their friends/ family members). If your church facilities includes an on-site burial ground, then you don’t need this counsel. For the rest of us who have to deal with off-site cemetaries etc, this is more needful.

As a pastor, the last thing you would want is to have your sheep being fleeced by a profit-hungry mortuary in a moment when they need comfort and help in view of their loss.

Mike@thearmoury

Was Jesus capable of sinning?

2006-09-20T13:10:00.000-07:00

I post on this question, not because I seek to spark controversy but because I have been preaching from John 1:14 on the implications of Jesus' incarnation and I believe the answer to the question has practical significance to the life of the believer. Why was it necessary for the second person of the Godhead to become a man? Heb. 2:17-18 indicates at least 2 reasons, although there are many others. First, as verse 17 inidicates, Jesus became a man in order that he might make propitiation for human sin as our High Priest before God. Secondly, so that He might come to the aid of those who are tempted according to verse 18. Jesus was made like us "in all things" (vs. 17) so that He might also be tempted "in all things as we are" (Heb. 4:15). I take this to mean that whatever sorts of temptations we as humans might have experienced, Jesus Himself experienced. This experience of temptation was necessary in order that He might both sympathize with us (Heb. 4:15) and more particularly in order to help us when we are faced with temptation (Heb. 4:16).

This presents us with a dilemma however. James 1:13 states emphatically that, "God cannot be tempted by evil." So then, if Jesus is God how could He have been tempted by evil? Is this not incompatible with Heb. 2:18 and 4:15? This leads us to a further dilemma. If Jesus was tempted to do evil, then was He capable of giving in? Some critics opine (I believe rightly) that it would be meaningless for Jesus to expereince real temptation if it were impossible for Him to give in. Was His temptation real if there was no possibility that He might cave in? Could he truly sympathize with others who are tempted if His temptation was, as it were, a kind of fiction?

This leads us to an exploration of the doctrine of Jesus' impeccability. Impeccabilty must be distinguished from Jesus' sinlessness. Scripture is clear that Jesus never committed sin. The writer of Hebrews is careful to state this in 4:15. It is affirmed by the rest of Apostolic testimony (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 John 3:5). Jesus did not sin, but was He capable of it? The matter has been stated by the two Latin expressions: posse non peccare (able not to sin) and non posse peccare (not able to sin). In the first phrase, sin is a possibility (indicating peccability). In the second phrase, sin is not a possibility (indicating impeccability). Which phrase describes Jesus in His earthly temptations?

I was struck by the teaching on this topic in a message some years ago by S. Lewis Johnson. Johnson indicated that we must not lose sight of the full person of Jesus in His incarnation when confronted with such questions. To emphasize Jesus' deity at the expense of His humanity is to err on the side of Docetism. To emphasize Jesus' humanity at the expense of His deity is to err with the Arians. Therefore, any statements in Scripture regarding the person of Jesus must take into account the fulness of both His human and divine natures. Johnson explains the apparent dichotomy of temptation with regard to the two natures through a thoughtful understanding of the union of the two. Jesus' divine nature was unable to be tempted in keeping with James 1:13 and therefore unable to sin (non posse peccare). However, Jesus' human nature was able to be tempted and if such temptation is to be real then we must infer that He was also able to sin (posse non peccare). Johnson explains this by referring to Jesus' identity as the second Adam. Adam in his pre-fall state could be described as posse non peccare. Jesus as our representative had a nature like that of Adam before Adam fell. Adam was fully capable of disobeying God, being tempted to rebel and thus of sinning. Jesus came as the second Adam to do the will of the Father and to succed where Adam failed. Jesus' perfect obedience to the Father demonstrates that, like Adam, He was capable of obedience and of not sinning; but not at the expense of theoretically risking failure. According to Johnson, this gives real substance to the reality that Jesus was indeed fully human like us with the vital exception that He did not sin.

The question is, why did Jesus never sin? Johnson explains that because Jesus also having a divine nature that was incapable of sinning controlled His humane nature and prevented Him from sinning. His divine nature being more basic to His person is able to meet a finite temptation with infinite resistance. This is also why we refer to Jesus as the God-man and not the man-God. Jesus' divine nature is more basic to His person, whereas the human nature was that which was added to His eternal person for God's redemptive purposes. To illustrate Johnson's take on the problem, he borrows an analogy from W. G. T. Shedd. Imagine a steel piece of wire that represents humanity. Bending the wire with your hand represents temptation and bending the wire until it breaks represents sin. Both are easy to do. Now imagine a solid steel beam 12 inches square representing deity. You could neither bend nor break the beam with your hands. Now further imagine that Jesus' human nature is like the wire wrapped around the beam of His divine nature and this explains why ultimately Jesus is impeccable.

The implications are profound. On the one hand, Jesus is able to fully identify with the plight of human beings in a way no other god of any religion can. On the other hand, because Jesus is divine the help He offers to the tempted believer is divinely powerful to resist sin with the same power He did. I think this sheds further light on the dinstinction made in the Romans 8 and the book of Galatians with regard to walking in the Spirit versus the flesh. If we walk by the flesh we shall fail in our resistance to temptation. If we walk in the Spirit, we sahll never fail to resist temptation because we have divine power within to do so. Our union with the Theanthropic Son of God (Romans 6) gives us the necessary confidence we need to go to the throne of grace and recieve mercy and grace to help in our ever present time of need (Heb. 4:16).

Montreal college shooting

2006-09-13T12:55:00.000-07:00

CBC News: Witnesses describe Montreal college shooter, chaotic scenes

Reports are still sketchy, but pray for mercy on the injured. CBC is saying possible two dead and as many as 16 injured.

NANC Conference

2006-09-11T06:14:00.000-07:00

Are any of you TMS guys coming to INDY for the NANC national conference? Al Mohler and Donald Whitney will be speaking (as well as Lance Quinn, Stuart Scott, etc).

NFL: Go Bears!

2006-09-11T05:59:00.000-07:00

So how did your Sunday go yesterday? My wife and I had a great day of worship combined with a wonderful day of football. Now typically i reserve my posts for serious matters (theology, doctrine, church matters) but from my TMS experience i know many of you men love the NFL (so a few posts now and again on trivial matters is probably appropriate).

I've been a Bears fan since 1982 (my first childhood photograph w/Bears clothing on) and I've stuck with them these 26 years. I was born in WI so you understand this never made me a popular guy around the house. My dad and older brother are both huge Packer fans. My little brother is a Houston Oilers fan (now the Tenn. Titans) which makes things interesting.

Moving from CA to IN has been great. One of the things that has been annoying is getting use to being on E.S.T. Monday night games start at 8:30pm or later so I'm in bed before the start of the third quarter.

People at our church are serious Colts fans! We live only 25 minutes from the RCA Dome. As you can imagine Peyton is a very popular baby name out here. I've rambled on long enough so I will ask one last time: How was your Sunday?

Keep on keeping on brothers,

Caleb

Old Wisdom for Modern Days

2006-09-09T16:59:00.000-07:00

Perhaps you have seen this before. I just couldn’t help but to think about how relevant and timely Spurgeon’s exhortation was for his day, and especially for ours. I thought that this little devotional by Spurgeon (below) would offer us all some good thoughts, especially when it comes to sharing the Gospel with the lost during this 9/11 5th year memorial weekend.

M. J. Beasley

Morning & Evening by Charles Spurgeon

Evening, December 24 “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.”
 Isaiah 40:5

We anticipate the happy day when the whole world shall be converted to Christ; when the gods of the heathen shall be cast to the moles and the bats; when Romanism shall be exploded, and the crescent of Mohammed shall wane, never again to cast its baleful rays upon the nations; when kings shall bow down before the Prince of Peace, and all nations shall call their Redeemer blessed. Some despair of this. They look upon the world as a vessel breaking up and going to pieces, never to float again. We know that the world and all that is therein is one day to be burnt up, and afterwards we look for new heavens and for a new earth; but we cannot read our Bibles without the conviction that - “Jesus shall reign where’er the sun Does his successive journeys run.” We are not discouraged by the length of his delays; we are not disheartened by the long period which he allots to the church in which to struggle with little success and much defeat. We believe that God will never suffer this world, which has once seen Christ’s blood shed upon it, to be always the devil’s stronghold. Christ came hither to deliver this world from the detested sway of the powers of darkness. What a shout shall that be when men and angels shall unite to cry “Hallelujah, hallelujah, for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth!” What a satisfaction will it be in that day to have had a share in the fight, to have helped to break the arrows of the bow, and to have aided in winning the victory for our Lord! Happy are they who trust themselves with this conquering Lord, and who fight side by side with him, doing their little in his name and by his strength! How unhappy are those on the side of evil! It is a losing side, and it is a matter wherein to lose is to lose and to be lost for ever. On whose side are you?

Pulpit Magazine Relaunch

2006-09-05T10:28:00.000-07:00

Sorry to post right on top of Jonathan... but I wanted everyone to know that Pulpit Magazine has been relaunched with a new look and feel. If you have a couple minutes, you should check it out.

Okay... now read Jonathan's post below.

2006-09-05T07:39:00.000-07:00

I just learned that Dr. John Hannah will be teaching the TMS winterim on Jonathan Edwards (click here for information). I had the privilege of auditing this class at DTS and it was absolutely wonderful. I understand that alumni get to sit in for free, so don’t miss it if you live close to the seminary!

What about the Law?

2006-08-30T22:16:00.000-07:00

TMS Alumni
I am looking for help here. I have been interacting with a teacher leading our Adult Sunday School Class through the book of Galatians. The question has arisen, "If the believer is no longer under the law (i.e. law of Moses), does the law have any bearing whatsoever on the life of the believer as a rule of life?" I realize there are wide differences among able interpreters as to how to answer this question. As you read the literature, the issues seem insurmountably difficult.

What are your thoughts? What relationship does the law have in the life of the believer? How do you handle texts like Rom. 6:14-15; 1 Cor. 9:20-21; Gal. 3:23-25 and 5:18? Have you found any particular work or author who handles the question of law and gospel that is worth further investigation?

K.J.V. Only (Well, not ONLY . . .)

2006-08-29T10:20:00.000-07:00

As I strolled into my office this morning, flicking on the light and slapping my bag onto the desk in one rehearsed, fluid motion, I suddenly stopped and realized – I’ve got three books by the same author lying there – three of my favorite books, in fact. The oldest is called Is There a Meaning in This Text?, the second a newer acquisition, The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible and the third, The Drama of Doctrine – all by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Maybe more remarkable than the fact that they were all written (or edited, in the case of the dictionary) by the same man are the range of topics involved in each book. Is There a Meaning engages postmodern interpretation in the field of hermeneutics. DTIB blends biblical, systematic and historical theology with hermeneutics to create the quirkiest interdisciplinary resource in my library. My newest addition is The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology, which (again) blends my two favorite subjects, theology and hermeneutics, into what promises to be another tasty read.

Though I’ve mentioned my appreciation for him before, I didn’t really realize that I was a Vanhoozer fanboy until today, so I haven’t given much thought as to why that is – but here’s a Rorschach-like reactionary first guess:

He’s a both a scholar AND self-consciously Christian: In every book and lecture it’s abundantly clear that Vanhoozer’s interests aren’t just academic – he sees theology as fundamentally a task for the Church to be done by the Church. While many claim to be interested in a theology which refuses to divorce knowledge from practice Vanhoozer actually makes the Church’s practice a fundamental factor in theorizing about doctrine. But beyond this, all of his scholarship begins with rigorous Christian foundations, making use of Christian resources to answer hermeneutical and theological problems. For all of his kind and critical engagement, he never pretends that Christianity is a peer among equals in the marketplace of ideas. Scripture has always taken an unapologetically central role in his work (a fact not easily recognized if all you’re doing is looking for references in an index). Moreover, his scholarship is actually an astonishing testimony of the Spirit’s work, as it intentionally aims at love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control and humility – a rare commodity in this level of scholarship (and an even rarer commodity in the robustly Reformed circles Vanhoozer resides).
He engages postmodernism both critically AND thoughtfully: Though Vanhoozer has, in his words, “cooled to speech-act theory” as a solution for every problem presented by postmodern criticism, his book Is There a Meaning in This Text? is near universally acclaimed as one of the most impressive and even-handed criticisms of postmodernism by someone arguing for authorial intention. His most recent offering in DoD does for postliberal theology what Is There a Meaning? did for postmodern literary theory, harvesting the wheat and leaving the chaff. His disposition of “disputation” (for an explanation, see another wonderful contribution of Vanhoozer’s in Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views) in regard to contemporary offerings is able to mine the gems without collecting rocks.
He’s thought-provoking AND funny: Much like N.T. Wright, there’s a subtle wit about Vanhoozer’s presentation that is fun to read and even more fun to hear. Puns, double-entendre, and other wry humor is littered through every article, book and lecture in a way my brother finds annoying, but I rather enjoy. Glance through his response to Paul Helm at Reformation 21 and the corner of your mouth is bound to curl a few times.
He’s theologically creative AND traditional: One of the most encouraging things about Vanhoozer’s work is that it pushes in new directions without being detached from the various anchors of faithfully Biblical scholarship. Beyond affirming all of the vanilla creeds, Vanhoozer’s commitment to Scripture’s perfection, authority and necessary guidance for the Church stands out from other scholars of his caliber. Like so few constructive theologians, Vanhoozer is able to employ new metaphors, develop new frameworks and offer critical evaluation of older models without pulling at the fundamental roots of Christian belief and practice - and maybe more significantly, without ever losing his distinctively evangelical commitment. Even when I find myself in something less than enthusiastic agreement with him (which, of course, I sometimes do – I’m a fanboy, not a cult member), his proposals never raise my hackles as pushing the limits too far.
He’s profound AND prolific: The challenging and thought-provoking material isn’t only daunting in its quality, but in its quantity. As with N.T. Wright, there’s never fear that you’ll be left wanting more – there’s too much already. There are at least five books he’s edited or written which I’d still like to read, given enough time - including his Cambridge Companion to Postmodern Theology, Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology and The Trinity in a Pluralistic Age: Theological Essays on Culture and Religion.

Richard Baxter on Trusting Your Pastor

2006-08-28T20:13:00.000-07:00

Recently, about a year ago this week to be exact, I transitioned out of the pastorate and into another local church. The reason? The difficulties presented to us in our recent pastorate caused us to be in great need of pastoral care ourselves. I needed a guide, a shepherd, a gift of Christ to His church who I felt could adequately do just this.

While reading Richard Baxter's Christian Directory tonight, I came across this directive given to a Christian who found himself battling despair and doubt. It stirred my soul with thanksgiving for my pastor, Paul Cooke, who shepherds my family and many others at Crossway Fellowship Church in Athens, GA. Baxter writes,

"Understand how necessary a faithful minister of Christ is, in such cases of danger and difficulty, to be a guide to your consciences; and open your case truly to them, and place so much confidence in their judgment of your state as their office, and abilities, and faithfulness do require, and set not up your timorous, darkened, perplexed judgments above theirs, in cases where they are fitter to judge. Such a guide is necessary, both as appointed by Christ who is the author of his office, and in regard of the greatness, and danger, and difficulty of your case. Do you not feel that you are insufficient for yourselves, and that you have need of help? sure a soul that is tempted to despair may easily feel it. You are very proud, or blindly self-conceited, if you do not. And you may easily know that Christ that appointed them their office, as far as reason will allow. And where there is no office, yet ability and faithfulness deserve and require credit of themselves. Why else do you trust physicians and lawyers, and all artificers, in their several professions and arts, as far as they are reputed able and faithful? I know no man is to believed as infallible as God is; but man is to be believed as man; and if you will use and trust your spiritual guide bu so far as you use and trust your physician or lawyer, you will find the great benefit, if you choose aright."

Have your people chosen aright in choosing you, my brothers, as their pastors? Are you a guide to their consciences and souls, especially in their seasons of difficulty in heart and mind? I thank God for my pastor, and may your people thank God for you men.

After Virtue, pt. 2

2006-08-28T13:40:00.000-07:00

In After Virtue Alasdair MacIntyre documents the monumental failure of morality that has characterized modern ethics in the Enlightement tradition. The historiography comes to a head in a chapter called "Nietzsche or Aristotle?" wherein the author makes the astonishing claim that the the way forward in ethical theory lies in just this sharp disjunction. Having rejected Aristotle in the 15th-17th C. (embedded in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions which appropriated it), the successive attempts to ground morality ultimately disintegrated into Nietzsche's realization that there is no rational justification for morality, and all such attempts simply conceal the irrational will rather than reveal moral truths. As he goes on to develop the case for virtue ethics, then, MacIntyre isn't just suggesting one of several ways forward - he's presenting it as the only available option! The choice to be made, though, isn't a strict exposition of Aristotle's ethics exactly as he concieved it, but a critical and constructive appropriation of the Aristotlean tradition - the pursuit of "the good life" in relationship to man's ultimate end.

Speaking of virtue, he says:

The virtues therefore are to be understood as those dispositions which will not only sustain practices and enable us to achieve the goods internal to practices, but which will also sustain us in the relevant kind of quest for the good, by enabling us to overcome the harms, dangers, temptations and distractions which we encounter, and which will furnish us with increasing self-knowledge and increasing knowledge of the good. The catalogue of the virtues will therefore include the virtues required to sustain the kind of households and the kind of political communities in which men and women can seek for the good together and the virtues necessary for philosophical enquiry about the character of the good. We have then arrived at a provisional conclusion about the good life for man: the good life for man is the life spent in seeking for the good life for man, and the virtues necessary for the seeking are those which will enable us to understand what more and what else the good life for man is.

Any account of ethics, then, that seeks to avoid descending into Nietzsche's nihilism must provide both an account of a unified human telos (which provides aribration for our actions and avoids seeing life as a series of unrelated moral dilemmas) and the appropriate social context in which human virtue can be exemplified (analagous to the polis). This suggestion is made over against modernism's unscucessful attempts to ground morality without a defensible telos, and that in a context of act-centered (rather than agent-centered) liberal individualism. The question, for me at least, is how MacIntyre's project may prove helpful for a distinctively Christian ethics.

I'm not a philosopher - and though reasonably intelligent, I'm not very well-informed on topics such as these. At best, I'm a curious fellow with too much time on his hands, so any criticism has to be taken with a grain of salt and without the expectation that Alasdair MacIntyre will fall upon his pen upon reading my critique - but I do have at least one major misgiving with his conception of ethics, as I've understood it (or, more likely, as I've failed to understand it). What seems to be lacking is the role that Truth (capital 'T') might play in moral discourse. I can't see how what MacIntyre is doing in this book isn't just a kind of pragmatism which, at best, can provide intelligibility for ethics, but is ulimately very little help in actual moral discourse. The lack of some kind of standard or rule by which both community and telos can be measured makes appropriating this sort of thing kind of difficult.

I'm interested to see how the subject of ethics comes up in Vanhoozer's The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Where postliberals have inserted the role of community and culture in formulating the doctrine which gives sense to ethics, postconservatives like Vanhoozer have replaced it with the canon of Scripture. Similarly, Vanhoozer seems to give the place narrative plays in MacIntyre and Hauerwas to a much larger framework (drama), of which narrative is only one component. As interesting as I've found After Virtue, I'm looking forward to the more self-consciously Christian conception in DoD.