This is the end of a post I wrote late last night…

Here are a few ways God has specifically challenged me with missional living:

1) To be an example to my small group about what it means to live on mission for Jesus.

2) To engage the Mormons in my own community. I have been here since February and I haven’t heard one story of a particular group of people, or church, or whatever that has intentionally engaged the Mormons. I hope to help change that.

3) To take God at his word. Yes, this is missional living. If we actually take him at his word our lives will look radically different. They will look like we believe he can and will actually save and transform those we encounter.

4) To believe that through obedience God can and will do far more abundantly than I can even think or ask.

5) To study even harder, but now its not purely for intellectual knowledge. When you study missionally, you study out of a heart and mind that only wants to learn more for the sake of intimacy and transformation. I want to learn all I can about God so I can know him more deeply and so I can better grasp his beauty and worth. This is the only way we can make his beauty and worth known to our communities, if we know it ourselves.

6) To begin to pray and seek guidance for God’s call on my life to church planting. This has been heavy on my heart and I am desperately seeking God’s calling…

My challenges to you:

1) Examine your own life to see if you are living missionally. Does your life scream gospel? When people come in contact with you is the gospel what stands out?

2) Ask yourself- Is my day to day life forcing me to depend on the power of the gospel?

3) If your answers are no, please join me through repentance. Repent of believing the gospel and God’s word intellectually, but not to the point that you can’t but help to preach the gospel to those you come in contact with.

I don’t know about you, but I want to be as authentic as I possibly can. In my journey with God, the most recent step of authenticity was repenting of living as a Christian who only believed God’s word intellectually and moving onto missional living.

Won’t you join me?

My prayer is that we live lives that scream the Gospel.

Read the whole post, Coram Deo.

The phrase “engaging your culture” is often used and in my opinion, misused.  We aren’t trying to engage a culture, but rather a people within a culture.  I know I am somewhat arguing semantics, but I think rephrasing it to “engage your neighbor” helps put things into perspective.  We are trying to win people.  We are not, or at least should not, be trying to “win a culture.”

With that being said…  What are some things that you and/or your church is doing in order to engage your neighbors, your community?  Is it more than inviting them to your church to hear your “awesome band” and “practical preaching?”

Seriously, I would like to hear some things that are being done by SBCers and SBC churches in order to engage your communities for Christ.

How are you and your church living missionally?

Here are some debate topics that I am looking for some people to partake in.

1) The place of Calvinism in the SBC

2) Tongues: A Private Prayer Language?

And I believe Dave Miller and I are going to debate Dispensationalism or more generally, Eschatological Hermeneutics… But I might have to wait until he gets done celebrating the Yankees World Series win.  Disgusting.

Happy Reformation Day everyone…

To celebrate, I read Galatians and my wife made a Happy Reformation Day cake.

Did you do anything to celebrate the Reformation?

Another great post from Dr. Russell Moore:

A Word to Young Preachers

Posted using ShareThis

This was a tweet that I read from Jared Wilson… I’m not sure what I think about it.

“Vision is overrated”

From what I have seen, many in the Reformed camp tend to shy away from words and topics such as “vision,” while other camps-such as Andy Stanley, Craig Gross, etc. spend a little(maybe a lot) too much time on “vision.”

In my mind when the Bible talks about leadership, which is a lot, “vision” is included.  Vision is in fact part of leadership and it isn’t something we can ignore, at least if we are to be good leaders.

To have a productive conversation about this I would like to get a working definition from you all… Hopefully this will be the first of several posts on “vision” and leadership.

So to start, how would you all define “vision” in the biblical leadership sense?

Here is a little something for bloggers. I’m doing an over-the-top giveaway on Devotional Christian to promote our site relaunch and format change. For the next few weeks, you can win an amazing set of 22 devotional books.

Click here to read the details.

I know the journey seems so long.
You feel you’re walking on your own.
But there has never been a step
Where you’ve walked out all alone.

Troubled soul don’t lose your heart,
Cause joy and peace he brings.
And the beauty that’s in store,
Outweighs the hurt of life’s sting.
There will be a day with no more tears, no more pain, and no more fears.
There will be a day when the burdens of this place, will be no more,
We’ll see Jesus face to face.
But until that day, we’ll hold on to you always.

– Jeremy Camp, “There Will Be a Day”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le-TG4sRRiQ

But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” – James 4:6

It seems like I have always worked, from walking neighborhoods door-to-door after grade school selling donuts, to roller-skating as a Sonic carhop, to re-writing a cattle-breeder’s guide, to teaching school, to publishing newspapers, to two decades in management at AT&T, to the current borderline-starvation plan as a freelance writer. Work. It’s what we do as people.

God worked. He created the heavens and the earth, and in Genesis, it says His work was “very good.” Adam and Eve worked. They tended the garden before the Fall and then worked a bit harder on the outside afterward, so I guess we can’t blame “work” on “the fall,” Noah worked hard building the Ark. Moses worked like crazy and, more than once, probably thought “and this is the thanks I get?”

I’ve had a lot of jobs. I think one of my favorites will always be as the onion ring maker at the Sonic. I still have the recipe and I still make those rings at home, the old-fashioned Sonic way. I remember the backbreaking work of hauling the huge bags of onions out of the pantry, sorting them out, peeling away the outer inedible layers, slicing the onions into just the right widths and then separating each layer of the ring, dipping the rings in the coatings, stacking them in neat rows on the trays, placing the trays in the walk-in cooler . . . dozens of trays, thousands of rings. By the next morning, all would have hit the deep-fat fryer and then the waistlines of the frequent indulgers, and we’d start all over again.

I remember the big knife I would use to slice the onions and, more than once, my fingers, which would then burn from the onion juice. I remember the flour and milk and water and cracker meal that would build up on my hands and apron and coat the table and everything nearby, making an incredible mess. I remember a few burns from grease splashing as we’d toss the rings into the hot oil, turning mushy cold nothings into golden, brown, crunchy, addictive, near-perfect onion rings. I remember trying to scrub the onion smell out of my hands at night, knowing it would still be faint in the morning when I went to school.

But I remember most of all the tears. You can’t peel and separate the layers of hundreds of onions without crying a few tears in the process. I would try. I thought I might develop some immunity, but it never happened. The sting of the onion’s odor would bring me to tears every time.

My life is like one of those onions. It has a lot of layers. It has really smelled. It’s produced a lot of tears . . . and it’s really hard to clean up the incredible messes. I more often resemble the un-assembled and unattractive ingredients — the mushy cold nothings — and fall far short of the golden rings.

When an order of rings arrives at the window of the car, the diner doesn’t know or think or really care about the process that went on to create the finished product, beginning with peeling of that first layer of dead, dry, flaky onion skin. And I realize that when God completes His work in me that few will know of the painstaking process. Some will because they will have personally partaken of it. They will have experienced the tears that came with the peeling away of the layers.

I don’t feel too golden today. I feel a little bit like the little middle part of the onion that is too small to be an onion ring and gets chopped up and tossed on a burger instead, slimed with mustard and ketchup, buried beneath a pickle and a tomato, producing bad breath. No oohs and aahs. No one fights over the last bit of chopped onion.

I would rather be an ice cream sundae, but I turned out to be an onion. Doesn’t mean I can’t be sanctified. Our position on the menu doesn’t determine our significance in God’s plan.

Within our churches, we should look at each others’ lives day-to-day for evidence. Evidence of repentance. Evidence of true faith. Evidence of obedience. Evidence of eradication. Evidence of resistance. Evidence of a changed heart. Evidence of His presence in our lives. Evidence that we love God more than we love the world. Evidence that we truly love each other.

Evidence convicts . . . and evidence frees. Evidence can be uncovered one layer a time, as life is peeled away and we are revealed as we truly are. It’s a painful process, but there seems to be no other way to become than to first be pulled apart, at least for me.

Peel away the past. Peel away the excuses. Peel away the justifications. Peel away the anger. Peel away the blaming. Peel away the neediness. Peel away the self-absorbed reflection. Peel away the woefulness. Peel away the emptiness. Peel away the desires. Peel away the stubbornness. Peel away the hate . . . the fear . . . the self-loathing. Gee whiz . . . no wonder it takes so long to get down to the bare inner onion. A lot of layers before have to be tossed into the bag for processing.
We need to create an environment in our churches where people can fearlessly and in humility set aside pride and peel back their layers without condemnation, and find healing.

Maybe I’m just hungry and that’s lead me to all these tasty metaphors. Or maybe, just maybe, I still hope and pray that God will take this mushy mess and make something golden out of it, building new layers out of repentance and redemption and restoration and truth and hope and faith and love and self-control and joy and peace and patience and kindness and goodness and faithfulness and gentleness. I don’t know . . . can an onion be a fruit?
His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. — 2 Peter 1:3-4

God truly has provided everything we need. And many of the things we have given away through sinfulness, He may yet restore.

I am hungry . . .

I’ll always remember the tears.

Is the belief in eternal security necessary to perform a valid, biblical baptism? Do the doctrinal beliefs of the church or administrator of baptism contribute to the validity of that baptism? Should a person who wishes to join a Baptist church and was baptized by immersion in a church that believes salvation can be lost be re-baptized in a Baptist church? This debate has raged in blogs for years, often creating as much heat as light. In our last debate we focused on church oversight of baptism. Now, we tackle this thorny issue in hopes that we can take one step toward greater understanding on the issue.

Defining the Debate

It is dangerous to speak for Robin, but I believe I am on safe ground as I make these assertions. I am open to correction if I have erred.

1) Robin and I agree on the key markers of valid biblical baptism. Dr. Thomas White has identified six key markers of valid baptism. He admitted that they were of vary importance. A valid baptism has a proper subject (a believer), mode (immersion only), meaning (symbolic, not saving or sanctifying), and a Trinitarian formula. I believe that Robin and I are in full agreement on these primary issues. A valid baptism must be of a believer by immersion, in the name of our God symbolizing, but not procuring salvation. Our only disagreements are over the last two markers. White says a valid baptism must be connected to a local church (which we debated last time) and have a proper administrator (the subject of this debate). White admits that the administrator of baptism does not hold the same level of importance as the other issues.

2) Robin and I agree that baptisms that do not meet one of these four key standards are invalid. If one was baptized before conversion, it is not valid. If one was baptized as a requisite for salvation, that is not biblical. We both understand that the Greek word baptism implies immersion, and therefore sprinkling and pouring are not valid methods of baptism. We disagree whether the administrator’s belief on security matters for a valid baptism.

3) Robin and I agree that salvation once given is never rescinded by God. We both believe in the perseverance of believers in God’s grace.

4) Robin and I agree that the belief that one can lose his salvation is a false interpretation of scripture and a serious error of doctrine. I will not be arguing that this interpretation is correct, only that it does not nullify an otherwise valid baptism.

Does Security Matter in Baptism?

1) I believe that the only theology essential to a valid baptism is that which is essential to the symbolism of baptism. Baptism symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins and his resurrection to bring us new life. So, as long as one is baptizing by immersion a professing believer and believes in salvation by grace through faith alone, recognizing that baptism symbolizes but does not provide salvation, the baptism is valid. The nature and meaning of baptism determines which doctrines are essential. How does a belief in losing one’s salvation invalidate the symbolism of baptism? Water baptism can symbolize these key truths regardless of one’s view of security.

2) If we designate security as a validating doctrinal belief for baptism, what other doctrines do we include as invalidating? Should we make issues of other soteriological doctrines (particular atonement, election, etc.)? Why make a big issue of security?

3) There is little biblical evidence regarding the issue of the administrator of baptism. 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 is weak evidence, but at least it indicates that Paul thought that the administrator of baptism was a minor issue at best. He argued that there should be no division in the church based on who performed a baptism.

4) Can we not accept that there are practices that are not ideal, but are also not invalidating? It seems pretty clear that the ideal for communion would be one loaf and one common cup. Few of us use those anymore. We may not fulfill the ideal completely, but do not, by that, declare that the communion is invalid. I would prefer people be baptized in fellowship with churches of clear Baptist doctrine. But, the fact that a baptism is not ideal does not necessarily negate the baptism.

5) When we demand rebaptism, we risk demanding that which we believe scripture prohibits. A person is saved once and baptized once. If the first baptism was valid, we are demanding that someone be baptized twice, in opposition to scripture. That should only be done if the original baptism was clearly invalid (of a believer by immersion to symbolize salvation). Since there is no direct biblical evidence on this issue, we are on shaky ground to invalidate such baptisms. We could actually be demanding disobedience to Christ by doing so. It should only be done on strong, direct evidence, which simply does not exist here.

At best, this should be an issue decided church by church based on local convictions, and should not be encoded in our confessions. There is just not enough biblical evidence, in my opinion, to invalidate baptisms on this basis or re-baptize previously baptized believers.

Again, let me emphasize that I believe in security and think it is a crucial doctrine. But, I also believe that someone can perform a baptism by immersion of a believer that fully and properly symbolizes the death and resurrection of Christ, while holding the belief that one can lose salvation. It is a false doctrine, but not one that would invalidate a baptism.

If the baptism meets the four key criteria, I do not believe it is biblically justified to make an issue of doctrines such as eternal security when determining the validity of a baptism.

Dave Miller

Eternal Security is a Must for Valid Baptisms

Should a church that holds to eternal security/perseverance accept baptisms done in churches that do not hold to this doctrine?  My answer is no and one area I will explore is Paul’s understanding of baptism in Romans 6:3-11.  To hold to a “conditional” salvation perverts the gospel itself and the complete totality of Christ’s vicarious death on the cross.  To also hold that one can lose their salvation contradicts the symbolic meaning of baptism as explicitly taught in these aforementioned scriptures.

The first question that comes up in this scripture is whether Paul is talking about spiritual or water baptism?  Yet this question is unnecessary as Dr. Thomas Schreiner rightly comments, “…. any attempt to distinguish between Spirit baptism and water baptism in the Pauline writings goes beyond what Paul himself wrote.”[1] So, since the physical represents the spiritual, what does baptism represent?

First, we are united with Christ in not only His death, but also His resurrection (6:5).  The word, “united” (NASB) is the Greek word ????????.  While this word has various meanings (planted together, united, at one with, fused), as used in this scripture it means that we identify ourselves with Christ’s death and resurrection.  When believers experience salvation, not only does uniting with Christ mean we die to our sins in that sin is no longer our master, but also we also now live (because of our uniting with Christ) never to die again (6:9).  Dr. Akin provides an accurate understanding of our uniting with Christ’s resurrection as symbolized in baptism:

“In other words, is there within the act of baptism, a declaration of my eternal security, of my preservation in this resurrection life?  I believe the answer is yes.  United with Christ in baptism, I too died to sin once for all.  United with Christ in baptism, I too emerge from the realm of death unto a new life both in quality and quantity, a new life that will not and cannot end!”[2]

Schreiner also states:

“The presupposition for the whole argument is that believers are already incorporated into Christ.  Thus what is true of Christ as their representative is also true of them.  Believers will live together with Christ, because now that Christ has been raised from the dead, he cannot die again.  Those who belong to Christ will share in his triumph over death.”[3]

Therefore, in these scriptures, Paul declares that our uniting with Christ that is represented in our physical baptism shows our eternal security or perseverance in Christ; that no matter what, Christ is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2).  Notice one other item.  Paul does not speak of the individual believer uniting with Christ, even though that is true, but he speaks of the collective “we” being planted or fused together with Christ.  While I don’t believe this should be pressed too far as to negate the salvation each one receives individually, there is an understanding that baptism is not done in isolation, but with others who have preceded them.  There is a connection in not only mode, but doctrine also as the individual comes together with the church uniting themselves to Christ.  This, of course, is symbolized in the ordinance of baptism by the local New Testament church.

In the past, I have heard objections that this argumentation requires one to also deny baptisms done in churches that do not hold to other doctrines of grace like the doctrine of total depravity.  Yet, this is illogical for the simple fact that the doctrine of total depravity speaks of humanity’s condition, not the condition of Christ.  Remember, Paul was talking about believers uniting with Christ and the benefits of His atonement, not Christ uniting with our depravity and us.  When believers are raised out of the water, they are not raised to conditional life, dependent upon their ability to stay saved, they are raised to eternal life based on the truth that Christ was raised, never to die again.  Believers identify with Christ in the act of baptism.

So, what if the individual believer held to the conviction of their eternal security (without conditions, never to lose it) when they were baptized and the church they were baptized in did not?  Does that mean his baptism should be accepted by a church holding to eternal security even though he was baptized in a church that held to “conditional” salvation/security?  Before I answer, let me ask the question in this manner.  Should a church accept a baptism that is done in another church that believes in baptismal regeneration even though the believer may not have held to that view when they were baptized?  Some may say yes on both accounts, as they believe that baptism is only between the believer and God and the church’s role is minimal to non-existent. Yet, that logic will accept baptism on those who truly believed even though they were baptized in a Jehovah Witness or Mormon assembly.  This relates to the last debate of church oversight I had with Bro. Dave.  To remain consistent, those who deny church oversight must accept baptism done anywhere regardless of belief.  After all, what does it matter who sanctions the baptism (Baptist, Assembly of God, Mormon, Jehovah Witness) if the one being baptized is truly a believer?

Yet, it does matter for Paul because during our spiritual baptism certain doctrinal truths happened to us that are proclaimed in the physical manifestation of baptism as performed by the church.  These doctrinal truths are so important that Paul related them to the Roman Church, by illustration of baptism, in his effort to curb any accusation of antinomianism against his view that we are saved, not by works but by God’s declaration of us as righteous upon our profession of faith.   As I have previously stated, the church is the “pillar and ground” of truth.  To affirm by accepting the baptism of another church that holds to “conditional” salvation or baptismal regeneration is to simultaneously pervert the gospel.

[2] Akin, Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches, 77.

[3] Schreiner, 320.

Robin Foster

Like me, most of you missed what I hear was a great conference-Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Future of Denominationalism.  If you would like to read Trevin Wax’s summaries of the messages follow the links below.

Here are links to my summaries of all the lectures at the Union University conference: Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, and the Future of Denominationalism. Special thanks to David Dockery and Tim Ellsworth for the invitation to live-blog this event.

Trevin Wax

To listen to the messages go here- Union University.

This is one of the most anticipated Conventions in awhile and I highly encourage everyone to attend!  Registration is now open!

June 15-16 2010 in Orlando, Florida.

SBC 2010

I was discussing with Jim Elliff last night via Twitter about the amount of debt myself and a lot of other seminary students allow themselves to go into in order to get their degree.  He and I agree that it is a shame we have a system that allows and sometimes forces students to get into 20,000-40,000+ dollars worth of debt in order to get their degree.

Something needs to be done on this issue.  I have that much figured out, but last night my mind wandered about what could be done in order to help with this problem.  What can we as the Southern Baptist Convention do in order to help our future pastors get their Master’s degrees without getting tens of thousands of dollars in debt?  It could also be said, What would George Mueller do?

Here is one idea that I had, but I have no idea if it would work.  This post is not me screaming for change and for people to pick up my idea and run with it.  This post is to get feedback about this one idea and to get other ideas from all you in the SBC about what we can do.

What if we changed the Cooperative Program, a little?  For those of you who don’t know- every student that attends a SBC seminary and attends a SBC church gets half of their education paid for by the cooperative program.  First, let me say THANKS to whoever first started that.  If it wasn’t for that, I would be twice as much in debt as I already am.  But what if we did this a little different?  What if we stopped allowing the CP to pay for students school, but rather had a separate offering just for that purpose?  In this case, the CP would be able to send more money to missions overseas and here in the States.  When could we do the offering? June.

We would then have 3 annual SBC offerings- Annie Armstrong(local missions) Lottie Moon(foreign missions) and James Boyce(seminary students).

The James Boyce offering could be done in June.  This way we could have all the money at least a month before classes started.  Then we would know how much money was gathered and how many students would fit the requirements to receive some of the offering.  In this way, the amount that is paid for is determined by how much money is given.  Some years students might only get 30% of their school paid for, but some years they could get almost everything paid for.  With this plan they would still find out more than a month in advance how much money they still need after the offering.  I know some are thinking this won’t help the debt problem.  It might not, but I think it could.  What if we emphasized that offering enough that the amount was competitive with the other two offerings we do?  Im not sure of the numbers, but I think it would take care of A LOT of the debt problems we are putting on our seminary students.

What could some of the requirements be?

1) For the sake of organization we could require students to be accepted and enrolled in classes a month before classes began.

2) Attend a SBC seminary and be active in a SBC church.

What are your thoughts?  Is the James Boyce offering a good idea?

Browse the latest posts from 500+ Southern Baptist blog and news feeds. See more or get your blog listed on our SBC blog directory page.