The World From Our Window

Spurgeon on Pastors Using OT Parables as NT Illustrations

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

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

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

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

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

Your Pastoral Preference - Multiple Choice

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

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

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

Choose from the following:

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

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

C. It simply does not matter to me.

Any takers here???

A Brilliant Distinction Between Historic and Hysteric Fundamentalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Was Jesus A Real Substitute? More Reflections on Particular Redemption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pronouns and the Cross: Romans 5 and Limited Atonement

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

Pronouns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian History Fans Only, Please

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

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

Greetings!

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

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

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

christianaudio.com

Listen Enjoy Think Grow

Good Friday - Christ Becomes a Curse For Us!

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

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

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

HT: Kevin DeYoung

Redemption and Limited Atonement

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

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

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

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

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

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

They're Coming To Take Me Away ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Bauder Audio on the Church, Purity, and Unity

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

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

Titles of the talks:

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

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

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

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

Biblical Separation in Practice

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

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

A few bonus Bauder sermons are also available HERE.

Shocking Changes that Have Come About

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All this to say:

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

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

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

From Jonathan Edwards' pen:

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

From Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

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

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

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

Mark Driscoll Squares Off in Nightline Debate Tonight

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

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

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

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

Not Abandoning a Pastoral Call While Blogging

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

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

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

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

What Is Dispensationalism? Can Dispys Come to an Agreement?

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

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

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

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

So ... how would you define dispensationalism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which Dispensationalist Said it? It Will Surprise You!

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

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

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

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

More troubling eisegesis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 Good Reasons to Keep Looking Up

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

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

Top Ten Reasons the Dispensationalist Did Not Cross the Road

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing the Trend of Historic Racism in Fundamentalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arminian Version of Amazing Grace

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

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

Amazing Graceworks! How sweet the sound

that saved a blissful bloke like me

I was kinda lost, but now I'm found

Was a bit blind, but now I see

Twas graceworks that taught my heart to cheer

the best that lied within;

And it was graceworks that calmed my fears

And conquered all my sin

Both God and I have done our part

To make redemption mine

My freewill faith removed my stoney heart

And earned me eternal life

So when we’ve been there ten thousand years

'Cause of all the graceworks we have done

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

Than when we first begun

HT: Steve Camp

Dr. Kevin Bauder on the Survival of Conservative Christianity

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read the article in its entirety HERE.

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

Letter To A Dying (GARBC) Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do Nothing Leadership (Quote)

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

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

11 More Things That You'll Never Learn in Seminary

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

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

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

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

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

2. How to deal with a false accusation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If He Wants to Marry My Daughter....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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