A Good Perspective

Dave Doran over at Glory & Grace presents a good perspective on the current debates and ramblings going on in American Christianity and reminds us to focus on what really is important.  That was a good reminder!

Devilish Pride!

Pride is so easy!  Is there a one of us that can say that this devil does not rise within us beating us down in our Christian walk?  Oh how I loathe my pride, but what I loathe more than that, is my inability to conquer this most destructive of behaviors.  I weep with David in Psalm 51 “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness:  according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.  Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.   Against thee, thee only, have i sinned, and done this evil in thy sight:  that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.”  I weep with Peter after that rooster crowed and Christ looked at him.  I cry with Paul in Romans, “The things that I desire I do not and the things that I desire not, that I do. . . O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?!”  Oh how I hate pride, but I am most blind to that which I hate in my own self.  O Jesus, the killer of pride who thought nothing of yourself but laid upon yourself the reward of my pride, have mercy upon me.  Oh holy God seated upon the great and mighty throne, surrounded by the flaiming Ones,  have mercy upon me a man of unclean lips and one who dwells in the midst of unclean people. With Job, I question you, yet when I hear and see the Creator, even in the days of my youth, I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes.  Oh, Christ, you who turned and asked if they too would leave You, I echo what your disciples said, “To whom shall I go, you have the Words of Life!”  Grant my Your power to live a life for You and kill this wretched pride! If idleness is the devil’s workshop as some bards say, then the great work being done by the devil’s lathe is pride.  He has built it and honed and finely finished it and he has worked it in my heart and I did not even recognize it.  But praise be to you O Lord, who multiplies joy in my sorrow, who banishes darkness from light.  You are the Light of the world, the Living Word, and the quickening Spirit.  You are my hope and confidence and I yearn to know You, to escape this vile flesh and feast my eyes upon Your glory.  Come quickly Lord Jesus, but until then teach me what it means to humbly obey You, my God and King.

The Calvinist Rumble!

WARNING! LONG, CONFUSING POST-ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK OF LOSING YOUR SANITY!

Oh how the word “Calvinism” sparks such controversy and uproar, and I am not just talking about the way the blogosphere goes at it.  This one word has broken relationships, split churches, and created (as most debates do) an awful lot of misrepresentation by both sides of the issue.

I am not a Jean Calvin scholar.  I don’t understand all there is about the debate, but what I do observe is cat-like reflexes by individuals on both sides to defend rather than to listen.  When we cease to listen and instead find ourselves formulating our counter-points before our friend has even finished giving his point; it is probable that we will misunderstand and misrepresent.

Recently, it has become common for the staunch Calvinist to accuse the non-Calvinist (Arminius or whatever they like to be called) of proposing a works-based salvation.  It is equally common for the die-hard non-Calvinist to lob the grenade at the Calvinist of blind fatalism or being  un-evangelistic.  I have met very few of either extreme (although I do not say they don’t exist, just saying, I haven’t met them).  Instead, I find myself getting my rankles raised when the term Calvinist is used as if it is an insult as in “Ohh, he is just a Calvinist!” or oppositely (with sorrow in the words) “He’s not much of a Calvinist.” Yet I see the dangers of professing (with fingers firmly in suspenders and nose high in the air) “Bless God, I am a Biblicist.”  Both Calvinists and Non-Calvinists (the honest ones anyway) are trying to be Biblicists so that is no good answer either.  So then we have come to trying to define how many points of Calvinism we agree too. . 3? . .41/2?.  5? . . 7?. . .arrrgghhh! (by now you have a little glimpse into how disorganized my brain is and how I am amazed that I can even get a coherent thought across on Sundays at church!)

I contend that orthodox Christianity cannot deny the traditional 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP).  One must believe to some degree in those 5 points if they are to hold to orthodox faith; however, the debate is really the extent to which one holds to those points.  I will do the best to illustrate without getting us further and further into the quicksand of confusion.

One must believe that man is not capable of saving himself and that man is basically a rotten sinner (total depravity of man).  To be orthodox one must believe that man is deprave, but the extent of that depravity is where the debate lies.  The two main sides of the coin–Is man unwilling to do right or is man unable to do right?  So non-Calvinists, don’t argue against the depravity of man and Calvinists, don’t fight your non-Calvinist brothers against the depravity of man-both believe it.  If you are going to debate-be precise in defining exactly what you mean by depravity-inability or unwillingness.

One must believe in election in order to be orthodox in their faith.  You cannot deny the term nor the meaning of election and not mutilate texts in Romans, Peter, Ephesians, Galatians, etc. . . God does elect (choose) people to salvation.  But where the debate really lies is what is that election based upon? (foreknowledge or predestination) Who is elected?  Does the election of individuals to salvation mean that God elects some not to salvation? (all the passages of Scripture that speak of election speak of it in the positive sense not the negative, BTW).  Debate the extent of the election, non-Calvinist friends, don’t get drawn into a debate where you end up denying clear Biblical truth because you are fighting what is perceived to be the extreme Calvinism.  Calvinist friends, don’t think that because someone believes God chose based upon his foreknowledge that they have denied God’s choosing. Listen to them, maybe the position has some merit.

Limited atonement (Particular atonement). Yes, the greatest point of debate right in the middle of the tulip field!  Of course the atonement is limited, Christ did not die for the angels, nor the birds, or cows.  At the very least he died for the human race.  I think you have guessed what I am going to say.  Argue for the extent of the limited atonement.  Was it limited to the entire world or to those who have been elect?  My Calvinist friends, someone can believe in the atonement being limited to the world but applied to those who believe (the elect) and still be orthodox.  Non-Calvinists, limited atonement is not heresy-how can something be heresy that we all believe to one degree.  The extent is where the debate should rage (maybe rage is a poor choice of words).

Irresistible Grace.  Arguing over exactly how much man can resist the grace of God is fine, but don’t accuse the other of being anti-grace simply because they think there is a certain level of resistance man can exert.  I am not so bold as to say that someone who dies in their sins was never a recipent of God’s call of grace, yet I know that God’s purposes will never fail. Is it so bad, that I think this wonderful mystery is . . . well . . . wonderful?

Perseverance of the Saints.  Orthodox Christians who are Calvinists and non-Calvinists have agreed that true believers will continue in their salvation (to deny this is to go the route of what I believe to be heresy in denying the security of the saint).  The extent of one who perseveres and how they persevere is where the debate should be centered.

In conclusion, Orthodox Christianity must affirm to a certain degree the 5 common points of Calvinsim.  But within those 5 points there is room to discuss, debate, argue, and lovingly correct one another.  Let us stop throwing bombs at one another by misrepresentation, mis-information, and missing completley what the other is saying.  God give us grace and peace!

I Wonder Why. . .

I wonder why the Liberal agenda is so inconsistent.  I read on my Social Security statement today that in 2017 we will be paying out more in benefits than receiving in taxes.  Obviously this is because there are more elderly people collecting than younger people paying taxes.  Therefore as the ever pragmatic libs should realize the more children born in this country means more tax revenue from those prospect tax payers and Social Security is fixed!   But wait, aren’t they also the ones who are in favor of murdering thousands of potential tax payers in the form of abortion.  True to the liberal inconsistent agenda, the answer will probably come in the form of euthanasia rather than life for babies.  It makes me wonder why the inconsistency????

Calvinism and Fundamentalism

There is a grave danger within fundamentalism to want to shoot those on the same team or to want a pound of flesh (like old Shylock) from those we disagree with.  I am convinced that unity can exist where agreement does not, therefore; I have resisted in my public ministry from lobbing critical grenades at those who are on my side even if I think they are horribly mistaken.  This includes those so called “conservative evangelicals” and those “hyper-separatists.”  The bottom line is that I do not have time to worry about what every other ministry is doing and saying frankly because there are sheep within my local assembly that need prayer, counsel, and feeding.  However, I do try to stay up with current Christian news and especially news from those who call themselves fundamentalists.  Recently I read a newsletter from one such organization, that I have never felt a closeness to, yet I believe they are on the same team.  I do not desire to criticize their ministry, but I must make a comment about a trend that disturbs me.  This newsletter attributed well-known pastors John MacArthur and John Piper as embracing reformed theology-and considered that a danger to fundamental baptists.  I find this really disturbing for several reasons.

1) It is well known that JM and JP are strong Calvinists, but the newsletter implies that reformed theology and Calvinism are one and the same.  This flies in the face of history and experience.  One must be a Calvinist to be reformed, but one does not necessarily have to be reformed to be a Calvinist.  Calvinism is a subset of doctrine held within reformed theology.  Maybe I could best express it this way.  Baptist have historically held to baptism by immersion; in fact, one must hold to baptism by immersion to be considered a baptist but many groups besides baptist dunk their followers.  Just because one dunks their followers does not mean they must be called baptists.  Reformed theology and Calvinism have a similar relationship.

2) There is a great implication (in this particular newsletter and in other conversations I have had) that equates Calvinism with a lack of evangelism.  This is blatant blindness to history and a failure to understand the doctrines of grace.  For this to be true, one would have to discount the evangelistic ministry of Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, John Owen, John Newton, George Whitefield, David Brainerd, Jon Edwards, and many more Calvinist missionaries and evangelists.  History has proved that adherence to the doctrines of Grace strengthens one’s call for others to come to Christ.  I suppose that there are Hyper-Calvinists that will not evangelize, but that is an obedience problem, not a Calvin problem–and I have never met such a bird either.

3) It is insulting to me personally to be told that I am Calvinsitic(ish) because I read and listen to such men.  I have come to my position on the doctrines of grace through study of the Word of God.  Romans, Ephesians, and Peter- they were my teachers.  I did not come to my theological positions via the school I went to.  My positions and system of theology began to solidify 2-3 years after graduation as I began to dive deeply into God’s Word and wrestle with texts and contexts.  This is an argument from experience with is a week argument, but it is true for me none the less.

4) There have always been reformed brethern within fundamentalism and Calvinistic men within fundamental baptists.  There are some who would say that fundamental baptists have been non-Calvinists, but that is just not true.  Many of the great fundamental leaders who fought against the errors of the liberals had calvinistic soteriology.  I am bothered by this revisionist history and do not think it is right.

In conclusion, there must be a willingness to discuss the issue of Calvinism without using tired rhetoric, inflammatory statements, or flat out revisionism of history.  If we have to tell what is wrong with everyone else in order to be right we are weak indeed.

The Fundy Kerfuffle Part 2

I have heard and experienced enough of one brand of fundamentalism to know that I am not exaggerating when I say that much of the preaching is absolutely horrid.  There is a lot of good oration and fabulous story-telling, but that is not Biblical preaching.  The young and restless fundamentalists are not restless because we have been influenced by certain high-profile evangelicals who happen to be Calvinists, but many of the young are starving for someone to feed them with accurate, clear, historical, passionate, expositional preaching.  We want preaching that derives its point from the text not uses the text to prove its point.  We want preaching that directs its hearers to Jesus Christ, not to all that is right with man or all that is wrong with man.  We want preaching that is grace saturated, and rings of truth because it is simply what the text says-nothing less, nothing more.  We are not restless because we are enamored with John Piper or John MacArthur and their “Calvinism.”  We are restless because for many of us, we have not heard much genuine, Biblical exposition of the Word of God for a long time and we hear it in those men.  We don’t want three points and a poem! We don’t care about outline and style.  We aren’t impressed with rants and foaming at the mouth.  That is not preaching anyway (although sadly, that is what the word has come to imply).  We would see Jesus in the Text!  Show us the Living Word!  Preaching is more than speaking truth. . . preaching is exposing God’s Truth within its context and leading the listeners to side of Christ where we joy and delight in the glory of God.  We do not have the mount of transfiguration where we might glimpse the glory of God with Peter, James, and John.  We do not have mount Sinai where we might plead along with Moses “Show me Thy glory.”  However, we do have a more certain Word of Prophecy-the text of God’s Word.  If I stand in the pulpit on Sunday and tell the people good things, moral things, even godly things, but I do not lead them closer to the throne of God where they might behold His glory, I have not been obedient to the Inspired Words of God through Paul, “Preach the Word!”  Preaching is a spiritual discipline which couples exposing and proclaiming spiritual truth along with glorying  and delighting in God.

I love my alma mater, but I still cringe when I think back to some of the “preachers” we endured in chapel.  I loved going to camp as a kid, but I get visibly upset when I recall the nonsense that passed for Biblical preaching in that little chapel.  If fundamentalism is to endure, it will only be if we cease to tolerate motivational talks, man-centered shouting, and issue-directed proof texting that masquerades as preaching the Word. God give me grace, that I might rightly preach the Word.

(note* Please note that I am speaking of one brand withing fundamentalism.  I do believe there are many excellent expositional preachers within fundamentalism.  Sadly, the other brand seems to project itself louder and more forcefully than other portions within the historical movement and idea of fundamentalism).

The Fundy Kerfuffle Part 1

There has been a lot of buzz in the blogosphere set off by a sermon preached at a FBF meeting in the south by Dr. Dan Sweatt; and the responses (Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. David Doran, FBFI, Bob Bixby, Chris Anderson) from several concerning that message. I would like to blog several posts about fundamentalism and its identity in light of this kerfuffle brewing amongst fundamentalism.

I am a committed historical, Biblical fundamentalist (not to be confused with terrorists, polygamists, wacky protesters, pulpit pounding, devil kicking, or foaming at the mouth fundamentalists that are out there).  We recently hosted a conference on historical fundamentalism with keynote speaker Dr. David Doran and what he described as a historical, Biblical fundamentalist is what I am: “Historical, Biblical Fundamentalism–Biblical orthodoxy joined with militant separatism.” I once had a person tell me that my greatest strength was my no-nonsense approach of “telling it like it is.”  I also had a person tell me that my greatest weakness is my “telling it like it is.”  I agree with both.  My greatest strength is my greatest weakness. Fundamentalism’s strength has always been its militant defense of the truth; this has also been its weakness. . . not a defense of truth, but a defense of what is perceived to be truth.  I admire men of God who desire to stand firm on the fundamentals of the faith; but we must take a clear, logical, historical, and Biblical look at what truly is a fundamental of the faith.  At the heart of fundamental truth is the Gospel.  I fear that many fundamentalists have chosen to focus on external issues rather than the meat of the Gospel.  No doubt many of them believe that they are honoring God by their defense of what they see as Truth, but good motives do not excuse fundamentalist pastors, Bible colleges, or organizations from mischaracterizing other people or positions, mishandling and twisting of Scripture to protect their personal positions, kingdom building, or a proud spirit that seems to say, “We have arrived, no need to question how we got here.”  As a fundamentalist, I am “young and restless” (the title of Dr. Sweatt’s message linked above), not to leave fundamentalism, but rather to leave behind that brand of fundamentalism that claims the Bible as their authority and then preaches a message with very little Scripture and flat out dishonesty about other’s positions.  I want to leave behind that pulpit pounding, spitting, angry branch of fundamentalism that separates from anyone and everyone.  I desire a fundamentalism that is not focused on “hot-topic” issues, but instead is focused on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the authority of God’s Word (rightly and honestly interpreted), and the absolute glory of God.  Too much of one brand of fundamentalism has been reactionary instead of saturated with the Word of God. When we forcefully react rather than thoughtfully act, we do much damage to the cause of Christ.

More on this in part 2

Flesh Vs. Fruit

Studying Galatians 5 has caused me to think much about what we think is real fruit of Christianity.  As far as fundamental Christianity and Evangelical Christianity we are somewhat mixed up concerning what is the true produce (fruit) that Christ brings through walking in accordance with His Holy Spirit through the Word.  A person who claims a born-again experience or “prayed the prayer” but manifests in the course of life such obvious works of the flesh is either utterly without the Holy Spirit (completely lost and knows not Christ) or has so ignored the leadings of God’s Spirit so that he does more damage for the cause of Christ than good.  Consider what the Apostle says about flesh vs. fruit

“Now the works of the flesh are manifest (clear and plain), which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness (These four would indicate a wholesale support of the sensual). Idolatry, witchcraft (these two would indicate a wicked worship both in form and function as well as object of worship).  Hatred, variance, jealousies, wrath, strife, seditions (divisions), heresies (sects), envyings, murders (These are obviously related to bitterness and anger in relating to others-hateful & vengeaful practice in relationships).   Drunkenness, revellings (These are characteristic of fleshly wantonness and licentiousness, wholesale lust). . . they which do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, temperance (control).” 

How vastly different is the man who Christ has claimed and therefore walks in the Spirit who in turn produces this good, juicy fruit.  We all want to be around this type of person–a loving, joyful, peace pursing, enduring, gentle, good, faithful, meek, and controlled individual– but who wants to be around and relate to the sensual-loving, Devil-loving, bitter-indwelling, lust-driven?  Fruit is so much better than flesh, but so many who name the name of Christ look more like flesh than fruit.  I guess it goes back to those who walk with the Spirit of God and those who do not walk with him or do not even posses him.

Quotes on Preaching

Here are some interesting quotes I discovered reading John Broadus’ On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons (the volume I have was revised by Jesse Weatherspoon). 

“With the emphasis today upon the institutional program of the church, pastoral visitation, counseling and administration, the proper use of ceremonial and ritual in worship these tend to become competitors of preaching and to disparage the hearing of the Word which is the secret of power in all”

“Ceremonies of worship, also, are instructive and impressive and should be clothed in such beauty and dignity and meaning as to lead the worshiper into the presence of God with reverence and a pure heart.  But let it be remembered that true preaching is as essential and necessary even as ritual and song and, properly done, is itself an act of worship.”

On interpretation-
“Never draw out of a text a meaning which you know is not there.  If your text has not your truth in it, find some other text which has.  If you can find no text for it in the Bible, then preach on something else.”  -Phillips Brooks

“That is a distorted ministry which deals in any large proportion with subjects which are not logically presented in the Scriptures.  It is not a biblical ministry.” -Phelps

Spring Trip to Moab Area