First, James White weighs in on his Dividing Line radio show for two hours. There were so many listeners that the servers crashed.  Find the link and a description below.

A Mega-Friday DL on TD Jakes and Elephants in the Room

In any case, I addressed the TD Jakes: is he a Trinitarian? issue head on during the first hour, and then took calls on the topic for a full hour after that. The callers were wide ranging, and while none defended the ER or Jakes, they did provide some good insights. Lots of positive feedback on Twitter and FaceBook. Hope it will be helpful! Here’s the program.

Next, a past resource from 9Marks by Greg Gilbert who reviews 11 various books by T.D. Jakes. It seems that Jakes’ theology improved somewhat with the new books on Ephesians. Check the link for more on the titles listed below. (HT: Keith L. Tolbert)

Book Review: T.D. Jakes: Various Works

• Woman, Thou art Loosed!  Treasure House:1993, reprinted 1999.
• Can You Stand to Be Blessed?  Treasure House: 1994, reprinted 1999.
• Naked and Not Ashamed.  Treasure House:1995, reprinted 1999.
• So You Call Yourself a Man?  Alsbury Publishing:  1997.
• Anointing Fall on Me.  Pneuma Life Publishing:  1997.
• The Lady, Her Lover, and Her Lord.  Berkley Books: 1998.
• Maximize the Moment.  G.P. Putnam’s Sons:  1999.
• The Great Investment.  G.P. Putnam’s Sons:  2000.
• Six Pillars from Ephesians: Loved by God.  Albury Publishing:  2000.
• Six Pillars from Ephesians: Experiencing Jesus. Albury Publishing:  2000.
• Six Pillars from Ephesians: The Spiritual Worship of the Believer.  Albury Publishers: 2000.

Gilbert comments.

On the whole, most of T.D. Jakes’s works belong on the psychology shelves at the bookstore.  They have little to do with the gospel of the Bible.  Stories and truths in the Bible are used as encouragements to think positively and overcome hardship, or to prove that God is waiting to bless us if we’ll only believe more and stop feeling sorry for ourselves.  Sin is mostly absent and when it is discussed, it is usually no more insidious than a bad self-esteem.  Sometimes Jakes makes it sound as if we are innocent victims of sin, which has evilly placed us in bad circumstances and tries to shackle us to our past.  There is no mention of hell or punishment.  God’s grace is most often talked about as a way to release us from our past, or heal old wounds, or teach us how to handle difficult relationships.

P.s. Richard Barcellos interviewed former Oneness pastor and friend Jordan Dayoub about Jakes’ statements at the Elephant Room. Below is one question and answer to whet your appetite.

ER2 Q&A with a former Oneness pastor

RB: Did you hear (or read) the discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity between T. D. Jakes, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald and what was your over-all impression of that discussion?

JD: I read the article and even saw a clip on YouTube. Here’s the problem. Driscoll and MacDonald let him expound on his own views and experiences and I know it was in a spirit of love. What they’re unable to detect, because they’re unfamiliar, is the ecumenical smokescreen that big-time prosperity preachers like Jakes put up because he really cares nothing for theology. If you listen closely, his entire discourse is centered on denominational identities and bridging the divide. He says he was Metho-Baptist-Pentecostal because of his upbringing. He sees theology simply as petty divisions among varying tribes of Christian sects. Because he sees himself as a ‘bridge builder’, doctrine is merely semantics among those who profess Christ. He told them he believed in ‘God in three persons’ but never called himself a Trinitarian. His position today is exactly what it was 15 years ago – vague.

Related posts:

1. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
2. Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association
3. Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: if elected, James MacDonald, James White, Mark Driscoll, modalism, Oneness, TD Jakes, Trinity

On the Trinity

First, Pastor Tom Chantry has provided a actual transcript of T.D. Jakes words on the Trinity from The Elephant Room 2, session 4.¹

Chantry then made a follow-up post in which he shares his thoughts in the following five points.²

1. Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology.
2. Driscoll and MacDonald are too much in awe of Jakes’ massive numeric success to call him on this.
3. James MacDonald is angry.
4. The mega-pastors are one big lovin’ family!
5. If you aren’t defined at least somewhat by what you are against, you aren’t really defined at all.

I have also asked E. Calvin Beisner³ his thoughts on Jakes’ recent statements on the Trinity at Elephant Room 2. Beisner has written two books covering the Trinity and answered as follows.

Those words are absolutely consistent with the modalist heresy of Oneness Pentecostalism, and they remind me precisely of the kind of intentionally vague, off-topic language used by Arius and his supporters at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Jakes will be believable in saying he believes in “One God – Three Persons” when he renounces Oneness Pentecostalism and separates from the officially modalist, anti-Trinitarian United Pentecostal and other Oneness denominations, and enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity with clarity and precision and a clear repudiation of modalism. Jakes’s language above fits perfectly with Oneness Pentecostals’ belief that the only difference between Father and Son is that the Son is the Father manifested in the flesh. The crucial element of the doctrine of the Trinity is that the distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed in Scripture to be utterly independent of anything external to God–i.e., they are internal distinctions. Jakes’s god is not the God revealed in the Bible, and his gospel is not the gospel revealed in the Bible.

Angry Apostles

Some will label those who say and agree with the above comments as haters, as angry or maybe both. However, the Apostles had much to say about carefully handling and teaching doctrine as well as false teachers. Below is a sample of such teaching.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.(2 Peter 2:1-3 ESV)

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.(Acts 17:11 ESV)

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:18-20 ESV)

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, (2 Timothy 2:16-17 ESV)

A little leaven leavens the whole lump. (Galatians 5:9 ESV)

Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. (2 Timothy 4:14-15 ESV)

you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:5 ESV)

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. (1 Timothy 6:9 ESV)

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV)

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound1 doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9 ESV)

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. (1 Timothy 4:16 ESV)

____________________________

Related posts:

1. TD Jakes: Association Lacking Discernment?
2. Who Are They Really Angry At?
3. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, modalism, TD Jakes, Trinity

Friend and fellow Southern Baptist Joshua Breland has responded to Jerry Vines’ recent comments that Calvinism is one of the biggest challenges confronting the Southern Baptist Convention in his article: Maybe the Mayan Calendar Was Marking the End of the Southern Baptist Convention.

One of the claims Joshua addresses is Vines’ charge that a move toward five-point Calvinism would be a move away from the gospel. If this claim is correct, then there are a lot of Southern Baptists serving the Lord who are further away from the gospel than those non-Calvinists with whom they serve. (I suppose that’s what Vines means about moving away from the gospel.) Can those Calvinists who are allegedly further from the gospel than Vines actually be used by God to bring someone to repentance and faith? If one has moved away from the gospel can they still be a Christian? What exactly are Calvinist Southern Baptists calling people to if they have moved away from the gospel? The rhetorical questions could go on since there is not a clear explanation of what it means for Calvinism to move Christians away from the gospel. I digress.

It is odd for a leader in the SBC to claim that the theology that had a strong standing in beginning the SBC for the purpose of spreading the gospel is actually a move away from the gospel.

Anyway, check out Joshua’s article.

Related posts:

1. John 3:16 Conference Jerry Vines-John 3:16
2. Hyper-Calvinism and Southern Baptists
3. What some fear about Southern Baptists and Calvinism

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: anti-calvinism, calvinism, Jerry Vines

God is going to do something awesome.
God is going to do something amazing.
God is doing something incredible.
God is doing something awesome.
God is doing something amazing.
God is doing amazing things.
It’s going to be awesome.
Let’s change the world.
God will prosper you.
Fly with the eagles.
Listen to the Spirit.
It’s all about love.
Lives will change.
God is working.
Look to Jesus.
Praise God.
Amen.

Such sensational words are sometimes used in preaching for dramatic emotional effect. Yet, the words themselves must be attached to something or they stir empty praise and emotion.

What has actually been communicated in the above words?

Related posts:

1. Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism
2. Amazing Grace: The History & Theology of Calvinism – DVD Giveaway
3. Do Hard Things

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to
Post tags:

As far as I know, being rebuked is not something to which most Christians look forward, especially, being publicly rebuked. However, Scripture says it is good for rebuke (2 Tim. 3:16). Scripture even includes the well-known example of one Apostle publicly rebuking another Apostle (Gal. 2:11, 14).

Today, there is no shortage of Christians rebuking one another online. Though direct, public rebukes in person is not often carried out. Occasionally, one might hear a public rebuke about  a particular person, but the more popular route is to address poor teaching in general leaving the teacher unnamed. In the past, I have argued whether or not the practice of general criticism aimed at the unnamed is a good biblical practice.¹

Furthermore, public rebuke as carried out by Paul toward Peter in Galatians 2 is almost unheard of today. However, a recent situation come very close. Matt Chandler offered what appears to be a public rebuke in his recent sermon at Steven Furtick’s Code Orange Revival at Elevation Church. It seems Chandler’s message could be easily set against that of the other speakers at Code Orange. Elevation Church was actually accused of censoring Chandler’s sermon.² Chris Rosebrough has further documentation and insights into the reasons why Chandler’s sermon was not replayed during the Code Orange re-broadcast.³

Chandler was certainly the odd man out at this conference. One may even argue biblically that he should have declined the offer to participate. However, his message and attendance were needed. He preached the gospel, did not boast in himself, and challenged those in attendance that God is about His glory. Chandler explained finding joy over happiness in the Christian life.

Chandler’s most direct rebuke is found in the following words.

I think God is for you, and I think God loves you and He delights in and He’s going to shepherd you, He’s going to lead you. But He’s going to do it all to make much of Himself and to point people towards Himself. So just be careful. Because with a little shift here and a little drift there, God’s name is still on it but you know, ‘That Pastor Steven, it was his vision’ and ‘We have the best worship in the world,’ and before long you can weave these things into your culture and into your ethos that are opposed to the things of God. So when I pray for this church and your pastor, I pray God will protect you.⁴

Chandler’s warning was clear, but the exact target subtle. He provided a good example of warning against a potential unbiblical practice in the church. He could have gone further though some may say that would have been in bad taste since he would have been clearly rebuking the church that invited him.

Would a clearer rebuke have been in bad taste?

I would like to use the example of Paul rebuking Peter to answer this question with a “no”. Before preceding, understand that I am not criticizing Matt Chandler by using his sermon as an example. I am thankful Chandler was courageous enough to say what he did. What I am saying is that Chandler could have gone further and it would have been biblically acceptable to do so.

In Galatians 2 beginning in verse 11, Paul writes about publicly rebuking Peter. A few verses earlier, however, Paul acknowledges that Peter was also entrusted with the gospel (v. 7) and viewed as a pillar of the faith (v. 9). Given Peter’s standing in the Christian community it would seem the Paul would be somewhat sensitive in his public correction of Peter. What Paul writes may lead one to think differently.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (Galatians 2:11 ESV)

Paul uses strong, direct words. He continued.

But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all…(Galatians 2:14 ESV)

It is clear that the gospel is more important than the Apostle Peter. It is also clear that Paul is speaking publicly in his rebuke in which he directly corrects Peter’s errors.

Notice what Paul does not say and do. Paul does not excuse Peter because God used Peter’s gospel preaching at Pentecost to convert 5,000 people. Paul does not excuse Peter because of his Apostleship. Paul does not show signs of being judged as a hater as reason enough to cowardly back down and not publicly rebuke Peter while defending the gospel.

Rather, Paul shows what the two greatest commands given by Jesus look like in action. First, he loves God by defending His gospel. Second, flowing from Paul’s love for God, he expresses his love for others in caring for their souls by defending the gospel making sure God’s grace and Christ’s death are not made void (Gal. 2:21).

Finally, there is good reason, i.e. the sake of the gospel, for Christians to follow Paul’s biblical example of public rebuke just as they follow many of his other examples.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

P.s. I had other points to consider, but did not want to make the post too long. One of those points was about public rebuke being potentially more helpful if the person being rebuke is clearly stated. The reason may be shown in the example of Matt Chandler’s rebuke noted above. The careful listener, and even the person toward whom the rebuke was aimed, may have picked up on the theological issues Chandler was reproving. However, judging by the audience applause, it was not clear that they got it. Therefore, the way Paul pointedly addressed Peter along with Peter’s theological errors provides a further illustration of how a public rebuke may be carried out. If it is not clear which messenger and message is being reproved this may lead the audience to theological confusion or simply leave them embracing theological error.
__________________________

Related posts:

1. Internet fellowship
2. Christless Christianity Q and A With Michael Horton
3. The Albert Mohler Program

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to
Post tags: Code Orange Revival, Matt Chandler, public rebuke, rebuke, Steven Furtick

This clip is riddled with unbiblical conclusions. Toward the beginning, in reference to Osteen’s prosperity preaching, Oprah asks, “What god would want you to be poor and miserable?” Osteen does say that prosperity includes peace of mind and a healthy body rather than just material wealth.

Osteen also says that there is a belief that says, “You’re supposed to suffer more and be poor and to show your humility.” He then mentions that Jesus died to give us an abundant life in order to be a blessing to others. Further, he claims that he cannot be a blessing to others if he is, “poor and broke and depressed and I don’t feel good about myself.”

At last, Osteen does equivocate much. Are Christians supposed to suffer? Whether Christians are supposed to suffer as those who intentionally seek out suffering is not the question, because Scripture explains that we will suffer. (Cf. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have. Philippians 1:29-30 ESV)

Christians are not supposed to be poor though we may be and we are not supposed to make wealth an idol either. We are to serve God joyfully in whatever situation we may find ourselves. How is humility tacked onto to suffering and being poor? No doubt, both circumstances are humbling, but Christians are to be humble in all circumstances (Phil. 4:11-13).

Osteen implies that to be poor is to be broke and depressed, yet he even said that prosperity is more than material wealth, but includes a healthy mind and body. So which is it? Interestingly enough, secular studies have shown that some of the happiest people in the world are poor. Being poor does not mean one is broke and, for the Christian, it should not mean that one is depressed.

Oprah asks if those who are poor, broke and depressed are in those situations because they are “not praying enough or not in alignment?” Osteen answers no stating that it is a mixture of things and the some people have just not “broken through” in certain areas. He continues that there are “forces” that try to hold us down and that people have not been “trained” or “inspired” that they do not have to stay in such negative circumstances because God has a plan for them.

Osteen is right that people do not have to stay in less desirable circumstances, but Christian happiness should not be tied to such circumstances. The rest of the clip continues with Osteen defending his teachings based on how he feels and tries to act with his ultimate responsibility being that he answers to God.

Osteen does ultimately answer to God. Yet, he claims to be a teacher in Christ’s church where he will be judged greater and has more responsibility (James 3:1). That is, of course, if Osteen is to be counted as a Christian and a teacher in the church. Osteen’s teachings should biblically tested and if found wanting should be avoided and rebuked (Titus 1:9, 1 Tim. 6:3, Rom. 16:17).

Osteen’s subjectivity is just what the doctor ordered, if you accept medicine from an unlicensed doctor. There is really nothing new in this interview clip. However, near the end of this clip Oprah inquires with a very revealing statement, “So you walk the walk, you just don’t talk it?”

Finally, I have suffered enough with this clip.

P.S. Friend and fellow blogger Josh Buice also weighed in: Joel Osteen Does It – Again!

Related posts:

1. Joel Osteen’s AIROST: Your Best Flight Now
2. Joel Osteen and becoming a better Mormon?
3. Your Best Life Now by Joel Osteen reviewed

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to
Post tags: Joel Osteen, Oprah

Mark and Grace Driscoll’s new book Real Marriage has drawn much attention. The attention comes partly due to its content and partly due to some critical reviews.¹²³ Denny Burk probably offers the most thoroughly biblical critique to date.

Today Burk linked to an article on CNN’s belief blog titled “Pastor’s detailed book on sex divides reviewers, sparks controversy.”⁴ The CNN article provides a few interesting responses by Mark Driscoll to his critics. I would like to briefly consider Driscoll’s responses from the CNN article.

First, I would like to explain why I am responding. My initial reading of Driscoll’s comments did not go down well. Driscoll has a lot influence in certain parts of Christendom and he continues to push and market for more reach. He has access to a secular audience (e.g. CNN religion blog) that many Christians will never have. He is a pastor-teacher which comes with a greater responsibility as noted in Scripture in James chapter 3, for example. The more popular critical reviews are from well-known bloggers who are essentially on Driscoll’s side theologically.

Also, Driscoll was asked less than a year ago in an interview in Tabletalk magazine, “What have you learned from those who have criticized your ministry and has your life or ministry changed in any way as a result?”⁵ Driscoll answered with the following six points offering six categories of criticism.

1. Theological – I simply have to accept the conflict if we have differing beliefs about an essential issue.
2. Jealous of Success – I need to lovingly serve them in humility.
3. Misinformed – I need to try and inform them of the truth.
4. Personal Dislike (e.g., tone, humor, style) – I need to consider their criticism, seek godly counsel, and either change or ignore them.
5. Legitimate (e.g., sin) – I need to repent publicly and thank God for using my critics to sanctify me.
6. Take Up Offense for Another Person – I need to rebuke them for meddling.

Given those observations on the critics, responsibility and Driscoll’s own answer to dealing with critics, one should find it hard to believe the Driscoll seemingly dismisses the critical book reviews. He also does not seem to be following his own advice and, furthermore, has not even read the critical reviews as will be shown from the CNN article quotes which follow.

CNN quotes Driscoll about his critics.

When asked to respond to his critics, Driscoll said he hadn’t read any of the reviews but that “sometimes reviewers will reveal more of their own struggles than actual problems with the book.”

Driscoll’s allegation about peoples’ struggles may be true. However, when the criticisms are run through a biblical lens it is unhelpful and disrespectful to create a general category of motive and throw everyone into it. How fair would it be to reply that sometimes Christian authors will not read critical reviews because it reveals their own struggles with trying to actually teach the Bible? Also, since he hasn’t even read the reviews, how would he know whether or not the criticisms are valid?

“I am not backing down from it. I am going to stick to my guns on it,” Mark Driscoll said. “This is not just stuff that I have pulled out of my mind. These are issues I have dealt with for 15 years and it is battle tested.”

All Christians have some form of battle tested experience. Having experiences does not automatically translate into using these them as teachable moments for others. Even when particular experiences are used to teach others it may be difficult at times for the one who went through the experience to best biblically discern how to teach from such an experience. Christians are to seek wise counsel from others. (Cf. Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future. Prov. 19:20 ESV)

[Driscoll] went on to say that the negative attention is just part of writing a book like “Real Marriage.” Looking at himself in that light, Driscoll said the controversy is worth it if marriages are helped by the book.

“I will endure as much criticism as necessary to help as many people as I can,” concluded Driscoll.

At this point one can infer that Driscoll is heeding pragmatism over biblical criticism. Driscoll’s book may help some marriages, but what is meant by help? Is some help is better than no help? Is this marital help the best biblically available? When pragmatism becomes the guide for Christians to make and justify decisions just about anything can be excused.

For example, the review of The Shack on this blog alone has hundreds on comments, many of which praise the book for helping them have a closer relationship with God.⁶ However, Driscoll himself has biblically criticized this work of fiction that many have praised for its spiritual help.

In the end, I hope Driscoll will read and consider the biblical criticisms of Real Marriage. I hope he exegetically explains why he disagrees with his critics. On the other hand, if his critics are found biblically justified I pray he repents as he said he would in his Tabletalk interview. I would also remind those who are not part of Driscoll’s congregation that he is not your pastor.⁷

The way Mark Driscoll handles his biblical critics can provide a great example, or a poor example, of how to respond to this battle tested issue of criticism.
_____________________________

Related posts:

1. Christian Criticism
2. How Is Your Marriage? Deal of the Week
3. Popping Off Is Not Pastoral

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to
Post tags: Biblical Criticism, criticism, Mark Driscoll

Elephant Room II is only 20 days away. T.D. Jakes is still on the schedule.¹ Several of us disagreed with Jakes being a participant², including Mark Dever who withdrew³, but I did suggest some questions for Jakes.⁴ Although I am still not very excited about Jakes participation, I am interested in what he will have to say, especially, in his session with Mark Driscoll where the following issues are supposed to be addressed.

What are the ‘majors’ of Christian doctrine that cannot be diluted or denied for a person to be a Christian? How can we help one another move beyond the bare minimum of accepted belief, to a pursuit of robust, soul-satisfying, biblical substance? How should we relate to those who do not yet embrace the benefit and priority of sound biblical doctrine? Is there a difference between a person in error and a wolf in sheep’s clothing? What benefits derive from keeping the majors on a separate list and not letting the ‘minors’ divide us? Is it possible to love the truth without compromise and still work passionately for unity?⁵

In light of the answers I received to recent questions, an additional question of ministry associations would be interesting. T.D. Jakes has long been affiliated with the organization Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies (HGAAA). On their Facebook page I asked (screenshot below), “Is T.D. Jakes still the Vice-Prelate of Higher Ground? Also, is Higher Ground still Oneness in their theology of the Godhead?”⁶

The answer from Timothy Starkey was “Yes and yes.” Yet who is Mr. Starkey? The West Virginia & East Tennessee Council of Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. lists Mr. Starkey as “Minister Timothy Starkey” of the “United Apostolic Faith Church.”⁷ This Council is a Oneness organization as evidenced by their statement of faith which states, “There is but one GOD in essence and in person” who is the triune manifestation, the divine three-fold manifestation and relationship.”⁸

Little did I know that all I had to do was check out the flyer for the “2012 Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, Inc. National Convention.” The flyer has Jakes’ picture with his title of “Vice Prelate” under it.⁹

So what’s the big deal?

The big deal is that even if T.D. Jakes proclaims a clear, unequivocal belief in the Trinity¹⁰, the question remains of why Jakes continues to serve in ministry with Oneness folks. (Other doctrinal concerns remain as well.¹¹)

Would an alleged former Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness get a pass in the same situation? If Jakes’ claimed to be raised in a Mormon or JW congregation, later alleged that he has moved beyond those communities, yet was still a officer serving with a Mormon or JW organization, would the Elephant Room organizers ignore the obvious? I hope the answer is that the ER folks would address such affiliations, but if they were consistent, it seems that the invitation would still have been issued.

Will the question of associations go unasked and unanswered? I have no idea though I hope both with be asked and answered. Let’s hope there is truth in advertisement since the ad on the ER website states:

“You know the rules…No wavering. No sidestepping. No Excuses.”

___________________________

Related posts:

1. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
2. TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books
3. Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, modalism, Oneness, TD Jakes

Another Christmas has come and gone and a new year is around the corner. A year lies ahead both to use this year’s Christmas gifts and think about next year’s. However, some gifts are all ready used up although some are advertised as gifts that keep on giving. There is only one gift that keeps on giving. This gift was given to all, but did you receive Him or reject Him?

What will you do with the Christmas gift?

The Christmas gift given, but not received by all is Jesus Christ. Yet, His birth is celebrated by millions on Christmas day. He is the gift that was given one time for all time.

To those who rejected Him.

You’ve probably heard it all before, “Jesus loves you, blah, blah blah,” right? “Jesus is the reason for the season?” Well, truly He is the reason.¹ However, phrases that become cliches, even if true, get old. The main reason that “Jesus loves you” gets old is probably because you do not love Jesus. Saying and receiving an “I love you” from a loved one will probably never become cliche. Although Christians telling you about Jesus’ love probably feels like a person with a high school crush who won’t leave you alone while you pursue someone else.

The problem is that, unlike a passing crush, you can’t run from your own conscience. The knowledge of right and wrong, that is, sin, will bear down on you. One thing that can be done is to cover current sin with new sin. This method of dealing with sin is like cheering for the anti-hero that wins the day. The anti-hero is not as bad as the really bad guys so it’s easy to cheer for him when he takes them out. The anti-here becomes the hero because he’s not as bad as the next guy, but there is always that tension of his past and of what he might do next.

It is the same with sins covering other sins. You give yourself a pass because you did something better this time. You did a good deed for someone which covers the negative treatment you gave someone else. However you cut this pie of good deeds and bad deeds, it is still about you getting the most out of the pie. How do you know if you have ever done enough to cover the bad that you’ve done to someone else?

In my estimation, you won’t ever really know if you’ve done enough from a human perspective to cover sinning against another person. People will tell you they forgive you and some will mean it, yet think about how you have personally held on to those words and actions when other have hurt you.

I’ve got a cliche for you: Jesus loves you! However, I will have to take at least one cliche back and tell you that Jesus may not have a wonderful plan for your live as you and I might define wonderful. Jesus does, however, have a wonderful plan for your afterlife if you would believe His good news.

The thing about Jesus’ good news is that it can be, and is, received year round. Upon receiving Jesus Christ the real question becomes – what will Jesus do with you? A few things Jesus will do with you is take away your sin, give you new life now and forever, and give meaning, purpose, and focus to your life.

Got 60 seconds to consider the good news?

To Christians, or those who received Jesus.

My question to you, and to myself, is simple. Don’t wait until Christmas!

Concerning the Christmas gift, will you live as one who believes the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Will you live as the Apostle Paul describes in one of several places in Scripture?

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Colossians 3:12-17 ESV)

Don’t wait until Christmas!
______________________

Related posts:

1. Christmas On 20 Bucks
2. A Few Christmas Gift Ideas
3. Merry Christmas: Christ is King

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | One comment | Add to
Post tags: Christmas

Again, do we love the holiness of the Word (Psalm 119:140)? The Word is preached to beat down sin and advance holiness. Do we love it for its spirituality and purity? Many love the Preached Word only for its eloquence and notion. They come to a sermon as to a music lecture (Ezek. 33:31,32) or as to a garden to pick flowers—but not to have their lusts subdued or their hearts bettered. These are like a foolish woman who paints her face—but neglects her health!

Again, do we love the convictions of the Word? Do we love the Word when it comes home to our conscience and shoots its arrows of reproof at our sins? It is the minister’s duty sometimes to reprove. He who can speak smooth words in the pulpit—but does not know how to reprove, is like a sword with a fine handle, but without an edge! “Rebuke them sharply” (Titus 2:15). Dip the nail in oil— reprove in love—but strike the nail home! Now Christian, when the Word touches on your sin and says, “You are the man!” do you love the reproof? Can you bless God that “the sword of the Spirit” has divided between you and your lusts? This is indeed a sign of grace and shows that you are a lover of the Word.[1. Watson, Thomas (2011-01-09). The Godly Man’s Picture (Kindle Locations 1759-1768). Unknown. Kindle Edition.

_____________

Related posts:

1. Sunday Considerations: Hearing the Word
2. Sunday Considerations: Read the Word
3. Sunday Considerations: Hidden Treasure

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to
Post tags:

Sin and responsibility may not be the most comfortable topics about which to talk or preach. No one really wants to consider that they are responsible for something they did i.e. sin. It is much easier to blame sins on someone else as if they some how caused the sin and, therefore, avoid personal responsibility. It is much easier to compare one’s sin to another person’s much worse sin in order to minimize sin and personal responsibility.

Is taking personal responsibility of sin minimized because of the way sin is expressed at times from the pulpit? Is the sinner a victim of sin or a perpetrator? Is it all Satan’s fault?

When thinking about preaching on sin and responsibility one approach that seems popular today is that the sinner is the no-fault victim of their sin. The sermon isn’t usually worded in such a straight forward victim-hood manner, but an illustration is used in which the sinner plays the part of the victim.

For example, an illustration may be given where a person finds himself in a burning building with no way out. The person is afraid, helpless and trapped inside by no fault of their own. The message to the person in the pew is that they are a victim of this burning building. The building, of course, represents their sin. Jesus may then be rightly presented as the only Savior who can rescue them.

But what does this approach to sin express to the sinner about responsibility and repentance?

A better illustration of a person trapped inside a burning building would be that the person is a rebel sinner who started the fire. Scripture tells us, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23 ESV). The sinner is a rebel against God who commits and is responsible for their own sin which, without Jesus, earns him death.

The sinner is trapped in a burning building because that is where they want to be in an effort to get away from the authorities (who represent God). The sinner has, in essence, taken himself hostage with his own sin as he destroys the building with fire. And he loves it. Jesus arrives on the scene to rescue the rebel. Only Jesus, the living water, can put out the destructive flames of sin for all who turn/repent of their sin and trust in Him.

When thinking about sinners being guilty perpetrators of sin one’s understanding of the gospel and sinfulness before God is affected. There is also a clear measure of grace and humility that shines through in the gospel when it is presented to at-fault, guilty sinners. Trusting the gospel’s power in evangelism to convert the rebel sinner is also encouraged when it is understood that the sinner is not a victim for the sinner does not save himself.

As for Satan, he is not a cuddly baby in a costume luring innocent victims to rebel against God and people should not walk away believing they are such victims.

Thoughts?

Related posts:

1. Preaching: Young, Restless and Four?
2. Was Jesus a victim?
3. Did Jesus Preach Paul’s Gospel?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: punishment, responsibility, sin, victim

The following true story is about a seminary student sharing the gospel in a liquor store. The student is an acquaintance and the story is shared with permission. This is all that will be revealed of this student.

One of the most divisive disagreements among conservative Christians is the subject of Christians drinking alcohol. Tim Challies highlighted and commented on some of the recent disagreements about Christians and alcohol.¹ Challies provides a big picture view of the subject with a caution to younger Christians to use their freedom wisely when it comes to alcohol.

I pray the following story is received as portraying the wise use of circumstances involving a Christian buying alcohol.

The Gospel in the Liquor Store

The seminary semester was starting soon and one student knew they would have to sign an agreement they he would not drink alcohol while enrolled as a student. Being a good Baptist he did not want to violate a signed promise. He is also believes that Christians have the biblical freedom to drink alcohol in moderation. Nevertheless, he knew he may not be able to enjoy a glass of beer for another year or so depending on his seminary circumstances.

The student decided he would stop at a liquor store on the way home and buy two beers until who knows when. Upon entering the store he asked an employee if they sold a certain brand of beer. The store carried the brand so the student grabbed two of bottles. The employee, busy stocking the shelves, was standing close by and asked the student about the beer he just picked up because he had never heard of it. The employee was a man in his mid-50′s.

The conversation lasted about 20 minutes and gist of it went something like this…

Employee: I’ve never tried that kind of beer before. Does it make you feel really good?

Student: Well, I don’ t drink for that feeling. I enjoy the taste and getting drunk is something from my past life.

Employee: So do you just get a nice buzz then?

Student: Well, I don’t do that either. Believe it or not, I’m actually a seminary student. I’m a Christian now and those things you asked about are in my past now.

Employee: So, you used to get drunk, but you don’t anymore? Do you miss it?

Student: I don’t miss it at all. The good news of Jesus has actually set me free from even desiring to get drunk or get a buzz. Do you know what the good news is?

Employee: Yeah, I was raised Catholic. I know all of that stuff.

Student: Do you consider yourself to be Catholic now?

Employee: Nah, Catholics have all of those rules and stuff to follow. I can’t keep up with them all and that’s not what makes you right with God.

Student: So where are you now with God? What is your relationship with God today?

Employee: Oh, I believe the Jesus Christ alone is the only way to heaven. He is the one and only Savior. Nothing I can do can save me. It’s all Him.

Student: Man, that’s great! So you believe the Jesus died on the cross for sinners and rose on the third day so everyone who believes this has their sins forgiven and has a right relationship with God? You believe that Jesus righteousness becomes ours through faith and that our good works contribute nothing in the way gaining acceptance into God’s Kingdom?

Employee: I believe that.

Student: I believe that too and it’s had a transforming affect on my life. As the Bible says, I am a new creature in Christ which is why I’m free from drinking beer in order to get drunk. I may not be able to have another beer for a year or so.

Employee: Wow! Really? Why not?

Student: Well, I’m Baptist. (smile) And I’m about to start seminary and the school has every student sign an agreement that they will not drink alcohol while attending.

Employee: That’s crazy. Drinking is not a sin.

Student: I know, I know, but that’s their rules. The good thing is that alcohol is not an important part of my life. Like I said, the gospel changed me and my desires. Just like I don’t need to eat quarter pound cheeseburgers, I don’t need to drink beer either. But I’m free to do both.

Employee: I hear you. I think it might be hard not to have just one beer for over a year.

Student: Since you said you believe the good news of Jesus let me ask you something. What does your life look like in light of believing in Jesus?

Employee: (Somewhat ashamed) It doesn’t really look all that good.

Student: Would you like it to be better? Do you have any Christian friends or a church that you could attend?

Employee: Nah, I don’t have anything like that.

Student: Would you agree that having those kinds of Christian relationships are important? Christians are supposed to be there for each other and encourage one another in our walk with the Lord. What do you think?

Employee: I agree. I know you’re right. I need to find a church to go to.

Student: Well, I’m part of XYZ Baptist church just a few miles down the road. You’re always welcomed to join us and I will certainly look for you so you won’t feel like a stranger.

Employee: You know. I’m getting the chills right now from this whole conversation. 

Student: Why is that?

Employee: I’ve been thinking about God and my life lately. You just show up here and we talk about all of this stuff.

Student: Providential, huh?

Employee: Yep! I know it’s God working.

Student: Yeah?

Employee: Yep. I’ve always believed that God is in control of everything. My Baptist grandparents always taught me that God is in control of everything so I trust God and just go on and not worry. When I was serving in the military I trusted God through some hard times. I just prayed and gave it to him and didn’t worry.

Student: Awesome! So if you trust that God brought us together will you trust that He is also the one inviting you to church?

Employee: Yeah, I’m going to make it over there to see you all. I’m telling you, this whole thing is giving me chills.

Student: I’ll be praying for you and looking for you then. If I don’t see you I may come back and check on you, okay?

Employee: Yeah, that’s fine. Nice meeting you. Take care.

Student: You, too. See you soon. God bless.

My acquaintance had an insightful thought as he drove home from the liquor store. He wondered who would share the gospel with this employee, and those like him, if so many Christians dogmatically and unbiblically shun alcohol as if the substance itself along with drinking it is inherently sinful. I agree. Abusing alcohol is a sin problem, not an alcohol problem, just as with any other thing that is sinfully abused.
_________________________

Related posts:

1. Gospel Then Morality: Lesson From Abortion Counseling
2. SBTS, Mohler & Moore: Alcohol &
3. Church Sign: Gospel or Moralism?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 15 comments | Add to
Post tags: alcohol

I’ve always been intrigued about why a Christian would want to date or marry a non-Christian. A solid biblical case can be made that a Christian should only date or marry another Christian.¹ In a mixed dating situation the Christian is not trusting Christ nor finding Him sufficient, but is looking elsewhere to satisfy certain needs. Of course, as with many areas in life Christians fall short and there is always places in their lives where Christ is not primary. This is an admission rather than an excuse for Christians to date non-Christians. As one friend of mine said about a Christian girl dating a non-Christian guy, “you’ve already told him that Christ isn’t all that. You’re just haggling over price.”²

I’m almost more intrigued by a non-Christian wanting to date or marry a Christian. A non-Christian seeks a relationship with a Christian who believes that person is going to hell if they don’t accept Christ. They have foundational opposing worldviews even if there is some agreement of life values. If the non-Christian truly cared for the Christian why would they not respect the Christian and stop trying to get them to go against their Lord? Why would the non-Christian encourage the Christian to go against their Christian values? Is that non-Christian, whether atheist, agnostic, etc., really showing love for the Christian?

Some non-Christian guys might ask a Christian father why he is not good enough for their daughter. Simply put, you are not good enough for my daughter because you think you are too good for Christ.

While thinking about who is good enough for a Christian daughter I think Voddie Baucham gives a nice starting point in the middle chapters of one of his books.  Below I’ve listed some of the table of contents with a few additions from the text which makes for at least a nice skeletal structure on the issue.

What He Must Be: …If He Wants To Marry My Daughter
by Voddie Baucham Jr.

4. He Must Be a Follower of Christ

5. He Must Be Prepared to Lead

6. He Must Lead Like Christ (Ephesians 5)

7. He Must Be Committed to Children

8. He Must Practice the Four P’s
Protector which includes:
Personal Holiness
True Gentleness
Great Resolve
Genuine Compassion
True Bravery

Provider which includes:
A Job
Work Ethic
A Plan

Prophet/Priest which includes:
Pray with and for family
Preach to family

_____________

Related posts:

1. Christianity Without Christ?
2. Gospel Then Morality: Lesson From Abortion Counseling
3. Frank Turek Refutes Judge Walker’s 10 Gay Marriage “Facts”

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 20 comments | Add to
Post tags: courtship, dating, marriage

John Shore created the video below and used it to ask if Christians have some culpability in gay teen suicides in an article at the Huffington Post. ¹ The question of whether or not there is a gay teen suicide epidemic has also been raised.²

The video did not make me mad, but it did annoy me. The caricature of Christians portrayed in this video annoyed me more than anything. I can say that I don’t recall ever having a conversation with anyone like the one portrayed above.

But then I thought of a few other things.

Is this really the message that the world gets from Christians concerning homosexuality and other sins? Do we really walk around condemning people to hell? Have Christians not been clear enough that our position is not simply “gay people go to hell” as if hell was set-up exclusively for homosexuals? Have Christians not been clear enough in their views so that the world cannot differentiate between Christian values rooted in God’s holiness and the morality of a bully?

Or is it that the world simply hates Jesus Christ and His gospel that offers forgiveness of such sins so they will not listen?

How can Christians do a better job of sharing the gospel with loving kindness without compromising the position that homosexuality is a sin?

Related posts:

1. Shut Up Christians!
2. Driscoll: Discerning the Current Vampire-esque Teen Books
3. What I Wish TV Hosts Would Ask Christians

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to
Post tags: homosexual agenda, homosexuality

Love, therefore, demands that you have compassion on the weak, as all the apostles had. Once, when Paul came to Athens, a mighty city, he found in the temple many altars, Acts and he went from one to the other and looked at them all, but did not touch any one of them even with his foot. But he stood in the midst of the market-place and said they were all idolatrous works, and begged the people to forsake them; yet he did not destroy one of them by force. When the word took hold of their hearts, they forsook their idols of their own accord, and in consequence idolatry fell of itself. Now, if I had seen that they held mass, I would have preached and admonished them concerning it. Had they heeded my admonition, they would have been won; if not, I would nevertheless not have torn them from it by the hair or employed any force, but simply allowed the Word to act, while I prayed for them. For the Word created heaven and earth and all things; the Word must do this thing, and not we poor sinners.

In conclusion: I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I Luther’s will constrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion. Take myself as an example. I have opposed the indulgences and all the papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And then while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip and with Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy, that never a prince or emperor inflicted such damage upon it. I did nothing; the Word did it all. Had I desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon Germany. Yea, I could have started such a little game at Worms that even the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have been? A fool’s play. I did nothing; I left it to the Word. What do you suppose is Satan’s thought, when an effort is made to do things by violence? He sits back in hell and thinks: How fine a game these fools will make for me! But it brings him distress when we only spread the Word, and let it alone do the work. For it is almighty and takes captive the hearts, and if the hearts are captured the evil work will fall of itself.¹

________________

Related posts:

1. Reformation Radio
2. The Story of Jesus’ Birth by Martin Luther
3. Reformation Day 2008: Protestant Courage

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to
Post tags: Martin Luther, Reformation Day

Richard Dawkins recently explained why he would not debate William Lane Craig.¹ Dawkins does not like that Craig defends God’s commands to the Israelites in the Old Testament to destroy certain people groups that were inhabiting the Promised Land. He claims that Craig has a “dark side” and that “Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament.”

Dawkins quotes Craig on the extermination of the Canaanites and takes issue with Craig defending God’s commands for such actions. In one of my Old Testament text books I came across a perspective (shared below) on the command to exterminate the Canaanites.

The suggestion that God could command anyone to kill another or require the complete extermination of every living being in a city seems offensive or even outrageous. To dodge the problem some have proposed that the God (Yahweh) of the Old Testament cannot be the same as the Father of Jesus Christ of the New Testament. This, of course, runs counter to the teachings of Christ and the apostles, who clearly identify their God with the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and with the God who revealed himself to Moses and the prophets.

A partial answer to this puzzle is the fact that religious “devotion” was a part of the culture of the day. Ancient Near Eastern peoples “devoted” persons and possessions and captives to their gods. That such action was customary does not, of course, make it right, but it does help explain why the Israelites did not think it necessarily wrong. God takes the people where they are, and leads them step by step until at last they will be where God is. Divine revelation is progressive. At this point, the Israelites did not have as their Torah the Sermon on the Mount (“love your enemies”). This understanding of love had to wait for the New Joshua (Jesus) to make it known in his life and death.

But this is not the whole answer. The biblical position regarding the Canaanites is not simply “Exterminate them!” There is good reason behind the command. In Yahweh’s eyes, the Canaanites with their culture and religion were exceedingly evil sinners, who not only committed abominations against God but also sought to entice Israel to join them in these “religious” acts. The discovery of Ugaritic documents at Ras Shamra in Syria has opened up detailed information about Canaanite religious practices. Religious prostitution, child sacrifice, and other features of this religion plagued Israel for centuries, as the books of Kings and of the early prophets bear witness.32

Yahweh, the Israelites were often reminded, is holy, a God who does not tolerate such abominable practices, especially in the name of serving a deity. This was idolatry against both creation and Creator. The Canaanites merited punishment. Further, the purity of Israelite religion had to be preserved. The sensual attractions of Canaanite religion (as at Baal-peor; Num. 25:1) posed a serious threat to Yahwistic life. A surgeon does not hesitate to remove an arm or a leg, or even a vital organ, when life is at stake. The very existence of Israel — and ultimately the salvation of the world — depended upon Yahweh’s blessing.

Admittedly, this is only an interpretation and a partial attempt to justify the difficult biblical position. But there is the verdict of history. The Israelites, sickened by slaughter or seduced by sensual religious rites, ceased exterminating Canaanites, and Canaanite religious practices gradually pervaded Israelite religion. The punishment this brought upon Israel was terrible. Yahweh inflicted on them foreign oppression, invasion, destruction of Israelite cities, and the destruction of Jerusalem and exile from the promised land.

To repeat, Yahweh did not order the Israelites to exterminate all Gentiles but only the Canaanites. This policy was not a permanent or eternal principle. It was intended for an immediate situation, when the Israelites were occupying the land God had promised their fathers. Later, the moral and ethical teachings of prophets such as Amos, Micah, and Isaiah would be presented just as stridently to Israel as the word of Yahweh. Still later Jesus Christ would claim that he came to fulfill the law and prophets. The “devotion” of the Canaanites in the land must be seen against all these factors.²

__________________________

Related posts:

1. De-baptism Thoughts
2. Alcohol: Of Greeks and Barbarians

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to
Post tags: Canaanites, Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig

Geoff Ashley of The Village Church recently wrote an article on John Calvin’s role in the death of Michael Servetus.¹ Ashley gives seven points to consider before “harshly judging Calvin a heartless tyrant.”

While not absolving Calvin of any and all wrong doing for his role in Servetus’ trial it may be pointed out that Servetus did call for Calvin’s arrest and possible death for making false accusations against him. In a second letter from prison Servetus wrote the following.

Honrable Seigneurs. I am detained for the criminal charges made by lehan Calvin who falsely accuses me saying that I have written: 1. that the souls are mortal 2. that Jesus Christ took from the Virgin Mary only the fourth part of his body. These are horrible and execrable things. Among all heresies and all crimes there is none so great as to make the soul mortal. For in all other there is a hope of salvation, whereas there is none in such a heresy. Whoever says so does not believe that there is a God, nor justice, nor resurrection, nor Jesus Christ, nor Holy Scripture, nor anything else. He believes only that everything dies and that the man and the beast are the same. If I had said or written this, for offending the world I should condemn myself to death. Therefore, messeigneurs, I ask that my accuser be punished according to the law of poena talionis and detained as prisoner with me, until the matter is settled by his death or mine or any other punishment. And for this I submit myself to the mentioned poena talionis. I am content to die if he is not convicted both of this and other things which I list below. I demand from you, messeigneurs, justice, justice, justice.

Written in prison of Geneva, 22 of September 1553.

Michel Servetus in his own cause.²

It seems that Servetus believed he should have been condemned to death had he taught that the soul is mortal. On the grounds of false accusations Servetus asks for Calvin to be punished according to poena talionis. Poena talionis is a retaliatory punishment which basically would have worked like this: if Calvin could not substantiate the two claims above about Servetus then Calvin would be subject to the same punishment that Servetus would have been given if found guilty. Also note that Servetus subjected himself to poena talionis.

Both Calvin and Servetus appeared to be men of their time. Sadly, Calvin was a key player in the trial and conviction of Servetus; while Servetus was content in seeking the death penalty, if so warranted, for Calvin’s accusations against him.

Thankfully, the gospel is bigger than any man from any time period.
_______________________

Related posts:

1. Poisoning Calvin’s Well
2. Lord’s Day 05/16 death transformed
3. Considering Death

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to
Post tags: death, death penalty, John Calvin, Michael Servetus

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:1-2 ESV)

Notice how Paul begins the letter to the Philippians. He calls Paul and Timothy “servants” or “slaves” of Jesus. He then refers to the rest of the Christians at Philippi as “saints.” Paul sees them as having their identity in Christ.

Paul’s approach makes me think about how those in one’s local and extended church families should be addressed. And not just how they should be addressed, but how to think of them in general. It seems Paul had an “in Christ” mindset and he took time when writing to make sure this mindset toward others was known.

It’s amazing what observations and convictions may come out of a simple introductory sentence from the Bible.

How do I identify my brothers and sisters in Christ? How do I think about them? Do I think of them as servants of Christ first? Do I think of my own local church family as saints first? Is the “in Christ” mindset toward other Christians an afterthought or is it a thought at all?

How would others respond if I asked them whether or not they thought I had an “in Christ” mindset toward them?

Paul’s opening sentence shows a healthy Christian mindset good for personal reflection. This “in Christ” mindset should help  when praying for, or when frustrated with, other Christians. Paul’s mindset reflected in Christians today would go a long way for the body of Christ. Having this mindset is not an impossible task since the same Holy Spirit Who inspired Paul’s words lives in Christians today to inspire such holy attitudes. Amazing.

How do you think of other Christians?

For what it’s worth…

Related posts:

1. Keeping Christ in Christmas so we can sleep in?
2. Christianity Without Christ?
3. Christmas Jingle: Jesus Christ Is Coming To Town

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: grace, Philippians, seminary

I my previous post I shared that I leaned toward Mark Dever withdrawing from participating in Elephant Room 2(ER2) due to T.D. Jakes scheduled participation.¹ A commenter on that post informed me that Dever’s bio, pictured above, is missing from the ER2 website.

If Dever does or did withdraw from the event it should not come a surprise. In 2008 he was challenged on the issue of biblical separation. Dever answered the challenge explaining that he does practice separation. Others may be able to learn from his practice. The following quote is part of Dever’s article on separation which applies to events like ER2.

…I have tried to have a wider ministry of encouraging godly cooperation and discouraging ungodly associations. This is one of the sources of my being unpopular and even unwelcome in some circles. So we declined an invitation to give leadership in DC to a Graham-like crusade. Furthermore, we worked to get the Southern Baptist Convention to de-fund the local DC Baptist Convention, because (among other reasons) the convention’s organ, the Capital Baptist, had mocked those who believed that faith in Jesus was the only way to be forgiven for our sins, or who believed that Mormons need to be evangelized. I could go on. In fact, our own giving to the Southern Baptist Convention is targeted—it is focused on the International Mission Board, in order to help us fulfill the Great Commission. I regularly decline to speak at conferences because of who else is speaking there. On the 9marks website we critically review books. In our Together for the Gospel statement of faith, we deliberately had Affirmations AND DENIALS. In personal and private conversations I seek correction from others, and try to faithfully and lovingly rebuke others.²

Given Dever’s words on separation it would be easy to understand if he withdrew. The question asked in the title of this post because when going to the ER2 page that once displayed Dever’s bio the following page loads.

Whether Dever withdrew or not at this point is unclear. However, it should not be a surprise to anyone given his wise words on separation which may help others see why some may choose not to participate in certain venues.
___________________

Related posts:

1. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
2. Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association
3. TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 44 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, James MacDonald, Mark Dever, TD Jakes

The announcement T.D. Jakes participation at Elephant Room 2 (ER2) has generated much digital ink in the last week. I’ve shared some of the trouble I have with Jakes participation.¹ Other Christians have provided more thorough responses than I explaining their concern over James MacDonald inviting T.D. Jakes.² Note that no one is disputing that MacDonald can host whoever he wants at ER2 even while disagreeing with him.

It is, however, too soon to know for sure whether or not ER2 will take place as scheduled. Anything can happen, right? Outside of Jakes withdrawing or having his invitation withdrawn the event will most likely happen though. I wonder if someone like Mark Dever were to withdraw if that would shake things up? Personally, I lean toward Dever withdrawing, but I would also love for Dever to ask pointed, biblical questions of Jakes about the Trinity. This brings me to the question at hand.

What would you ask T.D. Jakes at Elephant Room 2?

While I think the most loving thing to do would be to not have Jakes participate in ER2 maybe some of us on this side of the issue can offer some constructive questions.  Contrary to possible opinion, I don’t dislike T.D. Jakes, but I do care about him enough to want him to embrace the second Person of the Trinity, the true Jesus of the Bible.

As I see it, pointed doctrinal questions may ultimately have three effects on Mr. Jakes.

1. He continues his unclear, uncommitted position on the Trinity.
2. He clearly shows that he does not embrace the Trinity.
3. He repents of Modalism and embraces the true biblical God as He has revealed Himself inthe Trinity.

Maybe pointed doctrinal questions can help minimize any negative impact on the Body of Christ, and those outside of the Body, that Jakes appearance might have. Of course, there is no guarantee that any suggested questions would be used by MacDonald, Driscoll or the other participants, but it may give them and the potential ER2 viewers a few things to think about.

In no particular order, here are a few suggestions to which I hope some readers will add their own questions.

• What is the gospel?
• What is justification?
• What is sanctification?
• Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity summarized as: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit?³
• Why does the Potter’s House belief statement state that God exists in three manifestations?
• In a 2010 interview you stated that you “adamantly” defended Oneness doctrine as a teenager, so should it be understood that you clearly understand the doctrinal differences between Oneness and Trinitarian beliefs?
• Why have you seemingly been so unwilling to answer directly about your beliefs on the Trinity in the past?
• How important is one’s understanding of the Godhead as it relates to Scripture and the gospel?
• Given the significant theological differences, why do you consider both Oneness and Trinitarian doctrine as valid Christian beliefs?
• You stated that your views of the Godhead are evolving, would it be prudent to think that one who holds the title “Bishop” should have a more solid position on the Trinity?
• Why have you continued to use the title “Bishop” since your views of the Godhead are evolving and the title was given to you by a Oneness group?
• You have stated that you don’t want to attack doctrine. Would you consider Paul publicly correcting Peter’s doctrine in the book of Galatians to be an attack?
• You have stated that you don’t want to attack doctrine. But aren’t pastors, bishops and elders charged with teaching sound doctrine while rebuking and correcting false doctrine and teachers?
• Is the doctrine of the Trinity any more or less important today than it was in the early church?
• Do you believe the Jesus was materially wealthy while He walked the earth?

What would you ask T.D. Jakes?

__________________

Related posts:

1. TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books
2. Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association
3. Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, TD Jakes, Trinity

It has been recently revealed that T.D. Jakes will be a participant in Elephant Room round 2.¹ Elephant Room is hosted by James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll. Its format is for influential pastors to have “blunt conversations” around “differing approaches to ministry” with the purpose of modeling “loving confrontation and gracious disagreement that honors relationship and allows diversity of opinion but stands without compromise on the revealed word of God.”²

Many of us hold that there is a biblical compromise with Jakes given his fellowship with Oneness Pentacostalism and his position on the Trinity as documented in the past by the Christian Research Institute³ and others. James MacDonald responded to the concerns over having Jakes participate in Elephant Room. MacDonald stated that he does not believe that “association is the same as categoric endorsement,” but more importantly that he does “not agree that T.D. Jakes is a Modalist.”⁴ Carl Trueman responded to MacDonald explaining the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity.⁵

But is there cause for concern regarding T.D. Jakes’ position on the Trinity? Many disagree with MacDonald and believe there is cause for concern. The most recent comments by Jakes on the Trinity that I am aware of are from a 2010 interview which is provided below.

There are some areas of discernment to consider in Jakes’ interview. This man is an influential pastor bishop and yet he does not see the problem with differing views on the nature of God. He claims to have defended Oneness doctrine in his youth, but has been evasive for years on explaining his own views on the Trinity. He refers to those concerned with doctrine as wolves while Scripture teaches that it is the false teachers who are the wolves. He says he is not called to correct doctrine, but the Bible calls church leaders to teach sound doctrine and rebuke and silence those who don’t. False teachers are not to be partnered with, but to be exposed and corrected. Correcting false teachers is not an end unto itself, but a means to save their souls! Jakes mentions that he still fellowships with Oneness folks because he loves people. Yet, if he really loved them he would correct their false doctrine.

On July 18, 2010 Sheridan Voysey interviewed Jakes on his show Open House Interviews. The show description reads: “The pastor of the 30,000 strong Potter’s House church talks to Sheridan Voysey about his ministry, his theology and answers his critics.”⁶

At ~22:50 the host points out Jakes affiliation with Oneness Pentecostalism and how they deny the Trinity as one God in three persons. He then asks if Jakes has changed his view. Jakes says he still fellowships with them, infers that they are Christians, yet says his views have evolved and he was pressured to walk away from them.

Voysey: You have a criticism which is probably of more concern for those within your…your fellow Evangelical community would be the connections with Oneness Pentacostalism. Oneness Pentacostalism traditionally denying the historic understanding of God being a Trinity. One God, three Persons for eternity. You have actually had a Oneness Pentecostal background. Have you changed your views when it comes to the Triuness of God?

Jakes: Well first of all I’m laughing at the word connections because I have connections with everybody. I..atheists, agnostics, Jews, everybody and if that’s going to bother Evangelicals they’re really gonna hate me. I love people and I have not broken up with people because I don’t see everything they way they did.

And yes, I did grow up in a Oneness church. I started there. I started in a Baptist church, but at around 16 or so I did become involved with Oneness. I used to adamantly defend every tenant of what they believed. I’ve evolved since then. I’m on a journey since then. But I’ve not used my journey to attack other Christians just because I don’t agree with every line of what they say about the Trinity. I’m not sure any of us can really fully explain it as well as we think we can who God is.

Uh, so I’ve kind of evolved. I still fellowship. I’m still involved and have connections with the Oneness people. And under pressure was asked to kinda step away. It would have been easy to walk away. To point my finger at them and criticize them and attack them and satisfy my critics. But in my heart it was betrayal because, because you love people.

I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. I do. And my understanding has grown a lot about that. But I’ve not used my platform as a whipping post for any other Christian. I really don’t feel called to do that. And I’m not gonna succumb to pressure to become that. And I will not feed the wolves. I just don’t do it. I let them grip and say whatever they want to say.

I’m on a journey. I’m still learning. If they know more than me, good. But just because you graduated don’t burn down the school.

Voysey laughs and comments that Jakes is a master with his words and that he is going to be taking notes.

Jakes: You know what I am? I’ve come to a point in my life that I say what I mean. And that is a wonderful place to be ’cause I’m not trying to do anything anymore. I’m not trying to do anywhere. I’m not trying to build a career. Please accept me so I can come to your church. I’m older. I’m comfortable in my own skin. I want to know…I know Jesus for myself. I want to know Him better everyday. And you’d be surprised how much peace He gives you when you’re not trying to feed the wolves. They’re endless. They’re always gonna be coming. Jesus came that we might have peace. And I’m finally getting me some. It feels wonderful.

At ~25:40 the host brings Jakes back to the question of Modalism emphasizing the position of one god “manifesting himself as father, son and holy spirit” versus the traditional Trinitarian view of God. The host even states that Modalism was declared heresy in the 4th century. He explains it is an important issue that must be address because one who holds to Modalism is putting themselves outside of orthodoxy.

It is at this point that Jakes explains more clearly his views of the Triune nature of God.

Jakes: First of all, it’s not true. Not all Oneness people teach or believe the same thing about anything. Having been in those camps I know for a fact they don’t all teach the same thing the same way. People in our country (I don’t know about over here) they don’t really tie into denominations like they once did. So the assumption that because you go to a church you believe everything that they believe and you think they way they think is an assumption. And in the Oneness there are people that think everything from plain Trinitarian, God in three Persons, to everything imaginable. I’ve heard everything imaginable.

Voysey: But what about your personally? [There is some crosstalk and the host points out that Jakes' church has a doctrinal statement that uses the word "manifestation" which is a term used by Oneness groups.]

Jakes: Yes, but my church is non-denominational. And we embrace people regardless of what denomination they come from. I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that they are three Persons. I believe that in a way that Persons is a limited word for the Godhead. And even those who adhere to that say that to be true. But I think the issue is that they are distinctive. There are things that can be said about the Father that couldn’t be said about the Son and then the Holy Spirit… I believe that. I’ve grown into that, but I came into a Pentacostal church that happened to be Oneness. They loved me at a time that my father died. I became friends with them and in covenant with them and embraced them. And though I don’t agree with everything, and they don’t agree with everything, they’re evolving as a people.

I’m not gonna use my platform, again, to attack people or attack a doctrine. That’s not my mission and even though there are others who say that it is, I know my calling. And I don’t do that about anything. I mean you could listen to my tapes for hours and hours and hours and hardly ever hear me attacking people.

I asked Facebook friend, author and scholar, Dr. E. Calvin Beisner⁷, who has published two books on the Trinity, his thoughts on Jakes’ comments in the above interview. Beisner replied:

Far, far, far too little evidence there to justify reclassifying Jakes as Trinitarian granted all he’s said before and his continuing to consider United Pentecostals his Christian brothers. Nothing quoted there falls outside what any reasonably sly and sophisticated United Pentecostal could say. Let Jakes clearly and explicitly affirm such clear Trinitarian statements as the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of Chalcedon, the Athanasian Creed, or even just Warfield’s summary–There is but one God; the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is a distinct Person–and then let him also repudiate the anti-Trinitarian statements of United Pentecostalism and other modalist sects, and it’ll be time to declare him converted to the true God. My impression is that Jakes is simply out to gain the trust of larger groups than the Oneness and Pentecostal crowd in which he’s been at home.

As I see it, there is cause for concern over giving Jakes a platform with Evangelical Christians. It would be great if Jakes were loving confronted on his positions with Scripture so he can clearly say what he means. Even if it could be shown that Jakes is now Trinitarian it would seem from the few examples listed above that he is not carrying out the pastoral duties of the role which he claims to fill.

When it comes to T.D. Jakes and Elephant Room it seems there is a lack of discernment when it comes to association.

For what it’s worth…
_____________________

Related posts:

1. Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association
2. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
3. TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 23 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, James MacDonald, modalism, TD Jakes, Trinity

The above wordle was created in 2009 by Thom Rainer, President and CEO of LifeWay Christian Resources. The wordle is composed of the 140 character replies to Rainer’s twitter question - “What do you think when you hear ‘Southern Baptist’?”

Thom Rainer’s son, Sam, categorized the unscientific twitter results stating, “About 60% of the respondents gave a negative association. Another 30% were positive, and 10% were neutral or unclear.”¹ Some thoughts were shared on this site too.²

Fast forward to today where SBC President Bryant Wright has assigned a task force to investigate changing the the name of the Southern Baptist Convention. It has been argued on this blog that Bryant Wright should and will succeed in changing the name.³

Would a name change to the SBC really change the perception of the SBC? (I don’t mean an overnight change.) Is it the term “Southern Baptist” that brings about negative responses or could the term “Southern” be the real culprit? The focus of the current inquiry over a name change does seem to lie with the descriptor “Southern”. Granted, “Southern” and “Baptist” cannot really be separated when it comes to the SBC brand. However, first steps may be better than no steps.

This author has recently shown that 80 years had lapsed between the time when one early SBC leader chastised white Baptists on their treatment of black people until the 1995 resolution on racial reconciliation was affirmed.⁴

One might argue that the racial resolution has not helped race relations as much as intended though one might be hard pressed to deny it was necessary. Would it have been any different today had the resolution in question been affirmed 80 years prior? If “Southern” is removed from the SBC today will it make a difference tomorrow or in 80 years? I digress.

The question has hand is: Does “Southern” give Southern Baptists a bad image?

Thoughts?
________________________

Related posts:

1. Why Bryant Wright Will Succeed in Changing the SBC Brand
2. Are Southern Baptists more Arminian than Calvinist?
3. Southern Baptists, Investing and Morality

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 14 comments | Add to
Post tags: Bryant Wright, Great commiss, southern baptist convention, task force

Victor Irvine Masters, D.D. (1867-1954) while Superintendent of Publicity of the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention was asked to write a mission study book at the 1914 Southern Baptist Covention. The Home Mission Board published the book in 1915. I recently shared Masters’ perspective from this publication in two areas: 1) Southern Baptist doctrinal conditions¹ and 2) Calvinistic Methodist influence on early American Baptists.²

In chapter 12, “The Past and the Future” Masters offers some harsh words for the way some Southern Baptists have treated black people. Sadly, it was not until June 1995, 80 years after Masters wrote the excerpt below, that the Southern Baptist Convention voted on and passed the “Resolution On Racial Reconciliation On The 150th Anniversary Of The Southern Baptist Convention”.³

Given what Masters wrote on racial relationships in 1915 one big question comes to mind – What took us so long?

The Negro. The Southern white man cannot with his family and white neighbors develop in moral and spiritual worth, if he leaves the black people who live about him to fall prey to disease and sin. The white man cannot go to heaven, while he leaves the black to journey toward the pit. The Negro has made substantial progress in fifty years and the best whites have helped him. It is embarrassing to confess it, but there are thousands of whites who have their names on our church rolls, who have not the spirit of Christ toward the Negro. Every Southern pulpit ought to declare the whole counsel of God concerning the duty of the strong to the weak, the advanced to the lowly and backward, the white to the Negro. Our Mission Boards are helping the Negroes, and our mature and responsible leadership has ever been the Negro’s friend. The Home Mission Board has during all its career done much to help the Negroes through missionary work. For a number of years past it has had about forty missionaries among them and for several years through its Evangelistic Department it has conducted a most promising work for saving and training the Negroes and bringing their churches closer to the white churches in sympathy. Southern Baptists have also taken steps to establish a theological seminary for the black brethren. But Baptists have also an obligation so to interpret the will of Christ concerning our relations to the blacks, that men and women shall know that they cannot really follow Jesus, if they practise injustice toward Negroes. A church member who advocates or winks at lynchings or condones devices for cheating or in the courts imposing upon the least of these, is not fit to be in a church. Southern Christian bodies must do more through their missionary agencies to save the Negro, but of greater importance is it that every pulpit shall ring with the truth of Christ concerning our duty to the Negro and every church become a center of moral stamina, demanding that its own members shall keep themselves clean from the sin of oppressing the weak. The Negro cannot in the South be allowed to journey downward without dragging the white man with him. This fundamental fact is of tremendous importance and should often be expounded and enforced in twenty thousand Baptist pulpits in the South.⁴

_____________________

Related posts:

1. A 1915 Perspective on Southern Baptist Doctrinal Conditions
2. Calvinistic Methodist Influence on Early American Baptists
3. Does “Southern” Give Southern Baptists a Bad Image?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to
Post tags: Baptist history, slavery, Victor Irving Masters

I recently shared an excerpt on Southern Baptist doctrinal conditions from a book by Victor Irvine Masters, D.D. (1867-1954).¹ Masters was a past Superintendent of Publicity of the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention.

In the last sentence of the section on doctrinal conditions Masters states, “The Baptists of 1815 in the South, barring certain minor sects, were everywhere Regular Baptists.” He then directs the reader “See Appendix A.” What follows is Appendix A where Masters points out some of the theological differences among early American Baptists including praise for two Calvinistic Methodists. One of those Methodists is even praised for saving the General Baptists.

The distinctions, General and Particular Baptists, arose in England, and, at an early date, followed the Baptists to America by immigration. General Baptists were Arminian in their theology. They came to place very little stress on regeneration and took unconverted persons into the churches. Notwithstanding this bid for popularity with the world, there was among them much laxness and falling away. Unitarianism recruited from their ranks.

Particular Baptists, on the contrary, held that the atonement of Christ was for a particular number, the elect of God. Some of them went to the opposite extreme from the General Baptists, claiming that it was wrong even to invite a sinner to accept Christ, lest this should be an impertinent interference with the work of the Holy Spirit. George Whitefield, a Calvinistic Methodist, had much to do with saving Baptists from the destructive latitudinarianism of General Baptists. The Particular Baptists modified their hyper-Calvinism and developed strength and members.

At a somewhat later period the distinction of Regular and Separate Baptists arose. Regular Baptists were those who had adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. They were Calvinists and held the views which are still held in general by the denomination, except that they were comparatively indifferent to special revivals and efforts to win the lost. In [1750]* the Separate Baptists sprang up. The Separate Baptists were composed chiefly of Whitefield’s followers, and were at first really Calvinistic Methodists. At first, they were called New Lights. Later, Shubal Stearns organized them into separate societies, and they came to be called Separates. A year later, Stearns became a Baptist and most of the Separates followed him and became Separate Baptists. Their contribution of evangelistic fervor to the Regular Baptists, when, later, the two wings came together, gave the denomination a blessed impetus and viewpoint, which has wrought wonders in its growth. No Christian body in America, not excepting the Methodists themselves, owe more to Whitefield and Stearns, two great products of that faith, than do the American Baptists.²

___________________

*The book states “1850″ but the correct date seems to be 1750. In the section in which this appendix is referenced Masters dates the Separates and Regulars as coming together in 1787. Also note that Shubal Stearns lived from 1706 to 1771.

Related posts:

1. A 1915 Perspective on Southern Baptist Doctrinal Conditions
2. Southern Baptists: Racial Relations and Spiritual Worth
3. Are Southern Baptists more Arminian than Calvinist?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: Baptist history, George Whitefield, Victor Irving Masters

Victor Irvine Masters, D.D.  (1867-1954) was the Superintendent of Publicity of the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. In 1914 at the Southern Baptist Convention, Masters was asked by the Corresponding Secretaries of the State Boards to write a mission study book.¹ He offered an interesting observation about Southern Baptists and their history in the foreword of his study book.

It is often asserted that Southern Baptists will not read their own history, that they have been too busy making history to read it. It would be truer to say that they have been most influentially busy making history, but have shown so small a response to those who have written of their past, that the men among us of the requisite gifts have been discouraged from writing. May not the author with discretion enter here the plea that Southern Baptists should give more attention to writing and reading their history.²

Building on this point about Baptist’s and their history is further insight from Masters on Southern Baptist doctrinal conditions. 

Doctrinal Conditions. One hundred years ago the larger doctrinal differences of our Baptist sires had been settled, and the permanent articles of faith had been accepted substantially as held by the body of Southern Baptists today. Two hundred years ago American Baptists were General and Particular. The General Baptists were Arminian and the Particular Baptists Calvinistic. Whitefield’s preaching in America helped the Particular Baptists mightily to win the Arminian brethren. By the middle of the eighteenth century the victory was won. Then arose the distinctions Regular and Separate Baptists. The Regular Baptists were those who adopted the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. The Separates sprang up under the leadership of Shubal Stearns. They had more fervor than the Regular Baptists and held that believers are guided by the immediate teachings of the Holy Spirit, which are in the nature of inspiration. They were mighty as revivalists and did much to bring Baptist growth. They opposed the Establishment more than the Regulars did in Virginia. In 1787 the two branches united in Virginia, which they afterwards did everywhere. The Baptists of 1815 in the South, barring certain minor sects, were everywhere Regular Baptists.³

If Masters is correct then it seems that Southern Baptist history shows us that there is certainly room for Calvinistic Baptists in the SBC. Not only is there room, but there should be open doors to embrace those who hold to such historically Baptist theology.
__________________________

Related posts:

1. Calvinistic Methodist Influence on Early American Baptists
2. Southern Baptists: Racial Relations and Spiritual Worth
3. Southern Baptist Disclosure and Unity

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to
Post tags: Baptist history, Victor Irving Masters

An interfaith prayer vigil will be held at the National Cathedral for the tenth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. It seems that no Evangelicals were invited to participate along side the “dean of the Cathedral, the Bishop of Washington, a rabbi, Buddhist nun and incarnate lama, a Hindu priest, the president of the Islamic Society of North America and a Muslim musician.”¹

Should Evangelicals have been invited? Carl Trueman addressing Southern Baptists seems to think that not being invited is a good thing since no invitation means no compromise.² Mike Horton weighs in with a thoughtful response asking if Christians “can participate (much less encourage) such acts of “non-sectarian” worship.”³

I understand Trueman’s concerns and believe Horton spells the issues out nicely. I am almost persuaded that I would absolutely not pray at Ground Zero if asked. Almost.

My indecision lies at the feet of the interfaith aspect of the event. Interfaith cooperation does not really exist. Interfaith dialogue? Yes. Two different faiths praying together act like parallel lines running side-by-side, each proclaiming their own “truth” will never actually meeting. Such an event looks like nice on the outside and may feel emotionally satisfying, but is spiritually vacuous.

The question then becomes not would I pray, but how would I deal with the prayers of the others? What would I do during the time which the Muslim, Hindu, or Rabbi were praying? Would I bow my head out of respect? Respect for whom, the person speaking? What about respect for the Triune God? The dilemma would be how to participate without being seen as giving a nod of approval to other religions thereby inferring a denial, or at the very least a compromise, of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ultimately, I could pray to God the Father in Christ’s name while proclaiming the gospel though I’m not sure yet if I would. If I could here is an example of how I would pray.

Heavenly Father, 10 years have passed since the great tragedy of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Many have mourned and still mourn the loss of loves ones. Oh sovereign God, You are our great Comforter. You have not left us to mourn and walk blindly through this life. Father, You sent your Son, Jesus Christ, to comfort us with the good news that we are to receive by faith alone. Thank You for the good news that Jesus died on the cross in the place of sinners; that three days later He rose from the dead defeating death and securing hope in this life and in the afterlife for all who turn from their sin and believe in Him by faith alone. When Jesus ascended back to Heaven the Holy Spirit was sent as another Comforter to those who believe the good news and to convict those who don’t believe of their sin. Father, I ask that the good news of Jesus Christ go out today by the Holy Spirit to empower those who do not believe in Jesus that they will find comfort and hope in Him through their mourning. Thank you for the great hope of the good news of Your Son, Jesus.
I pray all of this in the most precious name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

What about you? Would you pray at this event?

For what it’s worth…
____________________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: To Pray In Jesus Name Or Not?
2. Update: Christians and the Ground Zero Mosque
3. The Ground Zero Mosque An Artificial Controversy?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to
Post tags: 9/11, Ground Zero, prayer

5. Those who already believe. We must teach them:

(i) The gospel: the biblical teaching on justification, sanctification and perseverance.

(ii) The law: but as it applies to those who are no longer under its curse, so that they may be taught how to bear the fruit of a new obedience in keeping with their repentance (Rom. 8:1; 1 Tim. 1:9). Here Paul’s teaching in Romans serves as a model.

(iii) Although someone who is righteous and holy in the sight of God should not be threatened with the curse of the law, the opposition of the law to their remaining sin should still be stressed. As a father may show his sons what he will do as punishment to induce a proper sense of fear of doing wrong, so meditation on the curse of the law should be frequently encouraged in true believers, to discourage abusing the mercy of God by sinful living, and to increase humility. Our sanctification is partial as yet. In order that the remnants of sin may be destroyed we must always begin with meditation on the law, and with a sense of our sin, in order to be brought to rest in the gospel. ¹

______________________

Related posts:

1. Lord Kill Me If I Don’t Preach the Gospel
2. Did Jesus Preach Paul’s Gospel?
3. Lord’s Day 08/16 the Gospel

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 16 comments | Add to
Post tags: Gospel, law, santification, William Perkins

Ligonier Ministries is offering several free online video teaching series by R.C. Sproul. Below is the first video from each series that are available to watch for free.

The Holiness of God
1. The Importance of Holiness 2. The Trauma of Holiness
3. Holiness and Justice 4. The Insanity of Luthe

Chosen By God
1. Everyone Believes this Doctrine 2. God’s Sovereignty
3. What is Free Will? 4. Man’s Radical Fallenness

What Is Reformed Theology?
1. Introduction 2. Catholic, Evangelical, and Reformed
3. Scripture Alone 4. Faith Alone (part 1)

There are more free online teachings by Dr. Sproul at the Teaching Series section of Ligonier’s website.

Related posts:

1. Blog Bites: Appealing to Free Will
2. Prayer and Devotion Online
3. Teaching The Bible: Still Unpopular, Still Essential by Phillip Jensen

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to
Post tags: RC Sproul, teaching, video

In the following video Mormon Glenn Beck sits with Evangelical David Barton who introduces hyper-dispensationalist, prosperity preacher John Hagee¹. These men are together for the sake of supporting the modern day state of Israel. Supporting Israel is not a bad thing, but are they supporting Israel in a biblical sense?

For starters, Hagee, a professing Christian, asks God to bless Glenn Beck, a professing Mormon, for their work together supporting Israel. I, too, ask God to bless Glenn Beck though in a different manner. I pray God would bring Beck to repent of his Mormonism and believe the true gospel of the true Christ. Actually, this is the same blessing that should be asked of Israel that Hagee does not publicly ask for as far as I can tell.

Bibilcally, Hagee and Barton should be calling for Israel (and Beck) to turn to Jesus Christ rather than offering comforting words that they are working along with God’s revealed plans.

One may simply turn to the Scriptures for examples of what a true blessing to Israel would look like i.e. sharing the gospel.

[Jesus] said to [the Jews], “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”(John 8:23-24 ESV)

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:5-7 ESV)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16 ESV)

You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.” (Acts 3:25-26 ESV)

let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by him this man is standing before you well. This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10-12 ESV)

It seems Israel may be an idol for some like Beck, Hagee and Barton. Are they leading Christians astray by promoting support for Israel as shown in the video? Are they leading Christians away from the importance of bringing the gospel to Israel?

From a biblical perspective it seems that the gospel is being trampled upon while modern day Israel elevated from Hagee and the gang. Their love for Israel turns out to be less than that of Jesus and the Apostles. For if they really loved Israel they would primarily be concerned with sharing the gospel with them.
_________________

Related posts:

1. Horner vs DeMar on Endtimes, Israel, Replacement Theology
2. John Hagee Clarifies: Jesus is Messiah
3. Poll: Can Evangelism Be An Idol?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to
Post tags: glenn beck, idolatry, Israel, John Hagee

In part I, I shared about some of the issues my family and I faced during the 2011 spring semester which ran from January – May. God taught me a lot during that time. Some of what He taught me I’m still digesting while other lessons He taught me I’m not sure exactly how to put into words. In this post I will share some of what I am able to express that I believe God taught me through this time as well as some of the activities He lead me through.

Running over the potholes of life describe in part I is not a ride I would pay for, or much less stand in line for. I realize others have had far worse happen in their lives, but I am where God has me and life is His classroom. Each person’s bumps and burdens looks and feels different to the next person’s. As I felt my own burdens during this time I waited for spiritual ground zero so that it would just be over.

But there was no ground zero. There was a Savior instead. That Savior, Jesus Christ, paid for my ride through the potholes of life, not by standing in line, but by hanging on a cross enduring far more than I ever could. He rose from the grave on the third day defeating death so that all of us who believe in Him will also be raise to new life. I was reminded during this time that through His death and resurrection Jesus said that through Him we “may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33 ESV)

I knew that Jesus had overcome the world for me and that I am to take every thought captive unto obedience to Him (2 Cor. 10:5-6) and do all things to His glory (2 Cor. 10:31). Of course, my problem was that I was trusting God less and less instead of more and more. I told an older, wiser brother at church that I was just ready to give up. He replied something like – Good, that’s just where God wants you so you can trust Him and stop trying to do it all yourself.

And then what?

Prayer. As cliche as it sounds the Christian must pray. Even when we don’t feel like it we need to pray. The one thing that we need most in times of crises is time alone with God in prayer. Ironically, it is during the hard times when prayer can be most difficult. There are many things in life at one point or another that we don’t feel like doing whether it’s work, school work, chores, etc., but we do them anyway. I found myself in this situation, but I needed to get closer to God and it wasn’t God that drew back it was me. Prayer was hard and wonderful at the same time and it must be a priority in the Christian life.

Bible reading. Right along with prayer was reading God’s word. Scripture gave great comfort during this time. Scripture shows how God’s people have struggled throughout history and how God was always there for them. Scripture is a good reminder that trouble and pain in life is not a recent phenomenon. It was good to be reminded of God’s faithfulness and goodness.

Journaling. I had to journal through Philippians for one of my classes. Had this not been assigned I may not have done it, but going forward this was a great spiritual exercise. I prayerfully wrote about 16 or so pages through Philippians noting the attitude of Paul and many of the little things that aren’t often taught in Bible lessons. My shortcomings were magnified much more which revealed my need for Jesus even more. It was wonderful.

Family. The most difficult part was probably ministering to my wife during this time. As her spiritual head, I was struggling myself, but I was also heartbroken seeing her own spiritual condition. Attending to my wife also brought me to seek Jesus even more. If I will someday be a pastor in some capacity and I can’t even shepherd my wife while in seminary then I need to re-evaluate. God gave us this tough time together to make our relationship stronger than ever. I will now take my wife along with me during my seminary studies. We got back to having a regular devotion and prayer time and sometimes my seminary material will be part of this. I’ve heard too many stories of wives’ not having their husbands while they are in seminary. God has also used my story for me to share with other men the importance of tending to their wives spiritual needs and being together as a couple.

Pastor. I talked to my pastor about getting through this time juggling life because he’s been there. He helped in put things in perspective though there was no easy road. Briefly, in so many words we talked about the winding road of a pastors life, serving the local church, and persevering to God’s glory. He reminded me that life in ministry is not easy, but it is rewarding. Of course, my pastor was there for me after the miscarriage and made it known that he was there if I needed him.

Mentor. I’m thankful to have an older, godly mentor who is a good Christian man. He has been in ministry a long time and has been a pastor and happens to also be a Christian counselor. He has become a great friend. We talked about anything and everything that the spiritual-emotional quiver could carry. At almost 70, he has a lot of life experience to share which he clearly expresses through a biblical lens.

Friends. Trustworthy Christian friends are great. I have a few who I’ve known longer than I’ve known my wife. Although my wife is my best friend these male Christian friends are there to help when need be and I am there for them. They were prayerful and encouraging during these tough times.

Church. I am grateful to have a church full of caring people. Of course, I couldn’t exactly share every intimate detail with the whole church that I shared with my pastor, mentor and close friends. But I shared enough and they cared even more for us. I was reminded of how we are one in the body of Christ and that “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.” (1 Corinthians 12:26 ESV)

Professors. I keep my professors up to speed on what was going on. It is not always easy to tell them because of the fear of getting the answer you don’t want to hear. But they were wonderful. They understood the pain we went through with having a miscarriage and that life does not pause to let us catch up. They worked with me and I actually came out with very good grades for which I also praised God.

So that’s my story, but it could be yours too and it doesn’t have to involve seminary. When tragedy and grief strike in life there is no pause, rather it feels like fast-forward in slow motion. Anxiety and impatience can rule the day while the cross seems like a distant shadow. I would encourage anyone going through a rough time to seek Jesus because that cross is a reality not a shadow. Whether in seminary or not maybe God would use some of what I shared above to point you in the right direction which is ultimately to Him. So please consider prayer, Scripture, your pastor, a mentor, your church, a friend, etc. if you are struggling. The Holy Spirit certainly used life’s events and those in the church for my spiritual growth.

The bottom line is that I learned to love and trust Jesus more clinging to His gospel.

Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:26-28 ESV)

Related posts:

1. A Rough Seminary Semester, Part I
2. Passion Church Part 2
3. 9Marks at Southeastern Seminary Audio Available

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to
Post tags: seminary