While citing the Southern Baptist Convention website on resolutions for yesterday’s applied ethics post¹ I noticed a interesting statement about resolutions.

Note the following from the SBC website [emphasis added].

21. How do I find out the official SBC stance on various issues?

The Southern Baptist Convention makes official statements regarding specific issues by means of resolutions passed at our annual gatherings each June.  Southern Baptist polity views these resolutions as expressions of opinions or concern which are representative of the messengers attending the meeting, but are not binding upon any individual church or successive Convention.  Generally speaking, resolutions are snapshots of views widely held among Southern Baptists at the time and in the social contest in which they are passed, but they are not deemed to be doctrinal or creedal (tests of fellowship).²

It is understood that resolutions are expressions of opinion and are not officially binding. Of course, those opinions are of the messengers present as they are the ones listening, interacting and voting. However, the above states that not only are resolutions not binding, but they are not binding upon the “successive Convention,” that is, the following Convention that meets. It makes sense that such resolutions represent views at the time and context in which they are presented and passed since cultural issues faced by Southern Baptists can change from year to year.

Do the above statements on SBC resolutions mean that they are only applicable to the particular Convention in which they are passed and not successive Conventions?

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Anti-Calvinism Resolution at the Southern Baptist Convention
2. SBC Membership Resolution Passes
3. Southern Baptists & the Alcohol Resolution: How?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 8 comments | Add to
Post tags: resolution, SBC, Southern Baptist, southern baptist convention

I will be hosting Dr. Ed Stetzer’s (President of LifeWay Research) webcast “The Exchange” as part of a test syndication.

Tune in today!

Today on “The Exchange” Pete Wilson, pastor of Cross Point Church in Nashville, discusses his newest book Empty Promises: The Truth about You, Your Desires, and the Lies You’re Believing.

Philip Nation, Director of Ministry Development at LifeWay Christian Resources, will be guest-hosting.

Click the image below to start the webcast at 2pm cst/3 pm est!

Related posts:

1. A La Blog 8/4
2. Worshiping with Ed Stetzer
3. LifeWay Reads With Discernment

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to
Post tags: Ed Stetzer, Lifeway, missional, The Exchange

The Rev. Alfred W. Wishart, Jr., opened his Easter sermon at the Arlington Avenue Presbyterian Church of East Orange, N.J., with these words:

“Did you ever stop to think how much time it takes to get all of you looking so nice for today? What with the shopping and all, I’d conservatively estimate that it took each of you four hours to get ready. Since there are about 500 of you here, that comes to 2,000 hours. Now if you divide that up into 40-hour workweeks and allow two weeks for vacation, it breaks down into a full year of preparation for Easter Sunday.

“So that’s where you’ve been since last year.”¹

Wishart’s observations are somewhat humorous and sad at the same time because they ring true. Most likely thousands of people across the United States who attend church once or twice per year will attend church this Easter Sunday. Many of those who seldom attend church will spend time getting physically ready for Easter service. Many churches will have spent much time preparing the worship time to be as attractive as possible for those who seldom attend.

May Good Friday be a reminder that Jesus was born to die. Jesus’ whole life was preparation so that He would die at God’s appointed time. Jesus’ preparation was not about worldly attractiveness, impressing others or general acceptance. Actually, the world rejected and killed Him.

Meditate on Jesus’ last moments while preparing to worship Him this Easter Sunday.

The Death of Jesus

33 And when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” 35 And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Behold, he is calling Elijah.” 36 And someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink, saying, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.” 37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed his last. 38 And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. 39 And when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God!” – Mark 15:33–39 (ESV).

My Easter prayer is that Christians would spend more time preparing spiritually than they would on their physical appearance. And those churches who have gone the extra mile to attract those who do not attend church will have spent more time preparing a clear gospel message that outshines any specialties employed for Easter. Finally, that those who profess to be Christians who do not normally attend church will be convicted to assemble regularly with a local congregation; and those non-Christians will repent and believe the gospel with the conviction that 1) Christian worship is not about special presentations on particular holidays and 2) that the resurrection is not just an Easter worship celebration, but is central to every Christian worship service.

Related posts:

1. Preparing To Worship
2. How often church attendance?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to
Post tags: easter, Good Friday

Dear readers, read the following Scripture.

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it. (Acts 2:22-24 ESV)

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Corinthians 15:1-5 ESV)

Now, please share why this is good news. How has this news affected your life, worldview, etc.? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Related posts:

1. Good Buys On Good Books
2. Advance09 Makes Local News
3. Good Enough To Be A Saint

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: good news, Gospel, Jesus Christ

Dr. Stephen Wellum recently gave Southern Seminary’s Faculty Address entitled, “What does the Extent of the Atonement have to do with Baptist Ecclesiology: an Experience of Doing Theology.” John Meade has posted a downloadable mp3 of Wellum’s talk at his site, LXX Studies.¹

Dr. Wellum addresses the issue of the extent of the atonement and Baptist eccesiology in the following two points.

1. Making a case for a definite atonement Using the priestly argument answering,”For whom did Christ die?”
2. The implications of the priestly argument for understanding the nature of the church (New Covenant community).

The case Wellum attempts to make is that the extent of the atonement is directly related specifically to Baptist ecclesilogy. His stated conclusion is:

So that, the overall argument will be that a consistent Baptist ecclesiology is best defended by the embrace of a definite view of the atonement.

Listen, then share your thoughts.

P.s. The bulk of Wellum’s address is presenting the priestly argument which he does in three categories.

• Hermeneutical/exegetical issues.
• Unified work of the Old Covenant (summarized in Hebrews 5:1).
• The priestly work of Christ.

Related posts:

1. John 3:16 Conference David Allen – Limited Atonement
2. John 3:16 Conference 60 minute Q&A
3. A 1915 Perspective on Southern Baptist Doctrinal Conditions

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 14 comments | Add to
Post tags: atonement, eccle, SBTS, Southern Baptist, southern baptist convention, Stephen Wellum

I was recently listening to a pastor preach on the importance of prayer in pastoral ministry. Prayer is certainly important in the life of a pastor (or any Christian). The context was that this pastor was teaching future pastors. Giving his time to such teaching is a great service. However, the text he used to make his point was Acts 1:13-14 and a few things just did not sit right with me.

And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. (Acts 1:13-14 ESV)

After reading the Scripture he explained that this text shows the importance of prayer in the life of pastors. Maybe he wanted to substitute pastors for the Apostles and use a general principle of coming together for prayer. Yet what do we do with Mary, the other women, and Jesus’ brothers?

Further, the pastor inserted his view of how scared these uneducated men probably were when faced with going out and sharing the gospel. The comment was made that these men were so afraid that they were driven to prayer because they had nothing else to rely on but God.

Finally, the pastor attempted to stress the importance of prayer and such by repeatedly stating “I believe” about several items. While he may have had reasons to believe what he was stating his beliefs came across as fideistic.

My intent is not to tear down, but to make a few observations about how subjectivity can creep into preaching and teaching. The other issue is that this was a Southern Baptist teaching future Southern Baptists pastors.

I can’t help but wonder…Does this type of preaching add to the lack of critical thinking in local churches today? Does it facilitate a lack of apologetic desire and engagement? Does it promote fideism and encourage Christians not to think about what they believe and why? Does this type of preaching teach Christians to fall back on their feelings putting their hearts and minds at odds with each another?

Or maybe it’s just me.

Just thinking…

Related posts:

1. Preaching: Young, Restless and Four?
2. Preaching On Sin and Responsibility
3. Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow Preaching

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: critical thinking, exegesis, preaching

I came across an interesting observation in a book I am reading for one of my classes. In the book Shepherd Leader, author Timothy Witmer points out what he calls the “Wal-mart effect” among megachurches.

The truth of the matter is that much of the growth of megachurches is drawn from smaller churches in the region. This is what I call the Wal-Mart effect. What happens when a Wal-Mart moves to town? Many small “mom and pop” businesses are forced to close because they can’t compete with the prices, variety, and “one-stop shopping” of Wal-Mart. Likewise, small churches are depleted by large churches because the large churches provide “one-stop shopping” with ministries of every variety for everyone in the family. Sometimes the “prices” are cheaper, too. Not in the sense that a “tithe” is any less but that the anonymity of a larger church may not require the same level of commitment that smaller churches must have in order to function effectively. How many new members in your church are joining by profession of faith? How many are coming from other churches? These are important questions to consider.

The sheep shuffle from church to church, otherwise known as “church hopping.” There is no doubt that there is a consumer mentality among many Christians whose primary question about a church is not, “Is this a good place for me to serve and where I can grow as a believer?” but rather, “Will this church meet my needs?” If you are on the receiving end of these new members you rejoice and consider it to be church growth and God’s blessing. If you are on the losing end, you can easily become cynical and accuse other churches of “sheep stealing.”¹

While Witmer’s observations may seem obvious to some extent from outside of the megachurch, the perspective from within may be much more positive. I have friends that have had great experiences attending and serving in megachurches. I may even join one myself some day…who knows. One point about the church hoping phenomenon is that it is not limited to megachurches.

Witmer adds a positive note on the next page.

To be honest, one of the reasons that Wal-Mart continues to grow is that they not only provide good prices but customer service as well. There is someone there to greet you, guide you, and answer your questions.²

What do you think about the Wal-mart effect?

Related posts:

1. Are Megachurches Healthier?
2. Keeping Christ in Christmas so we can sleep in?
3. A Healthy View of Church?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to
Post tags: ecclesiology, megachurch, Shephed Leader, Wal-mart, Witmer

The pro-abortion, pro-choice crowd argues that abortion is a reproductive right. However, there is a problem with this line of reasoning.

In order to have an abortion, reproduction must have already taken place i.e. a human life must exist in order to abort it. A right to reproduce, or have offspring, is not the same as a right to abort, or terminate the life of said offspring.

In actuality, abortion is a counter-reproductive action since it kills a human being that is already living.

It is possible that babies in the womb would like the same reproductive rights that others have, but in order for that to happen those babies must first have the unequivocal right to life.

Related posts:

1. Obama, Abortion and Pay Grades
2. Gospel Then Morality: Lesson From Abortion Counseling
3. Wisdom of Solomon, Obama and Abortion

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: abortion

Breaking News: Southern Baptist College President Offers Calvinist Vision!

Imagine if that were a real headline. Surely, that college president would be universally welcomed by Baptists with open arms and a warm embrace. Call me a skeptic, but I doubt it.

The very presence of Calvinists seemed to set off alarms for Christian Index editor Gerald Harris who penned “The Calvinists are here.”¹ Harris’ article brought much attention and several replies, including my own.²,³ Two weeks after Harris’ article was published a Georgia pastor sent in the following comment which was published by the Christian Index.

‘Heartbroken’ over Calvinism taught in SBC seminaries
Thank you for the article on Calvinism. I am concerned that by focusing the minds of our seminary students on Reformed Theology instead of focusing on the Great Commission, we are doing a great disservice to the Kingdom of God, and to the hearts and passions of our young people.⁴

Notice how Calvinism and Reformed Theology mentioned as if it is in opposition to the Great Commission. I am ‘heartbroken’ over such poor and false reasoning from a Southern Baptist pastor. I am also ‘heartbroken’ that the Index published the comment.

In reply, I sent my own comment into the Index which was not published and, so far, I have not received feedback that it will be published. My comment follows and is the basis for the title of this post.

In 2009, the GA Baptist Convention gave Truett-McConnell College $2.7 million. Dr. Emir Caner, Truett’s president, has put forth “The Anabaptist Vision: My Vision for Truett-McConnell College.”⁵ Would Southern Baptists support a Calvinist Vision for a school? Bottom line: We Southern Baptists are not Anabaptists!

Had Caner, or any Southern Baptist College president, put forth a “Calvinist Vision” it would probably not have gone for too long without much notice. Yet, Caner’s “Anabaptist Vision” seems to have not gotten as much as a head turn. One can appreciate whatever historic influences Anabaptists may have had on Southern Baptist life while not attempting to move Southern Baptists, whose founders were Calvinistic Baptists, toward Anabaptism. In fairness to Truett-McConnell, they did official adopt the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message as their statement of faith.⁶

For a view from the other side, one young SBC pastor wrote the following comment in passing about not being “young, restless and reformed.”

Moreover, I have never wanted to be anything but a Southern Baptist. Being a Presbyterian has never appealed to me like it seems to some leaders in our convention and their protégés.⁷

In the comment section, this brother wrote to me that he would put C.J. Mahaney, a charismatic Baptist, “squarely in the Presbyterian camp.” Ironically, Mahaney is not Presbyterian though he is a Calvinist just as the Southern Baptist Founders were Calvinists. In the same way this pastor does not desire to be Presbyterian, neither do I desire to be Anabaptist. We should be able to be Southern Baptist together without being Anabaptist or Presbyterian.

As I’ve noted before, Southern Baptists should be cooperating in evangelism and respecting each other theologically based on the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.⁸

_____________________

Related posts:

1. Letter to the editor of ‘The Christian Index’ by Marty King
2. Roman Catholic Baptist?
3. The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part I

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to
Post tags: Christian Index, Emir Caner, Georgia Baptist Convention, Truett-McConnell

At the start of this year, LifeWay introduced a major new Bible study initiative for all ages called The Gospel Project, which will launch in Fall 2012. The resource takes a Christ-centered approach to Bible study by examining the grand narrative of Scripture and how the gospel transforms the lives of those it touches. The three-year plan of study immerses participants—adults, students, and kids—in the gospel through each story, theological concept, and call to missions from Genesis to Revelation.

The editorial team of Ed Stetzer and Trevin Wax began work on The Gospel Project to meet a specific need in many churches—to provide a gospel-centered curriculum that can be used in every age group within a church. Along the way, they consulted with Baptist pastors and scholars from across the country, including Matt Chandler, J.D. Greear, and D.A. Carson.

To read more and get the free downloads click-> FREE DOWNLOADS – The Gospel Project

Related posts:

1. Upcoming Book Review And Project
2. Letter to the editor of ‘The Christian Index’ by Marty King
3. Blog Bites: Appealing to Free Will

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to
Post tags: Gospel Project, Lifeway

Editorial not worthy of editor or Index

Dear Gerald,

As a former Georgia Baptist, I appreciate you and your service as Index editor. But, your Feb. 10 editorial was not your best. The level of research, organization, and writing are simply not up to what Georgia Baptists have come to expect. Let me share with you three concerns.

1. The editorial seems intent on fear-mongering, and is poorly sourced and organized.

Although you admit in the article that “many great preachers and theologians have embraced Calvinism through the years,” you imply readers should be afraid of Calvinists, as evidenced by the ominous, bold print used for every reference to Calvinism and Reformed theology. Even the title sounds ominous.

There are only vague references to supporting evidence of many of the claims, and others are just wrong. For instance, you say Trevin Wax, the managing editor of our new Bible study The Gospel Project “admits he has been influenced by Reformed pastors and authors” and then you list seven names. Trevin has never said that, however, Trevin did interview someone on his blog once who said that list of people had influenced HIM – not Trevin.

Furthermore, what do Calvinism, a marriage book, and the possible SBC name change have to do with each other? It appears you are simply throwing everything controversial into one article to enflame.

2. LifeWay’s new curriculum called The Gospel Project has no agenda other than responding to a need churches have expressed for a long time – more in-depth Bible studies. Period. Your column repeats as fact baseless charges made by a few anti-Calvinist bloggers. You over-emphasized the role of the initial advisory group which only met one time, a year ago, to talk about general principles of an in-depth curriculum. You didn’t even ask to read the sample lessons for yourself or interview the editor or any of the writers.

Please read the sample lessons at GospelProject.com. You will see there is no agenda other than to help users encounter Christ in the text. LifeWay will not bring any doctrinal system to the text other than the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.

3. I believe the most irresponsible part of the column was your charge that LifeWay president Dr. Thom Rainer “seems to have led the SBC literature-producing agency to become more Reformed.” That is not true, Gerald. You did not cite any LifeWay materials that are teaching Reformed theology, and fail to offer any reason Dr. Rainer would have for doing that since it is well known he is not a Calvinist. Dr. Rainer writes on evangelism and outreach, not Calvinism.

Dr. Rainer has written, “I put my integrity on the line and promise there is no Calvinistic agenda implied or explicit in our curriculum.”

My prayer is that, upon reflection, you will retract these untrue accusations and help instill well-deserved confidence in LifeWay’s resources.

Marty King

Director, LifeWay Communications

———-

P.s. The above letter was provided with permission to republish. I have also responded more fully to Gerald Harris in the following two parts.
1) The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part I
2) The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part II
A pdf. version is also available in one file: The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris

Related posts:

1. The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part I
2. The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part II
3. Baptist College President Offers Calvinist Vision?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 18 comments | Add to
Post tags: Christian Index, Georgia Baptist Convention, Gerald Harris, Gospel Project, John Calvin, Lifeway, Mark Driscoll, Marty King, Trevin Wax, TULIP

Below is a one minute clip cut from a longer interview (see below) where Franklin Graham is asked whether or not he believes President Obama is a Christian. Check it out.

[Obama] has said he is a Christian so I just have to assume, you know, that he is. But the question is, “What is a Christian?” A Christian is a person that believes that Jesus Christ is God’s Son who died on a cross for our sins, who God raised to life; and that, if we put our faith and trust in him that God will forgive us of our sins. That is the definition of a Christian.

Related posts:

1. Woody Harrelson On Christianity
2. President Obama: Another View of the Election
3. Dear President Obama – No!

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: Barack Obama, Christianity, Franklin Graham, video

The following is part II of a reply to Gerald Harris recently published the article “The Calvinists are here.” The article was published in The Christian Index, the Georgia Southern Baptist newspaper, of which Harris is the editor. If you have not read part I, follow this link to do so: The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part I.

Part II begins below by interacting with Harris’ article where part I ended.

The average Baptist who sits in a Sunday School class or a small Bible study group has depended on LifeWay to provide Bible study materials that are true to the Word of God and representative of historic Baptist theology. However, for bane or blessing LifeWay President Thom Rainer seems to have led the SBC literature-producing agency to become more and more Reformed in its theological content.

See the note in part I about LifeWay’s best-selling material from James MacDonald and Max Lucado. Also, under on LifeWay’s website under “LifeWay Select” one can find material by Ed Young, Jr. (more on Young later).

Harris then writes about NAMB’s recent On Mission magazine that “highlights several church planters, two of whom could be seen as Reformed in their theology.” I am not sure to what number “several” alludes for the church planters featured, but Harris picks out only two that may be Calvinists. Is featuring two Calvinist church planters out of several too many?

One planter, Won Kwak, is affiliated with Doctrines of Grace Church Planters who seek to plant sovereign grace churches. The other planter is Bland Mason, the pastor of City on a Hill. Harris doesn’t make an explicit point, but pointing out that these two church plants are Calvinistic insinuates that something is inherently problematic. Why?

I had the privilege of meeting Bland [Mason] in December and really like him. He is also the chaplain of the Boston Red Sox, which makes him particularly special to me.

Harris got to meet Mason whose position as chaplain of the Red Sox makes him special to Harris. Yet, he continues about Mason.

“We plant Southern Baptist churches that adhere to the Baptist Faith and Message and support the Cooperative Program.” Kevin Ezell, president North American Mission Board. Some have been critical of City on a Hill being featured in On Mission because it is also included on the Acts 29 Network website as one of its churches.

NAMB President Kevin Ezell recently explained that Mason’s church was recommended for inclusion in the magazine by the leadership of the Baptist Convention of New England, that Mason is a soul winner, and that the church is an ardent supporter of the Cooperative Program.

What Ezell mentioned about the Baptist Faith and Message and the Cooperative Program line-up with exactly with what City on a Hill church is doing. The state convention of New England recommended Mason and calls him a soul winner. Aren’t these the types of church planters that Southern Baptists desire? I’m sure the New England state convention knows Mason better than those on the outside. Why is the Acts 29 affiliation a problem? Harris does not say. Is there a specific charge against Mason or is this an insinuation that is supposed to lead the reader to think poorly of Mason?

Some contend that churches associated with the Acts 29 Network are anathema because of their identification with the Network’s founder and lead visionary, controversial Seattle pastor Mark Driscoll. The Network is also admittedly evangelical, missional and Reformed in its approach to church planting.

Ah, maybe the real problem is Mark Driscoll or is it the claim of Acts 29 of being “evangelical, missional and Reformed?” Are individual SBC churches not allowed to be evangelical, missional or Reformed? Harris points out that Ezell is not concerned and neither “endorses nor criticizes” SBC churches involved with Acts 29. Ezell is concerned with the Cooperative Program and the Baptist Faith and Message. Might one deduce, based on Harris’ article, that Ezell is not doing his due diligence with churches affiliated with Acts 29? Is Ezell in stealth mode secretly promoting Acts 29 churches? What is Harris’ specific problem with Acts 29 affiliates?

More importantly, is it Calvinism’s fault that Driscoll is controversial?

Although Acts 29 only has 288 churches in its network in the U.S., Driscoll seems to have a significant influence in the lives of some Southern Baptists.

What constitutes significant influence by Driscoll in some Southern Baptist lives? Who are these Southern Baptists and how does Harris know? Is Driscoll’s influence positive or negative and what does this have to do with Calvinism?

It should be noted that Mark and Grace Driscoll have written a book entitled “Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship and Life Together.” The book has shocked conservatives with its graphic sexual descriptions and alarmed liberals because of its degradation of women.

Now Harris has jumps from Acts 29 to Mark Driscoll to Mark and Grace Driscolls’ latest book Real Marriage. He even quotes liberal blogger Rachel Held Evans’ opposition to Real Marriage with whom I would guess Harris has little in common theologically. Harris also cites Calvinistic Southern Baptist professor Denny Burk who wrote a highly critical review of Real Marriage. However, what does any of this have to do with Calvinism in the SBC?

The book [Real Marriage] would hardly be worth mentioning except for the fact that Southeastern Seminary President Danny Akin and his wife Charlotte endorsed it. In recent years Driscoll has been a chapel speaker at SEBTS and his influence at the seminary cannot be ignored.

Again, what does this book have to do with Calvinism in the SBC? Driscoll is at best a four-point Calvinist, yet he and his wife are not promoting Calvinism in their marriage book. Also, Danny Akin answered Harris in the above noted Baptist Press article as well as providing a more thorough response as to why he endorsed the book on the Between the Times blog.¹ Whether or not one agrees with Akin’s endorsement of Real Marriage, I do not, the endorsement is simply not a Calvinist issue.

This is another case of connect-the-dots insinuations.

Let’s (dis)connect some dots.

Mark Driscoll claims to be a Calvinist, but the problems with Driscoll, from his language to overt sex talk and now his book Real Marriage, are not problems of Calvinism. While some Calvinists support Driscoll, others have not been silent in their criticisms. John MacArthur, for example, has arguably been one of Driscoll’s biggest critics.² The ever popular Calvinist TeamPyro bloggers have also been highly critical of Driscoll.³

Harris’ has written that there is some concern about Driscoll’s influence among Southern Baptists. Speaking of concern, maybe Southern Baptists have some in-house issues to think about.

At about the same time Driscolls’ Real Marriage came out, the book Sexperiment, by SBC pastor Ed Young, Jr., and wife, Lisa debuted on the NY Times best sellers list.⁴ Young pastors an SBC mega-church with five campuses. He received a lot of flack for the stunts he used to promote his sex book. Young has also written books with his father, a past SBC president, that are featured on LifeWay’s site. Despite Young’s sex book, his SBC influence and connections, no one seems to be connecting the dots to his non-Calvinist theology as being a problem.

There are influential non-Calvinist SBC pastors connected with MacDonald and Driscoll. Jack Graham, who pastors the fourth largest SBC mega-church, Prestonwood Baptist Church with attendance of 14,323 and Perry Noble, who pastors NewSpring Church with attendance of 10,807.⁵ The attendance between these two churches alone speaks to an influence of over 25,000 Southern Baptists. Should Southern Baptists be concerned?

In 2011, Noble participated with Driscoll and MacDonald, among others, in the first Elephant Room. He defended his use of the song “Highway to Hell” in their Easter church service. Some Calvinists actually addressed Noble’s song choice for a worship service.⁶ Should Southern Baptists be concerned over Noble’s influence and non-Calvinism?

This year, 2012, Jack Graham participated in The Elephant Room II with Driscoll, MacDonald and T.D. Jakes.⁷ Graham and Jakes, whose theology and affiliations are questionable⁸, began partnering in ministry ministry 10 years ago.

In 2011, several Southern Baptists wrote letters of doctrinal concern about one of Jakes’ music ministers, Jamal Jones, who was to participate in the Pastors Conference.⁹ The end result was Jones withdrawal from the event. However, Graham is still a ministry affiliate of Jakes and Graham has even spoken at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Chapel all ready in 2012. Should Southern Baptists be concerned about the influence Graham may have over SWBTS students as well as Graham’s non-Calvinism?

Coming up in April 2012, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary is again hosting the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum where Roman Catholic philosopher/apologist Peter Kreeft is a featured panelist representing the Christian position.¹⁰ Should Southern Baptists be concerned about the potential Roman Catholic influence of its seminary students? The following quote is an example of Kreeft’s theology from an Amazon review.

There is one portion of this book that is truly bizarre. Mr. Kreeft claims to have had an out of body experience while surfing in Hawaii. During this experience, he “soul-surfed” and landed on a “Heavenly beach.” [p. 86] There, he met and spoke with Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, and Moses. In the afterlife, all have become pious Roman Catholics. Nonetheless, Mohamed still teaches (and Kreeft appears to agree) that the Koran is “divine revelation.” [pp. 103-4] This stuff goes on for twenty-five pages. Mr. Kreeft purports that his recounting of this ecumenical beach party is in some sense “true.” [p. 86] No, I’m not making this up.¹¹

If Harris is worried about negative influences in Southern Baptist life, then the dots I just connected should give him some things other than Calvinism to worry about. That is, unless, he sees Calvinism as the true root of all potential and real problems in the SBC. If so, Harris has yet to prove his case against Calvinism. Also, is he going to blame non-Calvinism for the potential problems in the above connections just made?

There is a growing perception that Southern Seminary has become a seedbed for a brand of Calvinism that is quite different from the Reformed theology of its founder, James Petigru Boyce, and also a training ground for Reformed church planters. Therefore, it appears that some of our institutions and agencies are giving, at the least, tacit approval to Reformed theology or are, at the most, actively on a path to honor, if not implement Reformed theology and methodology in their institutions.

It would be helpful if Harris would explain how this brand of Calvinism is different from Boyce’s brand. Should judgements be passed on perception alone when voicing concerns over whether or not a seminary is a “seedbed” for a certain brand of Calvinism? Can Harris prove his allegations about Southern and Calvinism? Maybe it is articles like Harris’ that give Southern Baptists the wrong perceptions about Southern. Even the NAMB/LifeWay studies cited by Harris show that it is not just Southern Seminary that is graduating Calvinists.

Harris’ assertions do not seem the best way to foster cooperative relationships in the SBC.

While most of the Reformed pastors and churchmen I know are gracious and godly people with a profound devotion to the Word of God, Southern Baptists must decide if they are satisfied with what I would call the presumable encroachment of Calvinism in SBC life.

If most Reformed Christians that Harris knows are such godly people then what is he worried about? Is he worried that Calvinism may get the credit for such godly Christians?

Let’s rephrase Harris’ words for consistency.

While most of the Reformed pastors and churchmen I know are gracious and godly people with a profound devotion to the Word of God, Southern Baptists must decide if they are satisfied with gracious and godly people with a profound devotion to the Word of God in SBC life.

By using Harris’ own description of Reformed pastors and churchmen to define what the encroachment of Calvinism in SBC life may look like, what is there to worry about?

Harris ends his article with the mention of a possible name change to the SBC. How the name change has anything to do with Calvinism is unclear like many of the connections Harris makes. Again, what is being insinuated by tacking on ruminations about a name change?

If that is the suggested name and if we dare vote for it to be our new appellation we dare not defame it with half-hearted evangelism and church plants that wither away in five years.

Has the SBC name been defamed with inflated church membership roles? How about the membership and giving declines in recent years? Southern Baptists may have half-hearted evangelism and failing church plants regardless of the name. Again, what does this have to do with Calvinism?

“To cooperate or not cooperate within the SBC?” is one question, but a better question may be, “Who is truly making a concerted effort to cooperate within the SBC?”

For what it’s worth…

Mark

P.s. The following questions were asked by a Georgia Southern Baptist pastor.

1. Did Dr. White give approval to this editorial before it was published?
2. If so, why risk the good will that was accomplished through the younger leaders meeting in October, especially in light of the fact that he knew that over half that room consisted of Calvinist pastors?
3. If not, what does Dr. White think of this editorial and why not come out and immediately try to rebuild the bridges that may have been burned because of this editorial?
4. Does Dr. White, after seeing this – whether or not he knew about it beforehand – worry about a further cutting of CP giving by Calvinist Pastors who may see this and lead their churches away from giving or away from giving more?  What of those like myself who may choose to forgo the CP to give directly to the Convention and its entities?

________________________

Related posts:

1. The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part I
2. Letter to the editor of ‘The Christian Index’ by Marty King
3. Baptist College President Offers Calvinist Vision?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: Christian Index, Danny Akin, Georgia Baptist Convention, Gerald Harris, Gospel Project, James MacDonald, Jerry Vines, John Calvin, Lifeway, Mark Driscoll, Trevin Wax, TULIP

Gerald Harris, editor of the The Christian Index, the Georgia Southern Baptist newspaper, recently published the article “The Calvinists are here.”¹ There have been two immediate responses to Harris’ piece including one by former Calvinist William Birch² and an article in the Baptist Press in which some of the people mentioned by Harris answered his concerns.³ Harris’ article seems to be pieced together without a thesis. The article seems strung together by insinuations built upon a connect-the-dots type of guilt by association. In short, there is a lot to untangle in Harris’ article.

In the following response, which has been broken into two parts, I will attempt to untangle some of Harris’ insinuations and point out that his his dots do not actually connect to support insinuations that Calvinism is a problem. Sections of Harris’ article will be quoted and interacted with so this article will be long, but necessary.

Why is this response necessary?

This response is necessary for the sake of encouraging Southern Baptists from differing theological perspectives to move beyond casting judgements based upon personal bias. The response is necessary to encourage continuing working together for the sake of the gospel while embracing one another in Christ without questioning each others motives every step of the way. Remember, love bears, believes, hopes, and endures all things (1 Cor. 13:7) and love covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). I hold Mr. Harris as a brother in Christ who has served the body of Christ through the SBC for many years. Being the editor of a state Baptist paper, Mr. Harris has a large reach. I pray that his reach be better used to serve Southern Baptists in building bridges rather than widening gaps. Instead, what Harris has offered at this point does not help build up the body of Christ. It would be more beneficial if we Southern Baptists would start talking to each other instead at and past each other.

This article will  attempt to give another perspective of what Harris insinuates as problematic for the SBC by examining the rest of the story.

The title of Harris’ article, “The Calvinists are here” may be the closest the reader comes to getting a thesis statement. Is Harris merely observing based on the title that Calvinists are present in the Southern Baptist Convention or Christendom? Were Calvinists absent for some time? Is Harris personally pro-Calvinist, anti-Calvinist or Calvinist neutral? Since his article is an opinion piece, what, exactly, is his opinion?

Mr. Harris begins his article by mentioning influential theologian John Calvin and the popularity of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination which Harris claims to be the foundation of Calvin’s theology. Whatever one believes about the foundation of Calvin’s theology is should noted that he wrote extensively on the topics of prayer and on the Holy Spirit.

Harris then summarizes the five points of Calvinism which arose after Calvin had gone to be the the Lord. As a Southern Baptist writing in a Southern Baptist paper, it may have served his fellow Baptists better had Harris pointed readers to the theology of the Southern Baptist Founders, some of whose work may be found online.⁴ This is not to say that Calvin did not influence both early and modern Southern Baptists, but the whole Protestant movement has influenced Southern Baptists.

In other words, why not start with the theology of those who actually started the Southern Baptist Convention? Is there a fear that informing Southern Baptists about SBC beginnings may possibly lead to people considering the theology of many of the Founders? Maybe Calvin is an easier example from which to encourage Baptists to distance themselves since he was a paedobaptist.

There are also those who hold to Reformed theology who believe limited atonement means that the death and resurrection of Christ is the substitutionary payment for the sins of only those who are God’s elect children, but not the entire world.

This statement is somewhat nuanced. Regardless of one’s theology, only the elect, i.e. those who believe the gospel, are ultimately the only ones to whom Christ’s substitutionary atonement will be applied. Granted, there are different understandings of how one is elected. Whether one believes, as James P. Boyce, that election is based on God’s will and not on foreseen faith; or that election is based on foreseen faith, the atonement will ultimately only be applied to the elect, universalism not withstanding.

Many who embrace Reformed theology are motivated to allow it to influence their church polity by substituting congregational church government with an elder system of church government.

This statement on church polity is also nuanced. This statement may lead readers to believe that any church with elders is operating like a Presbyterian church which is not the case. I have pointed out that current SBC President Bryant Wright, who is not a Calvinist, has an elder system of church government.⁵ Since it is not Reformed theology, what then is Wright’s influence for having elders in the local church? Why were no alarms sounded when he was first elected president? Even mega-church pastor Andy Stanley, son of famous Southern Baptist Charles Stanley, who could hardly be labeled as Reformed, serves North Point Community Church which has elders. Also, note that even early Anabaptists, with whom some Southern Baptists feel a spiritual kinship, had elders within their church polity.

While that works well for some churches, James MacDonald, a self-proclaimed Calvinist and member of the advisory board for LifeWay’s new Sunday School curriculum, writes, “Congregational government is an invention and tool of the enemy of our souls to destroy the church of Jesus Christ.”

First, James MacDonald recently shared that he was “never entirely comfortable with the title ‘reformed’” and would score no higher than 3.8 out of 5 points on the Calvinist test.⁶ MacDonald certainly did say that congregationalism is of Satan.⁷ Myself and several others reacted publicly to this charge on social media networks such as twitter. The most immediate and thorough response came from Calvinist writer Jonathan Leeman at the 9Marks blog.⁸ Many of MacDonald’s most vocal critics of have been Calvinists. Connecting the dots from MacDonald to Calvinism in an effort to seemingly discredit Calvinism does not hold. Therefore, Harris should not have a problem with Calvinism, but with MacDonald and LifeWay.

Let’s further consider the connection between MacDonald and LifeWay. I do not know why MacDonald was involved with LifeWay’s new curriculum. Hiring him is not something I would have done, but Harris seems to have missed something on his radar. See, 3.8 point Calvinist, MacDonald, along with Church of Christ pastor Max Lucado, are individually among the top-selling authors at LifeWay.⁹ Assuming Harris is worried about the theological content LifeWay makes available, it would seem that he would have been concerned prior to the new curriculum. Of course, the new curriculum is material printed with LifeWay’s name on it, but nonetheless LifeWay is a conduit for getting particular Bible studies in the hands of many Southern Baptists regardless of who publishes them. The average Southern Baptist who shops at LifeWay may be influenced by any and all products sold. Could there be any theological issues with certain authors due to their non-Calvinistic positions?

Harris next mentions Mark Dever’s article “Where’d All These Calvinists Come From?” which gives ten reasons Calvinism is re-emerging. Harris writes nothing else about Dever’s article other than to point it out. This may be one of the reasons why Harris’ article has been criticized as being pieced together. He then moves to Frank Page who said the following.

“I think the challenges confronting the SBC today are different than they have been in decades past. I think one of the issues, which is a tremendous challenge for us, is the theological divide of Calvinism and non-Calvinism.”

“Everyone is aware of this but few want to talk about this in public. The reason is obvious. It is deeply divisive in many situations and is disconcerting in others. At some point we are going to see the challenges ensuing from this divide become even more problematic for us. I regularly receive communications from churches who are struggling over this issue.”

The divide will continue if articles like Harris’ continue. Who is making Calvinism the divisive issue, Calvinists or non-Calvinists? Harris’ article should give the readers a hint.

Jerry Vines is quoted next with what seems to be contradictory positions on Calvinists. Since Harris is quoting Vines, does he hold the same opinion that Vines shares in the following quotes? The following replies are to Vines’ with Harris in mind as one who tacitly agrees.

“Theologically, will the issue of Calvinism create further division in the SBC? I have been an SBC preacher over 50 years. I have worked quite well with my Calvinist friends, many of whom I invited to preach for me. I have no desire to run all Calvinists out of the SBC; I think it would be divisive and wrong.”

Jerry Vines’ statements have drawn recent responses.¹⁰ Note that Vines has worked “quite well” with his Calvinist friends so why not model for the rest of us how to do so? While he states that has no desire to run all Calvinists out of the SBC, does he desire to run some of them out? Which ones and why? Would running only some Calvinists out of the SBC also be divisive and wrong?

Harris continues quoting Vines.

“But, current attempts to move the SBC to a Calvinistic soteriology (doctrine of salvation) are divisive and wrong. As long as groups and individuals seek to force Calvinism upon others in the Convention, there will be problems. There is a form of Calvinism that is militant, hostile and aggressive that I strongly oppose. I have stated before, so it’s not new news, that should the SBC move towards five-point Calvinism it will be a move away from, not toward, the Gospel.”

Who is attempting to move the entire SBC to a Calvinistic soteriology? I’m sure there is a form of militant, hostile and aggressive Calvinism, but who in the SBC is promoting such an animal? Is it also divisive and wrong, or possibly hostile and aggressive, to claim that a move toward Calvinism, a theology in which the SBC was rooted, is a move away from the gospel? What if someone started as a “one-point Calvinist” and gradually moved to two, and then three points? Does the acceptance of each point move this person further away from the gospel? Is it amazing to Vines/Harris that anyone is even saved in a church with a Calvinist preacher?

I digress. Harris continues.

According to LifeWay Research, the SBC’s, statistical arm, 10 percent of all SBC pastors now identify themselves as Calvinists and a third of recent graduates from SBC seminaries espouse Reformed doctrines, with Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY, a particular source.

The best I can tell is that the research to which Harris alludes is from a 2006 LifeWay study and a 2007 NAMB study.¹¹ According to the studies, there are no percentages given to compare the differences by which each seminary is graduating Calvinists. Actually, on page 14 of the surveys, the SBC seminaries are listed in descending order in proportion to their graduates who are Calvinists. While Southern tops the list in the 2007 NAMB study followed by Midwestern, Golden Gate, Southwestern, New Orleans and Southeastern; the 2006 LifeWay study has Golden Gate leading the way followed by Southeastern, New Orleans, Southwestern, Midwestern, and, finally, Southern.

It would be surprising if The Gospel Project, a Sunday School curriculum for all ages that LifeWay will soon be rolling out, were not marked by an unmistakable Reformed theology…The advisory council and writers for The Gospel Project (including D.A. Carson, Matt Chandler, James MacDonald, Eric Mason, Joe Thorn, Juan Sanchez, Collin Hansen, former North American Mission Board missionary to the Internet Afshin Ziafat and Geoff Ashley – for the most part looks like a Who’s Who of Reformed theologians.

Why would it be surprising if The Gospel Project were not marked by an unmistakable Reformed theology? Trevin Wax, managing editor of “The Gospel Project” answered questions that speak to Harris’ allegations.¹² One may either distrust Wax’s answers and believe he is lying or one may graciously accept that Wax is being truthful and is not trying to promote Reformed theology.

Speaking of divisiveness.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

P.s. Part II will be posted on Monday with some concluding questions from a Southern Baptist Georgia pastor.

____________________________________

Related posts:

1. The Calvinists: a Reply to Gerald Harris Part II
2. Letter to the editor of ‘The Christian Index’ by Marty King
3. Baptist College President Offers Calvinist Vision?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 37 comments | Add to
Post tags: Christian Index, Danny Akin, Georgia Baptist Convention, Gerald Harris, Gospel Project, James MacDonald, Jerry Vines, John Calvin, Lifeway, Mark Driscoll, Trevin Wax, TULIP

GQ magazine published an interview with actor Woody Harrelson. In the interview, Harrelson is asked about the Gospel and his Christian upbringing.¹ He was raised in church studying the Bible and preached his first sermon at age 17.

GQ: Can you tell me about when you preached the Gospel as a child?
Woody Harrelson: I was very religious growing up. My mom still is. We went to church all the time, went to Bible study; we even did Bible study at my house. I went to a Presbyterian college, you know, I was in….all the way, and so I remember doing my first sermon when I was 17, I was in high school. It wasn’t a full twenty-five minute sermon but for like ten minutes I got up and they let me do that and it was on faith.

When asked about his favorite part of the Bible he mentions that he believes the Gospel of Luke is probably the most accurate.

GQ: Do you have a favorite part of the Bible?
Woody Harrelson: …Luke is probably the purest of what was said, but then in John it goes from saying we are all children of God and we all have the power to perform miracles to… “I am the way the truth and the light and no one cometh unto the Father except by me,” and it becomes much more authoritative and you can just see that… you know, I’m just fascinated by all that.

However, that has all changed and he no longer considers himself a Christian.

GQ: Do you consider yourself to be a Christian?
Woody Harrelson: No. I have a strong spiritual life. I can’t say that I have faith that Jesus is my Savior, but I look at Jesus in the same way that I look at, you know, Mohammed. He was giving everyone the goods. So was Gandhi. And to me I think it’s this thing of everyone wanting to make Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the only way to God that is the thing that no longer makes me want to be a Christian.

Interesting that Harrelson’s rejection of Christianity is based on the exclusive claims of Jesus. However, he says that the problem is “everyone wanting to make Jesus the Son of God.” He seems to base his beliefs on who he says Jesus is. If it were simply other people claiming Jesus as God’s Son, I wonder why Harrelson does not reject that claim and embrace Christ on his own terms?

Maybe Harrelson still some conviction and does trust the Gospel of Luke which makes exclusive claims about Jesus. Luke 9:20 (ESV) states, “Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” And Peter answered, “The Christ of God.” Luke records many teachings from Jesus including the resurrection and ascension in chapter 24.

Harrelson’s rejection of Jesus is interesting. He accepts Luke as the most accurate recording of Jesus’ life, yet rejects Jesus based on exclusive claims about Jesus, some of which may be found in Luke.

There’s still hope.

________________

Related posts:

1. Franklin Graham on President Obama’s Christianity
2. Book Review: Christianity in Crisis The 21st Century
3. Christless Christianity Q and A With Michael Horton

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to
Post tags: GQ, Woody Harrelson

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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books
2. TD Jakes: Association Lacking Discernment?
3. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2012. | Permalink | 7 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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. Subjectivity in Modern Preaching
2. Preaching: Young, Restless and Four?
3. Was Jesus a victim?

© Mark for Here I Blog - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 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 - for the gospel of Jesus Christ., 2011. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to
Post tags: Martin Luther, Reformation Day