Posts Tagged ‘Mark Dever’

Kevin Bauder Examines Conservative Evangelicals

Posted: April 2, 2013 in Church Ministries
Tags: , , , , , , ,
3

Kevin Bauder, President of Central Baptist Theological Seminary, writes in his In The Nick of Time, about the separation issue today being fought between some Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals. This is a current aspect of separation being discussed by concerned fundamentalists at Fundamentally Reformed.

Who are some leading conservative evangelicals according to Bauder?

John Piper, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, Bruce Ware, Bryan Chapell, Wayne Grudem, D. A. Carson, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, John D. Hannah, Ed Welch, Ligon Duncan, Tom Nettles, C. J. Mahaney, Norman Geisler, and R. C. Sproul.

Some of the CE organizations are: Together for the Gospel, the Gospel Coalition, the Master’s Seminary, the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, The National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, and Ligonier Ministries.

What do these men have in common?

Their commitment to defend the gospel. This is where Historic Fundamentalism started in the 1920s and 30s in the Modernist/Fundamentalist Controversy.

What are some of the differences between Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals?

1. Conservative evangelicals are anti-dispensational. Bauder says CE is less vitriolic than the anti-Calvinism of some Fundamentalists. There is, however, plenty of vitriolism on both sides. Some CE doubt if dispensationalists are believers.

2. CE is tolerate of Third-Wave charismatic theology.

3. CE accommodate a more contemporary version of popular culture. The weakness of some Fundamentalists is to separate so from far from culture to never impact the people for whom Jesus died.

4. CE disagree about what to do with Christian leaders who make common cause with apostates.

Right wing Fundamentalists declare that CE are new evangelicals. New evangelicals, however, are committed to a policy of re-infiltrating ecclesiastical organizations captured by apostates. Chuck Colson with his leadership in producing Evangelicals and Catholics Together and The Manhatten Declaration represents new evangelicalism. CE reject this positions and attitude.

CE defend a different set of doctrines than the some Fundamentalists. The right wing Fundamentalists fight over the King James Version and anti-Calvinism. Right wing Fundamentalists are battling over versions, dress, and music. CE battle Open Theism, evangelical feminism, opponents of inerrancy, the New Perspective of Paul and the Emergent Church.

Some Fundamentalists insist that CE are the enemy.

More and more Fundamentalists are not entering into full cooperation with CE but they are working together in certain targeted areas. Bauder documents:

One seminary recently hosted John D. Hannah for a lecture series, and another hosted Ed Welch. A Fundamentalist mission agency brought in John Piper to challenge its missionaries. A leader who is a Fundamentalist pastor and seminary president has written for a conservative evangelical periodical. A very straight-laced Bible college sent its students to T4G. One elder statesman of Fundamentalism chose to preach in the chapel of a conservative evangelical seminary. Other Fundamentalist schools are slated to host Michael Vlach from Master’s Seminary and Mark Dever from Capital Hill Baptist Church. These steps are being taken, not by disaffected young Fundamentalists, but by the older generation of leadership within the mainstream of the Fundamentalist movement.

Bauder adds: These leaders are neither abandoning Fundamentalism nor embracing conservative evangelicalism. They are simply recognizing that the Fundamentalist label is no guarantee of doctrinal fidelity. They are aware that historic, mainstream Fundamentalism has more in common with conservative evangelicals than it does with many who wear the Fundamentalist label.

The group, Bauder calls the hyper-fundamentalist Right, reject these associations as compromise.

What is Kevin Bauder’s position?

We Fundamentalists may not wish to identify with everything that conservative evangelicals say and do. To name these men as neo-evangelicals, nonetheless, is entirely unwarranted. To treat them like enemies or even opponents is to demonize the very people who are the foremost defenders of the gospel today. We do not have to agree in every detail to recognize the value of what they do.

If we did not have conservative evangelicals to guard the borders, the real enemy would have invaded our camp long ago. Fundamentalism has exhibited a remarkable freedom from Open Theism, evangelical feminism, New Perspective theology, and other present-day threats to the gospel. The reason is not that Fundamentalists have kept the enemy at bay. The reason is that other thinkers—mainly conservative evangelicals—have carried the battle to the enemy. Conservative evangelicals are the heavy artillery, under the shelter of whose barrage Fundamentalists have been able to find some measure of theological safety.

So let’s get clear on this.

Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

What is your position in this left to right spectrum? Admittedly there is overlap in Bauder’s labels. Most people do not fit neatly into a single category.

Feed the Sheep, Rebuke the Swine, and Kill the Wolves.

Posted: January 15, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,
2

Hans Finzel states in his The Top Ten Mistakes Leaders Make, in Chapter 5 that ”Dictatorships in Decision Making” is a mistake. The NT is replete with examples of leadership that is not dictatorship.

The importance of leadership is seen in the early church (Ryrie, Basic Theology, p 412).

1. Relief funds were sent from Antioch to the elders in the churches in Judea (Acts 11:29, 30).

2. Paul appointed elders almost immediately in the churches founded on the 1st missionary journey (Acts 14:23). Here is a plurality of elders but not necessarily the lay elder rule style. We have a plurality of elders with a senior pastor and associates.

3. The Council of Jerusalem was conducted by leaders (Acts 15:2).

4. Elders and deacons are offices by the end of Acts (Phil. 1:1 “bishops and deacons” elders not mentioned because elders and bishop are the same).

5. Paul considered leaders necessary for the proper function of the church (Tit. 1:5).

6. Leadership is a spiritual gift (Rom. 12:8).

THE NAMES OF BIBLICAL LEADERS (Pastors and Deacons are the two NT offices.)

Names of pastors in the NT

1. Pastor (Emphasizes the manner and motive of the biblical leader. He leads and protects his flock from false teachers: Acts 20:28, 29).  Like the Lord our Shepherd in Psalm 23 and John 10, pastors feed and protect their flocks.

Pastor, the most commonly used term today, was the least common term used in the NT for this biblical leader. The noun form (Gk. poimen) is used only once in the NT for this biblical leader (Eph. 4:11). The “pastors and teachers” are one group and not two because of “some” fits the Granville Sharp rule (two nouns preceded by an article and joined by kai “and”). Wallace, however, makes an exception with plurals (Wallace p. 284). The verb form (Gr. poimaino) in used for this biblical leader twice (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2). Over 30 times in the Pastorals Epistles, Paul commands his apostolic representatives, Timothy and Titus, who are serving in the roles as pastors, to teach.

2. Elder (Gr. presbyteros) emphasizes the pastor’s maturity. “Elder” was a Jewish OT term (Numbers 11:16). After the captivity, elders were leaders in the synagogue.  This role carried over into the NT as in Mt 16:21.

“Elder” is the same office as “bishop” (Gr. episkopos, 1 Tim. 3:4 with 5:17; Tit. 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28). Does the NT teach a plurality of lay elders (i.e., teaching and ruling elders)? Wayne Grudem says “Yes.”

“There is quite a consistent pattern of plural elders as the main governing group in New Testament churches. For instance, in Acts 14:23 we read, “And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting, they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.”’ Grudem also quotes Acts 11:30; 15:2; 20:17; Tit. 1:5; 1st Tim. 4:14; James 5:14 (Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 912).

Some of these references are to the many houses churches in a city (1 Cor.1:2) or area (Acts 9:31). The church at Jerusalem had to consist of many house churches with many pastor or elders (Acts 11:30).

“So the concept of the local church can include a group in a single house, the several groups in a city, or even the many groups in a region. . . Each house church might have had a single elder who, together with the other elders in other churches, constituted the elders of the church in that city” (Ryrie, pages 395 and 414).

The NT Epistles teach plurality of pastors and singularity of ruling and teaching elder (or senior pastor).

The letters to the seven churches in Rev. 2, 3 were addressed to the “messenger” or pastor not elders (messenger [Gk angelos] is a human messenger in James 2:25). Paul uses the singular when talking about the “Bishop” in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 but uses the plural when talking about the “Deacons” in vv. 8-13.

In 1 Tim. 3:2, Paul required that the bishop, elder, or pastor be able to teach and “rule” v.4. Paul did not require that just the teaching elder be able to teach and not the ruling elders as Grudem says.

“Paul never says that all elders are to be able to teach publicly or to preach sermons to the congregation, and it would be reasonable to think that “apt teacher” could be someone who is able to explain God’s Word privately. So perhaps not all elders are called to do public teaching—perhaps not all have gifts for teaching in that specific way” (Grudem, pages 915, 916).

Paul is emphasizing the public ministry of the pastor in 1 and 2 Timothy (1 Timothy 2:1-12; 4:11-16).

3. Bishop or overseer (Gr. episkopos) emphasizes his ministry of leadership.

These three offices are God called and ordained men not a board of elders who are lay-leaders. The three terms are used interchangaebly: Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Tim 3:1, 2; 5:17, 19; Tis 1:5, 9; 1 Peter 5:1, 2, 4.

THE MINISTRY OF BIBLICAL LEADERS

 1. To Lead

Here are some leadership verses: 1 Tim. 3:4-5; 5:17; 1 Pet. 5:2-5. Pastors are not to rule harshly. Some see the leadership gift on two levels: Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 12:28.

1. Managerial gift of government or administration or helsman in Acts 27:11. There are three important persons in Acts 27: The owner, pilot, and the crew. The pilot is the same person Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 12:28 with the gift of government. The owner is the visionary who sees the end from the beginning and the pilot is more of the manager of the crew.

2. Leadership gift enables the leader to see the end from the beginning. While these are two different levels of leadership both are important. Every visionary leader needs managers around him or her to give attention to the details of the work force.  

2.  To Teach

This aspect of leadership is seen in Eph. 4:11; 1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17; Tit. 1:9. We lead from the pulpit. Are deacons required to teach according to 1 Timothy 3:10?

3. To Protect

In Acts 20:28-29, Paul told his pastors, to warn about grievious wolves.

Driscoll says pastors are to feed the sheep, rebuke the swine, and kill the wolves. Read Jesus’ rebuke of religious wolves in Matthew 23.

Wiesrbe told of a pastor who attended a court hearing to protest the building of a tavern near his church and a public school. The lawyer for the tavern owners said to him, “I’m surprised to see you here today, Reverend. As a shepherd, shouldn’t you be out taking care of the sheep?”

The pastor replied, “Today I’m fighting the wolf!”

Martin Luther says, “With the wolves you cannot be too severe. With the weak sheep you cannot be too gentle.”

THE BENEFIT OF TEAM MINISTRY OR PLURALITY OF PASTORS WITH A SENIOR PASTOR

1. More ministry accomplished (Acts 11:25, 26)

2. More accountability (Gal. 2:9-14; Prov. 27:17)

3. More wisdom (Acts 15)

4. More encouragement (Acts 18:5)

5. More training (Acts 17:1)

I heard Les Olala who was at Northland Baptist College one time say that pastors need three different kinds of people in his life:
1. A Paul who is a mentor and provides a pattern

2. A Barnabas who is a friend and provides partnership

3. A Timothy who is a trainee and a protege

Hans Finzel in his The Top Ten Mistakes Leaders Make in chapter 1 exposes another myth which is “The Top Down Attitude.” Finzel says this is the number one leadership hang-up. We certainly do not see this hang-up in the NT.

Sermon: “Praying People Into Heaven”

Posted: December 11, 2012 in Evangelism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

In Bible college our textbook for our Evangelism class was Lewis Sperry Chafer’s “True Evangelism: Winning Souls by Prayer.”  He writes, “The personal element in true soul-winning work is more a service of pleading for souls than a service of pleading with souls. It is talking with God about men from a clean heart and in the power of the Spirit, rather than talking to men about God….the divine order is to talk to God about men, until the door is definitely open to talk to men about God” (Lewis Sperry Chafer. True Evangelism. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993, 69-71). Chafer touches on an aspect of witnessing we do not hear much about today. In light of his statement we need to answer some questions about praying people into heaven.

I. Is it Biblical to Pray for the Lost?

There are some significant examples in the Gospels, the book of Acts and the Epistles who prayed for the unsaved. We can start with Christ who prayed for the lost on the cross: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Similarly, Stephen prayed for the lost just before his death: “Lord, lay not this sin to their charge” (Acts 7:60). In Romans 9:1-3 and 10:1, you feel Paul’s burden for the lost and hear his prayer for their salvation. I think we are in pretty good company when we pray for the lost. Who prayed for your salvation? For whose salvation are you praying at this time?

II. When do we Pray for the Lost? (Prayer should precede witnessing)

This pattern is found in the Gospels.

In Luke 10:1-3, Jesus instructed his 70 advance men to “pray you therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth laborers into his harvest.” Then Jesus added, “Go your way: behold I send you forth as lambs among wolves.” Jesus followed a similar pattern when He sent out His 12 apostles in Matthew 9:37-10:6. We are not saying you cannot pray for the lost after you witness. But prayer, when possible should precede the witness as all these examples show. There are some specifics ways to prayer prior to witnessing which we shall see in our last point.

This pattern is found in the Book of Acts.

In Acts 1 and 2, the 120 believers prayed ten days, Peter preached ten minutes and 3000 were saved. Today the church prays for ten minutes, preaches for ten days, and three get saved (G. Michael Cocoris. Evangelism: A Biblical Approach. Chicago: Moody Press, 1984, 108). In Acts 4:29, the persecuted believers pray for boldness to witness. The reason they are being persecuted is because of their bold witnessing. They don’t pray for God to remove the persecuters but for more boldness which will result in more persecution. Their prayer is answered in 4:31: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and they spoke the word of God with boldness.”

The pattern is also found in the Epistles.

In Ephesians 6:18-19, Paul requests that the believers at Ephesus pray that he might “open his mouth boldly [Gk. parrasia] to make known the mystery of the gospel.” Paul was probably the most bold witness Christ ever had and he needed prayer for boldness. Where does that leave the rest of us? We know this prayer was answered. Luke records that in Paul’s first Roman imprisonment in Acts 28:30-31 Paul was “preaching the kingdom of God and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence [Gk. parrasias or boldness].”

III. How Should We Pray for the Lost?

Here are some specific ways to pray for the lost before you witnessed to them. I am indebted to G. Michael Cocoris’ book Evangelism: A Biblical Approach  for these thoughts.

A. We should pray for peaceful circumstances to witness.

This is what Paul prayed for in 1Timothy 2:2-4: “That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” We can practically pray for the right conditions that nothing would distract the unsaved from the gospel.

I once lived in a community where a prominent church split which made witnessing to the lost very difficult. They would throw in your face the fact that if Christianity looks like a bunch of Christians fighting all the time, they did not need that.

Mark Dever makes this point in his Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Mark five is A Bibilical Understanding of Evangelism.  Dever writes: “Our lives, individually and as church congregations, should give credibility to the Gospel we proclaim….We as a church bear a corprate responsibility to present to the world what it means to be a Christian…. ‘A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another’ (John 13:34-35).’ That’s talking about your life. Your life can be lived in such a way that it brings glory to God as others who see it begin to believe the Gospel. And remember, this involves more than just your individual life; it involves how believers live together as well. Live a life of committed love to the other members of your local church, as a fundamental part of your own sanctification and of your evangelistic ministry” (Mark Dever. Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Wheaton: Crossway Books. 2004, 130).

B. We should pray for laborers.

Jesus made this prayer request at least twice (Luke 10:1-3; Matthew 9:37). We could pray for God to add to the church believers who have the gift of evangelism (Ephesians 4:11). I know believers who could lead someone to Christ in their sleep. For most of us, however, this is not the case. So, probably the best way to pray for God to raise up laborers would be to pray that all believers would be better witnesses as Jesus said would be the case in Acts 1:8.

C. We should pray for opportunities to witness.

In Colossians 4:2-3, Paul requested the Colossians to pray for him “that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ.” Perhaps Paul wanted to witness to a particular prisoner or guard in his hired house where he was paying rent to be imprisoned. Is there someone you have been wanting to witness to? Ask God to make that opportunity possible.

D. We should pray for boldness to witness.

Again Paul made this request of the Ephesians in 6:18-19. It is possible for God to swing open a door to witness in answer to our last prayer and then because of the fear of man we would not share the gospel. We need both opportunities and boldness.

E. We should pray for the lost once the gospel is shared.

We should pray that the Holy Spirit would supernaturally open their Satanically blinded eyes (2 Corinthians 4:3-6). The lost are in a spell of indifference. The Holy Spirit must take “the sword of the Spirit” and convict the unconcerned sinner of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:7-11). We can not in our own strength reverse total depravity. We need the Holy Spirit to draw sinners to Himself. God has ordained that we be part of that process by praying for the unsaved and witnessing the gospel which is the power of God unto salvation to every person who believes.

Henry Blackaby tells an encouraging experience from George Mueller praying for the lost. George Mueller’s name will forever be associated with effective prayer. Through fervent prayer, Mueller established an orphanage in Bristol, England in the 1800s. Mueller saw that ministry grow to include the care of two thousand orphans in five orphanages. Mueller traveled over 200,000 miles to share the gospel in forty-two countries. In all of this, he never once asked for money; he based his enormous ministry solely on prayer. Mueller also faithfully prayed for people’s salvation. At one point in his life he observed:

In November, 1844, I began to pray for the conversion of five individuals. I prayed every day without a single intermission, whether sick or in health, on land or at sea, and whatever the pressure of my engagements might be. Eighteen months elapsed before the first of the five was converted. I thanked God and prayed on for the others. Five years elapsed, and then the second was converted. I thanked God for the second, and prayed on for other three. Day by day I continued to pray for them, and six years passed before the third was converted. I thanked God for the three, and went on praying for the other two. These two remained unconverted . . . . The man (Mueller referring to himself) to whom God in the riches of his grace has given tens of thousands of answers to prayer in the self-same hour or day in which they were offered has been praying day by day for nearly thirty-six years for the  conversion of these individuals, and yet they remain unconverted. But I hope in God, I pray on, and look yet for the answer. They are not converted yet, but they will be.

It was not until after Mueller’s death that the last man accepted Christ as his Savior, but each one did. Such was Mueller’s trust in God and tenacity in prayer” (Henry and Richard Blackaby. Spiritual Leadership. 152-153). It is always to soon to stop praying for the lost.

Book Review of Andy Stanley’s Communicating for a Change (Lesson Four) Internalize the Message

Posted: December 7, 2012 in Book Review of Communicating for a Change, Book Reviews
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Stanley was asked, “Are you saying to deliver it with no notes, from memory?” Stanley responded, “I’m saying that until you can deliver it with no notes, from memory, then it’s not your message. You may know where you want to go, but you haven’t internalized the way to get there.” Stanley observed, “How can you expect your listeners to care enough to remember what you’re saying when you can’t.” Also, “When you stand up and speak without notes and without having to read your sermon, you’re saying, ‘This is so important that it’s a part of me—and I think you should make it part of you, too.”

Stanley doesn’t completely preach without notes: “Another thing I do quite often is write out my main point on a three-by-five card and lay it beside my Bible. . . .My final memory aid comes to us from the wonderful world of technology. We have a video monitor on the front row facing the stage. Occasionally I will give the production team a short list of things to put on the monitor to jog my memory.”

Internalizing the message is very important. I agree. But, does this mean that every preacher has to memorize his sermon? I think not. Jonathan Edwards read perhaps the greatest sermon in our history as a nation. The sermon: Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. This sermon was used by God to spark the first Great Awakening. Vance Havner read his sermons. Mark Dever takes a manuscript sermon with him into the pulpit every Sunday. You can read one such manuscript sermon. Josh Harris has a Sermon Notes Series in which he gives a brief biography of current, well known preachers and actual PDF examples of their sermon notes. The preachers are: Mark Dever, Mike Bullmore, C. J. Mahaney, Ray Ortlund, Jr., Mark Driscoll, and Josh Harris. All of these contemporary preachers use notes and most of them use manuscript notes.

My point: You don’t have to memorize to internalize. Obviously, we should not be chained to our notes as we preach. In my opinion, we should reduce our manuscript sermon to an extended outline or even a bare bones outline as Driscoll and to some degree Stanley do. How can we internal our messages? Start early in sermon preparation, practice it out loud, pray over the sermon, meditate on the sermon until you own it.

Perhaps W.H. Griffith Thomas‘s advice to young preachers captures the secret to internalizing the sermon: “Think yourself empty; read yourself full; write yourself clear; pray yourself hot; then into the pulpit, and let yourself go!”

 

How Can The Pastor Plan and Preach Book Series?

Posted: November 15, 2012 in Homiletics/Preaching
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

First, it is important to start early in your planning. Six months in advance will can give you time to start reading through the book and even having your devotions from the book from which you will be eventually preaching. This is method of Jim Rose and I believe Ezra. Ezra 7:10 gives me Biblical justification for this approach. Like Ezra, we read the Book, mediate on the Book, apply the Book, fall on our knees in confession because of the Book, and are changed by the Book long before we preach the Book to others.

Also, this will give you time to order audio, video sermons, and listen to podcasts on the book and listen to some of the great preachers and teachers on your subject. Not only will you gain great content but hopefully some of their preaching skill will rub off. Augustine, who wrote the first book on homiletics, taught his students to listen to great preaching and read great sermons to become better preachers. One time in preparation to preach through Nehemiah, I order audio sermons by Warren Wiersbe, Adrian Rogers, and John Whitcomb on Nehemiah. I was chomping  at the bits when it came time to start the series. A source for sermons that I have recently discovered has been Stephen Davey’s sermons found at Wisdom for the Heart. These sermons are well researched with great explanations, illustrations, and applications.

I like to balance exegetical commentaries with expostional. The combination of these commentaries helps the preacher to answer the four rhetorical questions that your listeners are asking while you preach:

Explanation: “What do these verses mean that the preacher just read?”

Argumention of the explanation: “How does he know that is the meaning?” (The Expositional and Exegetical commentaries help answer these questions).

Illustration: “What does that explanation look like?”(The sermonic commentary will help answer this question and the Application question).

Application: “What does all this have to do with my life?”

Before I delve into the heavy exegetical commentaries, I like Donald Sunukjian’s suggestion, that the preacher start with the expositional or synthesis commentary which “will quickly give you  the large units of thought and the lines of argument of the text” (Invitation to Biblical Preaching, page 25). For my series on Ephesians, I am using The Bible Knowledge Commentary for this purpose.

After I get the big picture from BCK, then for the explanation of the text I reach for the exegetical or critical commentary.  These are usually the hardbacks that give you “sticker shock.” On the series on Ephesians that I am curently preaching I am reading Harold W. Hoehner’s Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. This scholarly work of over 900 pages in my opinion is the standard for Ephesians. Hoehner will give you about 20 pages of exegesis on each paragraph in Ephesians. This volume gives the preacher the explanation of the text. If you sentence diagram and block outline, Hoehner can help. I am using other exegetical commentaries as well.

There is a third kind of commentary that the preacher needs. In addition to the expositional or synthesis commentary and exegetical commentaries, the preacher needs the sermonic commentary. To balance Hoehner’s heavy exegetical work, I am reading John MacArthur’s sermonic commentary on Ephesians. MacArthur first preached this material to his congregation and therefore he provides application and occasional illustrations which, of course, Hoehner does not.

The order of the commentaries I have discussed is the order you should follow. Here is Sunukfjian wise advice: “Study thoroughly in the first two catergories before you read the third. If you start with sermonic commentaries, you will be tempted to prematurely conclude, ‘That’ll preach!’ without first determining whether the printed sermon accurately reflects the meaning of the biblcial author” (page 25).

When I am preaching through a book like Ephesians where a doctrine is prominent such as the Church is in Ephesians, I like to read, in addition to good commentaries, related books such as Driscoll’s book on the doctrine of the Church, Vintage Church, Mark Dever’s book on what marks a healthy church, What is a Healthy Church? and The Nine Marks of a Healthy Church and John S. Hammett’s book on ecclesiology, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches. Driscoll’s, Dever’s and Hammett’s books give relevancy to my preaching. Their books help me make current applications to the church in our generation and culture.

I just read chapter eight, “How is Love Expressed in a Church?” in Vintage Church. Driscoll builds this chapter on the Trinitarian community of God in which the three Persons of the Trinity have loved each other for eternity and since we are created in their image so should we love each other in His church. This is helpful because Paul mentions the Trinity eight times in Ephesians to bolsters his theme of Unity.

Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods is Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears next Re:Lit book. Their first Re:Lit was Vintage Jesus. Mark Driscoll is pastor/founder of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, president of Acts 29 Church Planting Network and the Resurgence Missional Theology Cooperative. Gerry Breshears is professor of theology at Western Seminary. Also part of the Re:Lit series is Death by Love coauthored Driscoll and Breshears.

I have read Mark Dever’s little book, What is a Healthy Church?  in which Dever gives nine marks of a healthy church. Nine Marks of a Healthy Church is a much more indepth treatment. The first three marks Dever categorizes as essential: Expostitional preaching, biblical theology, and biblical undestanding of the gospel. The balance of the marks are important but not essential: A biblical understanding of conversion, a biblical understanding of evangelism, a biblical understanding of membership, a biblical understanding of church discipline, biblical discipleship and growth, and biblical church leadership.

For the essential doctrines, Dever says, there must be complete agreement for a healthy church. On the important doctrines there does not have to be complete agreement. “Churches without these important marks can be places to pray, to be patient, and to set a good example by your own life.” When preaching on “the unity of the faith” in Ephesians 4:13, this insight will become invaluable to my congregation.

These are some practical tips for series preaching through a book of the Bible that has helped me. I welcome any input you have found benefical in your series preaching through a book.

New Calvinism, Where Did New Calvinism Come From? Part 2

Posted: September 10, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

In this post, we will listen to three New Calvinists describe in their opinion what is the origin of the New Calvinism: Mark Dever, Justin Taylor, and Tim Challies.

Mark Dever in his one of his post on “Where did all these Calvinists come from?” made this observation, “But on the whole, the early and mid-20th-century was a desert time for Reformed theology in the broader English-speaking evangelical America.” Hence the question, “Why has there been a resurgence of reformed evangelicals or the new calvinists?”

Mark Dever answers that query in his series at 9 Marks called “Where did all these Calvinists come from?” About his series he explains that “The purpose of this series of posts is simply to address the question–why? And I mean that not in a theological sense (our God is sovereign, or because people read their BIbles) but in an historical sense.  As a trained historian, I know that suggesting causation among historians is a bit like alchemy among chemists. But it’s just too interesting for me to pass up!!

I intend to suggest these sources in a roughly chronological order, wondering, if there were so few self-conscious Calvinists in the 1950′s how’d we get so many of them today?”

Justin Taylor provided the series as a table of content of links which is easy to access.

  1. Charles H. Spurgeon
  2. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
  3. The Banner of Truth Trust
  4. Evangelism Explosion
  5. The inerrancy controversy
  6. Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)
  7. J. I. Packer
  8. John MacArthur and R. C. Sproul
  9. John Piper
  10. The rise of secularism and decline of Christian nominalism

This is an informative read and and helpful history of the reformed influence.

Justin Taylor has added these sources for where the new Calvinism came from.

Tim Challies added another source for New Calvinism not mentioned by either Dever or Taylor.

The Internet has allowed people to find community based on common interest—a new kind of community that transcends any geographic boundary. It used to be that people of common interest could only find others who shared their interests within a limited geographic area. The Internet has forever changed this and this is true in any field, whether it pertains to vocation, hobby, sports, religion or anything else. As web sites began to spring up, and then individual blogs and then group blogs and then YouTube channels and Facebook pages and Twitter feeds, people began to discover that there were others like them, people who believed roughly the same things or who had roughly the same interests. Where there may have been only a small number of enthusiasts in a single town or city, the Internet brought together enthusiasts from hundreds and thousands of cities and towns. These people could now congregate online with those who shared their interests.

The New Calvinism is no exception. While the theological seeds had been planted in previous years and decades, the movement was awaiting a catalyst that would allow the isolated individuals to coalesce into a movement. The catalyst in this case was the Internet and social media.

The New Calvinism is a distinctly twenty-first century, digital-era development. It is the Internet in general, and social media in particular, that first tied the movement together and that have since drawn people in. Where there may have been only five or six Calvinists in a church of several hundred, when they went online they found a whole community of people who believed just what they believed. This dispelled much of the sense of isolation and gave them a corporate identity. People have often remarked that the Christian blogosphere is dominated by Calvinists and I believe this is exactly why—because in those early days of blogging it was the outliers who were looking for community they did not have in their local church fellowships.

Over time there was an inevitable shift so that the Internet was no longer merely tying together those who had long held to Calvinistic doctrine, but it also became the medium through which others were introduced to this stream of theology. What at first simply tied people together now drew new people in.

Thus this movement has not been carried by magazines or radio or televangelists—not primarily. Rather, it has been carried by the new media, the videos and blogs and podcasts. It has been carried by books that have been reviewed on blogs and purchased online. Through it all, the Internet has played a critical role. It has provided the forums for introducing people to this theology, for discussing the parameters of the movement, for reacting to the challenges that have come at it from outside and from inside.

The Protestant Reformation depended upon a medium that was able to disseminate its ideas; this came in the form of the printing press. With the advent of movable type, books and treatises could be printed in mass quantities and distributed widely, quickly and efficiently. Without confusing the impact and importance of the two movements, I believe it is safe to say that the New Calvinism was awaiting the Internet, the medium through which isolated pockets would be drawn together into a whole.

Where did the New Calvinism come from? It came from all the sources that Dever and Taylor identified, and inevitably some they have overlooked. And it came through and in some ways because of the Internet.

In my next few posts, I want to explore not only what New Calvinists believe but some of the negative influences of a movement some are calling (not in a positive sense) the Young, Restless, and the Reformed (YRR). Some of the negative effects of some of the New Calvinism are a belief in continuationism and not cessationism (this includes God speaking new revelation to New Calvinists) and an in your face approach to Christian liberty especially with alcohol. For example, Mark Driscoll calls abstinence from alcohol sin and cessationalism worldly and akin to Deism.

New Calvinism: Where did New Calvinism Come From? Part 1

Posted: September 8, 2012 in Salvation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

This video discusses my topic in my next two posts: Where did New Calvinism come from. Dave Miller is the editor of the Southern Baptist Voice (SBC Voices) and as a Southern Baptist, Miller was greatly offended by Mohler’s comments on the video from Together for the Gospel called, “DeYoung, Duncan, Mohler: What’s New about the New Calvinism?”. In the dialogue, Mohler implied that Non-Calvinists are non-theological, not committed to the Gospel, etc. Here is Miller’s response:

I am a fan of Dr. Al Mohler! I am glad he is one of our leaders.

I am constantly amazed at Dr. Mohler’s ability to articulate his positions. His statement on homosexuality at the SBC Annual Meeting this year was one of the best, most concise and biblical statements of a Christian approach to the subject I’ve ever heard. I’ve seen Dr. Mohler on national programs and always have been impressed at his ability to express unpopular biblical ideas in a persuasive way. When he speaks, I listen.  And usually I think he hits it out of the park!

In a video from 2010 that has recently been making the blog circuit, Dr. Mohler swung and missed. He is articulate and persuasive again.  But what he said was unwise, unkind and unhelpful to the future of the SBC. The video is from Together for the Gospel and is called, “DeYoung, Duncan, Mohler: What’s New about the New Calvinism?”  The key section starts at 6:25 of that video.

Al Mohler has every right to be a Calvinist and to advocate Calvinism. In fact, the Abstract of Principles at SBTS requires him to be such. No one should question his right to promote his beliefs. Calvinism is within the boundaries of the BF&M 2000 and is historically evident in SBC Life. But the statement he made in that T4G video is destructive to the promotion of unity in the SBC. Here is a transcript of his words on that video.

There’s another aspect of this, and that is, where else are they gonna go? I mean, what options are there? If you’re a theologically minded, deeply convictional young evangelical, if you’re committed to the gospel and you want to see the nations rejoice in the name of Christ, if you want to see gospel-built and structured and committed churches, your theology is just gonna end up basically being Reformed, basically being something like this New Calvinism or you’re gonna have to invent some other label for what’s just gonna be the same thing. There just are not options out there. And that’s something that I think frustrates some people. But when I am asked about the New Calvinism, I will say just basically, where else are they gonna go? Who else is gonna answer the questions? Where else will they find the resources they need? And where else are they gonna connect? This is a generation that understands, they want to say the same thing Paul said. They want to stand with the Apostles. They want to stand with old, dead people. And they know they are going to have to if they are going to preach and teach the truth.

Dr. Mohler has the right to believe and advocate Calvinism. But it is not right when he denigrates all non-Calvinists as his does here. His words are disrespectful and demeaning to those who do not share the Reformed or Calvinistic perspective. I have heard the wailings from my Calvinist circles when our views were demeaned and misrepresented by anti-Calvinists. But, my fellow Calvinists, can you understand how offensive these words are to anyone who does not share Calvinist soteriology?

  • Non-Calvinists are not theologically-minded? Deeply convictional? Committed to the gospel?  Want to see the nations rejoice in Christ?
  • Non-Calvinists do not want to see gospel-built, structured and committed churches?  The only churches that are real, valid gospel churches are Calvinistic?
  • There are no (presumably reasonable, biblical) options out there?
  • Non-Calvinists have no answers and no resources to offer?
  • Non-Calvinists do not preach and teach the truth or stand with Paul and Apostles?

I’ve listened to the whole discussion (almost 13 minutes long) and it is hard for me to see a context under which we can argue that Mohler’s quote is not insulting to non-Calvinists.  If he has corrected, revised or expanded on these comments since this year-old video, I would love to see that quote.  If he has apologized, wonderful.  But this kind of statement is divisive and destructive.

Mark Dever wrote that Non-Calvinists used to wrongly belittle Calvinists for not being evangelistic and that Calvinism would kill churches. It seems now that some think, like Dave Miller, that Calvinists are denigrating non-calvinists with similar accustations.

Two TGC founders, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Tim Keller and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School professor D.A. Carson, do not like the label, New Calvinism. These two men, who most would tag as New Calvinists, expressed to World Magazine, a more inclusive approach than Mohler:

“We’re not defining it in a way that unnecessarily makes people feel excluded,” Keller told me. “There are just too many folks who we know are with us who may not use exactly the same terms or labels. . . . Why should anybody have to label themselves to be a part of this? It’s Reformed, and people who are traditionally Reformed recognize it as Reformed. And yet we’ve got people who say, ‘I’m not a Calvinist,’ but still sign on to it because it’s just what they see the Bible teaching.”

In my next post, I will explore (on a more positive note) what Mark Dever, Justin Taylor, and Tim Challies say about the origin of New Calvinism.

Voddie Baucham’s Response to T. D. Jakes Controversial Participation in The Elephant Room

Posted: August 16, 2012 in Trinity
Tags: , , , , , ,
0
Many believers do not know about the controversy over T. D. Jakes invitation to the Elephant Room by James MacDonald. The controversy concerns Jakes’ belief in modalism and the prosperity gospel. Voddie Baucham is the African American pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church who was invited to also participate in Elephant Room 2 but declined. His response is very helpful.
A firestorm erupted over the recent “Elephant Room 2.”  The controversy centers around the decision to invite Bishop T.D. Jakes to participate in the event.  The central questions in the debate are 1) whether or not Bishop Jakes holds to the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, 2) whether it was appropriate to invite (and feature) him without first having clarified his position on this cardinal doctrine, and 3) whether he cleared up the matter.

I was scheduled to speak at Harvest Bible Chapel on the weekend following ER2 which raised significant questions about my stance on the matter.  While I do not consider it my responsibility to comment on every controversy, I do recognize my duty to clarify matters with which I am involved directly, and/or those that impact the congregation I am called to shepherd.  Hence, my explanation now.

My Invitation to ER2

In October of 2011, I was invited to participate in The Elephant Room 2.  The invitation followed Mark Dever’s decision to pull out.  James MacDonald called me and asked me to take his place.  He also informed me of the controversy at that time surrounding the invitation to Jakes and Dever’s decision to pull out, and that Crawford Loritts had agreed to fill in.  I knew James MacDonald only indirectly, and I had only recently heard of the Elephant Room.

Initially, it sounded like a very good idea to “pin Jakes down” on the Trinity.  My area of emphasis in my theological training is Evangelism/Apologetics.  Moreover, I addressed Jakes’s modalism in my first book in 2004, so I am well aware of the issues in question, and believed I could make a contribution.  Also,  to my delight, James indicated that Jakes had abandoned Oneness Pentecostalism, rejected Modalism, and, he believed, Jakes would make that clear at ER2.

I called my fellow elders to make them aware of the invitation (we usually meet monthly to review and consider invitations, but this was an urgent matter, and MacDonald had asked for a decision by the next day).  We agreed that I should 1) find out more about the Elephant Room (specifically, was this an apologetics forum, or a forum that would assume Jakes’s orthodoxy), and 2) find out why Dever had backed out.

After investigating the matter, I decided to decline the invitation.  My decision was based on four major areas of concern (Note: I voiced these four concerns to James MacDonald during our phone conversation the next day):

  1. T.D. Jakes has a history of holding to, teaching, and associating with modalism, and ER2 was a forum wherein he would be assumed to be a “brother”.I was already on record concerning Bishop Jakes’s modalism (see:  The Ever Loving Truth, LifeWay, 2004), and I have kept up with the matter.  Jakes had never repudiated Oneness Pentecostalism.  Nor had he come out with an unambiguous, credal/confessional statement on the doctrine of the Trinity.  There was absolutely no basis for me to assume that Jakes was suddenly orthodox, and therefore, no basis for me to welcome him as a brother.
  2. The “Word of Faith” gospel he preaches is heterodox and harmful.Even if Jakes had come out with a statement on the doctrine of the Trinity, it would not have done anything to change the fact that he preaches “another gospel.” (Gal 1:8–9)  Having studied the “Word of Faith” movement, and seen the devastation it leaves in its wake, I was disinclined to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the man who has been this country’s most popular purveyor of this heresy in the past two decades (Note:  James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll had both preached against the Word of Faith movement and called it heresy, so I did not believe I was informing James of anything he did not know already).
  3. Jakes’s influence in the Dallas Metroplex has been negative, at best.My wife is from Dallas, and my in-laws still live there (her parents and five siblings).  I have preached in Dallas on many occasions, and at numerous churches, and have many acquaintances in the city.  I know firsthand what kind of influence T.D. Jakes has had on the evangelical community, and broader Christian witness there.  Suffice to say that he has not brought greater gospel clarity and fidelity.  He has, however, brought a charismatic, theatrical, excessive, “Word of Faith” flavor to the city that permeates many churches (especially black churches).
  4. Bishop Jakes is an example of the worst the black church has to offer.One of the goals of ER2 was to address the issue of “racial” unity.  Thus, Bishop Jakes was there (at least in part) as a representative of the “black church.”  In light of the aforementioned issues, I was disinclined to participate in such an event.  You see, Jakes was an invited guest; an invited ‘black’ guest.  If he were mistreated, he had the race card; if he was accepted, he had entree into a new audience.  It was a win-win for Jakes, and a lose-lose for evangelicalism.  Obviously, he was not going to spout unadulterated modalism.  Nor was he going to repudiate his roots (remember, this is his “heritage,” both ethnically and theologically).  He had a perfect opportunity to find a middle ground and show “humility” in an environment that would be portrayed as “hostile” even though hostility was forbidden in light of the unwritten rules surrounding his blackness.   Thus, his opponents had to choose between outright defeat and pyrrhic victory.Moreover, I rejected the invitation because I did not want to give even the appearance of tokenism.  The participants in the Elephant Room (and ER2), though they disagree methodologically on how we “get there,” are all virtually identical in their general profile.  They are all successful mega-church pastors who have leveraged innovative and/or controversial methodologies to grow their churches, media empires, and/or pare-church ministries.  I, on the other hand, am a pastor serving at a church with less than five hundred members; I’m not on television or radio; and my books aren’t best sellers.  I don’t fit the profile!  Whether MacDonald meant to or not, he was painting a picture of tokenism.  If he meant it, I didn’t want to be used, and if he didn’t mean it, I didn’t want to be the source of misunderstanding.

While Pastor MacDonald said he “respected” my decision, he made it clear that he did not agree with me.  We agreed to disagree and he moved on.  At this time, I made two important decisions.  First, I decided not to get involved in the public furor over ER2.  I had spoken my piece to James, and saw no advantage in getting involved any further.  There were others who were making many of the same points, and I did not want to pile on (James White, Phil Johnson, Thabiti Anyabwile, Anthony Carter, and others were pressing the issue, and bringing the pertinent points to light).  I do not regret this decision.  My second decision, however, is another story altogether. My second decision was to move forward with the scheduled Men’s Conference.  That was unwise.

The Men’s Conference

I was naive to think that there would be no fallout if I decided to go forward with the Men’s Conference.  The Men’s Conference was scheduled to take place two days after ER2.  Once my worst fears were realized at ER2 (i.e., Jakes equivocated on modalism, was not even challenged on WOF gospel, etc. see here for a detailed analysis), there was no way for me to 1) keep silent on this growing controversy, and 2) attend the Men’s Conference, without giving tacit approval to ER2.  The decision to go public was inevitable.  The only question was how.

I have a regular practice of posting notices of upcoming events in my monthly newsletter, and on my Facebook fan page.  These have been invaluable tools that keep people apprised of when I’m coming to their area (or the area of friends and family whom they’d like to invite to one of our events), how they can pray for me, and what kind of doors the Lord is opening for the ministry.

As per my practice, I posted a link to the Men’s Conference and asked, “Any fan page members planning to attend…”  As you can imagine, there were more than a few questions about my position on ER2, my relationship with James MacDonald and Harvest Bible Chapel, and a whole host of other things.  I answered those questions as honestly as I could.  I made it clear that I opposed the decision to invite Bishop Jakes; pointed out what I saw as his masterful ‘dodge’ on the trinitarian question (and subsequent affirmation of modalist language), and gave a brief explanation of my reasoning for keeping this prior commitment (see here for a recap).

This did not go over well with James MacDonald.  Upon my arrival at the church the next day, he and I sat down (along with my assistant and several members of his staff) and had a candid conversation about my decision to answer questions in a public forum.  Ultimately, we agreed that it was not a good idea for me to speak at the conference.  We  prayed, shook hands, embraced, and ended the meeting as brothers.  James also insisted on paying the agreed honorarium (Added 1/31/12).  MacDonald had already made arrangements for a replacement speaker.  My assistant and I were escorted to a waiting car and taken back to the airport.

Looking Back

Looking back on the incident, I realize that I put myself in an untenable position.  As I see it, I had three choices once ER2 went down the way it did.  I could remain silent indefinitely, which would have given tacit approval of Jakes, etc..  I could have held my comments until after the Men’s Conference, which would have been deceptive to James MacDonald, HBC, and those who showed up to hear me.  Or I could answer the questions honestly ahead of time leaving no doubt as to both my decision to honor my commitment to the Men’s Conference, and my disapproval of ER2.  Obviously, I chose the latter.

In hindsight, I should have canceled the event when I declined the ER2 invitation.  But remember, there were many ‘moving parts’ at that time.  There were private, internal discussions within The Gospel Coalition.  There was public pressure from all corners of the evangelical community, and there were private conversations (I’ve already alluded to my own discussion, and that of Mark Dever, but there were others).  There was also a possibility that Jakes had truly repented, and these guys (specifically MacDonald, Driscoll, and Jack Graham) were privy to things the rest of us simply didn’t, or couldn’t know at the time.

Looking Ahead

As I look ahead, I think two things are very important.  First, I believe T.D. Jakes is wrong on the doctrine of the Trinity, and wrong on the gospel.  I am also involved directly in a matter (the ER2 controversy) that has brought discussion of those facts to light.  Consequently, my mandate to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9) obligates me to be on record in the matter.  I have done that.

Second, the racial overtones of this matter have gotten out of hand (see here, for example), and must be addressed.  The ER2 controversy is now pitting black evangelicals against white evangelicals, and against each other with T.D. Jakes as the centerpiece.  This is an opportunity to pull back the curtain on the awkward racial dynamic in evangelical circles.  Race is a convenient ‘dodge’ for those with weak arguments, and an inconvenient truth for those who harbor prejudice.  Beyond that, it is an absolutely confusing subject for myriad evangelicals who simply love Christ, love his church, and want desperately not to offend their brothers and sisters in the Lord by using “black” when they should have used “African American,” or vice versa!

The irony is that this issue is most pronounced when heterodoxy is in play.  For example, when a white evangelical disagrees with a solid, Reformed, black pastor on a technical theological issue, there is rarely a charge of racism.  However, let that black brother be part of a heterodox or heretical group (i.e., Oneness Pentecostalism, Word of Faith, Black Liberation Theology, etc.), and suddenly the white brother who makes the argument against him faces charges of racism!  Why?  Partly because of… RACISM!

You see, some of this boils down to what has sometimes been called, “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.”  Asking black people to adopt orthodox theology (when Lord knows they don’t have access to the same schools, books, opportunities, and, in the minds of some… lack sufficient intelligence) is asking them to negate their blackness.  While, on the other hand, the solid, Reformed, well-educated black pastor is NOT REALLY BLACK.  Therefore, he’s fair game.  Irony of Ironies… that is racist!  And that’s what has to be dragged out of the shadows.

I’m not angry with James MacDonald.  He’s my brother, and I love him.  We disagree.  We both understand that.  Ironically, that’s what The Elephant Room is supposedly all about.  Brothers should be able to disagree with one another and still be brothers.  There’s just one problem:  Embracing Jakes while rejecting others because we question his history of modalism and Word of Faith teaching… that’s the real “Elephant in the Room”?

Should Baptism by Immersion be Required for Church Membership. The Piper/Grudem Debate (Part 3)

Posted: January 9, 2012 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

Sam Storms disagrees with Dever on the Lord’s Supper

Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan’s paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist. They would deny to him partnership in the table of our Lord. They would withhold the bread and the cup from him because of his disagreement with them on who are the proper recipients of Christian baptism.

As best I can tell (and I’m open to correction on this point), since Jesus clearly commanded (believer’s) baptism, a paedo-baptist (says Dever in his recent blog post) is guilty of “disobedience” and “unrepentant sin” (however unintentional it may be) and is thus disqualified from participating in the Lord’s Table.

Duncan believes that when an adult comes to faith in Christ he/she should be baptized in water (he prefers by effusion, but would acknowledge the validity of immersion). But he also believes that the infants of Christian parents should be brought to the baptismal font. I disagree with him on this latter point, but I’m disturbed that anyone would deny him access to the Lord’s Table on such grounds.

I have tremendous respect for both Mark Dever (whom I count as a good, personal friend) and Al Mohler (although I don’t know Dr. Mohler personally). Truly I do. They are both an incalculable blessing to the body of Christ. I also agree with them concerning the proper subjects of Christian baptism. But I find it remarkable that they would turn away Ligon Duncan from that ordinance of the church that above all else signifies and expresses the unity of the brethren in the body of Christ.

This may be offensive to some, but the claim to be “Together for the Gospel” rings a bit hollow to me when some would decline to fellowship with others around the Lord’s Table because of their disagreement on the proper recipients of baptism.

Let’s be sure we understand what the Eucharist is designed to communicate. Aside from differences of opinion concerning the nature of Christ’s “presence” (whether physical, spiritual, or merely symbolic), there can be no mistake that this ordinance signifies, embodies, and expresses the foundational essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before us are the elements of bread and wine that unmistakably represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ given on behalf of sinners like Ligon Duncan, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and myself.

Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied “the forgiveness of sins” that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord’s Table we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ’s redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.

My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be “together” or “united” for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed “togetherness” or “unity” when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?

In effect, this is the message that is sent: “Ligon, we agree with you on the nature of the gospel. We agree with you that we must faithfully proclaim and preach the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in what he has accomplished on Calvary. But you cannot share with us the table of the Lord or the elements that represent and proclaim that gospel.”

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t sound to me like “together” or “united” or any such thing for the sake of the gospel. It sounds rather like a narrow sectarianism that fails to consider the unity of the one body as represented by the one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17). It sounds like the colossal loss of an excellent opportunity to deepen and strengthen Christian fellowship and bear witness to a lost and dying world both of the gospel itself and our unity that is grounded in it.

For some brethren to look at Ligon Duncan (or others in his camp) and say, “We believe the same gospel, we preach the same gospel, but we refuse to express that belief and proclaim that gospel with you by means of the ordinance that Jesus commissioned as an expression of our unity and our confident hope in its capacity to save,” calls into serious question the significance of the word “together”.

I hope none will conclude from this that I think the conference was a failure or was not beneficial to those in attendance. As I said, I plan on attending again in 2008. I hope none will think that Al Mohler and Mark Dever do not love their Christian brother, Ligon Duncan. Indeed, they would no doubt contend that it is precisely because of their love for him (among other reasons) that they feel compelled to hold firmly to their position. True love is never served by compromising the truth. There is no greater expression of love for another than the willingness to make painful and unpopular decisions for the sake of bringing an errant brother into the light.

One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: “The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd.” Yes, it does.

In a similar vein, another comment asked: “why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?”

Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: “If your Anglican . . . friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord’s Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?” The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.

In fact, let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord’s Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don’t think it is). This would mean that Dever’s Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.

In this not unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.

Does anyone see anything askew in this picture? I’d love to hear your comments.

Sam

Should Baptism by Immersion be Required for Church Membership. The Piper/Grudem Debate (Part 3)

Posted: January 9, 2012 in Baptism
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
7

Sam Storms disagrees with Dever on the Lord’s Supper

Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan’s paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist. They would deny to him partnership in the table of our Lord. They would withhold the bread and the cup from him because of his disagreement with them on who are the proper recipients of Christian baptism.

As best I can tell (and I’m open to correction on this point), since Jesus clearly commanded (believer’s) baptism, a paedo-baptist (says Dever in his recent blog post) is guilty of “disobedience” and “unrepentant sin” (however unintentional it may be) and is thus disqualified from participating in the Lord’s Table.

Duncan believes that when an adult comes to faith in Christ he/she should be baptized in water (he prefers by effusion, but would acknowledge the validity of immersion). But he also believes that the infants of Christian parents should be brought to the baptismal font. I disagree with him on this latter point, but I’m disturbed that anyone would deny him access to the Lord’s Table on such grounds.

I have tremendous respect for both Mark Dever (whom I count as a good, personal friend) and Al Mohler (although I don’t know Dr. Mohler personally). Truly I do. They are both an incalculable blessing to the body of Christ. I also agree with them concerning the proper subjects of Christian baptism. But I find it remarkable that they would turn away Ligon Duncan from that ordinance of the church that above all else signifies and expresses the unity of the brethren in the body of Christ.

This may be offensive to some, but the claim to be “Together for the Gospel” rings a bit hollow to me when some would decline to fellowship with others around the Lord’s Table because of their disagreement on the proper recipients of baptism.

Let’s be sure we understand what the Eucharist is designed to communicate. Aside from differences of opinion concerning the nature of Christ’s “presence” (whether physical, spiritual, or merely symbolic), there can be no mistake that this ordinance signifies, embodies, and expresses the foundational essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before us are the elements of bread and wine that unmistakably represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ given on behalf of sinners like Ligon Duncan, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and myself.

Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied “the forgiveness of sins” that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord’s Table we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ’s redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.

My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be “together” or “united” for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed “togetherness” or “unity” when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?

In effect, this is the message that is sent: “Ligon, we agree with you on the nature of the gospel. We agree with you that we must faithfully proclaim and preach the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in what he has accomplished on Calvary. But you cannot share with us the table of the Lord or the elements that represent and proclaim that gospel.”

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t sound to me like “together” or “united” or any such thing for the sake of the gospel. It sounds rather like a narrow sectarianism that fails to consider the unity of the one body as represented by the one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17). It sounds like the colossal loss of an excellent opportunity to deepen and strengthen Christian fellowship and bear witness to a lost and dying world both of the gospel itself and our unity that is grounded in it.

For some brethren to look at Ligon Duncan (or others in his camp) and say, “We believe the same gospel, we preach the same gospel, but we refuse to express that belief and proclaim that gospel with you by means of the ordinance that Jesus commissioned as an expression of our unity and our confident hope in its capacity to save,” calls into serious question the significance of the word “together”.

I hope none will conclude from this that I think the conference was a failure or was not beneficial to those in attendance. As I said, I plan on attending again in 2008. I hope none will think that Al Mohler and Mark Dever do not love their Christian brother, Ligon Duncan. Indeed, they would no doubt contend that it is precisely because of their love for him (among other reasons) that they feel compelled to hold firmly to their position. True love is never served by compromising the truth. There is no greater expression of love for another than the willingness to make painful and unpopular decisions for the sake of bringing an errant brother into the light.

One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: “The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd.” Yes, it does.

In a similar vein, another comment asked: “why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?”

Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: “If your Anglican . . . friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord’s Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?” The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.

In fact, let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord’s Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don’t think it is). This would mean that Dever’s Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.

In this not unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.

Does anyone see anything askew in this picture? I’d love to hear your comments.

Sam

Older Entries