Posts Tagged ‘Wayne Grudem’

Shai Lenne Raps and Rebukes Prosperity Preachers

Posted: April 24, 2013 in Music
Tags: , , , , ,
6

Shai Linne is an American East Coast rapper who raps theology. In an interview with The Gospel Coalition he expressed his worldview: Linne said theology, doxology, and sociology are categories I’ve been thinking about for a while now. Another way to put it would be that the knowledge of God (theology) leads to the worship of God (doxology) and to living for God (sociology).

This world-view is reflected in his trilogy. Lyrical Theology Part 1: Theology is the first installment. The two other forthcoming albums are Lyrical Theology Part 2: Doxology and Lyrical Theology Part 3: Sociology.

In his album Lyrical Theology Part 1, theology pulsates. In the song Fal$e Teacher$, Shai Linne, publically rebukes the false theology of Prosperity Gospel preachers. He names Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, TD Jakes, Joyce Meyer, Paula White, Fred Price, Kenneth Copland, Robert Tilton, Eddie Long, Juanita Bynum, and Paul Crouch.

Linne rapped: “I ain’t really trying to start beef, but some who claim to be part of his sheep got some sharp teeth,” he raps in “Fal$e Teacher$” pointing to Matthew 7:16. Linne exposes these preachers before all for “treating Jesus like a lottery ticket,” who speak only of the blessings, rather than the need to suffer. If these preachers should ever preach truth “they’re only proof that Satan comes as an angel of light.

Linne is a member of Capital Hill Baptist Church where Mark Dever pastors and where Linne did his pastoral internship. This helps account for this strong reformed theology. Christianity Today calls Linne’s genre Reformed Rap. Linne is Reformed Wayne Grudem hip hopping Reformation theology.

At his website, he lists his favorite books. Not what you would expect a rapper to be reading: Charity and Its Fruits by Jonathan Edwards, The Glory of Christ by John Owen, Knowing God by J.I. Packer, The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul, Father, Son and Holy Spirit by Bruce Ware, The Godly Man’s Picture by Thomas Watson, anything by Spurgeon.

Because the prosperity gospel movement is growing in Africa, Linne wanted to warn his brothers in African countries like Malawi, Ghanan, Nigeria, Kenya, and Zimbabwe. This is the second song dealing with false teaching. In 2003, he and Timothy Brindle did “Faulty Doctrine.”

I like his attitude about his ministry in his local church posted at his web-site:

Blair and I lead a community group and I’ve been serving on the sound team, along with having a few opportunities to preach. I’m intentional about not missing many Sundays and really trying to be involved in the life of our local church. This helps to keep me grounded in real life rather than the fantasy world of concerts with hundreds of admirers. Whenever an artist finds that he or she has more interaction with people who are “fans” than with true friends, that is a recipe for pride, which means destruction can’t be too far down the road (Proverbs 16:18). That is a terrifying thought to me. Sacrificing some time on the road in order to truly be plugged in at your church is one practical way to guard against this.

Read the exchange between Linne and Paula White’s son at wadeoradio.com.

Here is what John Piper tweeted in response to Linne’s song, False Teachers, My,my, Shai, this is good. Seven-minute video on why Shai Linne wrote and raps “FAL$E TEACHER$”.

Can Evangelism and Politics Mix?

Posted: April 2, 2013 in Christians and Government
Tags: , , , ,
0

Put bluntly, America is becoming more secular. Albert Mohler identifies the problem: “Recent studies have indicated that the single greatest predictor of voting patterns is the frequency of church attendance. Far fewer Americans now attend church, and a recent study indicated that fully 20% of all Americans identify with no religious preference at all. The secularizing of the electorate will have monumental consequences.”

How are Believers to Respond? 

1. Do Evangelism, not Politics (Wayne Grudem gives the first two points)

John MacArthur advocates a version of this view: “The believer’s political involvement should never displace the priority of preaching and teaching the gospel because the morality and righteousness that God seeks is the result of salvation and sanctification” (Why Government Can’t Save You: An Alternative to Political Activism, page 8).

MacArthur is not saying no involvement, but the believer’s participation in government is not as important as spreading the gospel.

MacArthur, however, makes an even stronger statement: “God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation and court rulings that advance a scriptural point of view” (Why Government Can’t Save You, page 130). My question is, if the Congress had a chance to reverse Roe v Wade, should Christians try to influence their Congressmen to pass a constitutional amendment to end the murder of unborn babies?

2. Do Politics, Not Evangelism

This is the liberal view of the Social Gospel and Liberation theology. This view is a works for salvation view that advocates saving the planet but not saving individual sinners. This view advocates delivering all the marginalized minorities through redistribution of wealth by taxing more and more the top income makers. Some of these believe it is the responsibility of the church to bring in the kingdom and once society has been totally reformed, Christ will return. Some of these are called Christian Reconstructionists.

This is contrary to Scripture. “In the last days perilous times shall come.” “The love of many will wax worse.” Only Jesus can establish His kingdom.

3. Do Evangelism and Politics

Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” (Matthew 22:18). Jesus replied, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (22:21). This was a revolutionary statement.

Jesus indicated there are two separate spheres of influences in people’s lives. One of government and one of religion. This was a huge change from the OT which was a theocracy where the entire nation was considered the people of God and God’s law regulated every area of life. There was no separation of religion and state in the OT. The political leader of the nation was also the spiritual leader of the nation. There was no freedom of religion. There was only one acceptable religion. This is not the case today as Jesus’ statement showed.

We believers are citizens of America and we have certain responsibilities to our government. We pay taxes over which the government has control and authority. We are also citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20) and we have certain responsibilities to God over which the government has no control. Government can expect us to keep zoning laws for the public safety of our people. But if government starts telling believers what to believe and how to worship then as Peter said, “We ought to obey God and not man.” The first amendment reflects this truth: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What are the responsibilities of Believers in regard to Government?

1. Christians can Influence those in Government

Wayne Grudem lists many examples of Christians positively and significantly influencing government: “Christians influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire in AD 374; outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died in AD 404….In England, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, led the successful effort to abolish the slave trade and the slavery itself throughout the British Empire in 1840” (Politics: According to the Bible, pages 49-50).

Daniel rebuked King Nebuchadnezzar in 4:27. Jeremiah counseled believers in Babylon to “seek the welfare of the city” in 29:7. Joseph was second only to Pharaoh in Egypt and influenced the decision making. Moses boldly commanded Pharaoh in Egypt “Let my people go” in Ex. 8:1. John the Baptist rebuked Herod in Luke 3:18-20. Paul preached to Roman governor Felix in Acts 24:24-25.

2. Christians can pray for those in Government (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Paul teaches churches the responsibility to pray for political leaders from the president (“king”) on down. Paul did not mean we are pray just for presidents we like or voted into office. Who were the political leaders in Paul’s life? Felix and Festus the Roman governors. The Roman Emperor was Nero who martyred believers. Then Paul gives us the reason for praying for our political leaders. We should pray for our political leaders so “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” But hasn’t the church flourished under severe persecution? Did not the church decline spiritually when Constantine ended persecution against the church? Is not the church exploding in Communist China? The answer to all of these questions is “yes” and yet Paul exhorted believers to pray for their political leaders so that we wont have to be persecuted.

The reason why Paul wanted believers to pray for their political leaders was they could more easily give out the Gospel. Listen to this important point made by Paul in verses 3-6: “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. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”

E. V. Hill, the pastor of Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Los Angeles who once served as a ward leader for the Democratic party. Hill’s assignment was to get out the vote for the Democratic candidates, and his chief strategy for doing this was to have a block captain for each block of his ward. On election day, the block captains were to contact each resident of their blocks to make sure they voted. When Hill came to Los Angeles and began pastoring the church, he was convicted by the thought, that if he did this for the Democrats, why shouldn’t he do it for God; why not have a Christian block captain for every block of Los Angeles? It was not as absurd as it sounded.

In E. V. Hill’s area of the city, south central Los Angeles, the number of city blocks was 3,100. That became the mission of this church. Church members moved into a block for this very purpose. The church adopted an attitude that they existed for the sake of the gospel.

Hill tells of a funny thing that happened on one occasion. One man had been very put off by the block captain where he lived. She was always inviting him to church and other meetings of the church – always friendly, but persistent. He decided to move. In fact, he decided to move to the other side of Los Angeles. The truck came. He loaded up his possessions. His block captain came out to say goodbye. The truck started off. But as soon as he was gone, the block captain went back into her house, got out the directory of the Mount Zion block captains, found the person in charge of the block to which her offended neighbor was moving, and when he got to his new area, there was the new block community captain standing on the street in front of his new home to welcome him and invite him to church. His comment was classic; he said, “My God, they’re everywhere” (Stephen Davey sermon on Romans 13).

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.

What is The Believer’s Response to the 2012 Election?

Posted: November 12, 2012 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Why did the people of Maryland and Washington states vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, reaffirming legislation passed earlier in each state?

Why did the voters in Maine approve a referendum legalizing same-sex marriage?

Why did the state of Massachusetts approve doctor assistant suicide?

Why did two states, Washington and Colorado, buck the federal government and make marijuana legal for recreational use by adults?

Why did American reelect President Obama, who is against the sanctity of unborn babies, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which declares marriage between a man and a woman, and religious liberty with his contraception mandate?

There are many reasons for this years election returns being voiced.

One is the changing demographics. The percentage of white Americas is declining. The majority of whites voted for Romney. But the percentage of Hispanics and Blacks is increasing. Their majority voted for Obama. If you watch Fox News, the solutions are all secular. But there is little agreement. Some, like Charles Krauthammer say to reach the Hispanics, amnesty should be offered. Others disagree and point out that in 1987, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens and won 37 % of the their vote. Two years later, George H. W. Bush won only 30 % percent of the Hispanic vote. Did amnesty work?

Others do not think it was a demographic problem. Limbaugh says 3 million Republicans did not turn out to vote because Romney is too much Establishment.

Still others say America is shifting morally and spiritually. Put bluntly, America is becoming more secular. Albert Mohler identifies the problem: “Recent studies have indicated that the single greatest predictor of voting patterns is the frequency of church attendance. Far fewer Americans now attend church, and a recent study identify indicated that fully 20% of all Americans identify with no religious preference at all. The secularizing of the electorate will have monumental consequences.”

How are Believers to Respond? 

1. Do Evangelism, not Politics (Wayne Grudem gives the first two points)

John MacArthur advocates a version of this view: “The believer’s political involvement should never displace the priority of preaching and teaching the gospel because the morality and righteousness that God seeks is the result of salvation and sanctification” (Why Government Can’t Save You: An Alternative to Political Activism, page 8).

MacArthur is not saying no involvement, but the believer’s participation in government is not as important as spreading the gospel.

MacArthur, however, makes an even stronger statement: “God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation and court rulings that advance a scriptural point of view” (Why Government Can’t Save You, page 130). My question is, if the Congress had a chance to reverse Roe v Wade, should Christians try to influence their Congressmen to pass a constitutional amendment to end the murder of unborn babies?

2. Do Politics, Not Evangelism

This is the liberal view of the Social Gospel and Liberation theology. This view is a works for salvation view that advocates saving the planet but not saving individual sinners. This view advocates delivering all the marginalized minorities through redistribution of wealth by taxing more and more the top income makers. Some of these believe it is the responsibility of the church to bring in the kingdom and once society has been totally reformed, Christ will return. Some of these are called Christian Reconstructionists.

This is contrary to Scripture. “In the last days perilous times shall come.” “The love of many will wax worse.” Only Jesus can establish His kingdom.

3. Do Evangelism and Politics

Jesus was asked, “Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” (Matthew 22:18). Jesus replied, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s” (22:21). This was a revolutionary statement.

Jesus indicated there are two separate spheres of influences in people’s lives. One of government and one of religion. This was a huge change from the OT which was a theocracy where the entire nation was considered the people of God and God’s law regulated every area of life. There was no separation of religion and state in the OT. The political leader of the nation was also the spiritual leader of the nation. There was no freedom of religion. There was only one acceptable religion. This is not the case today as Jesus’ statement showed.

We believers are citizens of America and we have certain responsibilities to our government. We pay taxes over which the government has control and authority. We are also citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20) and we have certain responsibilities to God over which the government has no control. Government can expect us to keep zoning laws for the public safety of our people. But if government starts telling believers what to believe and how to worship then as Peter said, “We ought to obey God and not man.” The first amendment reflects this truth: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What are the responsibilities of Believers in regard to Government?

1. Christians can Influence those in Government

Wayne Grudem lists many examples of Christians positively and significantly influencing government: “Christians influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire in ad 374; outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died in AD 404….In England, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, led the successful effort to abolish the slave trade and the slavery itself throughout the British Empire in 1840” (Politics: According to the Bible, pages 49-50).

Daniel rebuked King Nebuchadnezzar in 4:27. Jeremiah counseled believers in Babylon to “seek the welfare of the city” in 29:7. Joseph was second only to Pharaoh in Egypt and influenced the decision making. Moses boldly commanded Pharaoh in Egypt “Let my people go” in Ex. 8:1. John the Baptist rebuked Herod in Luke 3:18-20. Paul preached to Roman governor Felix in Acts 24:24-25.

2. Christians can pray for those in Government (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Paul teaches churches the responsibility to pray for political leaders from the president (“king”) on down. Paul did not mean we are pray just for presidents we like or voted into office. Who were the political leaders in Paul’s life? Felix and Festus the Roman governors. The Roman Emperor was Nero who martyred believers. Then Paul gives us the reason for praying for our political leaders. We should pray for our political leaders so “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” But hasn’t the church flourished under severe persecution? Did not the church decline spiritually when Constantine ended persecution against the church? Is not the church exploding in Communist China? The answer to all of these questions is “yes” and yet Paul exhorted believers to pray for their political leaders so that we wont have to be persecuted.

The reason why Paul wanted believers to pray for their political leaders was they could more easily give out the Gospel. Listen to this important point made by Paul in verses 3-6: “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. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”

E. V. Hill, the pastor of Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Los Angeles who once served as a ward leader for the Democratic party. Hill’s assignment was to get out the vote for the Democratic candidates, and his chief strategy for doing this was to have a block captain for each block of his ward. On election day, the block captains were to contact each resident of their blocks to make sure they voted. When Hill came to Los Angeles and began pastoring the church, he was convicted by the thought, that if he did this for the Democrats, why shouldn’t he do it for God; why not have a Christian block captain for every block of Los Angeles? It was not as absurd as it sounded.

In E. V. Hill’s area of the city, south central Los Angeles, the number of city blocks was 3,100. That became the mission of this church. Church members moved into a block for this very purpose. The church adopted an attitude that they existed for the sake of the gospel.

Hill tells of a funny thing that happened on one occasion. One man had been very put off by the block captain where he lived. She was always inviting him to church and other meetings of the church – always friendly, but persistent. He decided to move. In fact, he decided to move to the other side of Los Angeles. The truck came. He loaded up his possessions. His block captain came out to say goodbye. The truck started off. But as soon as he was gone, the block captain went back into her house, got out the directory of the Mount Zion block captains, found the person in charge of the block to which her offended neighbor was moving, and when he got to his new area, there was the new block community captain standing on the street in front of his new home to welcome him and invite him to church. His comment was classic; he said, “My God, they’re everywhere” (Stephen Davey sermon on Romans 13).

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.

Progressive Revelation or The Blessed Truth that NOW We Can Eat Boganles’ Country Ham Biscuits

Posted: August 28, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
7

You know Peter before Acts 10 could not eat Boganles’ ham or sausage biscuits or even his mother’s. Nor could he eat “endless shrimp” at neither Red Lobster nor Dave’s BBQ. Why do we not circumcise all baby boys on the eighth day for spiritual reasons? Why do we not lobby for capital punishment for all church members guilty of running around on their mates? Progressive revelation is the Biblical truth that “God progressively revealed more truths about many subjects” (Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, page 271). The classics on hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation) affirm this important principle of rightly dividing the Word of truth: Milton Terry wrote in his Biblical Hermeneutics, “It is impossible to trace the record of these ten generations of the Book of Genesis without observing the steady progress of divine revelation….With each new series of generations some new promise is given, or some great purpose of God is brought to light” (page 568).

The reason we can eat pork and other forbidden “unclean” meats in the OT is because God changed 1500 years of tradition in Acts 10 so Peter would no longer consider Gentiles as unclean and take the Gospel to them. God takes sin just as seriously as He did in the OT, but according to 1 Corinthians 5, the church does not stone adulterers in this age but we do church discipline them.

Progressive revelation means God added to His revealed truth in previous Scripture. For example, about the doctrine of the Trinity, Wayne Grudem writes, that “the doctrine of the Trinity is progressively revealed in Scripture” (Systematic Theology, page 226) and “more complete revelation of the Trinity is in the New Testament” (page 230). In Isaiah 48:16 and 63:7-10 are rare glimpses of the three Persons in the OT while the NT is replete.

Another example is the doctrine of the Church. This doctrine is not in the Old Testament. Paul will explain this new doctrine in Ephesians 2:11-3:13. The doctrine of the Church is a Biblical mystery or a truth heretofore not revealed but now revealed by God. There is no rapture in the Old Testament. Christ gave some teaching on the rapture in John 14:1-6. Paul gives the fullest description of the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. The last word on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is in the Epistles. Before Pentecost, the Holy Spirit did not permanently indwell believers nor were believers baptized by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, “For he dwells with you, and shall be in you…. at that day (Day of Pentecost in Acts 2) you shall know that I am in my Father, and you in me (Baptism of the Holy Spirit), and I in you (Indwelling of the Holy Spirit)” (John 14:17 and 20). Paul gives the last phase of progressive revelation on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:9: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” and the baptism of the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:13.

Roy Zuck says about progressive revelation, “This is not to suggest that what was recorded in earlier portions of the Bible was imperfect and that the later revelations were perfect. Nor does it suggest that earlier portions were in error and the later portions were truthful….Recognizing this progress of revelation means that the interpreter will be careful not read back into the Old Testament the New” (Basic Bible Interpretation, page 73).

Progressive revelation also means that God has not changed the basis of salvation but He has changed the content of faith. Charles Ryrie explains, “The basis of salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations” (Dispensationalism, page 134). Ryrie quotes from the Dallas Seminary doctrinal statement on this aspect of progressive revelation relevant to salvation:

We believe that according to the ‘eternal purpose’ of God (Eph. 3:11) salvation in the divine reckoning is always ‘by grace, through faith,’ and rests upon the shed blood of Christ. We believe that God has always been gracious, regardless of the ruling dispensation, but that man has not at all times been under an administration or stewardship of grace as is true in the present dispensation. . . . We believe . . . that the principle of faith was prevalent in the lives of all the Old Testament saints. However, we believe that it was historically impossible that they should have had as the conscious object of their faith the incarnate, crucified Son, the Lamb of God (john 1:29), and that it is evident that they did not comprehend as we do that the sacrifices depicted the person and work of Christ. (Article V) (page 134).

In Genesis 15:6, Abraham believed God and God imputed to him righteousness. Paul quotes this verse in Romans 4:1-3 to prove his doctrine of justification by faith. But what was the content of Abraham’s faith in Genesis 15:1-5? The revelation that God was going to multiple the seed of Israel as the sand of the sea. What is the content of our faith today in order to be justified by faith? Paul answers clearly in Romans 4:24, “But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”

What if someone has never heard to gospel but like Abraham responds to nature, to the stars in heaven, and believes in a higher power? Can he like Abraham have righteousness imputed to him?

One form of inclusivism (sometimes called accessibility) states that salvation is through nature or general revelation. This is the view of Terrance L. Tiessen:

“All who have ever been saved, who are now being saved, or who ever will be saved, are saved because Jesus Christ died and rose again for them…. Nevertheless, God does not require a faith that would be impossible for anyone by virtue of their ignorance. In the Day of Judgment, God will hold all people accountable for their response to the revelation that was made available to them, and only for that revelation. God may graciously save some who do not believe in Jesus as Savior if they are ignorant of him through no fault of their own.”

Does God save people who have only general revelation from nature and not the special revelation of the death, burial, and resurrection Jesus Christ? Paul answers that question in Romans 1:20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity: so that they are without excuse.” Abraham responded to special revelation. The progress of revelation has now increased special revelation to include the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. If a person dies without hearing and responding to the special revelation of the gospel that person is without excuse. Instead of general revelation being sufficient to save if someone has never heard of Christ, general revelation is sufficient only to condemn.

Tiessen continues, “All people meet Jesus Christ personally at the moment of death, and they respond to him in a manner consistent with the response they had been giving to God and His revelation during their lifetime. At that moment, those who had received forms of revelation less complete than the gospel but who had responded in faith, by a work of the Holy Spirit, will joyfully find in Christ the fulfillment of all their hopes and longings” (Terrance L. Tiessen, Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religious, Downers Grove, IVP. 2004, 478).

Can people be saved after death? In Luke 16:26, Jesus told the story of the rich man in Hell. The rich man in Hell asked Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and just put one drop of water on his tongue. Abraham responded:“Between me and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from here to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from there.” There is no purgatory, postmortem like second chance.

Some are agnostic concerning the fate of those who die never having heard the special revelation of the gospel.

John Stott, the famous British pastor and widely read author, expressed his agnosticism: “The fact is that God, alongside the most solemn warnings about our responsibility to respond to the gospel, has not revealed how he will deal with those who have never heard it” (David Edwards and John Stott, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue, Downers Grove, IVP, 1988, 327).

The Scriptures have declared with certainty the eternal future of those who are not reached with the gospel. Romans 3:23 says that “all have sinned” because they were born sinners (Romans 5:12). The result of those who die in this universal sin condition (including those who never heard) is eternal separation from God (Romans 6:23a); unless that sinner places faith in Christ and receives the gift of eternal salvation (Romans 6:23b). How can sinners be saved by faith in Christ? Not by nature’s outstretched hand pointing to a higher power. Someone has to give them gospel (Romans 10:13-15). If you have any doubts about this subject take the time to carefully read and study these verses.

Because Paul believed his inspired by God Words in Romans 10:13-15, he traveled on three missionary journeys in Acts. Paul did not qualify these verses in Romans 10:13-15 saying, “If you missionaries cannot make it to the field, don’t worry about it all religions are equal or at death they can receive Christ.” Pluralism and inclusivism are not the Scriptural views on salvation.

Progressive revelation is absolutely necessary to properly understanding and applying God’s Word to our lives.

How Every Christian Can Understand the Bible? (not just the theologians)

Posted: August 21, 2012 in Hermeneutics/Interpretation
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
7

Roy Zuck begins chapter one “The What and Why of Bible Interpretation” (in his book Basic Bible Interpretation) with the Ethiopian eunuch responding to Philip’s hermeneutic question, “Do you understand what you are reading?” The eunuch’s response, “How can I…unless some man explain it to me” (Acts 8:31)? Zuck ends the chapter with the doctrine of clarity or perspicuity, which teaches that the Bible can be understood by any layperson. Zuck does not quote 1 John 2:27 but this verse applies: “The anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you.” Which is the case in hermeneutics? Do we need human teachers to interpret the Bible or not? The answer is “Yes!”

The doctrine of clarity or perspicuity means the Bible is understandable, it is not too mysterious to learn, and it is not just for the elite or the seminary graduate. Lay people can interpret and understand God’s Word on their own. Zuck alludes to Reformation leader, Martin Luther, who affirmed that “the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5) means the Bible is accessible and undestandable by all Christians. This opposed the alleged obscurity of the Bible, according to the Roman Catholic Church, which said that only the church could disclose its meaning.”

Zuck is referring to Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994): “The task of interpretation (of the Word of God, whether in its written form of Tradition) has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome.” In the context of false teachers, this is exactly what 1 John 2: 27 is refuting. No believer is totally dependent on a human teacher to comprehend God’s Word. Contrast this view with Wayne Grudem’s statement: “The clarity of Scripture means that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God’s help and being willing to follow it.”

The next important question is, “How does the lay person interpret the Bible?

1. Through proper hermeneutic principles

This is the reason we should teach our church members how to interpret the Bible. We should teach them that every verse is has only one interpretation. That every verse must be interpreted in it’s context.

2. Through gifted Bible teachers in the local church

God would not have given the spiritual gift of teaching to lay persons (Romans 12:7) if He did not intend for those men and women to teach others in their church. One of the reasons some of our members are going to better understand the Bible on their own is because I will have taught them the principles of interpretation. Romans 12:7 does not contradict 1 John 2:27. Romans 12:7 compliments 1 John 2:27. Through our Sunday school classes, our AWANA and our youth group our people are learning to study God’s Word on their own.

3. Through Bible preaching pastors in a local church

One of the descriptions of a pastor in Ephesians 4:11 is “pastor/teacher.” This is one not two offices because one of the requirements for pastor according to 1 Timothy 3:2 is “able to teach.” Church members who are faithful to the services will learn God’s Word because their pastor diligently obeys the command to all preachers in 2 Timothy 4:2, “Preach the Word…with all longsuffering and doctrine.”

If you like the Ethiopian ask sincerely and desire seriously to understand God’s Word, God will teach you His Word by the means just mentioned. Are you sincere and serious about learning and applying the Bible? Do you avail yourself of the opportunities to learn from others and good study resources like commentaries? Do you spend time daily in God’s Word?

Is There is a Difference between Infallibility and Inerrancy as Rogers and McKim Believe?

Posted: April 19, 2012 in Bible
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

This view of infallibility and inerrancy being the same is challenged today. Some would say that the Bible is infallible in areas of “Faith and Practice” or that the Bible is without error when it teaches us how to be saved and how to live the Christian life. The reason the Bible is infallible in these two areas, they say, is because this is the reason the Bible was written. But in areas of history and science the Bible is not inerrant. This is the view of Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim in The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible.

A Definition of Inerrancy

Wayne Grudem gives a very good definition of inerrancy (the doctrine that there were no errors in the original writning of Scripture): “The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact” (Systematic Theology, page 90). Ryrie adds to this definition: “The Bible tells the truth. Truth can and does include approximations, free quotations, language of appearances, and different accounts of the same event as long as these do not contradict” (Basic Theology, page 82).

Importance of Inerrancy

The Domino Effect took place at Fuller Theological Seminary which was founded in 1947 by Charles Fuller when inerrancy was abandoned.

Their first doctrinal statement read:

“The books which form the canon of the Old and New Testaments as originally given are plenarily inspired and free from all error in the whole and in the part. These books constitute the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” I think you agree with me, that this is a Biblical statement.

Every faculty member was to sign without mental reservation or voluntarily leave. In 1962, one board member denied inerrancy and nothing was done. Later two faculty members denied inerrancy and nothing was done. The first dimino fell.

In 1972, Fuller adopted a new doctrinal statement:

“Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine disclosure. All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” One all important statement is omitted from the first statement: “free from all error in the whole and in the part.” Thus you have denial of inerrancy.

Five years later (1977) Fuller’s professor Paul King Jewett in his Man as Male and Female said Paul’s teaching about the subordination of woman to male leadership in Ephesians 5 is an error and in contradiction to Galatians 3:28. In other words, now at Fuller, according to Jewett’s view, the Scripture is infallible only in the area of faith or salvation.

Look at the downward spiral which took place at Fuller.

1. Fuller went from believing the infallibility of all Scripture (in their first doctrinal statement).

2. Fuller then move to believing the infallibility of the Scripture only in faith and practice but no longer in inerrancy of Scripture at this point (seen in second doctrinal statement).

3. Finally, Fuller move to believing the infallibility of Scripture only in the area of salvation (Jewett’s view) or the Scripture is only inerrant when speaks of salvation.

Neo-Orthodoxy made it’s influence on Fuller Seminary through Daniel Fuller who went to Bazil, Switzerland, to study under Neo-Orthodox theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), who did not believe in inerrancy. Barth wrote about his view of errancy in his Church Dogmatics: “The Bible witnesses to a revelation from God …..The prophets and apostles are actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word” (pages 507, 528, 529).

“The illustration that the Neo-Orthodox usually gives is that the Bible is like a minister preaching the Gospel. Although there may be many mistakes in his sermon, he is still witnessing to the truth, and this is sufficient to secure salvation for men” (Steward Custer, Does Inspiration Demand Inerrancy, p. 75.).

In 1978, the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy met at the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago consisting of 300 noted scholars, to combat this heresy and produced The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. Article XI reads, “We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses. We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.”

What is the Scriptural teaching on inerrancy?

1. God can not lie (Heb. 6:18)

2. God breathed out (inspired) the Bible (2nd Tim. 3:16)

3. Therefore the Bible is true. “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him” (Prov. 30:5).

What is our response to this reasoning that does not see the infallibility and inerrancy as the same?

The Bible declares that “all Scripture is inspired.” The term “Scripture” includes the O.T. (Lk. 24:44), the gospels (Lk. 4:21) and the N.T. epistles (2nd Pet. 3:16). The New Testament authors trusted the smallest historical details from the Old Testament.

Hebrew 11:3 makes a scientific statement that must be accepted by faith. “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”

On page 94 of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology is a long list of O.T. historical events referred to in the New Testament as true.

As far as the writers of Scripture were concerned, infallibility and inerrancy are equal.

Means of Grace According to Wayne Grudem

Posted: March 27, 2012 in Spiritual Disciplines
Tags: ,
0

Wayne Grudem defines means of grace within the church as “activities within the fellowship of the church that God uses to give more grace to Christians.” Grudem believes there are also personal means of grace such as personal prayer, worship, Bible study and personal faith. But in chapter 48 of his Systematic Theology, as part of his discussion of the church, he examines the means of grace for believers through the local church.

Is it possible for God to give us spiritual strength and blessing just by attending church?

There are three important distinctions between Protestant and Roman Catholic means of grace. First, the sacraments are the Roman Catholic’s means of grace that merit justification. What Grudem states that the Protestant means of grace are not salvific. The following seven sacraments are means of saving grace for Roman Catholic:

1. Baptism

2. Confirmation

3. Eucharist or the Lord’s supper

4. Penance

5. Extreme unction or last rites for a dying person

6. Holy orders (ordination of priests and deacons)

7. Matrimony

Another difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic means of grace is that Roman Catholic means of saving grace can be administered only by ordained priests while Protestant means of strengthening grace can be administered by all believers through the local church.

A third difference is the necessity of faith on the part of the recipient of strengthening means of grace in Protestant churches whereas no faith is necessary in the Roman Catholic for the recipient to receive saving grace.

The Lutheran Church holds a similar view to the Roman Catholics as seen the Formula of Concord, Epitome, Article II:

“Likewise, we reject and condemn the error of the Enthusiasts who imagine that God draws men to Himself, enlightens them, justifies them and saves them without means, without the hearing of God’s Word and without the use of the Sacraments.”

The following are Grudem’s means of blessing for believers through the local fellowship of believers:

1. Teaching of the Word

2. Baptism

3. The Lord’s Supper

4. Prayer for one another

5. Worship

6. Church Discipline

7. Giving

8. Spiritual gifts

9. Fellowship

10. Evangelism

11. Personal ministry to individuals

The first and most important means of spiritual blessing through the local church is the Teaching of the Word of God. Grudem quotes Isaiah 55:10-11:

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.”

The Book of Acts connects the word of God with the growth of the church: “And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied” (Acts 6:7).

As far as the ordinance of baptism, Grudem explains how it is a means of grace: “Since Jesus commanded his church to baptize (Matt. 28:19), we would expect that there would be a measure of blessing connected with baptism, because all obedience to God by Christians brings God’s favor with it.”

At the end of the chapter, Grudem asks Questions for Personal Application. Here a few:

As you look over the list of means of grace, are there some areas in which people are not actually experiencing ‘grace’ or blessing in your own church? What could be done to increase the effectiveness of these weak areas as means of grace in the life of your church? Are there some that have become rather mechanical, and that you are performing only as an outward or physical activity, without any real participation in your heart? What could you do to increase the effectivensess of those means in your life?

As you look over the list of the means of grace again, name one or more in which you could begin to help the church be more effective in bringing blessing to its people.

Driscoll’s View on Women Preachers and Deacons

Posted: March 7, 2012 in Leadership
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

This chapter in Vintage Church is summarized by Mark Driscoll in this sentence: “Elders are the male leaders of the church.” Driscoll gives a host of verses (especially 1 Timothy 2:11-3:5) to support his view which he calls “a soft complementarian interpretation of Paul’s commands.” His view permits only men to be elders or pastors but does allow women to be deacons (the hard complementarian interpretation does not).

Driscoll sees three different views on the leadership of a local church.

The first is the liberal or Egalitarian View which advocates that women can lead as pastors and deacons.

The second is the Complementarian View (“a soft complementarian interpretation”) which espouses only men as pastors but women can be deacons.

The third is the Hiearchical View (the hard complementarian interpretation) which does not permit women to serve as deacons nor pastors.

There are arguments for and against women being deacons. We will look at both arguments beginning with arguments for the church office of deaconess.

Arguments for Women Deacons

1. The Greek word gunaikas in 1 Timothy 3:11 can be translated “women” (NASB) or “wives” (NIV). KJV translates gunaikas “women” 129 times and “wives” 92 times. Therefore, goes the first argument, gunaikas does not have to be translated “wives” of deacons.

2. After Paul describes the office of pastor in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, he introduces the office of deacon in (v.8) with “likewise” (Gk. hosautos) which is the same way he introduces women in verse 11 with hosautos as if he were introducing a third office. This is one of Driscoll’s arguments. If Paul were speaking of the wives of deacons, he could have written “wives of deacons” (diadonon).

3. The qualifications in 3:11 are similar to those required of deacons and therefore suggest that an office is in view. This cannot refer to all women because this text is dealing with church officers (Homer Kent, The Pastoral Epistles, pages 140-141).

4. This reference cannot be limited to wives of deacons because no qualifications for pastor’s wives are given which would seem more important. This is another argument used by Driscoll.

5. Paul in Romans 16:1 calls Phoebe a diakonon which is the same word he used in Phil.1:1 for the office of deacon. Paul also calls Phoebe a prostatis or leader in Rom. 16:2 which is claimed to be a technical term for a legal protector or leader. Since there was an office, the qualifications for that office are given in 1 Tim. 3:11.

Proponents of the position also claim that Titus 2:3-5 describes deaconesses. No where in this text are these older women called deacons. Lastly, deaconesses have served the church throughout history as the following cited examples disclose. The order of deaconess first takes concrete form in Didaskalia Apostolorum (Syria, AD 230). “There are houses to which you (the bishops) cannot send a (male) deacon to the women, on account of the heathen, but you may send a deaconess” (R. Hugh Connoly, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1929, pp.146-148). This was a service office not a leadership office.

The Apostolic Constitution (Syria, fourth century) indicated that deaconesses supervise the seating and behavior of the female part of the worshiping community and prevent men from mingling among these women.

The Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Syria, fifth century) permitted deaconesses to bring communion to pregnant women unable to attend Easter mass. The office disappeared in the twelfth century. This office revived in Germany in the early nineteenth century. The deaconesses were trained primarily as nurses and secondarily as teachers who focused on the care of the sick poor, the orphan, discharged women prisoners, and the mentally ill. Florence Nightingale was a deaconess in Germany. (Biblical Manhood, pages 264-265).

Arguments Against Women Deacons

1. The word diadonos is a general word for servant used to describe Christ (Mk. 10:45), Paul (1 Tim.1:12), Apollos (1 Cor. 3:5), Timothy (1 Tim. 4:6), and all believers (Mt. 20: 26, 27). So the word does not have to be a technical word for an office.

2. Since 1 Tim. 3:12 reverts back to deacons, then v. 11 would seem out of place if it meant deaconesses as an office of leadership. Not so, however, if this is not a leadership position. These women are mentioned in 1 Tim. 3:11 because they serve alongside the deacons who are also the wives of the deacons or a group of women serving but not leading.

3. If this is an office, then why would the requirements be less than those for male deacons? Because this is not a leadership position.

4. These qualifications could be limited to the wives of the deacons or women serving in the church if both of these persons are service oriented and not leadership. That is the reason why qualifications are not given for the pastor’s wife. Pastor’s wife is not a separate position or ministry in the church.

5. Phobe was unofficially called a deacon in Romans 16:1. Most translations translate prostatis as “help” or “helper” (RSV, NASB, NIV, and KJV) in Romans 16:2. If Phoebe is a leader, then she was the leader over the apostle Paul and held a position of authority over the apostle Paul which he denied of even the other apostles (Gal. 1:11-24).

The following men in Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womenhood (John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds.) argue that even if there is an office called “deaconess” it would only be an office of service and not leadership like the office of deacon and pastor.

“Whichever position is adopted as to whether women are to be ‘deaconesses,’ there is still consensus that women should be involved in ‘diaconal’ or service ministries in the church, whether they are elected as ‘deaconesses’ or not” (George Knight III, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, page 354).

“With respect to women deacons, we need not come to a firm decision, for even if women were deacons this does not refute our thesis regarding male governance in the church” (Thomas R. Schreiner, Recovering Biblical Manhood, page 220).

Conclusion on this issue. This is not an office of leadership in the local church. 1 Timothy 3:11 is either referring to the wives of deacons or women who serve in a capacity as recorded in the above examples from church history: Women ministering to other women or other people in need. Such a ministry could be called “Helping Hands.”

Older Entries