One of the Most Amazing Admissions I Have Ever Heard in a Debate

James White

Mike McKinley and D.A. Carson regarding church planting

Mark Dever asks church planter Mike McKinley about the travails of planting and why we should plant churches WITHOUT a vision statement.  Listen here

Western evangelicalism tends to run through cycles of fads. At the moment, books are pouring off the presses telling us how to plan for success, how “vision” consists in clearly articulated “ministry goals,” how the knowledge of detailed profiles of our communities constitutes the key to successful outreach. I am not for a moment suggesting that there is nothing to be learned from such studies. But after a while one may perhaps be excused for marveling how many churches were planted by Paul and Whitefield and Wesley and Stanway and Judson without enjoying these advantages. Of course all of us need to understand the people to whom we minister, and all of us can benefit from small doses of such literature. But massive doses sooner or later dilute the gospel. Ever so subtly, we start to think that success more critically depends on thoughtful sociological analysis than on the gospel; Barna becomes more important than the Bible. We depend on plans, programs, vision statements—but somewhere along the way we have succumbed to the temptation to displace the foolishness of the cross with the wisdom of strategic planning.  Again, I insist, my position is not a thinly veiled plea for obscurantism, for seat-of-the-pants ministry that plans nothing.  Rather, I fear that the cross, without ever being disowned, is constantly in danger of being dismissed from the central place it must enjoy, by relatively peripheral insights that take on far too much weight. Whenever the periphery is in danger of displacing the center, we are not far removed from idolatry. (pp. 25–26) – D.A. Carson’s The Cross and Christian Ministry

Contextualizing

…from Mark Driscoll.

“There have been many adaptations in the church throughout the centuries
(Pews in the 13th century; 14th century the organ was introduced in the
church; 15th century the printing press; 19th century – electricity and
audio microphones, 20th century – loud speakers [differences between George
Whitefield and Billy Graham], radio preachers, more screens in churches than
theaters, the internet) – on the front end of innovation everyone’s critical
at the back end everyone’s using it.

Communication has 4 things – instant, constant, global, and permanent.
That’s true for critics and for the proclamation of the gospel.

Every church contextualizes. Where are you in the continuum? If you have
pews, you’re on the cutting edge of the 13th century. And so forth for
organ, screens, audio, website, etc. Can you do more? Are you doing all that
you can? All are contextualizing. The key is to name your year and name the
year you would like to be.”

______________________________________

My response:

As far as the church contextualizing historically, it is true. But I think
it was more proactive than reactive. The reason for some medieval church
architecture was not because there were pews or icons in the culture, but
because the culture was illiterate and the church wanted to teach the
people, through physical symbols, aspects of the gospel. Granted, the
medieval church went too far, but this is what happened. When the
Reformation came, changes in church architecture occurred. For instance, the
altar, icons, and crucifixes went and the pulpit was put front and center.
In some Calvinistic churches the pulpit was put in the center with the folks
sitting around the preacher, so I read today in Brian Chapell’s new book.
This was to give a vivid reminder of the priesthood of all believers. It
seems to me that, historically speaking, the church contextualized in order
to teach the world something about God, public worship, the gospel, etc. In
other words, the church was proactive in creating a climate that would
communicate something to the culture about what the church is all about.
They may have been wrong in their approach, but I think that’s what
happened. It seems to me that some today have turned the historical practice
on its head, when it comes to public worship. They may be right in their
approach, but I think that’s what’s happening.

Richard Barcellos

Frequently Asked Symbolics Questions: Passions

I am occasionally asked about a statement in 2LCF 2:1, which teaches us that God is ‘without body, parts or passions.’ This is a statement about the simplicity and immutability of God, important, even essential doctrines in classic theism. While most agree that God has no ‘body’ despite the frequent use of ‘body’ terminology in Scripture, and that He cannot be dissected into ‘parts,’ many stumble at the use of ‘passions’ since Scripture also employs the language of apparent ‘feelings’ or to use a modern term not in use in the 17th century, ‘emotions.’

The inclusion of ‘passions’ needs to be understood carefully.  Does God genuinely love?  Does he have genuine wrath?  Absolutely.  God is Love.  God’s wrath is very real. Historically, this word has been used with negative connotations. Passions were sinful—they were not the equivalent of “emotions” generally, but rather described the worst parts of humanity’s sinful expressions. Even today, most English translations of the Bible use “passion(s)” with an evil connotation. Our modern use of the term, however, is very different. To be “passionate” about something is often virtuous. [We do, however, speak of ‘crimes of passion.’] If we mistakenly import the familiar sense of this term into its use in the Confession, we run the risk of a serious misunderstanding of its doctrine. We need tools to give historical and theological perspective on key terms.

Richard Muller in his authoritative Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics 3:553-54, in a discussion on the “Divine Affections and Virtues” points out that

An affection is usually favorable or positive, whereas passion is usually negative. . . . A passion, most strictly, is a form of suffering and would not have the connotation of a permanent disposition . . . . Passions,  . . .  indicate a declension from an original or natural condition that is at variance with the fundamental inclination of the individual—and therefore, a loss of power or self-control. . . . Since a passion has its foundation ad extra and its terminus ad intra, it cannot be predicated of God, and, in fact, fails to correspond in its dynamic with the way that God knows. An affection or virtue, by way of contrast, has its foundation or source ad intra and terminates ad extra, corresponding with the pattern of operation of the divine communicable attributes and, in particular, with the manner of divine knowing.

When 2LCF states in 2:1 that God is “without body, parts or passions” it must be understood in light of this statement. Muller helps us to avoid a common misunderstanding of this statement. This is only one example of the massive assistance available in this erudite work.

James M. Renihan, Dean

The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies

www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org

Tears of the Saints

“The gospel is only good news if it gets there in time” – Carl F. H. Henry

My Pharasaic Heroes or Bible Babies in Fundy Bathwater

I’m a little bummed today.  I just found out something awful about some of my pastoral heroes of the past.  No, they didn’t commit adultery and they were not thieves.  It’s something worse.  I just found out that virtually all of them are Pharisees.  Legalists.  It’s awful.  I had no idea.  I’m not sure when this happened…especially since they’ve been dead for over a hundred years.   Chances are the same is true of some of your heroes.  It may be true of you.

You know the guys whose books we read and who we quote in our sermons? We may even have their pictures on our walls or have named our children after them.  Let me tell you about two of my ‘fallen’ heroes.  Charles Spurgeon and J.C. Ryle.    Have you actually read what they have to say about Christian living?  About worldliness?  I can’t believe what fundy lunatics these guys turned out to be.   I am not saying they are not saved, but man, they have no idea about liberty!

What?  I thought Spurgeon enjoyed fine cigars and ‘adult’ beverages!  Doesn’t that put him in the cool category?  Have you read what he and Mr. Ryle said about the theater?  About dancing?  Card playing?  Sabbath breaking?

Interesting, isn’t it?  If these men were alive today and had the same convictions, they would be roasted by the very people who claim to adore them.  I’m not saying that they were right about everything, but isn’t it interesting how we allow for their time and place in history?

I believe we need some of the same gentleness today.  It is easy to attack certain believers as thieves of liberty or legalist or Pharisees because they do not indulge in culture or have questions or express concerns.  I’ve been around long enough now to witness some radical changes in Christianity and the generally accepted views of holiness and worldliness.  It wasn’t long ago that preachers denounced going to the theater and now we have it in churches.  It wasn’t too long ago that it was unthinkable that Christians would go to movies.  Then it was okay to go to a G rated and then PG and then PG13, and now R and unrated films don’t cause anyone to bat an eyelash.  Pastors and their people now view soft-core porn (naked people simulating sex on film) with regularity and can tolerate blasphemy without concern.   I know that sound judgmental, but the facts are the facts.   We not only go to these movies, we buy these movies.  We watch them in our homes and in front of our children.   Thirty years ago it was assumed that there were ‘bad’ words that Christians did not say, that’s not the case anymore.  There was a time when it was unthinkable that believers would have tattoos.  Now churches raffle them off.   Rock music?  Was universally viewed as immoral…now, loved and embraced.  Rap?   Ungodly!  Now—front and center in the church.  What was holy yesterday is legalistic today.

I was talking to a young man in his 20’s yesterday about this.   He’s a typical Reformed Baptist.  He drinks, he smokes, he watches all latest movies, he listens to heavy metal and secular rap.   And he loves the Lord.  I think he does, I really do.   I asked him what he thought might be acceptable tomorrow which is taboo (or considered sinful) today.  I’m sure that pot will.  I asked him about cocaine.  He thought no.  What about a little bit?  What if it’s legal?   Is there anything today that all believers agree is sinful?  Any definition of ‘the world’, which we all reject?   The standard keeps moving.  Holiness, it appears, is culturally conditioned.  It is not an anchor, holding through the centuries, it is a raft that keeps floating downstream.

My heroes of the past have proven to be legalist.  My pastors from my youth have too.  I guess I’m in that category by just asking questions.  Sigh.

Jim Savastio, Pastor

Reformed Baptist Church of Louisville

Pastor, Don’t Crack My Egg-Shell

Many people measure the quality of their church and pastor on the basis of whether or not he makes them feel “good” about themselves.  “If I leave feeling affirmed and encouraged about myself, the ministry is great.  But if I leave feeling convicted of my sin and the need to implement important changes to my life, the ministry is lousy.  I mean, with all the stress I have to endure throughout the week, why would I want to go to a church where my emotional egg-shell gets cracked?”

About five years ago, a twenty nine year old professional man in our church had a wife and three small children, resulting in a high intensity lifestyle.  Due to some pain he was experiencing, he went to a doctor for a check-up.  The last thing in the world he needed was the bad news that he had Lymphoma Cancer and would need to run the grueling gauntlet of chemotherapy for five months.  Sure, the doctor would have initially received a favorable evaluation if he’d have flattered the man about his handsome physique, and affirmed the man with a clean bill of health.  But the doctor was a truly “good” physician who loved the man enough to dispense with myths and tell him the painful truth, even though it cracked the man’s egg-shell.

The chemotherapy was painful and grueling.  But the cancer retreated.  The man is now a survivor, and has a chance to raise his children into adulthood.  His wife just gave birth to their fourth!

A faithful pastor is a good physician who rejects myths and tells his congregation of patients the truth.  He’s not called to massage egos, but to doctor souls.   He’s to be faithful to this solemn charge he’s received from his Great Physician Master:

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:  preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.  But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5).

“Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel ; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me.  When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die’; and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand” (Ezekiel 3:17-18).

Mark Chanski, Pastor

Reformed Baptist Church of Holland

You Prophesy of Your Own Judgment

Who would’ve expected that the Messiah would suffer many things and be rejected by the authorities of His day?  But it must be (Lk 9:22).  It also must be that those who would follow this judged and condemned Jesus must likewise live as dead men walking, as men also judged and rejected by the world.  The prospect of pervasive rejection will expose us to the temptation to be embarrassed of Jesus, to be ashamed of [Him] and [His] words (Lk 9:26).  This we must not do, for we face a judgment far more serious than that leveled against us by men and society’s institutions.  We face Final Judgment when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

To be ashamed of Jesus is to be more concerned for how men might judge us than how Jesus will judge us.  If we’re ashamed of Jesus it is due to unbelief and doubt.  Being ashamed of Jesus before men means that we are uncertain of Jesus’ victory, that maybe we’ve identified with the losing side.  Being ashamed of Jesus and His words indicates that we are unsure whether Jesus is telling us the truth.  It means we’re not sure, but maybe Jesus is wrong.

With this uncertainty and doubt, we are inclined to give more weight to men’s assessment and acceptance of us than Jesus’.  We are liable to fear the punishment of men’s judgment against us.  We fear that men will socially embarrass us, ostracize us, publicly denounce us, oppress us economically and even do us bodily harm.  This fear of man will convince us not to take up our cross and bear the reproach of the Christ who must suffer many things and be rejected.

The pressure of being judged by men is immense, but there is a judgment of far greater concern.  The Son of Man, that majestic enthroned figure of Dan 7:13,14, is none other than Jesus Himself.  At the end of the age, the Son of Man will return in resplendent heavenly glory.  At that time, He will execute Final Judgment.  It is true that we are justified by faith alone, resting simply in Jesus alone and that we are given His righteousness by grace alone.  We will never be condemned (Rom 8:1).  But we will give an account of every careless word (Mat 12:36), and of every deed done in the body whether good or bad (2 Cor 5:10).  The principle which will operate in judgment is the Lex Talionis: the law of retributive justice.  We will be judged with proportionate precision: an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth (Exo 21:23-25).  The idea is reciprocity.  The judgment mirrors the one being judged.  Jesus informs us that this principle of Lex Talionis will regulate how it is that we will be judged by Him.  Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.  But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven (Mt 10:32,33).  We who confess Jesus before men will be confessed by Jesus before His Father.  Those who deny Jesus before men will be denied by Jesus before His Father.  Jesus’ presentation of us to His Father will mirror our presentation of Jesus before men.  Our presentation of Jesus before men is therefore a prophecy (so to speak) of how Jesus will present us to His Father.  If we are ashamed of Jesus before men, He will be ashamed of us before His Father.  If we gladly identify with Jesus before men, He will gladly identify with us before His Father.  Lex Talionis.  One primary indicator of how we will fare in that Day when Jesus will judge us, is how we are presently presenting Jesus to others who are judging and rejecting Him.

The disciples hoped for a grandiose earthly kingdom of political power and wealth, but they would have to learn to identify with Jesus as He suffers many things and be rejected by the authorities and killed.  How embarrassing!  They expected applause and popularity, but they got ridicule and rejection.  In this age, Jesus will be judged negatively, scorned, mocked, persecuted and eventually murdered.  Jesus warns us not to be embarrassed of Him.  As Jesus is being rejected, we’ll be tempted to be embarrassed of Him.  When we’re faced with that temptation, we need to recognize that our response in that situation will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  How we present Jesus to men in the context of being judged by men foretells of how Jesus will present us to His Father in the context of being judged by Him.

Do you want to know how Jesus will receive you into His Kingdom?  Look at how you are presenting Jesus to men.  If you confess Him to men, He will confess you to His Father.  If you are embarrassed of Him before men, He will be embarrassed of you.  His presentation of you to His Father will mirror your presentation of Him to men.

Aren’t you proud of Jesus?  Don’t you have a sense of noble privilege to be known by Him and promised an eternal inheritance?  Isn’t Jesus your most exalted, glorious, loving, beneficent Lord?  Don’t you want to get up on the roof tops and declare His praise before men? Don’t you want to live in such a way as to bewilder men by your steadfast hope and compassionate deeds and attract them to Jesus?  Let us never be embarrassed of Jesus.  Think of it, He is not ashamed to call you His brother.  Do not be ashamed of Him.  And now, little children, abide in Him, so that if He should appear, we may have confidence and not shrink away from Him in shame at His coming (1 Jn 2:28).

Alan Dunn, Pastor

Grace Covenant Baptist Church

Flemington, NJ

Frequently Asked Symbolics Questions: Private Spirits

Over the years, I have taught Symbolics in many places. Without fail, my students are bright and interested and ask me very useful and thought provoking questions. For the next few days, I want to explore some of those questions here. Let’s begin with Chapter 1. What is intended by the phrase ‘private spirits’ in paragraph 1?

This question arises out of the claims of some (influenced by Wayne Grudem) that the phrase implies support for some form(s) of personal revelation. It has been debated in the scholarly literature in articles such as Byron Curtis, “‘Private Spirits’ in The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 and in Catholic-Protestant Debate (1588-1652),” Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996): 257-266, and “’Private Spirits’ in the Westminster Confession of Faith and in Protestant–Catholic Debates: A Response to Byron Curtis” by Garnet H. Milne in the Spring 1999 fascicle of WTJ. More recently, Milne has published the exhaustive study The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Cessation of Special Revelation (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2007). He shows that the term frequently had reference to personal claims to a ‘testimony of the Spirit’ experienced by some believers. But is this akin to revelation? The simple answer is ‘no.’ You will do well to consult Milne on this question! I want to add one or two thoughts:

The language of 2LCF (and WCF and Savoy) does this: it may acknowledge that there were some claims to private revelation, but in no way authorizes or legitimizes them. Rather it is seeking to state comprehensively that there is nothing men may claim that is above or beyond Scripture.  Notice how “private spirits” is preceded by “doctrines of men.”  There is no way that the WCF legitimizes “doctrines of men.”  Notice for example 21:2 and its clear statement as well as Chapter 16 scripture reference b; ch. 21 “n”; ch. 30 “f”.

Similarly, one must factor in the challenge that was presented, from the late 1640s, by the Quakers. They regularly and frequently accused the Puritans of holding to a ‘dead letter’ by the Puritan focus on the centrality of the written word. For the Quakers, the living internal testimony of the Spirit was of exceedingly greater importance than dry and dead words printed on a page. In the case of the Confession, even claims to ‘private spirits’ (without giving any credence to them) had to be subordinated to the Scripture, given by the Spirit, as a fixed rule of faith.

So does the Confession in any way authorize or permit private revelation in the use of this phrase? No way.

James M. Renihan, Dean

The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies

www.reformedbaptistinstitute.org