R & R Fellowship

Piper and DeYoung

2011-09-21T13:15:00.000-05:00

Did you guys watch this? I thought it was really good, but then I found out Kevin DeYoung is only 34 (and so am I). I'm glad they ended with progress is possible!

Part One

Part Two

"Specials" and "Solos"

2011-09-13T20:04:00.000-05:00

What do you guys think is the best way to approach specials and/or solos in a church? Is it ever appropriate to have them? I'm not a fan, and I think the corporate gathering is certainly primarily about the people of God worshipping together (with one voice). I also do not like the fact that we live in such an entertainment driven culture, which seems to only fuel the desire for these 'specials' within the corporate worship gathering. My question, however, is what are your thoughts Biblically? Are they always inappropriate? Or is there freedom here?

Romans 6:4

2011-09-13T10:05:00.002-05:00

As I'm thinking through my sermon for this coming Sunday morning, a phrase in Romans 6:4 has me thinking. Now, I haven't yet looked at any commentaries, and it may be a very simple answer. However, I thought I'd ask it and hope that maybe someone on here would answer (if you still stop by here).

Why does Paul say that Christ was "raised from the dead by the glory of the Father?" Why not the power or something like that? Or maybe even for the glory of the Father? Just curious to get your thoughts before (or as) I consult some commentaries.

10 Things An Effective Minister Must Remember

2011-05-23T15:42:00.003-05:00

from Doug Wilson

1. You are a minister of Christ, for the people. You are not a minister of the people, for Christ. Always preach Jesus.

2. Acknowledge your sins to God, and do what He says to do about them.

3. Your principal credentials for ministry are maintained, or not, within your marriage and family.

4. Your family is a community within the larger community of your ministry. But this community of family still needs to be a gated community.

5. Your toolbox is the Bible, always the Bible. It is the only book you have that is infallible and absolute.

6. If this makes you neglect other books, it is proof that you are neglecting the one book you pretend to have.

7. You are to preach, teach, lead, admonish, and encourage with authority. Don't do it like a muttering scribe.

8. Surround yourself with men who respect you, not men who cater to you.

9. Attack sin from the pulpit. Proclaim grace from the pulpit. You have a high vocation that should require some level of courage. Thunder the Word.

10. In the fulfillment of the Great Commission, never forget the big picture. The point is the success of the army, and your church is simply a platoon. You should want a successful platoon, of course, but only to the extent that it advances the larger mission. And always remember that Jesus is the supreme commander.

Raised for our Justification

2011-04-14T18:40:00.002-05:00

"[Christ] was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." Romans 4:25
What does it mean that Jesus was "raised for our justification"? Anybody have any insight into this?

Concerning Church Covenants...

2011-04-02T17:38:00.013-05:00

I'm always fascinated by the heavy emphasis many evangelicals put on written church covenants. I do see some practical value of having one (sort of a "written contract" with other believers - something that you can hold people to), but honestly I'm rather cautious about insisting upon something this serious that is not clearly defined for us in the NT. Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not opposed to all use of non-scriptural practical elements (nursery, sound systems, offering bags/plates, air conditioning) in churches, but an actually written covenant (signed or not signed) seems to be in a different league than padded pews or visual aids, at least in my mind. And I'm not sure I can defend written church covenants on any grounds other than they sure are very practical... and I'm not real comfortable with that conclusion. What do you guys think about church covenants? The good, the bad, and the ugly...

Anti-Contextualization

2011-03-14T07:50:00.004-05:00

Not exactly what Jonathan Leeman is espousing in this post (Yin-Yang Contextualization), but it is interesting and counter to the "contextualization" rage these days. Here's what he says he has learned from Mark Dever:

He has a good eye for locating the particular weakness of a culture and then adopting practices that directly run against those weakness. For instance,
We live in an entertainment-driven culture, and so he works hard to make sure our corporate gatherings don't cater to that desire among Christians and non-Christians.
We live in a highly emotivisitc culture, and so he's careful not to use overly dramatic sermon illustrations that play to that desire for an emotional rush.
We live in a style-conscious and celebrity-driven culture, and so he dresses plainly/unremarkably, puts someone else in the pulpit around 35% of the year, and generally promoted the leadership of others.

What do we make of this? This seems to run in the opposite direction of what we're being told we must do to be relevant and draw folks to our church. If they want the word, give it to them. If they want entertainment, emotionalism, or a cool, rockstar pastor, be very careful not to do/be those things. What do you think?

Preaching on John 7:53-8:11

2011-03-09T08:35:00.000-05:00

You guys might have already seen Piper's latest sermon on John 7:53-8:11. It's the story of the woman caught in adultery, and the vast majority of NT scholars believe it should not be in our Bibles. Piper spends half his sermon explaining textual transmission and why he believes the story is not the Word of God. He spends the second half bringing out some great points from the text which he warrants by the fact that these truths are taught elsewhere in the bible. Its a really interesting sermon on a really tricky text.

My question: what would you guys do? Have you guys preached through John? Would you skip the passage? Would you preach the passage but with some disclaimers?

Mark Chanski

2011-03-05T15:45:00.000-05:00

Hey guys - I just thought I'd mention that I've been greatly blessed the last couple of days listening to some sermons by Mark Chanski. He seems particularly gifted at using striking illustrations and making helpful practical applications. These are two areas where I am in great need of help in my own preaching. I thought I'd post a little recommendation for you guys to check his sermons out. They're on sermonaudio.

Who Pastors Pastors?

2011-03-01T11:50:00.007-05:00

I know, I know, it sounds funny to say (or write) - even redundant. But I'm asking a serious question. And I'm not thinking local church government, controversial apostolic authority, or denominational hierarchy here guys - just a real honest question.

Who should pastors go to when they need their souls to be pastored?

Interesting Thought on Sermon Titles from Doug Wilson's Blog

2011-02-24T08:33:00.000-05:00

"It should be noted in passing that this is an important purpose in an announced or printed sermon title -- to help upset the equilibrium. Most titles tend to do the reverse. They appear to be drawn from the sermon's conclusion (the scratch rather than the itch). As a result, the preacher has to move backward from the announced title in order to arrive at the beginning of the sermon itself. A title known in advance of a sermon should itself be ambiguous -- making listeners wonder what the sermon will be about" (Lowry, The Homiletical Plot, p. 31).

What do you guys think? According to this, my titles have been pretty boring (usually a basic statement of the subject of the sermon). For example, here are my next four sermon titles as we work our ways through Romans 3:9-18:

Total Depravity - III
Total Depravity - IV
Total Depravity - V
Total Depravity - VI

Pretty creative, huh?

Really long sermons... thoughts?

2011-02-24T01:07:00.001-05:00

Recent post by Gary Hendrix. Thought it was interesting.

Sabbatarianism?

2011-02-22T15:36:00.002-05:00

I will soon be preaching a series on the Ten Commandments. In my preliminary preparations I have been considering the fourth commandment especially, the command to remember the Sabbath.

I got a hold of Al Mohler's book on the Ten Commandments, "Words from the Fire." In it he presents a seemingly strong case for the non-sabbatarian view, what he calls "Lord's Day observance."

Basically his arguments are

1) there is no universal recognition among peoples around the world of a Sabbath pattern like in Israel (ie. it is not written into the law of nature as are the other commandments),

2) the Sabbath as a day of rest emerges only in the Mosaic period,

3) the observance of the Sabbath is similar to that of circumcision, which was used to indicate the otherness of Israel,

4) worship is added to the Sabbath only in the NT times,

5) Jesus declared the he was the fulfillment and Lord of the Sabbath,

6) the practice of the NT Christians was not to observe the Sabbath, but to gather for worship on the Lord's Day (Sunday) in connection to the resurrection,

7) the NT church gathered for worship on the Lord's Day although they probably would have worked at other parts of the day (per Roman culture),

8) in Christ fulfilling the Sabbath, "whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his" (Heb. 4:9-10),

9) the practice of Christians for this new day, the Lord's Day, is primarily fulfilled in gathering together as a church to worship, devoting the day to its namesake.

What do you think? What's your view? What are some articles/books/publications that give strong evidence for sabbatarianism or non-sabbatarianism?

Multisite?

2011-02-18T08:30:00.001-05:00

I'm sure you've all looked into the pros and cons of multisite churches. I have gone back and forth on the issue myself. As of today (and for the past year or so), I have not been in favor of multisite. My understanding of preaching in the life of the church has caused me to think it's not best. This morning I read Kevin DeYoung's thoughts here. Since I was already leaning this way, this seemed to cement my thoughts even more. I like that he is quick to say it's not sin to have multisite, and that there may be appropriate times for them, but certainly not his preference. What are your thoughts?

Interesting Article on Expository Preaching

2011-02-01T08:19:00.001-05:00

Dr. Iain Murray argues that verse-by-verse preaching may not be best for many preachers. He says that...

1. Preachers have different gifts and some work better from selected texts (a la Spurgeon) rather than working slowly through chapters or books.

2. The verse-by-verse approach too often becomes all about conveying as much information about the Bible as possible, but preaching should be as much about stirring up and awakening people as informing and instructing them.

3. Historically (in Scotland), the verse-by-verse approach was used mainly in lecture settings and not in the main worship service of the church.

4. Verse-by-verse preaching may not be the most helpful to our people, especially if we allow our preaching to become something of a dry, dull running commentary.

5. Evangelistic preaching doesn't fit well with the verse-by-verse model.

Your thoughts?

Shepherding your Family

2011-01-26T15:22:00.000-05:00

I posted some ways on my blog that I'm working on in my home to shepherd my family well. However, I know there are ways to improve. What have you found helpful for you and your family?

Regarding Method and Message

2011-01-15T22:59:00.003-05:00

This post is more like a ramble with questions attached than a well thought-out article. Forgive me.

If you're not subscribed to Darryl Hart's blog, you probably should be. Good thoughtful stuff all around.

A couple of weeks ago he threw this out as the worst Christian video of the year and I would readily agree. Ugh!

What I wasn't expecting was for him to say that it was "even worse" than Christian hip hop. The video below is the example he gives.

Now I get the deal about the method and the message... the forms and content... they don't exist in vacuums. I'm not saying that I know exactly how they relate and affect each other, but I do believe they do. But I must say that these two videos, as far as I can tell, have very little in common.

Nonetheless, in the comments section Hart says that, "I would claim [rap] is not a fitting vehicle for sound doctrine on doctrinal, cultural, and aesthetic grounds." And later he says, "when it comes to the sorts of virtues for which Paul calls in Titus 2, modesty, self-control, submissiveness, does rap really come to mind as the first cultural expression you’re going to offer to Paul as “man, this sure is fitting sound doctrine, isn’t it?”"

So, what do you think? Does Hart have a point? Is there a point at which content overcomes form, or does the form always affect the content in some way?

And so you can get the full context of Hart's post, here it is in full: Worst Christian Video of the Year.

Prayer Life

2011-01-14T22:41:00.000-05:00

I don't know about you, but I certainly could use some help in my prayer life. Over the years I've had times of strong prayer, and time of weak prayer. I want to be more consistent in my prayer life. What are some ways you guys foster prayer in your own life? How do you help model/teach it to your congregations?

Also, speaking of prayer, are any of you attending the Desiring God Conference for Pastors this year?

Getting the Ball Rolling...Again

2011-01-12T14:24:00.005-05:00

Its time to get this blog going again.

Here's a question: Should we treat teenagers in our churches as adults and incorporate them into adult Sunday School classes, etc., or should we keep them separated? Which is wisest? Which serves them best?

NEW SITE

2008-10-08T16:50:00.001-05:00

Welcome! You've found the old blog for the R&R Fellowship. Our new site is here.

How about you?

2008-08-15T08:42:00.002-05:00

Fellas, I posted some thoughts at my blog about my Sunday morning routine. I would love to hear how you prepare to preach on Sunday. Also, what do you eat on Sunday mornings? Do you eat at home with your family or do you leave the house before they are up? Leave comments here or at my blog.

thanks,
Justin Childers

Put It On Your Calendar

2008-08-13T12:17:00.002-05:00

The R&R Fellowship is hosting our first ever conference!

"SURVEYING THE WONDROUS CROSS"

October 17-18

Not Featuring:

John Piper

R. C. Sproul

John MacArthur

C. J. Mahaney

Alistair Begg

Sinclair Ferguson

Mark Dever

More Details Coming Soon...

(P. S. - the real speakers include Dan Rolfe, Eddie Burroughs, Justin Childers, and Justin Nale.)

5 Reasons I'm Thankful for Justin Nale

2008-07-29T07:26:00.002-05:00

1. He works hard at getting pastors connected (i.e. the cookout, this blog, R & R meetings, etc.). Very Mark Dever like.

2. He recommends great books.

3. He is committed to Mt. Hermon Missionary Baptist Church.

4. He is an expository, cross-loving, Calvinistic, Amil, no altar-call preacher.

5. His parents gave him a great name.

Thanks JN,
Justin Childers

What's Happened?

2008-07-22T12:51:00.002-05:00

This blog used to be something. WHAT HAPPENED? In all seriousness, I would like to see more discussion back on this blog. So here is my question: Since this is a blog that is about a group of pastors who want to see reformation and revival come to our area, what should we be doing to help see that happen? Or I can put it another way that is far more personal: What are YOU doing to see reformation and revival come to the Rocky Mount/Wilson area (or anywhere else you may be reading this)? Are we really burdened for the city? How can we become active in this endeavor?

Some Personal Reflections on Worshipping Through Music

2008-06-10T16:40:00.002-05:00

This was prompted by our friend Jason Sessoms.

1. Music is powerful. I am often amazed at its power to affect me. I can still remember the first time that I heard a song where the music (not the lyrics, mind you - the music itself) absolutely overwhelmed me and moved me to tears. Not everyone is as easily affected by music; sometimes I can be overcome listening to a guitar solo while my dear wife just looks at me and rolls her eyes.

The power of music can be used for good or for evil. It seems to me that music is best used when it compliments truthful lyrics. So, for example, sometimes speaking a doctrine does not affect my soul the way it ought - but singing that doctrine does. Music is a means of grace given by God to His Church to help move our souls towards the kind of emotions we ought to have toward Him and His truth.

In this regard, I love personal, private worship through song. I enjoy singing to God while I cut the grass. I am not an opponent of the "just me and God" mentality - I treasure the times when it is just me and God and I get to sing to Him privately from my heart.

2. All that said, I do not believe that corporate worship was designed to be a "just me and God" time. I sing differently during corporate worship than I do in private worship. You see, music not only works to move our souls towards appropriate affections towards God, but music is also a gift that helps hide the Word of God in our hearts. This is why almost all of us can sing the lyrics to our favorite songs - because music helps us memorize words and instill them into our souls.

If I understand Ephesians and Colossians correctly, corporate singing is worshipping God through the edification of our brothers and sisters in Christ. It is worshipping God by singing truth into the ears of our fellow believers, helping them to hide God's Word in their hearts. That's why Paul speaks of corporate singing in the context of the Word of Christ dwelling in us richly, and in the context of teaching and admonishing one another.

In this regard, I am much more theologically aligned with Ligon Duncan than C. J. Mahaney. At Covenant Life, the lights go down and the atmosphere lends itself very much towards a "me and God" mentality. At First Prez, however, the lights stay up, and Ligon looks around the room as he sings boldly, making eye contact with members of his church as they all sing. They are very much singing to one another, purposefully seeking to glorify God by edifying one another. Remember, when Paul talks about corporate singing, he tells us that we are to be "addressing one another" (Eph. 5:19), not just God. In fact, we are worshipping God by singing to one another.

When I think of the early church gathered and singing, I sincerely doubt they all stood in rows facing a podium. Rather, I speculate that they were in a circle (as we often are when we have Bible studies in people's homes), and that they were facing one another as they sang. How to recover such a practice is difficult in our modern churches, though continues to work well in small groups when the members all share this theology of singing.

There is more that could be said, but I've got find some grub and get back to the dome before the meetings start again. I'd love to hear your thoughts on all this.

P. S. That very first song that really affected me emotionally was called "Rain". You can hear it here. A song that has affected me lately is this one by Andrew Peterson (the recording is not the best quality). Perhaps I shouldn't admit this, but on a recent drive I was listening to that latter one on "The Far Country" cd and suddenly found myself crying as I thought about the glories of heaven and the temporalness of this life. Crystal laughed at me.

Acts 29?

2008-06-08T18:41:00.002-05:00

I didn't get too much discussion from the last post on church planting, but I am going to continue asking questions. For this post, what are your thoughts about Acts 29? I have researched some and would love to hear from you guys on what you've seen, heard, or think about what they are about and what they're doing for church planting.

Church Planting

2008-05-30T19:06:00.004-05:00

I have had several conversations with some of you guys over the past few months about church planting. Since no one has posted here in a month, this is a good time to. I would like to hear from you on several questions.

1. If you were thinking about church planting, what would you consider when thinking about a location?

2. What steps would you take to prepare for church planting?

3. How long should you take to prepare before being "on site" of the church plant?

4. How should one go about gaining the support of a local church or churches?

These are just a few things that I would love to talk about. Obviously I am thinking through this on a personal level, but I have no idea if this is where God is leading me. So I would like to hear some thoughts for church planters, whether myself or not.

Sunday School - Pros and Cons

2008-04-30T22:37:00.003-05:00

Just finished reading this...

I'd like to know your thoughts on whether or not Sunday School makes a positive contribution to the local church, and what role (or lack of a role) you see SS playing in churches 25-50 years from now.

Should all people be baptized into a local church?

2008-04-28T23:48:00.007-05:00

I read Wade Burleson's blog. Sometimes I am in absolute disagreement with him. Sometimes I am not. Recently he drew attention to a post here where Malcolm Yarnell (of SWBTS) gives 7 doctrines concerning baptism that he believes have defined Baptists historically. Number four says:
Baptists do not baptize apart from the local church, because baptism involves local church membership.
Wade notes:

Dr. Yarnell called this doctrine, and the other six Baptist Identity doctrines he posits, 'bedrock convictions,' and he wrote that "cooperation must end where our bedrock convictions are compromised." Dr. Yarnell and Mr. Lumpkin (the owner of the blog), both believe that cooperation should end with anybody who disagrees with them on these so called 'bedrock convictions.'

David Rogers, IMB missionary and son of the late Adrian Rogers, responded to Dr. Yarnell's post by asking:

If I am unable to unequivocably embrace your 4th, 5th and 7th major points
(although agreeing with you on the others, and some sub-points of these), does
that mean that I am not truly a Baptist?

Wade asked some questions that were interesting concerning this 4th point:

Into which local church was the Ethiopian eunuch baptized?

Into which local church were the 3,000 at Pentecost baptized - having come to Jerusalem from all over the known world?And, if you are unable to identify the local churches, is it possible that our early Baptist fathers were correct that baptism does not admit anyone into the local church? One such early Baptist wrote:

"Baptism does not make a person a member of a church, or admit him into a visible church; persons must first be baptized, and then added to the church, as the three thousand converts were; a church has nothing to do with the baptism of any, but to be satisfied they are baptized before they are admitted into communion with it." - John Gill

Now, I'm not nearly so concerned about whether or not Malcolm is right in including this 4th doctrine as a characteristic of historic Baptist identity (though if someone out there with some knowledge on the subject would like to weigh in, feel free to do so.) My question is more pastoral: how connected should baptism and church membership be?

Some practical questions:

1. Should I ever baptize someone who is not going to immediately become a member of my church?

2. Should I ever baptize someone who is moving away, trusting that he will join a church in his new home (or should that person postpone baptism until he moves and finds a new church)?

3. Should a person be baptized immediately after hearing the gospel and believing, or is it okay for there to be days, weeks, months, or even years between conversion and baptism?

4. Can a person be qualified for baptism but not qualified for church membership?

What does the Bible teach on all this?

Obviously I have some opinions on these matters, but also questions remaining. I'd love to hear from anyone who has some solid input.

Something For Us Bibliomaniacs To Remember

2008-04-22T12:33:00.001-05:00

"Many preachers are utterly ignorant as to how the bulk of the people are living; they are at home among books, but quite at sea among men . . . Read men as well as books, and love men rather than opinions, or you will be inanimate preachers" (Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, p. 318).

ht: Doug Wilson

Which Message and Why?

2008-04-18T19:53:00.002-05:00

Hey guys, T4G was great. I was wondering if you could say which message most impacted your life and ministry and why. For me, I would have to say Piper's. I have already listened to it again and it just drives me to go and preach the gospel. I have been quite convicted on how easy it is to live like the world. I want to impress the world with the gospel.

Do you have it?

2008-04-09T21:06:00.003-05:00

I think Justin Childers does.

April Theology Lunch

2008-03-26T09:27:00.002-05:00

This month will be applied theology as Jason Kovacs of the Abba Fund will be coming to speak to us about how to encourage adoption in our churches. This is a very important subject and one way that Christians can display the grace of God in a tangible way to our lost world. Anyone who is interested can come, but all pastors in particular are urged to come and listen.

The lunch will be at Gardener's BBQ on 301 in Rocky Mount at noon on Wednesday, April 9th. The cost with buffet, drink, dessert, and tip included is just under $10. I look forward to seeing you there!

Yours in Christ,
Justin Nale

Spurgeon on Preaching

2008-03-14T15:30:00.003-05:00

Brothers, in thinking about preaching, I found Spurgeon's advice helpful (as I usually do). Read this chapter in The Soul Winner about sermons most likely to convert. If you only have time to read a little, read his sixth "mark."

Here is the online version of chapter 4 of The Soul Winner.

-justin C.

Easter Outreach

2008-03-12T10:34:00.001-05:00

Any ideas you guys might want to share about doing outreach and evangelism during the Easter Season? Do you do anything special with your Easter Sunday service?

Driscoll on the Regulative Principle

2008-03-06T16:43:00.004-05:00

I'm going to watch this and thought y'all might be interested. I'll post thoughts later and hope to read yours as well.

Christ Will Refresh Those Who Trust Him

2008-03-01T10:11:00.006-05:00

A Sermon from Hosea 6:1-3.

Introduction
When you think about what's going on in our world, what do you think is the great need of the day? Here's what one politician who's running for president said about the need of our country:

“Unity is the great need of the hour - the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country. I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans. I'm talking about a moral deficit.”

Unity is great. It is helpful in government, in business, in communities and families and churches. But is that our great need for the day?

I read an article recently that said this of the world's greatest need: “Leadership wisdom is the greatest need of our time. It will be perhaps the most important need of the 21st century. God's kind of leadership is the only leadership that can lead our societies into a real and genuine change.”

Wise and godly leadership is great! We need more of it... in all aspects of life. But is that our greatest need for the day?

Tonight, I want us to look at our text, Hosea 6:1-3. And I want us to see that what was the greatest need for their day, is the greatest need for our day also. The great need for their day... the great need for our day... is repentance.

Read the rest here.

March Theology Lunch

2008-02-28T15:58:00.002-05:00

What Is It? This is an informal, fun time for pastors and all those who enjoy discussing theology as well as fellowshipping with other Christians. Many of us stay longer than an hour to talk, encourage one another, and pray, but those who can only come in for a quick lunch are welcome to do so as well.

What Is This Month's Theme? Justin Childers, pastor of Christ Baptist Church, will be speaking on the theme:

"Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?"

Where Is It? Gardener's Barbecue on HWY 301 in Rocky Mount.

When Is It? Tuesday, March 11th, at 12:00 p.m.

How Much Is It? The cost for the buffet lunch, including drink and tip, is $10.

Driscoll, Mahaney, Piper

2008-02-25T12:29:00.002-05:00

Watch them live here at 5pm, 7pm, and 10pm respectively.

Tomorrow: Piper at 1pm, Driscoll at 5:45pm, Piper again at 10pm with Q&A afterwards.

Considering Some Propositions of "New Covenant Theology"

2008-02-23T20:03:00.003-05:00

These seven propositions come from the book “New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense” by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel.

Prop 1: The New Testament is the apex of God’s revelation, therefore the Old Testament should be read and interpreted through the grid of the New.

Thoughts: This principle of interpretation is widely held by many. Since we live on this side of Christ’s coming, we can now look back at the Old Testament Scriptures with greater understanding than those who lived before Christ’s coming. They were dealing with shadows, but we can see both the shadows and the real thing. I certainly affirm the this proposition as true, but would like to add the caveat that there are in fact times when the Old Testament helps us make sense of the New.

Prop 2: Our slavery to Jesus Christ has far reaching implications.

Thoughts: Of course this is true. However, I’m not sure it has the implication Wells and Zaspel think it does. They seem to be arguing that our obedience to Christ as our Master trumps our duty to obey the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament. They refer to the Transfiguration, where Peter is rebuked for wanting to honor Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the Prophets) along with Christ. God spoke and said, “This is my son, whom I love. Listen to him!” (Mark 9:7) But is God telling us to listen to Jesus as opposed to the Law and the Prophets? I don’t think so. After all, are not all the words of Scripture the words of Christ? God’s command for Peter to recognize the uniqueness and superiority of Jesus does not discard our obligation to listen to all Scripture.

Prop 3: We should follow the highest revelation of the moral character of God.

Thoughts: Wells and Zaspel ask which is the higher revelation of God’s character – the 10 Commandments or the person and work of Christ? Their argument is that we should follow the “higher” of these two. But isn’t this an unfair dichotomy? Must we choose between following the Ten Commandments and the Lord Jesus Christ, as if they present two opposing views of God’s character? I would suggest that the person and work of Christ is certainly the greatest and highest revelation there ever could be, but that the character of God revealed in Jesus is not incompatible bur rather perfectly aligned with the character of God revealed in the Law. Wells and Zaspel seem to be putting forth an either/or for I what I think should be a both/and.

Prop 4: “In the NT the word covenant is almost always used to assert discontinuity…this kind of inductive study cannot prove, but strongly suggests, that no such comprehensive covenant is referred to in the NT.” (p. 45-46)

Thoughts: The implicit claim here is that there is no comprehensive “Covenant of Grace” taught in the New Testament, a claim made more explicit on page 48. The Covenant of Grace is a feature of Covenant Theology, and most simplistically can be identified with God’s covenant with Abraham that CT adherents claim overarches both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace includes God’s promise to create a vast people for Himself as well as the promise that by faith sinners can be reckoned as righteous in the sight of God. According to CT, the Abrahamic Covenant was not revoked but remains in effect through both the ld Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) and the New Covenant. The New Covenant in particular is the coming to fruition of the Abrahamic Covenant. Some NCT adherents seem to view the Abrahamic Covenant as replaced by the Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant), which was then replaced by the New Covenant. To be clearer, perhaps you can imagine the CT view as an umbrella (the Abrahamic Covenant) which covers both the Old and New Covenants, whereas the NCT view sees all three covenants as a successive chain in which each new covenant ends the earlier one. (Wellum’s chapter in Believer’s Baptism, as I recall, seems to describe this perspective of the covenants.)

Notice that the proposition above asserts that the New Testament does not teach a comprehensive covenant. But is it appropriate to ignore the Old Testament? Is not all Scripture “breathed out by God and profitable” (2nd Tim. 3:16)?

I would suggest that Psalm 105:7-11 clearly teaches the enduring and comprehensive nature of the Abrahamic Covenant:

“He is the LORD our God;
his judgments are in all the earth.
He remembers his covenant forever,
the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,
the covenant that he made with Abraham,
his sworn promise to Isaac,
which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute,
to Israel as an everlasting covenant,
saying ‘to you I will give the land of Canaan
as your portion for an inheritance.”

What does this passage teach about the covenant made with Abraham? God remembers this promise forever. It was given for a thousand generations. It is an everlasting covenant.

But what about the proposition above? Is it true that the New Testament does not teach this comprehensive covenant? Allow me to give a couple of examples where I believe the NT does use the word covenant in a comprehensive way:

1. Zechariah’s prophecy in Luke 1: “Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people…to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham…”

This prophecy celebrates not only the birth of John the Baptist but also the coming birth of Christ, “a horn of salvation for us”. For Zechariah, the coming of Christ is not only issuing in the New Covenant but is also evidence of God’s keeping the Abrahamic Covenant.

2. Hebrews 13:20: “Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant…”

There is a lot of debate about the phrase “the blood of the eternal covenant”. Which covenant is in view here? Since it is speaking of Christ’s blood, which we know is part of the New Covenant (“this cup is the new covenant in my blood”), the New Covenant must be in view. The New Covenant is an eternal covenant. But didn’t we already see in Psalm 105:7-11 that the Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal covenant? Yes. Which leaves us with two options: either there are two eternal yet completely distinct covenants (which leads us in the direction of Dispensationalism?), or these two eternal covenants are in fact one and the same (or better, the New is simply the coming to fruition of the Abrahamic.) This is why Covenant Theologians can speak of an overarching covenant of grace that stretches from Abraham to eternity, and it appears (contrary to NCT) that the NT supports this teaching.

Another point: Wells and Zaspel looked at verses that used the word “covenant” in the NT to determine that no comprehensive covenant is referred to in its pages. But could it be that passages which do not actually use the word “covenant” still make reference to the comprehensive nature of the Abrahamic Covenant? I would suggest that a case for this could be made from Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

Let me briefly note that the proposition made above does not appear to be held by all NCT adherents. Steven Lehrer, for example, is clear in his book “New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered” that he sees both the Old and New Covenants as part of the Abrahamic covenant. This clearly does not square with Wells and Zaspel’s assertion above.

Prop 5: The church began at Pentecost.

Thoughts: I am willing to say that the visible, institutionalized church began at Pentecost. However, the invisible church, the elect of God, began with Adam. Old Testament Israel was certainly not a part of the Church, but there was always a remnant within Israel that had saving faith and was (and is) a part of His people. This gets to the question of whether God has one people or two, a subject which I discussed in an earlier post.

Interestingly, Wells and Zaspel later acknowledge that “from the standpoint of eternity future, looking back, the church will prove to have been God’s elect individuals from every era.” From this statement I assume that their position then is at least similar to mine.

Prop 6: The Church is under the law of Christ, not the law of Moses.

Now, here is where things really get interesting. The argument being made is that the Mosaic Law governed national Israel in the Old Covenant, but the law of Christ now governs the Church in the New Covenant. Christ is the new and higher Moses. His laws and those given through Moses are not unrelated - both reflect the character of the same God. But in the New Testament Christ is free to reiterate, modify, or even rescind the commands given to Moses. According to the adherents of NCT, if a command isn’t issued by Christ or His apostles, the Church is not bound by it.

Thoughts: Some of what is being argued here is what first attracted me to NCT, and much of it I still find appealing. I agree, for example, that the law of Moses was given to govern national Israel under the Old Covenant. I also recognize that the New Testament speaks of something called “the law of Christ.” Hebrews is clear that Christ is greater than Moses and much of the New Testament reminds us that we are no longer under “the law”. However…

1. I do not agree that the law of Moses was given only to govern national Israel under the Old Covenant. Like all of Scripture, the Mosaic Law is for us as well, in the sense that it reveals to us the moral character of God that we are to imitate. In particular, I find it difficult to say that the Ten Commandments were meant only for Israel and not for us. I would suggest that the principles given in the Ten Commandments were known as a standard of morality to be upheld long before they were written on the stone tablets at Sinai. So, for example, in Genesis 26:5, God tells Isaac that through his offspring all the nations of the earth will be blessed “because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” What commandments, statutes, and laws did Abraham keep? Clearly before the Mosaic law was ever given God’s people knew of a divine law. I would suggest that this is the law written on every person’s heart, the law summed up in the Ten Commandments.

2. I do not agree that “the law of Christ” can be identified as only those commands found in the New Testament, or as simply the command to love God and others. The law of Christ is the same as the law of God – it is those moral principles that express their character. The Old Testament Scriptures are no less the words of Christ than the New, and the commands within them reveal that same character. The commands to love God and love others do sum up the law of Christ (and the law of God, since they are one and the same), but they are not the sum total of the law’s content. We learn the moral character of Christ that we are to imitate in both the Old and New Testaments, and we should not neglect one or the other.

3. I do agree that Christ fulfilled the Law for us in His person and work, but that does not mean the law passes away. We are still obligated to obey the moral aspects of the law, and failure to do so will bring judgment. Yet this is what it means when we read in the NT that Christ has set us free from the law – Christ has so perfectly fulfilled the law for us that there is no more condemnation for those who are in Him. We have been set from from the bondage of having to obey the Law out of fear, and now have the freedom to live out the law (which is now written on our hearts) in joy.

4. All that said, I do agree with Wells and Zaspel on this point: that as the ultimate Law Giver, Christ has the right to reiterate, modify, or rescind any law He chooses. But I must add the caveat that Christ will never in anyway rescind the moral aspect of any law previously issued (since God cannot deny Himself). So, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ does seem to modify some of the Mosaic commandments, but in doing so never contradicts the moral obligations of the original commands. For example, the Mosaic Law allowed people to take an oath, but insisted that they keep it. At its root, the law forbade dishonesty – saying you’ll do something and then not doing it. Christ clearly modifies this command when He says that we should not take an oath at all. And since He is greater than Moses, surely His command trumps the original. But the point of His command is the same as the original – that His people not be dishonest.

Prop 7. The Sabbath was a command given to national Israel, but not to the New Testament Church. It has been fulfilled in Christ and we are under no obligation to keep it.

Thoughts: Since I posted my position on this earlier, I won’t stretch this post any further.

I would very much appreciate any thoughts or critiques. I have spent the last several months contemplating Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology, and can now say with more understanding that I believe Covenant Theology to best fit the Bible’s teaching.

Storms on the Spirit

2008-02-19T15:35:00.002-05:00

I've had a few questions/thoughts since the Sam Storms conference on the Spirit. One question comes from Justin C's notes on the Friday night session (that I missed).

Here is JC's note on Storms' third point:

3. We quench the Spirit when we suppress or legislate the gifts He gives. Cessationism is quenching the Spirit. We need all of the gifts of the Spirit and not just a select few. (emphasis mine)

My questions concerning this are, Did he address the supposed gift of Apostleship? and if so, What did he say about its legitimacy for today?

Other questions I had were about his view of Jesus' "laying aside" of his divine attributes while on earth. I wasn't exactly comfortable with everything he said in that session. Did Jesus lay aside the divine character as well as his attributes? Does Storms' view open up the possibility of Jesus disobeying the Father? What are your thoughts about what Storms said concerning this?

Those are two areas where I had questions. Do you have any insight into them? Do you have any questions/comments of your own about the conference?

The Sabbath: A Preliminary Position Statement

2008-02-17T15:52:00.004-05:00

I would definitely like your input and critique of these statements.

I. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance. The Sabbath was not given first to Moses, but to Adam. God blessed the Sabbath and made it holy not only for the benefit of ancient Israel, but originally for the man in the Garden (Genesis 2:1-3, Mark 2:27). Adam was to follow the pattern of His creator, working six days and resting one. The Sabbath was a gift for Adam, and for all his descendents, including you and I.[1]

II. The 4th Commandment has both moral and ceremonial elements. The Ten Commandments functions in two different ways: first, as the centerpiece of the constitution for the theocracy of Israel; second, as a comprehensive statement of the moral law of God. The Sabbath’s inclusion in the Ten Commandments should not make us less inclined but rather more inclined to view it as a moral imperative for all people. Obeying this command reminds us that we need rest, for we are not God. We are the creature, not the Creator. Moreover, the commandment teaches us God’s sovereignty over our time. That said, there is little doubt in my mind that the kind of Sabbath observance put forward in the Law given at Sinai was a Jewish Sabbath. The rules concerning how the Israelites were to observe the Sabbath were unique to them and were shadows pointing to the Messiah who was to come.

III. Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16 do refer to the Jewish Sabbath. I am not at all certain that Galatians 4:10 has reference to the Old Covenant Sabbath, but it does seem evident to me that such a reference is in view on the most plain reading of Romans 14:5-6 and Colossians 2:16. It appears that some Jewish Christians still felt the need to gather with their fellow Jews at the synagogue on the Old Covenant Sabbath. Paul makes clear that this is okay, but certainly not required. The Jewish Sabbath along with the other elements of Old Covenant ceremony are now fulfilled in Christ. However, this does not change the fact that the Sabbath was made for man, and that we still need a day of rest. Paul is not saying that the Sabbath principle is abolished, only the form of Old Covenant observance.

IV. Hebrews 4 does not negate the Sabbath principle. Certainly the ceremonial nature of the Old Covenant Sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. Certainly our ultimate rest is found in Christ. Yet even as Hebrews 4 reminds us of our present rest in Christ, it also reminds us of the perfect, future rest that we have not yet attained. We continue to need a day of physical rest and spiritual refreshment as we seek to enter that eschatological rest.

V. The Lord’s Day is the New Covenant Sabbath. The Sabbath principal is universal and was given to all of Adam’s descendents. Yet its observance has taken on different forms throughout history. There are important differences between Old Covenant and New Covenant observance. One of these differences is the day which we set aside. Another is the way in which we keep the day holy. Certainly it should still be a day of rest, for that is why it was given to us. Yet we also see in the New Covenant that it is primarily to be a day of assembling for worship and edification. Questions of how to keep the day holy should be left to conscience.

VI. The early church continued to observe the Sabbath principle. However, they did so in a way that encouraged Christians not to observe the Old Covenant Sabbath but the Lord’s Day (the New Covenant Sabbath). In the first few generations after the Apostles the distinction was often made between the “Sabbath” and the Lord’s Day. But it is clear that the “Sabbath” that was being prohibited by these early church fathers was the Old Covenant Sabbath – not observance of the Sabbath principle. Within a few decades the Lord’s Day was being called the “Christian Sabbath” and was recognized as a continuation of the Sabbath principle established in Genesis 2.

[1] Is it possible that Cain and Abel’s practice of bringing an offering to the Lord was in fact an observance of the Sabbath they had learned from their parents? Even if not, the fact that they knew to worship God through offerings shows that God certainly revealed some of His commandments long before the giving of the Law at Sinai. Moreover, Exodus 16 does seem to indicate that people knew what Sabbath observance was before it was included in the Ten Commandments. I take from all this that the Sabbath is a gift for all people, not just the Israelites.

Sabbath Questions Stated

2008-02-14T18:26:00.002-05:00

Hopefully these questions will help us to get the big picture of what the Scriptures teach on this subject:

1. Is the Sabbath a creation ordinance? If so, for who?

2. Is the Sabbath commandment ceremonial or moral (or both), and in what way has Christ fulfilled this law?

3. Does Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10, or Colossians 2:16 teach that the Sabbath commandment is no longer binding on God's people?

4. Exactly what does Hebrews 4 say and how does its message affect the question of Sabbath observance today?

5. What does the historical evidence tell us about how the early church answered this question?

Let me try and make a contribution to the discussion by pursuing question 3:

Does Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10, or Colossians 2:16 teach that the Sabbath commandment is no longer binding on God's people?

I'll quote some men much more knowledgable than I, and then give my opinion at the end.

a. Romans 14:5-6. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

Leon Morris gives only a brief statement: "This has often been taken to mean that the weak brother observes the Jewish Sabbath. But Paul does not say this, and it is equally possible that he is referring to feast days and fast days, either those laid down in the Jewish law or those derived from other sources."

But Tom Schreiner has much more to say: "Some commentators have identified the special days of observance with fast days. But this is too limiting, for the general reference to "days" suggests that festival days, new moons, and especially the Sabbath were also intended. Dunn notes rightly that fast days were not greatly controversial in the early church nor were the central in Judaism. Any Jew would inevitably think of the Sabbath, for this was the day that most distinguished Jews from others...Even in Greco-Roman writers the Sabbath was the day that came to mind when they considered the Jewish observance of particular days (see Juvenal, Satire; Tacitus, Histories). That Paul believed that observance of the Sabbath (along with food regulations) was not binding on the church is also evident in Col. 2:16. Sabbath and food regulations are considered to be "shadows: that are no longer in force now that Jesus Christ has come. The Apostolic Fathers point to the same conclusion, for they emphasize that believers keep not the Sabbath but the Lord's Day (he lists several references). They do not argue that the Lord's Day is the Sabbath. Instead, they distinguish the two, claiming that believers observe the former but not the latter."

Finally, Douglas Moo seems to concur with Schreiner, though admitting the problem is difficult: "Pinning down the exact nature of this disagreement over "days" is difficult since Paul does not elaborate. Some expositors trace the problem to the influence of the pagan environment, which might have led some Roman Christians to distinguish "lucky" and "unlucky" days, or to practice days of abstinence in accordance with certain Greco-Roman religious cults. But we have seen good reason to trace the root issue between the "strong" and the "weak" to Jewish concerns about the law. And the observance of the day was, of course, important in the OT and in Judaism. Whether the specific point at issue was the observance of the great Jewish festivals, regular days of fasting, or the Sabbath is difficult to say. But we would expect that the Sabbath, at least, would be involved, since Sabbath observance was, along with food laws, a key Jewish distinctive in the first century, and surfaced as a point of tension elsewhere in the early church (see Gal. 4:10[?]; Col. 2:16)."

Note that both Schreiner and Moo point to Galatians 4:10 and especially Colossians 2:16 as examples of a similar situation to that which the Romans are experiencing. Their understanding of Paul's response there affects their understanding of the passage here.

Galatians 4:10: You observe days and months and seasons and years!

Is Paul rebuking the Galatians for observing the Sabbath? I only have one good exegetical commentary on Galatians, but Timothy George seems to think that Sabbath is included in the word "days".

Colossians 2:16-17: Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Sabbatarians tend to regard the word "Sabbath" here as referring to other ceremonial sabbaths of the Old Testament, but not the weekly Sabbath.

F. F. Bruce says, however, "The onus probandi [burden of proof] lies on those who argue that the weekly sabbath is not included in this reference. When the sabbath is mentioned in the OT or the NT with no contextual qualification, the weekly sabbath is intended."

As for my opinion on this question, I would say this:

1. The most plain reading of these passages would seem to indicate that the Sabbath is in view.
2. These passages do not prohibit Sabbath observance, but do seem to put it in the category of the "weak brother" who has not recognized that the day was a "shadow" but the "substance" has come.

Nevertheless, my mind is still not settled on the question because while I think the above is most probable, it is possible that the passages above refer only to other Jewish days excluding the weekly Sabbath. I'm also still torn on some of the other questions I put forward at the beginning of this post.

In any case, there is one thing we should definitely learn from the Romans and Colossians passage. Bruce puts it this way: "Sabbatarian controversies among Christians would be laid to rest if serious account were taken of the injunction: "Let no one sit in judgment on you with regard to a sabbath.""

Preach Christ

2008-02-08T11:53:00.000-05:00

Brothers,
Reformation and Revival will come to our area when the preachers of God's Word get serious about preaching Christ and Him crucified.

Read this article by CJ Mahaney and adjust accordingly (or just be encouraged)!

"In each sermon let there be a sighting of the hill of Calvary and what was accomplished there by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

-Justin C.

The Sabbath

2008-02-04T23:19:00.000-05:00

Okay guys, let's deal with the question of the Sabbath head on (since it came up in the comments of the last post). Let me list some of the propositions of the Sabbatarians and then some of the non-Sabbatarians. Feel free to discuss any of the propositions you want.

Propositions of the Sabbatarians:

1. The Sabbath is a Creation ordinance established for all humanity in Genesis 2:1-3.

2. The Sabbath ordinance was known before it was reiterated as a part of the 10 Commandments. (Exodus 16)

3. Since the Sabbath is a Creation ordinance and a part of the 10 Commandments, it should not be considered a part of the "ceremonial" law fulfilled in Christ.

4. Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10, and Colossians 2:10 are referring to the ceremonial sabbaths of the Mosaic Law (there were many different sabbaths, after all), and do not teach that the 4th Command has been abrogated in some way.

5. Hebrews 4:9 (perhaps the central verse in the debate) either explicitly teaches Sabbatarianism (so Dabney) by using the word sabbatismos for "rest", or implicitly teaches Sabbtarianism (so most modern Sabbatarians) since the "type" (the earthly sabbath) will remain until it finds its fulfillment in the "antitype" (heaven).

6. The Apostles were led by the Spirit of Christ (who is "the Lord if the Sabbath") to change the sabbath from Saturday to Sunday in commemoration of the resurrection of our Lord.

Propositions of the non-Sabbatarians:

1. The Sabbath is not an ordinance established for all humanity. Though God did bless the seventh day and make it holy at Creation, this was only revealed to His people through Moses. The Sabbath command was given only to them.

2. The Sabbath was a "sign" of the Old Covenant which ended with that covenant.

3. Though the other nine commandments are reiterated in the New Testament, the Sabbath command is not. This is posited as evidence that the Sabbath command is a part of the ceremonial law, not the moral law.

4. Romans 14:5-6, Galatians 4:10, and Colossians 2:10 reveal that the Apostle Paul did not regard the Sabbath as binding on Christ's followers, and was not to be placed as an additional burden on Gentile converts.

5. Hebrews 4:9 and its context teach that New Testament believers find their sabbath rest in Christ.

6. There is no evidence from history that the Apostles changed the day of the Sabbath. Rather, the apostles viewed the sabbath as having been fulfilled and established an entirely new kind of day - the Lord's Day - as a day for meeting together to celebrate the resurrection of Christ.

I want to hear your thoughts about these propositions - which do you agree with and why? How does it affect your own Christian conduct and those under your care?

Canceling Services for the Super Bowl?

2008-02-01T11:15:00.000-05:00

Is it compromise to cancel Sunday night services for the Super Bowl? Does the idea of getting God's people out into the homes of their neighbors/coworkers this Sunday night sit well with you?

What are your thoughts on canceling church services for the Super Bowl? We're not, but I've heard of others that do, and I've had some thoughts about the positives and negatives of doing so.

T4G 2008 Message Titles

2008-01-30T13:42:00.002-05:00

I've posted the Message titles for T4G. I can't wait! Your thoughts?

-Justin C.

What To Do When You've Preached A Lousy Sermon

2008-01-29T23:00:00.000-05:00

This past Sunday night I continued preaching through Revelation by expounding Christ's letter to the church in Sardis. I believe I conveyed all the main points of the passage, but immediately after preaching felt that I had done a lousy job. I preached the truth, but it wasn't preached with the clarity, power, and conviction that I would have liked. The passage is so rich, and I feel my people left having not tasted its glory. I've even considered preaching the same passage again this Sunday night, just to have another chance at helping my congregation sense its weight.

So, how do you handle it when you feel a sermon didn't go well? Any good counsel to offer?

Spurgeon on Preaching

2008-01-25T21:24:00.000-05:00

"Do not say what everybody expected you would say. Keep your sentences out of ruts. If you have already said, 'Salvation is all of grace' do not always add, 'and not by human merit,' but vary it and say, 'Salvation is all of grace; self-righteousness has not a corner to hide its head in.' . . . . Occasional resorts to this system of surprise will keep an audience in a state of proper expectancy." (Charles Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, p. 137).

ht: Wilson

The Pros and Cons of Church Choirs

2008-01-23T22:06:00.001-05:00

What do you guys think about church choirs? Are they Biblical? Are they helpful? If you could have your preference, would your church have a choir? Why or why not?

Children and the Church

2008-01-21T21:44:00.000-05:00

Brothers, lets begin a discussion that is important and not talked about much.

At what age should beliving children become members of a local church?

When can a child fulfill the committments of a church covenant?

Why would we baptize a child but not allow them to be a member of our church?

I'm totally undecided on this issue. I'm really wanting to learn from you guys.

-Justin C.

Did You Heed Piper's Advice?

2008-01-21T10:05:00.000-05:00

He was hoping pastors wouldn't waste MLK weekend. So, did you preach/teach on or mention issues related to ethnic diversity? If not, why not? If so, how did it go?

On Sunday night I gave a talk, "Four Reasons Why I'm Thankful for Ethnic Diversity." It got a little tense at times, but I think most of the folks eagerly received it. What were the four reasons?

Because it shows there can be unity in the midst of diversity.
Because it shows the beautiful creativity of God.
Because it can cause us to grow in our capacity to love others.
Because it gives God more glory than otherwise.

Music for the Glory of Christ

2008-01-18T21:41:00.000-05:00

More on the "secular/Christian" music issue. Here's Bob Kauflin on Can Christian Musicians Play Secular Music for God's Glory?

Here are his main points to consider:

What is my motive for wanting to be involved in secular music?
A Christian's success in the secular music industry is not necessarily a sign of God's blessing.
Secular music doesn't necessarily mean godless or anti-Christian.
We can't judge musicians motives from a distance.
Being involved in secular music doesn't justify abandoning the church or minimizing faith.
The world needs to see people who've been changed by the gospel in every arena.
Not all music by Christians needs to expound the full gospel.

Driscoll's Controversial Interpretation

2008-01-18T16:20:00.000-05:00

In a few weeks I will be preaching from 1st Timothy in a sermon entitled "Manhood and Womanhood in the Family of God" which deals with gender roles in the local church. Of course, one of the key passages I'll be dealing with is 1st Timothy 2:12-14. In that passage, Paul argues from Genesis that women are not to have authority over men or teach them. One of his arguments is that it was the woman who was deceived, not the man. How are we to understand that argument?

Mark Driscoll has written what I think is one of the most provocative and controversial interpretations of this passage. I am not in full agreement with it. However, I would like to hear your opinions about his comments or Paul's argument.

(By the way: Driscoll is very blunt in his preaching. You've been warned.)

Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men. While many irate women have disagreed with his assessment through the years, it does appear from this that such women who fail to trust his instruction and follow his teaching are much like their mother Eve and are well-intended but ill-informed. . . Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them, pay for their own dates in the name of equality, spend an average of three-fourths of their childbearing years having sex but trying not to get pregnant, and abort 1/3 of all babies – and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality.

Thoughts?

Awakened Out of a Dream

2008-01-16T14:21:00.000-05:00

Here is Jonathan Edwards on hell in his sermon "That Such Persons Are Very Imprudent and Foolish Who Don't Consider Their Latter End" in the book, The Blessing of God: Previously unpublished sermons of Jonathan Edwards:

'Tis not at all more eligible to suffer tomorrow than today. You will hate pain and sorrow and torment as much when you come to die and after you are dead as you do now. You will not be at all more insensible of pain in that world that looks to you like a dream. Then in this world it will not look like a dream when your time comes, but you will be awakened out of a dream, for a person's sense and perception will be abundantly quicker and more lively hereafter than at present.

Sam Storms Conference

2008-01-16T08:59:00.000-05:00

The Sam Storms conference is just one month away (February 15-17).

I've posted an invitation and resources on my blog. Be sure to check out the link with Sam's audio sermons!!

In anticipation, here are some questions:

1. When did you first hear about Sam Storms?

2. What Sam Storms books have you read? Favorite?

3. What questions do you want to ask him while he is here?

-Justin C.

Agape and Porneia

2008-01-14T22:28:00.000-05:00

Okay, so a few months back we had this long drawn out debate about divorce and remarriage here on the blog. I think it was a healthy debate, but I have no desire to do it all over again. However, I did have a thought tonight that I think might could be helpful. If you remember, one of the key disagreements in the whole debate (perhaps the key disagreement) was over the meaning of the word porneia in Matthew 5. With absolutely no offense intended towards anyone, it seemed that for some porneia could only mean "sexual immorality", and not "premarital sex". Despite our going back and forth time and again, I could not seem to convince the others that porneia can mean "sexual immorality" in general or "premarital sex" more specifically. In Matthew 5, I believe the more specific meaning is in view.

Then tonight I was thinking about the Greek word agape (because of a discussion in Carson's Exegetical Fallacies). My thoughts went kind of like this: If we were to ask most any pastor to talk about the meaning of the Greek word agape, his eyes would immediately light up and with a big grin he would talk about how this word refers to that divine, unconditional love of God that we experience in Christ. It is the best kind of love in the world. And, of course, he'd be right. Kind of.

See, there are places in Scripture where agape does not refer to divine, unconditional love. In 2nd Timothy 4:10, for example, Paul tells us that Demas forsook him because Demas loved [agapao] this present evil world. In the Septuagint, the word agape is used in reference to Amnon's incestuous rape of his half sister Tamer (See Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p.31).

Agape has a general meaning: "love", which can have a variety of connotations. But agape can also be used (and often is) to refer to a particular, specific kind of love: "divine, unconditional love". Only the context tells us whether the general or specific meaning is intended.

This is exactly the case with porneia. Yes, it has a general meaning of "sexual immorality". But there is also sufficient evidence to show that it can have the specific meaning of "premarital sex" (a kind of sexual immorality). To argue that the word can only have the general meaning is to misunderstand how Greek words (or even English words) work.

Of course, this doesn't answer all the questions. One would need to prove that porneia can have this more specific meaning and then prove that the context points towards that meaning in Matthew 5. I won't rehash all of that -I think it has been sufficiently shown. I just thought the analogy with agape might be worth sharing.

Faith and the New Birth

2008-01-14T16:48:00.000-05:00

In case you missed it or for further consideration... Does Regeneration Precede Faith and Does It Matter? [pdf]

A Pastor's Story

2008-01-10T11:13:00.000-05:00

How does our theology explain what happened here?
How could things have turned out differently?

ht: purgatorio

Christians Who Don't Listen to Christian Music

2008-01-08T11:57:00.001-05:00

Hey guys, what do y'all think about this? I've recently read of some Christians who say they don't listen to "Christian" music (meaning those with Christian labels or in the Christian music industry). I don't have the links readily available for you but I read Derek Webb say it in an interview, Reformissionary (Steve McCoy) write it in a post, and another couple of bloggers who were "up" on music in the mainstream.

And I must say that I've been very interested in it because I haven't really listened to "Christian" music (or any music at all) within the last couple of years... just talk radio or sermons. I just got tired of the same old weak stuff that I heard on the radio.

Then, the other day I read the post, Samson and the Evangelical Community, by JD Greear. Here's the quote I posted on my blog.

Rather than engaging the culture, they retreated from it; rather than confronting the culture, they absorbed it. In other words, they were of the world but not in it.

Sadly, I think this describes our American evangelical Christian community. We are separated from the world, living in Christian enclaves reading Christian literature, watching Christian TV, listening to Christian music and talking with only Christian friends. We are separated from the world.

So, there it is again... Christian music. Have y'all thought much about this along with other media (movies, tv, books, other lit.)? What have you concluded?

January Theology Breakfast

2008-01-07T15:59:00.000-05:00

January Theology Breakfast

Topic: "DOES REGENERATION PRECEDE FAITH AND WHY IT MATTERS"

Speaker: Jim Upchurch, Assoc. Pastor at Red Oak Baptist

Where: Southside Baptist Church, Rocky Mount

When : 7:00 AM

Who's Invited? Pastors and laypeople who have an interest in theology.

How long does it last? The actual presentation with questions and answers should last about 45 minutes. Those needing to get to work are welcome to come and leave early.

See you there!!

Outreach Ideas for 2008

2007-12-28T16:24:00.000-05:00

What are your churches doing to get the Gospel out into your communities in 2008?

Christmas Books

2007-12-26T20:57:00.000-05:00

First, make sure you read the previous post on the Deacon discussion that's been going on.

Second, Justin C posted what books he received for Christmas over at his blog. Here's what I got:

The Message of the OT by Dever
The Message of the NT by Dever
The Gospel and Personal Evangelism by Dever
Spreading the Gospel in Colonial Virginia by Bond
The Blessing of God: Previously unpublished sermons of Jonathan Edwards
The Glory and Honor of God: volume 2 of unpublished Edwards
The Discipline of Grace by Bridges
Believers' Baptism by Schreiner

What did everyone else get? Or what did you give someone else?

1 Tim. 3:11

2007-12-26T14:19:00.000-05:00

Since our deacon discussion is not garnering much participation, I will throw out a final post on the subject.

In 1 Tim. 3, Paul sets forth the qualifcations for elders and deacons. In the midst of the deacon qualifications, Paul makes a reference to women (1 Tim. 3:11). Most of our english translations make an interpretation and make this a reference to "their wives" (the deacon's wives). However, there are a few hurdles that must be jumped in order to settle with this translation. So, here are a few of them:

1. If Paul was concerned that the deacons have godly wives, why was he not also concerned that the elders have godly wives? Are deacons' wives more important than elders' wives?
2. "Their" is not in the text. It literally reads, "Likewise, women must be...." If Paul would have wanted to refer to the deacons' wives, he could have easily included "their" in the text.
3. "Likewise" is used by Paul to introduce a new group in verse 8. This seems to be Paul's way of introducing a new office (this is just consistent exegesis).

At the end of the day, I don't know if Paul was referring to women deacons or if he was referring to deacons' wives. If someone proved to me that Paul was referring to the wives of male deacons, it would not make much of a difference. It would not mandate that only men can be deacons just as it would not mandate that deacons must be married (and have kids).

However, here is the crucial point I want to make: At the end of the day, my "male deacons only" friends must also admit something: Paul MAY have been referring to women deacons in this text. He MAY have intended 1 Tim. 3:11 to give some qualifications for those women who serve well as deacons. Now, they are probably saying (because of their understanding of other texts), "No, that would contradict other texts." However, if it could be proved that Paul was indeed referring to "women" instead of "their wives" in 1 Tim. 3:11, would you be willing to alter your interpretation of the other texts?

I (along with Piper, Dever, Mahaney, Kostenberger, MacArthur, Schreiner, Bruce Ware, and others) don't think any Biblical text says that only men can be deacons.

Again, this is not an important issue in the grand scheme of things. I led my church to only have male deacons. This is simply one of those issues that I enjoy discussing. Regardless of our position, we must be committed to complementarianism.

-Justin C.

A Homeschool Family

2007-12-24T00:29:00.000-05:00

Check this out!

Merry Christmas!

2007-12-22T09:30:00.001-05:00

"Seven Men"

2007-12-20T15:30:00.000-05:00

Let's turn our focus to a few "secondary" issues related to the women deacon issue. Of course, the goal is simply to sharpen our thinking, not to get into a pointless argument. And, I would love to hear from all of you.

Many of those who advocate only male deacons point to the historical narrative in Acts 6. They say the disciples chose seven men so therefore only men can be deacons. I have never heard a good answer to this question: If the Acts 6 narrative mandates only men as deacons, why does it not also mandate the number of deacons (seven)?

It seems to me that either the argument must be made from some other text or, to be consistent, a church should have seven male deacons (not six and certainly not eight).

Help me see where I am missing the difference between "seven" and "men" in Acts 6.

-Justin C.

What does it mean to "exercise authority"?

2007-12-18T08:31:00.000-05:00

In the comments on the last post, I referred to Wayne Grudem's Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. I would highly recommend this book to all pastors. It is a gold mine!

Also, you can read the entire book online here.

If you are following the discussion of what Paul meant by "exercise authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12, go to page 84 and begin reading Grudem's lists. Keep reading until you get to the part where he actually draws a line as to where he would stand on what a women can do and what a women cannot do in the church. Also, read his discussion of this word later in the book.

justin c.

On Women Deacons - 3

2007-12-17T10:01:00.000-05:00

Here are some initial thoughts on Justin N.'s post: Women Deacons - 2.

Good thoughts Justin N.!

1. Yes, Amen!

2. Absolutely!

3. Many people who advocate only male deacons use Acts 6:3 as their most powerful argument ("See, it says only MEN"). I find this a very weak argument. First, this is historical narrative. This is what the early apostles did in this particular situation. The point of this passage is to show how God was at work in this blossoming church; not to prescribe how every church should function. If this way of interpreting Acts were consistently applied, we would need to adjust some of our beliefs and practices (beginning with selling all our possessions). Second, notice that those who point to this passage want to prescribe the gender of deacons ("MEN") but not the number of deacons ("SEVEN"). Since the apostles set a precedent for choosing seven deacons, should we not also have seven deacons? I advocate that we interpret "men" and "seven" in the same way. I have yet to hear of a church that limits the number of deacons to seven.

4. Yes. This is the main implication from this historical narrative.

5. I'm not sure we want to say that deacons must be good managers (in general). 1 Tim. 3 says they must manage their own household well. I think this qualification has much more to do with how they love their family and discipline their kids, than it does with how well they organize things. The point of the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3 is that these people are examples of godliness. Let me try to give an example: What if a particular godly man lacks basic administration skills? He is bad at keeping a schedule, balancing his checkbook, and filing important documents. However, he is an exemplary husband and father. He loves his wife, disciplines his kids, and leads his family to pursue Christ. If I understand Justin N's understanding of the qualifications, this guy would not qualify as a deacon.
This is a question of how we view the qualifications in 1 Tim. 3. Is this list of qualifications meant to hint at the job description of a deacon? Or, is it primarily meant to prescribe the character and heart of a deacon? I think that this list is far more concerned with the character (example) of a deacon than what a deacon does. Notice that I didn't say this list has nothing to say about job description. It does. Verse 13 says deacons are to "serve well".

I think Hammett is right when he says, “Perhaps one reason why, in the providence of God, we are not given an explicit job description for deacons is to allow them the flexibility to serve in a variety of roles that allow the elders to focus on those things that most utilize their gifts and match their calling.”

6. Some of the same issues as #5 here. I don't disagree that the deacons had some responsibility for funds. However, the text says nothing about them being given authority over funds.

7. No problems here. This is a matter of preference. I like Capitol Hill's approach. It frees the deacons from the "board" mentality and pushes them into actually serving. Both approaches can be done well.

Bonus Thoughts:
1. I still think the disagreement surrounds what Paul meant by "authority" in 1 Tim. 2.
2. Nowhere does Scripture tell us that only men can be deacons.
3. 1 Tim. 3:11 may say that women can be deacons.

Wanting to be faithful to God's Word,
Justin C.

The Role of Deacons

2007-12-16T23:11:00.000-05:00

[This is the manuscript of a message I preached a few months ago at our church]

The Role of Deacons
Acts 6:1-6

The Office of Deacon
Turn with me to Philippians 1:1. Here, in his letter to the church in Philippi, Paul begins by naming himself and Timothy – the senders of the letter – and by naming its recipients. He says, “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, along with the overseers and deacons.”

Overseers we know. We’ve been learning about them for the past two weeks. We’ve seen that sometimes they are called “overseers”, other times “elders”, and once “pastors”. We’ve learned that every church is to be led by a plurality of overseers, and that they have been given the responsibility to feed God’s people, lead God’s people, and protect God’s people.

But who are these people called “deacons”? And what is their function in the local church?

Before we answer that question, let us stop for a moment and take note of something, namely, that pastors and deacons are the only two church offices taught in the Bible. We’ve learned about pastors, and we’re going to spend this morning and this evening learning about deacons, but after that there are no other offices taught in Scripture. Now, certainly there are often good, practical reasons for churches to have treasurers, secretaries, clerks, etc. But only two offices are required for Christ’s churches by Christ Himself: the eldership and the diaconate (the pastors and the deacons).

But what did these deacons do? To answer that question we must go to the book of Acts and look at the very first New Testament church. Let’s begin in Acts 2. This chapter begins with the incredible account of that moment when Christ poured out His Holy Spirit in a unique and overwhelming way on His followers, empowering them with faith and boldness to spread the Gospel. Following this we have Peter’s message to the crowd of thousands, articulating the gospel and the truth about the person of Jesus Christ. We are told that on that day alone three thousand souls were added to Christ’s followers. And here began the Jerusalem church.

At this early point in its history, the Jerusalem church had only one office – that of pastor – and oh what pastors these babes in Christ were privileged to have! The Apostles themselves, those who had walked and talked with Jesus, were the shepherds of this local church. And this church was healthy. Look at how it was described in Acts 2:42-47:

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many signs and wonders were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.”

Here we have a vibrant church, a church hungry for the Word, a benevolent and caring church, a church of real fellowship, and a growing church. This is the kind of church we should all long for! But, alas, the church did not continue constantly like this. Like every other church, the first church had problems arise. Turn with me to Acts 6:1-6.

Acts 6:1-6
Here, in response to a crisis, we find the office of deacon instituted. There was a legitimate need: the Greek-speaking widows needed food to live. God cares for the needy and desires especially for those among His own people to be cared for. At the same time, it would have been inappropriate for the apostles – the pastors of this church – to seek to handle this issue themselves. Their responsibility was to give themselves to prayer and to the Word – for this is what the people needed most of all. So, to ensure that the physical needs of these church members were met, and to relieve the pastors of this necessary duty, the first deacons seem here to have been appointed.

It is true that the word deacon (diakonos) is not actually used in the passage. But its verb form is. In verse 2, the apostles say that it is not right for them to give up the preaching of God’s Word in order to “deacon” (diakoneo) tables. The word deacon (diakonos) literally means “servant”, and was used to describe someone who waited tables.

In Scripture, every Christian is called to be a deacon in the sense that every Christian is called to be a diakonos, a servant the body of Christ. But only some are called to fill the office of deacon. And the way that we know that these men were being appointed to an office is that verse 6 says that the apostles laid their hands on them, which was the way that men were appointed to serve in an office in the church. (cf. 2 Timothy 1:6)

But what were these men set apart to do? First, we see that they were appointed to help care for the needy in their church. Particularly, these men were called upon to help ensure that none in the church with real needs were being overlooked. It is a powerful testimony to the Gospel when a church takes great strides to care for its own; it is a terrible – even blasphemous – testimony that is given when a church fails to care for the needy in its own midst. I thank God that in His distribution of salvation I was not overlooked! Let us overlook no one in our distribution of mercy.

Churches ought to put on display God’s compassion towards the needy. We read of this compassion in passages like Psalm 72:12-14

“For he delivers the needy when he calls, the poor, and him who has no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy. From oppression and violence he redeems their life, and precious is their blood in his sight.”

If He has pity on the weak and the needy, ought not we? Have we not been recipients of His mercy ourselves?

Moreover, the Bible makes clear that God’s favor is on those who care for the needy. Psalm 41:1-3 says:

“Blessed is the one who considers the poor! In the day of trouble the LORD delivers him; the LORD protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies. The LORD sustains him on his sickbed; in his illness you restore him to full health.”

All Christians are called to give themselves in care for the poor, but it is the deacons in particular who are to set the example of this, and who are to lead the way in the ministry of benevolence within the church.

(I need to press this further: Is there anyone in our church that is being overlooked? Are there people in our church with real, practical needs of any kind that we are failing to meet? Let us keep our eyes and ears open for the needs of each other, seeking ways that we can bless one another. Benevolence in a church should not only be done through the church budget – rather, we should be living lives of cheerful sacrifice towards one another. Let us be willing to confront one another often with this question: “Is there some way that I can help you?” Particularly, let us look to the needs of those who are widows, those who are feeble, and those who are under uniquely difficult circumstances. Let’s learn to love one another not only in talk, but in deed!
Allow me to ask: do we need to repent of having a blind eye and a hard heart towards the needs of others? Do we need to repent of perhaps always seeing ourselves as the ones in need rather than being content and seeking to help out others? Do we need to resolve anew this morning to imitate the compassion of Christ towards one another?)

Deacons are to lead us as examples in this endeavor.

Second, we see that deacons were appointed to handle tasks that would distract the pastors from their spiritual duties. Note verse 4: “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” Remember, the word “ministry” literally means “service”. So its not that deacons serve the church and pastors don’t. Rather, its two different kinds of service. Pastors serve the church through the service “of the Word”, deacons serve by taking on those tasks delegated to them that free up the pastors for prayer and ministry. Deacons themselves do not have any inherent authority in the church. Rather, they are delegated authority by the pastors to handle important needs of the church so that the pastors can devote themselves to the most important need: the need for God’s Word.

There ought to be a very close relationship between the pastors and the deacons. The deacons serve the pastors the way Aaron and Hur assisted Moses, when they helped him keep his arms raised so that Joshua and the Israelites would win the battle against the Amalekites. Deacons strengthen the pastors of a church by being there for them as helpers, ready and willing to handle whatever matters are delegated to them by the pastors.

Getting the Big Picture
In order for us to get the big picture, it is important for us to take a few moments to review all that we’ve learned so far about church polity. As I go through the following seven points, be sure to fill in the blanks in your sermon outline.

1. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18)
2. Christ rules His Church through His Word. (2 Timothy 3:16-17, John 17:17)
3. Christ calls and gifts pastors to oversee His churches. (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-3)
4. All churches are to be led by a plurality of pastors. (Philippians 1:1, Acts 14:23)
5. Pastors are to feed, lead, and protect God’s people. (Acts 20:17-38)
6. Pastors must be qualified men. (1st Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9)
7. Christ calls and gifts deacons to serve His churches. (Acts 6:1-6)
8. Deacons are to assist the pastors by handling those practical matters delegated to them. (Acts 6:1-6)
9. Deacons are to be particularly involved in caring for the needy within the church. (Acts 6:1-6)

Appointing Deacons
One question we need to consider is this: how should deacons be appointed within the local church?

To begin with, let us remember that the church belongs to Christ and that it is He who calls and gifts people for different forms of ministry. Every Christian is called and gifted in some way to serve the church, and it is Christ who particularly gifts certain men to serve in the office of deacon. It is the responsibility of the church, therefore, under the leadership of the pastors, to seek to recognize those in the church who are fit for the office and to install them into it.

What should we look for? Well, first of all we should look for those with a servant’s heart. We should look for those who are already acting like deacons – serving sacrificially out of love for Christ – and seek to place them into office. Second, we should particularly for those among us who not only love to serve but also have a special concern for the needy in our midst. These should be men whose hearts are easily moved to compassion, men who desire to show generosity to those in need. And finally, we should look for those who are good stewards, since deacons in particular are entrusted with the finances of the church. When the apostles entrusted the seven with caring for the widows, they were putting the resources of the church under their charge. Likewise, deacons are typically entrusted by the pastors and by the church with helping work on church budgets and developing a meaningful benevolence ministry. Therefore, they should be men who know how to manage resources well and with integrity.

Once these men are identified, the next step is to examine them according to the qualifications laid down in Scripture. These qualifications are laid down both here in Acts 6 and in 1st Timothy 3, and we will spend time looking at these tonight. No man should serve as pastor or deacon unless he has been properly examined and deemed qualified for the office.

And finally, each deacon is to be approved by the church and installed by the laying on of hands. This is what we see here in Acts 6, and we’ve already learned that this is how pastors are to be installed as well. By the way, I don’t think pastors should present a list of six qualified men and ask the church to choose three. In doing this, choosing deacons often can become more of a popularity contest. Rather, pastors should bring before the church one candidate at a time that they are convinced will do well in the office, and allow the church to express their opinion with a yes or no vote. Popularity contests should have no place in the local church.

The Number of Deacons
What about the number of deacons a church should have? The Bible never gives us an answer to this question, and it probably should differ from church to church. However, we shouldn’t miss that in Acts 6 there are only seven deacons chosen for a church that by this time had at least seven thousand members. If seven deacons were enough for seven thousand people, many Baptist churches may have a lot more deacons than they need.

John Hammett, professor of systematic theology up the road at Southeastern, has written on this subject. He says “the wisest course is to specify no number or ratio the church must maintain, but to be guided by two factors: the needs of the church and the number of qualified candidates, with the second being the more important of the two. A church can do well with a small number of deacons, but to have unqualified deacons invites problems. Moreover, there is no need for annual elections of deacons. Rather, new deacons should be selected as needs arise and as existing deacons need to withdraw from active service.”

Close
Like pastors, we should esteem our deacons very highly and be thankful for the work they do. They are here to serve us, and to set an example for us all to follow. Everyone of us has been called to serve. And of course, our greatest example is the Lord Jesus Christ, who came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many. Do you desire to be Christ-like? Then find your joy in “deaconing” – serving others sacrificially, giving of yourself in order to bless others. A church full of people all eagerly seeking to serve one another is a church that will flourish in grace and that will be used by God for the salvation of many. Amen.

Fantasy Update

2007-12-13T11:55:00.000-05:00

My fantasy football team has made it to the playoffs! I'm favored to win this weekend, but I'm playing a tough team that's been hot of late. If I win this game I play in the Championship Game next weekend. My team finished the season 11-3. Here's my team at the end of the season:

Starters

QB Tony Romo

RB Joseph Addai

RB Aaron Stecker

WR Randy Moss

WR Greg Jennings

WR Marques Colston

TE Jason Witten

K Robbie Gould

DEF Seahawks

Reserves

QB S Rosenfels

RB Justin Fargas

RB Keith Kenton

WR Calvin Johnson

DEF Cowboys

On another note, I'm looking forward to taking my family to the Cowboys / Panthers game a week from Saturday. Those of you with NFL Network, look for us in the stands!

Women Deacons - 2

2007-12-13T10:58:00.000-05:00

Some thoughts:

1. The responsibility to care for God's people belongs to those men whom He has called and gifted to serve as shepherds. These men are called "elders" or "pastors".

2. Pastors are called to feed God's people, lead God's people, and protect God's people.

3. In the church in Jerusalem, an issue arose that had serious spiritual consequences for the church. The apostles (the elders of the Jerusalem church) decided that the remedy for this situation was to to be sure that both the Hebrew and Hellenistic widows were receiving food in the daily distribution. They then set a precedent for deacons by delegating the responsibility for managing this process to seven men from within the congregation. These men were managers (scholars tells us that there were probably over a thousand widows in the Jerusalem church). Many men and women from within the church would have taken part in distributing the food, but these seven men were given the authority to manage the process and to oversee the distribution of church resources.

4. Deacons are called to handle those responsibilities delegated to them by the elders in order to free the elders for prayer and the ministry of the Word.

5. Since many of these responsibilities will include organizing and giving instructions to both men and women in the church, deacons need to be good managers (hence 1st Timothy 3). They should also be men (since other men will be under their charge).

6. Acts 6 sets a precedent for Deacons being given authority by the elders to oversee the distribution of church funds. This is why deacons must not be greedy for dishonest gain (1st Tim. 3).

7. If a plurality of men working together is important for eldership, I would suggest that it is also important for the diaconate. I think it was the wisdom of God that the apostles told the congregation to choose for themselves "seven men". These seven men were not given separate duties and called to go their own way, but rather they were to work together. So also, I believe deacons have an important office - one worthy of honor and respect - and the responsibilities entrusted to them by the elders need to be handled within the plurality. I am not in favor of deacons as "independent ministry managers" - so that one deacon is over the nursery, another over sound engineering, another over lawn maintenance, and they never meet together or hold each other accountable. In other words, I like the idea of "deacons' meetings", just as I like the idea of "elders' meetings".

R and R Fellowship Update

2007-12-07T14:49:00.000-05:00

As promised, here is the update for our meetings next year. We will meet the second Wednesday of the month at 7:00 AM at Southside Baptist Church. Breakfast will be provided. Here is a look at the first three months:

January: "Does Regeneration Precede Faith and Does it Matter?" - Jim Upchurch

February: "The Theological Systems Compared" - Justin Nale

March: "Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?" - Justin Childers

I also want to encourage you to look here and weigh in on your understandings of Scripture.

On Women Deacons - 1

2007-12-07T13:14:00.000-05:00

This is a very practical issue for our churches, so lets dialouge about it.
Just to let you know where I am on the issue: When I came to Christ Baptist I assumed that we would have women deacons. I am convinced that Scripture allows for women functioning as deacons and that it could be an extremely valuable role for the health of the church. However, in discussing our constitution, we quickly realized that our members were very uncomfortable with the idea. So, we launched into an extensive study of Manhood/Womanhood and the role of deacons. At the conclusion of the study, I was even more convinced that women deacons would be good for Christ Baptist. However, there was one factor and one factor only that kept us from having women deacons in our constitution: the area in which we live. If we had women deacons many people would immediately label us as a liberal church (this is tied to the unBiblical practice of "deacon boards."). So, we decided it best for the unity of the church to proceed with only male deacons. However, it seems that we will have women functioning as deacons, just not called deaconesses.

I imagine this debate will surround the role of deacon. I don't think the role of deacon violates the prohibition of 1 Tim. 2:12. If you think it does, you cannot have women deacons.

Let's begin with a source outside of our group to focus the debate. Here is Dr. Kostenberger's article on the subject (which I agree with). So, where do you disagree with Kostenberger?

-Justin Childers

Since We are Labeling Ourselves...

2007-12-06T15:18:00.000-05:00

I agree with Sam Storms on everything but 7.f.

Admittedly, I have done no study on the issue of the age of the earth. For some reason I just want to side with the "new earthers."
Anyone want to make a BRIEF case for the age of the earth?

-Justin Childers

The R&R Fellowship in 2008

2007-12-03T19:35:00.000-05:00

At our last meeting, several important things took place. We realized that our group was growing too large to be useful for personal accountability, and so we are encouraging all of us to have those men to whom we are accountable, but we are not looking at the R&R as such a group. Rather, the R&R exists to promote revival and reformation in the local churches of our region of North Carolina. Here is how we have decided to try and do this in 2008:

1. We are intending to hold a monthly theology breakfast at Sister's Restaurant on the 2nd Wednesday of each month at 7am. This breakfast is open to any interested pastors and laymen who want to hear and consider a presentation on an important theological subject. At each breakfast a R&R Member (or a guest with similar convictions) will bring a 30-35 minute talk on the subject and then will take questions. By 7:45 the presentation will be over and people will be free to discuss the subject with others at their table and to leave as they need to. This is the kind of breakfast they we hope many pastors will be interested in attending, and perhaps many laymen as well.

Here is the topic schedule:

January: “Does Regeneration Precede Faith and Does it Matter?”
February: “The Theological Systems Compared”
March: “Can Christians Lose Their Salvation?”
April: “Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in the Home and Church”
May: “The Necessity of Sanctification for Salvation”
June: “The Importance of Regenerate Church Membership”
July: “Genuine Evangelism: Considering Some Dos and Don’ts”
August: “Who Chooses Whom: The Doctrine of Election Considered”
September: “The Power of the Cross: Understanding Substitutionary Atonement”
October: “Church Government – What Does the Bible Teach?”
November: “The Various Eschatological Views Simply Explained”

2. We are hoping to find more opportunities for us to work together to put on conferences where men who share our theological convictions can come and share on important subjects. The Sam Storms conference on the Holy Spirit is hopefully just the first of many to come.

On another note, we elected four officers to lead our group. Randy A. is our President, meaning that it is his job to obtain speakers for each of the the theology breakfasts. His only criterion is that the speaker be a member of our fellowship or a guest who is in substantial agreement with the 1689 Confession. I have become the Vice President, meaning I jump in if Randy gets hit by a truck or a falling meteorite and dies. Jim is our treasurer, just in case we need someone to hold money in the midst of putting together conferences. Jason is our Moderator, meaning he gets to welcome everyone and moderate during the Q&A at the breakfasts.

As of right now, the R&R Fellowship is

Randy Alston

Justin Childers

Mike Edwards

Jason Gault

Justin Nale

Chad Tucker

Jim Upchurch

Allen Williams

The fellowship is open to any who hold a pastoral position in a Baptist church in our local area who is in substantial agreement with the 1689 Confession.

If anyone has any questions or issues that need to be addressed, you can email them to President Alston. Also, if you see a topic that you would particularly like to speak on, let him know.

We'll get fliers for the breakfasts made up and ready to distribute by the beginning of the new year.

Which Comes First?

2007-11-30T10:49:00.000-05:00

Last night Justin N. and I touched on this briefly, but I was wondering how others would look at this. Which comes first, reformation or revival? This is just for fun to see how we look at this. My answer was for the church (assuming regeneration) reformation comes prior to revival. That is, as the church is reformed back to the Scriptures, revival will follow. I could be alone so I would like to hear from others.

Holiday Delay

2007-11-28T17:35:00.000-05:00

Sorry that we haven't been posting here lately. There will be one more post coming (talking about some exciting plans for the R&R Fellowship next year), and then I will be taking a hiatus until January. Keep your eye out for that next post - I really like that we've decided to do for next year.

JN

An Excellent Article on Adoption

2007-11-09T15:32:00.001-05:00

This is a very good article by Justin Taylor.

Related Resources:

"Adopted into God's Family"
"Adopted By God"
"Adoption: The Heart of the Gospel"

A Good Word For Us Calvinists

2007-11-06T21:58:00.000-05:00

(Courtesy of Charles Spurgeon)

"There is no soul living who holds more firmly to the doctrines of grace than I do, and if any man asks me whether I am ashamed to be called a Calvinist, I answer—I wish to be called nothing but a Christian; but if you ask me, do I hold the doctrinal views which were held by John Calvin, I reply, I do in the main hold them, and rejoice to avow it. But far be it from me even to imagine that Zion contains none but Calvinistic Christians within her walls, or that there are none saved who do not hold our views. Most atrocious things have been spoken about the character and spiritual condition of John Wesley, the modern prince of Arminians. I can only say concerning him that, while I detest many of the doctrines which he preached, yet for the man himself I have a reverence second to no Wesleyan; and if there were wanted two apostles to be added to the number of the twelve, I do not believe that there could be found two men more fit to be so added than George Whitefield and John Wesley. The character of John Wesley stands beyond all imputation for self-sacrifice, zeal, holiness, and communion with God; he lived far above the ordinary level of common Christians, and was one "of whom the world was not worthy." I believe there are multitudes of men who cannot see these truths, or, at least, cannot see them in the way in which we put them, who nevertheless have received Christ as their Saviour, and are as dear to the heart of the God of grace as the soundest Calvinist in or out of Heaven."

Is the Divorce Horse Dead Yet?

2007-10-30T11:10:00.000-05:00

If not, I'll beat it just once more. But this will probably be my last post on divorce and remarriage for a while.

I wanted give some dialog about the points raised in Justin's sermon on divorce and remarriage. In it he acknowledges the objection:

In the Gospel of Matthew, doesn’t Jesus say that if one spouse commits adultery, the marital bond is broken, and the faithful spouse is now free to divorce and remarry?

Then, he lists 10 reasons why he disagrees with the one who answers 'yes' to this question. Here are the 10 reasons and my responses.

1. If the word “porneia” (sexual immorality) means “adultery” in these verses, then our marriages will not reflect Christ’s union with His Church. If our marriages are to reflect His bond with us, should we not also remain faithfully committed to our spouses even when they are not committed to us?

I don't take the word to mean "adultery." It is a general term indicating "sexual immorality." There seems to be good support for this in Kittel. In the OT and intertestamental period the use of "porneia" is a general term which may include adultery. Also, the Post-Apostolic Fathers distinguished "porneia" from "moicheia," but "moicheia" was a form of "porneia." Also, taking the word as "fornication" or "sexual immorality" in the context of Mt. 19 seems like the better option. We should also note that "fornication," even in English, is a general term that sometimes includes adultery.

Nonetheless, the objection remains. Our marriages should reflect Christ's union with his Church, yes. But the marriage bond is between two imperfect people. Christ always treats his Church graciously and he is never injured by our unfaithfulness. The analogy of Christ and the Church, and man and wife eventually breaks down. Ex: Christ is the head of the Church as man is head of the wife, but the man is not perfect and he shouldn't be obeyed as Christ is obeyed. We should remain committed to our spouses even when they are not committed to us. Separation is permitted and not commanded.

2. An understanding of Jewish marriage practices in the first century provide an adequate explanation for what Jesus meant when He said, "except for sexual immorality."

I would agree that Jesus' teaching certainly includes premarital sex (being found with some indecency during the betrothal or at the consummation) as a reason for divorce, but in the context, it doesn't seem to be what Jesus and the Pharisees are talking about. Rather, they are discussing marriage in general. If they were talking exclusively about premarital sex and divorce during the betrothal period, we should expect there to be more evidence of this. The straight-forward reading of the text reveals that marriage in general and sexual immorality in general is the issue at hand.

3. Jesus could have used the word for adultery (“moichea”) if that is what He intended to say, but he chose not to. Also include points 4, 5, and 6, here, as they are all related to the use of "porneia."

No complaints here. The use of the word "sexual immorality" can include immorality before the marriage (without prior knowledge), during the betrothal period, and after consummation. If he would have used the word "moichea," it would not include unknown sexual immorality before the marriage.

7. The betrothal view makes sense because it would specifically apply to Matthew’s Jewish audience and not to Mark or Luke’s Gentile audience, which explains the omission of the exception clause there.

There is no contradiction in these verses according to the majority view. Scripture interprets Scripture. Therefore, when something doesn't seem to jibe or make sense, you go to the fuller teaching and let that interpret the other verses. In this case, the Matthew text is fuller, so we should use that to inform our readings of Mark and Luke. Similarly, Luke informs a proper reading of Mark on the divorce issue, applying it to the woman also. Mark and Luke lay out the general rule. Matthew gives the general rule and provides an exception to it.

Examples:

General Rule: "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23).
Exception: "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).

General Rule: Teacher: If anyone leaves this classroom before the test is over, he will receive a failing grade
Exception: Teacher: If anyone leaves this classroom before the test is over (except for an emergency), he will receive a failing grade.

Those two statements are not contradictory. Both have the general rule, but one explains that there is an exception in case of an emergency. If these two statements were read or heard in a classroom, we would not see a problem with it. We would allow the fuller statement to inform the general that appears absolute.

8. For those who would argue that betrothal is not in view in Matthew 5 or 19, I should point out that they are exactly right. Indeed, that seems to me to be the whole point. Jesus is saying that “porneia” - sexual immorality before a husband and wife come together in marriage – is not what He’s talking about.” That is the whole point of the exception clause.

I guess this is where some speculation comes into play. We're trying to figure out what the hearers would hear... or what the readers would read. How would the Jewish readers take this teaching? And I just don't see it the same way you do. "Porneia," as mentioned previously, was used as a broad term denoting sexual immorality. It doesn't seem like that the "hearers/readers" would automatically think "betrothal period" when Jesus uses the word "porneia." It seems more likely to me that they would think of general sexual immorality.

Let me say also that this would not open the floodgates for divorce. Jesus has already said that the original intention for marriage is one man and one woman in a lifetime of marriage. He has also said that divorce was permitted because of "hardness of heart." That's the context for this exception. The general rule is "no divorce." The exception is sexual immorality.

9. Just before Jesus teaches on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 19, He speaks on the issue of forgiveness, calling us to forgive others not seven times, but seventy times seven. How would the view that adultery is grounds for divorce square with this?

We should forgive one another, no doubt. In marriage, husband and wife should live sacrificially for one another, seeking the fulfill the needs of the other. But it also seems divorce (reserved for extreme circumstances) may be the most loving thing in some circumstances. It is not God's original intention, but he permits it because of the hardness of hearts.

Also, forgiveness doesn't mean that there are no consequences for certain actions. In the Old Testament, the consequence for sexual immorality would be death. That's not very forgiving. Further, unconditional love and forgiveness is not only required of married couples, but of everyone who follows Jesus. Forgiveness doesn't negate consequences.

10. If your spouse commits adultery, which would better display the character of God? Choosing to divorce your spouse and marry someone else, or choosing to be faithful and forgiving towards your spouse no matter how unfaithful he or she may have been to you?

Forgiveness would better display the character of God. That should always be the default reaction to unfaithfulness. But, can't you see how divorce might be the loving thing for extreme cases (severe abuse, child molestation, serial and continual adultery)? And if we allow it for one of these extreme cases, our discussion changes. Then it becomes about what is and isn't permissible divorce, and avoids the argument that divorce is never permissible (Also see Doug Wilson's article, Time to Walk.).

But isn't this already the case from 1 Cor. 7:15? In your sermon, you say:

If the unbelieving spouse wishes to separate, let it be so... Note, saying that the husband and wife can separate - even if this is taken to mean divorce - does not mean that their spiritual bond is broken. It is God who creates the bond, and it is only God who can destroy it. In order that there may be peace and that Christ's union to the Church not be blasphemed, the couple is allowed to separate.

Doesn't that contradict what you'd said earlier in the sermon?
Therefore, just as we believe that Christ would never break nor defile His union with His church, nor should any person seek to break or defile the marital union with his or her spouse. To seek a divorce is to try (unsuccessfully) to break the union which God created; to remarry is to defile that union. I think Scripture and love for Christ prohibits both.
I'll add that one's view of "covenant" will determine his/her view of the marriage covenant. Can some covenants be broken/annulled? If you say 'yes' then you are more likely to say that divorce is sometimes, regrettably, allowed. If you say 'no' then you're more likely to say divorce, being a covenant, is never allowed. It seems, though, that those who hold to a "divorce never allowed" view, impose that view onto their view of "covenant."

John Newton on Marriage

2007-10-29T22:35:00.001-05:00

This letter from John Newton to a newly married woman is filled with pastoral insight into the purpose and value of marriage.

April 13, 1776.

Dear Madam,

I am rather of the latest to present my congratulation to you and Mr. **** on your marriage, but I have not been unmindful of you. My heart has repeatedly wished you all that my pen can express,, that the new relation in which the providence of God has placed you may be blessed to you in every respect, may afford you much temporal comfort, promote your spiritual progress, and enlarge your sphere of usefulness in the world and in the church.

By this time I suppose visits and ceremonies are pretty well over, and you are beginning to be settled in your new situation. What an important period is a wedding-day! What an entire change of circumstances does it produce! What an influence it has upon every day of future life I How many cares, inquietudes, and trials, does it expose us to, which we might otherwise have avoided! But they who love the Lord, and are guided by his word and providence, have nothing to fear; for in every state, relation, and circumstance in life, he will be with them, and will surely do them good. His grace, which is needful in a single, is sufficient for a married, life.

I sincerely wish Mr. **** and you much happiness together; that you may be mutually helps meet, and assist each other in walking as fellow-heirs of the hope of eternal life. Your cares and trials I know must be increased; may your comforts be increased proportionally! They will be so, if you are enabled heartily and simply to entreat the Lord to keep your heart fixed near to himself.

All the temporal blessings and accommodations he provides to sweeten life, and make our passage through this wilderness more agreeable, will fail and disappoint us, and produce us more thorns than roses, unless we can keep sight of his hand in bestowing them, and hold and use the gifts in some due subserviency to what we owe to the Giver. But, alas! we are poor creatures. prone to wander, prone to admire our gourds, cleave to our cisterns, and think of building tabernacles, and taking our rest in this polluted world. Hence the Lord often sees it necessary, in mercy to his children, to embitter their sweets, to break their cisterns, send a worm to their gourds, and draw a dark cloud over their pleasing prospects. His word tells us, that all here is vanity, compared with the light of his countenance; and if we cannot or will not believe it upon the authority of his word, we must learn it by experience. May he enable you to settle it in your hearts, that creature-comforts are precarious, insufficient, and ensnaring; that all good comes from his hand, and that nothing can do us good, but so far as he is pleased to make it the instrument of communicating, as a stream, that goodness which is in him as a fountain. Even the bread which we eat, without the influence of his promise and blessing, would no more support us than a stone; but his blessing makes every thing good, gives a tenfold value to our comforts, and greatly diminishes the weight of every cross.

The ring upon your finger is of some value as gold; but this is not much: what makes it chiefly valuable to you is, that you consider it as a pledge and token of the relation you bear to him who gave it you. I know no fitter emblem of the light in which we should consider all those good things which the Lord gives us richly to enjoy. When every thing we receive from him is received and prized as a fruit and pledge of his covenant-love, then his bounties, instead of being set up as rivals, and idols to draw our hearts from him, awaken us to fresh exercises of gratitude, and furnish us with fresh motives of cheerful obedience every hour.

Time is short, and we live in a dark and cloudy day. When iniquity abounds, the love of many waxes cold; and we have reason to fear the Lord's hand is lifted up in displeasure at our provocations. May he help us to set loose all below, and to be found watching unto prayer for grace to keep our garments undefiled, and to be faithful witnesses for him in our places! O! It is my desire for myself and for all my dear friends, that whilst too many seem content with half profession, a name to live, an outward attachment to ordinances and sentiments and parties, we may be ambitious to experience what the glorious Gospel is capable of effecting, both as to sanctification and consolation, in this state of infirmity; that we may have our loins girded up, our lamps burning, and, by our simplicity and spirituality, constrain those who know us to acknowledge that we have been with Jesus, have sat at his feet, and drank of his spirit.

I am, &c.

For More Info On The Betrothal View

2007-10-27T22:50:00.000-05:00

1. For an Academic Perspective, Listen to David Jones' Message on the Subject Here.

2. For a Church's Perspective, Read This Statement from 10th Presbyterian in Philly.

3. For a Pastoral Perspective, Read John Piper's Position Paper Here. (Or pick up his book What Jesus Demands From The World).

For a different take on "porneia" in Matthew, consider the relevant portion of this essay. (I am not in agreement with this essay, but want to point out another example of a minority interpretation that harmonizes Matthew with Mark and Luke.)

The Best J. I. Packer Book Ever!

2007-10-26T16:03:00.000-05:00

Knowing God was good. Rediscovering Holiness was better (though apparently out of print). But no Packer book beats A Quest For Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life. This book is a must read - I've read its various chapters on numerous occasions. It is full of great quotes and illustrations, and though its academic, it cuts straight to the heart.

The book has six sections, each containing three chapters:
1. The Puritans in Profile
2. The Puritans and the Bible
3. The Puritans and the Gospel
4. The Puritans and the Holy Spirit
5. The Puritan Christian Life
6. The Puritans in Ministry

I have told many people before that I consider this one of the top 5 books I've ever read. If you haven't read it, do so soon.

The Nature of Faith

2007-10-26T08:01:00.000-05:00

"It is the nature of faith to believe God upon His bare word.... It will not be, saith sense; it cannot be, saith reason; it both can and will be, saith faith, for I have a promise."

- John Trapp

The Great Divorce Debate

2007-10-19T21:15:00.000-05:00

Okay, so not really a debate as much as a few views articulated about Jesus' teaching on divorce. Here's the rundown:

David Instone-Brewer wrote the article, What God Has Joined, explaining what seems to be a very permissive view.
John Piper (who holds to the "betrothal view") writes a response, Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce.
Andreas Kostenberger clears things up agreeing with both Instone-Brewer and Piper at points, and briefly outlining what he views as the option that is exegetically most defensible and pastorally most sensible, in Clarifying the NT Teaching on Divorce.

Update: Kostenberger posts reader questions and his responses.

Here's one of the more interesting Q&A:

Q: How do you account for the lack of exception clause in Mark and Luke? Does that not lend support to the “betrothal view”?
A: Ultimately, I don’t know why the exception clause is not in Mark and Luke. Don’t listen to anyone who tells you he does (he’s lying). I believe we’re left here with reasonable inferences. In God, Marriage & Family, on p. 242, I quote Instone-Brewer at length, who notes that there are times when it is reasonable to infer from scriptural silence on an issue that people commonly agreed on this issue. If this is true in the present case, Mark and Luke may have felt they did not need to state an exception that was commonly agreed upon, namely, that adultery constituted a legitimate ground for divorce, and Matthew included this only as a side comment, as it were. Having said that, I believe that even having the exception clause—not once, but twice in Matthew—only in one Gospel requires us to obey what it says, and we should be careful not to try to explain it away or “harmonize” it with Mark and Luke just because these Gospels do not include it.

The Sovereignty of God

2007-10-18T08:53:00.000-05:00

"The Sovereignty of God. What do we mean by this expression? We mean the supremacy of God, the kingship of God, the god-hood of God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that God is God. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Most High, doing according to His will in the army of Heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, so that none can stay His hand or say unto Him what doest Thou? (Dan. 4:35). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the Almighty, the Possessor of all power in Heaven and earth, so that none can defeat His counsels, thwart His purpose, or resist His will (Psa. 115:3). To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is "The Governor among the nations" (Psa. 22:28), setting up kingdoms, overthrowing empires, and determining the course of dynasties as pleaseth Him best. To say that God is Sovereign is to declare that He is the "Only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15). Such is the God of the Bible.

How different is the God of the Bible from the God of modern Christendom! The conception of Deity which prevails most widely today, even among those who profess to give heed to the Scriptures, is a miserable caricature, a blasphemous travesty of the Truth. The God of the twentieth century is a helpless, effeminate being who commands the respect of no really thoughtful man. The God of the popular mind is the creation of maudlin sentimentality. The God of many a present-day pulpit is an object of pity rather than of awe-inspiring reverence. To say that God the Father has purposed the salvation of all mankind, that God the Son died with the express intention of saving the whole human race, and that God the Holy Spirit is now seeking to win the world to Christ; when, as a matter of common observation, it is apparent that the great majority of our fellowmen are dying in sin, and passing into a hopeless eternity; is to say that God the Father is disappointed, that God the Son is dissatisfied, and that God the Holy Spirit is defeated. We have stated the issue baldly, but there is no escaping the conclusion. To argue that God is "trying His best" to save all mankind, but that the majority of men will not let Him save them, is to insist that the will of the Creator is impotent, and that the will of the creature is omnipotent. To throw the blame, as many do, upon the Devil, does not remove the difficulty, for if Satan is defeating the purpose of God, then, Satan is Almighty and God is no longer the Supreme Being.

To declare that the Creator's original plan has been frustrated by sin, is to dethrone God. To suggest that God was taken by surprise in Eden and that He is now attempting to remedy an unforeseen calamity, is to degrade the Most High to the level of a finite, erring mortal. To argue that man is a free moral agent and the determiner of his own destiny, and that therefore he has the power to checkmate his Maker, is to strip God of the attribute of Omnipotence. To say that the creature has burst the bounds assigned by his Creator, and that God is now practically a helpless Spectator before the sin and suffering entailed by Adam's fall, is to repudiate the express declaration of Holy Writ, namely, "Surely the wrath of man shall praise Thee: the remainder of wrath shalt Thou restrain" (Psa. 76:10). In a word, to deny the Sovereignty of God is to enter upon a path which, if followed to its logical terminus, is to arrive at blank atheism.

The Sovereignty of the God of Scripture is absolute, irresistible, infinite. When we say that God is Sovereign we affirm His right to govern the universe which He has made for His own glory, just as He pleases. We affirm that His right is the right of the Potter over the clay, i. e., that He may mold that clay into whatsoever form He chooses, fashioning out of the same lump one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor. We affirm that He is under no rule or law outside of His own will and nature, that God is a law unto Himself, and that He is under no obligation to give an account of His matters to any."

- A. W. Pink (this was written and preached in the 1920's).

What are you guys preaching in the next few weeks?

2007-10-09T16:26:00.000-05:00

Thought I would get a little discussion going that will lead to some specific prayer for each other.

I'm in Gal. 6:1-5 this Sunday.

-Justin C.

Coming Soon...

2007-10-03T12:11:00.000-05:00

100 Daily Meditations on Colossians from Sam Storms.

posted by Justin C.

Meet Tremper Longman III

2007-09-28T18:18:00.000-05:00

(This is the second of a series of posts on professors / pastors / theologians that I respect and thank God for. Bios come from the home institution websites, and then are followed by my comments)

"Tremper Longman is the Robert H. Gundry Professor of Biblical Studies. He came to Westmont in the 1998-99 school year after teaching for eighteen years at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. His teaching responsibilities at Westmont include Life and Literature of the Old Testament (a GE requirement) as well as various upper division classes. Representative of the latter is the course in Biblical Interpretation, Old Testament Psalms and Wisdom, the Pentateuch, and the Bible in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Dr. Longman has degrees from Ohio Wesleyan University (B.A.), Westminster Theological Seminary (M.Div.), and Yale University (M.Phil.; Ph.D.). He has written a number of articles and books...At present, he is engaged in research on the history of Israel, the biblical genres in the light of ancient Near Eastern literature, as well as commentaries on Proverbs and Jeremiah. He has also been active in the area of Bible translation, in particular he serves on the central committee that produced and now monitors the New Living Translation. Tremper and his wife Alice have three sons. In his spare time, he watches movies and plays squash."

Longman, like Waltke, is a scholar with a pastors' heart. Though he is concerned with historical and literary questions, he is most concerned with the message of the text (and the God that we meet through the message). He has written excellent commentaries on Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Daniel. Most helpful to me, however, has been the book he co-wrote with Raymond Dillard: An Introduction to the Old Testament. (Carson and Moo wrote the volume on the New Testament). Considering that my OT profs in college had only one goal (to show that the OT is full of errors and historical inaccuracies), this book has helped me tremendously. More recently, I've been blessed by his book "Immanuel in Our Place: Seeing Christ in Israel's Worship". I intend to use this one and Allen Ross' "Holiness to the Lord" next year when our church spends some time in Leviticus. Finally, last year I picked up the book Longman did with Provan and Long, "A Biblical History of Israel". This book was so helpful! It gives an overview of Israel's history built on the supposition that the Bible is true, but also addresses critical questions from archaeology and other historical disciplines (did I mention that the first 100 pages are on historical methodology? I know it sounds boring, but it really was a fascinating read. It was particularly helpful considering my OT classes in college - or did I mention that already?) To see more helpful comments, check out what others thought about the book on the amazon page. (But of course, buy from wtsbooks.)

Meet Bruce Waltke

2007-09-27T18:48:00.000-05:00

(Reflecting on the previous post, and since my time has been kind of constrained lately, I thought it might be good for me to do a few posts about some of the professors / pastors / teachers I admire most. The bios will come from the webpages of their various institutions, and then I will add a few comments of my own. Feel free to contribute to this series if you'd like.)

"Dr. Bruce Waltke is a preeminent Old Testament scholar, holding doctorates from Dallas Theological Seminary (Th.D.) and Harvard University (Ph.D.). His teaching appointments at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College, and Westminster Theological Seminary won for him a reputation as a master teacher with a pastoral heart. He has written prolifically and his publications include, Intermediate Hebrew Grammar, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Understanding the Will of God, and a commentary on Micah. He served as Old Testament editor for the New Geneva Study Bible and co-editor for the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Dr. Waltke recently completed a commentary on Proverbs and is writing a commentary on Genesis. He was also a member of the translation committee for the New International Version. He served a term as president of the Evangelical Theological Society. "

I first encountered Dr. Waltke through the New Geneva Study Bible (the NKJV of the Reformation Study Bible) where he provided the notes on Genesis. Particularly helpful to me has been his book on Genesis, which includes his notes from the Study Bible alongside helpful discussions of the theology in each passage (as opposed to many commentaries, which get lost in textual or historical questions). Since then, I have discovered his work on Micah and his more recent work on Proverbs in the NICOT series. All are not only scholarly, but exceptionally helpful in getting at the message of the text. Since this is the most important goal of a commentary (imho), I think Waltke sets a good example for other scholars to follow. (Waltke is also highly respected by his peers. J. I. Packer and Sven Soderland edited a book called "The Way of Wisdom" which is a collection of essays written in his honor by the likes of John Sailhamer, Ian Provan, Peter Enns, Gordon Fee, and Roger Nicole.)

Buy This Book!

2007-09-26T23:12:00.001-05:00

Even if you have to sell something on Ebay to get the money. Even if it means not going out for that steak dinner. Even if you really need some new shoes. THIS BOOK IS WORTH THE SACRIFICE.

I'm talking, of course, about Bruce Waltke's new book: "An Old Testament Theology". This is the kind of 1000 page book that few are truly qualified to write, and perhaps none more so than Waltke. (Perhaps I'm a bit over excited, but I have yet to find an Old Testament scholar that I respect more, and this book is the product of decades of Waltke's reading, thinking, praying, preaching, and teaching.) Every pastor (and every Christian) needs to have a good understanding of the O.T. in order to really grasp the N.T. So I'm buying this book, and I would encourage you to do so as well.

Are You Laboring For Their Joy?

2007-09-25T14:47:00.001-05:00

Christ's Power Rests on the Weak

2007-09-17T10:54:00.000-05:00

Listen to this quote by C.S. Lewis and try to figure out what he’s talking about: “There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people… ever imagine that they are guilty themselves. I have heard people admit that they are bad-tempered, or that they cannot keep their heads about girls or drink, or even that they are cowards. I do not think I have ever heard anyone who was not a Christian accuse himself of this vice. And at the same time I have very seldom met anyone… who showed the slightest mercy to it in others. There is no fault which makes a man more unpopular, and no fault which we are more unconscious of in ourselves. And the more we have it ourselves, the more we dislike it in others.”

The sin of pride plagues us all. We all want to be seen as strong, independent people. If we’re insulted, we try to insult back. When we’re persecuted, we try to fight back. When someone goes through a difficult time, some may say that he needs to pull himself up by his bootstraps. We like others to know how strong we are. It makes us feel good about ourselves. It makes us feel important, like we're somebody. Think about it... really think about it for yourself. What is it that you like to boast about? What do you like for other people to know about you because it makes you feel important?

This morning we're going to look at a passage of Scripture that talks about strength and boasting. In 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, Paul says that he will boast about himself. But, he says something that should strike us as odd. He says that he will gladly boast in his weaknesses. When is the last time you boasted to someone about your weaknesses? We like to brag about our strengths, not our hardships or troubles.

But Paul said he would boast in his weaknesses. Why would he do that? What's so important about boasting in your weaknesses? Why should we do this when our culture says that you should boast in your strengths and disguise your weaknesses? Let's look at our text together.

Look with me at 2 Corinthians 12:1-10.

Paul wrote 2 Corinthians to the believers in Corinth in order to call them to be unified with him and his ministry. In his previous letter he wrote to them to be united together in love. But now, there were some who were trying to undermine Paul's authority and leadership. They were saying that his great sufferings and trials proved that he wasn't a true apostle of Jesus. Paul responds by saying that that is what proves that he is a true disciple. The fact that he has endured such persecutions and sufferings shows his own weakness and his dependence on Jesus Christ for strength.

Paul's Humbling Thorn (2 Cor. 12:7-8)
First, I want us to notice what Paul calls his thorn in verse 7. He says that if anyone has reason to boast it would be him. He thinks he wouldn't be wrong to boast about some of his strengths because he would be telling the truth. Specifically, he's talking about the revelations that God had given to him. Look again at verses 2-4: "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven - whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise - whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows - and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter."

Paul had seen some great and wonderful things. God had revealed heaven to him. Paul had heard and seen things that he could not tell others about. Because of this, there may have been a temptation to be proud and conceited. Have you ever known a secret that others didn't know and it made you feel proud? That's the temptation that Paul probably felt. He knew the great secrets of heaven and paradise. He couldn't tell anyone, but just knowing it could have easily made him feel more important than others.

So, in order to keep Paul from being to exalted or proud, he was given a "thorn in the flesh." He calls it a "messenger of Satan" which harasses him. It is interesting that he says this thorn was given to him... as if it was a sort of gift from God. There has been much speculation about what this thorn was. The word Paul used refers to a pointed piece of wood or a sharp stake. It was probably some sort of physical affliction that was painful and humiliating. Also, Paul says that he was harassed. It is like he was being punched in the face over and over again.

Paul probably felt as if he couldn't bear it any more. It hurt. He didn't like it. So, he asked God to take it from him. Then he asked again... and again.

Maybe you've felt that way. Maybe something continues to bother you day after day, year after year. Maybe it is a physical pain... maybe emotional or spiritual. It feels like you just keep getting punched in the face. It hurts and you want it to stop. You've asked the Lord to take it from you over and over again. But it doesn't seem to help. It doesn't go away. This was what Paul was going through. He had experienced great revelations from God, yet he was given a "thorn" in the flesh to harass him that he might not become proud.

As gently as I can, let me just say that this may be your answer. As hard as it may be to accept, could it be that God is wanting to use this pain in your life to keep you humble or to grow your faith? I don’t want to make light of your situation. I know it is very hard for some of you... some of the things you've gone through or are currently going through. Remember what James says in James 1:2-4, "Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."

When you're tested... when you go through trials, God wants to use those circumstances to produce endurance in your faith, so that you might be a mature and complete follower of Christ. Our trials are meant for our good. That's the only reason we can rejoice in them. If nothing good came from them, what would be the good in rejoicing in them? But God is using them to make us better... to bring us into conformity with his image.

So, we left off with Paul asking the Lord three times to remove the thorn from him. Let's look now at the answer he received.

Christ's Power Rests on the Weak (2 Cor. 12:9)
The first word in verse 9 tips us off that it's not the answer Paul was hoping for. It's the word but. Paul had asked the Lord to remove it from him, but the Lord said... Sometimes God doesn't answer our prayers in the way we would like, does he? The example of Paul here shows us that God isn't always concerned with our comfort. Some things are more important than our comfort. People getting saved! Feeding the hungry is more important! Sharing the gospel is more important! Do you ever notice how our prayers seem to always focus on our comfort? But sometimes God is more concerned with who he is making us into than with whether or not we're comfortable.

The Lord answered Paul, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

"I see the pain you're in. I see that you're hurting. I see that you want it to just go away. But my grace is sufficient for you. My grace is enough to hold you up and bring you through this. My grace is enough for you to be satisfied in this difficult circumstance." Then someone might say, "But you don't know what I'm going through Jesus. You don't know how much it hurts."

But let me remind you of what Jesus Christ went through while he was here on earth. During his ministry, he was always having to escape the capture of the Pharisees. They wanted to kill him. And they finally got their wish. Though he had done nothing wrong, Jesus was beaten until he was unrecognizable. He had not just a thorn in his side, but a crown of thorns shoved onto his head. As if that wasn't enough, he was nailed through his hands and feet to a wooden cross where he was left to die. And that's just the physical pain. Remember that on the cross he bore the full wrath of God for sinners. He was forsaken by the Father because he was carrying our sin. I can't imagine the emotional and spiritual pain Jesus went through in order that we might be saved. He's been there. He knows what you're going through. He has encountered every type of temptation that we have... only he never sinned. When Jesus says, "My grace is sufficient," he is speaking as one who knows. He's the one who bought you with his blood.

Now look at the reason why the Lord's grace was sufficient for Paul. The Lord said, "for my power is made perfect in weakness." The reason why the Lord's grace is sufficient is because his power is made perfect in weakness.

Picture it this way: Imagine a man who has everything. He's rich. He's popular. He's healthy. He never goes through pain. Can God get glory from that? Yes. I think so. God can get glory from that type of man if he trusts in Christ and gives honor to God. But then there's also the possibility that you make a mistake. You may say, "That man has worked hard for all he has... he really is a powerful and great guy!" You may misplace where the power actually is. The power rests with God, not with man. But in this case you may mistakenly say that the man has power.

But in a weak person, there's no doubt where the power comes from. We are weak. We are unable to bring about results. We're sick and feeble. But Christ is strong. He is powerful. He is able to bring about results. He does whatever he wishes. He accomplishes all that he intends. He is God! So, if he brings about endurance in us... if he accomplishes something in us, it is evident to all that it is done by God, because we didn't have the power to do it ourselves.

Imagine an empty cup being filled to the brim with water. We are the cup. The water is the power of God. His power is made perfect in our weaknesses. His power is put on display for all to see. In our weaknesses, Christ’s power is more clearly seen. Listen to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31, "For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord."

It is the same way with preaching the gospel. Just a few verses further down in 1 Corinthians... chapter 2:1-5: "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."

God's grace is sufficient. His power is made perfect in our weaknesses. And to this great fact, we should respond in the same way that Paul did. He said, "I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me." And here is something that probably shocks us, living in America. This goes against the way we were raised to think. Strength comes through weakness. The power of God rests on those who are weak. The power of God rests on those who know they are weak in and of themselves.

People may wonder why the power of God is not on them... not on their churches... not in their homes. It is because we are not weak. We have made ourselves out to be strong, independent people. We don't need anyone's help. We can do it for ourselves. But the power of Christ rests on the weak. The power of Christ makes its home in those who are weak and depend on God. If you want the power of God, then boast in your weaknesses... and boast in the God who is able to overcome them. Paul did it and so should we.

When I Am Weak, Then I Am Strong (2 Cor. 12:10)
Paul then in verse 10 gives a sort of summary statement for what he's been saying. "For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong."

Notice that he does this for the sake of Christ. He is content in order that Jesus Christ might be glorified. For the sake of Christ, Paul is content in any and every situation, especially those that involve weakness. It is similar to what Paul says in Philippians 4:11-13, "I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me."

The secret of being content in all circumstances is to depend on Christ's strength and not your own. His power rests on the weak... not on those who act strong. In fact, it is only in acknowledging our weaknesses that we become strong. Paul says, "when I am weak, then I am strong." When I am weak and dependent on Christ... when I know that I can't get through the pain... when I know I can't produce results on my own... he fills me with his power... he displays his power in me, and then I am strong.

Closing
The desire to hide our weaknesses doesn't come from the Lord. It comes from the world. It comes from the idea that we must present ourselves as strong if we're going to be respected. If we want ourselves to look good, then we'll hide our weaknesses. But if we want to show the greatness and power of God, then we won't hide our weaknesses... we'll boast in them... we'll brag about them!

Many people have been turned off by the church because people hide their weaknesses. We act like everything is always OK. We hide our weaknesses behind our smiles. I'm guilty of this too. Think about this though: How different would it look if we were honest about our struggles and difficulties and we boasted in them? What would happen if we let other people know about our weaknesses? What if we said, "You know, I'm really hurting here... I'm really struggling with this and I can't endure it on my own. But Christ's grace is sufficient for me! May his power be displayed in this weakness of mine! Get glory from this, God!?" What an opportunity to show others that we have some of the same pains and hardships. What a chance to show God’s grace and power.

If you're not a follower of Jesus Christ this morning, then your first step is also the hardest one. That's admitting that you are weak in and of yourself. The first step in submitting yourself to Christ is to humble yourself... confess that you're a sinner deserving of punishment for your crimes against God. Jesus Christ died on the cross for sinners like you. And if you'll humble yourself and trust him for salvation, you'll be saved from God's wrath. Humble yourself before him today.

If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then your invitation is similar, but different. During our invitation, reflect on your life and talk to the Lord. What weaknesses, struggles, or hardships have you been hiding from others? You tried to act strong... you've put on a good front... but Christ is not receiving glory from that. Confess your weakness to God and ask him that he might put his power and might on display in that weakness. Humble yourself before him now. Christ's power is made perfect in weakness. Christ's power rests on those who are weak. Are you weak this morning?

9Marks Regional Workshop

2007-09-14T13:04:00.001-05:00

Have you guys seen this? What are your thoughts? I think something like this could be great for our area. I saw this on our friend Ben Wright's blog. I also just saw that Dever is supposed to be at Southeastern Seminary for chapel on February 26, 2008.

What Is A Healthy Church?

2007-09-13T08:20:00.000-05:00

Brothers, I just got Dever's new book, "What is a Healthy Church?" It looks like an invaluable resource for our people to understand the right questions to ask about church. I would recommend getting a copy, reading through it, and then figuring out a way to get a copy in the hands of all your members (easy for me to say, I only have 23 members). At first, I thought this was going to be a summary of 9 Marks of a Healthy Church. While he certainly restates those 9 marks, he also just discusses the nature, purpose, and goal of a healthy church..

9 Marks Ministries sells this book for $5 each on their website (retail: $10.99)!

So, let's say you have 125 members. Let's say half of those members are in a family (husband, wife, children). So, if you give one book per family, you would need about 63 books. I cannot think of a better way to spend $315 than putting a copy of this book in the hands of every member of your church. Surely you can find an extra $315 in your budget somewhere. If not, make plans to add it next year. That $315 will do more to encourage unity, vision, and direction for the future than just about anything I can think of.

Consider it a challenge (or a dare if you are old school).

Desperately Desiring Healthy Churches in this Area,
Justin Childers

A Title for Our Conference

2007-09-04T15:44:00.001-05:00

Dr. Sam Storms was kind enough to email me some suggested titles for the conference that MHMBC, Southside, and Christ Baptist are hosting on the topic of the Holy Spirit. What do you think of this one?:

Life in the Spirit: Overcoming our Fears and Deepening our Trust

JN

Football

2007-09-03T11:26:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure why I enjoy NFL football so much. The truth is, after preaching on Sundays, I love being able to come home, relax, and watch the games. Especially Sunday Night Football.

Anyway, my fantasy league just finished their draft, and even though I didn't get everybody I wanted, I'm satisfied with my team:

QB - Tony Romo (Dallas)
RB - Joseph Addai (Indy)
RB - Laurence Maroney (New England)
WR - Marques Colston (New Orleans)
WR - Calvin Johnson (Detroit)
WR - Randy Moss (New England)
TE - Jason Witten (Dallas)
K - Robbie Gould (Chicago)
Defense: Cowboys

Reserve QB - Rex Grossman (Chicago)
Reserve RB - Chester Taylor (Minnesota)
Reserve WR - Deverey Henderson (New Orleans)
Reserve TE - David Martin (Miami)
Reserve Defense: Seahawks

So I need Peyton Manning to throw less to Marvin Harrison and instead give the ball more to Addai. I need Romo to be excellent, especially using Witten at Tight End (as he did in preseason). And I need the Cowboys defense to make big plays. I also need New England to have an excellent year offensively.

On another note, I finished reading Tony Dungy's book last night. What a great testimony for Christ! It's rare to find a man with such worldly success who still cares more about spiritual things. The book is a great read - I highly recommend it.

Anyone else care about football?

Give Us Likeness to Jesus

2007-08-30T14:39:00.001-05:00

"It is not great talents God blesses so much as likeness to Jesus. A holy minister is an awful weapon in the hand of God."
-Robert Murray M'Cheyne

posted by JC

Intro to Revelation

2007-08-28T15:15:00.000-05:00

As promised, here are the teaching notes from our first SS class on Revelation.

The Purpose of This Class
It seems that Christians tend to hold one of two extreme positions concerning the book of Revelation: they either obsess about it, or disregard it. On the one hand, I’ve met some Christians who love the book of Revelation. They view the book as a complex puzzle to be solved, and spend great time and energy in striving to make sense of its most intricate details. They love to talk about “the signs of the time”, and often find themselves in passionate debate with others about the identity of the Beast, the meaning of the number 666, the coming of the Anti-Christ, the timing of the Rapture, etc. On the other hand, there are many more Christians who find themselves intimidated by the book. They find its contents strange and somewhat repelling, and may believe that they do not have what it takes to make sense of such a difficult book. The consequence is that they tend to avoid it altogether.

The purpose of this class is to offer a guide to Revelation that will help shed light on its meaning and message, hopefully drawing a path between the middle of these two positions. My prayer is that those who are apprehensive about the book will find that its message is not nearly as difficult to grasp as they may think, and to equip and encourage them to read the book with benefit regularly both privately and with others. For those in the other camp, I hope to help them approach the book not as a puzzle to be solved and debated, but as Scripture to be believed and obeyed. The ultimate aim of this class is one that can only be accomplished by God, namely, that He would glorify Himself by using this book to save and sanctify His people.

Author
Revelation 1:1 explains how the book came into existence:

“The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John…”

Let’s consider this verse one phrase at a time. First, we have the identification of the book: it is “the revelation of Jesus Christ”. This means that the chief subject of this book (like every other part of the Bible) is the person and work of Jesus. It is the revelation concerning Jesus Christ. Second, we are told that this revelation was given from God to His Son. This means that God is the ultimate author of the book. Third, we have the purpose of the book: to show the followers of Jesus “the things that must soon take place.” This emphasizes the prophetic nature of the book. Fourth, we learn that Jesus gave the revelation to “his servant John”, but not directly. Rather, “he made it known by sending his angel.”

So we can point to four distinct persons involved in the creation of this book: God the Father (its ultimate Author), Christ the Son, the angel who delivered it, and the Apostle John who wrote it down. We could also add to this list the Holy Spirit, the very breath of God who inspires all of Scripture (cf. 2Tim. 3:16; 2Pet. 1:21).

Some people question whether the John who wrote Revelation is the same as the Apostle who walked with Christ and wrote the fourth Gospel. They point out that “John” was a very popular name in the first century (as it is today), and that the writer of Revelation could easily be another follower of Jesus by that name. However, there are two chief reasons to doubt that this is the case:

1. It seems unlikely that anyone but the Apostle John could have used his name without qualification and expected to be recognized. Any church receiving this letter would have immediately assumed from that it was from the apostle since there was no other John in early Christendom that shared his status, nor any other that shared his apostolic authority over the churches.

2. The early literature of the Christian church is unanimous in ascribing this book to the Apostle. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian seem all in agreement on this. Considering their closer chronological proximity to the writing of Revelation, it would be foolish for us to disregard their assessments unless their was a great deal of evidence to justify doing so.[1]

Date:
Revelation was probably written around 95 A.D. We arrive at this date by noting that Revelation (a) seems to assume that emperor worship is a current phenomenon, (b) recognizes a current persecution of Christians and anticipates its worsening, (c) speaks to conditions within the churches of Asia Minor that seem to point to a date later in the first century, (d) uses “Babylon” as a symbolic title for Rome (a not uncommon feature of Jewish Apocalyptic literature beginning in the last quarter of the first century), and (e) is dated during the reign of Emperor Domitian by the early church fathers (Irenaeus, Victorinus of Pettau, Eusebius, and others). There are some who argue for an earlier date (usually 65 A.D, during the reign of Nero), but the evidence above points best towards a later date.

Genre:
One of the first keys to understanding the book of Revelation is to recognize its genre. We would not read a poem the same way we would read a newspaper, nor would we read an essay in the same we way we would read the back of a cereal box. Once we understand what kind of book Revelation is, we will find that many of the difficulties in interpreting it begin to dissipate.

In considering the genre, we should first note that the book is a book of prophecy (cf. 1:3). In the Old Testament, prophecies were messages from God spoken through a prophet promising future blessings or curses for present obedience / disobedience. Prophecies also often remind people of God’s past acts of redemption or judgment. In Revelation, we encounter this past-present-future nature of prophecy in a unique way. It is as if the invisible world of spiritual warfare is unveiled to us through symbolism. We learn about the history of this warfare, the nature of this warfare during our age, and the future outcome. As in the Old Testament prophecies, Revelation does speak of future blessings and curses as well: future blessing for those who belong to Christ, and future judgment for the wicked (including particularly wicked powers, be they political or demonic.)

Second we should note that Revelation has many things in common with apocalyptic literature. In fact, the word translated “revelation” (1:1) is actually the Greek word “apocalypse”, which is why you may have heard this book referred to as “The Book of the Apocalypse”. Apocalyptic literature was a unique genre that flourished during the first and second centuries. This kind of literature often used symbolic pictures and visions to reveal divine truths hidden to the majority of mankind. When Revelation is considered alongside other apocalyptic works from the same time period, we find that there are a number of similarities, but also a large number of differences. This recognition leads scholar Vern Poythress to say

“We must not expect too much from comparisons of Revelation with extrabiblical apocalyptic literature. We learn mainly one thing: the use of complex symbolism was ‘in the air’ at the time when John was writing. It would not have seemed as strange then as it does now.”

Poythress then applies the point:

“Some people today come to Revelation with the recipe, ‘Interpret everything literally, if possible.’ That recipe misunderstands what kind of book Revelation is. Of course, John literally saw what he says he saw. But what he saw was a vision. It was filled with symbols, like the Beast of 13:1-8 and the seven blazing lamps in 4:5. It never intended to be a direct, nonsymbolical description of the future. People living in John’s own time understood this matter instinctively, because they recognized that John was writing in an ‘apocalyptic’ manner, a manner already as familiar to them as a political cartoon is to us today.”

Third and finally, we should recognize that Revelation also fits into the genre of the epistle. The Revelation was not given to John solely for his own enlightenment and edification. Within the book are letters to seven different churches in Asia Minor, and the first verse makes clear that Jesus wanted its message to be heard and understood by all His servants. Thus, Revelation is a letter from Christ to all His followers – those alive when the book was written, and the millions who have come after them.

Interpretation:
Throughout Christian history, there have been four different approaches to interpreting Revelation:

1. The Preterist Approach. Preterists emphasize that the message of Revelation was a message intended to serve churches in the first century, and that the book reveals “things that must soon take place” (1:1) to those that lived during that time. Therefore, the Preterist argues that much of Revelation describes events that were in the future for the early church but are now in our distant past. These climactic events include that fall of Jerusalem and/or the fall of the Roman Empire (i.e., the Beast). Preterists acknowledge that Revelation has much to teach us today, but emphasize that the events pictured are past, not future events.

2. The Futurist Approach. Futurists take the opposite approach from Preterists. They argue that the events described in Revelation are almost entirely future events that will take place at the very end of the present age. While most scholars lean towards a Preterist approach, most popular authors (i.e., Tim Lahaye, Hal Lindsey, etc.) teach a Futurist understanding. They rightly point out that many events pictured in Revelation do not appear to have already taken place (i.e., the second coming, the marriage supper of the Lamb, the creation of a New Earth, etc.)

3. The Historicist Approach. Though popular in past centuries, this approach has proven to be unworkable, and therefore has few proponents today. Historicists taught that Revelation describes in chronological order the main events of history from the first century to the end of all things. They try and find in Revelation pictures that can describe the medieval period, the Renaissance, the establishment of the U.N., etc. Some historicists, for example, argue that the Pope is the anti-Christ and that the locusts in Revelation are a picture of the rise of the Islamic empire.

4. The Idealist Approach. Unlike the three previous approaches, the Idealist approach argues that the visions of Revelation do not necessarily find fulfillment in one event (past or future), but apply to every generation of Christians. So, for example, the Beast in Revelation refers not only to the Roman Empire, but to every government throughout the church age that seeks to harm God’s people.

So which approach is best? Having previously considered the three primary genres of Revelation, (prophecy, apocalypse, and epistle) I think we can say with confidence that a combination of these approaches is appropriate. Consider:

Since Revelation is an epistle intended for real churches in the first century, it makes sense that we should approach the book asking what the visions in this book were intended to teach them. And since Jesus says that Revelation reveals things “that must soon take place” (1:1), we should expect at least a partial fulfillment of John’s visions during that time.

Since Revelation is a book of prophecy intended for all Christians at all times, we should expect that a future fulfillment of many of these prophecies is a legitimate expectation. When we look to the Old Testament book of Isaiah, for example, we see that many of the prophecies in that book had more than one fulfillment. Many of the prophecies that spoke about the coming of Christ actually spoke more immediately about the rise of Cyrus of Persia. The Biblical pattern is that prophecies have more than one fulfillment, and so we should approach Revelation with a similar expectation.

Finally, since Revelation is an apocalyptic book, there is real validity to the Idealist approach. It is highly unlikely that John wanted us to interpret many of the visions in this book literally. Rather, they are intended to teach real truths and speak of real events in a symbolic way.

But what about the historical approach? Of all the possible approaches, this one is the weakest. It is correct in noting that the visions in Revelation cover the period between the first and second comings of Christ, but it is incorrect in seeking to read the book as a chronological picture of history. Approaching the book this way leads to all sorts of fanciful speculation. In Revelation, consecutive visions often describe the same events, though from different perspectives. The historical approach fails to take this into account.

When we approach the book with these things in mind, we will see that the message of Revelation is that Jesus is coming again, evil will be defeated, and Christ and His people will reign victorious. The purpose of the book is to call Christians to endure till the end, holding fast to Christ and His commands even through periods of difficult persecution. I trust that this message and exhortation will be heard time and time again as we study Revelation.

Encouragement to Read
Before we end this lesson, I’d like to draw our attention to two points from the first three verses that should encourage us to take up and read Revelation. First, note that in 1:1 this book is called “the revelation of Jesus Christ”. In this title we see that this book is intended to reveal truth, not hide it. So be encouraged – Revelation has not been written as a puzzle to be figured out, but as a message to be understood. Despite what some have said, when we accept the book on its own terms, understanding the message of Revelation is easier than you may think.

Second, note that Revelation is the only book in Scripture that begins with a blessing on those who read it. “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it…” [2] Those who consider what this book says and take it to heart will be blessed by God. So let’s ask God for His help, and read with an expectation to understand and to benefit.

[1] Some would argue that the difference in style between the Greek of Revelation the Greek of John’s Gospel and Epistles is so vast that this alone constitutes reason to second-guess the assessments of these early church fathers. Dionysius (an Egyptian bishop of the third century) was the earliest figure known to have made this argument. The point is that the Greek of the Gospel / Epistles is very polished, whereas the Greek of Revelation seems rough and unusual. However, there are several satisfying arguments that have been made to explain the difference in style, certainly enough to say that the stylistic differences are not convincing enough to reject the Apostle as the writer of Revelation. For a summary of these arguments, see Morris, 29-32.

[2] The practice of reading a book silently did not exist in the first century. Rather, this letter would have been read aloud at gatherings of the seven churches it was sent to (and perhaps others), and the people would have listened intently.

Comments / Questions / Criticisms appreciated.