Feeling kind of hyper

I have been listening through the Systematic Theology lectures made freely available at Covenant Seminary's Worldwide Classroom at work. I highly recommend them as mostly irenic and not at all "too high" for the layperson, while being doctrinally sound.

While listening to a certain section of the series the proclamation of the gospel came up as a topic. Dr. Peterson made his opinion known in no uncertain terms, that to reject the proclamation of the gospel as a "well intentioned offer" is to be a Hyper-Calvinist. I cringed.

I cringed because this is the very accusation levied against the guy I use for my picture on this blog- John Gill. John Gill denies that the gospel is a "free offer of salvation". At this point, the somewhat more "apologetic" set of Calvinists cut off Gill flat and fear him, because we certainly don't want to offend the sensibilities of the Arminian crowd, and we(rightfully) do not even want to touch "Hyper-Calvinism".

Well, upholding the sovereignty of God in salvation has already offended the Arminian very much, so keeping the "free offer" or "well meant offer" terminology is too little too late.

The other accusation of Hyper-Calvinism levied against John Gill is against his Supralapsarianism, which has to do with the logical sequence of God's decrees concerning creation, election and reprobation, and the fall of man.

Supralapsarianism places logically God's decree to elect and harden men prior to the decree of the fall of man, while the opposing view, infralapsarianism, places the decree of election and reprobation logically after the decree of the fall of man. I won't go into the particulars of the arguments because it would take a long time, and even Gill admits it is an academic argument, making little practical difference.

Those who don't like Gill make it more than academic, and make it a mark of Hyper-Calvinism.

I would like to point out here that Robert Reymond, modern Presbyterian scholar and theologian and former professor at Knox Seminary, and author of the excellent and widely lauded single-volume systematic theology A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (which I highly recommend), is a Supralapsarian. Not only so, but he also advocates the idea of equal ultimacy, that God is equally the ultimate cause of both the election of men to salvation and the reprobation unto damnation of the rest of men. Equal ultimacy is usually associated with Hyper-Calvinism.

Where are Reymond's accusers? Why hasn't he been labeled "Hyper" and shunned as has Gill? Why is he still considered an evangelical Calvinist despite holding the same views as Gill? Is it because he's a Presbyterian?

Back to the "universal and well intentioned offer".

The gospel, over-simplified, is a message about Jesus Christ having made a way for the salvation of condemned sinners by making satisfaction to God for their sins (redemption) by paying the penalty for sins on the cross, and being resurrected from death, conquering death and hell, ascending to heaven where he makes intercession for the saints, restoring us to fellowship with God through him.

The command of the gospel is that we repent of sins and believe this gospel for our salvation.

The promises of the gospel are that whosoever obeys the command, repents of sin and believes this Gospel will be forgiven their sins and granted eternal life; whosoever disobeys the command, does not repent of sins and rejects this gospel will receive eternal condemnation.

It is a covenant- the New Covenant in Christ's blood (his death), with the command to repent and believe containing the promise of salvation for obedience and damnation for disobedience.

The proclamation of this gospel along with the command to repent and believe and the promise of forgiveness of sins and eternal life for obedience and eternal death and condemnation for disobedience is commanded by Jesus Christ to be proclaimed indiscriminately to all peoples from every nation, throughout the whole world.

This message is the ordinary means through which the Holy Spirit works salvific grace in the hearts of men, calling them to Christ and regenerating their hearts, thereby granting the faith and repentence commanded, which are the fruits of regeneration.

John Gill believed and taught everything that I have stated thus far concerning the gospel and evangelism.

Now, what of the word "offer"? First, lets define offer:

"make available or accessible, provide or furnish; present for acceptance or rejection; put forward for consideration; extend: make available; provide; propose: ask (someone) to marry you;" and so forth (see this Princeton WordNet Search)

Does this word "offer" do justice to the biblical proclamation of the gospel, as a message about Jesus with a command and promises? I don't really think so. The gospel is not given as optional, a proposal for consideration, or anything of the sort. It is commanded that we believe this message, along with a gracious and wonderful promise for obedience, and a solemn and terrible promise for disobedience.

The gospel is not presented as optional, and salvation is not a take-it or leave-it proposition; in a very real sense we are to, by authority of God, command people to recieve salvation! I think to call this an "offer" is akin to calling the ten commandments "the ten well intentioned offers". God's commandments demand obedience, and the commandments are universal, and are to be proclaimed throughout the world to all people.

This is why Gill rejected the term "offer". It is weak and does not do justice to the gospel message, its command or the promises, and especially the way it is presented in Scripture.

Am I a Hyper-Calvinist?

Reformed Baptist Distinctives: Baptism Part 2

Baptism is Immersion
The proper mode of baptism is immersion in water. This is the meaning of the word baptizing in Matthew 28:19, which is translated from the Greek word transliterated baptizo, which is defined "(1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) (2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe (3) to overwhelm"

The Greek words for sprinkling are different, and are transliterated rhantizo or rhantismos, which are used in the New Testament in reference to O.T. ritual purification (Hebrews 9:13, 21, 11:28) and the fulfillment of that which ritual purification pointed to, Christ's death being applied for the purification of believers united to him by faith, which is justification (Hebrews 10:22, 12:24, 1Peter 1:2). Although baptism signifies our justification, the use of the word sprinkling in the New Testament refers to the very act of justification in our uniting to Christ by faith.

Likewise, the Greek words translated in English to indicate pouring is used of different words, transliterated variously as ekcheo, ballo, didomi, epicheo, katacheo, and spendo, and are used many times in the New Testament in different contexts but never in reference to the ordinance of baptism.

It is difficult for me to understand how sprinkling and pouring could possibly be considered immersion or dipping, which is the literal translation of the very Greek word for baptism. If we use the English equivalents of the Greek terms: sprinkle, pour, dip - these three words mean three different things and to use them interchangeably is absurd. It could and should be concluded from this alone that the proper mode of baptism is immersion, but there is more evidence for immersion as we shall see.

Reformed Baptist Distinctives: Baptism Part 1

I have been, slowly and sporadically, working on content for my website. The latest is an original article about Christian Baptism. Hopefully I will have it completed before I die.

In the completed form at my website, there will be extensive footnotes and links as usual. But in the meantime, I thought I would blog the article in sections to keep you interested.

Baptism

It is unfortunate that among modern Baptist churches that the doctrine of the ordinance of baptism has often been neglected and weakened into relative insignificance, or else confused with mixture of errors that have never been practiced or believed by Baptists, but have found there way in as Baptists have rejected statements of orthodoxy and despised our historic roots. This arises from the importance of doctrine being relegated to only very core Christian distinctives, and often not even that, with nearly the entirety of church polity being open to various interpretations and beliefs which are all too readily accepted by an ignorant and apathetic laity.

As Dr. Timothy George has observed:

"The recovery of a robust doctrine of believers' Baptism can serve as an antidote to the theological minimalism and atomistic individualism which prevailin many credobaptist churches in our culture."

What follows is a short treatise on the Reformed Baptist theology of baptism,
which is an attempt at a recovery of the historic Baptist doctrine. I will give
positive statements of what baptism is, signifies, and the right administration
of it, as well as address some of the common errors.

Baptism is a New Testament Ordinance of Perpetuity

Baptism and the Lords Supper are ordinances of positive, and soveraign institution; appointed by the Lord Jesus the only Law-giver, to be continued in his Church to the end of the world. (1689 LBCF, Chapter 28: Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper)

Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party Baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of Life. (1689 LBCF, Chapter 29: Of Baptism)

An ordinance is a regulative statute, or rule of law, ordained by a governing authority, with the limits and due administration of the statute prescribed by that governing authority. Jesus Christ is the governing authority of the church, and it is he who commanded the institution of the ordinance, its limits, and the right administration of it.

Jesus Christ gave the ordinance of baptism to the church after his resurrection, in his final address to his disciples before he ascended to the Father, known as "The Great Commission":

Matthew 28:18-20 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with
you always, to the end of the age."

Jesus starts by stating that he has been given authority to institute commands to the church; "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.". He then commands that the gospel be preached throughout the world; "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations," Disciples are students and followers of Christ; viz." teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." He then commands that his disciples be baptised; "baptizing them". Christ gives the ordinance as an institution to be observed in perpetuity, or, "without end", till he comes at the end of the age;

"The commission was given, just before Christ ascended to heaven, and was
designed for the dispensation which was to follow ... Since the ascension of
Christ, no change of dispensation has occurred by which the commission could be
revoked. The promise which it contains, of Christ's presence until the end of
the world, implies its perpetuity. Under this commission the ministers of Christ
now act, and by it they are bound, according to the manifest intention of his
words, to administer water baptism."

The strange world of Dr. Scott Clark

Dr. R. Scott Clark is finally drawing some attention to himself with his incredibly sectarian views on what it means to be "Reformed" and "Covenantal". Dr. Bob Gonzales, dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary
has written a short article calling attention to Clark's contentions, including this amazing statement:

We would discipline someone if they left our church and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect…. I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. I don’t see how any baptistic congregation is practicing the “pure administration” of the sacraments

Good thing Dr. Clark left that baptistic sect he used to belong to and discovered the true church. At least he was baptised with true Christian baptism before he left.

I don't believe that Dr. Clark considers Baptists to be damnably heretical, so I have to wonder how he reconciles the idea that he has that a person can be in the body of Christ and not a member of the true church. That is a strange idea to say the least.

Ironically, in another statement quoted by James White at the Alpha & Omega blog, Clark accuses Baptists of the same error:

As a consequence, we regard our children as Christians and as baptized persons. Baptists, of course, do not regard our children as Baptized persons nor do they regard those of us who've not been re-baptized as Baptized persons!

That's a huge matter. According to the Baptists I'm not a Christian. That's no small thing.

Evidentally Dr. Clark associates baptism with Christianity so closely that one can be saved and not a Christian. I am really confused about this one, but I can say for sure no Baptist would say that anyone is not a Christian because they havn't been baptised.

Note that in the same statement he admitts that he believes that his infant children are Christians simply be recieving infant baptism.

So in Clark's strange world one one can be unsaved and Christian, saved but not a member of the true church, saved but not a Christian.

Dr. Gonzales lists a few good links to discussions about Baptist use of the adjective "Reformed". I have a feeling this conversation is just getting warmed up.

Denying God

I've been pondering the Arminian (semi-Pelagian) and Pelagian belief that God can't play favorites; that is, everyone is equally enabled to come to saving faith and the choice is up to us. It matters little for my purposes here that the one affirms the necessity of grace while the heretical Pelagianism denies that grace is needed at all, although this of course in itself makes semi-Pelagianism vastly superior to full Pelagianism; in the end the semi-Pelagian view is, like their teaching of grace, insufficient.

In both cases, all men are equally enabled to come to saving faith, whether by universal prevenient divine grace or by nature.

And here is the Achilles' heel of this belief; all things being equal, all responses to the gospel should be the same, right? But of course they are not, so all things aren't equal. Something makes people differ. And according to both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism (Arminianism), what makes people different cannot be God or grace, as all people are equally enabled. So let us now slide down this slope a ways:

Perhaps believing the gospel is due to intelligence (or even lack thereof)- well, we can't give God the credit for individual intelligence because that would make God play favorites. Perhaps unbelief is due to natural skepticism- we can't give God credit for any natural limitations or abilities if any of these things may be a deciding factor in belief or disbelief, because that would mean God would have to interfere with man's free-will choices. Maybe it is in the raising- maybe being brought up in a godly family stacks the deck in favor of belief- well, we can't allow God to be involved with our family upbringing, if it may bring us to the cross, because God can't interfere with our choice, because that would make things unequal.

God can't have anything to do with where we are born, when we are born, our upbringing, our natural abilities and limitations and dispositions, social factors such abuse or nurture or anything else that may be a factor in bringing us to saving faith, because if he did, that would be graciously providing for one person and denying another person. The only option for the Arminian or Pelagian is to deny all these factors as having anything to do with whether or not we believe the gospel or you wind up with Deism, with a god who is not involved with his creation at all.

I would agree that none of these factors can cause saving faith. In fact, God is intimately involved with all of these things, but given ideal circumstances concerning all of these things (and hundreds more), they would be insufficient to bring a person to believe the gospel. The Arminian and Pelagian must agree too or else deny that God relates to creation.

This is truly a conundrum- it would seem that saving faith is truly miraculous, if we have a sovereign God that is involved with internal and external influences on our lives, and that none of these influences can bring us to saving faith without having God choosing to help some people but not others.

So what is the difference? Why does one believe and another does not?

Is it that one loves sin more than the other? What causes one to love sin more than the other? It can't be natural disposition, intelligence, upbringing, or any external or internal factor that God has anything to do with. So we must either deny that God controls or influences any of these factors or deny any of these factors as having influence on whether or not we believe.

I'm tired of playing this game. God is what makes people differ. It is divine, effectual grace that enables saving faith in one person while withholding that grace leaves another person in unbelief. It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is no help at all- and neither are all these other factors. God saves through the preaching of the gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit everyone whom he chooses for salvation, without being limited by upbringing, natural limitations, race, social oppression, or any other internal or external influence on our lives. Saving faith is a miracle of divine grace.

So now do we become fatalists? Do we just "let go and let God"? God is going to accomplish his will concerning salvation irregardless of what we do anyway.

No! God ordains the ends as well as the means. Our prayers, bringing our children up in the fear of the Lord, witnessing through sharing the gospel and through godly lives and nurturing and loving people are all influential factors that God can and does use to bring a person to the cross. But they are insufficient in of themselves- they cannot turn the point, they cannot cause a person to believe. It takes a miracle of divine and sovereign grace.

Education Resources

I have added content to the Education page at my website. Many education links categorized according to the following:

Free Resources
Seminary and lay level education resources made available without cost.

Online/Distance Learning
Links to paid courses and professional degree opportunities available through online and distance education programs that may be completed or mostly completed from home.

Homeschool, Children and Youth
Teaching materials and curriculum for the homeschool, Sunday school, and family devotionals.

Reformed Seminaries and Colleges
Reformed and Reformed Baptist "brick and mortar" graduate and under-graduate institutions.

Also there are links to articles concerning methods and philosophy of education, encouragements and tips for educators and those seeking to be educated. I hope this resource proves useful.

Update for some older posts

I need to update a couple of older posts I made on this here blog.

The first is this post where I cried a bit about not having a Reformed Baptist fellowship within driving distance of where I live. Well I have, by God's grace, since discovered one, a mere 30 minute drive, and have been attending now for a few weeks. It is exciting to me and an answer to many prayers. I thank God for his abundant grace.

The second is somewhat of a retraction. In this post about abortion I commented that "There is never warrant for abortion". Well, in my feeble mind at the time I could not conceive of one. But I would say upon further reflection that in cases where there is no possibility that the child can survive and the life and health of the mother is threatened, such as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, then an induced abortion would be an unavoidable necessity.

Beliefs ~ Canons of Dort

Beliefs ~ Canons of Dort

I have completed the presentation of the Canons of Dort at my website. Included are several useful links to articles, commentaries, books and videos about the Canons and the doctrines of grace. Check it out.

I'm still around

You may be wondering why I haven't blogged in a while. Well it's a combination of laziness, lack of time, and really not having anything much to say. I know most people use their blogs as they are meant to be used- as a public diary of sorts. I'm not sure that my day to day musings and thoughts are worth sharing as a whole, and, frankly, I'm not sure most of the blog posts I read are worth reading.

At any rate, I have a couple of interesting links for you.

The first is a blog by an old internet friend of mine, goes by the handle
Graceshaker. The Holy Wild

He doesn't like categories like "Reformed" and "Calvinist" and "Baptist" and so-forth, which is OK because he doesn't really fit into any of them. Some of his beliefs I strongly disagree with. Nevertheless, Graceshaker has a strong belief in God's absolute sovereignty and man's depravity, and the gospel of grace. His blog is more like what a blog was meant to be (as I described above), and is really some of the most interesting reading around.

Next is an exciting (to me) new internet resource, Puritan Picks.

It is a DVD lending library business similar to Netflix, without all the wickedness. They not only have documentary and educational videos, but lots of clean entertainment DVDs as well.

Lastly, I may as well introduce my new website, A Confessional Baptist.

I had hope to have more content there by now, but, for the same reasons I haven't updated my blog in a good while, I don't. What is available is a presentation of the gospel, the 1689 LBCF, the Baptist Catechism (Keach's), Cambridge Declaration, Daily Scripture readings, memorization, a couple of devotional and news feeds, and a link to my Cafe Press store.

The next thing I will have ready on the website will be the Canons of Dort, and it will be up soon. After that, i will tackle a little original writing with articles about Reformed Baptist Distinctives and then I don't know. I hope you enjoy the site and find it's resources useful. Feel free to tell me what you think here or through the contact form at the website.

Give John Piper the benefit of the doubt

I just wanted to say this briefly, as a man who confesses the 1689 LBCF and Keache's Catechism and the Cambridge Declaration and believes that Calvin's threefold use of the law makes good biblical sense, that I am dismayed by John Piper's recent comments about and invitation to Doug Wilson of Federal Vision heresy fame. I believe (and hope) that in this case that John Piper is reading Wilson wrong and believes that Wilson has been misunderstood.

The problem is, as far as I know, that those who have seen a different gospel in Wilson's beliefs have not been rebuked by Wilson for mis-reading him but have been told that they are misreading Scripture, much in the same way Tom Wright has poo-pooed anyone who labels his heretical departure from the gospel for what it is. Of course, Wright goes farther and humbly explains that his detractors' main problem is that they have not read enough Wright and went to the wrong schools.

But I digress; as I have also read some of Dr. Piper's works and listened to many sermons by him, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt concerning his actions involving Wilson, because I have never heard another Pastor preach the gospel of justification by grace through faith with more clarity and conviction, and his Christ centeredness and commitment to the absolute sovereignty of God is compelling and commendable.

That being said, I do not consider John Piper to be a Reformed Baptist because he does not adhere to the theology of one of the historic Baptist confessions of faith or its modern equivalent, most likely because of his views of the law and gospel, which I believe lean toward New Covenant theology which is basically antinomian. He admits as much (not the antinomian part). I have that against him.

What dismays me more is some of the assaults I have read recently on John Piper from the Reformed Baptist blogosphere, which, ironically, accuse Piper of legalism and assault his character and ministry. Now there are many thoughtful and Christlike posts out there expressing concerns about Piper's comments and selection of Doug Wilson, such as the post by Pastor Keith Throop, but there are many that seem to harbor some hateful grudge against Piper that is definitely not compelling nor Christlike, that make a concerted effort to disparage Piper with half-truths and misinformation, quoting Piper out of context, etc. This is worthless drivel, and I would that these posters would repent or may hap lose interest in opining on the internet altogether.

I think John Piper is a man of God who has done much to advance the kingdom of God and glorify Christ and God, and deserves better than to be slandered with straw-man attacks against his character and ministry. He may forsake the gospel and make me eat my words, but I say he deserves the benefit of the doubt concerning this.

I have purposefully left out links to the posts that have irritated me concerning this, and would hope that readers would read and listen to Piper's sermons and books and judge him based on his own work and ministry. All of his sermons and books are available for free from the website Desiring God.

Reformed Baptist? Me Too!

Pastor Keith Throop is one of my long time favorites of the "Christian Blogosphere" and internet who, like myself, takes exception to those who would claim exclusive use of the descriptor "Reformed". At least excluding Baptists.

Unlike myself he writes his prose with charitable even-handedness and level-headedness which is too often lacking in the many "poison pens" on the Internet.

His most recent post on why he calls himself a Reformed Baptist in response to former Reformed Baptist R. Scott Clark's repeated assertions that such phrase is a misnomer is no exception, in which Pastor Throop lists three reasons why he believes that Baptists can have a legitimate and historically accurate use of the term.

Here is an excerpt from his post:

Second, Clark's comments seem to assume the idea that there is a monolithic historical understanding of the meaning the English word reformed. But this is simply not true. There are broader and more narrow senses in which the word may be used, and not all of these require the specific understanding to which he apparently wishes to restrict usage of the term. In addition, I see know [sic]reason why a modifier cannot be attached to the word that in effect alters and qualifies its meaning so as to rule out the kind of misunderstanding that Clark is apparently concerned about. One such modifier – as I have already noted – is the term baptist, which immediately communicates a distinctive use of the word reformed.

Read the whole post here: Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist

It may be a coinkidink, but the two voices that I hear loudest (Dr.s R. Scott Clark and Matthew McMahon) in objecting to Baptists using the term "Reformed" as a descriptor are themselves former Baptists. I suppose this is usually the case, with former Dispensationalists being the most belligerent towards that system, Roman Catholics the most critical of that movement, etc.

I myself am a former Independent Fundamental Pauline Dispensational Scofield Reading Pre-Trib Rapturing Semi Pelagian'in King James Only Baptist (IFBSRPTRSPKJVOB) and frankly find my shortened self identifier much easier to say and abbreviate; Reformed Baptist, (RB). Nice ring to it too.

Dr.s Clark and McMahon are both very edifying brothers in most respects, by the way, and I with good conscience endorse them both to all y'all Reformed Baptists.

The Church and Politics

Often during my lunch break I will go out to my vehicle and listen to John Macarthur's Grace to You radio broadcast. The particular radio station I listen to this on seems to repeat a lot of series, and they will preview new series before airing them to check for too much Calvinism, and sometimes they won't air particular sermons they deem too Calvinistic.

Fortunately, they have a poor understanding of Calvinism so, for example, in a series by John Macarthur about the doctrines of grace, they balked at the sermons on limited atonement and irresistible grace at first, interrupting the series and airing two sermons from a previous series in their stead. They didn't seem to realize that Dr. Macarthur's excellent messages on total depravity, unconditional election and perseverance of the saints were completely incompatible with their own semi-pelagianism and once-saved-always-saved beliefs. They did finally air the two missing messages at a later date, to my surprise, perhaps they got some angry calls.

Anywho...

Usually I hear a message I've heard before as this has been a lunchtime tradition of mine for some years now, but today I heard a new one to me that just flies right in the face of so much of modern American Christian belief.

How many times do we hear of "America the Christian Nation", "America was founded on Christian principles" and the like. Prominent Christian leaders will equate an attack on the pledge of allegiance to an attack on Christianity, and pretend that our Democratic Republic system of government is God's favorite and that spreading Democracy militarily or by other means is a righteous cause of Christians.

Now, I believe that in this world of fallen people with sinful agendas, which is all of us, that the system of checks and balances with which our country was founded is the best form of government I can imagine. I believe in religious freedom and equality among men. I believe our American constitution has done a good job of ensuring our individual freedoms and I am thankful for and enjoy them. I believe that the United States exists because God ordained that this nation exist.

I also believe that God has ordained that every nation on earth exist, and that every leader, no matter how evil, is in their position of power because God put them there according to the council of his own will and for his own purpose. I believe these things because the bible clearly teaches them.

Moreover, spreading Democracy and pursuing regime changes and fighting social injustice and not paying your taxes are not Christian activities! Where is the biblical mandate for such pursuits? These things are not in themselves bad things (except for not paying your taxes), but tying them together with Christianity is a very bad thing.

Now, this is a dangerous belief to convey to your fellow Christians, and as many Christians have relatives or children in military service, it could get you a sock in the mouth. American Christians are convinced of American righteousness and superiority. And I am certainly no eloquent opiner, and so I remain quiet and cringe only slightly as I am berated with "evidences" of "righteous America".

I encourage you to read or listen to this message by John Macarthur expositing Romans 13 that really hits the nail on the head with exactly what I'm trying to say. Here are a few provocative quotes:

[Romans 13:1-7] The truth of the matter is, and you need to think about this - the truth of the matter is that our own nation was borne out of a violation of this biblical text. Now that may throw you for a loss, but that's the fact. Our nation was borne out of a violation of this text. In the name of Christian freedom.

It amazes me that you have a list of true believers, charlatans, frauds, false prophets - all jumbled together for the sake of "religious freedom" to do the political lobbying that people think is going to preserve the kingdom of God in America.

So Jesus came into a world dominated by slavery and by one man rule. The absolute antithesis of democracy, which we believe to be so dear. All the power of the state was in one man's hands.

He [Jesus] did not come with power and force to overthrow the Roman tyranny. He did not seek social change. He did not attempt to eliminate slavery. He did not come with political or economic issues at stake. They were not the concern of his life and Ministry. He did not come to bring new government, to bring democracy, to wave the flag of Judaism, even. His appeal was ever and always to the hearts of individual men and women. Not their political freedoms. Not their rights under government.

To read the whole meassage, click here.

To listen on GTY's pop-up audio player thingamajig, click here.

To download high quality audio, click here.

Angels and Demons Truth

Angels and Demons Truth

Seems that we have another major motion picture inspired by the fertile imagination of Dan Brown. As has been well documented in the multitude of rebuttals to The Da Vinci Code blockbuster, we know Mr. Brown is not above stretching, embellishing twisting and portioning the truth, and even resorts to outright fabrications to establish his plot. The thing that got Christians in an uproar was Dan’s insistence that all his “facts” were indeed factual and not the imaginative and fanciful plot thickening ingredients that they truly were.

Nevertheless, some Christians whom I respect and are well grounded in the reality of biblical Christianity found entertainment value in the Da Vinci Code book and movie, and so I will not tell everybody “don’t go see this movie”. I chose not to partake of the former book or movie (and will not involve myself in the current book or film) because I find the reality of biblical Christianity much more exciting, intriguing, enriching and mind blowing than some modern tall tales fabricated in the mind of an unscrupulous unbeliever with an agenda. Also, malevolent blasphemies make me uncomfortable and angry, not what I call a “good time”.

For those of you who may see the movie or read the book, and have questions about some of the movie’s “facts” , Westminster Theological Seminary has set up this great website that answers many claims made by Dan Brown with hard, cold, reality.

Angels and Demons Truth

Vern Poythress, Ph. D., Th. D., Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary looks to be the major contributor. And in his usual humble, irenic and lucid style, intelligently reduces Dan Brown’s fallacies to naught.

The site itself is well designed and easily navigated, full of great content and links. I will be bookmarking it just to keep up with what is being said and argued concerning this. I know it is usually better to consult primary sources, but I think that in this case I'll consult this reliable, trustworthy secondary source.

Islamic Europe

I have somewhat against this video; Islam is not a race, and Muslims are not born but created. If Europe only had a vital, vibrant Christian witness, the influx of Islamic peoples could be an evangelical boon! Imagine the opportunity to preach the gospel unfettered to millions of Islamic people, many of whom would return to their former countries to tell others of the good news of Jesus Christ.

But I'm afraid this opportunity will not be exploited but squandered, and the rise of Islam will enslave Europe in the stranglehold of useless religion and oppressive moralism.

The Muslims are mearly filling the vacuum created by the indigenous people when they traded Christianity for worldly pleasures and sought satisfaction in sin rather than Christ. Western civilization has been ingenious in facilitating its insatiable fornication desires with abortion and contraceptives. Marriage has become a by-word and children are seen as obstacles to one's own fulfillment in life, not to mention bad for the environment.

And don't think the United States is not on the same path. Christianity is rapidly losing ground in America to heretical imitations and rival religions as the church has lost its message and has become timid, fearful and worldly.

Pray for the believers in Europe.

Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

Ask most people in America I dare say and they will reply "yes, I believe in Jesus".
The question is not enough; many believe in a false messiah that has been conjured up in the minds of evil men and given the name "Jesus".

But it may be that they believe in the right Jesus, that is to say, they have orthodox beliefs about Jesus. And this is indeed essential; you must believe that Jesus is God the Son who took a human nature, lived a sinless life, fulfilling the law of God, and died on the cross, bearing God's wrath for sins as a substitutionary sacrifice acceptable to God on behalf of unworthy sinners, that he rose on the third day in his glorified human body, the first fruits of the resurrection. You must believe that Jesus has ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of the father and will return again in judgement to consummate his kingdom. Is believing these facts about Jesus enough? It is essential to believe these facts, but it does not by itself constitute saving faith.

James 2:14-20 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

No man has more orthodox beliefs than Satan and his demons. He believes the facts about Jesus and knows them to be true. He is certainly not saved, because one thing he lacks.

"Aha!" You say, "I must have works to show that I believe." That's not exactly right. One may believe the facts about Jesus, and may be busy with works of charity and go to church religiously and still have a cold, hard heart. What is missing?

Love.

You must love God in Christ in order to be saved. Good works are the manifestation of, the overflow of love for Christ and love for fellow Christians is the overflow of our love for God:

Deuteronomy 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,

John 14:21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him."

1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1 John 4:20-5:3 If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

We obey God because we love God; we do not do good works as a burdensome task, but as an overflow of the love that we have for God. And we love our brothers and sisters in Christ as an overflow of the love we have for God. We love God because he first loved us, and the love of God that we have is the gift of God enabled by the Holy Spirit in regeneration. Notice again,

1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.

The person who believes Jesus is the Christ is the true believer, and has been born of God (regeneration, born again), loves the father (manifested in obedience to his commandments) and loves other Christians. Love is essential, and is always present in the true believer.

But I said earlier that a person may believe the facts about Jesus and not be saved, but this is saying that anyone who believes Jesus is the Christ has been born again and loves God. Am I contradicting myself and the bible? I don't believe so, because I believe that one fact about Jesus Christ was missing from the list that I mentioned above:

The fact that Jesus Christ is the greatest treasure in the universe, infinitely surpassing the entire universe, infinitely surpassing all of our fleshly desires and certainly all the treasures of this world. This is a fact, and one must believe this, and the manifestation of believing this is the love of God.

You see, if we believe in our hearts that Jesus Christ is more to be desired than our sin and all the pleasures and treasures of the universe combined, we will love him and obey him because we love him. And we will love all those who love him, and we ill hate every evil way because evil is characterized by treasuring something else above Jesus Christ.

Don't rely on works of obedience and orthodox doctrine to get you to heaven. If you do not love Jesus as your treasure and delight; if you do not believe that Jesus Christ is infinitely more valuable than your money and your family and everything else in the universe and even your own life, than repent and believe the gospel, because the greatest gift of the gospel is not getting out of hell, but God in Jesus Christ himself. If you believe this fact, you love God and you truly believe in Jesus Christ.

Matthew 13:44-46 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it.

Praying just got a little easier!

Woke up late and in a rush, no time for prayer? Got distracted and forget to pray?

Well, now you won't have to worry anymore. This new web service is fully automated and will send your petitions and supplications skyward for you! Simply select your religion, select your favorite prayer and then...

"[they] use state of the art text to speech synthesizers to voice each prayer at a volume and speed equivalent to typical person praying. Each prayer is voiced individually, with the name of the subscriber displayed on screen."

You really can't make this stuff up. Amazing.

Interesting bible study method

From the Desiring God Blog, John Piper explains his method of "arcing", an innovative and easy method of outlining bible paragraphs for exposition and understanding.





To learn more about this bible exegesis method, visit BibleArc.com

Same sex marriage? Impossible!

TThe brew-ha-ha over the Miss USA pageant contestant possibly losing the crown and money over her response to a question about "gay marriage" provoked me to post.

First of all, I have a problem with professing Christian girls parading their nearly naked bodies in a worldly exhibition that triumphs the carnal sexual lusts and superficial "virtues" of an evil society. It's getting harder and harder to tell Christians apart from the unregenerate walking dead who are enslaved to sin and Satan. This ought not to be! If this is not patently obvious to any professing Christian, they should seriously examine themselves to see whether they be in the faith.

1John 2:15-17 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

That being said, the question was loaded and far beyond the scope of a beauty pageant. I have far too little knowledge of the law of this land to speak intelligently on whether states should have the right to decide on same sex marriage or whether a federal law protecting homosexual marriages would be constitutional. As far as I know, either thing may be a perfectly legitimate course of action as concerns our nation's constitution. It seems to me that our founder's had in mind a system of government ruled by consensus view, with some individual rights written in to protect minority groups.

There may be coming a day (and probably sooner than later) when the majority view in the United States is that gays have the right to marry. I'm sure that our founders would never have envisioned such a thing, but as they have written our nation's constitution with a purpose of protecting the people from the tyranny of state churches, there is no clause that such matters must be settled biblically.

Those Christians who protest that biblical language was used in our founding documents, that the founders were largely Christians etc. seem to largely ignore this point. The founders did not omit the bible as a legal guide in the constitution out of ignorance; they knew that such language would require that the government have an agency to interpret the bible on legal matters and that requires a state church.

But the point I want to make is this; it makes no difference whether states or the federal government or the world government or the popular view says gays can marry- it is impossible for two people of the same sex to get married. Because marriage is not a human institution but divine. It was instituted by God and God decides the parameters of marriage. And those parameters are clearly defined in the scriptures. God does not recognize same sex unions as marriage but rather an abomination and grievous sin. It is rebellion and hatred for God to despise his parameters concerning marriage and sexual relationships.

Moreover, marriage is a covenant pact that is witnessed by God and joined by God. A piece of paper or a state or federal bureaucrat or a judge or liberal "minister" does not join people in marriage, only God does or can.

And what God hath not joined, let no man bind together. There will never be any two people of the same sex married. No matter what they believe or our culture stipulates. Same sex marriage is impossible.

Website Update

It has been a while since I posted to the blog, so I figure an update is in order. I've been busily wrestling with the html of the website and I am happy to report I have a design that I believe will be very functional and visually appealing. Multiple level and redundant linking should make navigating the site easy and intuitive for a variety of users. Like the old website, there will be a section specific site search that allows you to search the site by section. The look will be gray scale, three column. I've worked to ensure that the site will work with the most popular browsers and a variety of screen resolutions. Ref-tagger will be employed to maximum effectiveness, making all scripture references immediately available by simply hovering the mouse cursor over the reference, with a box available to change the bible version if you want to (the default will be the ESV).

The part that's supposed to be easy is over, and now the hard part will be filling with enough content to make it ready for reveal. I've been thinking about how to get the word out, advertising here, emailing prominent internet ministries and bloggers, submitting to search engines, etc.

I pray that God use this according to his purpose, by his grace and for his glory.

Get ready for my new website

This week I've begun construction of a new site to replace my old site. The main reason is that I want to use a domain name and a different name (the new site will be "A Confessional Baptist" like this blog), and since I don't use any dynamic server side software this would mean going through the pages of my old site and changing hundreds of links by hand, something I'm not willing to devote the time to.

Other reasons are the archaic look and rather clunky HTML. My HTML skills are far from mad, but hopefully the new site will be slicker, cleaner, more modern looking, and easier for me to keep updated. I hope that it will be more cross-browser functional, as the non-IE browsers are gaining in popularity.

As far as content changes, the new site will be more focused on Reformed Baptist resources. There are a lot of Reformed resource sites on the internet, but very few that focus and give preference to Reformed Baptist resources. The Reformed Reader is still online and the best site I've found for Reformed Baptist info but it is no longer being updated. As far as generally Reformed resource sites, nobody can beat Monergism.com and they have that well covered. No need to re-invent the wheel.

The content will be mostly categorized off-site links, but I will have some confessional Baptist documents on site and original articles. My plan is to have an introductory page for each category with links to on-site and off-site resources that are category specific. Preference will be given to Reformed Baptist resources in every category.

Lord willing I will have the site up and running in the next couple of months. I'll keep you posted. If there is anything you would like to see on a website let me know in the comments to this post and I will consider it.

DOH!

Earlier I posted a couple of tips on how one may determine the biblical orthodoxy or heresy of a particular website or blog, and among those tips was to look for a confession of faith or doctrinal statement of beliefs. Well, of course, this blog had neither. So I have included several links over on the nav-bar to doctrinal standards which I confess. The 1689 LBCF (original language), the Cambridge Declaration, and the Canons of Dort link to my website and contain the unedited language of the historic documents (or the English translation in the case of the Canons of Dort), and I also provide a plethora of supporting Scripture texts with the 1689 Confession and the Canons of Dort which also link to the online bible so that the passages can be read in context easily. These documents are also individually searchable at my website.

The Ordo Salutis is an originally worded presentation of the Calvinistic order of salvation written by myself with supporting scriptures.

The Modern Language Version of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith links to that document as presented at the Founders Ministries website. It is faithful to the original.

At the top of the nav-bar, I have linked to a presentation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ compiled by myself at my website from the Canons of Dort, the 1689 LBCF, Spurgeon's All of Grace and the bible. It presents the gospel from these historic Christian documents and scripture from man's sinful condition and separation from God through his total inability to live up to God's standards of perfect obedience to the good news of Jesus Christ for righteousness to all who believe.

I hope these links prove edifying and fruitful.

A problem for Baptists

A while back I was participating in a certain Christian discussion forum when a Presbyterian brother (PCA) made a statement that astonished me. The question for discussion was something like

"Do you believe Arminianism is heresy?"

If you are a Calvinist and armchair apologist and theologian like myself, and have been around the internet block a few times, this question would pose no particular surprise or threat. We've seen it a hundered times, usually posted by disgruntled Christians who don't like the dogmatic way in which we defend the doctrines of sovereign grace.

But then my dear Presby friend, whom I am indebted to as one who was instrumental in bringing me to the realization that God is sovereign in the salvation of men, responded that "yes, but it is less of a heresy than the autonomous church government."

I was floored. I responded "are you really saying that congregationalism is a worse heresy than Arminianism? That Edwards, Spurgeon, Owen, Bunyan and more than I can think of are guilty of a worse error than those who deny biblical soteriology?"

He kind of blowed me off at first, perhaps sensing that I was sore about it and wishing to avoid a conflict, but I belabored the point until he finally responded in a very provocative way that made a point that I had not even considered.

He said "Joe, if you commit adultery against your wife and are disciplined at your church, all you have to do is go down the street to the next Baptist church."

I'm not sure why he made it personal against me (I have not committed adultery or been excommunicated) but I guess he was aggravated at my badgering him to qualify his original proposition. Nevertheless, he made a very valid point and one for which I had no response.

I still have no response. No matter how carefully we follow the biblical model of discipline in our own congregation, Baptists have no way to make it stick. Whether or not the local congregation should be concerned about this at all biblically is something I have not worked out (help here would be appreciated). But it seems to me at least on the face of it to be a legitimate concern.

I would propose that we Baptists can still keep our congregationalism and cooperate with other congregations in this matter. I see no need for ruling councils to be over the local churches to deal with this problem. Even as we may cooperate with one another, for example, in associations that affirm a common confession of faith or pool resources for educating our leaders, there should be a way that associated Baptist churches can cooperate in matters of discipline so that the above scenario can be avoided.

Perhaps we should not be so autonomous that we banish those who decay the unity and purity of our church only to have them infiltrate another church "down the street" with their destructive influence. Perhaps we should modify our governmental beliefs so that we don't simply say "he's somebody else's problem now".

Ironicalism

I find it ironic that just as I was getting tired enough of certain 0f my more learned and respectable paedo-baptist brothers refusing to allow Baptists to use the terms "Reformed" or "Covenant Theology" or even "Calvinist" to describe themselves and differentiate themselves from more mainline and popular Baptist churches (which are semi-pelagian and mostly dispensationalist), and just as I was pondering why they are not being challenged by anybody other than a few guys in the comments sections on the pertinent blogs, and just as I was about to (boy this sentence is becoming long, I feel like John Owen) start my own research as I believe from my limited knowledge that the phrase "Reformed Baptist" is a perfectly legitimate and historically accurate use of the word "Reformed" (I selected the address of this blog (thesectarian) in honor of what I believe to be an erroneous assertion)---

Just as all this was going on in my head, and just I was really feeling uncomfortable with paedo-baptism and the more I consider this the more I realize this is a serious divider between Credos and Paedos that has to do not only with mode and method but a really serious error concerning the Abrahamic covenant among the sprinkling elect brethren, and just as I was thinking that these things need to be addressed well with resources and footnotes and wondering how I do superscripts with this blog---

Then Mark Dever over at 9 Marks does a little blog post that seems to have really taken many Paedos aback. I mean, here we Reformed Baptists are wanting to be associated with their tradition, and being called "sectarian" and told that we cannot be "Reformed" or "Covenantal" or "Calvinist" and being called ugly names like "dispensationalist" because we believe what the New Testament says about the Abrahamic Covenant, and we lie down and no one says a word. But how dare Dr. Dever fence the table when celebrating the Lord's supper against non-baptised believers as per our own Baptist confession, not to mention the bible? How dare he say that to refuse to be baptised as a believer is a sin? How ironic considering how we have been so often shunned as second class citizens and told that to refuse to baptise infants is a sin. And is dispensationalist.

Read some of the backlash to Mark Dever's comments here, here, here, & here. Wow. You can dish it out but you can't take it? At least Dr. Scott Clark, who is a chief offender in belittling Reformed Baptists, understands that this is what Baptists believe and always have and accepts that this will always be a divider; we will not find a middle ground on this.

So let me clear this up so you infant baptising types won't be surprised again. We Calvinistic Sectarians believe that infant baptism is sinful and is not baptism at all, and as many as refuse to be immersed in water as believers united to Christ by faith are in disobedience to the biblical command. Just as you confessing Paedos believe that we are in sin in withholding the covenant sign and seal to our "covenant children", we confessing Baptists believe that you are in sin by including people in the covenant who are not united to Christ by faith.

I don't intend to throw away any of my books written by godly paedo baptist men who have heralded the gospel mightily throughout the ages. And although we are in serious disagreement, I don't want to overstate this disagreement and break fellowship with my Paedo baptist teachers and brethren.

The Problem of Evil?

I was listening today to a re-run broadcast of John MacArthur's Grace to You where Mac was addressing the famous alleged problem for christian philosophy, "the problem of evil". Basically the question goes like this:

"If God is all-powerful and all-knowing and absolutely Good, why does evil exist?"

This is an easy one for the Calvinist who upholds the biblical portrait of the Almighty God. God allows evil and even ordains that evil occur in order to show his attributes that could not otherwise be revealed. In other words, it is to glorify himself by revealing his character and attributes of grace, mercy, justice, judgement, wrath, holiness, benevolence and more, that could not be revealed without opposition to himself. Dr. MacArthur covered this fairly well, although more tentatively than perhaps I would have, because it is the clear revelation of scripture and thus truth we can rely on and be sure of. Romans 9 comes to mind as an explicit example of why God allows evil:

Romans 9:21-23 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--

We see several things very clearly from this passage concerning the so-called "problem of evil". It tells us explicitly that God desires to make known his power and wrath and so patiently endures the vessels of wrath, which are evil men, in order to make known how rich is his glorious mercy for those he prepares for glory. So we see that God endures evil in order to put his glorious attributes of his omniscient power and righteous wrath and long suffering patience and glorious mercy.

God could not make known his wrath and power to carry out his righteous judgement without an object deserving of that wrath and judgement. We see also from this passage that God has sovereignly ordained that vessels of wrath would exist and that vessels of mercy would exist. So these things don't surprise God, he has decreed according to his own will in eternity that such things occur. Now, this might raise further questions, and I will try to address some of the objections that might occur to someone.

One might object that "if God could allow evil which produces suffering and in turn forces him to pour out his wrath in judgement on sinners than God must be a megalomaniac, a pathological egotist". This is in fact a logical impossibility as concerns God, as megalomania is defined as "a psychological state characterized by delusions of grandeur" (wordnet.princeton.edu). There are no delusions of grandeur with God; God is grand! He is all powerful and all knowing and eternal and transcendent and is present everywhere at once. God is the ultimate expression of, the source of, and the standard of, power and importance in the universe. God cannot overstate his infinite attributes.

A second objection might be, "if God decreed that evil occur, than God is the author of evil". To this objection I provide three answers. The first answer to this objection is the somewhat obvious one, that scripture will not allow it. From our passage in Romans 9, we see that God endures patiently with evil men. The evil acts of evil men are free volitional choices that God endures and does not cause. There is no passage of scripture anywhere that makes God the cause, author, or a party to evil.

The second answer is that God, being all powerful, uses secondary means in order to allow that evil exist. This requires a bit of explaining; I believe that the fact that God decrees or ordains everything that occurs can be logically deduced from the fact of his omnipotence. What I mean is, that God must decree all things that come to pass, else nothing would come to pass. In other words, since God is all powerful, nothing can or will happen unless God either allows it or causes it. That's what it means to be all-powerful and sovereign. From mondane occurances like the animation of electrons in the alpha centauri galaxy to the very thoughts in your head, God is sovereign over them all- that's what it means to be omnipotent. God cannot be omnipotent unless he is sovereign, and God cannot be sovereign unless he is omnipotent, and nothing can occur unless he either allows it or causes it.

So then God does not mearly decree a particular act, but everything that leads to that particular act, what we call secondary causes. Part one of the third chapter of the 1689 London Baptist Confession God's Decree provides clarity:

FROM all eternity God decreed all that should happen in time, and this He did freely and unalterably, consulting only His own wise and holy will. Yet in so doing He does not become in any sense the author of sin, nor does He share responsibility for sin with sinners. Neither, by reason of His decree, is the will of any creature whom He has made violated; nor is the free working of second causes put aside; rather is it established. In all these matters the divine wisdom appears, as also does God's power and faithfulness in effecting that which He has purposed. (emphasis added)

The third answer that I give for why God cannot be the author of evil is "because he is God". To explain; evil is in essence anything that deviates from God's character, which is revealed to us in scripture in his law as and covenants and especially his Son Jesus Christ. God is the ultimate and perfect expression of all that may be attributed to his own character, and this is in turn the standard by which evil is determined. So anything that is contained within God's character is good by default; evil being the deviation from God's character, evil within God is an impossibility. Everything God does or wills or creates is always good, because God is the standard of moral perfection.

The problem for those who see a "problem of evil" is a lack of understanding the truth about God and his attributes and character. Their god is too small and their heads are too big. They delve into things of which they are ignorant, and presume to be such a one that can pass judgement on God. It is hard for a sinful man to realize that he is not himself sovereign nor wise but very finite and foolish. Indeed I say that it is impossible, except by a miracle. The miracle of new birth and faith and renewal of mind that God works in the vessels of mercy that God has prepared beforehand to display his glory. Let us therefore glorify our incomprehensible God, with the words of his beloved servant Paul:

Romans 11:33-36 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Encouragement for a lonely Calvinist

Time Magazine's 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now: #3 The New Calvinism

You could have knocked me over with a feather. Frankly, I had come to believe that the Reformed movement was really just a few mouthy types (like me) who opined on the Internet. And John Piper. I expected that if I attended the church of some of the Reformed pastors that I enjoy listening to I would see a congregation of 40-50 people.

As far as I know, myself and my family are the only Calvinistic confessional Baptists in the whole county where I live. The nearest Reformed Baptist church is an hour away on the highway. We have begun attending a Presbyterian church (PCA) and it is a fine fellowship of conservative Reformed confessional believers, but they aren't credo, and I'm not paedo, so there is always that element of strong disagreement that underlies everything.

But if Time Magazine has noticed, maybe there really is a Reformed Resurgence! Maybe it isn't all smoke and mirrors. Maybe in the near future, I will discover like minded believers in my community and we can form a new fellowship, a Reformed Baptist church, a dream come true.

I did notice a sad line in the Time story:

Indeed, some of today's enthusiasts imply that non-Calvinists may actually not be Christians.

That's the error so many make when coming to believe that their entire worldview is wrong. The tendency is to run headlong the other direction into equally or worse error than before. And that is sadly the case I've observed on the Internet among some of the Neo-Calvinists. Hyper Calvinism breaks the band of tension that the bible holds intact between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, adopting a heretical fatalism concerning salvation and sin. The Hyper Calvinist says things that make a true Calvinist cringe. And making Calvinism the test of one's standing with God rather than repentance from sin and faith Christ alone for forgiveness of sins and entrance into the kingdom of God is one of the most distasteful teachings of this unorthodox sect.

Another fine example of breaking the tension that the bible upholds is the tendency among some who become disallusioned with their dispensational pre-trib rapture eschatology and spring all the way over to preterism, denying the second coming of Christ and the bodily resurrection of believers. And the second state has become worse than the first.

So I would encourage my Neo-Calvinist brothers and sisters to study the old paths and not use blogs and Internet sites as you're primary source for theology. There are many, many disguised wolves on the Internet. I've almost been eaten by a few. And study the Reformed creeds and confessions like the London Baptist 1689, Westminster, and the Three Forms of Unity (pdf). These old creeds serve as a buffer against the heretical tendencies of the unlearned.

And here's a couple of tips. When you run across a Hyper-Calvinist or otherwise questionable blog or Website, there won't be a neon flashing sign that says *HYPER CALVINIST* or *HERETIC*. The first thing to look for is a confession of faith. If they don't have one then use extreme caution. I've found many times people hide their beliefs for a reason. If they have any sort of other doctrinal statement such as a "statement of faith" or "beliefs" then read them carefully, and judge them against some of the clear and precise doctrinal confessions I listed above and of course scripture.

If their statement of faith is weak and ambiguous, that is cause for caution. I've seen statements of faith that were so vague that many cult groups would be comfortable with them.

Look for a curriculum vitae for those that claim a title such as "Dr." If they don't have plainly listed the schools they went to then be very suspicious. If they list the schools and they aren't immediately recognizable then Google them to see what comes up.

I pray that the resurgence of historical Reformation theology gains even more ground and strengthens God's people for tough times ahead, with a zeal for the lost and a heart that finds joy in the glory of God and the truth of his word.

Taking a hard line for life

Obama to reverse limits on stem cell work

This post is not going to be an exegetical, expositional biblical defense of my beliefs concerning the issue of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Neither will it be a pragmatic analysis of stem cell research pointing out the stark lack of progress and results in the field of embryonic stem cell research compared with the fruitful field of adult stem cell research. Both of these would be worthy of blogging.

This post is simply a declaration.

1. Abortion is pre-natal infanticide. It is murder. From the moment sperm joins egg and creates a new and distinct human life that life has the same value as an adult human being. It is not pre-human, it is a living, distinct, personal human being.


2. There is never warrant for abortion. Not for the life of the mother, nor in cases of rape or incest. The mother's life is not more valuable than that of the unborn infant. The unborn infant is an innocent third party to crimes leading to an unwanted pregnancy. Ending the child's life because of medical complications that endanger the mother implies that the mother's life is more valuable or more human than that of the child.


3. Conception of new human beings for use in medical research (embryonic stem cell research) is murderous butchery and an incredible display of depraved selfishness that makes a person's own perceived quality of life more important than the life of another human being.


4. The use of aborted infants for embryonic stem cell research is to give approval of the murderous butchery that is abortion.


5. The creating of infants in order to be artificially implanted in infertile women, insofar as it is engaged in discarding "surplus" infants, is mass murder.


6. No one who has had an abortion or even many abortions should consider themselves disqualified as concerns salvation. They should be treated with compassion and be assured that forgiveness, reconciliation and eternal life await all who come to Christ in faith and repentance.


7. No one who has performed abortions should consider themselves or be considered by others as having been disqualified for salvation, provided they repent from their sins (including their murderous vocation) and accept Christ as their righteousness before God, they may enter into eternal life.


8. Christians should give no quarter nor compromise concerning the value of the unborn infant as a distinct person created in the image of God. Christians should view abortion as no less a crime than premeditated murder. Christians should avoid hypocrisy and make no distinctions between the value of the lives of infants conceived through consensual sexual activities and those conceived in sex crimes. Christians should likewise make no distinction as concerns the value of the life of an infant in early, mid and late stages of development


9. Christians should not return evil for evil, and should be compassionate towards those who have been blinded by the world and enslaved by Satan and sin, knowing we too were once blind slaves and had to be rescued from our hardness of heart by God.


10. We should not engage in violence, hateful rhetoric, or arrogant self righteousness towards those who perform abortions or those who obtain abortions, but rather, as sinners who have been given the free gift of righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ, proclaim this gospel in love to those in bondage to the sin of abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and artificial fertility clinics.

Here is where I stand, and I am certain that these views will label me a "radical" even among many Christians. But I would only ask that these issues be carefully, prayerfully, and biblically considered and that the truth to the glory of God be paramount in our drawn conclusions.

Worship by God's Design

While reading this post over at the Reformation Theology blog about John Hendryx's experiences while visiting Seattle Washington with his wife and especially their worship experience at Mars Hill church, I began to reflect and wonder. I offered this as a comment over there:

I'll bet most every reader of this post had their idea of the regulative principle of worship as a background noise in their head as they immersed in your experience at Mars Hill.

For me, the regulative principle of worship has been one of the hardest things to nail down. I agree in principle of course. But the application of the principle in churches seems to be as broad as it is long. You're liable to see everything from exclusive a capella psalmody to rock music, Power Point and videos to churches without even a cross displayed, and everything in between.

Personally, I believe that the means of grace and congregational singing satisfy our worship needs visually, emotionally and intellectually, and simpler is better, as all focus is on our Triune God.

For those who may be unfamiliar with the doctrine of the regulative principle, this Wikipedia article explains the doctrine rather well:

The substance of the doctrine regarding worship is that only those elements that are instituted or appointed by command or example in the Bible are permissible in worship, or in other words, that God institutes in the Scriptures everything he requires for worship in the Church and that everything else is prohibited.

The regulative principle is often contrasted with the normative principle of worship which teaches that whatever is not prohibited in Scripture is permitted in worship, as long as it is agreeable to the peace and unity of the Church. In short, there must be agreement with the general practice of the Church and no prohibition in Scripture for whatever is done in worship.

The normative principle of worship is the generally accepted approach to worship practiced by Lutherans, Anglicans, Evangelicals, and Methodists.

The regulative principle of worship is generally practiced by the conservative Reformed Churches, Restoration Movement and in other conservative Protestant Denominations, and it finds expression in confessional documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelburg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the London Baptist Confession of Faith.

I closed my comment to J. Hendryx's post by stating that I believe that our worship needs are completely satisfied in the elements of a traditional worship service adheering to the regulative principle of worship. What I meant by that is that all of our faculties are engaged in the simple, biblically-regulated worship service. We worship with our emotions in prayer and singing; we worship with our intellects in the reading and preaching of God's word; we worship with our physical senses by participating in the Lord's Supper and Baptism. There is no need left un-met in God's ordained worship practices.

So what's the point of rock bands, dramatic plays, light shows, videos, movies, background 'mood' music, flags, fancy paintings and sculptures, and the like? It's pretty simple, and if you're honest you will admit it. That's entertainment! If you give people a pleasing and entertaining experience, they will keep coming back. I'm sure the idea is to attract people who find God-centered worship boring and stuffy and maybe even foolish. So that perhaps they might eventually 'get saved'. But who are we to think that we mere fallen, finite, foolish humans can improve upon God's own methods? Is God too weak to acomplish his ends through his own ordained means?

The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 (modern English version) outlines well the elements of the simple, bible regulated worship service that honors God, is gospel centered, and through which the Holy Spirit may work powerfully to bring lost sheep to Christ:

CHAPTER 22 - RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, AND THE LORD'S DAY

1. THE light of nature shows that there is a God who has dominion and sovereignty over all. He is just and good, and He does good to all. He is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, invoked, trusted and served by men with all their heart and soul and strength. But the only acceptable way of worshipping the true God is appointed by Himself, in accordance with His own will. Consequently He may not be worshipped in ways of mere human contrivance, or proceeding from Satan's suggestions. Visible symbols of God, and all other forms of worship not prescribed in the Holy Scripture, are expressly forbidden. Exod. 20:4-6; Deut. 12:32; Jer. 10:7; Mark 12:33

2. Religious worship is to be given to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to Him alone. It is not to be given to angels, saints, or any other creatures. Since man's fall into sin, worship cannot be rendered to God without a mediator; and the only accepted mediation is that of Christ. Matt. 4:9-10; Matt. 28:19; John 5:23; John 14:6; Rom. 1:25; Col. 2:18; 1Tim. 2:5; Rev. 19:10

3. God requires all men to pray to Him, and to give thanks, this being one part of natural worship. But to render such prayer acceptable, several things are requisite: it must be made in the name of God's Son, it must be Spirit-aided, and it must accord with the will of God. It must also be reverent, humble, fervent and persevering, and linked with faith, love and understanding. United prayer, when offered, must always be in a known language. Psa. 65:2; Psa. 95:1-7; John 14:13-14; Rom. 8:26; 1Cor. 14:16-17; 1John 5:14

4. Prayer is to be made for things lawful, and for men of all sorts now living or as yet unborn. But prayer is not to be made for the dead, nor for those who are known to be guilty of 'the sin unto death'. 2Sam. 7:29; 2Sam. 12:21-23; 1Tim. 2:1-2; 1John 5:16

5. The reading of the Scripture, the preaching and hearing of the Word of God, the instructing and admonishing of one another by means of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with heartfelt thankfulness to the Lord, the observance of baptism and the Lord's supper-these are all parts of divine worship to be performed obediently, intelligently, faithfully, reverently, and with godly fear. Moreover, on special occasions, solemn humiliation, fastings, and thanksgivings ought to be observed in a holy and reverential manner. Exod. 15:1-19; Esther 4:16; Psa. 107; Joel 2:12; Matt. 28:19-20; Luke 8:18; 1Cor. 11:26; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; 1Tim. 4:13; 2Tim. 4:2

6. In present gospel days neither prayer nor any other aspect of religious worship depends for its efficacy on the place where it is performed or towards which it is directed, for God is everywhere to be worshipped in spirit and in truth; as, for instance, in the daily worship carried on in private families, in the worship in which individual Christians engage in secret, and in the worship of the public assemblies. Such assemblies are convened in accordance with God's Word and providence, and believers must neither carelessly neglect them nor willfully forsake them. Psa. 55:17; Mal. 1:11; Matt. 6:6; John 4:21; Acts 2:42; Acts 10:2; 1Tim. 2:8; Heb. 10:25

7. As it is a law of nature, applicable to all, that a proportion of time, determined by God, should be allocated for the worship of God, so, by His Word, He has particularly appointed one day in seven to be kept as a holy Sabbath to Himself. The commandment to this effect is positive, moral, and of perpetual application. It is binding upon all men in all ages. From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ the Sabbath was the last day of the week, but when Christ's resurrection took place it was changed to the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day. It is to be continued to the world's end as the Christian Sabbath, the observance of the seventh day being abolished. Exod. 20:8; Acts 20:7; 1Cor. 16:1-2; Rev. 1:10

8. Men keep the Sabbath holy to the Lord when, having duly prepared their hearts and settled their mundane affairs beforehand, for the sake of the Lord's command they set aside all works, words and thoughts that pertain to their worldly employment and recreations, and devote the whole of the Lord's day to the public and private exercises of God's worship, and to duties of necessity and mercy. Neh. 13:15-22; Isa. 58:13; Matt. 12:1-13