D. James Kennedy Dies
FT. LAUDERDALE, Sept. 5 – Dr. D. James Kennedy, founder and senior pastor for 48 years of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church (CRPC) in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., passed away peacefully in his sleep at approximately 2:15 a.m. at his home with his wife and daughter by his bedside, following complications from a cardiac event last December. He was 76. Dates and times for a public viewing and funeral and private interment will be released when available. “There are all kinds of wonderful things I could say about my dad,” said daughter Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy. “But one that stands out is his fine example. He ‘walked the walk’ and ‘practiced what he preached.’ His work for Christ is lasting – it will go on and on and make a difference for eternity.”
Dr. Kennedy, who is survived by Anne, his wife of 51 years, and his daughter Jennifer (Kennedy) Cassidy, preached his last sermon from the pulpit of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church on Christmas Eve Sunday 2006. He suffered a cardiac arrest four days later on Dec. 28, and has since been unable to return to the pulpit. The church announced his retirement on Aug. 26, beginning a process to choose his successor, and had planned a tribute worship service honoring the extensive ministry of Dr. Kennedy on Sept. 23.
“I would like to thank all of you for your prayers, cards, kindnesses and encouragement over the past nine months,” Mrs. Cassidy said during the retirement announcement. “Our family knows that we have come through this difficult time because of God’s grace and your faithful prayers, and it has brought joy to us to see God’s faithfulness in all of this.”
While hindered by persistent health problems that included asthma, as well as chronic and often severe physical pain from compressed vertebrae due to an injury suffered as a young man, Dr. Kennedy was indefatigable in his ministry work. He said on several occasions how much he looked forward to being free from pain in heaven. He was one of the nation’s leading Christian broadcasters and a vigorous and articulate advocate for Christian involvement in public life.
Regardless of one’s opinion of the amount of politics that comprised Dr. Kennedy’s preaching ministry, we should be grateful for his leadership in lending credibility to the idea that Calvinists can be great evangelists, in his writing Evangelism Explosion, currently used by probably more denominations than any other method of evangelism, from what I’ve heard, anyway. I’m glad they’re continuing to air the broadcasts of the church services–I love the music at the beginning and do appreciate some of the informative programs on current events and issues political and religious.
The Pelagian Drinking Song
Several years ago, back when I worked at “The Reformation Station,” Dr. Tom Browning taught a series on “The History of the Doctrine of Justification” (which I hear will be available in the future from his website!) at Arlington Presbyterian Church, Arlington, Texas. One of the lessons was on the debate between Augustine and Pelagius over the necessity of God’s grace in overcoming original sin. Dr. Browning had requested that my then boss, Randy Buster (founder of “The Reformation Station”), arrange a tune to a song he’d dug up in his studies about Pelagianism. It’s a hilarious song called “The Pelagian Drinking Song.”
I recently thought to email these dear brothers of mine to request the recording of Randy Buster’s arrangement of Hillaire Belloc’s “The Pelagian Drinking Song” and permission to blog about it. You can listen to this recording in the black Box.net widget toward the bottom of my sidebar.
And now, without further ado, I give you, “The Pelagian Drinking Song,” by Hilaire Belloc, through the teaching ministry of Dr. Tom Browning and the musical arrangement and perfomance of Randy Buster:
The Pelagian Drinking Song, by Hillaire Belloc (1870 – 1953)
Pelagius lived at Kardanoel
And taught a doctrine there
How, whether you went to heaven or to hell
It was your own affair.
It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy,
But was your own affair.
No, he didn’t believe
In Adam and Eve
He put no faith therein!
His doubts began
With the Fall of Man
And he laughed at Original Sin.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
He laughed at original sin.
Then came the bishop of old Auxerre
Germanus was his name
He tore great handfuls out of his hair
And he called Pelagius shame.
And with his stout Episcopal staff
So thoroughly whacked and banged
The heretics all, both short and tall –
They rather had been hanged.
Oh he whacked them hard, and he banged them long
Upon each and all occasions
Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong
Their orthodox persuasions.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Their orthodox persuasions.
Now the faith is old and the Devil bold
Exceedingly bold indeed.
And the masses of doubt that are floating about
Would smother a mortal creed.
But we that sit in a sturdy youth
And still can drink strong ale
Let us put it away to infallible truth
That always shall prevail.
And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword
And howling heretics too.
And all good things
Our Christendom brings
But especially barley brew!
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Especially barley brew!
The Connection Between Election And Apostacy
Here’s my transcription of a listener’s telephone comment on the Sunday, August 12 edition of The White Horse Inn, “Grace & Election in the Book of Ephesians.” On the one hand, the following conversation includes an anecdote which well portrays a “fightin’ fundamentalist” standing his ground against election in a way he may assume is as bold as Paul declaring that if resurrection didn’t really happen, then Christ died in vain and we’re dead in our sins. But on the other hand, it can really make you nervous about the danger to which professing believers expose themselves when they stubbornly deny the Word of God on the doctrines of grace. No, I don’t think dedicated Christians who love and serve Jesus and otherwise believe the Bible and sound conservative theology are apostate if they disagree with election–I mean those who go to the extreme and deny the faith because they refuse to accept the clear teaching of Scripture because of election. The kind to which I’m referring are the kind who understand exactly what the Bible says about election and reject the faith because of it.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Horton: Greg in Littleton, Colorado, good evening.
Greg: Hello. This is providential that you’re discussing this tonight, because my uncle who’s an Independent Baptist, to his disappointment, discovered that Spurgeon actually taught this.
Riddlebarger: (while other hosts laugh) Oh boy, did he ever!
Greg: . . . and he really is quite hostile to this teaching, and I really think, for one thing, I said to him, “If I could show you in Scripture where election is clearly taught, wouldn’t you have to give in and believe it?” And I was disappointed at his response–he said, “well, I would have to question the authenticity of the Scriptures.”
Rosenblatt: Holy smokes!
Riddlebarger: Oh, boy!
Horton: Wow. You know, this does bring up an important point. I’ve been in situations where I’ve been talking about this and people have said–even older folks, people who’ve been lifelong Christians, committed to the authority of Scripture, and Bible-believing Christians, and you go through this, and, uh, I remember throwing my Bible across the room when I read Romans 9.
Riddlebarger: Oh, I remember listening to a Donald Grey Barnhouse tape on election, up all night with my Bible going through all the passages he mentioned, just sick in the pit of my stomach. But, you know, that’s just like John chapter 6, when Jesus utters the hard words, “Unless the Father draws you, you can’t come,” and the crowd starts grumbling, so he says it again, and they all walk away.
Horton: Tough words. Even his own disciples: “This is a hard teaching and who can hear it?”
My Newest “Study Bible”!
This one is definitely an “easy-to-read” Bible! Not only that, there are pictures on every page! What can be learned from this “study Bible” is not what the Greek word for so-and-so means, there are no charts of the Kings of Israel or anything like that, this study Bible teaches the reader that among the other popular and overused and often abused interpretations of Scripture, the main reason the stories of the Bible are written is to teach us about the One God promised to send to crush the Serpent’s head. And that’s all it teaches.
That’s also what preachers are supposed to base all their practical application and character studies on, too. How easy it is to forget. I can testify just in trying to write Sunday School and AWANA lessons for elementary age children. How much more is it necessary to keep in mind when the moms and dads are being preached to by the “teaching elder” (Ephesians 4:11; 1 Timothy 5:17).
Modern Christians have plenty of the other kinds of “headknowledge” about dates, locations, and name meanings, but most forget (in word and action, which are the ways that count), no, neglect, that which is “of first importance” according to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).
Bob Hayton of Fundamentally Reformed, in his post, “The Storybook for Preachers,” quotes Dr. Tim Keller as saying, ““I’d urge ministers to buy it and read it for themselves. It will improve their preaching.” That’s what hooked me, and that’s why I bought it. Sure, I’ll probably tackle one or two of my younger children (who are well into chapter books by now) and force them to listen to one or more of these stories on occasion, and any grandchildren the Lord may send my way someday will certainly benefit from it, but in the meantime this children’s book is mine! I’m also going to buy a copy and donate it to my church library, and I suggest you do the same. But some of you more daring (yet gentle and respectful–see 1 Peter 3:15) sorts may like to sweetly give a copy to your pastor with a copy of Keller’s quote tucked in as a bookmark.
One of my new favorite old radio shows is Haven Today, featuring the warm, fuzzy and comforting tone of Reformed radio man, Charles Morris (think Steve Brown, but not as funny), features a few recordings of Jesus Storybook Bible author, Sally Lloyd-Jones (I wonder if there’s any relation to D. Martyn? I suppose if there were, it would have come up), reading her Christ-centered children’s Bible stories. There are a lot of other interesting videos and links related to Sally and her book on the “Going Deeper” section of Haven Today’s homepage (on the right sidebar toward the bottom). Check out The Jesus Storybook Bible Sampler, and buy a few copies. We need to encourage Christ-centeredness in Christian publishing!
From Justification to Sanctification
A Primer for Fantasy-Phobes
End Time Redux
The God-Given Righteousness of Noah
The God who promised to send the Seed of the Woman to crush the Serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15) gave Noah the faith to believe this promise. God was the ultimate basis of Noah’s righteousness. The way in which the Seed of the Woman would crush the Serpent’s head, destroying Satan’s power through sin over God’s chosen, had not yet been revealed. Noah did not know how God’s promised Seed would save him from sin, he just believed that he would. As we study through the Old Testament, we’ll learn that God reveals his plan to save sinners progressively, a little bit at a time.
Our lives are like that. We set goals, but we don’t know everything we’ll need to do yet, or what will happen to us before we reach our goal, but these details become clear to us day by day. This is the way it works with the history of God’s work of redemption from sin. First we learn the big picture: God had announced his plan to send Someone to defeat the great enemy of our souls; then, bit by bit, who this Someone is, and how he’s going to defeat this enemy slowly became clear to people like Adam, Seth, Enoch and Noah one detail at a time. A few of these details are revealed to us in the righteous life of Noah.
By his grace, God promised to deliver Noah from the flood of judgment which he and the entire world deserved (Genesis 6:18), and Noah believed God’s promise, so one of the factors of Noah’s righteous life was faith. This faith in God’s promise was the basis for Noah’s righteous life, but it was not his faith that saved him, it was the gracious, promise-keeping God who chose to save him that was the ultimate basis of his righteousness and his salvation. Noah was a righteous man because God made Noah a righteous man.
The other factor that adds up to righteousness for Noah was his obedience to God’s commands. God gave Noah very specific instructions to build an ark (Genesis 6:14-16), what size to build it, what to build it with, how to build it and how many of the various beasts, birds and bugs to gather into the ark (Genesis 6:19-20). The testimony of Moses was that Noah obeyed all that God commanded him to do (Genesis 6:22). Yet this obedience by itself did not earn for Noah his status as a righteous man. Remember he was righteous by God’s grace through the faith granted to him by God (see Ephesians 2:8-9) with which he believed the God of the promise of salvation from sin, Satan and the flood. Noah’s faith was the root of Noah’s obedience. Noah’s obedience was the fruit of Noah’s faith. Therefore Noah’s faith evidenced by his obedience was what Moses was talking about when he wrote that Noah was a righteous man (Genesis 6:9).
God saves us the same way. All of us were born with Adam’s guilt legally imputed to us (Romans 5:12-14) by virtue of the fact that Adam represented us in the covenant with God which he violated when he ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 3; cf. Hosea 6:7). In addition to this, we were born, having inherited a corrupt human nature that wants nothing but sin (Romans 3:10-18), unable to do anything (Romans 8:7) that will please him (Hebrews 11:6) and save ourselves. As things stand, we deserve death and an eternity of suffering the wrath of God.
But out of the mass of condemned humanity, a remnant finds favor with God (Genesis 6:8; cf. Romans 11:5-7). Because of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection for sinners, God looks on this remnant with grace and gives them the faith (Acts 13:48; 18:27) to trust the work of Christ that is preached to everybody (Mark 16:15). We then rely on his grace to give us the obedience with which we show our thanks and love for the work of Christ on the cross (John 14:15). So we learn how God saved us in the Bible, and we also learn how to respond to this good news in grateful love by learning the commands of God—because true faith works by love (Galatians 5:6). That’s how we can be remembered as a righteous man or a righteous woman after our story has been told, just like Noah, by a God-given faith in Christ that obeys God’s commands.
In The Even You Are Seated Next To A Calvinist
Click on the image above and you can read your anti-Calvin safety procedures. . .
“‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’”
48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,eyes that would not seeand ears that would not hear,down to this very day.”
9 And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,a stumbling block and a retribution for them;10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,and bend their backs forever.”
Kingdom Coffers: Rabbit Trail on Government and Reformation
Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 3
The History of the Relationship Between Church, State and Tithing
I highly recommend that everyone read the Wikipedia entry on the Tithe. It gave me some very interesting insight into the way in which the historically blurred line between church and state has helped to seal in our minds the assumption that giving ten percent of one’s income (at least) is a New Covenant principle.
It seems that the Roman Catholic Church adopted tithing from the Old Testament as a workable, pragmatic model to ensure a regular income for their growing heirarchy. As you know, Rome during the middle ages exerted enormous influence over the nations of Europe, during which millennium, the concept of tithing became well ingrained. Thus, when the Reformation began, the governments of Europe seized the opportunity to protect themselves from similar influence from the diverse Protestant churches, by themselves exerting influence over the church, rather than allowing the status quo to continue at the hands of these upstart Protestants.
Part of this influence was in the various ways the governments of Europe extracted “tithes” from the people and supported their various state churches (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, etc.), which trend has just in the past couple of hundred years begun to diminish. Here’s an example of how America “dun good!” (for once, if you consider Americanism’s various other less than fortunate influences on American Christianity–no nation is exempt from syncretism) in refusing to take money from the church and give money to the church (the current President excepted–I wonder what other Presidents have likewise contradicted this national emphasis in other ways? That would be an interesting history lesson . . . ). Another way the government prevented complete Reformation was on the issue of the Lord’s Supper (at least in “Calvin’s Geneva”). But I’m done with that topic for now, but the comments apparently keep rolling in, much to my glee!
More on the government’s ability to inhibit Reformation later . . .
Kingdom Coffers: “Flat Tax” or “Love Offering”? Part 2
Abram, Melchizedek and “Christian Tithing”
Is it, or is it not, appropriate to call our giving to God in the church “the tithe,” applying Mosaic principles regulating the giving of it (“Will a man rob God?”), and stressing its importance (“The tithe is the LORD’s!!!”), or would it be more biblical to simply “purpose” in one’s own heart how much he ought to give, in order to ensure that it is given with love (1 Corinthians 13:3) or, as Paul wrote in his second letter to the Corinthians, as a “cheerful giver?”
It is held by many that tithing is only a part of the civil/ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law and it is, therefore, assumed to be abrogated in the New Testament, in which Paul gives a New Covenant principle of “cheerful giving.” In light of this argument, Christian tithing is defended on the grounds that Abram’s tithing to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:20b) precedes the Mosaic Law and thus ought to be retained after the civil/ceremonial parts of the Mosaic Law are abrogated. For example, consider the Statement of Faith of the World Baptist Fellowship, International. In Section 20 on “The Grace of Giving,” it reads, Under grace we give, and do not pay, the tithe – “Abraham GAVE a tenth part of all” – “Abraham GAVE the tenth of the spoils” – Hebrews 7:2-4 – and this was four hundred years before the law, and is confirmed in the New Testament; Jesus said concerning the tithe, “These ye ought to have done” – Matt. 23:23.
This was the view with which I had been raised. In fact, the Statement of Faith I just cited was the one adopted by the church in which I was saved and baptized. Ever since I’ve been earning money, I’ve been striving to be faithful to this principle. My current church is the first to which I have belonged which specifically denies this concept of some kind of eternal principle about tithing that ought to be retained, even though the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Law have been abrogated. I have been considering the relative merits of both views for the last few years.
If tithing is an eternal principle which transcends the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace by virtue of Abram’s tithing to Melchizedek, then tithing ought to be retained in Christian worship, further informed, I would say, above and beyond the letter of tithing by Paul’s teaching on evidencing one’s love for the Lord and the people of God by the cheerful giving of that which the believer purposes in his heart in gratitude for the Lord’s blessings (2 Corinthians 8-9).
But if it is a mere aspect of the temporary civil/ceremonial laws, then it is abrogated by Christ and the Pauline giving principle is the only rule for the people of God today. So the challenge for me has been to evaluate whether or not the Abram/Melchizedek tithe in Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7 is a valid basis for the idea that tithing is demanded outside the Mosaic Law.
One of the points that got me thinking about this issue is the claim that the New Testament does not expressly command tithing, therefore it ought not be retained. This argument that there is no explicit New Testament command to tithe was coming off as another application of the same argument invalidly used (in my mind, with all due respect) by Baptists when they argue against pedobaptism. It did not sit well with me to hear pedobaptists using this line of reasoning. So the question is raised in my mind as to just what it is about the New Testament that abrogates the practice of tithing?
There are New Testament Scriptures abrogating everything from sacrificing animals (Hebrews 10:9) to eating unclean animals (Acts 10:9-16); but nothing was surfacing as I searched the Scriptures in my mind that explicitly abrogates the principle of giving ten percent of one’s income to the church. In my mind, this pointed to the perpetuity of tithing as a New Covenant principle.
So that’s what helped me think to scrutinize the Abram/Melchizedek tithing account. How does the New Testament treat this passage? Does its treatment affect the tithing question? Simple answers:
The New Testament treats the Abram/ Melchizedek tithing account as a type fulfilled by Christ. The very same New Testament book which gives the apostolic interpretation also warns us against reinstating Christ-fulfilled types and shadows. So if the account of Abram tithing to Melchizedek typifies the superiority of Christ to the Levitical priesthood, then this Old Testament passage is irrelevant to the question of giving in Christian worship. Therefore, I conclude that the New Testament treatment of that Old Testament account does affect the tithing question by taking this event off the table as a passage to be considered in the context of Christian giving. To do so would be tantamount to returning to Old Testament types and shadows.
Therefore, it is not a misguided baptistic argument to say that New Covenant believers don’t tithe because the new Testament doesn’t command us to tithe but does command us to give cheerfully that which we purpose in our hearts to give as we have been blessed. This is an offering made in the context of New Covenant worship that is pleasing to the Lord!
An IFB associate pastor friend of mine counters this argument with the principle, “There is one interpretation, but there are many applications,” as justification to take this passage about how much greater Christ is than Levi and apply it to the doctrines of giving in New Covenant worship. While it may be true that there are (at least some of them) many applications, those applications are accountable to the one interpretation, rightly exegeted. Does the application of the Abram/Melchizedek type to “Christian tithing” meet this exegetical standard?
Kingdom Coffers: "Flat Tax" or "Love Offering"? Part 1
Why Weekly Communion?
While the weekly celebration of the Lord’s Supper is not common in Protestant churches, we at Arlington Presbyterian believe it to be the biblical and preferred practice for the following reasons:
THE PRACTICE OF THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH
Although we do not have any clear-cut command, the New Testament evidence does seem to point in the direction of weekly communion, especially if one understands “the breaking of bread” to be a reference to the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:42; 20:7; 1 Cor. 11:17-20; cf. 14:26).
EVIDENCE FROM CHURCH HISTORY
There are very clear and early (second century) allusions to the practice in the Didache and Justin Martyr’s The First Apology. While the history of the Church does not have the authority of God’s Word, it at least ought to interest us that the Christian community observed this practice, apparently without much discussion, so shortly after the time of the Apostles.
CONSISTENCY WITH OUR USE OF OTHER ELEMENTS OF WORSHIP
Why should the Lord’s Supper be the only regular element of worship which does not find a place in each Lord’s Day worship service? To be consistent, any argument against weekly communion would be an equally valid argument against weekly hymn-singing, weekly praying, weekly preaching, and so on.
BRINGING US BACK TO BASICS
Regardless of the sermon text or topic, the congregation is always brought back to the fundamentals—the death and resurrection of Christ (Matthew 26:26-28).
APPEAL TO THE WHOLE MAN
Since the Lord’s Supper is the only element of worship that appeals to all five senses, its weekly observance helps to prevent an “intellectualizing” of the worship service. If we do not celebrate the Sacrament frequently, we should not be surprised when our members leave Reformed worship for something more “stimulating.”
OPPORTUNITY FOR COVENANT RENEWAL
The Lord’s Supper is the ideal means of meditating on God’s Word and renewing our faith and repentance so that we may serve the Lord in the upcoming week (Acts 20:7).
PROVIDING ASSURANCE, PERSONALIZING THE GOSPEL
Every week the believer receives tangible and visible assurance that Christ died for him (Matthew 26:28).
IDENTIFICATION WITH THE PEOPLE OF GOD
This Sacrament stresses the corporate dimension of the Church, thereby promoting unity and the restoration of broken relationships. Don’t we need this every week (1 Cor. 10:16-17)?
One of the stages of discipline in many Reformed churches is suspension from the Lord’s Table. One of the purposes of this is to make the unrepentant sinner aware of his sin that he might be restored. But how effective can this be if the Lord’s Supper is not celebrated frequently? Even once a month would not seem to constitute effective suspension (1 Cor. 5:11-13).
VISIBLE MARK OF A DISCIPLE OF CHRIST
There is always the need to distinguish believer from unbeliever (Eph. 5:6-8). Since one of the purposes of the Sacraments is to make this difference visible, we should produce this visible difference often.
NATURAL PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL TO UNBELIEVERS
By setting forth so plainly the work of Christ on the cross, and especially by fencing the table, any unbelievers present are called to faith and repentance. Weekly communion thus provides a natural and regular opportunity to present the claims of Christ to visitors.
SPIRITUAL NOURISHMENT
Since the Lord’s Supper is a means of grace, through faith it provides us with what we need to grow in grace. Thus, the frequent partaking of the bread and the wine for our spiritual nourishment is as necessary as the frequent partaking of food for our physical nourishment (1 Cor. 10:16).
CALL TO SELF-EXAMINATION AND REPENTANCE
Such should be our daily practice. Weekly communion reminds us of this and gives us opportunity to actually do so on a regular basis (1 Cor. 11:27-32).
REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
One of the problems with an infrequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper is that it tends to produce unrealistically high expectations as to what should “happen.” People expect something magical and exciting to happen at quarterly communion, but are often disappointed; they go away wondering what they missed and why they missed it. By celebrating the Lord’s Supper each week our expectations become realistically high; we look forward to and enjoy it much as we do prayer, preaching, singing, and the other elements of Christian worship.
TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD!
Prepared by the Staff and Session of Arlington Presbyterian Church
1320 West Pioneer Parkway, Arlington, Texas 76103
Phone 817-261-8938; Fax 817-459-1136; Email mailto:info@apcweb.org
Observant Protestantism and "True Christianity"
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 