Love or Apostasy?
"Extra! Extra! Read all about it!"
Today’s headlines from the Daily Evangel, in the Evangelical News & Views section, includes Christianity Today’s interview with Rick Warren in which he clarifies some of the comments he made during his interview with Larry King on CNN Monday night (click on “Q & A: Rick Warren” in the sidebar). In my last post, I introduced the topic with the statement that “a couple of pastor Warren’s comments troubled me,” then I only blogged on one of them. The second thing was his announcement, as an example of what he calls “interfaith projects” (which he finds far superior to “interfaith dialogue”), that he would attend a Jewish Passover seder hosted by a rabbi friend of his, Elie Spitz. Spitz’s congregation is hosting a “community seder” (see this advertisement).
Larry King had sought a comment from Warren about President Obama’s recent comments regarding Islam in Turkey. Here’s the exchange:
KING: Obama has traveled to Turkey, first president to visit a Muslim country. He had this to say about the United States and Islam in a speech to Turkish parliament. Watch. I’d like you to comment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: The United States is not and will never be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical, not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject, but also to strengthen opportunity for all people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: What do you think of that?
WARREN: You know, I think that’s the exact right tone, Larry. There are 600,000 Buddhists in the world. There are 800,000 Hindus in the world. There are a billion Muslims in the world. There are 2.3 billion Christians in the world. You have to get along together. That’s why I speak with Jewish groups. I speak to Muslim groups.
We’re all human beings. We have to work on issues we don’t always agree on. I’m not really into what I call inter-faith dialogue. I think that’s a lot of wasted time. I’m interested in what I call inter-faith projects. In other words, I’m not going to convince a lot of people who have other beliefs to change their beliefs and vice versa. But we can work together on issues like poverty, disease, illiteracy and things that — problems common to all humanity.
This week, for instance, tomorrow night, I’m going to a Seder dinner with my dear friend Elie Spitz (ph), who is a local rabbi. We’ll celebrate Passover together. And then later in the work [week? jdc], I’ll do Easter, which is — they’re both all about redemption. My next door neighbor is Muslim. I traveled with him to the Middle East. We’re dear, dear friends. And there’s no reason — what people don’t seem to understand is that you don’t have to agree with everybody in order to love them.
In the CT interview, Warren elaborates on these remarks:
People see me out there — I speak to Muslim groups and Jewish groups, I’m actually having a Passover Seder tomorrow night. People never need to doubt why I do what I do, even when associating with people gets me in all kinds of hot water. Jesus got into hot water for the people he associated with. Fundamentalist groups say Warren hangs out with Jews and Muslims and gays and on and on. The point is, I’m not allowed to not love anybody.
With these words, Warren blurs the lines between loving people regardless of religion or lack thereof, which is of course appropriate, and worshiping with them. It’s not hard to distinguish between the two, yet Warren seems to see no distinction. The apostle Paul wrote in Romans 13:10, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” However, in the book of Hebrews, the author of that letter warns Christians against engaging in the worship of unbelieving Jews (Hebrews 5:11-6:8). To do so, according to the author of Hebrews, is tantamount to apostasy. The elements of the Passover seder, like the Old Testament temple worship, are a “copy” and “shadow of the heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5).
I submit that it is not unloving to refrain from worshiping with those who reject the gospel, while still living a life that does no harm to them. At the same time, I find that this announcement of participating in the copies and shadows of things fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ, in the context and company of those who deny his fulfillment of them, is just the logical conclusion of the kind of fuzzy thinking Warren engages in when he calls Roman Catholics and others who distort the gospel, “brothers and sisters in God’s family” (see my previous post).
Dearly beloved, this type of activity on the part of Protestant (yes, I said “Protestant”) leaders is indicative of the spiritual decline in Christianity that I believe is linked to the kind of sociological decline reported on by Newsweek magazine. What American Christianity needs is a revival and a Reformation. It needs to regain the courage to be Protestant. I would ask you to consider the words of the Cambridge Declaration, a recent statement and call to reformation and revival prepared by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. This statement is found on my “Creeds, Confessions, Catechisms and Statements” page, but here’s the link for your convenience.
The introduction to the Cambridge Declaration describes well the state of affairs and the need of the hour. Please consider them seriously:
Evangelical churches today are increasingly dominated by the spirit of this age rather than by the Spirit of Christ. As evangelicals, we call ourselves to repent of this sin and to recover the historic Christian faith.
In the course of history words change. In our day this has happened to the word “evangelical.” In the past it served as a bond of unity between Christians from a wide diversity of church traditions. Historic evangelicalism was confessional. It embraced the essential truths of Christianity as those were defined by the great ecumenical councils of the church. In addition, evangelicals also shared a common heritage in the “solas” of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation.
Today the light of the Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that the word “evangelical” has become so inclusive as to have lost its meaning. We face the peril of losing the unity it has taken centuries to achieve. Because of this crisis and because of our love of Christ, his gospel and his church, we endeavor to assert anew our commitment to the central truths of the Reformation and of historic evangelicalism. These truths we affirm not because of their role in our traditions, but because we believe that they are central to the Bible.
If not a Protestant, then what?
Last night, Saddleback Church pastor, Rick Warren, was interviewed on CNN’s Larry King Live. A couple of pastor Warren’s comments troubled me. Here’s one them.
KING: OK. Do you think Christianity is slipping in America? That’s the front cover of “Newsweek,” out today. Quite a loss occurring in the Christian community. There you see the headline.
WARREN: Well, I would say it’s the best of times and the worst of times. First place, I don’t think that all of the questions that are asked in surveys are always as objective as they could be. For instance, if you ask people, are you a Protestant — and the number of Protestants has gone down dramatically in the last 30 years. I don’t even call myself a Protestant. (emphasis mine) (read the transcript here)
Rick Warren is not a Protestant? What in the world is he? I didn’t think he was the sort that claimed to be “post-evangelical” like the Internet Monk, or a proponent of the “emerging church.” Even though I spent over twenty years in Baptist fundamentalism which denied being Protestants (even though they really are) because of their commitment to a view of Baptist history called “Landmarkism” or Baptist Successionism, I seriously doubt this is the case with Rick Warren.
I searched around the web looking for an answer and the only real lead I could find was found at Apprising Ministries, a discernment ministry blog. One post carries the title, “Southern Baptist Pastor Rick Warren Corrects Martin Luther.” In this post, Warren is quoted as saying:
“Now I don’t agree with everything in everybody’s denomination, including my own. I don’t agree with everything that Catholics do or Pentecostals do, but what binds us together is so much stronger than what divides us,” he said. “I really do feel that these people are brothers and sisters in God’s family. I am looking to build bridges with the Orthodox Church, looking to build bridges with the Catholic Church,….”
It appears he’s willing to seek common ground with other segments of “Christendom” which deny the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone, because of Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone–the gospel of the Protestant Reformation. I’m sure Warren affirms this gospel personally, I’m sure he’s aware the Roman Catholic Church anathematized this very gospel at the Council of Trent and has never rescinded such a blasphemous stance. I wonder, however, if Pastor Warren cares. Here’s the link to Apprising Ministries’ category of posts on Rick Warren, if you desire to read more about his activity regarding the relationship between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Do any of my readers know any more about Rick Warren’s stance on Protestant identity? Has anyone ever heard him deny that he’s a Protestant before? I’m interested to learn more about how he categorizes himself.
Equal in Creation and Redemption; Complementary in Role
Yesterday on the Gender Blog for the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary responded to a USA Today op-ed column by Mary Zeiss Stange, professor of Women’s Studies and Religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. The topic: of course, women’s role in church ministry. Considering her credentials, it’s easy to see that Stange is going to be an advocate of egalitarianism (look it up) between the sexes when it comes to church leadership. Dr. Mohler attempts to bring Stange’s, and the modern culture’s, basic worldview into focus, and he contrasts it with some basic comments regarding the biblical, complementarian (look it up), worldview of the roles of men and women in church life.
I realize that the world isn’t consciously fettered to the clear teaching of Scripture, and it should be no surprise that the world would attempt to budge the church from faithfulness thereto. The world does a very good job of it, across the board, when it has to try at all, and doesn’t find a church eager to join the world’s parade regardless of which direction it’s going. But I thought in the light of the present discussion on those other sites, I’d post Paul’s controversial restriction on women in church leadership from 1 Timothy 2. And I mean the whole, short chapter. As you read the chapter, notice first of all the redemptive basis of his restriction, then notice the Old Testament or creational basis of his restriction:
2:1 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
The redemptive basis of Paul’s restrictions on women in church leadership is found in verses five and six. Men and women share the same mediator. Elsewhere, in the context of roles in marriage, Peter instructs husbands to keep in mind that their wives are “heirs with [them] of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). The same is true in this context. Christ died, not only for “kings, and all who are in high positions,” or just for Jews and men (meaning males), but he died for all kinds of people. He died for the powerful and the powerless; for the Jew and for the Gentile; and the Lord Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and humans of both sexes. It is instructive to note that the word “man” in verse five translates the same Greek word that is translated people in verses one and four. Christ didn’t just die for males, he died for males and females. It is first in the light of this fact, men’s and women’s equality in redemption, that Paul gives any instruction at all to anyone. For here is the source of life: the message of redemption in Christ. No other message will grant to men or women the grace to serve God according to his will. And any differentiation of roles between the sexes would certainly not last, if not for loving gratitude to the Lord for what he has done for men and women.
Secondly, notice Paul’s Old Testament, or creational, basis for his restriction on women in the church leadership role. This is found in verses thirteen and fourteen. Refer to the passage above for a refresher. Paul states two simple reasons. I might add that they are reasons that were “breathed-out,” or spoken, by God himself. Reason one: Women should not “teach” or “excercise authority over a man,” but are to “remain quiet” because of creational chronology. Adam was created first, and Eve was created second. The simple fact is that the biblical revelation of the creation of men and women included from the very beginning inherent complementarian roles. Moses clearly writes that the woman was created to be “a helper fit (or corresponding) to him” (Genesis 2:18). Paul does not elaborate on this chronology as an excuse to institute complementarian roles in the church, just states it as the reason.
The challenge of competent biblical interpretation is to avoid going beyond what Scripture teaches. Yes, this includes the implicit teaching as well as the explicit, but not all inferences drawn from the text are equally valid or necessary. One must tread with caution when it comes to that. When the interpreter is not cautious in drawing inferences, misinterpretation results, and this misinterpretation will contradict the totality of biblical revelation. So it is in this case. The reason people get offended so easily by this passage is that when they hear that men were created before women, they don’t hear a chronological list, they instinctively hear a qualitative list, for want of a better word (if you’ve got one, submit it in your comment). In other words, they hear something like, men were created first, and therefore they are better than women. This is what I call an invalid, and unnecessary inference drawn from the text. This is not what Paul is saying. It is important to not “go beyond what is written” (compare 1 Corinthians 4:6-7).
Paul’s second Old Testament basis is the fact that Eve became a transgressor by being deceived in the fall, and Paul clarifies that Adam was not deceived. Here again, it is important to reign in our instinctive inferences based on sexual rivalry. Many hear this passage as implying that women should not teach men in church, or serve in the pastoral office, because they are somehow by nature more prone to deception, and that, in order to preserve the truth of Scripture, women should be restricted from the teaching ministry of the church. This, again, is an invalid inference. If this passage does anything, it points out the greater responsibility Adam had in the fall, as compared with Eve. Put simply, the devil tricked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit; Adam ate it, as they say, “of his own free will.” So here again, Eve is subordinate in role (not in inherent worth) not only in her creation, but also in her fall from original righteousness, into original sin. Thus Paul’s second facet of the creational basis of complementarianism in roles in the church.
So Adam and Eve were created and fell with reference to superordinate and subordinate roles. So, where do we find the inherent equality in worth? Genesis 1:26 says, “Then God said, “Let us make man (generic for both sexes) in our image, after our likeness.” Both men and women reflect God in righteousness, knowledge and holiness (compare Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). Men and women were created equally righteous, but fell from this; they were equally rational–both have the capacity for reason which distinguishes them from the animal kingdom, and so reflect God. Men and women were also created equally “holy” or set apart by God to perform God-given roles. Although these roles differ, the fact that they are set apart for specific roles is equal.
So, in creation and redemption, men and women are equal. In role, men and women complement each other. When tempted to defer to the pressure of the world to conform to its egalitarian expectations, it’s important to recall that Paul quoted Old Testament Scripture as his sole reason for having men and women serve differing roles out of loving gratitude for the mediatorial life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. The roles were not culturally contrived, and therefore dated and obsolete. The roles were built in at creation and are expected in the light of the cross. Paul stood on God’s Word, and so should the 21st century Christian.
Faith vs. Reason
"Extra! Extra! Read all about it!"
Make sure you read the headlines from the Daily Evangel today, over in my sidebar to the right. Especially of interest is the Theological Word of the Day: Fideism.
Without giving anything away, I’d like to at least point out that this is what theological liberals like to appeal to in order to hold onto a facade of religion as they follow the secularistic trends in biblical studies which leads them to “re-mythologize” their theology, if you will.
Puritan Theology
The progress (or perhaps, regress) of my theological views from independent Baptist
fundamentalism to confessional Reformed theology results from my desire to get to the true roots of the Baptist tradition. Sort of a “back to the basics” quest. Essential in the post-Reformation development of Reformed theology, and even the development of the original Baptist movement, is Puritan theology. As Baptist historian, Leon McBeth, writes at the Baptist History and Heritage Society website, “Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England.” Several notable Puritans, like the great John Owen, renounced their paedobaptistic distinctives in favor of the emerging Baptistic alternatives, which I still contend are due to Anabaptistic, rather than Reformed, influence. But I digress (for more on the ongoing debate about an Anabaptist/Baptist connection, read this article from the Baptist Standard).
One of the Reformed podcasts I follow weekly, “Christ the Center,” by the Reformed Forum, features an interview of Rev. James O’Brien, pastor of Reedy River PCA on the Christ-centered, and piety-enriching benefits of reading the Puritans (listen to the episode here). Puritan literature is available, not only from Banner of Truth Trust, and other Reformed publishers who reprint their works, but a world of Puritan literature is also available at Archive.org, and Google Books. But to get an easy start, you or some Christian you know probably has a copy of Matthew Henry’s commentary. Pull it off the shelf and peruse it. I bet you won’t regret it.
Why Saint Patrick was NOT a Baptist, part 2: Visions vs. Sola Scriptura
On pages 24 and 25 of his book, Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History, Dr. James E. McGoldrick demonstrates that on the subject of revelation, and the teaching that would, during the Reformation, become known as Sola Scriptura, St. Patrick was not a Baptist:
Although details are lacking, Patrick’s time in slavery seems to have been the occasion for a growing devotion to God and the development of a powerful desire to evangelize the pagan Irish. The conviction that he should embrace the life of a missionary came, Patrick believed, in the form of a vision which included a voice from heaven.
I saw one night a vision, a man coming as it were from Ireland (his name was Victoricus), with countless letters, and I read the heading of the letter, “The Voice of the Irish,” and as I read . . . at that moment I heard voices of those who dwelt beside the wood of the Focluth, which is by the western sea; and thus they cried, as if with one mouth: “We beseech thee, holy youth, to come and work once more among us.” [See St. Patrick: His Writings and Muirchu’s Life, ed. And tr. A. B. E. Hood (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1978), 45-46].
This account of his call to the ministry reflects Patrick’s belief in continuing and direct revelations from God apart from scripture. He reported many such experiences and claimed that some of his converts received such revelations as well [Ibid., 50] [Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History, James Edward McGoldrick (Scarecrow Press, 2000)].
In these three paragraphs, Dr. McGoldrick demonstrates that for St. Patrick to attribute to a supernatural vision his call to return to Ireland as a missionary, and to claim “many such experiences” in his writings, he sets himself at variance with the historic Baptist view of Sola Scriptura it had originally received from the magisterial reformation.
Although in the present day, there are a myriad of emphases among a broad range of movements and denominations which claim the name “Baptist,” including charismatic emphases that would claim unity with St. Patrick on supernatural revelations given directly by the Holy Spirit apart from the written Word of God, this is not the view of the historic Baptist tradition. The teaching of the Calvinistic wing of the historic Baptist tradition is contained in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, which reads in its chapter, “Of the Holy Scriptures”:
Therefore it pleased the Lord at different times, and in various manners to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His church (Heb 1:1); and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased (Pr 22:19-21; Rom 15:4; 2 Pet 1:19,20) (emphasis mine).
These sentences from the Baptist Confession affirm that while God’s revelation of himself used to come in various supernatural manifestations like visions, among others, the Baptist tradition believes that Holy Scripture alone is the source of God’s revelation of himself to his church, precluding, since the completion of the canon, “continuing and direct revelations from God apart from scripture” of the sort St. Patrick claimed for himself and his followers. This is just one way in which St. Patrick was not a Baptist.
Why Saint Patrick was NOT a Baptist, part 1
To most people, this is almost a pointless distinction to make. “Everyone knows that Saint Patrick was a Roman Catholic priest, right?” Not so.
There are some wishful thinkers out there in the realm of Baptist fundamentalism who attempt to annex this 4th to 5th century missionary to Ireland into their pantheon of ancient prototypical “Baptists.” Granted, this is a minority view among Baptists, however, it is the view with which I was raised. This view of Baptist history is called by scholars “Baptist Successionism,” but among its adherents it’s usually known as “Landmarkism.”
As you know St. Patrick’s Day has come and gone two days ago. March 17th is officially recognized by Roman Catholics as the feast day of St. Patrick, commemorating the date of his death. Like most years, about a day before this holiday arrives, I think to myself, I ought to do a little homework to combat this notion that St. Patrick is a Baptist, but I usually run out of time before I can make any headway. So I drop it until about March 16th of the following year. Well, this year, I happened to read a St. Patrick’s Day devotional post by Bob Hayton at Fundamentally Reformed. I commented that I’d intended to post a view contrary to the successionist view of St. Patrick, and missed my “deadline,” but Bob encouraged me to go ahead and do it anyway, so here goes. Looks like this might turn into a series.
I’m by no means a historical scholar, just a Christian who cares to learn the truth about Baptist history, having been burned by so much bad history in the name of promoting the Baptist tradition. A few years ago, I read a book review in the Founders Journal of a book called Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History, by Dr. James Edward McGoldrick, a professor of church history at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. I was encouraged by the review, ordered the book, and found that it does a very good job of examining the claims of Baptist Successionism in the light of academic 
historical scholarship. Chapter 4 of this book, “St. Patrick: A Baptist?” will serve as the basis of this series.
The only concession one can make about the beliefs and practices of Saint Patrick is the undocumented and therefore uncertain nature of them. This is where Baptist successionists find the wiggle room to make the claims that they make. McGoldrick writes on page 24:
All who have undertaken serious research on the life and thought of Saint Patrick have discovered early that the materials available for the reconstruction of his career are few, and some that have been employed are of dubious reliability. Scholars, both within and without the Roman Catholic Church, have recognized this problem, and, consequently, they have had to admit that their findings are tentative. Only two brief, nontheological writings of Patrick are extant, so interpreters are not in a position to make dogmatic judgments about his doctrinal position. Collateral evidence from the period of Patrick’s life is very scant and does not enlarge our knowledge of his beliefs very much. Moreover, legends abound about practically every phase of Patrick’s life, and separating fact from fiction may, at points, be impossible. The saint’s own works, The Confession and the Letter to Coroticus, are the only unimpeachable sources of information about his views. These, and Muirchu’s monograph on Patrick composed in the seventh century, provide little more than a biographical sketch [see St. Patrick: His Writings and Muirchu’s Life, ed. and tr. A. B. E. Hood (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1978)].
So a little biographical material is all we can trust. His theological views, his views on the sacraments (ordinances, for my Baptist readers), his views on church government and ministry, if they are to be known at all, will have to be read carefully between the lines within the context of Patrick’s day and age. By the time this series is finished, I think Dr. McGoldrick will have helped us realize that the Baptist Successionist view is little more than wishful thinking.
Part two will examine Saint Patrick’s probable, or possible, views on revelation, and compare it with the Protestant, Reformed, Evangelical and Baptist view historically known as Sola Scriptura.
update: Dr. Russel Moore at his “Moore to the Point” blog directs us to a more constructive way to benefit from the legacy of St. Patrick (read blog here). He recommends Dr. Philip Freeman’s biography, St. Patrick of Ireland. You can also view a short television interview with Dr. Freeman about St. Patrick (view segment here).
Traveling Light
A friend at work wanted me to read an article from Newsweek magazine today. As I was leaving and he was starting his shift he handed it off to me. It’s about how many of the upcoming generation are adopting a popular new label that doesn’t carry the baggage of the traditional ones. This time, even “Christian” is out. The article is called, “A Christian By Any Other Name.” Suffice it to say, here’s yet another way to minor on the doctrines of the faith and major on outward behavior while claiming you’re not majoring on outward behavior.
This is what Horton and the Modern Reformation gang call “Deeds Not Creeds,” co-opting the phrase from Rick Warren’s desire for a “Reformation of Deeds, Not Creeds.” The fact is that the Scriptural order is that the deeds should flow from the creeds (or doctrines), rather than being focused on at the expense of doctrine (read, “Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living“). Reflecting this biblical emphasis, the Heidelberg Catechism organizes its questions and answers in a three part format, which in generations past were titled “The First Part – Of The Misery Of Man”; “The Second Part – Of Man’s Deliverance”; and “The Third Part – Of Thankfulness.” A simplified read of this goes, “Guilt, Grace, Gratitude.” You can access the Heidelberg Catechism from my sidebar by clicking on the “Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms” page. Changing your label won’t help a thing–one day, it’ll accumulate the same baggage all previous labels have. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.
Those adopting the new label “follower of Jesus”, like so many other such efforts, will eventually (or sooner) lead to people claiming “unity” with religious people of various false religions at the expense of doctrine (that’s what the parents and grandparents of these original “followers” used to call “ecumenism.” They may not intend to (see this defense of Warren’s focus), but it’s inevitable. Miss the lessons of history, and you’re doomed to repeat it’s mistakes. Folks like this, who are so determined to leave the past behind and strike out on the “road less travelled” will be surprised how many have already gone before them, following, not Jesus, but some blind guide, who will eventually lead them into the “ditch,” as Jesus warned.
Indeed, theological liberalism by any other name stinks just as badly.
“The Bible Kind of Salvation”
Founders Ministries posted a video of a sermon by the late, great Southern Baptist pastor, Dr. W. A. Criswell entitled, “The Bible Kind of Salvation.” In his opening remarks, Dr. Criswell explains clearly that this is a sermon on the election and choosing of God. The fact that Founders Ministries is promoting this sermon says something about on which side of this great debate Dr. Criswell comes down (Who was Dr. Criswell?). Southern Baptists who are reading this blog are urged to consider the remarks that one of your great leaders of the recent past proclaimed as the truth of the matter on what the Bible teaches about the doctrine of election and the so-called “sovereign grace” of God.
In the “about us” page of Founders Ministries, it reads as follows:
Founders Ministries is a ministry of teaching and encouragement promoting both doctrine and devotion expressed in the Doctrines of Grace (what are the doctrines of grace? click here) and their experiential application to the local church, particularly in the areas of worship and witness. Founders Ministries takes as its theological framework the first recognized confession of faith that Southern Baptists produced, The Abstract of Principles. We desire to encourage the return to and promulgation of the biblical gospel that our Southern Baptist forefathers held dear.
As a deacon in a Southern Baptist church, I’m personally convinced that everything that’s right about the Baptist tradition it learned from
Deacon Council, Shady Grove Baptist Church, N. Richland Hills, Texas
Reformed theology, and everything that’s wrong with it was adapted either intentionally or unintentionally from Anabaptism. I further believe that a return to a more consistent application of Reformed theology (aka, the doctrines of grace or Calvinism) is the key that will solve many of the issues that trouble Southern Baptists churches today.
The following is part one of a four part series. If you need help finding parts 2-4, click here.
The Devil is a Degenerate Creation of God
The following is from Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, published in its final form in 1559 (for more on Calvin and the Institutes, read this). In his summary of the origin
of Satan, see if you can tell what’s conspicuous by its absence, and what Calvin writes that has some bearing on what 21st century Christians generally would expect to see here. This passage is from Book 1, chapter 14, section 16.
Yet, since the devil was created by God, let us remember that this malice, which we attribute to his nature, came not from his creation but from his perversion. For, whatever he has that is to be condemned he has derived from his revolt and fall. For this reason, Scripture warns us lest, believing that he has come forth in his present condition from God, we should ascribe to God himself what is utterly alien to him. For this reason, Christ declares that “when Satan lies, he speaks according to his own nature” and states the reason, because “he abode not in the truth” [John 8:44 p.]. Indeed, when Christ states that Satan “abode not in the truth,” he hints that he was once in it, and when he makes him “the father of lies,” he deprives him of imputing to God the fault which he brought upon himself.
But although these things are briefly and not very clearly stated, they are more than enough to clear God’s majesty of all slander. And what concern is it to us to know anything more about devils or to know it for another purpose? Some persons grumble that Scripture does not in numerous passages set forth systematically and clearly that fall of the devils, its cause, manner, time, and charater. But because this has nothing to do with us, it was better not to say anything, or at least to touch upon it lightly, because it did not befit the Holy Spirit to feed our curiosity with empty histories to no effect. And we see that the Lord’s purpose was to teach nothing in his sacred oracles except what we should learn to our edification. Therefore, lest we ourselves linger over superfluous matters, let us be content with this brief summary of the nature of devils: they were when first created angels of God, but by degeneration they ruined themselves, and became the instruments of ruin for others. Because this is profitable to know, it is plainly taught in Peter and Jude. God did not spare those angels who sinned [2 Peter 2:4] and kept not their original nature, but left their abode [Jude 6]. And Paul, in speaking of the “elect angels” [1 Timothy 5:21], is no doubt tacitly contrasting them with the reprobate angels.
Give up? Calvin didn’t identify the pre-fallen Satan as bearing the name Lucifer, based on Isaiah 14:12! That would be because the word Lucifer is used to translate the Hebrew word for “morning star” or “day star” in the King James Version. This was carried over from the Latin Vulgate by the King James translators. “Lucifer” was historically a name for the planet Venus, which happens to be the morning star. Besides, the passage in Isaiah is a prophecy of judgment against the King of Babylon. It’s use in reference to the chief fallen angel is allegorical at best and simply out of context at worst. Before he fell, the Lord and his angels up in heaven did not call him Lucifer as if it were his name. This was popularized in Dante’s Inferno, and Milton’s Paradise Lost. See this Wikipedia article on Lucifer, and this one on Venus for more information.
Furthermore, our eagerness to derive a portrayal of the fall of Satan in Isaiah’s passage is just the kind of “lingering over superfluous matters” that “feed our curiosity with empty histories to no effect.” Calvin writes that things like this have “nothing to do with us” and that “the Lord’s purpose was to teach nothing in his sacred oracles except what we should learn to our edification.” Justin Taylor’s post at “Blogging the Institutes” summarizes Calvin’s remarks well (read Justin’s post here).
Therefore, class, your homework assignment is to memorize what the Bible explicitly (and actually), albeit sketchily, teaches about the fall of Satan and his angels–Jude 6. “And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—”
Class dismissed.
Christ-Centered Counseling
Along with a local PCA Church, Grace Community Presbyterian in Fort Worth, Texas, I am
reading through several books this year. For the months of March and April, I’m reading through How People Change by biblical counselors Dr. Timothy Lane, executive director and faculty member of the Christian Counseling and Educational Foundation (CCEF), and Dr. Paul David Tripp, president of Paul Tripp Ministries, pastor, and adjunct professor at Westminster Theological Seminary as well as adjunct faculty member of CCEF. The slogan across the top of the CCEF website (www.ccef.org) is “Restoring Christ to Counseling and Counseling to the Church.” We’re off to a good start.
As you may have guessed, I’m not the sort who naturally gravitates toward such “practical” material. But that’s my own problem. This volume, however, proves promising. I’ve only gotten through chapter one, so far, and it appears to have already gotten my number. The title of chapter one is “the gospel gap” (all titles are in lower case in this book), which the authors summarize in this way:
The good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ is a “then-now-then” gospel…First, there is the “then” of the past. When I embrace Christ by faith, my sins are completely forgiven, and I stand before God as righteous. There is also the “then” of the future, the promise of eternity with the Lord, free of sin and struggle. The church has done fairly well explaining these two “thens” of the gospel, but it has tended to understate or misunderstand the “now” benefits of the work of Christ. What difference does the gospel make in the here and now? How does it help me as a father, a husband, a worker, and a member of the body of Christ? How does it help me respond to difficulty and make decisions? How does it give me meaning, purpose and identity? How does it motivate my ministry to others?
It is in the here and now that many of us experience a gospel blindness. Our sight is dimmed by the tyranny of the urgent, by the siren call of success, by the seductive beauty of physical things, by our inability to admit our own problems, and by the casual relationships within the body of Christ that we mistakenly call fellowship. This blindness is often encouraged by preaching that fails to take the gospel to the specific challenges that people face. People need to see that the gospel belongs in their workplace, their kitchen, their school, their bedroom, their backyard and their van. They need to see the way the gospel makes a connection between what they are doing and what God is doing. They need to understand that their life stories are being lived out within God’s larger story so that they can learn to live each day with a gospel mentality (pages 3-4).
If you’ve been reading my blog for any length of time, you know I’m a big believer in the Christ-centered emphasis of Reformed theology. You may have read previous posts where I’ve recommended books like Christ Centered Preaching and Living the Cross Centered Life. This book on biblical counselling is right up the Christ-centered alley. Here’s a helpful guide for learning to live life in light of the gospel.
Two great passages of Scripture give us a picture of this so-called “then-now-then” application of the gospel to the believer. In his letter to Titus, the apostle Paul writes that the gospel is the basis for the instructions he gives in the first ten verses of chapter two.
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works (Titus 2:11-14).
Back “then” the grace of God appeared, bringing salvation for people in every nation (v. 11). “Now,” or as Paul writes, “in the present age” (v. 12), this grace of God trains us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, embracing self-control, uprightness, and godliness, “waiting for our blessed hope” (v. 13), in other words, looking forward to “then,” when Christ returns, who, back “then,” gave himself for our redemption from lawlessness to “purify . . . a people for his own posession who are zealous for good works” (v. 14). As you can see, the authors draw directly from Scripture for their approach to counseling, with no modern psychological influences evident. This is Christ-centered counseling if I’ve ever seen it.
Likewise, Peter gives a bit more extensive treatment in his second letter. In fact, in 2 Peter 1:9, the apostle explicitly indicates a professing believer’s tendency to “forget” about what Christ did for him in the gospel. Here is Lane’s and Tripp’s “gospel gap.” Let’s take a look at the passage–2 Peter 1:3-11.
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us (back “then“) to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises (again, past tense), so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped (detecting a pattern yet?) from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.
For this very reason, (“now“) make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins (here’s the “gospel gap”). Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will (“then“) be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
For these reasons, and a few others (so far), I’m inclined to believe the promotional synopsis at the Westminster Books website when it claims “This book explains the biblical pattern for change in a clear, practical way that you can apply to the challenges of daily life.”
Changing of the Guard at Coral Ridge
The news has just reached me that the search for a new pastor has come to an end at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Last year’s loss of Dr. D. James Kennedy has certainly brought much change and transition to the local congregation. It certainly came immediately to the Coral Ridge Hour television show. The formerly hour-long program was immediately reduced to a half hour, cutting out my favorite part of the program, the music. From the exhilerating one verse processional, during which the choir and pastor enter the sanctuary and take their places to open the service, to the choir specials and classical solo features, it was part of my weekly preparation for worship at my own church. As a concession, I noticed that they began to squeeze in the song that is sung after the sermon, for which I was grateful, but it certainly was not the same.
But I digress. The Session (or, board of Ruling Elders) of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, whose concern is to shepherd a large, influential church without a Teaching Elder (Pastor), has recently called a young minister of some noteriety who is building a church which has yet to obtain its own building. In this way, its quite an interesting match–a church without a pastor offers its building to a church with a pastor but not a building. That’s right, they’re not just calling the pastor, they’re negotiating a merger. The name of said minister of note, who has received a call to pastor Coral Ridge, is Tullian Tchividjian (the last name rhymes with “religion”). Rev. Tchividjian is an up-and-coming pastor in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, (Coral Ridge is in the Presbyterian Church in America) who happens to be the grandson of “America’s Pastor,” Evangelist Billy Graham. But many Reformed believers may know him better as the guy featured in the promotional videos that recently introduced the Bible reading public to the new ESV Study Bible (which study Bible I highly recommend).
You can read the SunSentinel.com report on Rev. Tchividjian’s call and the subsequent merger negotiations here, and you can also keep up with the ongoing process at his New City Presbyterian Church blog (here, here, here, for starters). While this is an interesting event, I must say that in the inevitable changes that will come to the church, especially grievous to me personally will be any metamorphosis of Coral Ridge’s amazing music ministry, which, while it was technically “blended” (combining the singing of traditional hymns with contemporary music), it was effectively presented in a manner that majored on the classical, “traditional,” even the liturgical. One Reformed blog, Green Baggins, expresses concerns (read it here) similar to mine. I share some of this blogger’s concerns, especially about the implications of contemporary worship music, and the possibility of a “seeker sensitive” approach to the church’s ministry, although some of the comments on his post help alleviate my concerns.
Be that as it may, I’m glad to see that a changing of the guard is in the works, and I wish both churches (Coral Ridge and Tchividjian’s New City Pres.) the reformation and revival for which both are praying and working. May the Lord grant it to the advancement of his Kingdom throughout Florida, and, through their various TV and radio ministries, America and the world.
Bach’s Bible
As a bibliophile, I can only wish (short of praying) to be this lucky:
And, of course, for you inquiring minds, here’s Bach’s Wikipedia entry.
The Denomination Blues
In case you don’t know, I’m a music lover. And although I decidedly come down on the “traditional” side in the worship wars (in fact, I just got my “Organ Music Rocks” t-shirt from Old Lutheran dot com!), I happen to enjoy some of the music produced by some of those who may differ with me on that issue, I just happen to reserve it “for entertainment purposes only”. Not that I don’t find it edifying as well, at times.
For instance, when it comes to Southern Gospel music, there is very little that I can stand for very long. One or two songs and I’m pretty well done. Any more than that, and I start getting visibly uncomfortable. But not so in the case of Reformed Presbyterian harmonica player extraordinaire, Buddy Greene (visit his official site). I could listen to him all day. I just added a few YouTube videos of Greene excercising his gift to my personal YouTube page (you can visit it here). The first song is “Denomination Blues” (no harmonica in this one) and he pokes fun at a few select denominations, starting with his own (even false churches like Roman Catholicism and Unitarianism). But I was surprised that he didn’t have a verse on the Baptist denomination. If you can write a good one in the vein of Buddy Greene’s song, post it in the comments. I’ll add mine when I come up with one, too.
Here’s one where he pulls out his harmonica. It’s one of my all-time favorite songs, “God Is With Us.” This has more of a black gospel feel to it:
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 