From the Pastor's Desk: part 3

Before moving on to the Scripture texts, I need to comment upon this sentence in order for both sides to understand the mindset and presuppositions of the discussion.

We live in a day when people become so dogmatic about a particular doctrine, that all sense and sensibility seems to be thrown out with the bath water.

What is being assumed here is that the non-Calvinist/non-Arminian is balanced. Those who disagree with the non-Calvinist are imbalanced. Why? From their mindset Calvinists are following the teachings of a mere man, John Calvin, while they are following the teachings of the Bible.

To state it another way, when Calvinists say Calvinism is just the teachings of the Bible, what they hear is that we impose our Systematic Theology onto the Bible. There is no comprehension that they too have traditions with which they approach the Bible. Calvinists and Arminians twist the Bible with their man-made traditions while they are above the fray.

Of course not only does this beg the question about their own traditions which they are not able to acknowledge, but it begs the question as to why a Calvinist can not say that what he professes to be Biblical. In other words, why does the non-Calvinist get to say his beliefs are right out of the Bible, while the Calvinist is not even allowed to make his case?

This kind of thinking can become dangerous for it leads to the conclusion that ones traditions are Scripture. In other words, if we are not able to recognize that we have traditions, then we will be confusing the traditions we do not see or know that we have with the Bible itself.

So while calling the Calvinist as being dogmatic for actually believing the Bible teaches what he believes, the non-Calvinist does the very thing he accuses of the Calvinist. He becomes dogmatic about his non-Calvinism.

Keep in mind, it was not my Reformed pastor that preached a sermon against non-Calvinists and then refused to defend his views publicly.

From the Pastor's Desk: part 2

Before I get into interacting with the message, a friend of mine told me that even though this pastor does not understand Reformed Theology or Calvinism, the sermon, as bad as it may have been in representing Reformed Theology, actually is a good thing. His reasoning was that this pastor was tackling an important subject that the people at this particular church may have never heard discussed before. This can only cause men to go deeper into the Scripture if they truly desire to know what Scripture has to say on this subject. Isn't that what Reformed people want? We, who are in the Reformed camp, must keep in mind that when we were converted to Christ, none of us had perfect Reformed Theology formed in our minds.

So with that in mind let's look at the first part of the message.

We live in a day when people become so dogmatic about a particular doctrine, that all sense and sensibility seems to be thrown out with the bath water.

There is no doubt that many who have come to Reformed Theology often go through what has been called the "Caged Stage". Quite often we become over zealous and need to be locked up for a time. Yet it has been my experience the non-Calvinist does this as well. Do we hear sermons by Calvinists calling non-Calvinist theology to be "unhealthy", "divisive and not uniting" as we do from non-Calvinists? He goes on to say,

In fact, I've seen Christians break fellowship because of it. I've even seen churches at odds because of this. In fact, I've seen churches deliberately not even want to pray with someone from another congregation because of doctrinal differences.

I have been hearing this claim for years. For some reason, it is never the non-Calvinists who are dividing churches. It is always the Calvinist's fault. It is my opinion based on anecdotal evidence that this claim (also anecdotal) is far overblown.

But this raises another point. The original Reformers were "Calvinistic". The Reformation was not fought over Indulgences or the Mass. The first written debate was between Luther and the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus. Here is what Luther had to say,

In this, moreover, I give you (Erasmus) great praise, and proclaim it--you alone in pre-eminent distinction from all others, have entered upon the thing itself; that is, the grand turning point of the cause; and have not wearied me with those irrelavnt points about popery, purgatory, indulgences, and other like baubles, rather than causes, with which all have hitherto tried to hunt me down,--though in vain! You, and you alone saw, what was the grand hinge upon which the whole turned, and therefore you attacked the vital part at once; for which, from my heart, I thank you. [Bondage of the Will]

So according to Luther, the entire Reformation hinged on a proper view of man, which in turn relates to a proper view of grace, faith and Christ's person and work. Hence the battle cries of the Reformation, Scripture Alone, Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Christ Alone and To God's Glory Alone. So to deny Reformational theology as being unhealthy at best is to deny the basis for the Reformation itself.

I have heard Dave Hunt consider those who are not Pre-Tribulational to be lost in error and heresy. Dave Hunt has preached sermons against Calvinism as well. I have heard sermons by Norman Geisler and read his book in which he stated that Calvinism is "...theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant." This is language he did not even use in his book about Roman Catholicism.

So for all of the rhetoric that Reformed folks are divisive, I simply don't hear a clarion call among Reformed preachers preaching against non-Calvinists.

As for Calvinists not wishing to pray with non-Calvinists, I am not certain what is meant by this. Is there a context that this may be happening? Is this in the context that may cause a Reformed person to have to honor his conscience due to the regulative principle of worship?

I am curious though. Would Pastor Butler go evangelizing with me if I were handing out Reformed tracks? By his own words, Calvinism is unhealthy and divisive and imbalanced.

Now to be fair, Pastor Butler may be referring to Arminian theology more than Calvinism. Yet does anyone know of a church that is full blown Arminian? Or even better yet, a divisive one? To be honest, I am not certain I have ever met a person, who calls himself a Protestant, that is fully and consistently Arminian.

Consistent Arminians do not teach the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement. That teaching belongs squarely in Reformed Theology. Those who teach this outside of the Reformed view of Christ's work do so inconsistently. As one Arminian scholar, J. Kenneth Grider has written,

A spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades. Thus many Arminians whose theology is not very precise say that Christ paid the penalty of our sins. Yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism, which teaches instead that Christ suffered for us. Arminians teach that what Christ did He did for every person; therefore what He did could not have been to pay the penalty, since no one would then ever go into eternall perdition. Arminianism teaches that Christ suffered for everyone so that the Father could forgive the ones who repent and believe; His death is such that all will see that forgiveness is costly and will strive to cease from anarchy in the world God governs. This view is called the Governmental theory of the atonement.

His opening concludes,

While knowing & understanding Sound & Balanced Doctrine is vitally important to the health of the Christian & Church, it doesn't always have to be a fellowship issue.

I think we could all agree that we need more Balance in the Family of God today.

I agree. So again, if Pastor Butler is willing to go to the pulpit and say the things that he has, then Scripturally, he must be able to defend the claims he has made (Titus 1:9). So let us gather together publicly and discuss these things in a balanced fashion.

From the Pastor's Desk: part 1

I was recently forwarded an email that had gone to several fellow church members of FBC, St. Francis and asked for my thoughts. Apparently, a sermon was recently preached by the pastor of the Community Church in St. Francis, David Butler, who obviously sees Calvinism as a potential problem to having true fellowship among believers. As it turns out, the sermon notes in the e-mail are published on the internet (read here).

Since this pastor has decided to go public with his views in both a publicly preached sermon and via e-mail and a website, then I think a public review of his message from a Reformed Baptist viewpoint is justified and hopefully helpful in reducing some of the misunderstandings that many, including this pastor, have about Reformed Theology.

It is my hope that this would lead to a time of personal public discussion/s in front of our churches and the people of God. I think between myself and my pastor and other leaders of our churches, we could easily have fruitful interactions with Pastor Butler that would benefit our churches. In this manner, we could at the same time affirm our differences while working together for the proclamation of the Good News of Christ. This would equip the people of our respective churches to come to an understanding of both sides of an issue and remove ignorance that often causes stumbling blocks to true fellowship.

So again, if Pastor Butler truly desires fellowship between our churches, I think this may be one avenue that would secure such a desire.

Learn the Shocking Truth

Some time by back I purchased an item from Catholic Answers, and I apparently managed to get on their email list. Here is their latest advertisement.

Learn the shocking truth!

If there's one thing that unites non-Catholics of all stripes, it's a refusal to accept the Church's teaching on the authority of the pope. Tragically, that refusal has led to wide divisions among, and heated arguments between, Christians all over the world.

Catholic apologist Tim Staples knows these arguments all too well. Having once been a "Bible-believing Fundamentalist" himself, he took great delight in convincing Catholics that their belief in the Pope's authority was just a lot of Romanist nonsense based on human tradition instead of Scripture.

But then Staples was challenged to actually study the faith he was bashing. After scouring Scripture, history, and the writings of the Church Fathers, Staples was forced to conclude that Christ himself had established the institution of the Papacy.

Am I also really to believe that Tim Staples "took great delight in convincing Catholics that their belief in the Pope's authority was just a lot of Romanist nonsense"? I mean really. Who takes great delight in that? I have relatives, who are Roman Catholics. I don't sit around taking great pleasure in that sort of thing. In fact, I find it most difficult to explain to a person that their faith is misplaced.

So the rejection of the authority of the Pope is my main mission in life. I am out to get Roman Catholics to reject the Pope. I guess in a sense that is true. I would like to see not only Papists reject the Pope as the ultimate authority, but I would also like to see Jehovah's Witnesses reject the authority of the Watch Tower, Mormons reject the authority of Utah, Muslims reject their tribal leaders such as Osama Bin Laden, Buddhists reject Buddha, and so on and so on.

Are we really going to believe that Roman Catholics are more united than everyone else? There really is no division among RCs at all that would be as significant as divisions among Protestants? If you believe that, then I guess if a lie is told often enough it will be believed.

But also notice that Tim Staples claims to have found this doctrine in Scripture. Was his study of Scripture his own private interpretation? Does he offer an infallible exegesis of certain texts? In other words, was Scripture sufficient to explain to Tim Staples that Scripture is not sufficient to explain to Tim Staples and that he needs the Pope to rightly understand the text of Scripture?

The claim that God is not able to sufficiently tell His church through His Word what needs to be believed and that some man must be looked to in His place is simply blasphemous.

Horton: From a Movement to a Church

Michael Horton wrote an article on the role of the Christian life at church or at his secular calling. Read here.

A Couple Political Thoughts

A few political quotes of the day. Thomas Sowell comments on the role of government.

Thomas Sowell: Random Thoughts
If politicians stopped meddling with things they don't understand, there would be a more drastic reduction in the size of government than anyone in either party advocates.

On the topic of the Fort Hood shooting Rush stated on his show,

This guy gets branded a terrorist outright except he's at war with the cops, not the population at random. So he's a terrorist outright. Meanwhile, this Hasan guy blows away 13 and wounds 30, and, "Ahhh, we can't jump to conclusions, Mr. Limbaugh. We really must be very, very careful here deciding how we characterize him." Well, I don't remember Obama not jumping to conclusions when he pronounced the cops up in Cambridge stupid in the "Skip" Gates case.

Now if I had said something even remotely close to the terrorist at Fort Hood, I would have been drummed out of the military and probably thrown in jail by Anonymous.

Now this brings up another question. Every military installation I have been on, the majority of people are unarmed. This has always struck me just a bit. I would think military bases would be targets of terrorists. Perhaps if military members owned weapons and carried them, this incident may have been stopped before it became as bad as it did. Then again, if political correctness had not run a muck in this country (see General Casey's comments on ABC News), we might not have this problem.

General Casey told me on This Week that he’s worried that diversity could become another victim of Thursday’s mass killing at Ft. Hood. The incident was not the first case of fratricide by a Muslim and when I asked how the military plans to deal with this potential problem in its ranks, Casey said, “Speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. It’s not just about Muslims, we have a very diverse army, we have very diverse society and that gives us all strength. But again we need to be very careful about that.”

Diversity is so important, that we won't do what is right? How careful do we need to be. The military is not about doing the politically correct thing. It is about defending our nation, or so I thought. Ralph Peters nails it with this statement.

"Now 12 soldiers and a security guard lie dead. 31 soldiers were wounded, 28 of them seriously. If heads don’t roll in this maggot’s chain of command, the Army will have shamed itself beyond moral redemption.

Why So Threatened?

So Anonymous asks a question, "Why so threatened?" when it comes to science. Although I have already answered this question in different ways, I thought perhaps attempting to interact might be helpful.

First, in one sense I am not threatened at all. I do not go to bed at night wondering if science is going to destroy us all. I am a firm believer that Jesus' Kingdom is, in some sense, not of this world. Although as a citizen of the Kingdom of God, I recognize that His Kingdom is breaking into this age, it does so in ways that are unexpected. The United States, or any other organization for that matter, is of this world/age. Jesus' Kingdom will not be fully revealed until the age to come. (So no, I do not believe Jesus was/is/will be a Republican.)

Why is this important to state up front? The context of why I do not lose sleep at night must be understood. I fully expect those who reject the Creator/creature distinction and relationship to be fully swayed by sin and in full rebellion against God's revelation to man.

Even those who accept the Creator/creature relationship, the problem of sin is still a large part of this age's thinking. Man is not morally neutral but a slave of sin and perverts all areas of life. It is God's written/special Revelation that is able to give man a framework to correct man's thinking. However, man will pervert God's written revelation and the teachings and person of Christ. This should cause us to think very carefully about every facet of life.

So, although our culture may come to a place where Christians are persecuted or worse, Christians know that this age is hostile to the age to come. We are sojourners who look forward to the resurrection.

2) My so called "angry posts" are being read not from a morally neutral viewpoint, but from a viewpoint that wishes to throw me in jail. Yet the irony is that I would (I would like to think anyway) fight to defend Anonymous to have the freedom and liberty to believe what his conscience binds him. I do not wish Anonymous to go to jail for disagreeing with me. That is Medieval thinking and dangerous.

I was simply commenting on a so-called news story in which science (who's science?) is making huge claims. I have noted in other places that there has been an unholy alliance between left-wing political thinking, philosophical/theological liberalism and the vehicle of science. Can this really be denied? Well, if you're on the other side of the issue, there is no understanding of science other than your own. Biblical Creationists are just a bunch of biased religious zealots who are ignorant and have nothing meaningful to say.

3) One of my favorite movies is Blade Runner with Harrison Ford. It is Ford's character that is played about by the representatives of clashing worldviews of modernism and postmodernism. So worldviews matter. Science doesn't exist outside of a worldview. It heavily promotes whatever view it ascribes.

4) Now I have three children. Like most people, I would like my children to live in a world that is better than the one I grew up in. So on the one hand, I am fully aware that God may allow a new generation to have to deal with the age old problem of sin in an entirely new way. Nevertheless, I want my children not to feel adrift in a sea of postmodernism, but to know who they are in this age. I also would love to see religious liberty and freedom continue in this nation's great experiment.

So you might be wondering what does science have to do with this? Two reasons.

First, a people who know their history and where they come from will not be easily swayed down a path of destruction. America may have her flaws, but she has a solid foundation to continue the promotion of freedom and liberty. However, take away or rewrite a society's history, then the new powers that be will have an easier time in the overthrow of that previous culture.

The authority of science has been promoted in such a way as to be able to redefine mankind's and earth's history. The entire modern public educational system was designed to remove children from the home and to be educated by the powers that be. Of course, who do you think that would be?

Second, as I pointed out earlier, science has been making ridiculous claims for a long time. The reason is Leftists use science as a propaganda machine. It is the current vehicle by which liberty is taken from citizens.

For all of my life I have been told we are going to run out of gasoline and oil in just a few years. I have been told we are about to enter an ice age. I was told CFCs are going destroy the ozone hole. Now I am being told the planet is about to be destroyed by CO2. We could sit here and go through all of the Leftist attempts to overthrow capitalism and liberty.

So in conclusion, I am concerned for my family friends and neighbors. I do not want to see a culture sink further into the rot. Then again, every generation must struggle with thinking the same things. (How often have you heard this generation is worse than before?) I want to see religious liberty continue as I have been so blessed to have been raised with. Yet I know full well that persecution often brings about a far greater and better result for Christ's Kingdom. But as John Quincy Adams once said,

Duty is mine. Results belong to God.

The Gospel Divides Campus Ministry

On October 29th, Christianity Today published an article titled, Not All Evangelicals and Catholics Together. To be honest, it is quite refreshing to see some Protestants still believe the Gospel is worth not only defending, but also see the Gospel as what defines a Christian. For far too long many have taken the position stated by Timothy George in the article.

"The gaping divide between evangelicals and Catholics is ecclesiology and authority, not justification and salvation, as important as that debate remains," George said. "There is enough commonality that evangelicals and Catholics with a living faith can recognize one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ with a common Lord and common grace that brought them together. The hard issues are questions related to the church, such as the Petrine office [the papacy] and the Eucharist. Those discussions will occupy us for the next 100 years."

So the Gospel will not be the center of discussion, nor the idea that man needs the imputation of Christ's righteousness alone through faith alone. In other words, Christ's life being given to the believer as a free gift as opposed to the sacramental system of Rome is not enough to divide a true religion from a false one.

I have seen this personally in churches I have attended. This is not merely an academic debate but a debate which affects the life of the local church.

Reformation Weekend MP3s

Fred Malone's messages from this past Reformation Weekend is now available. Go here for the MP3s. Richard Smith, Associational Minister of the Spurgeon Baptist Association of Churches, has written in this week's newsletter.

2009 REFORMATION WEEKEND

The 2009 Reformation conference this past weekend in St. Francis was without doubt a time that many spent soaking in the goodness and glory of God. Dr. Fred Malone was the speaker and he spoke on the five sola’s of the Reformation. He wove the teaching of Luther and Calvin with that of Scripture and gave those who were listening a picture of how God uses His Word and servants to literally change the world. The first session was on Sola Scriptura or the authority and sufficiency of the Word of God. He said that many hold to the inerrancy of Scripture and yet reject the teaching of Scripture as to its authority and sufficiency. Yet during the Reformation it was Luther and Calvin’s adherence to Scripture as God’s Word and their highest authority rather than the traditions of men that God used and honored to bring true revival. It was only then Scripture was the authority and believed as the Word of God that Luther searched it for what the righteousness of God really was and so the Gospel of grace alone through faith alone began to be trumpeted across the land by the preachers of it. Without going into detail on each session, Dr. Malone connected each sola with the others and set out the glory of the Gospel of Scripture which is indeed by grace alone through faith alone so that it may be by Christ alone to the glory of God alone.

The recordings of these sessions can be listened to at www.fbcstfrancis.org and are certainlyworthy to be listened to. After each session there were people talking about the things of the Lord and the content of the sermon. In other words, true fellowship around the Scripture was found. The conference was truly a feast for the soul in terms of the teaching, preaching, and the fellowship. While the signs on I. 70 say that Colby is the oasis of the plains, I certainly found that First Baptist Church of St. Francis was an oasis this past weekend. The church has also been blessed with good cooks and so there was a lot of good food supplied for those who attended. As the host pastor J.W. Glidewell of First Baptist in St. Francis put it, there was plenty of food for both the soul and the body. I would urge all who can to make plans to attend this conference in St. Francis next year.

Science Discovers They Are Wrong Again

What's wrong with this first sentence of this YahooNews story.

A 35-mile rift in the desert of Ethiopia will likely become a new ocean eventually, researchers now confirm.

So now we have a confirmation among scientists that something might happen. A couple of paragraphs down the article states,

"We know that seafloor ridges are created by a similar intrusion of magma into a rift, but we never knew that a huge length of the ridge could break open at once like this," said Cindy Ebinger, professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Rochester and co-author of the study.

So they never knew this? Ummm really? Perhaps it is because most scientists are taught science from a naturalistic, materialistic old earth model?

The fact is, there is nothing new here. First, Biblical Creationists have been offering models that explain this for a long time. Second, even non-Creationists have had to admit that much of their scientific understanding of life in general and geology in particular has been flawed.

Years ago, either Nova or one of the other PBS programs went to Mt. St. Helen after her 1980 explosion. I remember watching scientist after scientist admitting that their predictions were all wrong. Why? Because in my opinion they were all taught the evolutionary model of the earth. They unwittingly brought with them to the field the close-minded academic view of Earth's history. Now we all do that, but to what extent is another question.

Today, Bob Gonzales, Dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary, offers a Blog post that I think may be of service to the Christian, who desires to be faithful to the Bible and yet desire not to come to the scientific world with false presuppositions.