The 1000 Year Debate

Well, we didn’t spend much time on Sunday discussing some of the theological distinctions in matters of eschatology. Before I enter into that fray in a later post; a word regarding our statement of faith. The Evangelical Free Church (Four Oaks’ affiliation of churches) statement of faith has two points regarding ‘last things’:

9. We believe in the personal, bodily and premillennial return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The coming of Christ, at a time known only to God, demands constant expectancy and, as our blessed hope, motivates the believer to godly living, sacrificial service and energetic mission.
10. We believe that God commands everyone everywhere to believe the gospel by turning to Him in repentance and receiving the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that God will raise the dead bodily and judge the world, assigning the unbeliever to condemnation and eternal conscious punishment and the believer to eternal blessedness and joy with the Lord in the new heaven and the new earth, to the praise of His glorious grace. Amen.

Let me first say that I think that these two points of the statement are quite wonderfully put and that I do affirm them without reservation. I especially love the reworking of the old statement’s point on ‘imminence’ in number 9. There was a movement in the past two or three years to amend our denominational doctrinal statement- and the statement was indeed amended this year. You can find out plenty about all that over at efca.org.

In the original design of those seeking to amend, there was hope that the word ‘premillennial’ would be removed from number 9. Premillennialism is the conviction that the Scriptures teach, in various passages, but explicitly and very literally in Rev. 20 that Jesus will return and establish an earthly reign for 1000 years. There are many good reasons to hold to such a conviction in eschatology. I affirm a physical, earthly millennial kingdom (it may or may not be a ‘literal’ thousand years, that number perhaps simply referring to a reign that lasts quite some time) without affirming much of the other distinctions surrounding what has come to be known as ‘dispensational premillennialism’ (certain views re: the nation of Israel, the reality or nature of a ‘rapture’, etc.).

Many in our affiliation of churches think that such a conclusion regarding the millennium is not necessary to an evangelical faith; and believe that unity and health in our local churches is very possible while holding to different convictions on the ‘millennial’ issue. These brothers think this distinction should not be a part of our statement of faith and hope that it will one day be removed. Though I do affirm a premillennial position regarding the last things- I agree that such a distinction in matters of creedal affirmation is not in keeping with the ethos of our doctrinal statement generally. For example, our doctrinal standard does not call for an explicit commitment to believer’s baptism or infant baptism. It seems utterly inconsistent to be broad in the area of sacraments which have very direct implications for unity and harmony in the local church and narrow in your eschatology which have arguably less implications for unity in the local church. Though, alas, that was all part of the debate. Ultimately, the fight to remove the millennial distinction lost.

So, I wish the ‘premillenial’ statement could be removed for the sake of broader fellowship while I wish the statement could be narrowed in certain areas (baptism being one; a more intentionally reformed commitment in soteriology being another). That being said, I submit to the distinction for the sake of unity. And the leadership of our local church allows our membership to enjoy full membership if they might hold a different conviction, or (most likely) are not able to fully make such distinctions as of yet. We ask that our members not teach in opposition to this position, or use any platform to bring division or disunity in the body if indeed, they do not have the same conviction. We believe that there are matters we can disagree upon, yet submit lovingly to one another out of reverence for Christ in them for the sake of unity and common mission.

Maranatha!

You talkin' a me?

A great post over at brokenhallelujahs. If you struggle with 'hearing from God', I strongly encourage you to find help and assurance through Dad's solid primer on listening to God.

Here's an excerpt:

The normative venue for the voice of God is the inspired Word of God. We are to expect God to "speak" to us continually and directly through this means, both collectively and privately. I would not say that God refuses to speak audibly to others in our post-canonical age, but were he to do so, it is a safe bet that it is meant for their "ears" only. It is not to be expected as a normal experience and we will waste precious time waiting for such an event to energize our devotion and service. Everything we share or expect to enjoy in this life is to be monitored and verified by Scripture. The only credentials that verify the truth is the truth itself, the truth of God's Word. We are to train ourselves in this, seeking God's approval in knowing and doing what His word has revealed. Intimacy with him comes from moral obedience, prayer and pure devotion based on his Word. (Eph 4:30; 1 Thes 5:19-22) His demands for us are clear. Our "demands" on him must be Biblical and tempered by an awareness of our mortality and his holiness. In short, don't expect to hear his voice, rather expect to know his will and do it. Any other experiences will be at God's prerogative and not our insistence.

The Reality of True Loss. . .

. . . And a prayer for true life.

I have often said that one of my great anxieties in this life is over the idea of losing one of my children. Stories like the recent news of the death of Steven Curtis Chapman's little girl fill me not only with heartache, but also a sense of dread that such a loss might befall our family.

In my preparation for this Sunday's message on the person and work of the Holy Spirit I came across this sermon by John Piper. In his discussion of the role of the Spirit in the new birth, Piper shared this story:

When I came home from church last Wednesday night Noël told me she had been shaken because Karsten and Benjamin, our two older sons, had almost run out in front of a car on 11th Avenue on the way home. As I lay there in bed trying to go to sleep I shivered at the scene in my mind of my sons being killed by a speeding car. But then my mind shifted to the long view, to eternity, and the last thing I prayed as I went off to sleep was, "O God, I would rather lose all my sons now than that one of them fail to be born again. If, God forbid, it were a choice between life with me now and life with you forever, then take them. But don't let one be lost! Don't let one of them fail to be born again!" There is no more important event in anyone's life than being born again.

I was challenged by this prayer. I can honestly say that my greatest earthly treasure and my greatest human and temporal joy is found in my family. I would gladly be a pauper in a mud hut without a cent to my name as long as I have these five by my side. I would gladly give up my calling as a pastor for their sake. There is no earthly thing I desire above them- their presence, their love, their voices, and their very persons.

Note well that I have said earthly, human, and temporal. The real question is: Do I desire their spiritual and eternal blessedness above the temporal blessing of having them at my side today? Do I desire their spiritual life above their physical life? Could I pray with Pastor Piper, "O God, I would rather lose all my children now than that one of them fail to be born again. If, God forbid, it were a choice between life with me now and life with you forever, then take them."

Join with me in begging God not for the mere safety of our children, or their comfort, or their earthly security (financial or otherwise)- but for their LIFE. That they might have LIFE and have it abundantly. That they might now spiritual life, eternal life, life from the very Spirit of God by the work of Jesus Christ.

Living God and Heavenly Father, I intercede now for Tess, Bo, Emma, and Chloe. I pray that you would grant to them gift of eternal life. I ask that they would know you through your Son, Jesus Christ. I plead with you to rush into their hearts with rebirth, the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I ask for you to give they would taste true life that is beyond this life, infinite joy above and beyond temporal joys, heavenly treasures above and beyond any earthly riches, and that any human breath would be a vapor in light of their eternal life in you. I ask it in the name of Jesus Christ, who redeemed my life from the pit and brought me into your family as a son and heir. Amen.

The Work of Christ - Some Resources

Last Sunday I continued our walk through what we might call essential evangelical Christianity with a look at the work of Christ. This, as a subset of Christology- the study of Christ, is normally called soteriology. I focused in a bit upon this rather immense topic by looking specifically at the work of Christ as

1. A substitutionary sacrifice. Christ died in our place, so meeting the wages of our sin. He imputed his righteounsess to us and bore the penalty for our sin.
2. A redeeming sacrifice. Sin costs us. Its wages are death. The soul that sins shall die. We are enslaved to the condemning power of God's righteous law. Under God's law we are put, righteously, into debtor's prison. We pay for our cosmic treason of sin with the rather 'cosmic' punishment of eternal condemnation in hell. Jesus pays the wages of our sin, he buys us out of prison with his righteous life and holy and pure sacrifice. He stands righteous before the judge of the universe and offers his holy life as a payment for the sins of God's people.
3. A propitiatory sacrifice. God hates sin. He does so righteously and without human, creaturely passion. He simply cannot bear its presence. He cannot imagine it away, he cannot overlook it, but he can mercifully meet it justly by His own gracious work. He does so in Christ. Jesus makes a righteous God, burning with righteous anger over the evil of the human heart, propitious. Jesus bears God's wrath, and makes us sons and friends.

Here are some helpful resources (actually, most of these works might be called crucial resources) as we explore the depths of God's love to us through the work of His own Son.

"The Heart of the Gospel" by J.I. Packer. This is chapter 18 in Packer's incredible book, Knowing God. I'll keep saying it- if you haven't read this book you are missing out on what is probably the most important evangelical theological primer written in the past 30 years.

Apostolic Preaching of the Cross and The Atonement by Leon Morris. Leon Morris is one of the unsung heroes in the battle for a biblical view of the atonement over the past 50 years. Both of these books are dog eared, torn, wrinkled, marked and highlighted and at arm's length on my bookshelf.

Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murrray. One of the greatest little books ever written. Murray's defense of the reformed doctrine of 'limited atonement' or 'particular redemption' in his chapter on the extent of the atonement is a must read. If you call yourself a 'four point' Calvinist, or a Cal-minian [usually meaning that you embrace the T (total depravity) the U (unconditional election) the I (irresistible grace) and the P (perseverance of the saints) yet do not embrace the L (limited atonement) of the five points of Calvinism] you are not fully convinced until you work through Murray's biblical arguments a 'limited' view of Christ's saving work. If you are scandalized by the very thought of Christ's work as limited, then I urge you to read Murray's book as well as the most concise and thoughtful introduction to reformed theology available by J.I. Packer.

That is plenty of reading for now but if you are thirsty for more, then here are a couple of great new works defending 'evangelical' and orthodox views of the atonement- Pierced For Our Transgressions, In My Place Condemned He Stood . Of course the chapters on soteriology in Grudem's systematic text (or in Berkhof, Hodge, and Reymond's Systematic Theologies) are all excellent reference works for the student of theology.

The Word was God.

In this past Sunday's sermon on the Trinity, I spoke briefly regarding John 1:1 as a witness to the deity of Christ and the Jehovah's Witness (JH) mistranslation of this verse. I'd like to recap it here- several of you had asked about it.

A discussion about the JH mistranslation of this passage is simple and difficult. It is simple because the normal, historic, critically and scholarly translation of John 1:1 follows a very basic rule of grammar. To argue with it is rather silly. But, it is always difficult to argue with someone who is unable to accept simple and plain truth. Sometimes arguing with a JH's interpretation of this verse is like debating whether or not the sky is blue.

Here's the deal- in the original Greek this clause reads (transliteration): theos en ho logos. Greek is an inflected language, and word order in translation depends upon case ending. In this verse we find that both 'theos' - God and 'logos'- Word have the nominative, masculine, singular ending. Word- 'logos'- has the article 'ho' before it, while 'theos'- God; does not. The JH translation, the New World Translation, claims that because there is no definite article before 'theos', then it should be translated 'a god' (and so deny the full deity of Christ and assert a sort of Arian, sub-deity, quasi-divinity of Christ).

But, this translation ignores the fundamental rule at work in this clause. In this very simple Greek clause we have two nouns both with the nominative ending (the-os and log-os)connected by the verb 'to be' (eimi or en). We would not know which now stands in the subject position and which stands in the predicate position (the word was God or God was the word?). The rule is that the noun without the article is the predicate and the noun with the article (ho logos) is the subject. We find in this clause that 'theos' is put first, though it is the predicate. John places the predicate in front of the subject as a matter of emphasis. I believe that in the context we can discover plainly that he does this to boldly emphasize the deity of this eternal, preexisting 'logos'.

There are two other interpretive/translation principles that are broken by the JH's on this passage. First, they are fundamentally allowing a theological bias drive translation. Of course, we do recognize that no one is ever without some sort of bias. And, of course, we bring various orthodox convictions to the table whenever we do translation and interpretative (to some degree, us being human and all). But we cannot let it override plain readings of the text. Also, to say that John simply introduces a concept of a created, divine being ('a god') in the face of two thousand years of revealed Jewish monotheism is ludicrous. The JH fundamentally reject the deity of Christ and mistranslate the Scriptures to suit their heresy.

Secondly, the whole context of John 1:1-18 militates against such a denial of the deity of Christ. John is arguing and presenting the whole humanity and the whole deity of Jesus in this passage (indeed, throughout his gospel and his first epistle) while also maintaining the whole counsel of God which reveals his nature as ONE (John 1:1, 18; 8:58; chs. 14-17)! So, the JH mistranslate the Scriptures in the face of the plain contextual force of John's argument.

Here are a couple of resources that might further help in your defense of historic Trinitarian Christianity when reasoning with a Jehovah's Witness or anyone else who denies the biblical teaching on this matter: Christian Research Institute and Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry might be good places to start.

The Doctrine of God - Resources

Here are some resources on the doctrine of God (theology proper) and the Trinity that I thought helpful.

Packer's classic work Knowing God is a great primer. Every Christian MUST read this book. His first four chapters are an excellent introduction to theology and the being and Trinity of God.

A harder read (average to super theologian), but great stuff, is found in my seminary profs two works- The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God and The Doctrine of God by John Frame. At the Frame and Poythress website there are a ton of great articles, essays, and resources for the believer's study and sanctification.

Of course, the two main systematic theologies that I am using in my preparation for Theology 101 every week are Grudem and Culver. But a cheap buy, and a classic theological set that would be great to have at your fingertips is Charles Hodge's three volume work (three beautiful books- a classic in protestant theology- for about 20 bucks!).

There is a wealth of resources over at one of my favorite site monergism.com They have a great list of articles on theology, attributes of God, and the Trinity. Check it out.

More Bell-Ringing

Must I harp on this poor servant? Several have voiced concern that I am being unfair in my criticism of Rob Bell.

First, let me give you the full quotation from Bell's first book where he challenges the necessity of the virgin birth of Christ, the possibility of doctrinal certainty, and the importance of orthodox convictions (as well as the sufficiency of Scripture, the trustworthy testimony of the Gospel writers and Apostles, and the development of the canon...):

“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse? What if that spring were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart?”

I could say so many things about this disturbing quote. First, Bell, and all who have read his book, need to read some J. Gresham Machen. As well, you need to read Al Mohler's answer to the last couple questions posed above, "Could you still be a Christian? Or does the whole thing fall apart?"

Secondly, remember that this is uttered by the pastor of one of the fastest growing, largest, and influential churches in America. Second, he is touted as a leading voice in evangelicalism (the Chicago Sun Times offered him to us as the next Billy Graham). Third, he is a best selling Christian author. Fourth, he tours the country (world?) promoting his books, packing out churches, nightclubs, and other venues spreading his gospel. Fifth, he has great appeal to the pomo twenty/thirty something generation- a generation that I have the privilege of ministering amongst in a college town. For all these reasons, I challenge believers to watch out for his teachings, which are not in accordance with sound doctrine and the truth of the gospel.

Mind you, Bell does insist that he believes in the literal virgin birth of Christ. His point is 'hypothetical'- he is trying to demonstrate that doctrinal truths are like the springs on a trampoline, and we can remove them willy nilly and keep on jumping. He claims that modernity has set up doctrinal biblical truth like a brick wall, and when a brick is removed- the entire edifice comes crashing. The problem with this is that Bell has set up a false dichotomy (and a straw man- his caricature of modern evangelicalism as a doctrinal brick wall is unhelpful, though I don't necessarily disagree). Either doctrinal truth is like a trampoline or a brick wall. Must we see biblical truth as either/or in the way Bell has set up the discussion?

As I have often said, doctrinal truth, actually all truth, is a web of multiple reciprocities (a term I got from my trusted OT prof, Richard Pratt). The affirmation of the truth of the virgin birth has direct and crucial implications to the affirmation of Christ as truly God. The affirmation of the absolute truth and inerrancy of Scripture has direct bearing upon our affirmation of the virgin birth of Christ. We could go on and on. This is exactly why Paul labored to present to the Ephesians 'the whole counsel of God's Word' when he was with. This is why we are so strongly exhorted toward the preservation of sound doctrine. The denial of plain biblical teaching (which is certainly the case regarding the virgin birth) brings destruction to our churches and our souls.

Let me say as well that I could really care less that Bell personally believes in the virgin birth. This is not the important thing here. What is important is that we proclaim that such a thing is TRUE and why it is true. Bell places belief and truth in the realm of personal preference. I want to know what is true, not just for Bell, not just for me in Tallahassee- but for all men everywhere, for all time. It would be helpful if at this point in his book he explained for us why he believes in the virgin birth? On what basis? To what end? In reality, why should I believe that Bell affirm's historic Christian orthodoxy as he claims? His claim to such an affirmation is contradicted by his rejection of sola scriptura, his embrace of narrative theology, and the web of fallacious and foolish statements offered in the quote above. Bell is very McLaren-esque here- "I love the Bible- even when it's wrong!"

Let's look real quick at Bell's statement about the virgin birth:

1. What if someone digs up definitive proof (beyond a shadow of a doubt) about the real, earthly, biological father of Jesus? Oh, how dreadfully modern of Pastor Bell! Is his trust in DNA evidence? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? But Bell has built a church and a popular ministry around the idea that there is no such thing as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Ooops. These sort of horribly modern commitments always seem to creep in somewhere- for many emergents it often happens when the discussion turns to the truth of global warming and economics. I don't get it. I thought Bell had emerged from such enlightenment shackles.

2. Let's consider implication #1- Mary was indeed an adulteress and a liar. Joseph was a liar. And both of them built a whole life around this lie. And in this lie they fabricated angelic visitations. Elizabeth somewhere was dupped, or entered into the conspiracy.

3. Implication #2 - The gospel writers are liars.(in fact, Bell plainly asserts this as entirely plausible and not a problem whatever) Bell says that if such a thing were true (that Jesus had a dad named Larry) then maybe the testimony of Scripture is just a myth to appeal to some rank pagans. But, remember what Luke tells us, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

4. Implication #3 - Jesus was a liar. Matthew 16:16; 26:63-64...and many others.

5. Implication #4 - Jesus was not the Son of God. "And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35)

6. Implication #5 - Jesus was not the Messiah, sent as the Son of God to redeem a people for himself. Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins." (Matt. 1:20-21)

7. Implication #6 - Jesus was merely a man. A teacher (who lied about his claim to deity, and so was a megalomaniacal tyrant who demanded total loyalty from his followers). He simply came to show us 'the best way to live'. We are left with human righteousness as our only hope.

I went through that little walk from one reciprocity to the next- to show you exactly where Bell's point leads us in this whole hypothetical discussion. He says, "Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live?" We are left with a pragmatic, works oriented, and redemption-less gospel that is no gospel at all. No, this would not be the best way to live. Paul tells us that this would be the very worst way to live. We would still be in our sins. We would be enemies of God. We would be trusting a lie. We would be lost in a sea of mindless platitudes with no power for holiness, no way to truth, and no hope beyond the grave.

Add this to Bell's rejection of sola scriptura and his heterodox (and mainly sentimentalist gospel-ish) views presented in the NOOMA videos, his social gospel agenda, his Arminian and man centered view of the atonement, his failure to preach the gospel... behold, we have good old fashioned liberalism with hipster glasses and a 'bible church' guise.

Like I said last Sunday, if you must read Miller, Bell, McLaren, et. al. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE go read some Puritans, some Calvin, some Luther, some Spurgeon, some Hodge, some Warfield, some M. Lloyd -Jones, some Packer, some Piper, some Sproul...

Wolf-Spotting - Part One

It is the duty of pastors and the elders of the church to guard and promote sound doctrine. This is a source of life to believers because it promotes truth and righteousness and exalts the gospel- which is a collection of truthful, life changing propositions about God, Jesus, and salvation we call ‘good news’.

The New Testament is full of battles over truth and the preservation of the truth of the gospel. Paul fought the Judaizers in his letter to the Galatians. He fought the false apostles and the wisdom of this age with the power of the cross in his Corinthian correspondence. He fought the miasma of secular and pagan philosophy in Colossae. The writer of Hebrews battled apostasy and the return to old covenant shadows in the face of new covenant realities found in Christ. The Apostle John fought proto-gnosticism which attacked the nature and person of Christ and the truth of the Apostolic testimony. Peter devotes most of his second letter to warnings and judgments against false teachers and false teaching. And of course, there are the strong warnings and exhortations of our Savior himself to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3.

The sweetness and light of the American megachurch and emergent therapeutic gospel simply ignores this biblical reality, as they ignore the battle for truth and belief that is being waged all about us (as it always has been and shall be till Christ returns). This duty to ‘fight the good fight’ and ‘demolish strongholds’ and ‘wage spiritual warfare’ will cause- actually compel - wise leaders to jump into the fray. It means we will have to fight. It will get ugly. As any good shepherd will tell you fighting wolves , bears, and lions (oh my!) is a messy, bloody business. But then, not fighting gets a whole lot messier and bloodier. So, praise Jesus and pass me the sling shot.

Consider some passages of Scripture:

Matthew 7:14 "For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it. 15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
Luke 10:3 "Go your ways; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves.
Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Mark 13:22 for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order, if possible, to lead the elect astray. 23 "But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance.
Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
2 Corinthians 11:12 But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. 5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, 7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.
1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
1 Timothy 6:3 If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, 5 and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called "knowledge "-- 21 which some have professed and thus gone astray from the faith. Grace be with you.
2 Timothy 3:1 But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God; 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; and avoid such men as these. 6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.
2 Peter 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 John 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Of course we should recognize the call to humility, grace, patience, and love in the midst of the fight. It seems contradictory to speak of such virtues in the same breath that we call each other into battle. But the battle is lost before we begin if we don't fight with the fruit of the Spirit. The exhortation to love and patience should not keep us from the fight, but temper our hearts in the fighting. We do well to heed Paul's command to oppose false teaching in 1 Timothy 1:3 and always hold before us the goal and purpose of his command- 'love which comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith' (1 Timothy 1:5). The sentimental excuse, "I'm a lover, not a fighter" will not do for pastors today. Our shepherds must be lovers and fighters. They must be fighters because they are lovers. Lovers of God, lovers of the truth, and lovers of the flock they serve.

Of Elvis and Jazz...some further thoughts

Last Sunday I spoke of Rob Bell and Donald Miller in my sermon. Dangerous stuff that. Maligning the pomo pop-evangeliheroes in a college town. Oddly, I had several college students thank me for these words of warning, them having been intoxicated with postmodern foolishness and needing a word of caution. It was several of our 'older folk' (read: forty/fifty sumthin) that voiced their affections for these younger evangelicals, especially herr Miller.

Now, I think that Miller seeks to stay within the pale of evangelical faith- at least, that's what I hear. But to try and pin an emergent down one point of doctrinal commitment or another can be a frustrating gig. We are commended in Scripture as leaders to 'watch our life and doctrine closely, in so doing we will save ourselves and others'. As teachers we will 'be judged more strictly'. This is serious business, and doctrinal clarity, at least clarity even in what we do not believe- is important for those who have the influence that many of the new emergent school do.
In my less than humble assesment, Blue Like Jazz is more silliness and triviality than outright wrong- mostly. Any book that seeks to make serious statements about spirituality (it is a book of non-religious thoughts about spirituality- it says so on the cover) yet commits several pages to inscrutable and mostly useless cartoons featuring the author as a bunny...well, this speaks for itself. I'm not amazed that people like the book, but I am amazed that believers see it as an important and worthwhile book in terms of edification and wisdom. Miller is just plain wrong in some places. I know that his quiet and easy style really touches many a reader; and his experiences resonate with many of us. But, this shouldn't call us to swallow the postmodern, emerging ethos hook, line, and sinker (as so many seem to have).

My main concern for Miller is that much of his work is just a collection of musings, some with a certain degree of biblical warrant, the others not so much. There are a lot of interesting anecdotes from his life that may be more or less true depending on the context. But there is little examination of God's Word on all of these matters of 'dialogue' in Blue Like Jazz, precious little. This is ultimately not helpful, even harmful, when one is speaking critically of the church, and influencing thousands with their assesment.

I'm also concerned with the fact that many emerging guys- but mainly Rob Bell and Brian McLaren (A New Kind of Christian, A Generous Orthodoxy) as the most popular and influential voices in the movement (there are other more dangerous emergents who don't seek to speak so directly in the evangelical circle), refuse to accept responsibility for what they are actually doing. They sell hundreds of thousands of books, making hundreds of thousands of dollars, influencing multitudes. They have very hard words (yes, even the gentle Miller) for their former pastors and all those modernity shackled evangelicals of decades past; they ask us to listen to their critique of the church and Bell explicitly seeks to 'repaint' the faith. If they are to have such a prophetic voice and have such influence- they must be accountable. This means they must be held to a doctrinal, biblical standard. At this point, though- a grin comes over their faces along with a shrug of the shoulders and little jab to the shoulder. C'mon, don't be so linear! We're just having a 'conversation'- this is just a dialogue! LOL! (insert Smiley face emoticon here) But, in reality- this is more than just a friendly conversation. This is a major movement- and much of it is a movement in a dangerous, unhealthy and spiritually destructive direction.

What direction is this? Why all the fuss?

My main concern, as usual, is that many of these influential emergent voices have a low view of Scripture. Miller tacitly so with his failure to substantiate much of his work biblically as well as a host of nods to a post-foundational understanding of truth and meaning (especially in Miller's chapter 'Belief' in Blue Like Jazz). From what I gather, Miller is a committed believer in a healthy and biblically grounded church (with a high view of Scripture). I wish that there was more evidence of the genuine commitment to theological conviction evidenced in his work. I can't do a better job of laying out the problems with Miller's approach than Doug Groothuis does in this review of Blue Like Jazz.

Bell is a different story. I can find no overt commitment to the infallibility of Scripture on his church's website (his church's doctrinal commitment- or lack thereof, is found here). Bell's church affirms 'inspiration' and does admit that the Scriptures are authoritative- yet, this has come to mean a lot of things in the new postmodern project. It is interesting and duly noted that neither infallibility nor inerrancy are affirmed. This is not helpful when one places terms like inspiration and authoritative in a document extolling narrative theology. This places a community squarely outside the commitments of evangelical orthodoxy in my view. I can think of no reason for anyone to continue to listen seriously to such a pastor or teacher ruminate about repainting the faith when there is not a wholehearted affirmation of the reformed principle of Sola Scriptura (Bell rejects sola scriptura- Velvet Elvis, pp. 67). We can assume that with such a vague commitment to 'narrative' theology and (post) liberalism, whatever that might be, our emerging faith 'artists' will re-paint faith and 'truth' in their own image.

The emergent view of doctrinal conviction, knowledge, and truth is on the whole unhelpful, and in many places plainly unbiblical. The Scriptures are full of exhortations to embrace, know, and obey the truth of God's Word. We truly know things revealed, even if such knowledge is not comprehensive. Without a distinctly biblical epistemology, we are lost in a sea of skepticism and, well, uncertainty and doctrinal ignorance. D.A. Carson goes through scores of biblical passages exhorting us to doctrinal certainty in his excellent analysis of the emerging church, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (pages 193-199). He notes well that this is merely a sampling of the full weight and force of the whole counsel of God's Word calling us to know, trust, and obey the truth of God's Word with whole hearted conviction.

In Velvet Elvis, Bell's lays out the 'foundation' of all else he seeks to establish in his work: "The Christian faith is mysterious to the core. It is about things and beings that ultimately can't be put into words. Language fails. And if we do definitively put God into words, we have at that very moment made God something God is not. . . the mystery is the truth" (Velvet Elvis, pp. 32-33).

This is a sentiment and assertion that is outside the testimony of Scripture- Rev. 19:9, 21:5, 22:6; 2 Cor. 1:18-20; Titus 1:9; Eph. 3:8-10 (the mystery is said by Paul to be revealed and it is to be made known to the world- with words, with preaching, with a pattern of sound teaching- see also 1 Cor. 2:7-13), and outside the witness of the church for the past four hundred years.

Bell denigrates the glorious and essential truth of the virgin birth and so the deity of Christ, and the trustworthy message of the gospel writers- supplanting it with a pragmatic doctrine of works righteousness (Velvet Elvis, pp. 26-27). Bell moves toward universalism with his utilitarian theology as well, "Jesus was not making claims about one religion being better than all other religions. That completely misses the point, the depth, and the truth. Rather, he was telling those who were following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality...Perhaps a better question than who's right, is who's living rightly?" (VE, pp. 21).

He continues further down this road in his musings on hell. Of course, Bell puts everything as a question. He is just asking, poking, prodding. But I think this sort of tact is dangerous when one recognizes that Bell is poking and prodding at the core truths of God's Word, even at the underlying epistemological foundation of the Christian faith- that truth may be known with a real certainty and conviction.

Bell says, "When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an even, a situation absent of how God desires things to be...As a Christian, I want to do what I can to resist hell coming to earth. Poverty, injustice, suffering -they are all hells on earth, and as Christians we oppose them with all our energies. Jesus told us to." (VE, pg. 148) This approach puts orthodoxy at a disadvantage for it is a false dichotomy. A belief in hell as a literal place of judgment and eternal punishment need not lead us away from compassion and alleviation of suffering in the here and now. Yes, Jesus told us to love and care for others- but he also spoke (more than any other voice in Scripture) of the reality of God's judgment upon sin in a literal hell after this life. (Check out a great piece by Keller on preaching hell in a pomo culture. Also, here's a helpful work on the reality of hell from the truth of God's Word.)

Ah, well. Enough on that for now. I thought it important to provide a bit more background to my words of warning from Sunday. It is my job to guard sound doctrine, warn against false and destructive teachings and influences, and promote biblical teaching and thinking. Hopefully, many will read these emerging voices with more discernment and a greater zeal for God's Word and the truth of the gospel.

Here are a couple of helpful resources and further reads on the Emerging Church:

Why We're Not Emergent by DeYoung and Kluck (easy read, winsome and enjoyable- very even handed).

Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church by D.A. Carson (Carson can tend to be a bit boring and pedantic- but he provides a much needed analysis and assesment of the movement).

Above All Earthly Powers by David Wells (much heavier than the first two- but a great look at the present condition of evangelicalism).

Desiring God looked at many of these trends, issues, and the whole movement in their annual conference a couple years back. The video and audio can be found here.

Here is a helpful pamphlet in PDF form that looks in greater detail at Bell's Velvet Elvis.

The Doctrinal Journey

In the family of God there is to be a wonderful, adventurous, and wholehearted pursuit of the Word of the Father. It seems strange that I must push such a point. Sadly, though, there is an emerging ethos in the church calling believers away from truth and doctrine in the pursuit of some more vague and mystical postmodern journey. Such postmodern sirens usually employ a false dichotomy between truth and experience to woo folks into the postmodern abyss. But we need not, indeed must not, divorce truth from experience. Nor may we allow our experiences and 'journey' be uninformed and unguided by the truth of God revealed in his Word.

Doctrine, sound teaching, theological truth is often characterized as joyless, dry, devoid of any practical use in daily life. This may very well characterize some church, or some postmodern twenty something's experience. But, that is all it is- an experience and a caricature. The Word of God itself describes the pursuit of the truth of God's Word and the teaching and applying of sound doctrine as essential to the believer's experience and the body life of the church.

This pursuit of truth and revealed doctrine from the Word of God is not only a wonderful conversation, to use the overused pomo word, but a glorious adventure. By conversation I mean listening to the Father and talking with brothers and sisters as to how we might best heed and obey Him. By adventure I do not mean that the journey is about the journey and not about the destination and all that nonsense (all great adventures and journey's have a destination). There is a great adventure in searching the Scriptures, in applying their truth and power to my life and the life of the body that I serve. There is a great adventure in seeing the truth and power of God at work in the hearts of new believers, the discovery of God's truth in new ways in the hearts of 'old' believers, the thrilling (and sometimes terrible) experience of the Spirit's sword (Ephesians 6: 17) doing its work in our hearts, lives, churches, and families.

Just today, Josh (F'Oaks worship pastor) and I were talking about the Apostle Paul's exhortation in Colossians 3:16, "Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God." We talked about what Paul meant by using these three different terms. How is a hymn different than a spiritual song? Did Paul even intend for us to draw distinctions from this verse, or was he using generally synonymous terms for impact and illustrative power in pressing home his main point? We looked into the meaning of the original terms in the Greek. We looked at the whole counsel of God and how this passage might be understood in relationship to the rest of Scripture. What can we learn from the first century context from which and into which Paul spoke? We asked about what this exhortation means in the context of our particular body- where can we grow, mature, and apply such a passage in a more meaningful helpful way?

We were enjoying the 'doctrinal journey' of being challenged and transformed by the Word of God and looking forward to its transformational work in our church body as we submit to it. I praise God that I am part of a body that loves the Word and loves the journey. Each week we look to the unchanging, propositional, historic truths of the faith revealed in God's Word. We experience it. We respond to it. We obey it. We wrestle with it. We submit to it. We argue about it. We repent where we have neglected it. But, make no mistake, along this journey we never forget that IT is there. God has spoken. His Word is true. His teachings are clear and understandable. His voice is real and to be heeded. What a great doctrinal journey our church family is on. We look forward to the destination when we we see him face to face, when we know fully even as we are fully known.

Emergence and Dogma

Two of the books we received free at our conference last week were, Why We're Not Emergent by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck; and The Courage to Be Protestant by David Wells. I also picked up A Theology for the Church which I am poking through in preparation for our summer sermon series in which I'll be unpacking 12 different categories of systematic theology each week (one week on the person of Christ, one week on the doctrine of the church, etc.).

The first book I mention is a very helpful examination (pomos read: conversation, dialogue) of the increasingly popular pop-postmodern emerging church ethos that has captivated the church. Wells' book is an examination of the current landscape, looking at the megachurch movement, and the more conservative camps in a consumerist culture along with the rising emergent church.

Chapter five of Why We're not Emergent is devoted to the emerging consensus(?) regarding doctrine:

"It is not hard to find emergent leaders questioning the importance of doctrine. Doctrine is derided as logical, sterile, and exclusive. Instead of saying, "Here is truth; take it or leave it," the emergent crowd calls Christians to declare, "Come and experience the story of God in the life of this community."

It must be admitted that by and large, this movement away from doctrine is an experiential sentiment (rooted in some ugly battle in a church where mean, doctrinaire Christians hurt you) or a philosophical tenet (rooted in postmodern epistemology) that is foreign to the pages of Scripture. A call for uncertainty and ambiguity simply does not appear in the New Testament. Yes, there are commands against being contentious and quarrelsome, but they are always offered in the same breath with exhortations to teach and patiently refute those in error. The call to be uncontentious speaks to the need for godly and gracious champions for truth, not weak kneed ambiguity and uncertainty in the great truths of the Christian faith (here is a great little article by Piper on Humility for the cause of Christ and His truth).

J. Ligon Duncan reminded us that "the Apostles were ready to expel people from the church over language". Language is important. Words are important (ask any propagandist). God revealed himself through his Word, and through the living Word, Jesus Christ.

DeYoung and Kluck point out in their chapter on dogma what is evident throughout the N.T. but is mostly ignored in the emerging church culture (p.112):

People go to hell for believing the wrong things. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal. 1:8)

People within the church should be corrected when they believe the wrong things. "[An elder] must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it" (Titus 1:9)

People are sometimes to be kept out of your house for believing the wrong things. "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ deos not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him." (2 John 9-10)

Exhortations to contend for the faith, pursue sound doctrine, refute those in error, grow in God's Word, etc. are constant throughout the Scriptures. We do well to heed God's Word and embrace doctrinal truth with conviction and refuse the therapeutic, experiential, and ultimately empty and groundless substitute of an emerging culture.

T4G- Sound Doctrine: Essential to Faithful Pastoral Ministry

Here are the basics of our first talk at Together for the Gospel last week. The message was delivered by J. Ligon Duncan. It was an excellent overview of the need for renewed doctrinal zeal and a fundamental grasp of systematic theology in our churches.

(Here is a great article by D.A. Carson on biblical, historical, and systematic theology. Carson provides a helpful definition of systematic theology:

"As its name suggests, systematic theology attempts to organize, to systematize, theological reflection. When the primary authoritative source for that theological synthesis and reflection is the Bible, systematic theology attempts to organize what the Bible says according to some system. The traditional tenfold division of topics is certainly not the only possiblity. But even to choose topics, to hierarchialize them, is to impose a structure not transparently given in Scripture itself. In any case, such theological reflection inevitably emerges out of one epistemology or another, out of a particular cultural consciousness, and such matters will become correspondingly more influential in the system to the degree that the theologian is unaware of them or holds, naively, that they have little or no influence." )

Fundamental Premise: We live in a decidedly anti-doctrinal, anti-theological age; and this spirit of the age has saturated the ethos of the local church. We must revive a love of sound doctrine and a knowledge of biblical and systematic theology in our pulpits and pews.

Great quote #1: According to John 17: 13,17 “truth is for joy; doctrine is for delight. . .
you’re a killjoy if you’re against doctrine”

Great point #1: Defending and promoting doctrine is biblical: Matt. 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 1:3-5; 1 Tim. 1:8-11; 1 Tim. 6:2-4; Titus 1:1

Great quote #2: “Theology is the science of living blessedly ever after” William Perkins

Great quote #3: “We need to meet postmodern uncertainty by celebrating truth and theology.”

Great point #2: Examples of ‘systematic’ theology in Scripture: Luke 24:25-27; Acts 18; Acts 17:2-3; Romans organized systematically;

Are You A Calvinist?

Upon discovering my noble vocation as preacher of the gospel, defender of truth, under-shepherd of the sheep, and pastor to the rich and famous (some unsuspecting celebrity must have stumbled upon my blog accidentally at some point-I'm sure of it; and, I'm told that Brad and Angelina were very convicted by my series on Marriage from 1 Corinthians 7) a young man asked what strange church would ever allow themselves to be subjected to my ministrations.
"Four Oaks Church," I said with a winsome and benign pastoral smile.
He grimaced a bit, "Oh, isn't that a Calvinist church?"
It is at this point that I should learn to just say, "Yes. Good day to you!" And go on about my business. The conversations that follow such an introduction are so rarely fruitful. But, I am ever the optimist, hoping that somehow I might engage this fellow traveler in a profound discussion of the glorious doctrine of God's sovereignty and the wonder of his free grace offered to undeserving sinners in the work of His Son Jesus Christ.
So, I replied, "Well, no, we are not a 'calvinist' church perhaps in the pejorative manner you seem to understand Calvinism. We don't want our identity to be formed by anything other than the authority of the Scriptures, the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the glory of God. But, I suppose what you're getting at is the fact that I generally affirm as biblically true what have become known as the five points of Calvinism."
Happily, we did indeed engage in quite a lively discussion about God's sovereignty and human responsibility, and how such things impact our understanding of the world and the church. It actually was pretty fruitful all around.
I ended the discussion by referring him to what has become known as one of the most concise and helpful descriptions of and apologies for what is generally called Calvinism. It is the introductory essay to a reprint of John Owen's classic work on the atonement, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by J.I. Packer. I commend it to you, as well.

Some Resources on Imprecation

As I've been working on Psalm 90 for worship at the Lord's Table this Sunday, I came upon a 3-part series by Sam Storms called Those Troubling Psalms of Imprecation (scroll down the series list).

It is well worth it to work through Storms' helpful discussion of this troubling, but also oft overlooked, portion of God's Word.

John Day has an excellent article entitled Imprecatory Psalms and Christian Ethics in Bibliotheca Sacra (the journal of Dallas Theological Seminary) from back in 2002. Spoiler and teaser last paragraph:

"This article has sought to demonstrate that at times it is legitimate for God's people to utter prayers of imprecation or pleas for divine vengeance--like those in the Psalms-against the recalcitrant enemies of God and of His people. This is based on the psalms' theology of imprecation in the Torah, and on the presence of this theology carried essentially unchanged to the end of the canon."

God's Providence and the New Year

There is unrest all over the world, wars and rumors of wars, poverty, pestilence, and, of course, we might be in economic recession in the coming months here in America (which means that some of us might need to moderate gas guzzling for our second car, clip a coupon, or go for a walk rather than go out to dinner). In all of this we remember that God is sovereign and at work in all things:

Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Ephesians 1:9-11 . . . in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will.
Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

Here is a helpful little article on God's providence by J.I. Packer. God's providence is a bedrock doctrine for the saints as they look ahead to another year.

And, here is one of my favorite hymns by William Cowper.


"Deep in unfathomable mines of never-failing skill, He treasures up His bright designs, and works His sovereign will."

The Source and Sum of All Full and Lasting Joy

First, read Ben Witherington's critique of the vision of Jonathan Edwards which might be summed up in this way: "The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy himself forever" (this is actually one of Piper's headings in Let the Nations be Glad! for chapter one titled: The Supremacy of God in Missions Through Worship). Witherington interacts with Tom Schreiner's forthcoming book on New Testament Theology. Witherington reveals the heart of Arminian theology with this telling (actually, appalling) paragraph:

"There were various nuances and amplifications to the discussion, but the more one read, the more it appeared clear that God was being presented as a self-centered, self-referential being, whose basic motivation for what he does, including his motivation for saving people, is so that he might receive more glory. Even the sending of the Son and the work of the Spirit is said to be but a means to an end of God's self-adulation and praise."

It is bizarre that Witherington would claim that human narcissism makes God and His glory paramount; then assert that the true end of God's love and work is man. The man who makes a god that has man as his chief end is the narcissist, it seems to me.

John Piper, one who has committed his life and ministry to propagating the Edwardsean vision of God and Biblical Theology, responds here. Piper reveals the heart of Augustinian and Calvinist theology with this telling paragraph:

"Many man-centered Americans who have defined the love of Christ as his making much of them, not his helping them to enjoy make much of him, would cry out to Jesus in this situation: I don’t care about your power being made perfect, I care about not hurting with this thorn! O how we need to help people see that Christ, not comfort, is their all-satisfying and everlasting treasure. So I conclude that magnifying the supremacy of God in all things, and being willing to suffer patiently to help see and savor this supremacy is the essence of love. It’s the essence of God’s love. And it’s the essence of your love. Because the supremacy of God’s glory is the source and sum of all full and lasting joy."

And, when all is said and done, the biblical weight is on the side of Edwards, Schreiner, and Piper. I urge you to read and meditate upon the Scriptures set forth to make their case.

A Helpful Site (and blog)

Reclaiming the Mind - Reclaiming the Mind Ministries was created to impact individuals, the church, and the culture with the glory of God and the majesty of Christ by presenting the truths of the Christian faith in a fair and balanced way. Whether taking classes through The Theology Program, listening to Theology Unplugged, or engaging with top Christian scholars on Converse with Scholars, the student will be encouraged to understand the issues at a profound level in order to make informed decisions on the most important topics of life.

You can visit the blog of Reclaiming the Mind (C. Michael Patton and Daniel Wallace)- here's a provocative and helpful first glance.

Eschatology Charts

Here's a helpful primer chart on the various evangelical eschatological systems.

And here's another one.

And one here.

Or here.

Check this out if you want an especially clear and easy to read overview of the various 'dispensations'. (I encourage you to enjoy all of Clarence Larkin's almost inscrutable charts.)

Premillenialism Re-Discovered

I have been working through Robert Duncan Culver's (my father's seminary professor and friend, who has recently written a wonderful Systematic Theology) presentation and defense of premillenial eschatology entitled The Earthly Reign of Our Lord With His People and I must say that I am 'rediscovering' a delight in searching the Scriptures on these matters. Our denomination and our local church affirms a premillenialist position in our doctrinal statement: #11 We believe: In the personal and premillennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and that this "Blessed Hope" has a vital bearing on the personal life and service of the believer. Though I do not believe that such a specific eschatological commitment should be held on par with other cardinal doctrinal convictions (when, at the same time, certian more central tenets are overlooked) and should not be included in such a broad doctrinal statement. Nor do I believe that a doctrine of 'imminence' should be included, though I affirm it in a certain sense (I submit to my brothers in this for the sake of unity and ministry, go here for a discussion of the now abandoned attempt to revise the EFCA Statement of Faith). I do believe that an historic (as opposed to a 'dispensational') premillennialism is the most biblical framework of eschatology. It has been a couple of years since I explored these passages and questions, and Culver's work has strengthened my 'blessed hope'. Sadly, this work is out of print and very difficult to find (several copies are available under its previous title). So, I will provide choice quotes and salient points from his work as I read and study.

Premillennialism is the belief founded mainly upon a literal interpretation of Rev. 20:1-7 which predicts a real earthly reign of Christ with his resurrected saints for 1000 years (Pre- referring to the second coming preceding an earthly reign; millennial- referring to a literal 1000 years). This eschatological system is founded upon a host of other predictive passages throughout the whole counsel of God's Word. Culver summarizes the essential teachings of historic premillenial doctrine in three propositions (I will not prooftext here):

1. The Millennium is specifically (1) the period of time between the resurrection of the just and of the unjust and (2) the period of Satan's imprisonment.

2. The Millennium is further qualified as (1) an initial stage in the everlasting Kingdom of Christ; (2) a period begun by the visible return of Christ in glory to judge and rule the nations; (3) a period closed by the final eradication of all evil from God's universe at the final judgment of the wicked; and (4) a period during which the saints of the first resurrection will be associated with Christ in His reign.

3. In connection with the inauguration of the Millennium it is revealed that (1) the closing days of the present age shall witness the restoration of Israel to the land and the conversion of the nation, to be followed in the Millennium by the fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant promises distinctive to that nation; (2)a final personal Antichrist shall appear near the close of this present age who will become master of the world and will be destroyed by Christ at his coming, and
(3) a period of the Great Tribulation for Israel is to transpire under Antichrist's oppression, from which deliverance will be provided by Christ at His coming. (Culver, pgs. 20-21)

A commitment to premillenialism is not welcomed in most 'reformed' communities. But, along with Culver, I would say that much of what people see as 'premillennialism' is a caricature, and easily presented as a straw man. There is not a great deal of wise and careful exegesis coming out of what I'll call naive (even bizarre) 'dispensational' premillennialism these days (though this cannot be said of the history of premillennialism). The silliness of the 'Left Behind' series would be a great example. Consider Culver's introductory lament:

"Unfortunately the most grievous wounds to millennial faith have been inflicted by overzealous and sensationalist advocates among writers and preachers. As the good prophet in Zechariah 13 explains, his trauma is from "wounds...with which I was wounded in the house of my friends." this has been going on as long as I have been alive and continues unabated. These well meaning, and I think incautious people, make the millennium vehicle for far more doctrinal freight than the biblical undercarriage was engineered to carry. Some recent "evangelical" fiction has carried this to grievous extremes in my opinion. These self inflicted wounds by premillenarians may explain, in part at least, why presently literal interpretation of biblical predictions of a future reign of Christ on earth has been under severe attack from many quarters. As a matter of personal observation these excesses have certainly caused some to renounce chiliastic [premillennial] teachings and prevented others from accepting them." (Culver, pg. 7)

Culver's book lays down the gauntlet and challenges any convinced amillennialist or postmillennialist to pick it up with out merely assailing foolishness from the other side, but by answering the questions presented by an honest struggle with the text.

A Defense of Believers' Baptism

Fred Malone writes one of the best apologetics for believers' baptism over at the Founders Conference website.

There are those that argue for credo-baptism merely on the prima facie evidence of Scripture. It goes something like this: "There are no clear instances of babies being baptized in the Scriptures, therefore, we must not baptize infants." This is certainly one aspect of the debate(and part of the string of pearls unstrung for Pastor Malone) , but it does hold enough weight if you are examining the argument at a deeper biblical and theological level.

There are those that argue for credo-baptism from a more developed doctrine of baptism based on the nature of saving faith and it's depiction in the ordinance. This is a compelling argument, but it still often falls short in persuading one who holds to a 'covenant' understanding of the sacraments (ordinances if you're a baptist).

It is primarily at this level that Pastor Malone takes aim. He gives the most succinct and clear argument against infant baptism that I've seen. It addresses those who make the argument for infant baptism based on the covenant promises of the Old Testament (signified in circumcision) and their continuity in the new covenant displayed in the sacrament of baptism. Children were part of the covenant community in the Old Covenant and so given the sign, circumcision; children are part of the covenant community in the New Covenant and so should be given the sign of baptism.

I think this paper will deepen your love for Christ and strengthen your theological and biblical understanding of baptism. It will bolster your convictions regarding baptism if you're a baptist, and challenge your understanding of the covenant and it's signs if you're not.