Great is Your Reward

We are saved by grace through faith alone. Our justification is not at all based upon any work of human merit. The cross of Christ is the basis of our hope and we find infinite comfort in its sufficiency. Paul declared, "May it never be that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, though which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Galatians 6:14).

Justification by faith alone, however, never supposes a life void of activity. Paul also declared, "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). The wonderful passage on God's salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) also adds, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them" (Eph. 2:10).

We have the promise of a sure reward. Our labor is not in vain - "Therefore my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Cor. 15:58). Yes, we have a sure reward reserved for eternity, but the reward of a life well-lived in faithfulness to Christ has wonderful benefits now; what sweet comfort our conscience will bring in our final hours. William Gurnall writes, "Life is a time for working, and death for receiving the reward suitable to the work. Hence it is when death is approaching, conscience (if not seared and past all feeling) is then carried back to review what the man has been doing, for whom he has been laboring, and therefore must bring in heavy tidings to the sinner of his approaching misery. Then it rips up all the stitches of that false peace which the ungodly wretch had been bolsered up with, and tells him that now the righteous judge is at hand to pay him the dismal wages due to him for all the wicked works he has done, which makes the thoughts of death a terror to him. But the sincere Christian, who has labored faithfully in the Lord's work, then has a pleasant prospect to behold when he looks back upon his conscionable walking, and can thence make his humble appeal to God, and desire Him to remember how he has walked before Him in truth, and with a perfect heart. Oh what joy is this to his poor heart, that his conscience bears him witness that he has endeavored to walk before God with godly simplicity and not in guile? He can cast himself upon the mercy of God in Christ, and breathe out his soul with a joyful expectation of being received into the kingdom of glory" (The Christians's Labor and Reward, p.30).

May God grant you the grace and mercy to press on with your eyes fixed firmly upon our glorious Redeemer. May His radiance outshine anything that may distract you from His Kingdom and His righteousness. "Be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord" (1 Cor. 15:58). You have a sure reward, "an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet. 1:4-5).

Don't Squander Your Liberty

Saeed Abedini is a U.S. citizen who lives in Idaho with his wife and two young children. He converted to Christianity from Islam in 2000 and became a U.S. citizen in 2010. Prior to moving to the U.S. he had been active in planting house churches in Iran. Last September he traveled to Iran to help start an orphanage and was arrested by the Iranian jihadist Revolutionary Guard. He was tortured, tried, convicted, and sentenced to eight years in Iran’s most brutal prison. And what was his crime? He was charged with undermining the Iranian government by creating a network of Christian house churches and attempting to sway Iranian youth away from Islam. Is this an isolated case? No. Sadly, there are thousands of Christians imprisoned throughout the world for the crime of following Christ and sharing the Gospel with others. We find such persecution in Egypt, North Korea, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and many others. China maintains strict control over churches and those not registered and officially sanctioned are subject to arrest. The government detained over 700 Christians from unregistered churches in 2012. Thousands of Christians throughout the world understand clearly the words of the Apostle Paul, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22).

 

In the United States Christians often fail to contemplate the wonderful blessing of our religious freedom. We enjoy the freedom of worshipping God without interference from our government and we have the marvelous liberty of being able to share Christ with others. We can stand on a public sidewalk and pass out tracts without fear of being arrested and imprisoned, a blessing Christians in many countries can only dream of. On March 16 several men from our church walked the route of our local Saint Patrick's Day Parade passing out tracts. We were mere feet in front of the lead police car and policemen on bicycles were often right next to us. Not once did they interfere with our labors. Oh what blessed freedom! While our freedoms are under continued threat of being eroded, we enjoy great liberty today.

Such blessings carry great responsibility. Has God granted us such liberty without the expectation of us using the gift diligently? We must not squander our liberty. Our nation is on a downward spiral of moral decay. The only hope of our survival is the Gospel of Christ. Churches must not turn their eyes inward and forget their duty to the world. Healthy churches are those that maintain an emphasis on evangelism. Ernest Reisinger wrote, “The church that does not evangelize will fossilize, that is, dry up and become useless to Christ and to the world” (Today's Evangelism, p.xv). Our Lord commanded, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.”

 

When the Church was in its infancy persecution soon broke out in Jerusalem. Luke records that Christians had to flee the city and were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. What was their course of action? Did they go into hiding? Did they try to conceal their attachment to Christ? Did they keep the Gospel carefully hidden from others? Luke records, "Therefore, those who had been scattered went about preaching the word" (Acts 8:4). These were not the Apostles. Luke records that the Apostles remained in Jerusalem (Verse 1). These were the lay people! The word used for "preaching" here is not the word "kerusso," which designates the work of those called to the ministry of the Word, but "euaggelizo," which simply means, "to announce glad tidings" or "to bring good news." It is the labor of every Christian. Will Metzger writes, "In our world probably 99.9 percent of all Christians are not in the ministry. Unless everyone engages in evangelism--praying, initiating, and fervently speaking the gospel--not much will happen" (Tell the Truth, p.21). Pray that you might seize every opportunity share the good news of Jesus Christ. Do not squander your liberty!

 

Louisiana College and Calvinism - An Old Familiar Foe

Several within my small sphere of influence have asked me what's going on at Louisiana College (LC) with regard to the decision to not renew the contracts of three professors, presumably because of their Reformed (Calvinistic) theology. I am, by no means, an insider with what is happening at LC. I personally know none of the parties involved. I only write this because, from the outside looking in, this appears to be the working of one with whom I am all too familiar. I've seen him divide churches and weaken marriages. I've seen him divide brother against brother. Of course, I'm speaking of our old foe, the devil.

Satan's lies and deceptions are so cunning that he is able to make the wrong seem right. Or as the Apostle wrote, "Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14). None of us are above being influenced by his lies. Even as I write this I am prayerful that my own motives are pure and that I am not adding to the division that Satan has orchestrated--that Satan is not using me. The danger is so great that the New Testament gives continual warning. He is described as a vicious lion and we are charged to stay on the alert - "Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour" (1 Pet. 5:8). We are warned to be on guard against his schemes, "in order that no advantage be taken of us by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his schemes" (2 Cor. 2:11). None of us are above his attack and deceptions. The Apostle Peter knew personally how Satan can use us to hinder the work of the Kingdom of our Lord. The words, "Get behind Me, Satan" (Matt. 16:23) must have forever burned upon his ears. Pastors (and church and denominational leaders) must be mature because of the danger - "and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation of the devil" (1Tim. 3:6). We must understand the source of many of the disputes between brothers - "for our struggle is not against flesh and blood . . ." (Eph. 6:12). The point is, we are all in danger of being deceived and distracted by the lies of the devil. Satan is so cunning that, while listening to his lies, we can actually believe we are doing the work of God - "but an hour is coming for everyone who kills you to think he is offering service to God" (John 16:2).

I say all of this because the dispute at LC bears all the marks of this old familiar, lying foe. Is Calvinism really the enemy? I could understand the dispute if it was an issue of heretical doctrine; if it was a denial of the Trinity or justification by faith alone. But this involves a doctrine that has long been approved by a large segment of the Church. Calvinism was the fuel that fired the revival of the Protestant Reformation. It was the doctrine of the Puritans that came to build America in the 17th Century. It was the fuel that led the charge of the great missionary endeavour of men like William Carey and Adoniram Judson. And so important to the present debate, Calvinism was the doctrine of most of the founders of the SBC. W.B. Johnson, the first SBC president, held to these doctrines. P.H. Mell, who held the office of SBC president longer than any other (1861-1871, 1879-1887), held to these doctrines. The founder of Southern Seminary, J.P. Boyce, was a Calvinist. John Broadus, Basil Manly, William Williams - the list goes on and on, were all Calvinists. So do we really want to make this the issue that will divide our Convention today?

So why do I say that this bears all the marks of our fiendish foe? Because while the very foundation of our culture has fallen into moral and spiritual decay, the Church has been largely silent. We are too busy devouring one another. Our nation is confused over very basic questions. What constitutes a marriage (or a family)? When does life begin? Is is proper to kill babies? And how do we respond? Get rid of the Calvinists! My friend, Jim Law, recently stated it well on his blog: "In a culture that is jettisoning biblical foundations by the hour, there is no time for this! In a church fractured by disputes and misplaced devotions, there is no time for this! In a world where there are billions who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ, there is no time for this!"

Again, I am not an insider in this dispute. And I am not writing with any desire to enter the debate, but as an outsider looking in, it would appear that there are brothers who have been hurt because they hold to a set of doctrines that have long been accepted within orthodox Christianity, and by our own Convention. We need to put an end to this madness and stop being prey to the schemes and devices of our true enemy. We need to rise up together with one heart to advance the Kingdom of our Lord.

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology - A Book Review

"The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" came about as the result of a dissertation by Pascal Denault. He has carefully researched the theological texts of the seventeenth-century, examining the covenantal distinctions between Presbyterians and Baptists. While the two groups have certain similarities, they also have significant divergences. It is a subject of no small importance. Denault writes in his introduction: "We propose that covenant theology is that distinctive between Baptists and paedobaptists and that all divergences that exist between them, both theological and practical, including baptism, stem from their different ways of understanding the biblical covenants. Baptism is, therefore, not the point of origin but the outcome of the differences between paedobaptists and credobaptists" (credobaptist = those who believe in believers baptism). For Baptists the question is not so much a matter of the proper form of baptism but the question of who are the people of God. Who can be baptized? Who is in the covenant? The proper answer to these questions demands having a proper understanding of the framework of covenant theology.

Denault divides his book into four chapters: The Covenant of Works, The Covenant of Grace, The Old Covenant, and The New Covenant. Using these basic heads, he skillfully lays out the distinctions between Presbyterians and Baptists.

The greatest distinction between paedobaptists and Baptists lies in their understanding of the relationship of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Presbyterians/paedobaptists see one single Covenant of Grace which runs through both the Old and New Covenants. With this framework they set up a substance/administration hermeneutic. The Old Covenant and New Covenant are the same in substance; they only differ in administration. Baptists, on the other hand, function on a promise/fulfillment hermeneutic; that the Covenant of Grace was promised in the Old Covenant and revealed progressively until it is fulfilled by Christ in the New Covenant. Denault unpacks these opposing concepts throughout this book.

In the chapter on the Covenant of Works the author describes how the paedobaptists and Baptists differ in how they understand the continuity of Covenant of Works. Denault writes, "Since paedobaptists saw the Old Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace in harmony with the New Covenant, according to them the opposition between the law and grace did not mean an opposition between the Old and New Covenants, but rather opposition between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace" (page 30). In other words, the law which Paul contrasts with the Gospel is the Covenant of Works. While the Baptists did not necessarily refute this, they insisted on a continuity of the Covenant of Works in the Old Covenant, a paradigm the paedobaptists could not accept. Baptists see the Old Covenant as a conditional covenant. For Baptists the law/grace antithesis is an Old/New Covenant antithesis.

Since the Covenant of Grace is the great divide among these two systems of covenant theology, Denault devotes the second chapter to describe the opposing views of paedobaptist and Baptists. The contrasting views focus on continuity/discontinuity between the Biblical covenants. As I stated earlier, the paedobaptists see the Covenant of Grace running throughout both Testaments--the same in substance but different in administration. The Baptists see the Covenant of Grace as only promised in the Old Covenant, but fulfilled in the New Covenant. In other words the Old Covenant is not the Covenant of Grace. It is the "same in substance, different in administration" distinction that allows the Presbyterians to justify a mixed people of God (regenerate and unregenerate) in both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. As Denault states it, "The external administration of the Covenant of Grace would, therefore, contain the regenerate and non-regenerate, while the internal substance would only contain the regenerate" (page 41). He adds, "The Baptists did not deny the principle of natural posterity under the Old Covenant. However, they considered the importation of this principle under the New Covenant to be a fallacy dependant on an artificial and arbitrary construction of the Covenant of Grace" (page 45). While "the Baptists saw the substance of the Covenant of Grace running from Genesis to Revelation, they did not see the same unity between the Old and New Covenants" (page 58). The Baptist position was that while the Covenant of Grace existed as a promise in the Old Covenant and men were saved through belief in the promise, it did not exist as a covenant until the New Covenant in Christ, which means all who were saved before Christ were saved by virtue of the New Covenant, not the Old.

Denault adds an interesting point to his research. The position of the Presbyterians must allow for the mediation of Christ in such a way that will allow for the inclusion of the unconverted (baptized infants added to the church). "In order to justify the mixed nature of the Church, the paedobaptists had to restrain the efficacy of grace within the covenant. As a result, the one covenant under two administrations model had a direct consequence on the doctrine of expiation. The Baptists compared this restrained efficacy of the death of Christ to a kind of limited Arminianism. This Arminianism extended the reach of the death of Christ to all human beings, but limited its efficacy to believers. Consequently, Presbyterian federalism (covenantalism) was comparable to Arminianism" (pages 91-92).

In order to maintain their one covenant under two administrations model the Presbyterians had to put the Mosaic/Sinaitic Covenant as a part of the Covenant of Grace removing it from being a works/conditional covenant. "If one considered the Sinaitic Covenant as a covenant of works (i.e. conditional), it became impossible to consider the Old Covenant as a cumulative administration of the Covenant of Grace since there would have been incompatibility between the unconditional nature of the Covenant of Grace and the conditional nature of the Sinaitic Covenant" (page 101). To solve this dilemma some paedobaptists radically separated the Abrahamic Covenant from the Sinaitic Covenant. The Baptists, on the other hand saw a distinction between the revelation and conclusion of the Covenant of Grace, thus not all members of the Abrahamic Covenant benefited from the grace of God since the Covenant of Grace was not concluded with members of this covenant. The Covenant of Grace was only revealed to those who believed. They maintained that Abraham had two distinct posterities--a physical, represented by Ishmael, and a spiritual, represented by Isaac (Galatians 4:22-31). Their conclusion was that these two posterities were under two distinct covenants: The Covenant of Grace, and the covenant of circumcision. Denault writes, "Understanding the workings of the dualism of the Abrahamic Covenant is essential for every theological system. We believe that Presbyterian federalism and dispensationalism failed in this task by confusing the promises of the Covenant of Grace with the covenant of circumcision" (page 124).

In the final chapter, The New Covenant, Denault continues to demonstrate the distinct differences between the paedobaptists and the Baptists. The paedobaptists insist that the New Covenant was simply a new administration, not a substantially different covenant. The Baptists argued forcefully that the New Covenant was indeed, a new covenant. Denault gives two ways the New Covenant was new. (1) It was new because it was unconditional, unlike the Old Covenant. It was unconditional because of its Mediator. Denault writes, "If the blessings of the New Covenant were guaranteed by Christ (Heb. 7:22), how could one conceive, as did the Presbyterians, that the New Covenant was just as 'transgressable' as the Old?" (page 150). (2) It was new because ALL of its members would participate in the substance of the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant states, "they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest."

 Denault summarizes the problem with the paedobaptist position in his conclusion. "Presbyterian federalism was an artificial construction developed to justify an end: paedobaptism. . . We do not purport that paedobaptists were dishonest, but, at the very least, that they were profoundly influenced by their tradition."

He concludes: "In no way did the Baptists reject reformed theology; however, they reformed its foundations in order to give the edifice a more solid base and much greater harmony with the doctrines of the grace of God" (page 156).

This book is an excellent synopsis of the differences in the covenantal approaches of paedobaptists and Baptists. It is timely in our day when Baptists are once again rediscovering their reformed heritage. I hope it will have an excellent reception and broad reading.

Oh How I Love Thy Law - Psalm 119:97

Modern Christianity seems plagued by a hatred of God’s law. Sadly, even some of our brothers who love reformed theology insist that God’s moral law, as reflected in the Ten Commandments, no longer exists under the New Covenant. They make a strange distinction between the law of God and the law of Christ, as if there is a change in character between the persons of the Godhead. David’s words, “O how I love Thy law! It is my meditation all the day” (Psalm 119:97) is not even in the realm of their consideration.

One certainly has to ask, what was God’s moral standard in the Old Covenant? Was it not the Ten Commandments? Were these ten words His standard by an arbitrary decree or were they holy because they reflected His holy character? What is the standard by which all men are judged? What is the measure of sin? What was the law Jesus was born under and which He perfectly obeyed? What is the standard of righteousness imputed to us? What is the “My law” written upon the hearts of God’s people in the New Covenant according to Jeremiah 31:33? The same God who wrote His law upon the stone tablets has now written His law upon the hearts of His people—not a different law but the one same law that is forever His standard of righteousness. Did the Ten Commandments have a historical beginning at Mount Sinai and a historical end at the cross? The answer has to clearly be no. The standard by which Cain was judged was the law of God and this same law remains the standard by which all men are judged. 

To declare God’s law obsolete and abrogated is most dangerous. To take God’s command, “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” and declare, “that’s not for me” is a bold declaration. We have no authority to dismiss certain of God’s commands. The claim often heard is, "Only the Old Testament laws repeated in the New Testament are binding upon Christians." Richard Barcellos writes in In Defense of the Decalogue, "It is simply not true that only those things from the Old Testament repeated in the New are still binding. Where is the exegetical basis for such a claim? There is none. Where does the New Testament tell us that the absence of Old Testament commands is the death knell of such commands? Unfortunately, many Evangelical Christians adhere to this maxim today. Yet it is simply a hermeneutical presupposition, not based on the exegesis of the text of Scripture, but instead imposed on the Scripture" (p.86).

 

Some argue, “But love is the fulfilling of the law.” Yes, but this is not to say that love “is” the law or that love has replaced the law. There must be a standard that love obeys. John Murray writes, "When we examine the witness of the Scripture itself as to the origin of the canons of behaviour which the Scripture approves, we do not find that love is allowed to discover or dictate its own standards or patterns of conduct" (Principles of Conduct, p.24). Love for God and our fellow man provides us with motivation for obedience to the law. "That love is its own law and the renewed consciousness its own monitor, is a fantasy which has no warrant from Scripture and runs counter to the witness of the biblical teaching" (Murray, Principles of Conduct, p.26).

 

It is our duty as Christians to obey God's law. But for us it is not a burden but a delight. We see God in His law and desire to reflect His holy character. His law has become our treasure and we glory in its richness. Charles Bridges wrote, "Oh, Christians! How much more is your portion to you than the miser's treasure! Hide it; watch it; retain it. You need not be afraid of covetousness in spiritual things: rather 'covet earnestly' to increase your store; and by living upon it and living in it, it will grow richer in extent, and more precious in value." Murray Brett writes, "Psalm 119 is the language of a person who is ravished by the moral beauty of God's law and the order and beauty that it brings to his own life as he conforms his heart, mind, and will to it. Delighting in God's law is experiencing personally the moral excellence of His law" (Growing Up in Grace, p.154). Brett adds, "Do you know this perfect complement between duty and delight? Has the boundless generosity of God warmed your cold heart so that you have become a true law-keeper? Is God's moral law your recreation? What a strange idea this is, especially to us Americans who live in a country where we have whatever else our heart could desire for recreation at our fingertips. But the psalmist insists that the law of God drowns out all other delights" (Growing Up in Grace, p.156).  

 

Women in Combat

In an unprecedented move, the Pentegon stated today that it is reversing its ban on women fighting in combat roles. Outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said, "If they can meet the standards, there is no reason why they shouldn't have the chance." This is a terrible reversal of the long-standing position of the Pentegon that only males should serve in combat roles, and one more attack on both women and the family.

This decision has far-reaching ramifications. One is the issue of the draft. If men and women are to be considered absolutely equal with regard to combat roles, this opens the question of whether women should be included in the event of the need to reinstitute the draft. According to present policy, all young men between the ages of 18-25 have to register for the draft. This decision by the Pentegon opens the way for women to be included in this registration. Our 18 year old young ladies could be drafted and sent to combat. It is now not beyond imagination to see stay-at-home moms with several children being sent off to fight our wars.

The Bible stresses that women are the "weaker vessel" (1 Peter 3:7) and should be cherished and protected by men. In the history of our nation, this has always been our operating principle. Even today, maritime practice is for women and children to have priority when occupying lifeboats. Women have always had the role of caring for the family. In all of our previous major military conflicts (pre-Vietnam), men went to battle while families were maintained and protected by the women.

Of course, such statements are hailed as chauvinistic and ignorant by modern feminists, who have labored hard to remove all distinctions between men an women. To refuse a woman any role occupied by a man is considered discriminatory and degrading. These charges do nothing to change the reality of the Biblical distinction between men and women. Men are given the duty of protection and provision as husbands and fathers while women have been assigned the duty of being nurturers as wives and mothers. Biblical texts make it clear that "wives" and "little ones" are to remain at home, while the men go to war (Joshua 1:14). Men have been given the physical strength to carry out their responsiblity as protectors and defenders. Women have been given the unique emotional qualities that equip them as loving nurturers.

A nation's morality is clearly revealed in the way it fights its wars. Today, we have pronounced that as a nation we no longer feel a responsiblity to protect our women and children. We have declared that a man should no longer see himself in the role of protector. We have decided to cast aside these high principles of virtue, laying them on the altar of political correctness.

The truth is, you cannot remove these God-given distinctions between men and women. Woman are natural nurturers and men are natural protectors. Transfer this to the battlefield and you put our armed forces in danger.

Satisfied in Christ

One of the characteristics of our fallen world is discontent. The lost man is constantly seeking something to fill the empty void in his life. He is always looking to the next thrill or the next fulfillment of the flesh. The lust for material gain is unending and the quest for pleasure is an endless pursuit.

         For the Christian, our search is over. We have found the greatest of all treasures and that which fills our hearts with delight. We have found God to be all sufficient. Sadly, however, it is possible for a Christian to lose sight of this treasure. He can once again begin rummaging through earthly sludge for his source of contentment. He begins looking at this life’s circumstances as the measure of his joy. When Providence takes a frowning turn he becomes filled with impatience and sorrow. How different are those whose joy is in Christ. The Apostle Paul declared, “I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content” (Philippians 4:11). David said, “My refuge is in God” (Psalm 62:7).

Christian contentment is not stocism that sits back during times of trial and declares, “What will be will be.” And it is not a dull acceptance of every difficulty that comes our way. Contentment does not rule out impassioned pleadings before God. Surely God’s people seek His aid through every affliction.  But Christian contentment creates a submissive heart that unites our will with the will of God. It is a heart that has learned to wait upon God while trusting His care. The heart of contentment has discovered the faithfulness of God’s Word and the wonderful solace to be found within the pages of Scripture. He prays God’s Word back to Him, “Strengthen thou me according to thy Word” (Psalm 119:28). “Uphold me according to thy Word” (Psalm 119:116).

We must see contentment as one of the chief graces. J.C. Ryle called it “one of the rarest graces. The fallen angels were not content. Adam and Eve were not content. Paul declared that he had “learned” contentment. We should pray for it—that we might be satisfied with Christ, even when deprived of every earthly comfort.

How Readest Thou

J.C. Ryle wrote a little book entitled, How Readest Thou. In it he wrote of the greatness and importance of the Bible and the sad neglect of so many in reading it. He wrote, "No gift of God to man is so awfully neglected and misused as the Bible. One sweeping charge may be brought against the whole of Christendom, and that charge is the neglect and abuse of the Bible." In his final summation he challenged his readers to examine themselves regarding their reading of the Bible. His words are as follows (I've abridged his word for brevity):

This paper may fall into the hands of someone who is willing to begin reading the Bible, but wants advice on the subject. Are you that man? Listen to me, and I will give a few short hints.

(a) For one thing, begin reading your Bible this very day. The way to do a thing is to do it, and the way to read the Bible is actually to read it. It is not meaning, or wishing, or resolving, or intending, or thinking about it, which will advance you one step. You must positively read.

(b) For another thing, read the Bible with an earnest desire to understand it. Think not for a moment that the great object is to turn over a certain quantity of printed paper, and that it matters nothing whether you understand it or not. Some ignorant people seem to fancy that all is done if they clear off so many chapters every day, though they may not have a notion what they are all about, and only know that they have pushed on their mark so many leaves. This is turning Bible reading into a mere form. Work hard, and do not give up the work in a hurry.

(c) For another thing, read the Bible with child-like faith and humility. Open your heart as you open your book, and say, "Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth." Resolve to believe implicitly whatever you find there, however much it may run counter to your own prejudices. Resolve to receive heartily every statement of truth, whether you like it or not.

(d) For another thing, read the Bible in a spirit of obedience and self-application. Sit down to the study of it with a daily determination that you will live by its rules, rest on its statements, and act on its commands. Consider, as you travel through every chapter, "How does this affect my position and course of conduct? What does this teach me?

(e) For another thing, read the Bible daily. Make it a part of every day's business to read and meditate on some portion of God's Word. Private means of grace are just as needful every day for our souls as food and clothing are for our bodies. Yesterday's bread will not feed the labourer today, and today's bread will not feed the labourer tomorrow.

(f) For another thing, read all the Bible, and read it in an orderly way. I fear there are many parts of the Word which some people never read at all. This is to say the least, a very presumptuous habit. "All Scripture is profitable." (2 Tim. 3:16) To this habit maybe traced that want of broad, well-proportioned views of truth, which is so common in this day. Some people's Bible-reading is a system of perpetual dipping and picking. They do not seem to have an idea of regularly going through the whole book..

(g) For another thing, read the Bible fairly and honestly. Determine to take everything in its plain, obvious meaning, and regard all forced interpretations with great suspicion. As a general rule, whatever a verse of the Bible seems to mean, it does mean.

(h) In the last place, read the Bible with Christ continually in view. The grand primary object of all Scripture is to testify of Jesus. Keep fast hold on this clue, if you would read the Bible aright.

This paper may fall into the hands of someone who loves and believes the Bible, and yet reads it but little.

 

I fear there are many such in this day. It is a day of bustle and hurry. It is a day of talking, and committee meetings, and public work. These things are all very well in their way, but I fear that they sometimes clip and cut short the private reading of the Bible. Does your conscience tell you that you are one of the persons I speak of?

Listen to me, and I will say a few things which deserve your serious attention.

You are the man that is likely to get little comfort from the Bible in time of need. Trial is a sifting season. Affliction is a searching wind, which strips the leaves off the trees, and brings to light the birds' nests. Now I fear that your stores of Bible consolations may one day run very low. I fear lest you should find yourself at last on very short allowance, and come into harbour weak, worn and thin.

You are the man that is likely never to be established in the truth. I shall not be surprised to hear that you are troubled with doubts and questionings about assurance, grace, faith, perseverance, and the like. The devil is an old and cunning enemy. He can quote Scripture readily enough when he pleases. Now you are not sufficiently ready with your weapons to be able to fight a good fight with him. Your armour does not fit you well. Your sword sits loosely in your hand.

You are the man that is likely to make mistakes in life. I shall not wonder if I am told that you have erred about your own marriage,—erred about your children's education,-erred about the conduct of your household, erred about the company you keep. The world you steer through is full of rocks, and shoals, and sandbanks. You are not sufficiently familiar either with the lights or charts.

This paper may fall into the hands of some who really love the Bible, live upon the Bible, and read it much.

 

Are you one of these? Give me your attention, and I will mention a few things which we shall do well to lay to heart for time to come.

Let us resolve to read the Bible more and more every year we live. Let us try to get it rooted in our memories, and engrafted into our hearts. Let us be thoroughly well provisioned with it against the voyage of death. Who knows but we may have a very stormy passage?

Let us resolve to be more watchful over our Bible reading every year that we live. Let us be jealously careful about the time we give to it, and the manner that time is spent. Let us beware of omitting our daily reading without sufficient cause.

Let us resolve to honour the Bible more in our families. Let us read it morning and evening to our children and households, and not be ashamed to let men see that we do so. Let us not be discouraged by seeing no good arise from it.

Let us resolve to meditate more on the Bible. It is good to take with us two or three texts when we go out into the world, and to turn them over and over in our minds whenever we have a little leisure. It keeps out many vain thoughts.

Let us resolve to talk more to believers about the Bible when we meet them. Alas, the conversation of Christians, when they do meet, is often sadly unprofitable! How many frivolous, and trifling, and uncharitable things are said! Let us bring out the Bible more, and it will help to drive the devil away, and keep our hearts in tune.

Last of all, let us resolve to live by the Bible more and more every year we live.

I commend all these things to the serious and prayerful attention of every one into whose hands this paper may fall.

MacArthur's Dispensationalism

Every year I attend the Expositors' Conference hosted by Christ Fellowship Baptist Church in Mobile. The members of their congregation have always demonstrated a wonderful spirit of service and hospitality and this year was no different. They go out of their way make the conference a time of respite for the attendees and their wives.

 

The preaching of Steve Lawson was powerful as he took his text from Romans 1. It is always a blessing to hear preaching delivered with such passion.

 

The keynote speaker this year was John MacArthur. It is at this point that I must voice great disappointment. Before I continue, I feel compelled to give honor to whom honor is due. This man has been used greatly in our generation for the advancement of Reformed Theology. He has stood firmly in his defense of the Gospel, even in the midst of those who despise it. His stance against the "easy believism" of today and the "Carnal Christian" theory is to be applauded, as well as his books in critique of the Charismatic movement. I see him worthy of respect and honor, not that I'd stand in line to get his autograph, but I'll leave that subject for another day. I am humbled as I write this.

 

That said, MacArthur's eschatology of Dispensationalism stood as a cloud over his handling of the Biblical text. His topic for the Conference was "The Gospel Preaching of Isaiah" with his text taken from Isaiah 53. It was divided over three sermons. His verse by verse exposition was stirring as we were reminded once again of the atonement of Christ. Sadly, faithful to his Dispensationalism, he relegated the text to Israel speaking during the millennium of their rejection of Christ. It robbed the text of its power, which must be applied to every generation. Although verse 1 can be applied to Isaiah standing as the spokesman for the believing remnant of Jews in every generation, more distinctly it applies to Gospel preaching of all ages and the rejection by sinful men. Jesus applied this verse to the unbelief of His generation: "But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: 'LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM WAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED'" (John 12:37-38). The point is, no one will believe apart from the strong "arm of the LORD" working mightily in the sinner. To relegate this to some distant point in the future does disservice to the text and strips the power from the text in Gospel preaching.  

 

I realize my stance against Dispensationalism is in the minority in many circles today. It was truly evident at this year's Expositors' Conference. But Dispensationalism is surely the minority position historically, particularly among reformed theologians, both past and present.

 

Allow me to pass along several points for consideration:

1.  The Dispensational position of the rebuilding of the Temple and a return to the sacrifical system at some point in the future is abominable. The Temple was destroyed in 70 ad forever ending the Old Covenant sacrificial system. The blood of Christ effectively and forever ended the shedding of the blood of bulls and goats. Hebrews 9-10 will not allow for any possible return to any type of sacrificial system. "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14).
2.  MacArthur also applied Jeremiah 31 to physical Israel. While looking at Hebrews 10 we might note that Jeremiah 31clearly points to the New Covenant; the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ and applied to all who are His--not just Israel.
3.  God has but one people--the elect who are redeemed by Christ and called by the Gospel, both Jews and Gentiles together. The New Testament declares that every distinction and every wall of division between the two has been removed. "For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in the ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity" (Ephesians 2:14-16). Surely Peter makes it clear that the church today is the true representation of God's people. "For you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you were once not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy" (1 Peter 2:9-10).
4.   The Dispensationalists insist that the Kingdom is largely relegated to the thousand year millennial reign of Christ upon the earth. Isn't is facinating that apostolic preaching had a great focus upon the Kingdom of God? "When they had set a day for Paul, they came to him at his lodging in large numbers; and he was explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets, from morning until evening" (Acts 28:23). It would seem amazing that they would spend so much time preaching about something that was over 2000 years (and counting) in the future.

Approaching the Bible with presuppositions is always dangerous for all of us. This is why sound hermeneutical principles are essential. MacArthur's presupposition that God's Old Covenant promises to Israel must be literally fulfilled is, in my opinion, a poor hermeneutic. The promises of God find their fulfillment in Christ in the New Covenant. MacArthur said during the Conference that so called "replacement theology" finds its roots in the anti-semetism of the past. It would seem rather, that the teaching that God has one united people in Christ comes straight from Scripture. SDG

Robert Shelby

"Behind every frowning providence He hides a smiling face." For those of us who know God's absolute sovereignty over every detail of His creation and every moment of time we know these words to be true, but actually embracing them when God's providence has darkened and the fiery trials seem to consume takes much grace. On July 3 Pastor Rob awakened to face what he thought would be just another day. He'd taken the day off to prepare for our annual July 4 picnic the next day and decided to take the kids to a neighbor's house for an early morning swim. What happened next was a moment in time that would change the entire course of his life. Demonstrating how to dive, he misjudged the depth of the water, hit his head on the bottom, and broke his neck leaving him paralyzed from mid-chest down. He has no use of his hands or legs.

This is one of those frowning providences that seems to hide any possibility of a smiling face. Yet, Rob has demonstrated to the world that his contentment is not grounded upon the conditions of this life and his hope is not dependent upon things we can immediately see. What a blessing has already been realized in this affliction. His nine children are seeing that the God their daddy has taught them about their entire lives is real; He is sufficient through every trial. What a smiling face will be manifested if this will lead to their salvation as they embrace this God as their God. And to see the community of faith rallying around the Shelby family has been a wonderful picture of our union with Christ. When one suffers we all suffer. What a testimony to the world as they witness the reality of Christianity.

We are praying for Rob's healing and restoration, knowing that our God is mighty and He so often demonstrates His power before His people. But, at the same time, we know that if this is not God's ultimate purpose, He will use Rob in ways unimaginable. What a mighty God we serve.

In the words of Sir William Cowper:
God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants His footprints in the sea,
and rides upon the storm.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning Providence
He hides a smiling face.

Is the "Statement on the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation" Semi-Pelagian?

There seems to be much debate regarding the "Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation" and the charge of semi-Pelagianism. Albert Mohler wrote on his website, "I fully understand the intention of the drafters to oppose several Calvinist renderings of doctrine, but some of the language employed in the statement goes far beyond this intention. Some portions of the statement actually go beyond Arminianism and appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings of sin, human nature, and the human will." Of course, Mohler's comments have been met with strong denials. Jerry Vines wrote, "I strongly disagree with Dr. Mohler's assertion that 'some of the statements appear to affirm semi-Pelagian understandings.' I wonder if Dr. Mohler thinks some of us aren't theologically astute enough to recognize semi-Pelagianism when we see it!"

So is it semi-Pelagian? Herman Bavinck writes in his Reformed Dogmatics (Vol. 3, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2006, page 486), ". . . the teaching of Pelagius, who did not deny grace but understood it as a universal gift to all people enabling them to choose the good and refuse evil. Grace is emptied of its real meaning since our appropriation of grace depends on our own will: God helps those who help themselves. The great gift of Augustine to the church was his definitive repudiation of all forms of Pelagianism. According to Augustine, our wills are bound, from beginning to end being redirected to God's good and preserving in it; it is a matter of gift not of merit, of grace not of works. Objectively and subjectively, from beginning to end, the work of salvation is a work of God's grace and of his grace alone." Pelagius rejected the doctrine of original sin and the concept of "inherited sin." Since human beings are not corrupted by original sin we are capable of choosing good without any special Divine aid.

While Pelagianism rejected any idea of original sin, semi-pelagianism softened the Pelagian position by asserting that human beings are affected by sin but can still choose the good apart from Divine grace. Arminians have further softened it by adding the concept of universal prevenient grace; a grace given to all men thus making faith possible in all--the determining factor being the act of the will. Arminius rejected the semi-Pelagian position stating that while salvation is a cooperation between God and man, grace is essential.

So does the "Statement" border on semi-Pelagianism? I think it comes right up to the brink of the precipice. Article 2 states, "We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will. . ." In other words, they are saying that the human will may be affected by sin but not incapacitated by sin. Perhaps the Article is just poorly written, but this is clearly the semi-Pelagian position; that Adam's sin did not result in the incapacitation of any person's free will. Dr. Mohler's statement is simply stating the grave concern over the wording of their statement.

By the way, Roger Olsen, author of "Against Calvinism," a book criticizing Calvinism, wrote on his blog, "It may very well be that the majority of Southern Baptists have believed and do believe that Adam's fall did not result in the incapacitation of anyone's will to respond to the gospel apart from supernatural grace. I have argued for a long time that semi-Pelagianism is the default theology of most American Christians of most denominations." Regarding the "SBC Statement" he writes, "I am not accusing the authors or signers of semi-Pelagianism. But, as it stands, the statement affirms it, whether intentionally, or unintentionally."

Just as we are offended at the "Statement's" misrepresentation of Calvinist soteriology, we must be careful not to misrepresent their position. Reformed theology has been written on voluminously and is clearly defined so that there should be no misunderstanding if one takes the time to read and study our position. If they are to deny the charge of semi-Pelagianism, they too need to do a better job of clearly defining their position.

SBC Statement Against Calvinism

As I read the recent "Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God's Plan of Salvation" I was filled with both disappointment and dismay; disappointment because these brothers feel the need to go on the attack, dismay because of their misrepresentation of Calvinistic soteriology. Either they don't understand the Calvinistic position or they are purposely and dishonestly seeking to malign a large segment of Southern Baptists. I hope and trust it is the former. As a Southern Baptist and a Calvinist I want to address some of the elements in this statement.

From the very beginning, with the preamble, the misrepresentations begin with the suggestion that traditional Calvinism is plagued by "anti-missionism" and "hyper-Calvinism." They also downplay the Calvinistic roots of the SBC. A look to history reveals a substantial influence of Calvinism. The first president of the Convention, W.B. Johnson, was a Calvinist. Basil Manly, Patrick H. Mell (who held the office of SBC president longer than any other man), John Broadus, William Williams, etc. etc. -- all Calvinists. James Petigrue Boyce, SBC president and founder and first president of Southern Seminary drafted the Abstract of Systematic Theology, a solidly Calvinistic statement. While the majority of Southern Baptists today may hold to Arminian soteriolgy, it would not be accurate to declare this to be the "traditional" position when even our first seminary was solidly Calvinistic. In addition, B.H. Carroll, founder and president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, was a Calvinist. And while they stress that their "traditional" view of salvation is stated clearly in the Baptist Faith and Message, "Article IV," the truth is Calvinists also agree with this statement. And while, as I will point out below, they claim to hold to this statement, they in fact do not. Allow me to make some comments on the articles of their statement. Again, the Calvinistic view is often misrepresented. There is so much to be said, but I'll try to keep my comments brief.

Article One - Calvinists also affirm that "God has made a way of salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ for any person." There is a genuine offer of grace to all who will turn from their sin and trust Christ as Savior. We also affirm, however, that no man "can come" unless it has been granted to him from the Father (John 6:65), and that "all that the Father gives" to Christ will come to Him (John 6:37).

Article Two - They grossly contradict themselves. On one hand they declare the depravity of man as rendering him unable not to sin, "that every person who is capable of moral action will sin."  But then they declare, "We deny that Adam's sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person's free will." Why doesn't the lost man simply "will" not to sin? The Calvinist also agrees with them that no sinner "is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit's drawing through the Gospel." One other comment: if no man suffers the guilt of sin until he actually sins why do innocent children die? "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--" (Romans 5:12).

Article Three - We also affirm the "penal substitution of Christ." And we also deny that this atonement results in salvation apart from faith and repentance. But then they add: "We deny that Christ died only for the sins of those who will be saved." Once again, they are demonstrating an inconsistent position. Did Christ really die as a "substitute" for all of the sins of those suffering in hell? Why is it that they are in hell?

Article Four - Calvinists also believe in God's free offer of grace to all men. We also affirm that the grace of God can be and often is resisted. Jesus told Paul, "It is hard for you to kick against the goads" (Acts 26:14). While the Gospel can be resisted, the Bible teaches that ultimately saving grace will be efficacious - "All that the Father gives me will come to me" (John 6:37).

Article Five - This is where everyone who signs this document needs to make an honest declaration that they reject the "Baptist Faith and Message." They state, "We deny that any person is regenerated prior to or apart from hearing and responding to the Gospel."
The BFM, Article IV: "Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." They cannot honestly claim to hold to the BFM statement on salvation and then reject this clear statement that regeneration precedes faith and repentance.

Article Six - I don't even know what they mean here. Do they really believe that election is only a plan? Is that really what the Bible teaches about election? That election is only God's selection of a plan? What about the boundless passages that speak of God's election of individuals. And they seem to ignore the very passages they reference.
Ephesians 14-6 - Paul writing to the "saints" at Rome declares in Verse 3, "who blessed us," then in Verse 4, "Just as He chose us," then in Verse 5, "having predestined us," and finally Verse 6, "which He freely bestowed on us." Will a sound exposition of the text allow you to conclude that Paul is speaking of just a "plan" or that he is speaking of all men in general?
Romans 8:29-30 - Again, what about the context? In Verse 28 speaks of God working all things for the good of those called according to His purpose. Not to all men in general but to those He has called. Then, as he continues in Verses 29-30, he speaks of God's foreknowledge and predestination of these called ones. Foreknowledge implies events fixed in time. Events are fixed in time because God fixes them - "having predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His own will" (Ephesians 1:11).
OK, I promised to be brief.

Article Seven - Again, a contradiction. "We affirm God's knowledge of and sovereignty over every person's salvation." "We deny that God's sovereignty and knowledge require Him to cause . . ." Sovereignty refers to God's absolute, independent, reign and governing of all things. Nothing is left outside of His sovereign reign. God is the first cause of all things. You really cannot claim to believe in the sovereignty of God while denying that He is sovereign over all things, including the hearts of men. Pharaoh can testify to this. So can Solomon, "The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes" (Proverbs 21:1).

Article Eight - This would take much space to debunk. Did Lydia open her own heart or did God open it? "And the Lord opened her heart to respond . . ." (Acts 16:14). Ephesians 2:8 can be debated endlessly as to whether "grace" or "faith" is the gift from God. Either way, we have to agree that it is "not of yourselves." Salvation is God's work. If the ultimate difference between heaven and hell is my act of faith, then salvation is an act of human effort, a work. Yet Paul continues, "Not as the result of works, that no one should boast" (Ephesians 2:9).

Article Nine - The Calvinist also denies the remote possibility of apostasy for those who are in Christ. But our belief rests in the full work of God in His redemptive purpose. Once again, they are inconsistent here. If  salvation is based upon the exercise of our free will in coming to Christ, then reason would demand that a person also has the free will to turn from Christ to his former way of life. Would God violate our free will by keeping us in the faith?

Article Ten - To this every Calvinist would also say Amen. And multitudes of Calvinist missionaries, both in the past and in the present, testify to God's saving grace and the power of the Gospel unto salvation. Are they honestly accusing us of believing that a person can be saved apart from faith and repentance? This is the maligning of Calvinists that is both unfair, and perhaps even dishonest.

If their misrepresentation of Calvinist doctrine is sincerely due to a lack of understanding, then there needs to be more serious dialogue between the two sides. I find this of particular concern since there are so many seminary professors and seminary presidents who are signing the document. Surely, they understand the doctrines and beliefs of historical Calvinism. If, on the other hand, this is a purposed effort to malign a group that disagrees with them by misrepresenting the Calvinist position, shame on them. This can only cause further division, particularly among the rank and file in the pews who read and listen to these leaders and conclude that all Calvinists are heretics who are anti-missions and who deny that the Gospel must be brought to all men.

The Church, Why Bother - Book Review

In the past several years there have been many books published on the subject of the local church, some of which are very good. It is very encouraging to see a heightened interest in this important and long-neglected subject. But one book that stands apart is a new book entitled, The Church, Why Bother by Jeffrey D. Johnson, pastor of Grace Bible Church in Conway, AR. It is a very brief book, weighing in at only 155 pages, but each page is full of rich and refreshing truths regarding the importance of the local church. It is such a concise and relevant book I've chosen it as the next book for our monthly Men's Study. Let me share some of the highlights of the book.

A quick perusal of the table of contents reveals the catalogue of important topics covered in this book. In the introduction Johnson begins with a contrast between "easy-believism" and "Lordship salvation." It is a low view of God that results in "easy-believism" and it has a direct impact on how a person views the local church. Johnson writes, "What we believe about God, salvation and man will consequently influence the way we do church." This provides the framework for the remainder of the book.

Chapter 1 - The Nature of the Church - Johnson defines the local church as "a fellowship of believers, who by the Holy Spirit, have been called out of this world of darkness and have been spiritually united together into one body in Christ Jesus." He emphasises the church as the truth bearer, the pillar and ground to protect and proclaim truth. It is comprised of God's sanctified people.

Chapter 2 - The Purpose of the Church - The purpose of the church is to glorify God, proclaim the gospel to the world, and serve as the means of sanctification of the saints through the propagation of God's Word.

Chapter 3 - The Culture and the Local Church - In this chapter Johnson weeds through the thorny subject of the church in the context of modern culture. There has been a tendency today for some to seek to redefine the church in an effort to increase its influence and acceptability in the world. Johnson's thesis for this chapter is, "The church is not to be influenced and shaped by the culture, but be a sanctifying influence upon the culture."

Chapter 4 - The Activities of the Local Church - If the purpose of the church is to promote and mature in unity, truth, and purity, then the activities of the church should focus on achieving these objectives. Johnson stresses the great danger in placing to much importance on the numerical growth of the church, which leads to a pragmatic, consumer driven philosophy in church programs.

Chapter 5 - The Worship of the Local Church - The main feature that shapes the worship of a church is its theology. Johnson states, "The creativity in worship, which is emphasized by the Emergent Church, is based upon an ever-changing theology that contains no absolutes." He goes on to describe the fundamentals of Biblical worship.

Chapter 6 - The Membership of the Local Church - In this chapter the author gives a refreshing overview of the importance and necessity of church membership. He writes, "Going to church is not to be squeezed into the Christian's weekly schedule, but rather it is to be the principle activity and focal point of the Christian life." He outlines the sad result of our culture of individualism. Most Christians view the church as something to meet their particular needs with membership being optional. There is little commitment and church hopping is common. Johnson describes church membership as being both a privilege and a responsibility.

Chapter 7 - The Discipline of the Local Church - As an excellent followup of the previous chapter, this chapter covers the important topic of church discipline. When a member persists in continual, unrepentant sin, the church must deal with it in order to maintain the spiritual integrity of the church. Johnson outlines the procedure of church discipline.

Chapter 8 - The Authority of the Local Church - When the primary emphasis of the church becomes adding to the membership the church loses its authority. Johnson describes it as "putting the potential visitor in charge." In this chapter he describes the government of the church and the leadership of the elders within the congregation.

Chapter 9 - The Doctrinal Standards of the Church - In this final chapter the author stresses the importance of confessional statements in the local church. He warns against the danger of mysticism, which he defines as an subjective experience void of objective Biblical truth--where the experience is sought out more than God Himself. Johnson writes, "There is no personal encounter with God apart from the truth." The church needs to clearly define what it believes. Every church member or potential church member has a right to know how the church interprets the Scriptures.

According to the Barna Research Group, 10 million self-proclaimed, born again Christians have not been to church in the last six months. Even many sincere believers fail to recognize the importance of the local church. Job and family are the priority. While they may see the church as important, their life's decisions demonstrate that they see the church as something that fills in the periphery of their life. The Church, Why Bother is a wonderful reminder of the importance and necessity of the local church in the life of every Christian. In our hyper-individualistic society, the truths of this book need to be taught over and over.

Here is a video by the author describing his book.

Tattoos For the Glory of God - or Not

I posted a blog back in 2009 titled, "Should Christians Get Tattoos?" It continues to be a question of interest. Body "art" and piercings seem to be more and more a part of our culture. Let me comment on this subject once again.

Surely Christians do not live in a cultural vacuum. We wear nice clothes that are consistent with the current style, while maintaining the Biblical command of modesty. We are mindful of hairstyles consistent with those of our present generation. Christian women wear modest makeup with a desire to accent their God given beauty. But the purpose of all things for the Christian is the glory of God. Our purpose is not to draw attention to ourselves but to ascribe all glory to God. We are never to emulate the practices of the wicked (those who do not love and follow Christ). This is the spirit behind Paul's admonition for ladies to avoid displays of expensive clothing or hairstyles inconsistent with that of a Godly woman (1 Timothy 2:9). Christians do not spend their energy seeking to draw attention to themselves but their greatest desire is to point all attention to Christ. John the Baptist declared what should be the heart of all of us, "He must increase, but I must decrease" (John 30:30). This takes great wisdom and discernment as we examine our heart. A lady that refuses to cut her hair, wearing it in a huge bun on the top of her head, and wearing dresses that are 30 years out of style, actually draws more attention to herself. I'm not questioning the motives of those who do this. It just stresses the importance of discernment.

As Christians, we enjoy great liberty. God has given us wonderful things to enjoy. We receive His blessings with thanksgiving and rejoice in His goodness. By refusing tattoos, we are not talking about some vain asceticism. And refusing tattoos is in no way an indication of "legalism." Legalism is seeking to gain God's favor through our actions. We can do nothing to earn God's favor. Our motivation for living a Godly life is not to earn God's favor but to exalt Him. On a recent comment on my previous post a young lady wrote, "God will love me not (sic) matter if I have tattoos or not." This misses the point. We aren't seeking to earn God's love but to display Him gloriously before others.

Again, it demands a careful examination of our motives. It demands great wisdom and discernment (Romans 12:1-2). All of us are quite skillful in justifying what we want to do. It is not my responsibility to examine your motives, but it would seem to me, if we honestly examine the motive for tattoos we can only conclude that it stems from a desire to draw attention to ourselves. Look at me. Look at my tattoo. Isn't my tattoo special? I can't imagine someone honestly saying that their motive for getting the tattoo was, look at Christ. Isn't He glorious!

Resurrection Glory

One of the greatest events in the history of the world is one largely ignored by the world. On April 8 we will celebrate Easter Sunday. When I say "ignored by the world" I don't mean the world ignores it completely. As you attach Good Friday to the weekend it provides three days of vacation. In addition, Easter has become a major holiday of decorating, with all the colorful eggs and bunnies surrounded by the beautiful hues of pastels. Children shout with glee as they search and find the Easter eggs, and they find great joy in Easter baskets filled with marshmallow bunnies and chocolate eggs. When I say "ignored by the world" I mean there will be little attention given to the glorious reality of the day.

Easter is a celebration of the resurrection of Christ. When Jesus was crucified there was great joy among many. The Jewish leaders were finally rid of this one who challenged their authority and customs, and Pilate was able to wash his hands clean of the whole affair. The crowds mocked and cursed with an air of celebration. Surely, as Jesus was pierced and finally placed in the tomb, Satan and all his demonic hordes must have lifted their fiendish voices in victory. But little did they know that this was all unfolding according to the predeterminate counsel of God (Acts 4:27-28). On the third day Jesus was gloriously raised with all power and majesty.

The resurrection is an indispensable part of the Gospel. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection was at the very heart of his Gospel preaching and he declared that it must be believed. The resurrection is the glorious declaration of "mission accomplished" and "payment received." The sacrifice of Christ was well-pleasing and received by God to fully atone for the sins of His people. Jesus was able to enter into the very throne room of God to offer up His own blood. This day was so significant that the Sabbath Day was moved to the first day of the week.

In addition, the resurrection has changed everything in our life. We are living the resurrected life. By virtue of our union with Christ, His life has become our life. We have been raised to new life (Romans 6:4-5). May we rejoice on this glorious resurrection Sunday as we celebrate our risen Savior. And may our lives testify to the reality of the resurrection.