Whole Counsel Theology

What Is The Gospel?

2008-04-27T14:15:00.003-04:00

I know, I know, it has been a long while since I've posted anything. In fact, some have postulated that I'd forgotten my blogger password. :D Thankfully, I remembered it when I wanted to log in just now, and I thank the brother who made that comment for his prodding to get back into posting...even though it's been a few weeks since he made it. :D

I haven't been keeping up with blogs like I used to, but do find time to keep up with James White's blog and Tom Ascol's blog for the most part. Today I read this post on Dr. Ascol's blog which referred me to this post over on Dr. Nathan Finn's blog. I found the article, like I think all of the commenters there, very insightful, and I think quite discerning with regard to the current state of the SBC and a lot of what people are truly thinking about it today. I, for one, saw myself in much of his description of the relevance of the SBC.

The SBC exists as a large, varied conglomeration of a lot of different kinds of people and certain theological perspectives. For those interested in labels, I'm a Reformed Baptist (Soteriologically Calvinistic, Baptist-style Covenant Theology [1689 LBCF]), and Amillenial in my eschatological views, putting me in a bit of a minority in the SBC. Yet, that being the case, there has always been something that has united Southern Baptists (and someone stop me if I am wrong please), and that has been Missions. Central to missions, of course, is the Gospel.

It has been said for some time now by eloquent, well-reasoned (and I might add, I think accurate) voices such as those of Dr. Ascol that the SBC has lost the Gospel by and large. We are therefore in grave danger, not just by losing the precious treasure of the Gospel, but also by producing many a false convert in our churches, people who think they are saved. We also endanger our very means of unification; if we don't understand or agree on the Gospel, then we have no basis for banding together in the first place.

In the article I linked to above, there was a very short exchange between Dr. Finn and Nathan White. What Nathan (White) commented I thought to be a decent question, though perhaps it could have been worded differently to have avoided offense and to have communicated what I think was his intention more clearly. Indeed, his comment I think begs the question I have asked as the title of this post.

What exactly is the Gospel? What critical elements would you present as part of a presentation of the Gospel to someone who you believe is lost, and therefore that you would hope would repent of sin and believe in Christ for salvation?

I do believe I know what the Gospel is, and I present it to people when I have the opportunity; surely, I need to notice more opportunities than I do. At the same time, I have to wonder if a more semi-pelagian or Arminian brother or sister would think my presentation of the Gospel to be too "Calvinistic." I, however, am not willing to change my presentation, given my understanding of Scripture.

I invite you all to comment; I would love feedback. What is the Gospel? What are critical elements of a Gospel presentation, and how would you word them?

I hope people from differing theological perspectives will answer; I see this as a serious issue.

SDG,
dbh

...and provide He does!

2007-09-05T14:12:00.000-04:00

I just got back from a job interview and it appears that I'll be working as a field technician replacing computer parts in end user systems and making about $150 a day doing it. Thanks be to God! This will provide for our needs to be sure.

Let's rejoice together in the God Who Provides!

SDG,
dbh

..but we need Him to provide more.

2007-09-03T15:04:00.001-04:00

The washing machine overflowed today and will not always spin; it is dying.

The dryer is making a terrible noise that has gotten worse and will likely stop running in the next couple of weeks, perhaps sooner.

We don't have the money for the mortgage payment when it comes.

I still don't have a job, and applied today to Steak and Shake in desperation.

I find myself saying, "How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?" (Psalm 13:1)

I feel like a fool though, for many have been through worse situations than mine, but it pains me to no end that I cannot find work to take care of my family.

SDG,
dbh

Thanks be to God.

2007-08-20T23:23:00.000-04:00

It is such a blessing to see God providing.

Some of you reading this are aware that I am still without a job. So far we are holding out, and I know that God will continue to meet our needs. How He does so, however, is truly amazing, and it brings many a tear of thanks to my eyes to see it when it happens.

At church this past Sunday, one of the men asked to see me for a moment. He then handed me a large number of Kroger gift cards. We went shopping today and I found out that they are also good at the gas pumps out in front of the store. So, my family has money enough to eat for over another month and also to put gas in the car, just because of some gift cards.

Thanks be to our AWESOME God, who meets all our needs in Christ Jesus[1].

SDG,
dbh

______________________________________

1. It's also worth to note that this is just the latest in how God has met our needs. Others from our church have been blessings as well to be sure, but this last one I guess added enough weight to prompt the post. Praise be to GOD in Christ for His provision.

The Attributes of God

2007-07-25T22:34:00.000-04:00

You will want to get this book and read it for yourself. Dr. Pink did a wonderful job presenting the characteristics of our Awesome God, and is doxological[1] as he expounds on the wonder of God. The book is short, but it contains gold to be sure. Well worth your time!

SDG,
dbh

_________________________________________

1. By that I mean that the author intentionally mixes praise to God with his discussion of God's attributes. I have to say, I found it delightful, and I do truly believe that if we are doing theology correctly, we'll be praising God in the middle of it!

A Good Post on Some Hermeneutics

2007-07-21T23:14:00.000-04:00

Dr. Sam Waldron has been writing a lot of posts over the last few months (with a bit of a break in the middle of it) reviewing one of John MacArthur's messages at the latest Shepherd's Conference. The post I reference contains some important hermeneutical principles that I wanted to highlight. You can find it here.

SDG,
dbh

I Preached On the 8th!

2007-07-21T19:37:00.000-04:00

Due to some server problems with the file server our church uses to store sermon audio, I have not posted a link to them until this point. It would seem that the file server problems are solved, and all of the sermons, including my recent ones, are available again!

With that in mind, God granted me the opportunity to bring His Word to my church during both morning and evening services, the first on Galatians 1:10-12, and the second on Psalm 119:1-8, and you can find both of them at this link, and at the time of this posting, they were at the bottom of the page.

May God be glorified as His Word is heard, and may that always be the goal of every preacher.

SDG,
dbh

Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ

2007-07-21T08:25:00.000-04:00

I have spent a lot of time over the past week reading through this book, and it has been time well spent. My understanding of Baptist Covenant Theology has moved from infant stages into adolescence you might say, and I understand much more the issues of types and the church (whether the True Church [often referred to as the Israel of God in the book] or the "Jewish Church") in the Old Testament.

It isn't the easiest read[1], as it contains two works from the mid 17th century. One is a book on the Covenants by Nehemiah Coxe, one of the contributors to the 1689 LBCF. The other is John Owen's exegesis of Hebrews 8:6-13, and if you didn't know better, you'd think John Owen was a Baptist given how he [accurately] handled the text![2]

For those interesting in learning the basis of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology, this book is an indispensible resource, and is very helpful for those of us Reformed Baptists who were looking for a good study of the Covenants to deepen our understanding of them. Highly recommended.

SDG,
dbh

__________________________________
1. The editors did a very good job transcribing the works contained in this book into modern English with modern spelling and grammar, and provided many helpful footnotes explaining what would otherwise be difficult to understand words. At the same time, following the trains of thought takes patience and work, though the reader will eventually get used to it.

2. I'm well aware that John Owen was not a Baptist, but given his exegesis of the passage, one would wonder why he was not.

A Reformed Baptist Manifesto

2007-07-10T15:15:00.000-04:00

This was truly an excellent book. It is short, but Sam Waldron puts a lot of good information into its few pages. I highly recommend it to anyone, especially those who are wondering where Reformed Baptists get their moorings.

Further, other titles by Sam Waldon can be found here. I hope I'll be able to read them all eventually. :)

SDG,
dbh

The Roman Catholic Controversy

2007-06-26T14:29:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading The Roman Catholic Controversy by James White. It's an excellent and thorough analysis and refutation of many Roman Catholic doctrines and a presentation of the biblical position on many of the same issues.

I have to admit though -- the book made me a little angry. It wasn't because of what Dr. White said in the book at all; in fact, I thought his presentation to be wonderfully thorough and his analysis and argumentation to be biblical. I am glad he wrote the book and glad that I read it. What made me angry was the thoroughly unbiblical position that Rome takes on so many issues, even creating doctrines that are completely foreign to the Bible's teaching (such as Marian devotion, purgatory, indulgences, etc.). I'm also a bit frustrated that I didn't research this information years ago when it would have been incredibly helpful in talking with my brother. Perhaps God will grant us some good conversation in the future.

In any case, I highly recommend the book for anyone wanting to see what the differences (and they are critical) between Rome and the Bible are. Further, if you have Roman Catholic friends who you have been talking to about the Gospel, and who think that their church's doctrines truly are biblical, this is a book you should get for them. Dr. White is not antagonistic in his presentation at all, and his conclusions are inescapable.

For the Glory of Christ,
David B. Hewitt

"Praying to the Dead" and Rome

2007-06-25T22:33:00.000-04:00

My brother a couple of years ago joined the Roman Catholic Church. Before he did, we had a brief conversation about Deuteronomy 18:10-11 regarding contacting the dead, and I likened it to praying to saints. He was quite upset that I would make that connection, saying that the passage was addressing witches and the like and that it didn't apply. Well, the passage does indeed address witches and such, but it appears to be a list of things that are prohibited rather than making them all refer to each other. I didn't press the issue at the time.

Yet, Dr. James White recently wrote this article that deals with the matter quite well, providing good exegesis of the passage and applies it well to the Roman practice of prayer to saints. It's worth your read, especially if you have Roman Catholic friends you are witnessing to. I might point my brother to it too. :)

SDG,
dbh

Interview Audio from the Recent SBC

2007-06-22T16:06:00.000-04:00

I was interested to find out that these audio files have been made available! They are interviews of many a person in SBC life on various topics that happened at the latest Southern Baptist Convention. I haven't listened to them yet, but recognizing many of the names in the list, I expect I'll find many a thing to smile about... and perhaps a few things NOT to smile about. :)

SDG,
dbh

Something worth giving to!

2007-06-18T18:09:00.000-04:00

For those who might be aware of the issues related to Calvinism in the Florida Baptist Convention as of late, you might want to check out this link. Dr. Ascol has organized what I think is a most appropriate response! May God be glorified!

SDG,
dbh

Video of Dr. Ascol's Resolution Being Discussed at the SBC

2007-06-15T09:40:00.000-04:00

During the recent SBC annual meeting Dr. Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries brought a resolution on Integrity on Church Membership to the floor of the Convention, which was, sadly, defeated again as it was last year.

There was some interesting discussion that went along with it, and Tony Kummer has made available a 14 minute video of the proceedings. It is worth your time to view it if you are a Southern Baptist who is concerned about this issue.

SDG,
dbh

Another Noteworthy Response to Calvinism Misrepresentations

2007-06-10T16:22:00.000-04:00

Roy Hargrave is the pastor of Riverbend Church in Ormond Beach, Florida. Recently, he published an open letter in response to events in the Florida Baptist Convention regarding some sermons (one of which was anti-Calvinistic) that were sent out to all of the pastors in the state by the state convention. It's worth your time to read through it!

SDG,
dbh

Baptist Covenant Theology

2007-06-09T15:23:00.000-04:00

For the longest time, I really didn't know what Covenant Theology was, especially not Baptist Covenant Theology. I had heard some objections raised against CT in general, and looked up a chart[1] that explained a few things. However, it wasn't until I ran across these audio files from the 2005 SBC Founders' conference (not to mention some of Sam Waldron's recent articles) did I really understand it properly, and I'm definitely convinced by it. I'm happy to say that I'm a real Reformed Baptist now, not just in my soteriology. :)
In any case, these audio files are well worth your time, and if you are looking for some good, modern information about Reformed Baptist CT then you're in for a treat!

SDG,
dbh

UPDATE (June 13, 2007): Please see the comments section for an important update.

____________________________________
1. The chart is available in PDF format here. It was a document from the website of the church listed in the document, but that website is no longer on the internet.

Dr. Morris Chapman and Calvinism

2007-06-02T21:29:00.000-04:00

Dr. Morris Chapman is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Executive Committee. Recently in the May 2007 issue of SBC LIFE he had a Q&A column over several issues that are pressing concerns to Southern Baptists today. Not the least of those concerns is what was called a "resurgence of Calvinism" in the SBC and the controversial nature of it.[1] There are some things that he said in his answer to the following question that I wanted to address, because they contain some common errors with regard to thinking about Calvinism that seems to exist in many areas of Southern Baptist life nowadays. In any case, here was the question asked of him:

The resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC has been a controversial issue in some ways. What is your perspective on the resurgence of Calvinism in the SBC?

Now, I mean no disrespect to Dr. Chapman whatsoever in my writing of this post. He is my loved brother in Christ Jesus. He has been, from what I can tell, an excellent leader in the Southern Baptist Convention for many years. Many of the things he wrote in his responses on other topics in his article (such as the Emergent Church and an important theological issue confronting this generation) I thought to be quite good and helpful.

Yet, at the same time, many of the things he said in response to the above question seem to be the norm of thinking regarding the increasing numbers of Reformed people (or at least Calvinistic people) in the Convention. That being the case, I saw this as an opportunity to address some of the issues he raised.

I realize this was merely a short answer to a brief question meant to be a small part of a Q&A session that addressed several topics in brief, and I don't want to read into it too much. Quite likely then, the answers he gave were likely not as detailed as he would have given had he more time and space to discuss them. With that in mind, I'll simply work with what I have and go through his entire column, addressing what I saw as misrepresentations of Biblical, Calvinistic theology.

Dr Chapman stated:

The resurgence of Calvinism is largely a reaction against the shallowness of Baptist doctrinal instruction during the era of moderate-led seminaries coupled with a strong interconnection of the principle of sola scriptura ("scripture alone") with Reformed doctrine during the Protestant Reformation. Since the principle of sola scriptura resurfaced during the inerrancy debates of the Conservative Resurgence, it is only logical that its relationship with Reformed Doctrine would also emerge.

I heartily agree with Dr. Chapman that there has been a lot of shallow doctrinal instruction in the SBC in recent years. I still think that the problem remains; the seminaries have been largely corrected it would seem (though not completely), but there is still a large theological vacuum that exists in our churches. Solid, expository preaching is very much lacking, and our people in our churches are not hearing what the Bible really teaches for the simple reason that they are not being consistently confronted with the text of the Word of God. Furthermore, it would also be wise for pastors to teach the fundamentals of the faith on a regular basis (maybe Wednesday nights?) so that we can consistently give a response to those who would ask us what we believe and why -- but I digress. :)

His comments about sola scriptura are interesting. He appears to be saying that since the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC focused so much on the inerrancy of Scripture, and that the Reformation principle of sola scriptura was strongly connected with that, it would lend to other Reformational theological distinctives resurfacing as well.

This overlooks a key point, however; yes, the principles are related, but why? Just because they happened to be rediscovered during the same time period of the mid 16th century? Or was it perhaps the application of sola scriptura that led and is leading many people to embrace Reformed Theology (TULIP first and foremost, among other things)? When we let the Scriptures speak for themselves (and of course receive the word of the Spirit through them) and not interject our own ideas and presuppositions, indeed we will arrive at doctrines such as the Total Depravity of man and Unconditional Election, among other things. That, I would submit, is the reason why there has been a resurgence of Calvinism; instead of merely claiming that Scripture is inerrant and leaving it at the claim level, people are digging into it and seeing that their long-held beliefs about things such as man's autonomy and libertarian free-will are not to be found in Scripture.[2] More on that later.

Dr. Chapman further stated:

An additional reason for the resurgence of Calvinism is that a wide-open Arminianism under the guise of Open Theism must be refuted. Generally, where a heresy surfaces its closest theological polar opposites will appear and gain a relatively wide following.

My lack of historical acumen will prohibit me from interacting with Dr. Chapman's statement of polar opposites, though it doesn't surprise me that this is the case. However, I see one problem with his observation: where are the Open Theists/Process Theologians in the SBC? Off the top of my head, I cannot remember a single serious internal controversy of late relating to Open Theism in the Southern Baptist Convention. Further, I don't recall even one article in Baptist Press News[3] about it either, and I check it frequently. On the other hand, I have seen MANY articles on Baptist Press (BP) and more than a few in SBC Life address the issue of Calvinism, not to mention speaker after speaker mentioning (and, sadly, misrepresenting), Calvinism from the floor during the SBC annual meeting. So, given then large amount of talk about Calvinism in the SBC and the almost complete lack of discussion of Open Theism, it would seem that Dr. Chapman's analysis here is in error.[4]

More from Dr. Chapman:

The Scriptures reveal numerous "antinomies" (apparent contradictions between two equally valid principles).

Here Dr. Chapman goes into several examples of what he calls "antinomies." This, from my experience, is a common definition of the term. Indeed, the Bible contains many things that would appear to be contradictions, but really are not. However, if something appears to be a contradiction, we should consider two things.

First, we must always go as far as the Scripture does when dealing with a perceived contradiction. The Bible often explains what we see as a contradiction very well by giving explanations. We shouldn't stop too soon.
Second, where the Bible stops, so must we and leave something as a mystery in whatever sense the Bible doesn't explain it. We mustn't go here too quickly though; laziness never gained anyone anything, and laziness in searching the Scriptures will net us theological error.

All of that said, let's go into Dr. Chapman's examples:

For example, how can Jesus be fully human and fully divine?

This is an excellent question. Jesus maintained 100% of His divine nature, but was 100% human at the same time. How is this possible? Part of the biblical explanation will tell us that He intentionally made Himself nothing intentionally, choosing to become flesh and dwell among us. However, as Dr. Chapman rightly noted I think, much of this remains a mystery, but the Scripture clearly indicates the truth of what he has said, what theologians have often called the "hypostatic union."

Dr. Chapman continues:

How can Scripture be fully the Word of God and a work to which we must give all diligence?

I must admit, this question confused me a good deal. What does he mean that we must give all diligence to it? Scripture is indeed the Word of God, but God came to man during the times of the writing of the Scripture and spoke through them, moving them along by His Holy Spirit so that everything in the Bible would be perfect, without error, the very Word of God, and useful for all correcting and equipping. What we have to do with it being the Word of God is, well, nothing. It is whether we want to believe it or not. We of course must study it, and this is perhaps what Dr. Chapman was saying, but if it is, the wording he used was a bit ambiguous.

Dr. Chapman continues:

Similarly, how can salvation be totally an act of God, independent of human means, and a human response to a divine initiative? Calvinism, drawing heavily on a logical system of thought, seeks to address these questions through the lens of Divine Sovereignty.

Here I am afraid I must take great issue with Dr. Chapman's statement. The simple answer to his question is that God CAUSES the human response. God removes the old heart of stone, replacing it with a heart of flesh with regeneration, causing us to be born again through the Spirit of God and the Word. Coming with this regeneration is a new will which immediately repents and believes (the ability to have faith[5] and to repent are both gifts of God). When we repent and believe in Christ, we most certainly do it willingly, but this is completely dependent on God's work in us. We don't bring anything to the table, and this is why it is completely an act of God, and, in the strictest sense, not merely a human response (though there is a response). Reformed Theologians such as myself like to call this "Effectual Calling" or "Irresistable Grace" because God always succeeds in bringing His elect to Himself. Furthermore, simply saying that Calvinism draws "heavily on a logical system of thought" doesn't quite cut it. Surely, Calvinism[6] is logical in its thought and development, but mere logic is not the reason it is true. The exegesis of biblical texts shows us the truth of each of the points of TULIP, and such exegesis must always be the determiner of what we believe, because it reveals the meaning of Scripture.[7]

Dr. Chapman continues:

The resurgence of Calvinism is both to be expected as a historical reality that surges in popularity every few generations and as a healthy conversation about the sovereignty of God in comparison to the responsibility of man.

This is something that has confused me since I have heard people say things such as the above. Calvinists by no means deny man's responsibility. I have NEVER denied my responsibility for my sin nor anyone else's. For anyone who ends up in Hell, they have no one to blame but themselves and their evil, God-hating, sin-filled hearts. They hate God, and they end up with what they deserve, which is what ALL of us deserve! God choosing to save ANYONE is a tremendous act of His grace. I cannot look to myself at all for anything related to my salvation; I was in rebellion, but God saved me -- ME! Praise God for amazing grace! But back to what I was saying....
Scripture likewise confirms the responsibility of man in his sin and God's total and complete sovereignty -- even over sinful actions of creatures. If ANY chance is allowed to exist in the universe, then God is not sovereign, and He is not God. God has ordained everything that happens, including the fall of man and the sins of man. Note that God doesn't DO the evil -- the PEOPLE do the evil, spurred on by the evil in their own hearts which, left unrestrained, would be a horrid sight indeed.[8] One of the best examples of this is the death of Christ Himself, and how Peter reflects on it in Acts: (all emphasis is mine)

Acts 2:22-23 ESV "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- (23) this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Acts 4:8-12 ESV Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders, (9) if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, (10) let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead--by him this man is standing before you well. (11) This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. (12) And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

Acts 4:24-28 ESV And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, (25) who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, "'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? (26) The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed'-- (27) for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, (28) to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

Here is the point, very strongly stated. Who was held responsible for the death of Christ? The people who crucified Him and delivered Him over to death! However, why was it done at all? It was all done according to God's predestined plan, period. Even the sin of murdering the Author of Life was planned out by God -- but the ones who did it, who plotted and desired it -- they were the ones guilty of the sin. This is the consistent teaching of the Word of God, and we must accept it, even though it can be difficult to understand.

Dr. Chapman continues:

One danger is that pastors are tempted to accept church pastorates in churches that are not Calvinistic, and then strive to drive them into the Calvinistic camp, thereby destroying an otherwise strong and healthy church.

This is an oft stated warning in the Southern Baptist Convention today. The problem is that, unless I am mistaken, the majority of graduates from at least one of our seminaries (perhaps two) are leaning Calvinistic. Given that most churches in the SBC right now are NOT Calvinistic -- what are we to do? Calvinists must accept pastorates in churches that don't share their soteriological convictions, and yes, in a slow, compassionate, gracious, biblical fashion, teach the Scriptures to them so that they can see that salvation truly is God-centered and that the beliefs he espouses are nothing short of the exegetical teaching of the Word of God.

I am not so ignorant, however, to fail to realize that sometimes people come in and try to change things in too rash a fashion. Failure to be gracious and compassionate is not acceptable, ever.

Wiser men than myself have commented more and better on Calvinistic pastors going to non-Calvinistic churches, such as Dr. Tom Ascol of Founders' Ministries. You can find two particularly good (and relevant) articles he wrote about this very thing here and here.

More from Dr. Chapman:

Another danger is that the truly warm-hearted "evangelical" Calvinists often are misunderstood by second-generation successors, potentially resulting in a decline in evangelism and missions. As long as the conversations can remain cordial and warm-hearted, we always have been able to work together for the missionary, educational, and benevolent needs of the Convention and the world.

Here it seems we have the idea that Calvinism, real Calvinism, kills missions and evangelism, or at least has the potential to do so. The truth of the matter is that all real Calvinists are "evangelical" Calvinists. Those whose theology isn't allowing for evangelism aren't real Calvinists at all, but have drifted into the realm of the error of hyper-Calvinism, which I wrote about some time ago and referenced in a previous foot note.

History is full of men who believed firmly in these doctrines and also were staunch evangelists, such as Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Lottie Moon, John Knox, John Calvin (yes, CALVIN HIMSELF), Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, and moderns just as John Piper, D. James Kennedy, and more and more and more! The list could go on for a good long time. To say that these doctrines take away evangelistic initiative is to fail to understand history and what the doctrines actually mean and entail. I've written (and referenced) some previous articles about this very matter, and they can be found here and here. Take the time to read them and the links from them, especially the link to the post from the Calvinist Gadfly in the second one. :)

However, just being out of step with history isn't the only problem I think we have when it comes to the accusation that Calvinists aren't evangelistic. I think the accusation often comes when we are not willing to employ the same, man-centered techniques that so often passes for evangelism nowadays as well as not being that interested in numbers. Evangelism is GOD's work, as is salvation, and the current mass decisionism and revivalism that exists today which often seems to tell a man the benefits of salvation without telling him that he is a man dead in his sins who will forever bear the wrath of the Thrice Holy God because of his sin unless he repents and trusts is Christ, is largely responsible for the unregenerate church membership of the SBC. We need to get back to the evangelism of Spurgeon and Whitefield, using the Law of God to show people their sin. Evangelism as it is now has actually become an idol in some SBC circles, and we need to regain our God-centered focus in it.[9]

And now the last paragraph in Dr. Chapman's response, emphasis mine:

The sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man both are taught in the Bible Both are necessary elements in the salvation experience. A healthy tension (an antinomy) exists in the Bible with regard to these two important biblical truths. Man is often tempted to design a theological theory in light of a biblical antinomy in order to clarify what God is trying to say. Man's system will be inferior to God's system now and forever. Why is it so difficult to accept from God what we cannot fully explain? After all, He didn't begin to tell us everything He knows, but what we need to know to be redeemed and live righteously.

Agreed, man is tempted to design such theological theories, and it is for some reason difficult to accept from God what we cannot fully explain. The thing is, it is the semi-pelagian/Arminian/synergist who is the one devising a theological theory of his own, not the Calvinist.

Of course, Dr. Chapman and others would strongly disagree with what I have just said. I expect that. However, none of this will ever be resolved by "strongly disagreeing" or ultimately even "agreeing to disagree." What we need to do is sit down, open our Bibles, and exegete the text of Scripture together using proper hermeneutics. I know Dr. Chapman didn't say this, but I'll include him here since it is pretty clear that he doesn't like Calvinism very much: If Dr. Chapman and others wish to get rid of Calvinism, then the way to do it is through the proper exegesis of the Word of God, period. Emotional claims, cries of ruining churches, warnings of the loss of evangelism, appeals to current SBC popular opinion -- none of these is authoritative. The text of SCRIPTURE is authoritative, and we are all bound by it. So then -- let's get to it!

SDG,
dbh

________________________________
1. Another issue that he addressed was "elder rule" which I may discuss at a later time.

2. By "libertarian freedom" I mean the supposed ability of an unregenerate, unsaved person being able to choose anything he is commanded that he must do outside of the direct intervention of God changing him. As is not surprising, I reject this tenant. :)

3. I could of course be wrong; if someone can point me to one I'd be grateful.

4. I do not mean to say that a refutation of Open Theism is completely absent from some of the rationale of Calvinism's resurgence. At the same time, since Open Theism doesn't really exist in the SBC, any refutation of it would have to be in response to external sources. Furthermore, I have never heard any of my Calvinist brethren list "refuting Open Theism" as one of their main reasons (or any of their reasons at all), for embracing Reformed Theology.

5. It is important to note that the "this" or "that" in these verses (follow the hyperlink) is in the Greek neuter, and there is no neuter antecedent, but only masculine or feminine. The neuter is employed in a collective sense, referring back to the whole of salvation, the grace and faith combined. Faith is a gift in the sense that it is God who enables and causes us to believe.

6. I should point out that when I say "Calvinism" here I mean TRUE Calvinism, and not hyper-Calvinism, which is a perversion of biblical Calvinism.

7. Under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, of course.

8. The fact that God restrains sin in our hearts is clearly demonstrated in the Bible in Genesis.

9. I have written a Gospel tract which I think addresses critical matters of the Gospel properly. You are welcome to use it if you wish, and it is available in PDF format at the bottom of this post.

I'm among the ranks of the unemployed for the moment.

2007-05-25T19:33:00.001-04:00

I would ask that you pray that I would find another job soon (before the end of July; that's when I receive my last paycheck from my previous job) so that there would be bills paid and food on the table.

Many thanks!

SDG,
dbh

I Preached Again!

2007-05-22T16:14:00.000-04:00

....twice in one day even! It's something that I've never done before, and it was a lot of work getting ready, but it was a wonderful privilege and responsibility. I spoke on The Gospel from Galatians 1, and also about God's glory in salvation from Ephesians 1. You can find both of them at this link for the date of May 20, 2007!

May God be ever glorified,
dbh

Our Singular Focus

2007-04-02T14:59:00.000-04:00

A while back I read a book by John Piper called Don't Waste Your Life, and it is a book I can wholeheartedly recommend to anyone. He has a chapter in it that makes reference to the cross of Christ being the "blazing center of the glory of God," and spends a lot of time dealing with the following verse from Galatians:

Gal 6:14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

With Piper, I ask this question -- is Paul serious? Everything? We don't boast in anything except the cross of Christ?

Paul was serious.

We owe everything we have to Christ's work on the cross, every joy we experience, every provision we have, and especially the salvation God brought to us.

Today is a beautiful day outside -- sunny, Spring weather, lovely breeze -- and I owe every bit of its enjoyment to God; all blessings flow from Him. Yet, I boast that I can enjoy it in the Cross, for only because of that work can I enjoy it at all![1] And the fact that I even WANT to give God glory for such a day[2] is also because of the work of the Cross, on which I was crucified with Christ, and through which God's grace came to me.

Indeed, let us think often of the Cross, especially in this season of celebration of the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!

Soli Deo Gloria,
dbh

_____________________________________________________
1. This is with regard to Common Grace of course. :)

2. See Philippians 2:12-13!

Bill Webster on the Canon of Scripture

2007-04-01T13:43:00.000-04:00

Dr. James White has been posting several video clips from his past debates on his blog in recent days. Most of them have been with Roman Catholics, and as such, as created a bit of a stir in the RC apologetic community. One of those debates was with a man by the name of Gary Michuta over the issue of the canon[1] of Scripture, and there have been a lot of posts attacking what Dr. White has said. Bill Webster put together a wonderful response to those attacks which Dr. White has posted on his blog in three parts, here, here, and here. They are worth your time, and also worth pointing any Roman Catholic friends to who think that the deutero-canonical (or Apocryphal) books belong in the canon.

SDG,
dbh
________________________________________________
1. That is, which books belong in the Bible.

I Preached Again!

2007-03-04T21:24:00.000-05:00

God blessed me with another opportunity to preach His Word to His people for His glory at my church tonight! If you are interested in the audio, click here, and if you want the video, it should be posted at my church's website soon. Go to the sermon archives section!

SDG,
dbh

I preached tonight!

2007-02-25T21:41:00.000-05:00

I preached this evening at my church on Ephesians 1. If you like, you can find the sermon here. The file is audio only atm, though a video will be posted in the next few days. You can find the latter at my church's website then!

May God be glorified!

SDG,
dbh

More on the Atonement

2007-02-17T22:21:00.000-05:00

Nathan White over at Strange Baptist Fire has written this article about some passages in Hebrews that deal with the Atonement. It's worth your time, and won't take that long!

SDG,
dbh

Sermon Review Part the Last: The term "World" and the Atonement

2007-02-14T13:30:00.000-05:00

I've decided that there will be but one last post in this series, and then perhaps I'll go on to posting other things, hoping to bring glory to God in them as well as this, and that the people of God would be encouraged by them.

You can find the first post in the series here. Sadly, the .mp3 file for the message I've been reviewing is no longer available because my free file server has bitten the dust it would seem, but you can run through the posts in the series if you look at my archives over the past few months.

In any case, there are two statements and a lot of Scriptures that I'd like to address in this final post, so expect it to be long. You might want to grab a Coke and some popcorn. :) I'll quote one statement, address it, and then the other and spend some time there. So, on I go, and may God be glorified!

Statement #1:

There are books out there, there are teachers out there, that say "world" doesn't mean everybody. In the Greek it does!

I find this to be a very interesting statement, and if taken at face value it seems to be misleading. I'll explain.

Surely, the word "world" (Greek: kosmos) can in fact mean "everybody." What the statement I quoted from my former pastor could be saying is that the people he referred to are saying that it never means everybody. I hope that wasn't his intention, because it wouldn't be accurate. Reformed people such as myself readily agree that the word "world" can and does mean every single person at times, though if we are honest with the Bible and the contexts in which that word is found, we'll readily discover that this is not the only meaning of the word. Good Greek dictionaries also tell us this. Strong's Greek Dictionary, for example, defines kosmos this way (emphasis mine):

[an] orderly arrangement, that is, decoration; by implication the world (in a wide or narrow sense, including its inhabitants, literally or figuratively [morally]): - adorning, world.

Strong makes it clear; the word can be used in a wide OR narrow sense, referring to the inhabitants of the world in such a way. It can also be used in a figurative sense.

Thayer's Greek Dictionary tells us similar things, but is more thorough:

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government
2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, ‘the heavenly hosts’, as the ornament of the heavens. 1Pe_3:3
3) the world, the universe
4) the circle of the earth, the earth
5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family
6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ
7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly
7a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ
8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort
8a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom_11:12 etc)
8b) of believers only, Joh_1:29; Joh_3:16; Joh_3:17; Joh_6:33; Joh_12:47 1Co_4:9; 2Co_5:19

As you can see, Thayer includes a lot of definitions for the term, many of which have nothing to do with people. Interestingly, he also makes reference to several passages in his eighth definition which limit the use of the word to believers only. I'm not convinced of all of his examples, but my main point seems to be proven: The word "world" (kosmos) is NOT always used to refer to "every single individual on the planet," and it would appear that, more often than not, it is used in a more narrow sense. There are a few examples from Scripture that I wanted to look at specifically[1]:

Romans 11:12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

In the context here, it would seem that the term is being used to contrast Jews to Gentiles to some extent. In fact, this is a common use of the word, and I would argue that John does so frequently in his writings (yes, I'll address 1 John 2:2 in a bit). One example of John's clear use of the term meaning something other than "every person" is found in chapter twelve:

John 12:19 So the Pharisees said to one another, "You see that you are gaining nothing. Look, the world has gone after him."

Here the Pharisees have noticed that a lot of people were following Jesus, and many were telling of the wonders He was performing. The Pharisees were irritated about this, and then made the above quoted statement. Now, they used the term "world" in what they said -- do they mean "every single person?" Of course not! For one, they themselves were not following after him, so they were excluded. Secondly, not everyone else in the world other than the Pharisees were following Him -- there were parts of the world that hadn't even heard of Jesus at that time! Thirdly, not even everyone in the city was following Him there, as the reference for world is the large crowd, and not every city resident (from which, again, the Pharisees would be excluded). So, here we see the term "world" being applied to people, but in a narrow sense, meaning a group of people less than the whole of the world's population.

1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (16) For all that is in the world--the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions--is not from the Father but is from the world.

Wow, John really used the word a lot here. He tells us not to love the world -- but this cannot mean "every single person" here. The reason is a command from Jesus over in Matthew 5. We are commanded to love our enemies, and of course elsewhere are admonished to love our brothers and sisters in Christ. Given those two biblical mandates, John cannot be meaning world in the sense of everyone in those verses in 1 John 2. Rather, he is meaning Thayer's definition #7 that I mentioned above; John is telling us to avoid things in the world that will seduce us from devotion to the One True God, and not to love them. Very clearly we have an example then of the term "world" (kosmos) that does NOT mean "all people everywhere." One more example (though there are many others) before I continue on:

Luke 2:1 In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.

Here we must understand that the term is being used figuratively or we have errors in our Bible. The decree didn't reach the Americas, for example. Nor did the people of China register to pay taxes to Caesar. Rather, what Luke was trying to tell us is that the entire Roman world should be registered. So here, we have a use of the term that means a collection of people, and not every single person.

I have to conclude then that my former pastor omitted important information about the term "world" from the message he preached that I've been reviewing now for some time. Far too much confusion can result from what he said if more information about the term is not presented.

Statement #2

There are words out there, folks, that say "not for everybody." There are words out there that say "select." If Jesus meant to die only for the select and the elect, then why didn't He say so?

First, it is important to note that the fact that other words exist that can communicate those meanings is largely irrelevant. For example, other commonly employed terms in our modern vernacular are readily available to assist readers to ascertain my meanings in this post....than the ones I used in this sentence. :) Just because other words exist does NOT mean that the biblical writers had to use them. The Holy Spirit inspired them to use those particular terms, and it behooves us to know the full range of meaning for said terms, both literal and figurative, so that we can determine the correct understanding for any word in its given context.

Second, Jesus DID in fact say that He died for only a select group of people, and they were in fact the elect. In John 10 we read the following:

John 10:14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, (15) just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. (16) And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Here we clearly see that Jesus said that He lays His life down for the sheep. These are the same who know Him, the same who will listen to His voice. The ones who will listen to His voice are the elect; no one else will do so. So then, the sheep are equated with the elect, and those who are not the sheep do not receive salvific benefit[2] from Jesus laying down His life.

Of course, I would immediately have an objector who would say something along the lines of, "Wait! This passage says that Jesus lays His life down for the sheep. Sure, those are the elect, but it doesn't say that He didn't do it for someone else. Just because one is included does not immediately mean that another is excluded." Such a person would also be correct; I have not supported my premise with only that passage. However, context is a beautiful thing, and in using it, we do indeed establish the exclusivity of Christ's death for His chosen sheep. Let's read on a bit later in the chapter:

John 10:24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." (25) Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, (26) but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. (27) My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. (28) I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. (29) My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (30) I and the Father are one."

Ah... now we get to the heart of the matter. This is a LOT like what Jesus said back in John 6 about the people who didn't follow him; ultimately, the reason that they did not was because they were not of those given to Him by the Father.

Further, who are those who will hear His voice? The sheep. Who are they who will follow Him and get eternal life and never perish? The only answer is that the sheep, and the sheep only get this eternal life. Does anyone else get eternal life? I don't know of any Christian who would say so. Yet, when we use this same passage where it teaches that Jesus lays down His life for the sheep, we try to say that some who are not sheep get the benefit of that! The laying down of His life that Jesus speaks of here culminates in eternal life for those for whom His life was given. That requires us, if we are to be consistent with this biblical passage, to believe that Jesus only gave His life salvifically for the sheep, the elect, all of whom will come to Him and be saved. For this to happen, His life had to be a propitiation for them as well, a satisfaction and substitute for the wrath of God against sinners, so that all for whom Christ died no longer have God's wrath on them eternally. Jesus took it upon Himself. This is why Substitutionary Atonement is such an important doctrine.

Yet, I do know that there is one further objection to such a statement[3], and I will address it here briefly.

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Someone might say, "Ah hah! There is that word "propitiation" and it is being applied to the world! What you say then cannot be true!"
This fails to take into account the multiple meanings of the term "world" as I mentioned above in this article, first of all. Second, it fails to take into account the Double Jeopardy argument that I think was introduced nicely by John Owen[4] over 300 years ago. The Elders at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis have restated it in modern language in one of their theological documents. I've quoted the relevant part here:

One of the most crucial texts on this issue is Romans 8:32. It is one of the most precious promises for God's people in all the Bible. Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"

The crucial thing to see here is how Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, "God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you." What becomes of this precious argument if Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive all things but instead are lost? The argument vanishes.

If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees "all things" for the those for whom he died. But this is what he does say! If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul's thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.

We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.

To that I say, AMEN! However, it doesn't completely address the issue of who the "world" is in 1 John 2:2. Simply saying it is contrasting Jews and Gentiles here doesn't quite cut it. Surely the thoughts of the two groups of people are included in John's meaning, but there is more than that.

The answer comes when we compare this verse to another passage in John's writings, John 11:51-52.

John 11:51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, (52) and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

Evan May of the TriaBlogue team wrote this article a while back and includes a wonderful discussion of the relation between the two texts. I have included the relevant part:

Notice the parallel:

1 John 2:2
And
He Himself
is the propitiation for
our sins
and not for ours only
but also
for
the world

John 11:51-52
he prophesied that
Jesus
would die for
the nation
and not for the nation only
but also
that He would gather together in one
the children of God scattered abroad

Who, then, is the world? The children of God scattered abroad. Jesus didn’t just die for Jews but Gentiles as well (ethical distinction), not just for those in Asia Minor but from every nation (geographical distinction), not just for those who lived in the 1st century but for all ages to come (time-age-related distinction). In short, with his blood he redeemed a church “from every tongue and tribe and people and nation” (Rev 5:9).

There it is for all who wish to see. THAT is the proper understanding of the word "world" in 1 John 2:2. Truly, the more important word is "propitiation," and if there wasn't so much emotional baggage attached to the word "world" in modern evangelicalism, there would likely be better exegesis of this verse.

Anyway, so ends my sermon review series. May God use it to honor His Name and build up His church.

SDG,
dbh
__________________________________________
1. Once again, all Scripture I cite in this and every post on my blog will come from the ESV Bible version unless otherwise noted.

2. I am fully aware of (and agree with) the theological statements that there were many things that God intended in the death of Christ, such as providing common grace. However, the Atonement itself was limited to the elect, which this passage teaches.

3. OK, there are likely many further objections, but the most common one appears to be 1 John 2:2, so that is what I'll address here.

4. There have been those who have said Dr. John Owen's argument is lacking. I've read some of those objections, but have not been swayed by them. If you are curious as to what some of them are, please feel free either to comment here in this post about them or email me. :)