Jesus Came Preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom

Jesus came preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom.  Matthew 4:17-25 tells us of this beginning of Jesus’ ministry of preaching.  We see the topics of His message (verses 17, 23):

1. Repentance.
2. The Kingdom is at hand.

We see His disciples respond to this message (verses 20, 22):

1. They left their nets/boats/families.
2. They followed Jesus.

Finally we see the vindication of His message (verses 23-25):

1. He heals the sick.
2. Great crowds follow after Jesus.

These are necessary verses to put the Sermon on the Mount into its proper context.  When Jesus sees these crowds following after Him, He ascends up on a mountain, calls His disciples in close, and begins to teach them more accurately the good news of the Kingdom.  The good news is this (according to 5:3-12);

1. We are ‘Blessed’(supremely favored by God, we bask in the face of God as revealed in Jesus Christ, who for a time suffered the disfavor and ‘woe’ of God that we might live in this blessed state).
2. We have a present citizenship in the Kingdom.
3. We have a future hope of a revelation of the Kingdom.
4. Our circumstances here do not always reflect the true reality as God sees it.
5. Our present manner of life has eternal consequences.
6. Our present treatment by the world works for us a greater weight of glory.

Therefore…

1. We should respond to the call of repentance by renouncing all that holds us in the kingdom of darkness and follow our King, Jesus Christ.
2. We should have a joyful spirit which displays itself through the physical emotion of happiness even in the midst of poverty, mourning, hunger, thirst, and persecution.
3. We should conduct ourselves in a meek, merciful, pure, peacemaking manner in the midst of a world that seeks to dominate, threaten, defile, and separate us from the love of Christ.
4. We should be known by our joyfulness as we rejoice and are glad that we have been worthy to suffer after the manner of our Lord and Savior who endured such hostility from sinners so that He might redeem us from our sin and produce these marks of true religion in us.

On Divisive Men

I think it’s pretty clear that I am not a fan of Dispensationalism.  I simply cannot arrive at ‘Dispensational’ conclusions when I read Scripture.  That said, there are many things I appreciate about Dispensationalism.  Here’s a list…

1. Literal approach to Scripture.
2. Emphasis on the Inspiration of Scripture.
3. Godly lives of many Dispensationalists (produced by view of the imminence of Christ’s return).
4. Mission-mindedness (produced by view of the imminence of Christ’s return).
5. Distinction between Law and Gospel.

But probably the one point of Dispensationalism that I am most thankful for is the system’s approach to the Gospel of ‘grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone’ that saves.  And let me be unequivocalwhen I say this, most Dispensationalists believe and preach the true Gospel.  All of the Dispensationalists that I know have always believed right about Forgiveness of sins, Justification, Sanctification, and Glorification.  They have all believed that Christ’s work on the cross was God’s way of saving all who come to Him in faith and repentance.

Perhaps that’s why I get worked up when I read that a church feels the need to bar Dispensationalists from membership.  Or why another church feels to need to bar Covenant Theology guys from membership.  Or why both of those churches feels the need to bar New Covenant guys from membership.  These are matters of difference, yes, but which of them has rejected the Gospel?  Did MacArthur ever preach ‘another’ Gospel?  Did Sproul ever preach ‘another’ Gospel?  How about John Reisinger?  None of these men ever preached a Gospel that the other would condemn as ‘not the gospel’.  To be sure there are other things that would keep these men from being members in the same church.  MacArthur and Reisinger believe in believer’s baptism by immersion while Sproul does not.

But now take me and my fellow Elders at our church for example.  I lean more towards the New Covenant understanding of Scripture while another leans more towards a Dispensational understanding.  Another can’t really even be pinpointed to that degree.  But here is where we agree, the Bible is God’s Word, it should be preached as He inspired it, and we should take each word seriously.  So in the end our messages sound a lot alike in the sense that we are studying and preaching the same Bible.  And as long as we keep this expositional method of preaching we will become closer and closer in our understanding of Scripture.

Unity does not exist in conformity to one another’s particular views in this regard.  Unity exists in our conformity to Scripture as the Holy Spirit uses Scripture to mold us into the image of God’s Son.  Unity does not exist in our particular understandings of the Second Coming of Christ.  Unity exists in our belief that Scripture says that Christ is returning, that He will resurrect the dead, and that believer’s will have glorified bodies while unbeliever’s will be punished for their sins.  Unity does not exist in our views on Law, but in the Gospel of Christ.

If Jesus does not exclude Dispensationalists, or Covenantalists, or New Covenantalists from the Body of Christ, then neither should we exclude them from our local extension of the Body of Christ.  To do so is to divide the Body of Christ and to fall under the condemnation of Christ as His Word is revealed to us in Scripture through Paul when he says,

“But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” Titus 3:9-11

And this will blow your mind…You don’t even have to be a Calvinist to join our church (although you will get it preached to you whenever it comes up in Scripture).  Calvinists and Noncalvinists can worship God together in harmony.  And each will be united in the same way we all are, through the Gospel and the ministry of the Word.

So who can’t join our church?  Unbelievers because we believe in regenerate church membership, the unbaptized because we believe   immersion upon profession of faith is prerequisite to church membership, the unorthodox because we believe the Trinity matters, and the ungodly because we believe that all true Christians will be sanctified.

The Lord’s Supper Is…

As we are quickly approaching Easter, many churches will be participating in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper.  Here are some affirmations of what I believe the Lord’s Supper to be.  I hope this will give you something to meditate upon as you prepare yourself for Communion with Christ and His Church during this special time of celebration in the resurrection of our Passover Lamb.

1.   An ordinance from Christ to the Church.

2.   An eulogy of Christ (eulogeo=to speak well of).

3.   A thanksgiving for Christ (eucharisteo=thanksgiving).

4.   A symbol of Christ’s righteous life and atoning death.

5.   A participation with Christ in His life and death.

6.   A fellowship with Christ’s body (the Church).

7.   A memorial of Christ’s life and death.

8.   A sign of Christ’s covenant with His Church.

9.   An act of faith in Christ.

10.  An expression of hope in His soon return.

11.  A means of grace of Christ for the faithful.

12.  A means of judgment of Christ on the unfaithful/unbelieving who partake.

Serious introspection is advised.

What Is The Gospel?

Here are some very broad, but important, categories for thinking about the Gospel.  You will notice that you have to fill in the blanks.  Filling in the blanks is what I’m doing in a manuscript form right now.

The Gospel is the Purpose of God.

The Gospel is a Prophecy fulfilled.

The Gospel is a Point in History.

The Gospel is a Proclamation to all.

The Gospel is a Promise for the future.

The Gospel is a Portrait of God.

Reid, Finn, Calvinism, and the SBC Part 2

Context:  See here.

Disclaimers:  This is not a response of the same sort that I made to Reid.  Finn’s letter is addressed to non-Calvinists in the SBC, so it is not up to me to respond to his letter.  Instead my comments are a general voice of agreement and support, although I do disagree in a couple of places with Finn.

Format: I will place Dr. Finn’s comments in blockquotes and italicized while my response will be in the regular format.

Responses:  I encourage you to read Dr. Finn’s full letter here.

  Dr. Finn begins with a short autobiographical sketch of his upbringing in the SBC, and his ‘conversion’ to Calvinism.

When I became a Calvinist in the spring of 1999, I thought for sure I would never minister in a Southern Baptist context. As late at 2001, I was afraid I would either have to become “non-denominational” or, even worse, Presbyterian. Since non-denominationalism seemed faddish and I was quite sure pedobaptism was not biblical, neither of these options were appealing. Fortunately, I learned about eight years ago that there are thousands of Southern Baptists my age that share my convictions.

Ten years later I am an ordained Southern Baptist minister who has been educated in two Southern Baptist seminaries and teaches Baptist History for a living at one of those seminaries. I am where I never thought I would be a decade ago, and I am thankful for God’s providence in putting me in this place. I wouldn’t be here if I did not love the Southern Baptist Convention. To say it as clearly as I can, I am both really Calvinist and really Southern Baptist.

I can identify with Finn’s predicament, although not exactly.  I was raised Independent Baptist, which pretty much means, Southern Baptist without the bureaucracy or the organizational missions effort (we supported independent missionaries independently).   But as a (still) young Calvinist, with a complicating issue for some (I did not marry a white middle-class American) and a much different preaching style than those in the Churches I grew up in, I too worried that I would have to leave the boundaries of Baptistic polity in order to find a place to minister.  Then I heard about Tom Ascol and Founder’s Ministries.  And my brother had just taken a pastorate in an SBC Church.  As I looked into the SBC I found that I could possibly have a place to call home.  The commitment to inerrancy, orthodox theology, and Baptist polity, coupled with an apparent love for missions and a broad umbrella which allowed for some disagreement while not flexing on non-negotiables was very inviting.

I am now a committed Southern Baptist, so much so that I have been privileged to help plant a Church and bring that Church into the SBC.

As a Calvinist who is part of a mostly non-Calvinist denomination, I want to offer the following suggestions for my friends who reject my particular views about salvation. Like my colleague Alvin Reid, I write this as humbly as I know how, from a spirit of brotherly love.

Once again, the humilty and love are apparent in this letter.

First, be sure to articulate the gospel unambiguously in your preaching and evangelism. Many of you have an obvious burden for seeing the lost come to faith in Christ, which I truly appreciate. But sometimes when I hear some non-Calvinists trying to evangelize, they confuse slogans or shibboleths with the gospel. The gospel is not “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” or “Jesus can straighted out your messed-up life.” This is just lingo. The gospel is also not “pray this prayer” or “ask Jesus into your heart.” These are possible ways that you can encourage sinners to respond to the gospel, but only after explaining both the good news and the nature of the response. Even biblical phrases like “repent,” “believe,” “faith,” and “sin” can be reduced to pious shibboleths when they are not clearly defined.

The gospel is the story of all that our Creator God has done through the perfect life, atoning death, and victorious resurrection of Jesus Christ to rescue sinners from destruction and redeem a fallen world. This is what we must proclaim. The proper response to this gospel is repenting of sin and putting our faith in Christ and his work on our behalf. If we do not make the gospel clear and/or if we fail to articulate the appropriate response to the gospel, then our evangelism is sub-Christian. And that has potentially horrible ramifications for the very people we wish to win.

Agreed 100%.

Second, be sure to never give the impression that the decision to become a Christian is a mere decision. Sometimes I hear non-Calvinists imply that “all you have to do” if you want to be a Christian is believe in Christ. This makes it sound like faith is a simple free will decision that can be made apart from the gracious work of the Holy Spirit. I know the vast majority of my non-Calvinist friends don’t really believe that. Even if you disagree with my Calvinism, I know most of you believe just as strongly as I do that the Holy Spirit is at work in the lives of sinners to draw them to faith in Christ.

Surely we can all agree that though faith is certainly a decision, it is never a simple decision. Becoming a Christian is more than getting all the facts right (though the facts need to be right!). Becoming a Christian is more than being baptized and joining a church. Becoming a Christian is more than opting for heaven instead of hell. Real change must happen or real faith is not present.

After I became a Calvinist, it seemed almost inevitable that I would hear phrases that would express boldly the necessity of a special work of the Spirit in salvation.  “If you are under conviction”, “If you feel the Holy Spirit drawing you”, and even “Without the drawing of the Spirit and real conviction you won’t be saved!”  The interesting thing about these phrases is that they came from preachers who were vocal in their opposition to Calvinism.  As I understood what they were saying, I would ask myself, “Do they really believe that?”  It seemed incongruous to me that these phrases would be used when their whole message seemingly contradicted these statements.  But then again, I remembered that I too believed in a special work of the Spirit that was necessary for salvation even before I became a Calvinist.  So this is one point where I do think we can be united, even though I still think it is out place in a non-Calvinist’s soteriological hermeneutic and I am glad that Dr. Finn has included this in his letter.

Finally, be careful not to turn your strategies into sacraments. I have in mind here two popular practices: altar calls and “sinner’s prayers.” Now do not misunderstand me: I am not in principle opposed to either of these practices. As someone who does mostly itinerant preaching, I offer a public invitation at the end of 95% of the sermons I preach. I also think that when most people come to faith in Christ they articulate that faith in the form of a prayer. At least this was the case in my conversion and the conversion of every person I have ever led to Christ.

I am not so much concerned with either of these strategies as I am the way they are sometimes applied. More than one observer has argued that altar calls are to many Southern Baptists what sacraments are to Roman Catholics: we are not sure folks can really be saved without them! I know of one church where the youth minister led a man to Christ after the gentleman had literally walked into the church office and asked to speak with a minister about what it meant to be a Christian. The next Sunday that man walked the aisle, only to have the senior pastor lead him in a second sinner’s prayer so the congregation could see that he really was saved. I’m dead serious.

And speaking of the sinner’s prayer, it seems there are too many among us who treat this practice as if it is the secret code to enter the Christian club house. In one extreme, folks are encouraged to “repeat after me” and then pronounced new Christians based upon their correct recitation of the prescribed formula. In another extreme, I have heard more than one pastor or evangelist argue that if you don’t get the words right, you might not be saved at all! My own teenage years were spent re-praying sinner’s prayers to make sure I “got it right” and thus have “assurance of my salvation” every time we had revival services or I went to a youth conference. I suspect I am not the only person with that testimony. The point is that both aforementioned extremes are more superstition than New Testament.

I am less inclined to offer an ‘invitation’.  I hope my messages have a clear call to repentance and faith, but i am less interested in someone making a public spectacle than I am in seeing a life transformed by the preaching of the Word.  Can an ‘altar call’ be used to accomplish this?  Maybe, but I am a little more of a ’regulative principlist’ purist than to attempt it.

I also don’t see anywhere in the Bbile where people came to faith by ‘praying’.  Yes, there is always the aspect of confession of sinfulness, but asking God to ‘save me’, or, ‘come into my heart’, or, ‘please forgive me’.  The Gospel contains commands.  Believe and repent.  Those are the responses to the Gospel that God requires.  And the Gospel also contains promises.  If you believe and repent you will be saved.  I am not sent to ask anyone to believe, I am sent to command faith and repentance in response to the Gospel and offer the promise of forgiveness of sins, justification, eternal security, and every other Gospel promise based upon true faith and repentance.

Can these responses be articulated in the form of a prayer?  Yes.  They can.  But again, I think the deeper issue is understanding faith and repentance as commands to be obeyed rather than invitations to be accepted.

In closing, let me say loud and clear that I am committed to linking arms with all Southern Baptist individuals and churches that love the gospel and want to see the good news proclaimed to all people. In my understanding, Calvinism is a secondary issue that should not preclude different churches from participating in the same network of churches. Our denominational unity should be around a common commitment to the theology of the Baptist Faith and Message, a commitment to the Baptist vision of the church, and a burden to see the gospel proclaimed in all parts of North America and to the ends of the earth. Insofar as we unite around these things and do not divide over Calvinism (or other secondary issues), we will press forward in a Great Commission Resurgence for the sake of the gospel and the glory of the living God.

Ditto.  Amen.  Selah.

I will offer some final thoughts later this week.

Reid, Finn, Calvinism, and the SBC Part 1

Context: Over at Between The Times blog, Drs. Alvin Reid and Nathan Finn each addressed open letters to Southern Baptists.  Alvin Reid’s letter was addressed to Calvinists in the SBC, while Nathan Finn’s letter was addressed to non-Calvinists in the SBC.  Between the two of them I think we’re all covered.

Timmy Brister recently summarized the letters for us here and here, and there is a lot of good discussion on Dr. Reid’s letter at his blog.  I would encourage you to read Dr. Reid’s letter before continuing to read here.

Disclaimers: As I stated at Timmy’s blog, although I believe I understand Dr. Reid’s points and agree mostly with him, I have some concerns with his letter.  While I am going to voice concerns with his letter here, I want everyone to understand that this is not an ‘attack’ on Dr. Reid, and if you have a bone to pick with him you can take it elsewhere.  But because his letter is a public letter which I take as addressed to me as a Calvinist in the SBC, I believe I have the right and responsibility to interact publicly with what he has written.  Also, I do not believe that I can speak on behalf of all Calvinists in the SBC, so understand that these words are my words and my opinions.

Format: I will place Dr. Reid’s comments in blockquotes and italicized while my response will be in the regular format.

Introduction:

As a non-Calvinist who is not an anti-Calvinist, I want to offer the following suggestions for my friends who are Calvinists. I do so out of a spirit of brotherly love and as humbly as I know how.

I’m beginning my response here because I think this is a much better introduction than the introduction that Dr. Reid chose.  May I say that in reading this letter I do get a sense of humility and love.  I really believe that Dr. Reid is expressing what he believes are valid concerns about Calvinists, especially those who are new to Calvinism.  I also truly believe that he is attempting to be as loving and humble as is possible.

Responses:

Over the course of my almost-50 years, all in a Southern Baptist context, I have watched many ideas and trends come and go. I remember well the 1970s and the eschatological fervor of the time. Of sermon series on the book of Revelation there seemed to be no end. Hal Lindsay’s Late Great Planet Earth became one of many books signaling the near return of our Lord. In the middle of such excitement there were bound to be excesses, and I saw plenty. I remember a friend who was so convinced that Jesus would return by 1976 that when the Lord tarried, he walked away from his faith. We survived those years and continued on to the future.

Now we see a rise in interest and conviction about Calvinism, which hardly caused a stir in my circles throughout college and seminary.

I’m not sure why Dr. Reid begins with this comparison.  Comparing Hal Lindsay and the End-Times hysteria of the late 70′s and 80′s to a resurgence in Calvinism just seems to me to be a little over the top and dismissive of the theological positions of Calvinists.  So I get the since that while, as he states later, he is not a “anti-Calvinist”,  that he just doesn’t care about our positions.  Calvinism is a fad and it will pass.  Never mind that this fad has lasted the 500 years since the Reformation, besides the point that I would make that ‘Calvinism’ is in fact what the Bible itself teaches.  I’m saying this, because I hope that he may have a different explanation for this introduction.

First, embrace humility. You have an obvious hunger for truth and for theological depth, which is commendable. But when your love for truth smacks of condescension, even to the point of arrogance, you do no one any good. You will not win others to your cause or promote the cause of Christ with an attitude of superiority. Encourage those across the theological spectrum to be serious about theology, but affirm humility in heart as much as you do soundness in mind.

Point well taken.  This is good advice not only for Calvinists, but for anyone who is passionate about truth.  We must all seek humility.  When you get down to it, humility is at the heat of the Gospel.  Christ humbled himself, became the servant of all, and submitted himself to the pain of death.  And he tells us that whoever would be greatest among us must be servant of all.  Humility should be embraced by all Christians.  And Reid’s point that when we speak the truth without love and humility we have become as Paul said, a clanging cymbal.  We have been commanded to speak the truth in love.  But this admonition has always bothered me for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that for some reason when a person hears the word ‘Calvinist’ he immediately thinks ‘arrogance’.  The charge is a constant ringing in the Calvinist’s ears.  “You should be more humble!”  Just hearing it said once again makes me think that this person (not Reid) needs to get the log out of his eye.  The arrogance  of some people in telling another person that he isn’t humble is off the charts in my opinion.

Second,  apparently there is a reason that the charge keeps being leveled at Calvinists.  We are not humble in so many ways.  Even though what we believe should cultivate humility in us, many times just the opposite is true.  Yes, we should be firm and steadfast in our beliefs, but not at the expense of recognizing that we really don’t have it all figured out.

Second, avoid implying that Calvinism and the gospel are synonyms. Sometimes I hear Calvinist speakers argue (or at least imply) that Calvinism and the gospel are identical, and if one does not affirm the tenets of Calvinism he denies the gospel. Not only is this theologically arrogant, it is unkind. I would remind you that in our history as Southern Baptists we have had room for Calvinists and non-Calvinists, and I see no reason for that day to end. You unnecessarily alienate those who would be your friends when you use such uncharitable rhetoric. Be aware that others in the history of Christianity as well as today may hold to interpretations that vary from you, and that variation does not always mean heterodoxy.

I think I understand what Dr. Reid is saying here.  The Gospel is what Christ did, and the Gospel we preach is a proclamation of what Christ accomplished and a call to repentance and faith.  I agree.  Calvinism is not in and of itself the Gospel.

However, I have a hard time separating out what I believe about what Christ did from what He did.  In my mind the Gospel begins with the declaration that we as sinners need a work done both outside of us and inside of us.  We are sinners who hate God.  We would never come to love Him or follow Him if He first does not do something for us.  The Gospel stands then, in the context of total human depravity.   We are all going to Hell in a hand-basket, I mean that literally, and although we’re not happy about that, we wouldn’t change a thing because we hate God.  So there must be a point where God decides that if anyone will be saved, then He has to start it and finish.  So He starts it by choosing a people for Himself, not because of foreseen faith or any good in them because they still hate God, and He sends His Son to die for them, sends the Holy Spirit to turn their hearts towards Him through the preaching of the Gospel and its demands, and then seals them and keeps them walking in love towards Him until they arrive safely at the destination that He has prepared for them.

Athough Calvinism is not the Gospel, it is so intertwined with the Gospel that I find it hard to completely separate out from the Gospel.  If the Gospel is, as defined in 1 Corinthians 15, the death of Christ for our sins, His burial, His resurrection, His appearances, and His reign, then there must be a theological framework for understanding those statements.  Otherwise, we can repeat those statements till we’re blue in the face, but unless we explain them, there is no Gospel actually be proclaimed.  Only historical fact.  What does it mean that, “Christ died for our sins”?  That He was buried, that He rose on the third day, that He appeared to many eyewitnesses, that all enemies are being put under His feet?  Although I do understand that Calvinism itself is not the Gospel, I think that Reid is asking something more from me than I can do in good conscience.  Not that I deny that Reid has believed the Gospel, but that I deny that he has believed the best explanations of what the Gospel is and means for us.

Third, do not hesitate to call for non-Christians to turn to Christ in faith. I understand your reticence at extending a call for decision when the gospel is preached is due to more than a few who have been reckless in their handling of such invitations. But I would urge you to call for decision both personally and corporately as did our Lord, Peter, Paul and others in Scripture. I would urge you to read the works of Spurgeon and consider his passion for calling people to come to Christ.
Now whether or not you have an “altar call” at the conclusion of your service is less the issue for me than that some of you fail to give those on whom the Spirit is doing His convicting work the opportunity to follow Christ in some public manner. I would submit some of you are far better at criticizing your brothers who give public calls for decision than at offering a biblical alternative for such calls. Some of you seem to have a practical agnosticism concerning personal conversion.
As you read this particular criticism, please do not assume I think Calvinists are not evangelistic. I am using Mark Dever’s fine book on personal evangelism as one of the texts for a class (along with two by non-Calvinists, including mine!). Dever sets a good example for his fellow Calvinists (and non-Calvinists) in personal witnessing. I would ask you to provoke one another in your camp to good works in terms of evangelistic effectiveness, including not being afraid to plead with people to turn to Christ in faith.

Another fine suggestion from Dr. Reid is that Calvinists should not hesitate in calling sinners to repentance.  Nothing in Calvinism precludes inviting all men and women to repent and believe the Gospel.  Jesus was the only person ever who knew who all of the elect were, and yet he went everywhere preaching that everyone should repent and believe the Gospel.  If we believe that regeneration takes place by the Spirit through the Gospel proclaimed, then all Calvinists should be at the forefront of evangelism.  Sadly, this seems to rarely be the case.  But I don’t think the answer for this is in finding a ‘biblical alternative’ for the altar call.

I think the better answer is first, in personal evangelism, that the there be a clear presentation of the Gospel (and I don’t mean an exposition of Calvinism), and then a clear presentation of the Gospel commands of repentance and faith as a response to the truthfulness of the Gospel.

Second, I think that in our preaching we must be ‘gospel-centered’, and that part of the message that we preach must be a clear articulation of the Gospel demands of repentance and faith as a response to the Gospel.  The Gospel and that call to faith and repentance should never ever be separated from each other in our preaching.  You cannot preach the Gospel with clarity without explaining what this means for your hearers.  Preaching is the Gospel call.

My fourth and final plea comes from my own personality. Over the years I have been in ministry I have been a bridge builder, not a bridge burner. I tend to be more a Barnabas than a Jeremiah, more a “he that is not against me is with me” type than a “my way is Yahweh” fellow. So hear my heart as a Southern Baptist who is content to agree to differ on some points (I believe God is so sovereign we can do that and He still achieves His purposes!) and still work together for the glory of God and the sake of the gospel. In your conferences and other meetings, especially those directed primarily to Southern Baptists, consider involving some speakers who may not agree with you at every point.
I have heard “Together for the Gospel” meetings referred to as “Calvinists for the Gospel” events. Would the Building Bridges conference not be a better model, especially within our Convention? I recall being part of a conference on revival years ago in which Richard Owen Roberts, a wonderful student of awakenings and a Calvinist, answered a question from the floor. He was asked if every spiritual awakening was led by Calvinists. He put his hand to his head, grimaced, and with a pained look, said, “No.” He was right. As a non-Calvinist who teaches on the great awakenings I would be the first to affirm that more leaders of revivals were Calvinists than not. But I would also submit that if we could today see an awakening sweep our land through the work of both modern-day Whitefields and modern-day Wesleys, we could bury a hatchet or two and learn from one another.

Personally, I don’t really see the need for this point to be made in the context of the SBC.  If there are Calvinists in the SBC, then it must be because we want to cooperate with other Southern Baptists in the spread of the Gospel.  Who we invite to our conferences really depends on the focus of our conferences.  If we want to have a conference promoting what we understand to be a correct understanding of the Gospel, why should we be obligated to invite a speaker who does not share our views?  But if we want to have a conference promoting cooperation among Southern Baptists, then I am all for inviting speakers from all viewpoints, so long as they understand that the focus is cooperation among Southern Baptists.

I guess I am advocating unity through distinctives rather than unity through consensus.  Not that consensus is bad, I think we already have a consensus articulated in the BF&M 2000.  We have unity through our affirmation of the BF&M, we can discuss our differences, but let’s not reduce unity to some abstract idea of love and understanding.  We can learn from each other, but let’s also remember that both sides have already wrestled with the Scriptures and have formed some conclusions that conscience will not let us betray.

I will try to interact with Dr. Nathan Finn’s letter later in the week.

Assuming The Gospel

How many times do we assume the Gospel?  We assume people have heard the Gospel, understand the Gospel, believe the Gospel, and are living in light of the Gospel.  These assumptions are guarantees that we will never lead anyone to Christ.  For the preacher, these assumptions guarantee that he will never preach a true message.  These assumptions are bad.

On the other hand, sometimes it is a good sign of  salvation that we assume the Gospel personally.  Not in the same sense as the above paragraph, but in the sense that when trouble or trials or hardships come in our lives we automatically assume the Gospel for ourselves.  For those of us who believe this is a good testimony of our faith.  When we encounter death, we assume the resurrection, when we encounter injustice, we assume a day of reckoning before the Judge of all the Earth, when we encounter sickness, we assume that God has a far greater purpose and we look forward to a day when all sickness is removed from our bodies.

Then again, this too can be a bad thing if we are not truly in the faith.  We don’t have any right to assume any of those things for ourselves.  So if we assume that these Gospel benefits apply to us when we are outside of faith in Christ, we are deceiving ourselves.

My suggestion then for everyone is that we should think deeply about 2 Peter 1.  Let’s stop assuming so that when we face death, disease, disappointment, and disaster we can rest in the full hope of the Gospel and let it flow naturally from a conscience that has been examined by the Word of God.

“If I Weren’t a Christian, I’d Get a Mohawk”…

…this is what my youngest son said this past New Year’s Eve.  We were sitting in a Mexican Restaurant, the best place for theological discussions by the way, and out of the blue he says this.  I laughed at first and then asked him if he really was a Christian.

There is so much wrong with that statement, that it would be hard to know where to begin.  I decided to give as complete and detailed explanation of the Gospel as he could understand.  But I have thought off and on about his statement for the past week.  There are three wrong views expressed in the statement.

First, he assumed he was a Christian because his parents are Christians.  He’s always gone to Church and Sunday School, and he reads his devotions at night.  But that does not make him a Christian.

Second, he assumed that because he did not indulge himself in this particular ‘sin’, that he was a Christian.

Third, he assumed that because he was a Christian, mohawks were off-limits.

In other words, he is a legalist.  I can’t think of anything I’ve said that would give him this idea, but do I live my life in such a way as to display legalism to him?  I know my words are on target concerning the Gospel, but is my life on target concerning the Gospel?  Do I live my life as a legalist?  Am I Peter in Galatians 2?  I’ve been asking myself this question ever since that night. 

Sorry.  No answers yet.

It’s something to think about anyway…

The Beginning of the Gospel

Mark opens his Gospel with these words.  “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1 ESV)

Verses 2-3, interestingly enough, follows right after verse 1.  In those verses we have some Old Testament quotes referring to John Baptist.  Now, regardless if you believe that verse 1 is a title to Mark’s Gospel, it is interesting that he sees the Gospel as beginning with these quotes.  By starting with these Old Testament quotes, Mark demonstrates two truths.

First, the Gospel is not secondary to the meaning of the Old Testament, but rather, the Gospel is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.  This what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17), what Peter preached at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36), and part of Paul’s definition of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).  Mark begins his ‘Gospel’ by pointing us to this truth, that everything that happened during the life and ministry of Jesus had been foretold.  The Gospel is according to the (Old Testament) Scriptures.

Secondly, Mark points us to the truth that God’s Word does not return void.  Just as it had been foretold through the prophets that  there would be a forerunner of the Messiah, those prophecies were fulfilled to the letter.  However, these prophecies were not made in order to point us to John, but they were signs along the way pointing us to Christ.  In showing us who the forerunner of the Messiah is, they show us the Messiah.  So just as God had promised, the Messiah came (Genesis 3:15), lived (Isaiah 53:2-3), died (Isaiah 53:7), rose again , ascended to Heaven, and is pleading our case before the Father(Isaiah 53:12).

Thankful

I am thankful for God’s salvation, Election by the Father, Redemption by the Son, Sanctification by the Spirit, and Membership in God’s family, the Church.
I am thankful to God for each of you, your fellowship in the Gospel, your fellowship in the good times, and your fellowship in trials.
I am thankful to God for my wife, my boys, my extended family, my friends, and my co-laborers in the Gospel (David and Charlie).
I am thankful to God for all His blessings, and I pray that He would keep reminding me of the difference between the blessing, the one who is blessed, and the ‘Blessor’.
I am thankful to God for my country, my President, my representatives in Government, and our system of justice.
I am thankful to God for all good things, as well as the not so good things that serve to remind me that only God is good.
I am thankful to God for life, love, liberty, and happiness.
I am thankful to God for laughter, sight, taste, sound, touch and smell.
I am thankful to God for the truth that no matter how wonderful life here is, or how bad it could become, there is a place that is infinitely better, where I will live in eternal joy at the feet of my Savior.