I was afforded an opportunity that most Christians are not, last Saturday. The opportunity to discuss the scriptures in the house of a Jehovah’s Witness. The reasons for this are rather lengthy, but I can summarize it briefly. Two of my children, and their mother, (hereafter referred to as S.) now attend a local Kingdom Hall – I was informed of this the day before I was scheduled to pick them up. I was curious as to what brought their mother to this decision, as she comes from a (nominal) Roman Catholic background. A phone discussion ensued, in which she admitted that she didn’t have answers to many of my questions. Therefore, I was told that they would invite their Elder to answer any questions that I might have. you HAD to confess the Father as GodFurther, I could not have the kids unless I had this discussion. As it turns out, he didn’t show up – I was rather skeptical that he would, as JWs are told not to invite “apostates” (non-JWs) into their houses. However, I did talk to a younger man living there, hereafter referred to as J. – (I’m not sure what the relationship there is, and I didn’t ask) whose sister, and her two small children also live in the house (and who listened to the entire conversation).

S. and I had discussed several passages previously – especially John 1 and Hebrews 1. However, when we began our discussion, I began by asking him to define what it was he believed, in his own words. After he did that, I would take a bit to explain what I believe, in as succinct a manner as possible. He did so, and took about 2-3 minutes to do so. I took notes as he did, so that I would be sure not to become confused thereafter. Here is what he told me:

1. Jehovah is God’s name.
2. His son is Jesus.
3. After the resurrection, Jesus will be the head of the government, along with the 144,000.
4. There is a trial period after sleep.
5. Satan deceived Eve, and tested God.
6. Therefore, God gave Satan a chance – to exercise a certain amount of rule.
7. Satan is the government over the world, and the world has seen how Satan’s rule is.
8. How we choose is how we will be judged.

I believe I asked one question, at this point, in order to confirm what it was he had said. I think it was about point 6, and the story of Job was discussed, but very very briefly.

I then began to present what I believed. I was only able to get a very short way into point 3, due to the myriad objections that came my way at that point. This is the outline I use when giving a short explanation of what Christians believe. It can be expanded, compressed, or given a detailed look, depending on the subject.

1) Scripture:
i) Scripture is the God-breathed (inspired) self-revelation of God to, and for His people.
ii) It is comprised of 66 books – the OT originally written in Hebrew, with the NT written in Greek.
iii) No word of the Scripture can be broken, as Christ said – therefore, it is the only arbiter, source, or definition for what must be believed.

2) Trinity Defined
i) Within the one Being that is God, there exist eternally three coequal and coeternal Persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
ii) Each word of this definition is important. Each term has a certain, definite meaning. Please don’t ignore any of them. These few words present the foundation of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity: monotheism, the existence of three divine Persons, and the equality of those Persons.
iii) The phrase “one Being” communicates the truth that there is only one true God, the Creator of all things. The Trinity is monotheistic. It is not, however, Unitarian. Monotheism says that there is only one Being of God, while Unitarianism asserts that there is only one person of God. The Being of God is what makes God, God. It is the substance of God. In the Christian definition I just gave you – recognize the difference between the words Being and Person. The failure to recognize that the definition given above is using these two terms in different ways is one of the prime reasons for confusion in regard to the Trinity. Being is what makes something what it is. Person is what makes someone who he or she is. As Hank Hanegraaff puts it, when speaking of the Trinity, we speak of one what (the Being of God) and three whos (the three divine Persons).
iv) We speak of these three divine Persons as coequal and coeternal. The Father has eternally been the Father, and the Son has eternally been the Son. The terms Father and Son refer to an eternal relationship that they have with each other. It is vitally important to understand that this relationship has always been. If we neglect to recognize this fact, we run the danger of thinking that the Father precedes or creates the Son, when this is not the case. While theologians speak of the Father begetting the Son, they do so in such a way that completely denies that the Son is a creation of, or ontologically inferior to, the Father. Each of the divine Persons shares fully and completely in the divine Being, but they likewise bear a relationship to one another within the Godhead itself. Many arguments raised against the Trinity actually focus on the relationship between the Persons, as if these automatically indicate an inferiority of nature. We do well to recognize this kind of error in the arguments of those who oppose the Christian faith.
v) The final assertion of our definition comprises the deity of Christ and the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit. Many of our conversations of the Trinity focus on this particular area. The key element in successfully explaining and defending the Trinity is to recognize that the doctrine is based on the plain teaching of Scripture. We can never afford to abandon the only ground upon which the Christian can stand — the teaching of God’s Word. Each of the three foundations of the doctrine are clear teachings of the Bible, and we must focus our defense there, if we wish to honor God and give a God-glorifying answer to those who ask.
(Taken and compressed from a section of The Forgotten Trinity, James R. White)

3) Sin defined
i) Sin is any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pg 490)
ii) Exo 20, Matt 5:22,28, Gal 5:20, Eph 2:3
iii) A failure to glorify God in all things and to thus love him perfectly – Mark 12:30, Isa 42:8, 43:7,21, Eph 1:12
iv) Sin is lawlessness – 1jo 3:4, Rom 2:15, Rom 2:17-29,
v) Right in their own eyes – Deu 12:8, Judg 17:6, 2Ki 10:30, Pro 21:2

4) Punishment defined
i) Death – Eze 18:4
ii) Everlasting – matt 25:46
iii) Demanded by God’s Holiness – Rom 7:12, Rev 4:8, 6:10, 15:4
5) Biblical requirements for salvation
i) Belongs to God alone – Gen 49:18, Psa 3:8, Isa 12:2, Isa 45:8, 45:17
ii) Everlasting – Isa 45:17, 51:6,8, Mar 16:20, 2th 2:13, Heb 5:9
iii) Substitutionary – Rom 4:24-25, 5 (all)
iv) Justifies – Rom 5 ( all of 5) Rom 8:33 (and all of 8 )
v) Atones (propitiates) – Rom 3;25, heb 2:17, 1jo 2:2, 4:10

6) Depiction of the Savior and Redeemer
i) Isa 53, Mic 7:16

7) His salvific work – atonement and redemption
i) By that atoning work, He satisfies the wrath of God against the sin of man – past, present of future. Fulfills the covenant of the law, begins the covenant of grace, and satisfies every requirement God had decreed. By this mighty work, He has secured us as His elect people, as chosen from before the foundation of the world (eph 1), as newly reborn creatures, being sanctified in his love and grace.

8 ) Perfection of that work, due to the perfect fulfillment of it
i) His work is not, and cannot be, a failure. Christ died for His peculiar people, throughout history, and throught the future, securing their pardon, once and for all. His perfect sacrifice, as the spotless lamb, purchased us as His people for all eternity.
ii) Our rebirth is His gift (Eze 37-38, eph 2:5) Our faith in Him is His gracious gift (heb 12:2), as is the repentance (acts 5:31, 2ti 2:25) we must show. His salvation is a perfect gift, as is His sanctifying grace (eph 2:8-9, 5:26, 1th 5:23).
iii) Therefore, man may never take one iota of God’s glory in salvation for Himself.

9) Perfection of His people through Him
i) Those who are in Christ are branches of the one true vine. There are those who falsely claim to be part of the vine – but will be pruned, and cast into the fire.
ii) False professors – apostates – are those who knwo the truth, yet reject it in favor of a lie.
iii) True believers endure to the end. That is the hallmark of a true, enduring faith – for all true faith is a gift of God, and therefore cannot fail.
iv) At the resurrection, we will be made like Christ, and live forever in the presence of the Triune God, praising and glorifying Him forever. Heaven and earth will be remade, and a number beyond counting will be present. We will no longer sin, and sin will be cast into hell along with the demons, the unsaved, sinful humans, and every hint of depravity and corruption.

10) To put the Gospel succinctly: God is Holy – man is sinful. Man must repent of his sin, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, for who he claims to be – Lord over all of creation, and the only savior for mankind. To reject the identity, the lordship, or the salvation of Christ is to reject the only way to be saved from an eternal hell, and to fulfill the condemnation of God which He has already determined for all sinful creatures. To believe truly is to spend eternity in the presence of God, glorifying Him.

So, this was my planned outline. As I said, I didn’t get far into it. J. said he had a question – if I recall, the immediate question was – how can two persons be the same person. if you will recall, the above specifically states that it is important to make the distinction there. When i expanded upon what the various terms meant, and signified – I was given more objections, and more, and more. When I asked if I could finish the presentation of what I believed, I think the answer I received was “but you haven’t answered what I said about (x) yet.” Answering the objections, it seemed, was now the point of the discussion! This is a very, very common gambit in debate. I have a name for that – shotgun apologetics. Fire a full spread, see what hits – then chamber the next round of shot. Eventually, your opponent is either out of time, or out of answers – and either one works. So, I switched tacks a bit. I began answering objections with Scriptures that would counter his objection. I did get to exegete a bit of John 1 – unfortunately, the greek text I had pulled up on my browser (transliterated, original, english) was lost as I plugged my laptop in. The screen wouldn’t reactivate, and I lost my browser windows that i had kept up the entire trip, for this very purpose, as I knew that text (along with several others) would be a sticking point. So, I had to “reconstruct” the word order of the Greek text from what I could show him from Strong’s inline references in my KJV E-sword. Very frustrating.

His response was to offer more objections. Unfortunately, if someone isn’t listening to your presentations, but waiting for you to finish, so that they can present the next objection, the conversation is effectively over. This wasn’t any different.

So, to make the best of things, so that i could at least present the gospel, I went to Philippians 2, in response to an objection that centered around the humanity of Christ. (One of several) I found something very interesting – every time they’d read Phil 2, they’d just “skip over” the portion that speaks of Christ as “being in the form of God”. Every time. Like it wasn’t even there. After the 4th time I went back to that section, he finally gave me a throwaway answer – “that just means that Jesus was like God” – he became agitated, so I moved on.

So, I proceeded to Isaiah 6. If you remember, this is the chapter where Isaiah sees the Lord – in majesty, train of his robe fills the temple, etc. I showed him the “YHWH” Strong’s reference in my bible – and he agreed, this must be Jehovah God. Then, I took him to John 12. He was visibly annoyed at this point, and muttering to himself – but he turned. We read from verse 30 to verse 41. I asked him: “Who did Isaiah see?” His answer – “God”

I said, “exactly”. Who is John saying that Isaiah saw? “God.” “So,” I said, “who is John saying that Jesus is?” He became extremely agitated at this point, and said “Jesus is a created being – he cannot be God!” “Yet”, I pressed, “Jesus is said, right here, to be the one that Isaiah saw.” “Where does it say that?” He replied. I went through all the times just prior, and just after, that John points out, over and over, that Jesus is the one that is referred to throughout, as “Him”. At 5 times within the previous 5 verses, “Him” is Jesus. There is no context change between the verse prior, and this one – all the same discussion. The next verse says that “even some of the rulers believed in Him” – I asked J. – in who? “God”, was his answer. “The rulers already believed in God the Father – and to be a Jew, you HAD to confess the Father as God – so who is John saying they are afraid of confessing, for fear of being put out of the synagogue? “God!” (Very, very agitated, now)

“Read on a little further, then. ‘He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in the One who sent Me. He who sees me, sees the One who sent Me.’ See that? Christ is answering your question for you. Isaiah saw the glory of the preincarnate Christ, seated on a throne, with the train of His robe, fillign the temple.”

I was then informed that the conversation was over, he didn’t want to talk about it, that I could feel free to talk about things related to the children, but that we were done. I asked him – “are you sure you wouldn’t like to look at Psalm 102, first?” The last response I got was “What part of the conversation is over did you not understand?” I spoke to S. for a just a moment longer, and added only that she should recall what Christ said – “Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. That’s the reason I wanted to talk to you all today. Not to win a debate, not to score points, or make myself look smart. I have to be a faithful proclaimer of the Gospel.” The discussion ended, I collected the kids, and their things, and we were on their way.

It may not look like a lot – but remember – I was told that I wouldn’t get my kids otherwise. It would have been very easy to have a “can’t we all get along” discussion. Just ask questions. Instead, I challenged the heart of their doctrine, with the full understanding that I might not get my kids as a result. I didn’t expect to get them at all, to be very frank with you, but I knew that God would be honored by a faithful defense of His gospel, and I couldn’t do otherwise. I trusted that God would be faithful to me, whatever the outcome, but that i had an opportunity that doesn’t come along often – to witness to a jehovah’s Witness where they live, with them knowing that it was with the understanding that they were answering my questions.

Despite that fact – they threw the objections at me – I counted at least 30 separate objections, and many of the same type, but in different forms, using verses, in addition. In a discussion that was meant to answer my questions. No, it wasn’t fair. I didn’t expect it to be. I was interrupted, treated rudely on several occasions – and, to be honest, I may have interrupted someone myself. When two different people are both giving you objections simultaneously, it’s hard not to interrupt someone! But, this isn’t to toot my own horn – it’s to illustrate that God is faithful to those who witness faithfully – especially when they are given every opportunity to “opt out” of a defense of the Christian faith. I never got to ask any of the questions I brought with me. I’m saving them for the meeting with the Elder that they said they would set up on my return. I’m just thankful to God for His faithfulness to me in a situation that could have been devastating.

I have also been invited back to talk to their elder – once again in their home – on July 25th. Please pray for me, that I might be a faithful witness!

When our friend Steve writes:

Taking the blog post and video together, we can say that White believes the following:

* God loves all men, though God’s love is not monolithic
* God’s will (his revealed will) is that all men obey his commands to repent and believe the gospel
* In that context (revealed will and command) we can say that God desires the salvation of all men

Having made those statements, much of what I (and others) have written in criticism of White as a hyper-Calvinist is no longer cogent. In my view, White has effectively exonerated himself from the charge.

I feel quite certain that White will take the position that this is nothing new for him — this has been his position all along. That may be the case, but this is new as far as his statements on the record. I know of no other place in White’s work where he has made these kinds of statements. I haven’t read all of his work, and I freely admit that he may have held this position all along while I suffered under a cloud of ignorance. But I doubt it. Citations anyone?

Citation 1

In response to the question quoted above, who denied God’s omnibenevolence? Evidently, our writer assumes omnibenevolence must mean unibenevolence: that is, that if God is all-loving, then He will not possess the capacity His creatures rightly possess: discrimination in the matter of love. We are not only not unibenevolent, as image bearers of God we, like Him, are able to possess, and express, different kinds of love. I do not love my cat as I love my children (and I think anyone who does is simply wacked). I have and properly express all different kinds of “love,” from loving my wireless laser mouse to loving my Tablet PC to loving my Felt F65 road bike—but none of those kinds of love come close to my love for God’s truth, God’s people, my family, my friends. If faced with a choice, I am going to choose based upon discrimination in my love. I am going to save the mother of my children before I save a stranger. I am called to love my wife as Christ loved the church. And my ability to do this is clearly reflected in God’s own actions. The love He showed Israel he did not show the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Assyrians, or the Babylonians. This is a simple biblical fact. All the “God loves you!” smiley face t-shirts do not change revelational reality.
Hence, I reject the assertion that omnibenevolence equals unibenevolence, i.e., having one equal, undifferentiated, indiscriminate warm fuzzy. There is no biblical basis for thinking otherwise.
Now, our writer expresses a very common human failing in these words: “When you claim that God only wants some people to be saved, you are really claiming that God is only partially loving.” Notice the unstated assumption: love = extension of redemptive grace. What is the only logical conclusion to be derived from such thinking? Either 1) God’s love demands God’s failure; i.e., God will be unhappy and unfulfilled throughout eternity because He tried, but failed, to save those He loved (more than one theologian has held this position); or, 2) universalism. God will conquer all in the end, all will be saved. But in neither case can God show redemptive, saving love to undeserving sinners while, at the same time, expressing His just wrath and anger against the rest. By insisting upon this concept, our writer robs God of His freedom, let alone His ability to freely chose to love redemptively. The false dilemma is clearly seen: by denying the difference between the love God shows to all of creation in providence in the merciful suspension of His immediate and just judgment upon all sinners, and the special redemptive love He freely bestows on vessels of mercy, our writer creates a false unibenevolence and on that basis says God is only “partially loving.” That makes as much sense as noting that I love my wife in a way I do not love a woman in Bosnia and saying I am “partially loving” as a result. I am not supposed to love the woman in Bosnia in that way, and God is under no compulsion whatsoever to love redemptively (which involves the extension of mercy and grace). To say otherwise is to say that redemption can be demanded of God, that grace is not free, but can be demanded at His hand. That is, in essence, the sum of this kind of objection.
And so we see that the rest of the objection bears no weight and has no merit for it is based upon a misuse of terms.

Next, it is asserted that the “any” and “all” are “called to repent.” Actually, the text says that God wills (11) for the “all” to come to repentance, and of course, this is quite true. And since God grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:24-25), God’s purpose will be accomplished, and is accomplished in the elect. They all, as a group, do repent. Why anyone would wish to say “It is God’s will that every single individual repent, but, alas, His will is constantly thwarted and refuted by the will of the creature” is hard to say.” CBF misses the point when it asserts that this cannot be the “beloved” because they have already repented. The point of the passage is that God will bring the elect to repentance throughout the time period prior to the parousia, the coming of Christ. At the point of Peter’s writing, the repentance of every single individual reading this book was yet future.

Next Dr. Geisler confuses the prescriptive will of God found in His law, which commands all men everywhere to repent, with the gift of repentance given to the elect in regeneration. It does not follow that if it is God’s will to bring the elect to repentance that the law does not command repentance of ev-eryone. This is a common error in Arminian argumentation.

~ The Potter’s Freedom, pages 149,150

The reference for (11) is as follows – “We do not here refer to the revealed will of God found in His law which commands all men everywhere to repent: we speak of His saving will that all the elct come to repentance, and His ability to perform that will.”

The first problem is that you are attempting to make someone’s use of your terminology to describe something (which is more precisely defined by the terminology he uses) the sine non qua of orthodoxy. He made it plain, by using your terminology to describe what it is he means by what he does say. In Dr. White’s terminology, the prescriptive will of God – His revealed will – is a command to obey the gospel. To repent and believe. When we offer the gospel, there is no distinction, and there can be no distinction, because God uses us as the means by which the gospel is proclaimed, offered, and commanded to all men. As long as I’ve been listening to, watching, and reading Dr. White, this has been what he says. In that sense God wills – commands – all men to repent, and believe – and thereby be saved. Not all men do so – for repentance and faith are both gifts of God.

The second problem is that you simply don’t know these men, and haven’t read enough of their work to be able to recognize what you seem to think they haven’t spoken about. I’m glad you recognize the possibility of your ignorance, but that doesn’t jive with your stubborn insistence upon their guiltiness, and the fact that even though you’ve been repudiated in your objections, you still “worry”. That, coupled with your insistence that somehow Phil has “gutted” his primer by very properly distinguishing between high and hyper calvinism (which he does in the primer itself!), he has rendered it practically useless. Sir, I’m sorry, but simply assuming your consequent just doesn’t work as an argument. If all of the people in question differ, most emphatically, with Byrne et al’s insistence that high calvinism they dislike = hyper-calvinism, that does not necessitate that the Primer is now gutted”to the point of uselessness.” Thsi is not a new definition, my friend. This is a historical definition, and Johnson explicitly warns about those who would attempt to “unthinkingly slap the label “hyper” on any variety of Calvinism that is higher than the view they hold to.” I second that warning, and really wish that folks would just stop and think about what they write.

Further, he says the following:

Another important consequence is that Phil Johnson has gutted his hyper-Calvinism primer to the point of uselessness. Johnson (quite unnecessarily as it turned out) said in defense of White that Dr. Allen had misinterpreted his Primer. Now that is not exactly what Johnson said, but that is the way his statements are being interpreted (by both White and Tom Ascol, and presumably many others).

Johnson, who is normally careful with his words, began muddying the waters — for the sake of his friend White — by introducing qualifications about optative expressions, and alleging his personal knowledge of White’s orthodoxy, and asserting the apparent misunderstanding of both by Dr. Allen. I deny that Allen misunderstood Phil’s Primer … he clearly understood it all too well. And White’s statements up until recently put him solidly in the hyper-Calvinist camp, whatever Phil may say about “misunderstanding his primer.”

As a consequence of Johnson’s defense of White, other people have begun seriously to misunderstand it, and now Tom Ascol, for example, is saying that Steve Camp is not a hyper-Calvinist because Allen misunderstands Johnson’s primer. Oh really!? Johnson would never (one hopes) say such a thing, but his sloppiness in recent weeks has given others a good deal of room to make these kinds of statements. The usefulness of his Primer as a benchmark has been eviscerated. And given Phil’s qualifications on “optative” language, his primer as a teaching tool has been eviscerated as well. I would never, given his recent qualifying statements about optative expressions, point anyone to that Primer. I will point people to Tony Byrne for real instruction on the point from this time forward. (Byrne will point us to Curt Daniel and Iain Murray … who presumably won’t be issuing “clarifications” that arise out of personal motives and result in more confusion.)

Now, as I read statements such as this, it reminds me of why the internet is not always a great tool for precise communication – especially when folks consider themselves experts on people whom they do not sufficiently understand, and have not read enough of.

To Steve’s first accusation concerning of Johnson, I can only point out that this isn’t his first use of “optative”, and not in this context, either.

What God has decreed isn’t a valid gauge for measuring what He “desires.”

Optative expressions (language describing a wish or a desire) pose a whole set of problems when applied to God. (That’s true for Arminians and Calvinists alike. The only system I know of that avoids this problem is Open Theism’s notion of a non-sovereign god for whom the future remains an unsettled mystery.)

However (granting an anthropopathic use of the expression “desire”), I think it’s a serious mistake to assume that God’s decrees and His “desires” are equipollent.

Now, isn’t this almost the exact same usage? Same context? Guess what? Dr. White is nowhere to be found.

As to Steve’s second accusation, take a look at this:

Nevertheless, Dr. Allen’s “defense” demonstrates conclusively that he doesn’t understand my definition of hyper-Calvinism. He relentlessly ascribes to me a position I have frequently refuted.

Now, isn’t that exactly what he said?

Now, there’s your citations. As I’ve said in my last two posts, the problem is not Dr. White’s, Dr. Ascol’s, or Phil Johnson’s understanding of hyper-calvinism, or inconsistency. It is the lack of understanding on the part of those who are quite evidently new to the subject, in the case of Dr. Allen, or yourself – or unbalanced in their approach, as are Tony Byrne and David Ponter. When you don’t know what you are talking about, or you have a long history of imbalance, (as well as the redefinition of terms, as do Byrne and Ponter), it becomes quite clear that the issue is not with those accused – who have a long history of opposing hyper-calvinism, in it’s various forms. The problem lies with those who haven’t a historical, balanced view of hyper-calvinism, and are, frankly, late-comers and/or axe-grinders.

As Dr. Ascol has said, with all due respect; “When I read Dr. Allen’s words that ‘it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism’ I want to laugh and say, ‘Welcome to the party, I am sorry it took you so long to get here.'”

Just to open up, I found Timmy Brister’s timeline very useful in organizing all of the commentary concerning the John 3:16 conference. While the conference was, indeed, an SBC All-Star event – it was decidedly anti-Calvinist. Now, I am quite aware that they don’t particularly like this categorization of their stance – Dr. Allen, for example, has taken exception to this – but, on the other hand, they certainly aren’t worried about categorizing Dr. White (a good friend, and spiritual mentor), Steve Camp, and Dr. Robert Reymond, whose Systematic Theology has been very helpful to me, as Hyper-Calvinists. Now, I’ve had quite a bit of dialogue with real hypers – and I have to say… they obviously have no idea what a hyper-calvinist is.

Now, I’m aware he would also reject this statement. He has, repeatedly. However, he has also repeatedly demonstrated that he has a lack of understanding concerning the difference between orthodox, historical calvinism and hyper-calvinism; decretive and preceptive will; anthropological will/desire and theological will/desire; not to mention showing a complete lack of balance in addressing the issue of Calvinism, in general. Apparently, Dr. Allen, as a professor of systematic theology, is unable to distinguish between these things. As a member of the SBC, I find this lack of perception absolutely mind-boggling, given our historical foundation as a Calvinist denomination. I don’t doubt that he would differ with that – but the fact remains.

My problem with this entire issue – with this entire conference, is that it is a group of SBC theologians with an axe to grind. The axe, of course, being the dismissal of Calvinism as orthodoxy. In the process of attempting to paint Calvinists in a certain light, they stooped to slander, followed by libel, in defense of the original slander. Dr. Allen’s statement is as follows:

“This is important. Here is the reason why this stuff is important. Limited atonement creates a situation where there is a diminishing of belief in God’s universal saving will. Dr. Tom Ascol sums up the historic Calvinist position when he wrote ‘I believe that God desires for all people to be saved but has purposed to save His elect. I see two (at least two) dimensions in God’s will: revealed and decretive. Failure to make this kind of distinction is a failure to read the Bible’s teachings on the will of God accurately.’ This statement was made in 2006 just before the time when the debate with the Caner brothers was scheduled to take place and Dr. Tom Ascol was supposed to join forces with James White to oppose the Caner brothers.

Ladies and Gentlemen, James White is a hyper-Calvinist. By the definition of Phil Johnson in his A Primer of Hyper-Calvinism, Phil Johnson of spurgeon.org, who is the right hand man of John MacArthur, Phil Johnson tells you the five things that make for hyper-Calvinism, and James White by his teaching is a hyper-Calvinist. Now whatever we do in Baptist life, we don’t need to be teaming up with hyper-Calvinists. It’s fine for Calvinists to get together and have debates with non-Calvinists. Fine dandy and wonderful; let that happen all day long. But it is time for Calvinists within the convention to come out and say some strong words about hyper-Calvinism.

By the way, James White is a Baptist, he is not a Southern Baptist. On April 10, during a phone call on the “Dividing Line” web cast, James White scornfully denied there is any sense in which God wills the salvation of all men. That is the total opposite of what Tom Ascol said. By the way, Ascol is right that God wills the salvation of all men. White is the one who’s wrong. The denial of God’s universal saving will is a problem.”

Now, the reasons that this is an absolutely absurd statement have been documented, quite thoroughly, by both Phil Johnson, and Dr. Ascol – not to mention Dr. White!

Phil Johnson:

if Dr. Allen thinks James White is a hyper-Calvinist by my definition, then he doesn’t understand my definition.

Dr. Ascol:

Although I must say that any conference that accuses James White of being a hyper-Calvinist loses credibility with thinking people.

Dr. White:

I simply point out that he seems to wish to establish a definition that forces one to somehow confess what God desires without providing any biblical basis for how we as creatures are to know this. Does God command repentance? Of course. Of all? Yes, of all. Do you proclaim the gospel to all? Yes, to all. Do you say it is the duty of all to believe? Surely, of course. Do you believe the proclamation of the gospel is the means by which God’s Spirit draws the elect unto Christ? Most assuredly. So what is the single basis of Allen’s accustion of “hyper-Calvinism”? My refusal to believe God decreed His eternal disappointment. I find nothing in Scripture or in the LBCF1689 that forces me to believe that God chose to create in such a fashion as to create His own unhappiness, His own lack of fulfillment. I see no reason to believe that God desires to do something He does not will to accomplish. It is only man’s limited nature that even raises the issue, for we know that the proclamation of God’s law reveals God’s prescriptive will, i.e., do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not lie, etc. Hence we ascribe to God the concept of “desire” and say God does not “desire” that man do these things. Yet, we likewise know that texts like Genesis 50:20 tell us that God has willed that such events take place, and that, in fact, He uses them to accomplish His own purposes, His own glory. The problem is in trying to read into God’s will our own self-limitations. I can freely offer the gospel to all, not because I reject election, nor because I ascribe to God a human-oriented desire that runs directly counter to His own self-revelation and consistency, but because I do not know the identity of the elect, and I have the full promise of Scripture that no man, no woman, no child, will ever, ever turn in faith to Jesus Christ and yet be rejected by Him. ALL who believe will be saved. Will any man believe outside of God’s grace, God’s granting of repentance and faith? Surely not, but again, I do not possess knowledge of the identity of the elect. Hence, I can freely and properly proclaim the duty to repent and believe to all, knowing that those who do so will be those God has drawn to Himself. I find myself completely consistent with the Apostle who likewise said he endured all the trials and tribulations of the ministry “for the sake of the elect” (2 Timothy 2:10).

As I’ve said, this commentary by Dr. Allen, and the other j316 presenters, has been discussed by many, many folks – Timmy Brister has also put together a compilation of liveblogging links from calvinists who attended, as well. A cursory search will give you a wealth of commentary. My concern, as I’ve said, is that these noted SBC theologians seem to have an axe to grind. That axe, regardless of their protests to the contray, is an anti-calvinist one. Dr. Allen is on record as saying that “Should the Southern Baptist Convention move toward 5-point Calvinism, such a move would be away from, and not toward, the gospel.” (This was met with a standing ovation.) Now, although Dr. Allen’s insistence is that he is not an anti-calvinist – the reason he says this is as follows;

One of the overriding concerns throughout Ascol’s blog post is evidenced by the four times he identifies me (indirectly each time but clearly I am included) as “anti-Calvinist” (emphasis mine). This is simply false. I am not anti-Calvinist. … Neither is it accurate to portray my recent review of the book Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue or my John 3:16 presentation as “anti-Calvinist.” One must distinguish between being against people who hold certain theological views and disagreeing with the views those people hold. I am not against any Calvinist in the Southern Baptist Convention. I do believe that Calvinism, especially five-point Calvinism, is biblically and theologically flawed at certain points.

In my book review and presentation at the John 3:16 conference, I was at pains to show this. It is apparent to me that some Calvinists within and without the SBC simply will not brook any criticism of Calvinism. To do so in their minds is to be anti-Calvinist.

Let me also say that there are occasions where I am against what Calvinists do or don’t do because of what they believe. I referenced one or two such incidents toward the end of my John 3:16 paper as well as in my book review. Why should this be a problem since Calvinists likewise reciprocate here? In fact, is not this rejoinder the result of Dr. Ascol’s own criticism of my criticism whereby he takes exception to what I have done or have not done because of what I believe? I consider this to be an example of being too thin-skinned.

Also, would it be possible for anyone reading Ascol’s blog to come to the conclusion that he is anti-non-Calvinist or anti-Classical Arminian? I suspect some could, some would, and I know of some who have. Sauce for the goose.

News flash: This is equivocation. When we say one is “anti-calvinist” – we very much do mean that someone is against reformed theology. That someone opposse it. To equivocate, as if the statement somehow means that one is personally dead set against the inclusion of Calvinists, as persons, in the SBC, is absolutely ridiculous. In fact, I would have to say that Dr. Allen knows this very well. It was a cheap attempt to score points. Yes, we recognize that, Dr. Allen. Thank you so very much for your attempt to score points off of us with your supporters via condescension. Does Dr. Allen think that we won’t recognize such cheap tricks? If that is what he thinks, I sincerely hope he understands that we do, in fact, recognize such attempts for what they are. They certainly aren’t building any bridges. In fact, it simply propagates the contrary of his insistence that he has no personal animosity, when he makes such remarks. If one treats those one disagrees with such contempt for their understanding, one cannot be surprised if we respond as if he were being insulting. Frankly, if he doesn’t recognize it as insulting, that concerns me. What on earth is he teaching? While the personal dismissal is troubling, what troubles me more is the constant misrepresentation of the positions held by the men he defames. If this misrepresentation is so endemic – as Dr. White, Dr. Ascol, and others have shown – if his understanding of Reymond, Edwards, Owen, Calvin, not to mention Scripture itself, is that flawed – as has been shown by many in the Reformed faith – what on earth can we say other than what we are saying? Dr. Allen is either woefully ignorant – in which case, what is he doing teaching systematic theology? Or, Dr. Allen is being intentionally deceitful, by misrepresenting men of God. What else can we say? Did he not expect this response, when he penned his words for this talk? Did he not expect that those of the reformed faith would examine his words, and compare them to that of historical calvinists, modern calvinists? That those he criticized would not respond? We’ve done both – and we’ve found his comments woefully lacking in historical basis, understanding, and most especially, in any sort of Biblical foundation. Far be it from me to mince words – but in any sort of factual examination of his comments, they have no basis whatsoever in reality, these men’s comments, or in Scripture. This is why we comment so forcefully in our responses. His comments are an affront – not only to these precious men of God, but to the Scripture which we regard so highly. It’s not an attempt to “score points” – but to defend the Word, and the gospel we are commanded to preach. I exhort him to take that into consideration, and to examine his comments in light of Scripture, and not in light of Dr. Byrne’s conception of historic calvinism, which seem to greatly influence his comments.

Yes, I’m a bit perturbed. I’ll admit it. This does not, however, dismiss the fact that the speakers at the J316 conference are either intentionally misrepresenting the Reformed faith to attempt to “stem the tide” of young adherents to calvinism, or misunderstand our position so badly that they are simply firing darts into strawmen constructed of various and sundry piecemeal constructs with no real foundation in real, reformed theology. This insistence is not a new one. Men have been misrepresenting Fuller as an antagonist to Gill for quite a long time. Gill has been represented as a hyper-calvinist for a very long time. Owen, Turretin, and others have also been represented as hyper-calvinist. These representations, however, are simply not true, if you examine their works. You can see a consistent representation of historic, orthodox calvinism in all of the aforementioned men; and their affirmation of it’s doctrines has consistently led to the careful and painstakingly precise exegesis that is the hallmark of the reformed faith. To say otherwise is simply to anachronistically read your own free-will requiring principles back into historic calvinism. To cite Edwards’ Freedom of the Will to somehow affirm unlimited atonement is utterly baffling. To water Owen down in such a manner is simply amazing. To wrest Scripture to an affirmation of autonomous free will, I’m sorry, is just incredible. When you do even a cursory examination of the writings of both the historical and modern champions of human autonomy, and compare them to the historical and modern champions of God’s unquestioned, and incomparable sovereignty; there is simply no comparison whatsoever in the quality and consistency of argumentation. There is no difference in this discussion, either.

Friends, I’m just plain annoyed that this debate even exists in the SBC. That men are so self-deceived that they think that championing man’s autonomous free will, as practically every other apostate denomination does, is somehow an affirmation of Scripture, simply appalls me. If you don’t like the harshness of that comment – too bad. Sneer at the “unkind” tone all you like. I do love my brethren who disagree – but the love of the brethren is grounded in love of Scripture, first and foremost. If you reject the Word of God, and it’s position on the place of man, the place of your will, and the place of your own determination in your own salvation – if you persist in the Romish pursuit of decisional works in your own salvation – if you persist in the downright slander and libel of those who faithfully preach the word of God, for the sake of your desire to preserve the choice of man, while advocating the slavery of God’s will to the will of man – expect opposition. Expect opposition when you defame men who preach the gospel without fear or favor, to all men. Expect opposition when you condescendingly assume that those who were graciously brought to transformation of their mind, lovingly corrected of their conformation to the world in their embrasure of the sovereignty of their own wills, are simply ignorant of history, theology, and Scripture. Sirs, we are most decidedly not ignorant. If we were, we wouldn’t be objecting to the unfair usage of the historical calvinists whom we have read, love, and emulate, as they emulated Christ. Expect opposition when you paint the men who have done so much to teach us the Word out to be heretics, scripture-twisters, and the like. When you tell us that the gospel we preach is nothing of the sort. I beg to differ, sirs, and I expect your opposition when I say the following. “Open union with the people of God is most desirable. It would argue disloyalty in a soldier if he would not wear his regimentals, and refused to take his place in the ranks. True, he might fight alone, but it would probably turn out to be a sorry business. If God’s people will not be ashamed of us we need not be ashamed of them. I should not like to go into a public assembly disguised in the dress of a thief; I prefer my own clothes, and I cannot understand how Christians can bear themselves in the array of worldlings.” – C.H. Spurgeon I, Sirs, think very much that you are ashamed of us. Further, I feel that you are, in fact, ashamed of the Gospel.

Sirs, a gospel which presents sin as sickness, not death; a gospel which presents a foreseen work of faith as the sole, passive acknowledgment of God in salvation of sinners; a gospel which presents Christ as dying for the never-to-be-justified, along with those who will be justified; a gospel which presents the works of faith and repentance as the requirements for regeneration; a gospel which presents certainty of salvation as a nebulous (but still within the freely willed choice of man?) “seal”, but without the decretal, sovereign will of God as the complement to and surety for it – this is a gospel without power, and not the Gospel of Scripture. There is indeed a Gospel delivered once and for all to the saints. The gospel that was presented in this conference is nothing of the sort. You wonder why there was such a response? The response was due to the sub-biblical gospel presented, the dismissive manner in which the Scriptural Gospel was treated, and the frequent, cavalier, even reckless accusations thrown at ministers of the Gospel. First and foremost, the response engendered by the John 3:16 conference was instigated by the complete disregard for Scripture shown by those who spoke. Secondly, it was instigated by the insistence of the speakers to misrepresent and redefine reformed theology. Thirdly, it was instigated by the strange and acontextual cherry-picking of quotes from reformed theologians to substantiate the claims made by the speakers.

As has been shown, by many, many folks around the web, the conference was an unmitigated debacle. It has done nothing but polarize things further – I don’t really midn that, in some ways, because it shows what they really think, when they get together, but will not say in a conventional setting – only in conferences. I challenge Dr. Allen to discuss these things publicly, in a formal setting, with Dr. White, as he has been asked to. Let the SBC see your arguments for your position. Let Dr. Byrne, Dr. Yarnell, Dr. Allen, Dr. Land, Dr. Hunt, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Keathley, Dr. Vines, Dr. Stanley, and Dr. Caner debate these issues publicly, with their theological opponents in and out of the SBC. This was an All-Star conference, as I’ve said. If they truly feel, as Dr. Allen said, that “a move toward 5-point Calvinism is a move away from the Gospel” – let’s hash it out, instead of doing this conference-sniping. Instead of skirting around the issue, let’s get this issue concerning the Gospel out in the open, and freely discussed in public. Let’s debate it, instead of sniping from the opposing sides. If you are truly against the gospel preached by the reformed, then let’s see some real discussion of that, and discussion with the men you disagree with. Like myself. Let’s see, from Scripture, how your position stacks up. Debate it. Yes, yes, good men can disagree on it.

I’m tired of the pussyfooting around. Let’s start talking to each other, not past each other. I don’t need you to tell me what I believe. I need you to show me how what you beleive accords with Scripture. “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason … my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” ~ Luther

Here we stand, my friends. We can do no other.

I’ll leave you with something from the Prince of Preachers.

It has this singular virtue also—it is so coherent in all its parts. You cannot vanquish a Calvinist. You may think you can, but you cannot. The stones of the great doctrines so fit into each other, that the more pressure there is applied to remove them the more strenuously do they adhere. And you may mark, that you cannot receive one of these doctrines without believing all. Hold for instance that man is utterly depraved, and you draw the inference then that certainly if God has such a creature to deal with salvation must come from God alone, and if from him, the offended one, to an offending creature, then he has a right to give or withhold his mercy as he wills; you are this forced upon election, and when you have gotten that you have all: the others must follow. Some by putting the strain upon their judgments may manage to hold two or three points and not the rest, but sound logic I take it requires a man to hold the whole or reject the whole; the doctrines stand like soldiers in a square, presenting on every side a line of defence which it is hazardous to attack, but easy to maintain. And mark you, in these times when error is so rife and neology strives to be so rampant, it is no little thing to put into the hands of a young man a weapon which can slay his foe, which he can easily learn to handle, which he may grasp tenaciously, wield readily, and carry without fatigue; a weapon, I may add, which no rust can corrode and no blows can break, trenchant, and well annealed, a true Jerusalem blade of a temper fit for deeds of renown. The coherency of the parts, though it be of course but a trifle in comparison with other things, is not unimportant. And then, I add,—but this is the point my brethren will take up—it has this excellency, that it is scriptural, and that it is consistent with the experience of believers. Men generally grow more Calvinistic as they advance in years. Is not that a sign that the doctrine is right. As they are growing riper for heaven, as they are getting nearer to the rest that remaineth for the people of God, the soul longs to feed on the finest of the wheat, and abhors chaff and husks. And then, I add—and, in so doing, I would refute a calumny that has sometimes been urged,—this glorious truth has this excellency, that it produces the holiest of men. We can look back through all our annals, and say, to those who oppose us, you can mention no names of men more holy, more devoted, more loving, more generous than those which we can mention. The saints of our calendar, though uncanonized by Rome, rank first in the book of life. The names of Puritan needs only to be heard to constrain our reverence. Holiness had reached a height among them which is rare indeed, and well it might for they loved and lived the truth. And if you say that our doctrine is inimical to human liberty, we point you to Oliver Cromwell and to his brave Ironsides, Calvinists to a man. If you say, it leads to inaction, we point you to the Pilgrim Fathers and the wildernesses they subdued. We can put our finger upon every spot of land, the wide world o’er, and say, “Here was something done by a man who believed in God’s decrees; and, inasmuch as he did this, it is proof it did not make him inactive, it did not lull him to sloth.”
The better way, however of proving this point is for each of us who hold these truths, to be more prayerful, more watchful, more holy, more active than we have ever been before, and by so doing, we shall put to silence the gainsaying of foolish men. A living argument, is an argument which tells upon every man; we cannot deny what we see and feel. Be it ours, if aspersed and calumniated, to disprove it by a blameless life, and it shall yet come to pass, that our Church and its sentiments too shall come forth “Fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners.”

I will say, from the outset, that this post will have political overtones – but only peripherally. I’m not much of a political pundit, but the recent election has served to show a very clear demarcation in worldviews – the subject addressed by this blog. My wife has a childhood friend that she’s kept up with, who tends very much toward a liberal viewpoint of Christianity, social issues, and moral issues. As I read her take on the election, I was a bit taken aback at a nominal Christian expressing such things about a man with such an obviously antithetical viewpoint to orthodox Christianity.

“It felt like a big moment. I could imagine being part of this massive wave of people, with hope burning in our hearts, having faith that this vote wasn’t a risk but a shout for desperately needed change. … I didn’t quite believe it until I turned the channel to CNN, where at least they had put the holograms away for a few minutes, and my heart opened wide to receive the truth, the beautiful truth shining like the sun in my eyes. It’s true. It’s good. It’s here. Thank God.”

Now, if you’ll pardon me for a moment, that looks… idolatrous. I really don’t know how else to put it. A mere man, no matter how powerful, is not worthy of such speech. I can’t pare it down to anything else. I’d like to – but I really can’t see how it’s anything else. “Do not trust in princes, In mortal man, in whom there is no salvation.” Can we reduce this to anything else? As I also quoted in my response, “Woe to those who call evil, good, and good, evil.” When you pair this with the fact that Obama has voted for late term abortion of babies, has in fact voted for the death of babies who somehow survive their abortions, supports so-called homosexual “marriage”, has ties to Islamic groups likeCAIR, sat under Rev. Wright, whose theology was discussed recently by both Dr. James White and myself, not to mention his varied ties to shady characters of every sort – I find it amazing, when we are told to not let immorality, impurity, or greed be even named among us!

Are we not told that …”although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them?” What then, is the Scriptural response to such an action? Hearty approval of those who practice such things? Are we to idolize such persons? Consider them to be the answer to our prayers for… hope and change? We cannot, are not, and must not! Yet, some who claim the name of Christ do so. Why is this?

The answer is simple – and it fits the purpose of this blog exactly. Presuppositions. Those who are thinking in such a way, are “children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.” What, according to the next verse, is the antithesis to such a state? “… Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”

What further amazed me, was this comment on that post. “Just because you believe in someone’s right to choose to do something doesn’t mean you believe in that something they choose to do.” What is it we just talked about? What does Romans 1 warn us of? Those who give approval to such things. The argument that says sin should be allowed as a choice is specious on it’s face. Sin, my friends, is sin. Saying a certain sin is permissible shows something of our willingness to compromise the truth of God. Also, it shows what our view of truth really is. From where it is derived. Does that not sound likesubjectivism ? A relativistic view of man-derived truth, with no stable foundation? I can’t see it in any other way. The original poster, (in her request that I no longer comment on her blog) had this to say; “All I’m going to say here right now is that I continue to celebrate the difference of opinion we can have in our country. And that truly we are all different and I’d rather be accepting of that fact rather than spend time arguing, especially in the presence of people who don’t ascribe to our certain choice of belief. I don’t think we shed light by tossing Scripture (or Tertullian) back and forth between us.” She refers to the fact that I quoted Tertullian’s indictment (in his Apology) of the Roman practice of the abandonment of unwanted infants to the elements, and noted elsewhere that it made her think. I truly hope it did.. He also had a bit to say about abortion – and my point was that it was considered barbarous behavior 1800 years ago – yet we consider it somehow appropriate today. This is progress?

I’d like to examine the inherent presuppositions in her statement above. What I find interesting, first, is her equation of opinions to moral judgment. Is morality truly nothing more than an “opinion”, comparable to one’s like or dislike for, say, lemon meringue pie? Should the fact that people think morality is merely an opinion be celebrated? Then, take her next statement into consideration. Shall we, in fact, accept that simply because some people reject God, are hostile to God, and sin against God, this is ample excuse to refrain from casting down the strongholds we arecommanded to throw down, erected against the knowledge of God? Then, examine this innocuous-sounding phrase; “our certain choice of belief”. Ignoring, for a moment, that “certain”,definitionally, means “true, sure, settled” – certanus – do we really “choose” our belief? Is not faith a gift of God, as Scripture says? Do we, and I’ll be intentional – choose our epistemology as if choosing a hat? Isn’t that the very thing in contention? Whether it’s possible, whether we should? I think that we can find the crux of the matter right here. The underlying assumption is that we simply choose to believe this way – and others do not. Therefore, there is no inherent superiority to our belief – we just chose it, after all. It isn’t as if it’s intrinsically true. Therein lies the problem. This woman has ceded the grounds of truth to man, and removed it from the feet of God. She is not interested in God’s truth – at least not in practice. The last comment is particularly revealing as well.

“I don’t think we shed light by tossing Scripture (or Tertullian) back and forth between us.” This is a breathtakingly plain indictment of the grounds for her conception of truth. Scripture is not the only sure source of divinely revelatory truth to man, and for man. It is not the sole means whereby we mayknow God, and His requirements for us. It is merely something to be “tossed” – not “The Truth,” but merely “a truth” – for, and it is very apparent, there is no truth with a capital to her, and it saddens me to see it. I’ve been to her house, we’ve shared time together, and she’s been friends with my wife a decade and a half. She, however, is not seeing the Word as what it truly is. “the word of truth, in the power of God; by the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the left”.

The Word is our only source of truth – the Sword of the Spirit. Living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart, divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. That is what the Word is. I truly grieve that she does not see it as such – and she will see this post – and my hope is that she may, perhaps, be shown to the Word by it. I pray that thereby the Lord may open her eyes as to the nature of what she dismisses in favor of a merely temporal ruler, and for the opinions of men, who relegate the divine Word to merely another opinion. I’m sorry, but it’s anything but opinion. The Gospel – and the Word which proclaims it, that we may proclaim it in turn, is an exclusive Gospel. It is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. I can only pray, and I hope you pray with me, that all of the temporal fluff that obscures the truth of the Word’s centrality will be revealed to us all more and more – and to her most of all. We cannot compromise our view of Scripture, and subject it to mere opinion, as if it has no more worth than the bare estimation of man. Scripture is God-breathed, and we must treat it as such.

I’m breaking my politics fast, to make a very short comment.

When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?

If you are a Christian, and in the doldrums about the results of this election; Consider.

Consider the kindler of the stars you can see above you. Consider the Creator, whose words brought into existence those incandescent thermonuclear dots of light spread across the heavens like a panoply of minuscule brilliance. Consider the transcendence of the Almighty, whose words brought all things into their appointed places, whose very will set all things – past, present, and future – into motion, all of which obey His will, to the slightest detail. Consider your Savior, the God-Man Christ Jesus, without which nothing was made that was made. Consider all of this – and then consider the relative importance of what we all know to be the judgment of Almighty God on this nation, in this election. It is only a passing phantom. An event ordained, yes – but still ordained within His sovereign decree. One of billions every day.

Be still, and know that He is God. We are the light of the world, brethren. The light is more easily seen in contrast with darkness, and your purpose on this earth is to be that light. Your God is great, and greatly to be praised. Thus, fear no evil. He is with you. He will greatly bless you – and He will use this for good, for those who love God, and are called according to His purpose. He always does, does He not? Thus, while you may mourn, mourn on the march. We have work to do, and we must be about it.

Well, I have to admit, it feels a bit like 3 years ago, yesterday. Big honkin’ hurricane in the Gulf, fear and agitation as people ponder their own helplessness in the face of the force of nature’s fury. The added weight, this time, of the memories of devastation, destruction, and loss of life. What is brought to mind most clearly at this time, however, is the fact that there are no accidents. There is nothing that is not the express will of God, or that is not His good and perfect will. With this thought in the forefront, we can only think one thing, when facing nature’s wrath.

This is our Father’s world. Do you really know, deep down in your heart of hearts, what the implications of this are? It’s truly a wonderful thing to behold. Not because I’m “smarter”, or more courageous. (As a side note, what else I find interesting is that our church is in the midst of a study of the book of Joshua, my namesake. What is the cardinal principle of this book? Be Strong and Courageous! Why? For the LORD your God is with you wherever you go!) When we look at all things through the prism of God’s glorification of Himself, and His promises to glorify Himself through us, can we submit to fear? Is it even an option for us to buckle beneath pressure, or bemoan our “fate”, as if God did not have a greater glory to involve us in, through it? I cannot imagine such a thing. I cannot wish such a thing. I cannot, because I know the God I serve. When faced with situations that threaten us, tempt us to ditch our faith, and abandon our hope, we can have only one response.

Joy. Does that sound strange to you? Perhaps it shouldn’t.

How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality. ~ 2 Cor. 8;2

Didn’t we see that, after the last big storm?

Then he said to them, “Go, eat of the fat, drink of the sweet, and send portions to him who has nothing prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord. Do not be grieved, for the joy of the LORD is your strength.” ~ Neh 8:10

Do you see, yet? What gives us strength?

But let all who take refuge in You be glad, Let them ever sing for joy; And may You shelter them, That those who love Your name may exult in You. ~ Psalm 5:11

Who is our shelter? What is the subject of the great hymn, “A Mighty Fortress”? Is this not the same principle?

For You, O LORD, have made me glad by what You have done, I will sing for joy at the works of Your hands. ~Psalm 92:4

Even hurricanes are the work of God’s hands. I’ll repeat something I said a long time ago, and has stuck with me ever since.

During the hurricane, it was an adventure. The kind of adventure guys really do like, and don’t really care if anyone thinks they’re crazy for liking. The wind made the house shudder, and shake. The trees’ branches were snapping off right and left, making an awful racket. The rain was driving so hard that it really was painful, when it hit you. Small objects were flying past you at 70+ mph – and all you could do was hold on. I’ll confess – I loved it.

I’m not crazy. I’m a typical guy, I think. I never felt like I was in *real* danger. But I knew I could have been. Adrenaline makes you feel like a million bucks. It’s that feeling you get when you take a curve a hair too fast in a sports car, and get dangerously close to spinning out of it – but you don’t. Your heart races, your blood is pumping so loud in your ears… and you feel alive. Okay, maybe I am a bit of an adrenaline junkie.

Mostly, though, I was in awe of the display of God’s might. Not that this was a “judgment”, or anything. Just the fact that God’s creation is so breathtakingly powerful, and knowing that God created it. If this storm is this powerful… and God made it… what must God be like?

I spent a good bit of the time curled up on the porch, head on my knees, tears in my eyes, and my heart in my throat. I wasn’t scared. I don’t think i was ever scared once, to be honest. It was too freaking cool. I was praising God, all by myself. Just me, and God, in the middle of this mighty storm – and I was singing. Brokenly, but I was singing. It was that awesome. It’s truly an experience I really don’t quite know how to share. God was just… there. He was with me. I’m not going to say I felt His “special hand of protection on me” – although it may well have been. I just know God was present, because His children can always feel it. I can’t explain it any other way.

I wasn’t scared. I wasn’t even worried. I was awestruck by how unbelievably magnificent a thing that His power had wrought. I can’t really say I’d still say the same, had I sustained more damage. We had almost nothing damaged at all. All I know is – that hurricane, from the inside, was quite possibly the coolest thing I’ve ever seen in my life. I couldn’t help but fall down and praise. I just couldn’t. I hadn’t told anyone this story yet – not really. Bethany heard it, sort of. I don’t know if I got it across very well to her at the time. It seemed a bit odd a thing to share, really. It’s what happened, though. In the wake of all the devastation, all the pain, and all the loss – I almost feel bad saying I think it was so neat. The actual storm WAS neat. What it did wasn’t so neat. The storm itself… I have never seen anything like it, and likely never will again.

I got to sit and watch the ENTIRE thing from a dry place, I was safe, and I praised God.

I said that back in this post, in Dec. of ’05.

In the midst of a possible dervish of destruction – you know what? God is still in control of things. He’s still the Author and Finisher of our faith. He still has His hand on the tiller. He still “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb 1:3). Fear not!

There is a perfect purpose in the midst of these events, no matter whether we can see it or not. So, while I did do some preparation for the hurricane’s landfall in my area, I also know I can’t lose sight of the fact that there is no room for “a spirit of fear” in the heart of a Christian – only for power, and for love, and for a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7). So, if you also find yourself in the path of a storm, or in the midst of difficulty; “Be strong and courageous! Do not tremble or be dismayed, for the LORD your God is with you wherever you go.” (Joshua 1:9)

I’ve live-blogged the last few hurricanes I’ve been around for – I’ll likely do the same with this one, as long as I can. I’m 8 miles north of the beach, same house as last time, and the same God is still my God 😀 Don’t worry. God’s in control, and His glory will be displayed in this. In the meantime, pray, meditate on His goodness, and even love this awesome display of might in His creation. I assure you – it is a powerful and blessed thing.

Michael Memorial Baptist Church- 8-3-2008, sermon preached by Dr. Bill Safley

First, let me thank you for caring enough about your church to be here and help with this decision. And, let me sincerely thank those of you who were kind enough to let me know of your concerns ahead of time. That really helps, and I hope that will make this time more productive. Let me also remind of our plan. Tonight, I am going to try to address as many of these issues as I can. And, I want this time to be, above all else, biblical. I think we all can start by agreeing that what counts most is not what I think or you think, but what God thinks. So, I’ll try to stick close to Scripture. Then, you will have to judge whether or not what I say is, in fact, truly in line with the instructions in the Bible about organizing and administering the local church. And, let me get a couple of things out of the way up front. You may not agree with your leadership. You may speak or vote against this – and we will have a secret ballot so everyone will not be pressured in any way – you can oppose this, and we will still love you. And, I’m aware that there are some strong feelings, so I would plead with you to keep your mind open to what we say. Also, don’t bother taking notes, or writing down Scripture references; the text from which I am speaking will be available to you to read and pray over. As we start, let’s ask for the wisdom of God to be with us over the next few weeks.

We are considering a new church Constitution. This all started in a Deacon’s meeting in June of ’06. One of our deacons was frustrated that he was not having more time for ministry. That’s where this man’s heart is, and he didn’t want to be distracted with Administrative issues. He understood the biblical call of a deacon is to be a servant. It turned out several deacons felt the same way. As this church currently set up, the Administrative Board is a sub-committee of the deacon body, and reports to them. So, I was asked by the Deacons to help formulate a new Constitution that would allow us to better separate the administrative and ministry functions of leadership. I did not start this ball rolling, though I certainly do agree with it as scriptural. It began in that Deacon’s meeting. At that time, we thought that a simple revision / a touch-up of what we have was not going to be adequate, so I moved in the direction of a new document. I got together, and then presented to the deacon body a framework to revise. Now, two years and many revisions later, these documents come to you for your consideration with the recommendation of the Deacons and the By-Laws Committee. How was this document formed? To quote our dear friend, Chuck Brooks, you don’t want to go out and reinvent the wheel. So, my starting point was to gather constitutions now in use from a variety of churches, mostly Baptist, and start there. We didn’t write most of this document. The basic framework is from the Constitution of the Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D. C., with some additions from other churches as appropriate, and adjustments for our particular situation. This is a legal document, which requires some precision and legal language, but there has never been any intent to confuse or hide anything. You can go to the Capital Hill Church web site and download that document, and get a very good idea of where much of this started. Still, we have made every effort to consider the special needs and situations of our congregation here. I have received the concerns that this proposed Constitution turns our church into a (“”) secular or social organization. I have been told that this document is “unfriendly.” We are not a secular organization, as this Constitution clearly reflects. Yet, we still must function in a secular world. A Constitution is needed to do that. And, while we don’t want to ever be unfriendly in our approach to anyone, we also must be clear, saying in this document what we believe and are going to do. And, remember our most important concern should be whether or not this document accurately reflects what the Bible teaches. And, I don’t think you will ever find a secular organization with that emphasis.

One question asked why we should have a Constitution at all. It is true that this is a legal requirement to do business, specifically to borrow money. But, in my opinion, there is a much more important reason. From the very start of the church, there have been and still are false believers who want to twist the meaning of Scripture. Peter says that (2Pet. 3:16). The first example of this was the Judaizers who hounded Paul, and the churches he founded. These were self-appointed teachers who said that Christians had to be circumcised and keep all the Law of Moses. They caused such a ruckus that the church met in the first church counsel in Acts 15 to settle the issue. The leaders of the church, then, put out a statement to protect the truth. That has been the pattern of the church ever since. Counsels met from time to time to reject heresy, correct error, and protect the Scripture. And, Baptists have always seen the need for this protective document in the local church. That is the reason the Convention publishes the Baptist Faith and Message. That document clarifies what we, as Southern Baptists, believe the Bible means by what it says. The earliest Baptist confession I can find is the first London Confession of Faith from 1644. The first Baptist statement in America was the Philadelphia Confession of 1742. I wish it was as simple as just saying, “We believe the Bible and love Jesus,” but it is not. Mormons agree with that. A Jehovah’s Witness can say that. So, a Constitution defining what we believe is essential, and I think that document should also say how we will run our church. That’s necessary from a legal standpoint, from a theological standpoint, and I think it is required in order to be honest with new members. There are so many interpretations of some parts of Scripture; we ought to be clear with potential members where we stand simply on the basis of honesty and integrity. And, there is the issue of protecting ourselves in a society that will sue over anything and everything. This document helps protect us in that area. And, I’ve heard that we shouldn’t worry about things like that and just trust God. But, the Bible also says we are not to put the Lord to a foolish test (Matt. 4:7). It’s like Bro. Frank Schmidt said, “The Lord is not going to do for us, what he has told us to do for ourselves.” If I get on my motorcycle without a helmet and wind up a brain-dead, do I bear responsibility for that? Sure. Jesus says (Matt. 10:16), “Be wise as serpents.” Stay out of obvious trouble. Take reasonable precautions. That is Scriptural. Proverbs agrees This is Prov. 22:3, “A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, But the simple pass on and are punished.” That said, I think we see the need for a Constitution. Also, I would ask you to understand there is a certain priority in these four documents. The statement of faith and church covenant should be rock solid and nonnegotiable. We should be utterly united there. The Constitution certainly is somewhat flexible, and open to amendment, but amendments should be carefully considered, and have to be properly done. The membership application, however, is something that can be modified at any time.

As far as I can tell, I think the main issues are those of Membership requirements, Church Discipline, and Elder Rule. So, we will try to look at these in that order, which is the order they occur in the Constitution. To consider Church Membership, I want to start by reading to you a resolution adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention at the national meeting a couple of months ago.

The resolution is entitled “On Regenerate Church Membership and Church Member Restoration.” The Southern Convention national meeting on June 11 of this year passed this. So, that’s 8 weeks ago.

“WHEREAS, The ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle, with Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message describing the church as a “local congregation of baptized believers”; and

WHEREAS, A New Testament church is composed only of those who have been born again by the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word, becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, the local church’s only Lord, by grace through faith (John 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9), which church practices believers’ only baptism by immersion (Matthew 28:16-20), and the Lord’s supper (Matthew 26:26-30); and

WHEREAS, Local associations, state conventions, and the Southern Baptist Convention compile statistics reported by the churches to make decisions for the future; and

WHEREAS, the 2007 Southern Baptist Convention annual Church Profiles indicate that there are 16,266,920 members in Southern Baptist churches; and

WHEREAS, Those same profiles indicate that only 6,148,868 of those members attend a primary worship service of their church in a typical week; and

WHEREAS, The Scriptures admonish us to exercise church discipline as we seek to restore any professed brother or sister in Christ who has strayed from the truth and is in sin (Matthew 18:15-35; Galatians 6:1); and now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, June 10-11, 2008, urge churches to maintain a regenerate membership by acknowledging the necessity of spiritual regeneration and Christ’s lordship for all members; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we humbly urge our churches to maintain accurate membership rolls for the purpose of fostering ministry and accountability among all members of the congregation; and be it further

RESOLVED, That we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any failure to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18); and be it further

RESOLVED, That we humbly encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, even if such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in those churches, and be it finally

RESOLVED, That we humbly urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention and their pastors to implement a plan to minister to, counsel, and restore wayward church members based upon the commands and principles given in Scripture (Matthew 18:15-35; 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15; Galatians 6:1; James 5:19-20).

That’s sort of like our proposed Constitution, in that there is a lot of fancy language, but that is a call to honesty. The truth the convention sees is that if someone never comes to church, we cannot honestly count him as a member. If someone gives no evidence of being saved / regenerated, we ought not tell them they are by admitting them as members of the church. If someone sins like the lost world, and will not repent, we should take a stand, for their sake. That’s what this resolution is about. These messengers realize the church is weak and worldly. And, they realize that the answer to that can only be found in the Scripture. So, I want to focus, first on the definition of a church. That is where this resolution starts, with a call to work for “regenerate church membership.” What does that mean? Well, to be regenerate is to be saved. So, this is saying a true New Testament church will not knowingly admit people who are lost. This is in keeping with the Bible, of course. The letters to the churches in the New Testament are addressed to those who are “saints” and “love Jesus.” In April, I gave a sermon on the importance of church membership, which I won’t repeat. But, I would hope we could agree that formal church membership is the example of the New Testament, and is important. Also, I would hope we would agree to restrict church membership to Christians. To me, that is self-evident. You don’t have to think a lot about that one. But, this brings us to the second page of the proposed Constitution and the requirements for joining our church. One objection is that these are too strict because we can’t see someone’s heart. And, we can’t. But the Bible says that if someone doesn’t understand the gospel / if they have not trusted in the death of Christ alone for salvation, received by faith alone accompanied by repentance, the Bible says they aren’t saved (1Cor. 16:22). Paul warns us in Galatians (1:6f) against a “different gospel” that doesn’t save, but brings a curse. “With the heart (Rom. 10:10) one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” But, if the confession is not the true Gospel / if the Jesus these people believe in isn’t the Jesus of the Bible, they aren’t saved and shouldn’t be members of a church. If someone is in open rebellion against God, and will not repent and turn, then there is a problem with the heart as they have not believed unto righteousness. If someone wants to join this church, and I learn they run a strip joint in Biloxi, I would like to ask them to repent and close it before they are admitted to membership.

Basically, there are five membership steps, and let me tell you how we anticipate this working. An individual would indicate a desire to join our church, and we would ask them to fill out an application form and agree to abide by what this church believes. A mature believer will have to talk to them and make sure that they can give a credible witness to being saved. That could be done when they first express an interest in membership, or on a home visit later. And, I want you to understand this is being done now. When someone tells me that they (“”) “are saved,” or even have a membership in a Southern Baptist Church, that doesn’t mean much by itself. I have had people come down seeking membership who did not understand the Gospel. I have asked them how people are saved / what the gospel is / how people go to heaven, and the answer is along the lines of “Well, you just try to keep the golden rule, and live by the 10 Commandments, and hope you’re good enough when you die.” I’m sorry, you don’t have to be able to see the heart to understand that person is not saved. They don’t need to transfer a membership, they need to repent, believe in Jesus as the only way of salvation through faith alone. Then, they should join the church through baptism. Anything less is to refuse to love them enough to tell them the truth. The most recent experience I had like that resulted in the individual stopping to examine his heart. He came to the realization he was lost, even though he was a church member. He professed Christ. I, then, had the privilege of baptizing him. This membership interview is not a theological exam, or an interrogation. It is simply a spiritual talk to see if the person understands the gospel, and can give some evidence of true faith and repentance. And, I believe this is commanded in the Scripture.

For that, I would refer you to the little book we recently studied, 2 John. Starting at V9, John says, “Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. [If someone does not hold to the correct doctrine about Christ, he “does not have God,” i.e. he is not saved.] He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. [That implies that you can tells something about their salvation by their doctrine.] If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; (V11) for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.” That is a serious verse that we ought to take seriously. John is saying there are false Christians out there, and we should not accept them just because they claim some relationship with Jesus. Remember, James (2:19) says that demons believe. They have a relationship with Jesus; it’s just not a good one. We are to evaluate everyone before we affirm them as believers or assist them in any ministry. A failure to do that leaves us accountable to God for the damage these lost people do in Christ’s church. If we aren’t supposed to let them into our house, I don’t see how you can let them into your church. And, this is established, time-honored Baptist practice. John L. Dagg was one of the 6 or 8 men regarded as the Founders of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845. He wrote the first systematic theology book by a Baptist in America. That book was a standard text in our seminaries for many years. In fact, it is still required reading in some. He also wrote a book on church order and organization. He said this, (“”) “In order that the church may judge whether a candidate is duly qualified for [church] membership, they should hear his profession of faith. … The churches are not infallible judges, being unable to search the heart; but they owe it to the cause of Christ, and to the candidate himself, to exercise the best judgment of which they are capable. To receive anyone on a mere profession of words, without any effort to ascertain whether he understands and feels what he professes, is unfaithfulness to his interests, and the interests of religion.” In other words, to receive someone as a member without a look at their life and doctrine is bad for them and bad for the church. The apostle John commands us not to affirm or aid anyone who does not have “this doctrine.” OK, what is this doctrine? Well, remember the point is to have regenerate church membership, i.e. members who are actually saved. So, the doctrine at issue is what you must know to be saved, not your view of end times or the seven days of creation. You must believe in the God of the Bible: Father, Son, and Spirit. You must believe that Jesus is God. You must believe that you are a lost, condemned sinner who needs a Savior. You believe that Jesus is the Savior who died bearing your sins. You must believe that forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life is offered to you (Eph. 2:8-9) by grace through faith, and not by works or human effort. You must understand that, in receiving salvation, you surrender yourself to Jesus as both Savior and Lord with a commitment to obey as a disciple. And, you must believe the Bible: including such things as Jesus was born of a virgin, and rose bodily from the grave, ascended to heaven, and is one day coming back to judge the living and the dead. And, this examination is necessary because there are not only Baptist church members who don’t believe those things; there are Southern Baptist churches who don’t teach them. By God’s grace, there aren’t a large number of liberal and apostate Southern Baptist churches, but there are some. So, one who is a mature believer – an elder, a deacon, a faithful Sunday School teacher – should have a spiritual conversation with the person wanting to join this church. They should, then, vouch for them to the elder board. The candidate doesn’t have to appear before the board, but the board has to know that someone trustworthy has talked to them, and believes they are saved. And, Tony and I should not be the only ones making that decision, for the protection of the church. So, the elder board helps both positively and negatively. If there is someone I am a little concerned about, I can ask another elder to go talk to them. Or, if someone on the elder board knows that the candidate does own a strip club in Biloxi, we can deal with that before we admit them as a member. Remember, our witness as a church, as well as individuals, is at stake here. The candidate for membership will be asked to fill out the application form, appear before the church for affirmation, be recommended to the Elders after a brief spiritual interview. Also, we would ask them to complete a brief new member’s class. The order of all that is not restricted, in an effort to retain some flexibility. In this, the membership application can be easily modified by the Elders, and the one thing I might consider adding would be to advise people that an elder or deacon would be happy to help them fill it out.

Admission to membership is, of course, closely tied to what is called “Church Discipline.” That’s not the best term for it, because the purpose is restoration. This is the command of Paul in Galatians (Gal. 6:1), “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.” And, this goes on all the time, without people even knowing it. Someone cares enough about a Christian brother to go and tell them what they are doing isn’t what a Christian should do. Then, that Christian brother repents, and the relationship is restored. This is what we are supposed to do for each other. This happens all the time, and no one else knows about it, which is how it ought to be. At issue is what do you do with someone who persistently, over time, repeatedly refuses to repent. Please turn with me to Matt. 18.

To get us from membership to church discipline, I want to address for just a moment the idea that we are never supposed to make any judgments of another. Understand, that is a secular, worldly idea, not a biblical one. If you go back 100 years, good judgment and discernment were virtues. Those were respected and sought. So, the idea that any judgment is bad is wrong. Certainly, there is bad, inappropriate judgment, but there is also proper judging. We are not the final judge and do not determine anyone’s eternal salvation. So, whether it is in admission to membership or in discipline, we don’t really tell someone they are lost. We can’t know that. But, we can know whether or not they are acting like it. So, in love we are to go to them and say how worried we are for them, because we don’t see evidence of salvation in their life. That doesn’t always mean they are lost, but often / even usually, they are. But, that is why we are called to remove them from membership, and that does not indicate we know for certain whether or not they are saved. When Jesus says (Matt. 7:1), ““Judge not, that you be not judged,” He is talking about self-righteous, ungodly judgment. That is obvious if you keep reading in that passage for He then says (Matt. 7:5-7) to first get the speck out of your own eye. Then, you will be able to see clearly to help your brother get the plank out of his eye. It is not right, nor biblical, nor loving, nor Christian to leave the brother with the plank in his eye. Love demands we help him with it – love for him, and love for Christ. So, if we never make a judgment as to whether or not a plank is there / if we just pretend we don’t see it, how is that showing Christian love? The point is that we are to, first, deal with the sin in our own life, and then we will be able to go with sincerity and humility to help our brother. Then, in the next verse the Lord tells us to not give the holy to dogs, or pearls to swine. To do that requires we judge who are dogs and pigs. We want to be generous and forgiving and gracious and merciful in our judgment, but we cannot escape the command to judge. In John 7 (:24), in fact, Jesus commands us to “judge with righteous judgment.” Jesus was our example, and He made judgments about people. He was gracious and good to the repentant sinner (John 8:11), and he drove the unrepentant merchants out of the temple (John 2:15). And, both are equally manifestations of His perfect love which puts God’s honor, purposes, and causes first. But you might object, “He could see the heart.” OK, Paul says to the Corinthian church (1Cor. 5:12-13), “What have I to do with judging those also who are outside? [The obvious answer is ‘Nothing.’ God judges them. Then, Paul goes on to say,] “Do you not judge those who are inside?” [And what is the implied answer? Yes! Of course!] Therefore ‘put away from yourselves the evil person.’ ”

The most important text to deal with is Matt. 18 (:15-20), so I want us to quickly walk through this. V15 > “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.” That’s what is supposed to happen. We are to care about one another enough to help each other stay out of sin. As a candidate joins this church, we would make it clear that we are serious about this. We understand that the seductiveness of sin can trap any one of us. And, we understand that sin can and will mess up our own judgment. So, while we are in our right mind / before sin makes us crazy, we ask each other to do this for us. Christians do this for one another. It is, after all, church discipline, not pastor discipline. What sins should be dealt with in this way? Well, most simple personal offenses should usually just be forgiven and never mentioned in the first place, as (1Pet. 4:8) “love covers a multitude of sins.” But, when the sin is public, or serious, or damaging to the individual, the church, or the witness of Christ, we should go to them. We should, in love, and with all the gracious humility we can muster, plead with them for repentance. Often, that is all that is needed. So, what sins need to come under church discipline? Those that are public, serious, those you cannot forgive, and this is most important, sins that are unrepentant. A person does not come under church discipline / you are not removed from the church role for adultery, fornication, lying, cheating, stealing, homosexuality, axe murder, genocide, or nuclear war. You come under church discipline for a willful, persistent refusal to repent. And, that could involve the sin of gossip. If, month after month, you continue in gossip, and will not stop doing damage and causing division in the Bride of Christ, we have not choice but to act. And, we have to act with sufficient force and firmness to stop the damage. At any stage, repentance and turning from sin leads to restoration, and the process is over. So, V16 > “If he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ ” If the person will not listen, you go with witnesses. That is to protect you and the other person. These witness are to verify that sin is indeed occurring, and that the person is unrepentant. If either is not true, it’s over. And, sometimes, the witnesses might decide the whole deal is trivial; so, just forget about it. If so, you do. And, if the person listens to the group – again, repentance brings restoration. V17 > “And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.” I think the best plan for this is what we are recommending, i.e. that the church leaders get involved here and try to call the person to repentance. After they work with the sinning one, he will not hear, then the church leadership is to inform the church as a whole that we all need to seek this person out and plead with them to turn from whatever is the ongoing sin. You see, there is a step-wise ratcheting up of the pressure. And, if you have ever been involved in this, you know this takes months, occasionally years. Finally, back to V17 > “If he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” The person is hardened and simply will not listen to anyone, we are to treat him like a “heathen and tax collector.” What does that mean? What do you do with pagans and tax collectors? You try to get them in church and hear the word so that the Lord will soften their hearts. But, you also recognize they are, as best as we can judge, outside the covenant community of faith. You don’t let them teach, or serve, or speak or vote in business meetings. When you see them, you are kind and cordial, but you don’t enter into intimate fellowship with them. Instead, when you see them, you plead with them to turn from sin. And, you do not let them remain church members. Why not? What is the harm in leaving people like this on the role? The answer is simple. Church membership is a statement by this congregation that we believe that person is redeemed. Remember, the church is a body of people who are saved. But, Christians are characterized by a lifestyle of repentance (1John 1:9). So, when someone will not repent, there is real doubt as to their eternal fate. And, it is sin for us not to warn them that they are danger. Usually, considerable time should elapse at each stage before moving on to the next one. And, I think you can go back and forth between some stages for a while. We want repentance, so we must give God time to produce that. But, there also are instances when discipline must move quickly, for the protection of the innocent, or the church (Titus 3:10). And, of course, there are special circumstances, such as a person under discipline being disruptive. Then, we would have to ask them not to come back. Another special situation would be the wife of a man under discipline. She still has to strive to be a godly wife. This is hard, and gut-wrenching, which is why Jesus goes on to say (V18-20)), “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.” That’s not primarily talking about a prayer meeting, rather the subject is dealing with sin in the church. Jesus knows that this is very difficult, so He gives us this assurance of being with us in this action. If you do it right, the discipline decision you make is verified by heaven. Now, turn back a few pages to Matt. 13. This Constitution strives to follow that pattern, ultimately, if required, leading to the termination of membership by the body that voted to give it to him, i.e. the congregation. To answer the charge that this is some new idea or interpretation, at least for Baptists, I would go back to John L. Dagg, one of the founders of the SBC. He said, “When discipline leaves a church, Christ goes with it.” That is very strong, but many would agree with him. Another thing I have heard that I want to mention is the parable of the wheat and the tares in Matt. 13. Some have said that this forbids removing people from the church, but I would suggest that is not the proper view. Start with V24, which says that this is a parable about the Kingdom of heaven. Then, Jesus tells the parable of the weeds being in the field, and the owner not separating them from the wheat until the harvest. But, Jesus goes on to explain what this means. V37 > The sower is the Son of Man. V38 > the field is the (?) world, not the church. V39 > The harvest is the end. V41 > the servants who tend the field, do the reaping are (?) angels. Nowhere is the church mentioned. Nowhere is church discipline mentioned. This is a warning of the judgment to come on the lost in the world at large when Christ returns to establish His kingdom. And, honesty requires that I point out that – if this parable applies to church discipline – then we have a contradiction in the Scripture, and we can chuck the whole deal, go home and turn out the lights. Church discipline – including the removal from membership if necessary – is in Matt. 18, and 1 Cor. 5 & 6, and Romans 16 (:17-18), and 2 Thessalonians (3:14), and so on. And as far as the argument that no other Baptist church is doing this, that is obviously not true by the resolution we read earlier. That resolution is a clear call to return to the church discipline and integrity that once characterized our convention. Capital Hill Baptist and FBC, Durham, N. C. are both prominent churches that have reinstituted biblical church discipline after a lapse of many years, and there are others. This return to discipline in Baptist churches even made the Wall Street Journal this past January. The article was, of course, a distorted hatchet job, just as you would expect from the secular pr

ess. But, this shows that there is a major recovery of biblical principals going on in this area right now. One of the down sides of being a preacher is that your wife expects you to live like you preach. The world is looking at us. We say we believe the Scripture, and they expect us to live by it. If we claim to follow the Bible, we cannot escape the commands to deal with sin in the fellowship, even to the point of removing the unrepentant person from the church role.

Another issue of concern is the termination of membership when someone has been absent for a year. That is determined by looking at giving and Sunday School records, as those are the best ways we have to identify who is here. But, this is similar to church discipline, as those who are continually absent are in rebellion against the command (Heb. 10:25) to never forsake assembling with the church. Also, this is like church discipline in that you never hear of the cases of restoration, when the brother repents and is restored. You only hear about those who refuse to repent, and they are angry about it. You hear about the people who have gotten letters like this, and have gotten angry, because they have no intention of becoming faithful. But, you never hear about the other side. There are people in this church who got the letter, and said, “Hmm, they are right. I need to be back in church.” Those people returned and are now faithful and are growing in Christ.

Let me read the letter we send out to you.

Dear Church Member,
I pray this letter finds you well in both soul and body. However, we are concerned as our records show you have had no contact with us in the past year. Perhaps you just need some encouragement. If so, let me say that we would like nothing better than have you again be part of our fellowship. Further, we understand these records may be in error, so we would appreciate your letting us know if you have worshipped with us recently. Certainly, if there has been a change in your condition that prevents your attendance, we would like to know in order to pray for you and minister to you in what way we can.

If you have attended worship services or Sunday School with us in the last year, please let us know that. If you are now unable to attend because of illness, travel, military service, or due to some other cause, please let us know that as well. It is our desire to do what we can to minister to you. If you have moved, or are now attending another church, we would appreciate that information as well, and hope that God will bless you in your new church family.

Our desire is to obey Christ’s commission and “make disciples.” We would love for you to be actively involved in our fellowship. We have many exciting new opportunities for growth and service. However, we believe that active involvement in a local church is a biblical necessity for spiritual health and growth. Regular attendance in services and contact with the community of faith is good for both the Christian and the church. So, membership is both a privilege and a duty. Our bylaws call for removal from the membership of any individual who has not attended in the past twelve (12) months. Of course, this requirement is waived in the case of invalids, chronic illness, long-term care of ill family, military service, or any other justifiable cause of non-attendance. Please come and worship with us.

Our bylaws require we hear from you within 90 days from the date of this letter if you wish to remain a member of Michael Memorial. If our records are in error, please excuse this letter and help us correct them. If we can minister to you in any way, please let us know. We look forward to seeing you in church.

Now why should we ever send a letter like to anyone? Why should we care if there are people on the role who have been dead for 30 years? Well, the first thing is that, if we don’t do something, they are still going to be on the role in 200years. But, there are some better reasons. First, It is sin (Heb. 10:25). It is never loving, or kind, or helpful to approve sin, if only by acting like it is OK. Second, it is not spiritually good for a believer to be isolated from the Body of Christ. Without worship, the word, service, and fellowship they won’t be growing spiritually. They are dodging the accountability of the fellowship. So, if you really care about them, you will encourage them to what is spiritually healthy and beneficial. Also, if they are just allowed to wander off, that isn’t showing love for them, and, (1John 4:20) how can we claim to love God if we don’t really love our brother by wanting the best for him? To let these people remain on the role confuses them about their own spiritual state, as we are approving it. Also, this confuses the lost, watching world. These folks – at the moment anyway – are not interested in the things of God, and to retain them as members in good standing is bad for the witness of Christ. This is part of the reason the church now is indistinguishable from the world. And frankly, this puts the pastor in a difficult spot. He is supposed to be the shepherd watching over these people. How can he do that, when he doesn’t even know who they are, and they don’t know him? How can you shepherd sheep who aren’t part of the flock? To accept non-attenders as members in good standing is simply bad for them, bad for the church, and bad for the witness of Christ. Just from a practical standpoint, how can we give people voting rights in business meetings when they have no idea what the condition of the church is, because they haven’t been here for a year?

The third major concern is regarding the elder structure. This is unfamiliar to modern Baptist churches, but that unfamiliarity is something that has developed only in the last 100 years. At the time the SBC was founded, this was the normal structure of most churches. The first president of the SBC, W. B. Johnson, published an article strongly endorsing elder rule. And, we would be electing Baptist elders, not Presbyterian. We have talked in the past about elders, and deacons, and their qualifications and responsibilities. In the New Testament, the elder may also be called “bishop,” “overseer,” or “pastor.” Those words all refer to the same group of people. But, most Baptist churches have a ruling body that blurs the distinctions. There is only one group to lead the church, referred to as deacons. Inevitably, something has to give. If the emphasis in that group is on the oversight ministry, the service ministry suffers. If the emphasis is on the service ministry, the oversight suffers. That’s exactly what our deacons encountered. After investigation, mediation, and prayer, I really believe the Elder system is best, primarily because it is biblical. And, it has many practical advantages. There is help with the workload / the wisdom of many counselors (Prov. 15:22), and the power of group prayer. This promotes confidence in the congregation and helps share the burden of criticism. The elders serve at the pleasure of the congregation, and may be dismissed with proper procedure at any time – including the ministers. We remain a Baptist church. The ultimate authority is you. Of course, there is nothing in the Bible about sheep leading shepherds, so I would say the best thing to do is to elect godly men and then trust and follow them. And, if you find you can’t trust and follow them, get rid of them and find men you can trust and follow. The congregation can vote whatever it wants, whenever it wants. The only qualification that is unique to elders and not shared by deacons is the man must be “able to teach.” There is no reason to interpret that narrowly, so I believe this would be any man skilled in handling the word and able to teach, whether that be to large or small groups, or even individuals. So, while elders would be ordained as elders, this does not restrict the eldership to men were think of as “ministers” or “preachers.”

So, when it comes to elders, I really want to just share my own experience with you. I came up from the pew, not through seminary. And, as I read the Bible, there is no such thing as an elevated, special class of ministers in the New Testament. But, that is what has developed in many places. I have been in a number of Baptist churches over the years, and have seen this in action as the pastor forced his way into making every decision. I believe that the situation of one man alone on top of a pyramid of others under him is abnormal and corrupting, yet that is exactly where many Baptist churches are. I have seen real problems develop precisely because the pastor saw himself as king. Now, I am 58, and in good health. I plan to be here as the Lord allows, but I am eventually not going to be here. However, I have children who want to live on this coast, and I would like for them to have a church to attend that is run by the Bible, and not by a minister who sees himself as a cut above everyone else. I think elder rule is not only the biblical model, but is actually the best defense against an imperial pastorate in which the minister – or ministers – think they are kings and fall into the trap of lording it over their flock. This is actually not much of a change from the leadership structure as it is now, except to make the Elder Board report to the church rather than the deacons. The elder board, then, is a group of men to lead the church, in which the pastor has only one vote, like anyone else. And, the constitution requires that the majority of members of the Board not be receiving any sort of pay from the church. That is for the protections of the people. So, as you can see, this is not some sort of ministerial power grab. If anything, this is attempting to block the pastor from assuming power we see as unbiblical and improper.

Tonight, I have tried to show you two things: that we can defend this constitution as being thoroughly in line with Baptist church governance, both historical and current. Then secondly, and more importantly, we can defend this constitution as being thoroughly Scriptural. I know this has been long, and I’m sure many of you have still more questions and issues. And, that is good. The only thing that is not good is to let the question go unanswered. As we close, I just want to run two passages of Scripture by you. The first is Heb. 13:17, which warns the pastor or elder that he is going to have to stand before God and give account for the job he did “watching out for their souls.” As a church leader, I am going to stand before God and answer for how I treated His church. The longer I am in the ministry, the more this becomes a matter of genuine, serious concern for me. If I am accountable for a flock, I have to know who is in the flock. Doesn’t that make sense? That means we can’t have sheep that never are part of the flock, and are strangers to the shepherd. If I admit someone to the church who is obviously not a Christian, when a few simple questions would make the matter clear, I am going to have to answer for that. How can I be a shepherd and admit a wolf to the flock by sheer carelessness? Even if this lost person is not a wolf / even if he is just sincerely wrong, I have told this man he is saved / going to heaven / reconciled to God when he is not. I have not “watched out for his soul.” And, I am accountable for the damage he does in the church. If I fail to obey the inescapable biblical commands about church discipline, I am running Christ’s church like I want, rather than as He commands. That damages the fellowship and the testimony of Christ. So, that is not going to make our Lord happy.

And, this is an accountability for you as well. The other passage is Ezek. 33 that says a watchman who fails to warn others of approaching danger is going to held responsible by God for their deaths or loss. If you are saved, you know the truth, and you have a debt to the lost to warn them (Rom. 1:14). If we do not warn the lost church member of his danger / if we do not warn the non-attender of his sin and his danger of spiritual loss and stagnation / if we do not warn the unrepentant believer of the consequences of his sin, we do not love God, or others, and we will have to answer to our Lord. Obedience is crucial for blessing. I want the blessing of God on this church, and I think that means we have to run His church the way He tells us. Now, I know there is an awful lot of passion and emotion regarding all this, and that is not necessarily bad. I would ask you to take that passion and turn it into prayer. Don’t pray that everyone would come around to agree with you. Rather pray that all of us would find the wisdom to understand the teachings of Christ in the Scripture and put them into action. Pray that all of us would come around to agree with Christ.

As I said at the start, we will have an open discussion of all these issues next Sunday evening. I appreciate your being here tonight, and do hope that you will come back. There are 50 copies of the text of this sermon, which I will place in the foyer. If you would like to pick one up to review, pray over, and consider, please do. Or, the text will be online or available through the church office sometime tomorrow. Please remember that the issue is what the Scripture says. I have great sympathy with those who don’t like member screening and discipline and all that. You have no idea how much I don’t like being involved in those things. But, I want to be able to stand before God and say that I at least made an effort / weak and fallible, but still an effort to follow the Bible as closely as I could understand it. I pray that we would all have that commitment.

Since I posted anything. Why? Well… I got a contract job that involved a LOT of driving, then I was encouraged to do a class on church history and apologetics, so I’ve been studying like mad, and then there’s also been the fact that i went camping the weekend before last, and I’m doing some remodeling work. I’ve been busy.

I’ve been listening to a really crazy amount of stuff lately. Over 125 hours of church/theological history lectures, from Dr. James White and Dr. Kurt Daniel, a LOT of Piper sermons (including some truly awesome ones on Andrew Fuller and Athanasius), and just… stuff. Lots of stuff.

Oh, and I have some pretty heavy reading coming my way soon, so I don’t expect to get out of my blogging rut, soon. By His Grace and For His Glory, Always Ready, Scripture Alone, and The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

So, between that and the rest of the stuff I have going on – might be a big sparse around here.

Gotta take a listen to this, folks. Timely, and passionate defense of God’s created institution.

Enter the following code in, to embed this on your website or blog.

[code lang=”html4strict”]


[/code]

Hah! What a face.