Practical Theology Discussions

From Sin To Sex

2007-03-23T16:23:00.000-04:00

H.Clay Hodges
“The problem of Masturbation”

I recently attended the wedding of a close friend. It was a Christ centered, God glorifying occasion. Everyone who was in attendance walked away knowing that the couple valued Christ more than anything else in their lives. My friend married in his thirties. Some within the Christian community believe that waiting until your thirties to marry is considered quite old.

After the ceremony, it occurred to me that in the brief moments of the wedding, what was once sin, now had turned into one of the most glorifying acts that man and woman can do to please God. I am talking about sex. Christians know that any type of sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. Nonetheless, remaining sexually pure while dating is a struggle for all couples. While difficult, however, remaining sexually pure in dating is possible. My friends who were recently married had not kissed until their wedding day at the altar. The pastor who conducted the wedding announced their first kiss. It was a tremendous testimony to believers and unbelievers alike.

Everyone is in agreement that Biblical sex is glorifying to God and that any type of sexual behavior other than Biblical sex is sin. The dilemma lies within the fact that God has placed a sex drive in people. Outside the confines of marriage, sexual desires often lead to sin. On the wedding night, those same desires that were once sinful are now sacred.

What are Christians who are not married to do? You have a sex drive, yet you desire to please God. You are sexual beings, yet believers. You desire sex, yet despise sin. Has God set you up for failure?

What do unmarried believers do about their sex drive?

The answer leads to people suddenly becoming very uncomfortable. The subject of masturbation is frowned upon and highly avoided. Yet masturbation is a real issue facing real Christians who are highly dedicated to God. Christians need real answers. The Christian community provides answers to all types of potential problems for Christians. Yet, it seems as if on the issue of masturbation, Christians are left to sort it out for themselves. Christian theologians, especially in the realm of counseling, should be admonished for their lack of guidance in the area of masturbation. You want to ask someone, but who? You search the Scriptures, but masturbation is not specifically addressed (some might argue for a possible reference to masturbation in (Genesis 38:8-9). The verses deal with an Old Testament man named Onan involved in sexual intercourse with his with his sister-in-law--however the context of this passage appears not to fit the subject of masturbations). Consequently, many believers will be left with no answers and may be too embarrassed to ask someone.

Oftentimes, the act of masturbation will lead to guilt for believers. The guilt comes from the knowledge that you have just sinned against God. I believe that masturbation is a sin, just as any other. But God has given you a sex drive, and when carried out through masturbation, the sex drive given to you by God leads to sin. I am not accusing God of sin or temptation of sin (James 1:13). I just want an answer that is better than, “Don’t do it,” or “Just get married.”

A young man in High School felt called into the ministry since his youth. As a junior in school he began to visit Bible Colleges. He was excited about where God would lead him. His interest began to fade when he came to the conclusion that he did not have a strong enough desire to please God. The boy felt that he was not fit for Christian service because he struggled with masturbation. His guilt and depression lead him to the middle of a lake with a cinder block tied around his leg. Because of his ever increasing guilt he jumped out of the boat and drown. Guilt, embarrassment and a lack of answers lead to a young man with a promising future to end his life, over an issue that no one wants to talk about.

Masturbation is real, and it is a real problem for real Christians. Christians need real answers, and real fast. What do Christians do about the problem of masturbation? Yes, God has given us a sex drive. Outside of marriage, that sex drive leads to sin. That sex drive often leads to masturbation, which in turn leads to extreme guilt for the believer.

Those whom God hath accepted in the Beloved, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere to the end; and though they may fall, through neglect and temptation, into sin, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, bring reproach on the Church, and temporal judgments on themselves, yet they shall be renewed again unto repentance, and be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation (Article XIII. Abstract of Principles - http://www.founders.org/abstract.html - 3-23-07).

Continual or obsessive masturbation will lead to a feeling of distance from God. A feeling of distance from God can lead to a hindrance of Christian service. So masturbation is a direct correlation not only with our personal relationship with God, but also the ministry we serve in. Has God set us up for failure?

WHAT IS A CHRISTIAN TO DO ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF MASTURBATION?

The Gender-Neutral Controversy

2006-10-27T09:03:00.000-04:00

H.Clay Hodges
Louisville, KY

Definition – The gender-neutral controversy concerning Holy Scripture asks, “How should we view God?” Does the Scripture reveal God as Spirit, a masculine God, feminine God, or does the Bible not go into such detail on the person of God? The gender of God is the issue I will take up in the following pages. I will first begin with the numerous Bible translations and their impact on the gender of God.

History – Until the mid 1960’s, bookstores would only have a handful of prominent Bible translations. Occasionally a religious fanatic, such as Thomas Jefferson would construct his own version of the Bible. Jefferson decided he did not like the miracles in Scripture. He decided to cut them out of his Bible and have his own version. Jefferson’s version did not gain much appeal from others.

Bible translators offer two main types of translations: “Word-for-Word,” or literal translations, and also the “Dynamic Equivalent,” or thought-for-thought translations. The literal translations strive to maintain the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek portions of Scripture. Yet, they also seek to keep basic syntax structure of the modern English language. Thought-for-thought translations do not strive to include all of the terms of the original text(s). Instead, thought-for-thought versions seek to make the translation more understandable for the reader. Even the best bible translation is not perfect. A language that is two thousand years old is not always possible to describe in modern English. Bible translations today can be broken down into four main categories:

Essentially Literal – ESV, NASB, HCSB, NKJV, KJV, RSV, NRSV and NET
Dynamic Equivalent – NLT, CEV, NCV, REB and GNB.
Paraphrase – Message Bible, LB, Phillips NT Bible, and SB.
Mixed Version – TNIV, and NIV.

In recent years the gender-neutral bible has lead into the gender-accurate controversy. Gender-accurate translations change thousands of verses by removing male-oriented words such as: father, son, brother, man and he/him/his. The changes are not because of lack of sufficient Greek or Hebrew texts. Changes are made where original Greek and Hebrew texts are abundantly clear. The changes are made to be more acceptable in our culture today. Therefore, the original meaning of God’s Word is lost because of an evolving culture.

Several Bible translations that have followed the method of gender accuracy are: NRSV, TNIV, NLT, NCV, GNB and CEV. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is used by Disciples of Christ Churches. The NRSV seeks to maintain a literal interpretation. The NRSV translator(s) are aware that the literal interpretation is the best method for translating God’s Word. However, the NRSV has systematically adopted gender-neutral language. In short, the NRSV is a literal translation that has changed male-oriented words. Once again, the changing of words is undoubtedly because of an evolving culture. The evidence in the original text is clear. Changes are made by translators for political purposes. Thus, the true intent of the Word of God is often compromised.

The important question that Christians should ask themselves is, “Am I reading the very words of God?” Now, as I mentioned earlier, no Bible translation is perfect. Each translation, in some form, derives itself from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. However, Christians should want to read the most accurate of modern day translations from the original languages.

What does Scripture say about the importance of Scripture?

2 Timothy 3:16 – “All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

2 Peter 2:20-21 – “Knowing this first of all that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Proverbs 30:5 – “Every word of God proves true: he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”

Psalm 12:6 – “The Words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.”

Matthew 4:4 – “But he answered, ‘it is written, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of that comes from the mouth of God.””

Revelation 22:18 – “I warn everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”

Many times scholars and pastors who support the gender-neutral bibles insist that the controversy is obscure and unimportant. Many consider the controversy as “fun to talk about.” However, supporters often do not mention the controversy to their church leadership. Not sharing such an issue with your elders and deacons is not only unbiblical, and demeaning, but it is also misleading. The pastor’s view of the person of God is central to the beliefs of the church. Pastors who neglect to let church government know about such issues are implying that the lay leadership should not get involved and leave such controversies to the pastor. Many leaders and members of the congregation will not know about the pastor’s true views, unless they pay close attention to his language. Promoters of gender-neutral Bibles often use very slippery language in order that they are not lying, but also not making their true views known. Deception is not the answer to any issue.

Once again, the underlying theme of the gender-neutral issue is the effect on today’s culture. Scholars can debate all day; however, it all comes down to the question of “Should Bible translations avoid using specific male imagery examples in order to refrain from offending the culture?” Christians should be offended that some Bible translators are trying so hard not to offend the culture, that, in doing so, they offend God’s true children.

It is interesting to know that Dr. James Dobson, Zondervan, and the International Bible Society (IBS) all denounce gender-neutral bible translations such as the TNIV. The Center for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood president Randy Stinson has also denounced the TNIV because of the gender-neutral issue. Sixty-two evangelical leaders from different denominations, all of whom teach at different institutions, came together and spoke out against the TNIV Bible.

“We cannot endorse the TNIV as sufficiently trustworthy to commend to the church. We do not believe it is a translation suitable for use as a normal preaching and teaching text of the church or for a common memorizing, study and reading Bible for the Christian community.”

Seventy-two evangelical scholars came together and released their concern for the gender-neutral bible, which they directed towards the TNIV.

“In light of troubling translation inaccuracies-primarily (but not exclusively) in relation to gender language – that introduces distortions of the meanings that were conveyed better by the original NIV, we cannot endorse the 2005 TNIV translation as sufficiently accurate to commend to the church.”

Evangelicals are speaking out against the Today’s New International Version (TNIV) because it is the most recent publication of a gender-neutral bible. Evangelicals are also opposed to other gender-neutral bibles including the NRSV.

The original biblical texts in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek contain no ambiguity. The translations from the original languages have not changed. Changes have been made because of an appeasement of today’s culture. The main reason for these changes is to discount the masculinity of God.

What Does the Bible Say?
Any time a question arises over a matter in Scripture, that question is best solved by going to Scripture to find the answer. I believe the Scriptures are completely free from error (inerrant). Inerrancy refers to the trustworthy and authoritative nature of Scripture as God’s Word, which informs human kind of the need for and the way to salvation. The Scriptures also maintain the characteristic of being incapable of failing to accomplish a predetermined purpose (infallible). The Bible will not fail in its ultimate purpose of revealing God and the way of salvation to humans. I also believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. Sufficiency refers to the Bible providing all answers to humans in terms of salvation, life situations, and questions that arise. Essential to embracing the sufficiency of Scripture, an examiner must find the authorial intent of the Scripture writer. Authorial intent is founded upon proper exegesis, which implies drawing the true meaning out of a passage (i.e., the meaning that the author intended to convey) for the reason of understanding what a text means or communicates on its own. One must also understand the context and culture to whom the author is writing. Exegesis is a strenuous process, but essential for properly determining the meaning of God’s Word. Evolving cultural changes must not affect the meaning of a passage as the human author recorded in Scripture. I base my beliefs in the areas mentioned above on 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction and instruction in righteous, that the man of God may be complete thoroughly equipped for every good work.” A high regard for Scripture is essential in determining the answer to the gender-neutral controversy.

When Scripture speaks about God, it invariably uses masculine imagery. God is King, not queen. God is Father, not mother. When Scripture uses pronouns in reference to God, it always uses the male third person pronouns: he, him, and his. God is never referred to as a “she” or even an “it.” With the masculine imagery abundantly clear in Scripture, the question arises “Is it proper to refer to God as Creator instead of Father?” In order to answer this question I will turn to the Scriptures for the answer.

The Scriptures have five total references to God as “Creator.” The texts are: Ecclesiastes 12:1, Isaiah 40:28, and Isaiah 43:15, Romans 1:25, and lastly 1 Peter 4:19. Genesis 1:1 begins with “God created the heavens and the earth.” If an act is done by someone, it is logically appropriate to assign the person the title of completing that act. Therefore, it is totally biblical to refer to God as Creator. If God is Creator, then why can we not substitute Creator for Father?

I will now turn to the New Testament, which has 939 references to “Father.” For this study I have not included references to father meaning an earthly father. For example, when the New Testament quotes the fifth Commandment, “Honor thy father and thy mother,” It would be unacceptable to count that instance of father as a reference to God. The commandment is clearly stating that a young person should honor their earthly father and mother. The references that I have listed all refer to God as Heavenly Father.

In the New Testament Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Son of God, Jesus Christ Himself, refers to God as “Father” 164 times. When you take into account the Gospel writer’s references to God, they add another eight, which gives a total of 172 times. Jesus Christ does not refer to God the Father as Creator one time in the New Testament.

When the evidence of the New Testament letters and the book of Acts are taken into account, the evidence becomes even more overwhelming. The total New Testament references to God as “Father” are 260. A scriptural reference guide will be provided at the end of this paper.

In all thirteen New Testament letters written by the Apostle Paul, he includes a reference to God the “Father” in his salutation. Along with Paul, the letters of 1 Peter, 2 John, Jude and Revelation each begin with a reference to God as “Father.” The book of 3 John is the only New Testament letter that does not have a reference to God as “Father.” 3 John is the second shortest New Testament letter containing only fourteen total verses. The Apostle John was obviously aware of God as “Father” because he quotes God as “Father” more than any New Testament Gospel. The total New Testament letter salutations that begin with a reference to God as “Father” are 17. It is clear that the authors wanted very early in their letter to establish God as his rightful title of “Father.”

The New Testament also has references to God in the possessive, “Father’s.” “Father’s” refer to God having ownership of something. In the New Testament Gospels, Jesus Christ refers to God’s ownership of something by the use of “Father’s” 12 times in the book of Revelation; the Apostle John refers to God in the possessive as “Father’s” one more time. The total New Testament references by Jesus Christ in relation to “Father/Father’s” is 177. Add that with the number of references to “Father/Father’s” by the New Testament authors and the total is 272. The New Testament references to God as “Creator” are 2.

I am a firm believer that if the Bible says it once, then it is true. As stated above, it is perfectly biblical to refer to God as “Creator.” The problem arises when one begins to substitute “Creator” for “Father” when “Father” is the clear translation. Some theologians go as far to say that it is appropriate to refer to God as “Mother” or “she.” The New Testament has zero references to God as “Mother” or “she.” Moreover, the Bible never refers to God in the feminine sense.

People who hold to God as “Mother” or other female imagery run to two New Testament reference to God protecting Israel “as mother hen protects her young.” Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34. Proper hermeneutics (the science of interpretation), make clear that this is an analogy of the way God protects his people. The text in no way refers God as a female. The above argument is totally absurd. When theologians try to stand on those texts referring to God as “Mother,” they are on shaky ground. The evidence is insurmountable. The Scriptures reveal God in all masculine imagery; “no ifs, ands, or buts.”

Practicality – Other theologians who hold to God in the feminine sense use the argument, “God is a Spirit.” The logical conclusion is, “If God is a Spirit, then how can He be male or female?” I believe God is in Spirit form. However, one must view the way that God has chosen to reveal himself in Scripture through the Prophets, Apostles and Jesus Christ himself. As shown above by the references of Father, it is clear that God wanted himself shown in male imagery.

Another popular argument by people who hold to feminine imagery is, “The culture in that day and age oppressed women; of course God would be shown as masculine.” When examining Israelite culture, you will find that there were many pagan female gods among the Canaanites. If any Scripture writer wanted to reveal God as female, he could have done so because he was well aware of female goddesses. Now the question is raised, “Is God an oppressor of women?” Certainly not! God has given women prominent roles all throughout Scripture in the life of the Church and their own family lives. The roles of men and women are distinct, but totally equal. Women can share in God’s covenant grace just the same as any man can. God is no oppressor of women, but neither is He Himself a woman.

If someone holds to the doctrine of the Trinity, more issues arise by the gender-neutral controversy. The Trinity defines God as one God in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Was Jesus a woman? Would it be appropriate to call Jesus, “Mother?” After all, Jesus was made in the image of God according to 2 Corinthians 4:4, Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:17-17 and Hebrews 1:3. Is female imagery used for the Holy Spirit? Many other dangerous assumptions arise when a person takes the position of God as gender-neutral.

Now, we must turn to church history’s testimony. From the death of Christ around 33 A.D., the masculinity of God had never been questioned. Throughout the time of the Apostles and the establishment of the early church, up through the times of the church father Augustine, and through the reformation, no one had ever thought of God as gender-neutral. The issue ever been brought up until the 1960’s. Do people today have more insight than the Apostles? Jesus declares God as “Father/Father’s” 177 times. Do we know more than Christ did? No. Gender neutrality has arisen as of late because of a culture that insists on being politically correct. Christians must not let the cultural changes affect the clear truths that Scripture sets forth.

Changing Scripture comes with many severe consequences.
My experience has been that with the acceptance of gender-neutral language by persons brings many other issues to bear as well. Five main issues have arisen from the controversy. The first is, “Was Jesus literally resurrected, or was he in Spirit form.” When the Bible speaks of miracles, are they to be taken literally?” “Does God know the future and in control of it, or is he incapable of intervening in the lives of humans today?” “How is a person saved?’ Lastly, “Who will go to Heaven: Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons, or all of the above? The answer to these questions from Scripture is usually denied by gender-neutral advocates.

Conclusion – The denial of the masculinity of God is a faith-denying heresy. One who holds to the gender-neutrality of God is letting today’s culture influence their personal view of God, and in fact, is redefining (and thus, denying) God as He reveals Himself in Scripture. Christians should let the Scriptures influence our view of today’s culture. Christians must ask themselves, “What influences us?”

I will leave you with six verses from the Scriptures that warn people not to deny God as Father, or any other clear principle stated in Scripture. The verses are harsh, but the message must be heeded:

1 John 2:22 – “Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ. He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.”

Revelation 22:18 – “ I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.” We should thank God for what he has revealed to us through his Scriptures.

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 – “Moreover brethren, I declare to you the Gospel, which I preached to you. Which you also received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you-unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures.”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Scripture Index

God as “Creator”

• Ecclesiastes. 12:1, Isaiah. 40:28, 43:15, Ro. 1:25, 1 Pe. 4:19

God as “Father”

• Mt. 5:16, 5:45, 5:48, 6:1, 6:4, 6:6, 6:8, 6:9, 6:14, 6:15, 6:18(2), 6:26, 6:32, 7:11, 7:21, 10:20, 10:29, 10:32, 10:33, 11:25, 11:26, 11:27(3), 12:50, 13:43, 15:13, 16:17, 16:27, 18:10, 18:14,18:19, 18:35, 20:23, 24:36, 25:34, 26:39, 26:42, 26:53, 28:19.

• Mk. 1:20, 8:38, 11:25, 11:26, 13:32, 14:36.

• Luke. 6:36, 10:21(2), 10:22(2), 11;2, 11:13, 12:30, 22:29, 22:42, 23:34, 23:46, 24:49.

• John. 1:14, 1:18, 3:25, 4:21, 4:23(2), 4:53, 5:17, 5:18, 5:19, 5:20, 5:21, 5:22, 5:23(2), 5:26, 5:30, 5:36, 5:37, 5:45, 6:27, 6:32, 6:37, 6:44, 6:45, 6:46(2), 6:57(2), 6:65, 8:16, 8:18, 8:19(2), 8:27, 8:28, 8:29, 8:38, 8:41, 8:42, 8:49, 8:54, 10:15(2), 10:17, 10:18, 10:29, 10:30, 10:32, 10:36, 10:37, 10:38, 11:41, 12:26, 12:27, 12:28, 12:49, 12:50, 13:1, 13:3, 14:6, 14:7, 14:8, 14:9(2), 14:10(2), 14:11(2), 14:12, 14:13, 14:16, 14:20, 14:21, 14:23, 14:26, 14:28(2), 14:31(2), 15:1, 15:8, 15:9, 15:15, 15:16, 15:23, 15:24, 15:26(2), 16:3, 16:10, 16:15, 16:16, 16:17, 16:23, 16:25, 16:26, 16:27, 16:28(2), 16:32, 17:1, 17:5, 17:11, 17:21, 17:24, 17:25, 18:11, 20:17(3), 20:21.

• Acts 1:4, 1:7, 2:33.

• Romans 1:7, 6:4, 8:15, 15:6.

• 1 Corinthians 1:3, 8:6, 15:24.

• 2 Corinthians 1:2, 1:3(2), 6:18, 11:31.

• Galatians 1:1, 1:3, 1:4, 4:6.

• Ephesians 1:2, 1:3, 1:1, 2:18, 3:14, 4:6, 5:20.

• Philippians 1:2, 2:11, 4:20.

• Colossians 1:2, 1:3, 1:12, 1:19 2:2, 3:17.

• 1 Thessalonians 1:1(2) 1:3, 3:11, 3:13.

• 2 Thessalonians 1:1, 1:2, 2:16.

• 1 Timothy 1:2.

• 2 Timothy 1:2.

• Titus 1:4.

• Philemon 1:3.

• Hebrews 1:5, 12:9.

• James 1:17, 1:27, 3:9.

• 1 Peter 1:2, 1:3, 1:17.

• 2 Peter 1:17.

• 1 John 1:2 1:3, 2:1, 2:13, 2:15, 2:16, 2:22, 2:23(2), 2:24, 3:1, 4:14, 5:7.

• 2 John 1:3(2), 1:4, 1:9.

• Jude 1:1.

• Revelation 1:6, 2:27, 3:5, 3:21.

God as “Father’s” in the Possessive

• Matthew 26:29

• Luke 2:49, 9:26, 12:32.

• John 2:16, 5:43, 6:39 10:25, 10:29, 14:2, 14:24, 15:10.

• Revelation 14:1

With my personal study and research, I found 0 references to God as “Mother.” I also did not find any second person pronouns referring to God as “she.”

Plain Speech on Church Discipline

2006-09-11T12:50:00.001-04:00

One of the biblical marks of a true church is the proper practice of church discipline. However, this mark seems to be virtually non-existent in many evangelical churches in America. Consider the 1984 survey in which Carl Laney states,

In a recent survey of 439 pastors on the matter of church discipline 50 percent acknowledged situations in their ministry where discipline would have been appropriate but no action was taken. Three major hindrances to the practice of church discipline were mentioned: (a) fear of the consequences or outcome, (b) preference for avoiding disruptive problems, and (c) ignorance of the proper procedures (see Carl J. Laney, “The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline,” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 [O-D 1986]: 357)

The first two hindrances are matters of personal conviction. The last hindrance is addressed by the Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 18:15-20. Therefore, the purpose of this article is look at the biblical evidence and draw some conclusions regarding proper procedures for church discipline.

Defining Church Discipline:
Matthew 18:15-20

Matthew 18:15: If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother (NASB).

The Greek word for “sin” simply means “to sin”. Hagner believes the word “is probably left deliberately imprecise so that a broad variety of offenses can be included” (Donald Hagner, Matthew, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b [Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1993], 530). It is the only time in Matthew’s Gospel that he uses the word in this form.

Christ is addressing his disciples here and he states that if a Christian brother sins, then a single disciple should privately confront the sinning brother. He should then expose the sin to the sinning brother. The purpose of the confrontation is to persuade the sinning brother to repent so that he might be restored to fellowship within the community of believers.

Matthew 18:16: But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED (NASB).

The imperative verb meaning ‘to take’ indicates that the single disciple should take one or two more people to confront the sinning brother. The third phrase is almost an exact quotation from Deuteronomy 19:15 of the Septuagint. John Calvin states that the purpose of these witnesses is “to give greater weight and impressiveness to the admonition” (John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, trans. by William Pringle, vol. 1 [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996], 355). Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that Christ commanded the unrepentant brother to be confronted privately by one or two additional witnesses. The purpose of the witnesses was to persuade the sinning brother to repent so that he might be restored to fellowship within the community of believers.

Matthew 18:17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (NASB).

If the unrepentant brother refuses to listen to the witnesses, then the matter is to be told to the local church. If the unrepentant sinner refuses to listen to the church’s opinion, he is to be considered by the church to be a pagan. Differing opinions exist on exactly how a pagan or tax collector was treated. John Calvin clearly states “the meaning is, that we ought to have no intercourse with the despisers of the Church till they repent” (emphasis original; Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke , 358). Matthew appears to have been writing to a mainly Jewish-Christian audience. The Jews despised both pagans and tax collectors. Since Jesus was speaking to Jews (the disciples), Matthew was writing to Jews (the audience), and the sinning brother had been given at least three chances to repent, it seems reasonable to conclude that normal intercourse with the unrepentant brother should cease until he repents. However, the sinning brother should be actively evangelized.

Matthew 18:18: Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven (NASB).

It remains difficult to disagree with Calvin when he says “whoever treats with ridicule the reproofs and threatenings of the Church, if he is condemned by her, the decision which men have given will be ratified in heaven” (emphasis original; Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 358). At the same time, this verse appears to be granting the church the authority to determine what is or is not sin for the purposes of church discipline. As mentioned above, the word “to sin” is an imprecise term that could include any and all sins. Therefore ‘binding/loosing’ refers to excommunicating/readmitting the erring brother. However, it can only refer to excommunication/readmission because of the church’s conviction of what the church has beforehand deemed as sin (i.e., ‘whatever you bind on earth’) or not sin (i.e., ‘what you loose on earth’). Christ seems to be giving each autonomous church the authority to “declare the terms under which God either forgives or retains sins (cf. John 20:22b-23) (Michael J. Wilkins, Matthew, The NIV Application Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2004], 620.” In short, Christ appears to be granting each autonomous church the power to define what constitutes a disciplinable offense and to exercise discipline for said offense.

Matthew 18:19: Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven (NASB).

This verse is a continuation of the discussion of church discipline. The promise remains that where two are in agreement (possibly referring to the two in v. 16) on the matter of church discipline, then that which they agree upon will be done for them by the Father in heaven.

Matthew 18:20: For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst (NASB).

Many have commonly misunderstood this verse as saying that Jesus is with two or three persons who are gathered in his name. The context of church discipline continues from verses 15-19 and carries through the end of this verse. This verse is also intended to provide assurance in the midst of performing the difficult task of church discipline. Church discipline actually brings about the presence of Christ.

Concluding Remarks

Matthew 18:15-17 clearly sets forth the proper procedures with respect to church discipline. First, a sinning brother is to be confronted privately and individually (v. 15). Second, the unrepentant brother is to be confronted privately by one or two more (v. 16). Third, the matter of the unrepentant brother is then to be told to the church (v. 17). The purpose of each of these three steps is to persuade the sinning brother to repent so that he may be restored to fellowship within the community of believers. Fourth, normal intercourse with the unrepentant brother should cease except for evangelistic purposes.

Verses 18-20 provide three promises concerning church discipline. First, Christ promises that whatever the church binds and looses on earth will have already been ratified in heaven. This binding/loosing appears to be the authority to define what constitutes a disciplinable offense and the authority to exercise discipline for that offense. Second, Christ promises that if two are in agreement (possibly referring to the two in v. 16) regarding church discipline, then that which they agreed upon will be approved by the Father. Third, Christ promises to be in the midst of those who are gathered for the purpose of disciplining a wayward brother.

Defining Disciplinable Offenses

Defining exactly what constitutes a disciplinable offense can become quite dangerous. Each situation is different and the elders in the church should exercise great wisdom in discerning and defining disciplinable offenses. The following discussion must be predicated by stating Mark Dever’s reasons for practicing church discipline:

1) For the Good of the Person Disciplined
2) For the Good of the Other Christians, as They See the Danger of Sin
3) For the Health of the Church as a Whole
4) For the Corporate Witness of the Church
5) For the Glory of God, as We Reflect His Holiness (see Mark Dever, Nine Marks of a Healthy Church [Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004], 186-192).

As such, the Apostle Paul provides specific commands to disassociate with certain persons on at least six occasions in Scripture. He commands the church not to associate (1 Cor. 5:9; 2 Thess. 3:14), to turn away (Rom. 16:17), to reject (Titus 3:10), to keep away from (2 Thess. 3:6), and to avoid (2 Tim. 3:5) certain types of people. There is also an instance in which Paul himself “handed over to Satan” certain individuals (1 Tim. 1:19-20). It should also be noted that Galatians 6:1 contains an inference to disciplinable offenses. Church elders should consult these texts to determine what each autonomous church deems as a disciplinable or a non-disciplinable offense (see my full paper entitled Plain Speech on Church Discipline on this blogsite for linguistic clarity on the individual vices named in these texts). While it seems that each autonomous church has been given the authority to define which sins she will and will not discipline, it seems best to limit disciplinable offenses to those found in the aforementioned texts since Scripture clearly communicates those offenses as disciplinable.

Defining Church Discipline
in the Court of Law

It may prove beneficial to briefly discuss safeguards churches can take to avoid lawsuits regarding the biblical practice of church discipline. Laney suggests the following:

-- Spell out completely your beliefs in the church constitution or bylaws.
-- Acquaint those seeking membership with the church constitution.
-- Specify in the constitution that members of the church have entered into a covenant to minister to one another’s spiritual needs, and since this relationship is entered by mutual consent with the church leaders and congregation, it also ends only by mutual consent.
-- Refrain from disclosing information disclosed to the church leader in confidence.
-- Respect the privacy of the one being disciplined.
-- Refrain from publicizing the action outside the church family.
-- Pursue an out-of-court settlement or alternative means of settlement if a lawsuit is filed. (see Carl J. Laney, “Church Discipline Without a Lawsuit,” Christianity Today 28, no. 16 (W9 1984): 76.

Wayne House, a former professor of law adds the following practical guidelines:

-- Prepare church documents to defend a legal challenge.
-- Prepare church members for church discipline by having them sign a statement detailing the church’s position (indicating their understanding of the moral, governmental, and doctrinal positions of the church, that they agree with these positions, and that they will submit to the spiritual authority of the church and its leadership).
-- Follow the church’s standard consistently on all members to avoid the potential argument of the lack of enforcement on other church members.
-- Be up-front and honest with potential plaintiffs.
-- Consult an attorney (Wayne House, “Church Discipline and the Courts,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4, no. 4 [Winter 2000], 70-72. At the time his article was written, House was the Distinguished Professor of Biblical Studies and Apologetics at Faith Seminary, Tacoma, Washington, and Adjunct Professor of Law at Trinity International University).

Conclusion

The purpose of this article was to investigate the proper procedures for church discipline. This investigation involved defining proper procedures for church discipline according to Matthew 18:15-20. Further, it involved identifying disciplinable offenses according to the Apostle Paul in Holy Scripture. Finally, it involved briefly discussing church discipline as it pertains to the Court of law. It is now time for the church to recover the biblical practice of church discipline. For a thorough exegesis of texts dealing with church discipline and disciplinable offenseses, see my paper on this blogsite.

By: Chip Thornton
Associate Pastor - Belmar Baptist Church
Louisville, KY

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bibliography

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by William Pringle. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996.

Dever, Mark. Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004.

Hagner, Donald. Matthew. Word Biblical Commentary. Vol. 33b. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.

House, Wayne. “Church Discipline and the Courts.” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 4 No. 4 (Winter): 2000.

Laney, Carl J. “The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline.” Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (O-D): 1986.

Laney, Carl J. “Church Discipline Without a Lawsuit.” Christianity Today 28 No. 16 (W9): 1984.

Wilkins, Michael J. Matthew. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2004.

Billy Graham: What Means This?

2006-08-09T07:54:00.000-04:00

By Chip Thornton
Louisville, KY
2006

“‘I’m not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord, Graham says. ‘This is a little difference in my thinking through the years,’” records Newsweek’s Jon Meacham in the August 14th, 2006 feature article (*see note below on the Newsweek author; for the entire article, see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14204483/page/6/).

Later Meacham comments, “Asked about his son’s use of the phrase “evil and wicked” in reference to Islam, Graham says: ‘I would not say Islam is wicked and evil . . . I have a lot of friends who are Islamic. There are many wonderful people among them. I have a great love for them. I have spoken at Islamic meetings, in Nigeria and in different parts of the world.’”

Perhaps most disturbing are Dr. Graham’s enigmatic comments on salvation, “When asked whether he believes heaven will be closed to good Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or secular people, though, Graham says: ‘Those are decisions only the Lord will make. It would be foolish for me to speculate on who will be there and who won’t . . . I don’t want to speculate about all that. I believe the love of God is absolute. He said he gave his son for the whole world, and I think he loves everybody regardless of what label they have.’”

The Newsweek article is entitled, “Pilgrim’s Progress.” The title derives itself from the 17th century masterpiece by John Bunyan entitled, The Pilgrim’s Progress. Hence, the question begging to be answered is (in Bunyanesque style, no less), “Billy Graham: What means this?”

The Influence of Dr. Graham’s Theology

Billy Graham has preached to more people face-to-face than any person in the history of the world. His ministry and influence have extended to the uttermost parts of the earth and will certainly extend to future generations. Accordingly, Dr. Graham may have influenced both evangelicalism and ecumenism more than any other person in the last fifty years. By implication, Dr. Graham has had a great degree of influence on both pastors and the churches they oversee. For these reasons and more, the pointed quotations referenced above invite the simple question, “What means this?”

The Metamorphosis of Dr. Graham’s Theology

In Evangelicalism Divided (2000), Iain Murray excellently traces one aspect of the metamorphosis of Dr. Graham’s theology, namely, inclusivism (note: much of the following is taken from Murray’s book). Inclusivism is the idea that one religion is best, but salvation is possible in other religions. This idea strikes at the heart of the exclusive atonement of Jesus Christ (John 14:6), thus striking at the very heart of the gospel that Dr. Graham spent the last 60 years proclaiming.

It is well documented that Dr. Graham came from a fundamentalist upbringing. Indeed, it is known that Dr. Graham once told his wife that her father could not be in the will of God because he was a Presbyterian. Murray notes that “when Graham was the youthful president of Northwestern Schools (a fundamentalist college in Minneapolis), he had said, ‘We do not condone nor have any fellowship with any form of modernism’” (see Pilot, the magazine of Northwestern Schools, April 1951; quoted by Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, 29). Apparently this theological worldview changed sometime around the 1957 Manhattan crusade. Dr. Graham relates that the invitation to that crusade “represented a much broader base of church support than the previous ones had” (see Billy Graham, Just as I Am, 229).

Murray argues that over the years Dr. Graham became convinced that he could unite liberals and religious conservatives under the banner of evangelicalism. To do so meant that doctrinal and theological differences must be flattened in order to accommodate the masses. This insipient accommodation may be seen when Dr. Graham increasingly began inviting Roman Catholics to play critical roles in preparing and speaking at his crusades. Doctrinal and theological accommodation is further reflected as Dr. Graham speaks of the differences in Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, saying, “I don’t think the differences are important as far as personal salvation is concerned” (see W. Martin, A Prophet With Honor: The Billy Graham Story, 461). When asked if he was in favor of the ordination of women, Dr. Graham replied, “I feel I belong to all churches. I am equally at home in an Anglican or Baptist or a Brethren assembly or a Roman Catholic church. I would identify with the customs and the culture and the theology of that particular church” (see David Frost, Billy Graham in Conversation, 68), and later Dr. Graham exclaims, “Today we [i.e., our crusades] have almost 100 per cent Catholic support in this country. That was not true twenty years ago. And the bishops and archbishops and the Pope are our friends” (Ibid., 143).

In 1978, Dr. Graham temporarily came full circle, saying, “I used to believe that pagans in far countries were lost if they did not have the gospel of Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that” (McCall’s, January, 1978). The statement caused such a stir that it was quickly dismissed by Christianity Today (founded by Dr. Graham and his father-in-law) as a misquotation. McCall’s apparently did not misquote.

On a May 31, 1997, Dr. Graham took part in a seven-minute televised interview with Robert Schuller. The following is an exact excerpt of that broadcast:

Dr. Schuller: Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?

Dr. Graham: Well, Christianity and being a true believer--you know, I think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. And I don’t think that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God's purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that’s what God is doing today, He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.

Dr. Schuller: What, what I hear you saying [is] that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they’ve been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you’re saying?

Dr. Graham: Yes, it is, because I believe that. I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.

Dr. Schuller: I’m so thrilled to hear you say this. There’s a wideness in God's mercy.

Dr. Graham: There is. There definitely is.

John MacArthur notes that when the Billy Graham Organization was written concerning this statement, the reply was, “Dr. Graham’s views were the same as they have always been” (see John MacArthur’s sermon, “Deliverance: From the Temporal World to the Eternal Kingdom,” 2000, http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-227.htm).

The Implications of Dr. Graham’s Theology

John MacArthur best sums up the implications of such an inclusivist theology. In a sermon entitled, “Deliverance: From Error to Truth—Part 1,” (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-222.htm, 2000), John MacArthur rhetorically asks, “How can you have the Amsterdam meeting over there; that great convocation of evangelists sponsored by the Billy Graham organization; the opening prayer was by a Roman Catholic and one of the messages by [the] Archbishop of Canterbury who denies that Jesus rose from the dead? How do you embrace all of that and call it Christianity?”

Or, to put it simply, “Billy Graham: What means this?”

Conclusion

Dr. Graham’s Ministry has impacted both sides of the Atlantic. Much good has come of his ministry and the Lord has saved many souls through his efforts. However, the nature of his theology is re-opened in the August 14, 2006 Newsweek article. Perhaps one of the best gleanings from that article is Dr. Graham’s lament, “The greatest regret that I have is that I didn’t study more and read more,” he says. “I regret it, because now I feel at times I am empty of what I would like to have been.”

Had Dr. Graham studied more and read more of the Bible, he might have come to the same unflinching conviction as did our Lord Jesus Christ; for Jesus Christ clearly stated in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.” In the original language, our Lord actually emphasizes the personal pronoun “I” by stating it twice, i.e., “I, even I am the way, the truth, and the life: . . . “

The Scriptures are sufficient for all matters of faith, life, and practice, including but not limited too, evangelism and missions. To undermine the exclusivity of Jesus Christ in evangelism is to attack the sufficiency of the atonement, which is an inherent attack on the sufficiency of Scripture. Let us commit ourselves to prayer for Dr. Graham that he might come to the scriptural knowledge of the truth so that the last chapter of his life will be the best chapter of his life.

Then we will no longer need to ask, “What means all this?”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
*Note on Newsweek Author and Managing Editor

On December 9, 2004, Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an article entitled, “Newsweek vs. The New Testament” (see http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-12-09). He stated of Newsweek’s Managing Editor and author, Jon Meacham, “In a May 6, 2002 cover story in Newsweek, Meacham argued that Christianity should change its convictions about human sexuality, allowing for the normalization of homosexual acts and the possible goodness of homosexual relationships. ‘For many of us, faith, like history, is an unfinished story, a running argument,’ he argued. Unsurprisingly, Meacham argued that the biblical passages declaring homosexuality to be sinful ‘are actually not quite so clear and unequivocal’ as the church has believed for twenty centuries. He used the same interpretive methodology he applies to the birth narratives in suggesting that the Bible can be read in such a way as to justify homosexuality. Acknowledging that the Bible does appear to condemn homosexual acts as sinful, Meacham explains that ‘enlightened people have moved on from the world view such passages express.’

Jon Meacham is the classic self-congratulatory theological liberal. He identifies himself as a devoted and believing Episcopalian, even as he assails the historical trustworthiness of the Bible and suggests that much of the faith he claims to believe is simply the product of literary invention and theological construction.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bibiliography

Frost, David. Billy Graham and Conversion. Oxford: Lion. 1998.

Graham, Billy. Just as I Am. London: Harper Collins, 1997.

Martin, W. A Prophet Without Honor: The Billy Graham Story. New York: William Morrow. 1991.

MacArthur, John. Sermon entitled, “Deliverance: From the Temporal World to the Eternal Kingdom.” 2000. http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-227.htm ; accessed on August 8, 2006.

_________. Sermon entitled, “Deliverance: From Error to Truth—Part 1.” 2000. http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/80-222.htm; accessed on August 8, 2006.

Mohler, Albert. “Newsweek vs. The New Testament.” December 9, 2004. http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-12-09; accessed on August 3, 2006.

Meacham, Jon. Newsweek. August 14, 2006; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14204483/page/6/ .

Murray, Iain. Evangelicalism Divided. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust. 2000.

Pilot. The magazine of Northwestern Schools. April 1951.

Fat Man In Little Pulpit --- The Sin of Gluttony

2006-08-03T17:47:00.000-04:00

Proverbs 23:21
For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.

In today’s standards, murder and child molestation rank higher than any other sin. In our culture, we have an unhealthy habit of placing sin in a specific category according to our own way of thinking. For instance, today alcoholism is extremely prevalent in our culture. The church has taken specific stands against drunkenness according to the Word of God, but when it comes to other sins, it seems the church turns a deaf ear or a blind eye and ignores it completely. One specific sin which seems to be overlooked is the sin of overeating [gluttony]. We are living in a day of fast food and “all you can eat” buffets. Sadly is the case that many preachers stand in the pulpits and preach against every sin known to man other than gluttony. Often times church groups leave church and meet at the local buffet to fellowship over a meal. Tragically is the case that the majority commit gluttony while speaking about the things of God over a meal. Why is gluttony overlooked and ignored? Often gluttony is ignored because of the great number of guilty people who sit on the pews as well as those who preach in the pulpit. Below are three reasons that we should not overeat.

Gluttony Is Condemned By Scripture

In Proverbs 23:21 – Gluttony is placed in the same category as drunkenness. Just as a person should not drink alcohol for the purpose of intoxication (is there any other reason for drinking alcohol – another discussion on alcohol) he or she should refrain from overeating as well. The church should take a serious stand against overeating because it is condemned by Holy Scripture. Many churches foster such behavior with dinner on the grounds and homecoming meals. Gluttony is condemned by Scripture.

Gluttony Ruins Our Testimony

As Christians we are to be light in a dark world full of sin. Christians claim the name of Christ Jesus and claim to be living on the path He has set before us. The Christian life is a life of obedience and sacrifice. When we claim to be living for the Lord, but our ability to push away from the table is visible in our pants size, we are telling the world that we are hypocritical. Furthermore, from a ministry standpoint, gluttony impairs our ability to teach others. How can we expect someone to take what we say seriously when we cannot stop feeding our face after the normal meal portion has long passed? Gluttony ruins our testimony for Christ.

Gluttony Destroys The Temple of God

Many diseases are directly linked to our food intake. When we eat over the normal food portion suggested for our age and height, we are placing our bodies at risk for serious problems. Our bodies house the Spirit of the Living God. We should be careful how we treat our bodies because it is the Temple of God. I have heard many people speak against cigarette smoking, however the same people are typically 4 dress sizes over weight. We should guard our bodies against the harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and overeating. Imagine the health problems that would disappear over night if the sin of gluttony ceased. The issues of child obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other diseases directly related to food consumption would be less likely to strike our bodies. As I write this article, I realize the temptation that often comes upon those who have bodies that are not outwardly effected by overeating. I am very active and I often run off any excess weight. However, that does not provide me an open door for gluttonous actions each time I sit down to eat a meal. Slim people commit gluttony just as large people commit gluttony. Size is not what determines how much a person should eat. Gluttony destroys the Temple of God.

Conclusion:

If we expect the world to take our message seriously, we should start practicing what we preach on all levels and in all areas of the Christian life. Eating food is a necessity unlike the sins of tobacco or alcohol use. Therefore, we must eat in moderation and make sure we are careful to guard against the grievous sin of gluttony. Gluttony is a very selfish sin. Children and adults alike in third world countries are starving to death at this very moment. We organize efforts and send Bibles, but we sit down for dinner and eat three times what the normal person should consume. Gluttony is a serious sin, it’s a selfish sin, and it’s a sin that causes us to look like a hypocrite to the world!

For Our Discussion:

1. Is gluttony a problem in the church?
2. Does gluttony really impair our Christian witness?
3. How should ministers guard against gluttony?

For the glory of God and the God of glory!

Rev. Josh Buice

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Respond To This Post

Beware Lest Any Man Spoil You Through Philosophy And Vain Deceit: A Quick Review Of The Da Vinci Code

2006-07-14T20:42:00.000-04:00

Article Written By:
Chip Thornton
Louisville, KY
July, 2006

Acknowledgements

I must acknowledge special thanks and gratitude to the following people for their editing, comments, critique and suggestions: Rev. Josh Buice, Attorney Matthew F. Coogle, Attorney Larry C. Ethridge, Dr. Chris W. King, and Melissa Van Meter. I must also honor our Lord Jesus Christ for saving me from my sin and permitting me the opportunity to write for His glory.

Introduction

In reading Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, I became aware of a startling observation. The Church has neglected to educate her people of her true and proper history. The blame for this neglect may be placed at the feet of ministers like me who are commissioned not only to be protectors of the truth of Scripture, yet who must also be protectors of truth in general. Jude exhorts his readers to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” (Jude 3). Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code presents the opportunity for Christians to fulfill this command while at the same time educating the Church about her true and proper history.

Accordingly, this review of The Da Vinci Code will serve either: (1) those who may not have time to read the novel; or, (2) those who may not want to subject their minds to overt attacks on the truth of history, the trustworthiness of Scripture, and the divinity of Jesus Christ. This is a quick review and, thus, will not discuss all of the inaccuracies in the novel. Other books have exposed these inaccuracies and are included in the bibliography. Rather, this paper will provide a summary of the novel, a list of provocative quotations lifted directly from the novel, and a truthful account of the glaring inaccuracies of said quotations. I have provided footnotes from respected scholars and researchers to substantiate the true historical account, a courtesy which Dan Brown neglected to provide to his readers.

Before proceeding, let us be reminded of the Apostle Paul’s warning,“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”(Colossians 2:8).

Author

Dan Brown’s website states that he is a graduate of Amherst College and Phillips Exeter Academy. He was the son of a mathematician and a professional musician. He grew up “surrounded by the paradoxical philosophies of science and religion.” This upbringing apparently influenced his science vs. religion thriller, Angels and Demons.

The Da Vinci Code has been a best seller on lists in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly, and the San Francisco Chronicle. It became a #1 best selling eBook, and is one of the best-selling novels of all time. Dan Brown was recently sued in a British court by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh for plagiarism. Baigent and Leigh claimed that Brown plagiarized their 1982 non-fiction work, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. British High Court Judge Peter Smith dismissed the case in April, 2006. Brown’s upcoming novel will be set within the confines of Freemasonry.

Summary

One of the novel’s major characters, Jacques Saunière, is murdered in the opening pages. Saunière is a fictional character later revealed to be the Grand Master of a secret society known as the Priory of Sion. The Priory of Sion is supposedly a European secret society founded in 1099 A.D. This society purported to possess a stash of hidden documents which contain the truth of history (discussed below) that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has kept suppressed for 2000 years.

The Priory of Sion created a military group, the Knights Templar, to protect these documents so that they could be released at a specific time in history. For nearly a thousand years, the legends of this secret have been passed down through the Priory of Sion from Grand Master to Grand Master. Leonardo Da Vinci, the novel claims, was Grand Master from 1510-1519. Da Vinci supposedly planted certain symbols in his paintings which reveal the truths of the hidden documents.

At the heart of these hidden documents is the claim that Jesus Christ is not the Son of God. Rather, He was simply a prophet with staggering influence. The novel claims that the RCC voted to institute Jesus as the Son of God at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. for three reasons: (1) to diffuse any pagan challenges to Christianity; (2) to suppress women; and, (3) to deem the RCC as the only sacred channel of authority. Hence, at the directive of Emperor Constantine, a new Bible was financed which included only those books that supported the RCC’s agenda.

Accordingly, the documents which were hidden/guarded by the Priory of Sion purport to contain the truth of history. This truth includes the following ideas: (1) Jesus Christ was a mortal man; (2) Mary Magdalene was a descendant of the tribe of Benjamin; (3) Mary Magdalene married Jesus Christ; (4) Jesus Christ directed Mary Magdalene (not Peter, as the RCC claims) to carry on the Church; (5) Mary Magdalene was pregnant with the female child of Jesus Christ at the time of the crucifixion; (6) Mary Magdalene secretly fled to France to keep the child safe; (7) the bloodline of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Christ still exists today; (8) Mary Magdalene is a goddess to be worshiped; and, (9) the Holy Grail is an allegorical symbol which represents the goddess Mary Magdalene, since she carried the royal bloodline of Jesus Christ. The RCC, of course, is portrayed as having sought to destroy these hidden documents for 2000 years. Their fear has been that the bloodline of Christ would eventually rise up and destroy the RCC. Therefore, the true intent of the hidden documents is to restore the “sacred feminine,” i.e., goddess worship in the form of Mary Magdalene.

The second main character is Sophia Neveu. She is the granddaughter of Jacques Saunière (the last man on earth to know the whereabouts of the hidden documents). Neveu is later revealed to be a direct descendant of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, Saunière left her a cryptic message in his own blood just before he died. This message led her on a wild chase to find the hidden documents. The cryptic message instructed her to find Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor of symbology.

The third main character is Robert Langdon. Unbeknownst to Langdon, he was to help Neveu in her quest. Eventually, Langdon and Neveu enlist the help of Oxford scholar and Holy Grail historian, Leigh Teabing, the book’s fourth major character.

Teabing is later revealed to be the mastermind behind the murder of the top leaders of the Priory of Sion. His intent is to find the hidden documents himself so that he can reveal their truths to the world.

The rest of the novel is a thrilling and fascinating search for the Holy Grail, i.e., the tomb of Mary Magdalene, which contains the hidden documents . . . and the supposed truth of history.

Provocative Quotations From
The Da Vinci Code

The following is a sample of the most provocative quotations from the novel. Page numbers from the paperback edition are provided so the reader can search the context of the quotation. All italics in the quotations are original. As we read these quotations, may we once again be reminded of the words of the Apostle Paul, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. . . . Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book” (DVC, 250-251).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea. . . . A relatively close vote at that” (DVC, 253).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that made Him [Jesus Christ] godlike” (DVC, 254).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “The scrolls [i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the 1950’s and the Coptic Scrolls found in 1945] highlight glaring historical discrepancies and fabrications, clearly confirming that the modern Bible was compiled and edited by men who possessed a political agenda—to promote the divinity of the man Jesus Christ and use His influence to solidify their own power base” (DVC, 254-255).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “What I mean is that almost everything our fathers taught us about Christ is false” (DVC, 255).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “As I said earlier, the marriage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is part of the historical record” (DVC, 264).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “At this point in the gospels, Jesus suspects He will soon be captured and crucified. So He gives Mary Magdalene instructions on how to carry on His Church after He is gone. As a result, Peter expresses his discontent over playing second fiddle to a woman. I daresay Peter was something of a sexist” (DVC, 268).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “Jesus was the original feminist” (DVC, 268).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “Behold, the greatest cover-up in human history. Not only was Jesus Christ married, but He was a father. My dear, Mary Magdalene was the Holy Vessel” (DVC, 270).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “The Priory of Sion, to this day, still worships Mary Magdalene as the Goddess, the Holy Grail, and the Divine Mother” (DVC, 275).

• (Teabing speaking to Neveu) “The quest for the Holy Grail is literally the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene. A journey to pray at the feet of the outcast one, the lost sacred feminine” (DVC, 277).

A Truthful Account Of Inaccuracies

The following is a truthful account of the glaring inaccuracies which will expose the carelessness with which Dan Brown handled the true historical record.

The Priory Of Sion

Brown’s opening words are:

“F A C T :

The Priory of Sion—
a European secret society founded in
1099---is a real organization.
In 1975 Paris’ Bibliothèque Nationale
discovered parchments known as Les
Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous
members of the Priory of Sion, including
Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo,
and Leonardo Da Vinci” (DVC, 1).

This statement is inaccurate. Researcher Richard Abanes provides the truth of history:

“There have been at least three organizations called ‘The Priory of Sion.’ The first was a Roman Catholic monastic order founded in Jerusalem at the monestary of Our Lady of Mt. Zion in about 1100. This group of monks known as the Ordre de Notre Dame of Sion (Order of Our Lady of Zion) ceased to exist in 1617, when it was absorbed by the Jesuits.

The history of the second and third Priories of Sion can be traced to Frenchman Pierre Plantard (1920-2000) who in 1942 founded an anti-Masonic and anti-Jewish group known as Alpha Galates. . . .

The third Priory of Sion, also started by Plantard, can be traced to the early 1960’s, when he became obsessed with the idea of being an occult master and a descendant of kings.”

Abanes also notes that Les Dossiers Secrets were indeed discovered by Bibliothèque Nationale, but were proven to be documents forged by Pierre Plantard himself.

Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper

The novel claims that in Leonardo Da Vinci’s The Last Supper, the person sitting next to Jesus is Mary Magdalene. Historically, that person has been identified as John, the beloved disciple. Admittedly, the person has feminine characteristics. However, Abanes states, “According to Bruce Baucher—Curator of European Decorative Arts and Sculpture at the Art Institute of Chicago—John’s appearance reflects the way Florentine artists traditionally depicted Jesus’ favorite disciple. . . . “ This “feminine” style of depicting some men apparently was en vogue at the time Da Vinci painted The Last Supper.

The Council Of Nicaea:
The Divinity of Jesus Christ

The novel’s intriguing character Leigh Teabing states, “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicaea. . . . A relatively close vote at that” (DVC, 253). This statement could not be further from the truth. In fact, it is quite shocking that the fictitious Oxford historian should make such an obvious historical blunder.

The true historical record is that Emperor Constantine sent out 1800 invitations to bishops inviting them to participate in the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Accounts differ as to the total attendees, but it was between 250 and 400. Most historians have settled on approximately 300 attendees.

The divinity of Christ was voted on at the Council, but Christ’s divinity already had been an established and accepted doctrine since the time of the apostles. The Council of Nicaea simply officially recognized what the New Testament and previous church history had already confirmed. In addition, it was anything but a close vote. All attendees affirmed Christ’s divinity except two bishops, and both were immediately excommunicated. The Oxford Dictionary states, “This Creed, with four anti-Arian anathemas [damnations] attached, was subscribed by all the Bishops present except two (Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais); and these last were deposed and banished.” Supposing there were 300 attendees, the vote passed by 99%, hardly “a relatively close vote” as Teabing suggests.

The Council Of Nicaea:
The Canon Of Scripture

Teabing further misrepresents the Council of Nicaea by arguing that the RCC selected only those gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) which supported the RCC’s agenda. Teabing inaccurately comments, “Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that made Him [Jesus Christ] godlike” (DVC, 254).

Firstly, as with the case of the divinity of Christ mentioned above, the Council simply officially recognized what was then the prevailing view. Bock states, “The vote at Nicaea, rather than establishing the church’s beliefs, affirmed and officially recognized what was already the church’s dominant view.” Keep in mind the Council of Nicaea convened in 325 A.D. A full 150 years or more before the Council of Nicaea convened, the early church father Irenaeus stated as to the four gospels in our Bible today, “It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.” Nearly 100 years before the Council of Nicaea, Origen (185 A.D.-254 A.D.) rejected the Gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic gospel) on his first homily on Luke 1:1. In addition, the Roman Emperor Diocletian (245 A.D.-313 A.D.) ordered the destruction of the sacred books of Christians in 303 A.D. These historical facts provide some evidence that the Council of Nicaea did nothing more than formally and officially ratify what was already generally accepted as the dominant view.

Secondly, there were careful, specific, and proper procedures followed in selecting the New Testament books of the Bible (sometimes called the New Testament canon). Köstenberger explains,

“When the ancient Church compiled the canon, it recognized which writings bore the stamp of divine inspiration. Four criteria were used: (1) apostolicity, that is, direct or indirect association of a given work with an apostle; (2) orthodoxy, that is, whether a writing conformed to the rule of faith; (3) antiquity, that is, whether a writing was written during the apostolic era; and, (4) usage, that is, whether it was already widely used in the churches of the early period.”

The truth of the matter is that every New Testament book was either written by an apostle or under direct or indirect association with an apostle. Bock similarly concludes, “The key point here, despite modern debate over authorship is that these texts [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John] have an inherent claim to apostolic roots that the other gospels [the Gnostic gospels] lacked.” The Council of Nicaea did not select certain Gospels to support a political or theological agenda. Rather, they chose Gospels that had apostolic roots; the Gnostic gospels (The Gospel Of Truth, The Gospel Of Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel Of Mary, etc.) were written much later and lacked any apostolic roots, thus disqualifying them as inspired Scripture.

The True Gospel Of Jesus Christ

Dan Brown exercised his literary license to embellish the historical record. In like fashion, I would like to exercise the same literary license to embellish his novel. In the closing sentences of the novel, Harvard professor Robert Langdon is found kneeling and praying at the feet of the outcast one, Mary Magdalene. The novel’s last two sentences record,

“With a sudden upwelling of reverence, Robert Langdon fell to his knees.
For a moment, he thought he heard a woman’s voice . . . the wisdom of the ages . . . whispering up from the chasms of the earth” (DVC, 489).

But, now let me share with you the rest of the story. . . .

As the upwelling of reverence began to rise, Robert recognized the woman’s faint voice. It took him a moment, but the recesses of his mind identified the compassionate tone of the sweet voice. It was the voice of a Harvard student he had taught ten years ago. She had died from an epileptic seizure during her last year at Harvard. He did not recall her name, but the voice . . . he remembered that pleasant voice. The one conversation she had with him was after class one day. She politely shared her testimony that Jesus Christ had died for her sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. She lovingly urged Robert to believe that Christ paid the penalty for his sins and to place his faith in Jesus Christ. She died that night. Her last words to him had haunted him since that day: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

As she walked away . . . she turned as if to say something, but simply whispered across the room, “. . . and not after Christ.”

Now, as Robert was on bended knee praying to the sacred feminine . . . he was suddenly struck with the sobering realization of his sin. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit. The words would not leave him. After the tradition of men. The faint voice in his head seemed to grow stronger, yet compassionate. After the rudiments of the world. The smooth, sweet voice became clear and confident. And not after Christ.

At that precise moment, Robert came to understand sin. The weight of his condition before the Holy God sank into his soul. He fell on his face and wept.

He wept as he recalled the ancient words of the Apostle Paul, “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no not one” (Romans 3:10-12), knowing that the Apostle was speaking directly to him.

Robert began heaving sobs of anguish as he realized there was nothing he could do to undo the sins he had done. There is none that doeth good, said the Apostle. No, not one.

Then he suddenly remembered Christ’s words to His disciples, Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you . . . (John 15:16). A glimmer of hope flickered in those beautiful words. Instantaneously, his mind began racing. The understanding of truth was coming in waves now. The Scripture said that God hath chosen us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world . . . having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will (Ephesians 1:4-5). Scriptures long forgotten began coming to his mind immediately. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16).

Robert humbly bowed his head: “God chose me in spite of my failures.” The thought comforted him in an inexplicable way. It all fell into place now. Robert thought, “God will not say of me, ‘Robert lacks my righteousness.’ No, my righteousness is Jesus Christ Himself. My sin was transferred to Christ. His righteousness was transferred to me. God chose me. Christ paid for my sin. Yes, He paid the penalty for all the sins of all those who believe. I see now! I believe! Yes, Lord, I believe.”

Robert felt free at last. He felt peace. He prayed for forgiveness. He now believed and understood how Jesus Christ had saved him from his sin. He believed that Jesus Christ would one day take him to heaven. He felt an urgency to tell others of his conversion. The code of the gospel was so simple. Yet Saunière, Sophie, and Teabing could not see it. Then the young Harvard student’s voice hearkened back to him softly, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

Robert dedicated his life to Christ at that moment. He solemnly vowed never again to spoil the minds of young men and women through philosophy and vain deceit. He vowed to protect and uphold the truth of the gospel. Robert Langdon rose from his feet a new man in Jesus Christ. Tears were already beginning to dry on his cheek. He looked up to heaven, took a deep breath, and smiled. Then he left.

He had to find Sophie.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reply To This Posting

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Selected Bibliography

Abanes, Richard. The Truth Behind The Da Vinci Code. Eugene: OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2004.

Bock, Darrell L. Breaking The Da Vinci Code. Nashville: Nelson Books, 2004.

Green, Michael. The Books The Church Suppressed. Grand Rapids: Monarch Books, 2005.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. 3.11.8.

Köstenberger, Andreas. The Da Vinci Code: Is Christ True? Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2006.

McDowell, Josh. A Quest For Answers: The Da Vinci Code. Holiday, FL: Green Key Books, 2006.

Urbina, I. Ortiz de. New Catholic Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Vol. 10. Detroit: Tomson Gale, 2003).

The Oxford Dictionary Of The Christian Church. 3rd ed. Edited by E.A. Livingstone. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Christian Liberty or Sinful Behavior? The issue of alcohol in Christianity

2006-07-06T10:25:00.000-04:00

The alcohol industry is a multi billion dollar industry which is in almost every town and touches almost every family in some way. Although alcohol is wide spread, easy to buy, and even considered normal behavior in our culture, does it make it right for Christians? Although for years it has remained a closed subject, in recent days, many Christians have been debating the issue of beverage alcohol in relation to Christian liberty. In June, the SBC approved a resolution which prohibits the use of alcohol. Many people have become outraged by the new resolution, and some have gone as far as calling it legalism. Where should a Christian draw the line? Is it mere sloppy drunkenness that is condemned by the Word of God? How should a person define the condition of drunkenness? Could drunkenness be classified by a buzz that impairs the body and mind? What does the Bible say about alcohol? Furthermore, how should Christians behave in a culture filled with alcohol? The issue comes down to the question of does Christian liberty include the use of beverage alcohol on a social level?

Avoid Drunkenness

The first camp holds to the position that beverage alcohol is permitted for Christians so long as the individual avoids drunkenness. A person within this camp would typically quote John 2 where Jesus showed up at the wedding feast in Cana and turned the water into wine. If Jesus turned the water into wine and he partook of wine on occasion, what is wrong with having a little wine with a good Italian meal?

Avoid the Appearance of Evil

The next camp takes the position that alcohol is perceived as an “evil” in our land, and we should avoid it due to the poor testimony that would be displayed by partaking of beverage alcohol. A person in this camp would often quote 1 Thessalonians 5:22 which says, “Abstain from all appearance of evil.”

Avoid Offense

Another prominent position holds to the position that it is impossible to drink beverage alcohol as a Christian without offending another brother in Christ. The offense could then lead to stumbling if the individual gets involved with alcohol himself. A person in this camp would often quote Romans 14 on the subject of avoiding meat if it offends your brother in Christ. A person in this camp may not see anything wrong with drinking alcohol, but will avoid it due to the possible harm it may cause another Christian.

Avoid Sickness

A popular position regarding alcohol is based upon the use of alcohol in the biblical days. Did Jesus and his disciples sit around with wine for the purpose of a buzz? A person in this camp would hold to a position that the wine that Christ drank and used was simply used for purification purposes. In the days of Jesus, modern appliances and luxuries such as water filtration systems did not exist, therefore, it was necessary to utilize alcoholic beverage to kill bacteria. Someone in this camp would also point out that the alcoholic content would not be the same as the content of our beverage alcohol today. Therefore, a person in this camp would hold to a “teetotaler” position from alcohol on the basis that it is not necessary for any purification or preservation in our day and furthermore, the wine used by Christ was not the same as what we find at the local liquor store.

Considerations

All of the above positions have serious issues that must be considered before jumping in head first!

In John 2, the first recorded miracle of Jesus Christ is performed at a wedding feast. Often wedding feasts would be extended for an entire week of celebration. For the groom to run out of wine would be a disgraceful thing, and this miracle performed by Christ prevented such problems from occurring. The question must be asked – is the word used for wine in John 2 [oinos] defined in all instances as alcoholic? The answer to that question is – No. The word used in John 2 can be used for alcoholic or non-alcoholic wine [fresh fruit of the vine].

Another question that must be raised is regarding the evil appearance and perception of beverage alcohol. Is the normal behavior of a Christian or a minister characterized as sitting around sipping on a cold beer? Is alcohol perceived as an “evil” in our day? Therefore, if the normal Christian behavior is not classified as partaking of alcohol and the normal perception of alcohol is typically poor, it would not be wise to partake of alcohol in our culture.

What about the alcoholic content of the biblical days compared to the day in which we live? Is there any difference? John MacArthur quotes Dr. Robert Stein from a 1975 copy of Christianity Today:

Robert Stein explains that the ancient Greeks kept their unboiled, unmixed, and therefore highly alcoholic wine in large jugs called “amphorae”. Before drinking they would pour it into smaller vessels called “kraters” and dilute it with water as a much as twenty to one. Only then would the wine be poured into “killits,” the cups from which it was drunk. It was this diluted from that was commonly referred to simply as wine (oinos). The undiluted liquid was called akratesteron, or “unmixed wine,” wine that had not been diluted in a “krater.” Even among the civilized pagans, drinking unmixed wine was considered stupid and barbaric [MacArthur – Ephesians Commentary pg. 236].

Last of all, we must truthfully ask ourselves the question – Did Christ condone and contribute to the sin of drunkenness? In John 2 the ruler of the feast commented that most people serve the best wine first and save the poor wine until everyone is well drunk, but in this case the best was actually saved until the end. We know why it was the best – because Christ made it! However, those who run to this text in order to claim Christian liberty run into several issues that must be addressed. First, what does the phrase “well drunk [KJV]” or “drunk freely [NASB]” mean? On the issue of John 2:10, the following observation should be noted. I quote Marvin R. Vincent D.D. – in Volume II of IV of Vincent’s Word Studies In The New Testament:

Have well drunk (methuo {meth-oo'-o})……In every instance of its use in the New Testament the word means intoxication (Vincent pg. 82).

With this being known – what must we say about the wine that Christ provided? Was it alcoholic? Would Christ actually provide alcoholic beverages to those who were already intoxicated? Furthermore, is it necessary for Christ to “create” juice which had alcohol in it? Certainly Christ would be able to create a pure beverage uncontaminated with bacteria. This issue must be dealt with before one automatically claims the “Christian liberty” issue for wine in our day.

Questions For Our Discussion:

1. When Christ turned water into wine in John 2 – was it alcoholic or non-alcoholic [fresh fruit of the vine]?
2. Did Christ contribute to the sin of drunkenness in John 2?
3. Should alcohol be permitted at any time for Christians?
4. Is it wise to drink alcohol?
5. What are the harmful effects of alcohol use by Christians?

For the glory of God and the God of glory!

Rev. Josh Buice

. . . . . . . . . . . .
Reply To This Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Resources:

The Southern Baptist Convention’s Resolution on Alcohol

Teetotaler vs. Loosey Goosey Part I

Teetotaler vs. Loosey Goosey Part II

The MacArthur New Testament Commentary - Ephesians - By: John MacArthur

FIRST-PERSON: The case for alcohol abstinence by: Dr. Danny Akin

FIRST-PERSON: Concerning alcoholic beverages by: Dr. Paige Patterson

The Road of Freemasonry --- Social, Religious, or Cultish?

2006-06-26T18:08:00.000-04:00

In 1992, a man by the name of James Holly requested that the Southern Baptist Convention conduct an investigation on Freemasonry. The SBC agreed and came to the conclusion that the teachings of Freemasonry were somewhat incompatible with Christianity, but the subject was open to each individual’s conscience.

In a 1993 publication of The Scottish Rite Journal, Freemasonry issued a response of its own:

"Because of your support, the vote of the Southern Baptist Convention is a historic and positive turning point for Freemasonry. Basically, it is a vitalization of our Fraternity by America's largest Protestant denomination after nearly a year of thorough, scholarly study. At the same time, it is a call to renewed effort on the part of all Freemasons today to re-energize our Fraternity and move forward to fulfilling its mission as the world's foremost proponent of Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God." The Scottish Rite Journal, Aug. 1993.

Following the SBC vote, the overwhelming theological issues of Freemasonry remain unnoticed. Today, The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary offers Masonic scholarships to students and unknown thousands of SBC members are also members of Masonic Organizations.

I have spoken with many Masonic members through the years, and their response seems to be consistent. They often reply, “We are not a religion.” While that may be the “official” position, the question remains – “Where does the road of freemasonry lead?”

A Religious Road

Like most religions, Freemasonry has many ritualistic behaviors which indicate a religious tone. In a brochure written by E.M. Storms titled, Should a Christian Be A Mason, the following quotations are cited in order to prove the religious foundation of Freemasonry:

Every Masonic Lodge is a temple of religion and its teachings are instruction in religion (Royal Arch).

It is the universal, eternal, immutable religion (Grand Elect, Perfect and Sublime Mason).

Masonry propagates no creed except its own most simple and Sublime one; that universal religion taught by Nature and Reason (Prince Adept).

The Rite raises a corner of the veil, even in the Degree of Apprentice; for it there declares that Masonry is a worship (Grand Elect, Perfect and Sublime Mason).

Masonry is a worship; but one in which all civilized men can unite….(Prince of Mercy).

Therefore, it should be noted that Freemasonry possess many characteristics of religion. Freemasonry, an organization which denies that it is a religion, prays, recognizes and utilizes religious books, holds rituals, and even operates with titles for positions within the organization such as Worshipful Master.

A Cultish Road

Should Freemasonry be classified as a cult? The word, “cult” packs quite a punch, and it should not just be thrown around lightly. What is a cult?

Webster.com – “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents”

Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult#Christianity_and_Cults]--Walter Martin, the pioneer of the Christian countercult movement gave in his 1955 book the following definition of a cult:

"By cultism we mean the adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origin to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources. Cultism, in short, is any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith."

While moving through a study of cults during a Wednesday Bible Study last year with our church, the following definition was formulated and used to define a cult. “Any group of people who accept a doctrine or teaching which denies the essential aspects of Salvation as recorded in the Bible is classified as a cult.”

Within the framework of all of the definitions above, the movement of Freemasonry could accurately be classified as a cult. Within Freemasonry, what teachings deny the essential aspects of Salvation as recorded in the Bible?

Freemasonry Rejects YHWH [God]

According to Pike’s Liturgy of the Scottish Rite:

“The Supreme, Self-existent, Eternal, All-wise, All-powerful, infinitely Good, Pitying, Beneficent, and merciful Creator and Preserver of the Universe was the same, by whatever name he was called, to the intellectual and enlightened men of all nations (93:162, as cited in 168:143) See also: John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Fast Facts On The Masonic Lodge. p. 75.”

Freemasonry worships a deity called, “The Great Architect of the Universe.” This is their way of universally allowing all religions to worship under one roof at one alter.

“The Christian, the Hebrew, the Moslem, the Brahmin, the followers of Confucius and Zoraster, can assemble as brethren and unite in prayer to the one God who is above all the Ballim (Albert Pike, Morals And Dogma (Charleston, S.C.: The Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree for the Southern Jurisdiction of the U.S.A., 1950, 226).”

Freemasonry Rejects Christ Jesus

According to Ed Decker, Masons do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as God.

“They don’t acknowledge the unique Godhood of Jesus Christ, that He died for our sins, or that He rose from the dead (Ed Decker, The Masonic Lodge What You Need To Know, Quick Reference Guide).”

“Hiram, like Jesus, is subjected to three temptations which he withstands. He, like all the other saviors, loses his life in the contest between Right and the Principle of Evil. He lies buried fifteen days in contrast to the three days Jesus is said to have been in the tomb. The manner of his resurrection is dramatically different from all the others. Here, in fact, is a more enlightening example of resurrection than in any of the savior legends (George Steinmetz, The Lost World Its Hidden Meaning, p.156).”

“Therefore Masonry teaches that redemption and salvation are both the power and the responsibility of the individual Mason. Saviors like Hiram Abiff can and do show the way, but men must always follow and demonstrate, each for himself, his power to save himself, to build his own spiritual fabric in his own time and way. Every man in essence is his own savior and redeemer; for if he does not save himself, he will not be saved. The reader who succeeds in getting back to the real teachings of the masters, including Jesus of Nazareth, will find unanimity of thinking on this matter (Lynn Perkins, The Meaning of Masonry, p.95).”

Freemasonry Rejects The Holy Spirit

"Every candidate for the Mysteries of Masonry, at the proper time and in an appropriate manner, should be taught the truth that the rite of initiation means much more than a formal ceremonial progress through the degrees. Initiation is to be attained only after real labor, deep study, profound meditation, extensive research and a constant practice of those virtues which will open a true path to moral, intellectual, and spiritual illumination." -Grand Lodge of Texas, A.F. and A. M., Monitor of the Lodge: Monitorial Instructions in the Three Degrees of Symbolic Masonry, (Grand Lodge of Texas, 1982) pg. XV-XVI

True Illumination comes through the Holy Spirit alone. Without the Holy Spirit, the natural man cannot understand Spiritual things. The Spirit of God has come to lead us unto all Truth. Freemasonry does not have the ability or power to lead people to light, truth, or Salvation, however, that is the overall emphasis of their movement.

While Freemasonry does not have an official document that proclaims their doctrine, it operates with a more “secret” agenda that seeks to destroy the truth of the Holy Bible. Therefore, all Christians should remove themselves from ALL Masonic organizations in light of the truth presented in the above documents.

A Wide Road

Like many “main stream” movements, Freemasonry accepts all religions and invites all religious people to pray to the “Great Architect of the Universe.” Because of the wide acceptance of all religions and the denial of Christ Jesus, Freemasonry is on the wide road that leads to destruction.

Matthew 7:13
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Christ is the “strait gate” mentioned in Matthew 7:13. It is a narrow way, because Christ is the only way.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dear Southern Baptist Members,
6-25-06

I am writing to you as a brother in Christ and with a pure heart. I realize that we as an organization have many battles to fight, much work to accomplish, and many goals to achieve. With that in mind, it is my humble opinion that we should revisit the issue of Freemasonry and take a stand against this organization which slanders the name of Christ Jesus, denies the God of the Bible, and operates in a secretive way with an agenda against Christianity. It has been noted that the Masonic organizations raise thousands of dollars each year for burned children, operate hospitals across the country, and perform much good work in the community. With that in mind, it should be noted that all goodness is not godliness. If Freemasonry can be classified as a cultish movement, we as SBC members have no business being involved with their organization. Therefore, I am asking that you write letters to the SBC entities including our Seminaries and request that all of the scholarships and funding tied to Freemasonry be removed.

May we work together to spread the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ – and may we unite to stand against organizations such as Freemasonry which deny the foundational elements of the gospel!

Your Brother In Christ,

Rev. Josh Buice

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For Our Current Discussion:

1. Should Freemasonry be classified as a cult?
2. What is the best way to make a stand against Freemasonry?
3. What biblical passage clearly stands in opposition to Freemasonry?

Reply to this post
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Previous Discussion Regarding Freemasonry [July of 2005] --- http://ptdc.blogspot.com/2005/07/freemasonry-in-christianity-is-there.html

Resources on Freemasonry:

1. “The Masonic Lodge – What You Need To Know – Quick Reference Guide” by: Ed Decker

2. “Fast Facts On The Masonic Lodge” by: John Ankerberg & John Weldon

3. “Should A Christian Be A Mason” by: E.M. Storms

4. http://www.biblebb.com/files/J94-52-1.HTM by: Eddy D. Field II and Eddy D. Field III

5. "The Deadly Deception: Freemasonry Exposed by One of Its Top Leaders" by: Jim Shaw & Tom McKenney

6. "One Nation Under Gods" by: Richard Abanes.

7. "Closer Look. Freemasonry" - NAMB article.

8. Comparison Chart – NAMB chart.

9. “Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions” by: John Ankerberg and John Weldon

10. "THE MASONIC LODGE AND THE CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE" by: John Weldon
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Three Winds of Bible Theology --- Where Do You Stand?

2006-06-23T16:30:00.000-04:00

The framework of our theology will govern how we read the Bible from Old Testament to New Testament. Therefore, it is highly important that we seek a biblical framework in order to properly read and understand the Bible. For instance, when a homosexual views the Bible through the lens of “love” and “acceptance” and “inclusivism” he or she find it hard to take the literal judgment of God seriously upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Three major camps exist in the conservative realm of Bible theology. The thee positions include Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology. The three camps differ in their position on the completion of biblical covenants in relation to the church. Where should we stand? What position is the most biblical? In the following article, the three theological views will be reviewed and a set of questions will be supplied for our discussion.

Dispensational Theology

Dispensational theology is focused on a “stage” progression of events throughout the Bible. "The Dispensational model was developed by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) [Erickson 1168]." This view was popularized by the Scofield Study Bible in years past. The Dispensational view typically holds to a 7 stage dispensational model which progresses from Adam and Eve to the completion of God’s Kingdom. The seven periods can be summarized or categorized in the following manner – [Innocence (before the fall)] – [Conscience (Adam-Noah)] – [Government (Flood-Abraham)] - [Promise (Abraham-Moses)] – [Law (Moses-Christ)] – [Grace (Pentecost-Rapture)] – [Millennium].

The Dispensational model put much emphasis upon the literal interpretation of Scripture. The literal interpretation of Scripture according to the Dispensationalist does not discredit all use of imagery or differing genres of literature, however, if the passage seems to carry a simple and straight forward meaning, the Dispensationalist does not agree with looking into a “deeper” meaning.

In the Dispensational model, the separation of ethnic Israel and the present day Church is strictly enforced. The Dispensational model claims that the covenants made with Israel by God are to be fulfilled with ethnic Israel in the future. The time period that focuses upon God’s future dealings with Israel in the Dispensational model is the final stage in the progressive chain – the Millennium. Flowing from a literal interpretation of Scripture, the Dispensationalist connects the covenants of the Old Testament with the ethnic Israelites of the Millennium. During that period, the Dispensational model claims that the church will be “raptured” away, and the time period of the Tribulation will encompass the fulfillment of God’s promises of the Old Testament.

Covenant Theology [CT]

The Covenant Theology position (CT) systemizes the events of the Bible under different “covenants” rather than periods or dispensations. In the CT position, the unity of the Old Testament of Grace with the Church is magnified and emphasized rather than separated.

The unity of the covenants within the CT position started when the promise of the Messiah came about in Genesis 3.15. Within CT the covenants made to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David were distinct to the Jewish people, however, their completion is carried forth in the overarching theme of the Covenant of Grace [Genesis 3.15]. Within the Covenant of Grace, the people of Christ Jesus [The Church] will take part in the blessings of this covenant. Therefore, the CT position does not separate ethnic Israel from the modern day Church due to the unity of believers in Jesus Christ.

One aspect of CT that separates it from the Dispensational model is the focus upon the law and the organizational aspect of the law. CT typically separates the law into three distinct aspects [civil, ceremonial, and moral]. Under the CT position, the civil and ceremonial aspects are no longer necessary, because they have been fulfilled in Christ Jesus. The moral aspect of the law is still necessary and to be followed in our present age.

The different categories of covenants in the CT system flow under three headings [covenant of redemption, covenant of works, and covenant of Grace]. The covenant of redemption is the covenant made between the Godhead that Christ would come to earth and die the ignominious death of the Cross for the sin debt of the elect. The covenant of works was established for Adam [the first human] and his wife Eve in the Garden of Eden. This covenant was based upon works and suggested that obedience brought forth the fruit of life and disobedience brought forth the judgment of death. The last covenant is the covenant of Grace. This covenant is for those who accept Christ Jesus as their LORD and Savior. In this covenant, God graciously imputes to the believer the righteousness of Christ Jesus which was lost in the fall of Adam and Eve – therefore, it enables the believer to stand righteous before God. The covenant of Grace is the culmination of the covenant of redemption, and it was promised back in Genesis 3.15 but established before time began.

New Covenant Theology [NCT]

New Covenant Theology (NCT) differs from the Dispensational model as well as the CT model in several distinct areas. “In simplistic terms New Covenant Theology is a middle-ground between a Reformed and Dispensationalist view of how the Old Testament, and in particular the Mosaic Covenant, apply to the Christian today. Though, on balance, the New Covenantal position probably holds a lot more in common with Reformed Covenant Theology than it does with Dispensationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Theology).” While the CT position separates the Mosaic Law into three distinct sections, the NCT position does not agree with breaking the Mosaic Law up into distinct pieces. “NCT argues that one cannot divide the law up in that way, as though part of the Mosaic Law can be abrogated while the rest remains in force. The Mosaic Law is a unity, they say, and so if part of it is canceled, all of it must be canceled. On top of this, they say that the New Testament clearly teaches that the Mosaic Law as a whole is superseded in Christ. It is, in other words, no longer our direct and immediate source of guidance. The Mosaic Law, as a law, is no longer binding on the believer (Desiring God Staff).” Many people today struggle with what pieces of the Mosaic Law are to be followed in our day. “The benefit of NCT, its advocates argue, is that it solves the difficulty of trying to figure out which of the Mosaic laws apply to us today. On their understanding, since the Mosaic Law is no longer a direct and immediate source of guidance, we look to the Law of Christ for our direct guidance (Desiring God Staff).”

Therefore, to summarize the NCT position, the adherents would claim that all of the O.T. laws are not void – but they are fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Rather than looking back to the Mosaic Law, one should look to the N.T. – toward Christ Jesus who is the fulfillment of all covenants and laws.

Conclusion:

John MacArthur says, “The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an ‘amillennialist,’ or a ‘Covenant Theologian’ that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel--an amillennialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom. My answer to them is simply this, ‘You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church--show me!’ Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says ‘Israel’ He means the ‘Church’ (http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-16-9.htm)? ”

Desiring God Staff says,“John Piper has some things in common with each of these views, but does not classify himself within any of these three camps. He is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium. Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works, but he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace. In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category (http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/law_gospel/disp_cov_ncov.html).”

The question remains – where do you stand?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For Our Discussion:

1. What position seems to be most biblical?
2. What system do you accept, why?
3. Is Christ the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law?
4. Can the Mosaic Law be split into three sections?
5. Is Dispensationalism valid in any form?

For the glory of God!

Rev. Josh Buice
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reply To This Post
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
End Notes:

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd Edition

Desiring God Staff, “What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology?” [online] accessed 6-22-06 - http://www.desiringgod.org/library/theological_qa/law_gospel/disp_cov_ncov.html

MacArthur, John. “Dispensationalism” [Online] accessed 6-22-06 - http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/70-16-9.htm

Wikipedia.org – [Online] – accessed 6-22-06 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Theology

Singing Lies Unto The LORD --- BEWARE!

2006-06-22T14:15:00.000-04:00

A few days ago I received a call from a pastor friend. He said, “Why do we sing lies in our churches?” I responded by saying, “We shouldn’t, but often times we do without further consideration.” He went on to speak about a hymn that was sung in his church recently, “I have decided to follow Jesus.” The hymn’s words and music were written by an anonymous writer.

The words of the hymn start out with the verse:

I have decided to follow Jesus;
I have decided to follow Jesus;
I have decided to follow Jesus;
No turning back, no turning back.

The issue of sound theology from our pulpits is a major point of contention in our day. We should always push for sound and biblical theology to be proclaimed from the preacher and teachers of our churches. With all of the talk of biblical theology, shouldn’t the music match the message? While I am a fan of old hymns, it must be pointed out that ALL old hymns are not biblical in their theology. We should not sing a hymn just because its old – just as we should not sing a new praise song because its new! The dividing line in our decision should be the message of the song. The question should be – what theology drives the song?

In the case of the hymn –“I have decided to follow Jesus”– the overarching theme seems to be focused upon the choice of man rather than the providential choice of God for man. While most students of the Word would not discredit the responsibility of man altogether, we must elevate the choice of God above and beyond the choice of man in our worship. The entire purpose of coming and assembling together as a church body is to praise, honor, and worship God rather than the choice of man! Therefore, we should think carefully before choosing hymns for worship. Our singing must glorify God.

It should be noted that the hymn, “I have decided to follow Jesus” is not altogether poor in theology – since it focuses on a perseverance aspect toward the end of the hymn. The hymn should not be viewed as a lie, however, one may note that it is a bit man focused. The point is – worship should always be God centered! The question one must ask is, “Does this hymn glorify God?” In the case of “I have decided to follow Jesus” God is glorified, and therefore, believers in the Lord Jesus Christ can sing it with a pure heart and pure motives.

In our society, a wide range of churches exist. Some churches make it a policy to sing only praise songs that were written from the 1990’s to the present day. Other church bodies exist that sing only hymns from the oldest Baptist hymnal [usually out of print]. I have heard preachers preach from the verse – Ephesians 5:19,“Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;" and claim that our "hymns" are the only thing suitable for biblical worship. Even more disturbing was a service where I heard music such as “Momma’s House” and “Daddy’s Hands” being played, and that does nothing but glorify “Momma” and “Daddy” rather than our God! I have been to youth events and heard praise songs that repeated the same shallow phrase with the uplifted hand for 10 minutes, and that also seems to miss the mark as well. In our present day of “worship wars” one must be careful to not point the finger of “liberalism” toward anyone who uses current praise songs. The same policy should be true concerning those who point the finger of “legalism” in the direction of the more traditional worshippers. While I tend to be more “hymn” focused due to the rich theology of some of the hymns, I also recognize good praise songs as well. The dividing line should always be theology – what is the message of the song? Just as we seek to be biblical in our theological preaching and teaching, we should seek the same foundation for our music as well.

Ron Ownes says in his book, Return To Worship - A God Centered Approach - "It is my conviction that in much of the Western Church today, music has become overly important. To many, worship is music, and music is worship, and many worship music."

For our discussion:

1. What genre of music is most rich in theology?
2. Is the split service model [traditional / contemporary] a good thing?
3. Should congregations seek a more blended service?
4. What should drive the music – the people’s desire or the message?

All for the glory of God and the God of glory!

Rev. Josh Buice
.....................................
Reply to this post

True Expository Preaching --- Where Art Thou?

2006-06-17T12:08:00.000-04:00

What exactly is true expository preaching? Many preachers today are quick to label themselves as expositors of the Word, but most lack the knowledge of true expository sermon structure and style.

There is no question, expository preaching is the absolute best model for accurately delivering the full and complete truth of the passage to the people. In order to accurately teach and instruct people, it is necessary to adopt an expository model for a long range goal of biblical literacy.

John MacArthur said, “Specifically, evangelical preaching ought to reflect our conviction that God's Word is infallible and inerrant. Too often it does not. In fact, there is a discernible trend in contemporary evangelicalism away from biblical preaching and a drift toward an experience-centered, pragma-tic, topical approach in the pulpit (MacArthur, "The Mandate" 4).”

The pastor’s ultimate goals should be centered upon faithful teaching and exposition of the text, which will lead the people toward biblical knowledge, literacy, and comprehension of the text itself. The popular model today seems to be numbers centered rather than knowledge centered – and this can be a very dangerous cycle that will continue to lead multitudes of people down a path of biblical illiteracy. The best of both worlds would incorporate a desire for relevancy, church growth [through biblical evangelism], and solid biblical exposition that would send multitudes of people home each week with a true and accurate message rather than stage centered entertainment, 5 steps to success talks, and pop-psychology. The need in the heart of mankind – is the Word of God!

G. Campell Morgan said, “The supreme work of the Christian minister is the work of preaching. This is a day in which one of our great perils is that of doing a thousand little things to the neglect of the one thing, which is preaching (G. Campbell Morgan, Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974 rpt.) 11).”

Walter C. Kaiser said, “Without the Spirit's illumination and power, the message will be relatively impotent (Kaiser, Exegetical Theology 236).”

There is much truth to behold in these two statements! It takes more than clever words, enticing phrases, and fancy alliteration of the text to pierce the human heart. It takes a work from God. The Spirit makes application of the text in the heart. How is the best way to approach the text? Should a preacher seek to incorporate as many verses in the sermon as possible in order to drive home the point? Should proof texts be linked to each phrase and line of the message? Exactly what is an expository sermon?

As I had dinner with two of my respected preacher friends one evening, they commented on my sermon which I had preached in their church. I had preached a message from the fourth chapter of John’s gospel. I had employed many proof texts in the message as a means of driving home the point of the sermon – and this was my usual style of preaching. As we sat through dinner, my two friends gave me advice that I had never considered before. They spoke up against the use of proof texts in the expository sermon! I was shocked by this thought, and my nature opposed it completely. Although I opposed the idea, I did listen to their points. They continued by suggesting that proof texts can cause confusion in the message due to flipping of pages, lack of time to validate the context of the proof texts, lack of time to deal with the exegesis of the proof texts, as well as a denial of the sufficiency of the original passage which I had read. One of my friends said, “If the Scriptures are sufficient, why must you run to 12 proof texts of the passage to PROVE them to the hearts of people?” My friends continued by suggesting that the use of proof texts should not completely be outlawed from the expository sermon, but it should be followed as a general rule. As I chewed my steak and continued to listen, they explained that proof texts such as quotations of Old Testament literature and proof texts that deal with explaining an obscure passage are generally useful, but running to proof texts just as a means of proof is unnecessary.

I was taken back by this conversation, and I did oppose their views with some examples such as Dr. John MacArthur, Spurgeon, and others. They insisted that the normal congregation is not at the same level as MacArthur’s and Spurgeon’s former congregation – therefore, we should remember that most of our congregations are full of biblically deficient people who may not be able to locate other books used to proof text a passage – and this could cause confusion. As I left dinner that evening, I pondered on their points as I drove home and throughout the next several months. After much consideration in my own heart and life, I have come to the conclusion that my two preacher friends were right on target! I have now begun preaching with a limited amount of proof texts. This seems to be more efficient and beneficial to my congregation each week, and I would assume the same thing for others who sit under a similar model. I have found more time to deal with issues of the passage such as definitions and relevant contextual issues rather than flipping from chapter and verse to other areas of the Word.

The issue comes back to the question – what is an expository sermon? We must deal accurately with the text in order to preach an expository message. Should the text be dealt with in the order in which it was recorded? Does the preacher have liberty to take a passage out of the inspired order? Many issues are relevant to this topic of expository preaching, and we must determine what a true and accurate expository sermon looks like and start preaching in such a way to bring people in our congregations back to a firm foundation of the Word of God!

For our consideration:

1. What is an expository sermon?
2. Should proof texts be used in the expository sermon?
3. Should the text be preached in the inspired order?
4. Should media be used in the preaching of a sermon? By media I mean – Power Point, video clips, audio clips, and other means of communication. What are the pros and cons?

Rev. Josh Buice

.....................................................
Respond to this post

Expository Preaching --- Efficient & Relevant

2006-06-06T22:16:00.000-04:00

Today, a large percentage of pulpits are empty and search committees are entrusted with the task of finding an able minister to fulfill the necessary requirements of ministry for their specific church. Dr. Vogel – professor of Christian Preaching at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville Kentucky tells the story of a committee member who once contacted him for references for a specific pulpit ministry. As the individual talked with Dr. Vogel he said the main requirement was that the minister had to be funny. What a sad day it is when pulpit committees are searching out ministers on the basis of humor ability rather than their ability to deal with the Word of Truth. When it comes to finding a pastor, what types of characteristics should be sought out above all others? Should the pastor be a “people” person? Should the pastor be a humorous person? Should the pastor be good with money? Should the pastor be able to “grow” a church? Should the pastor be “cutting edge” in his method of ministry? What exactly should be the highest characteristic that is sought after in a pastor? With these considerations in mind, it is my deep settled conviction that the most sought after characteristic should be that of an expository preaching methodology. The proper expository ministry will educate the people, elevate theology, and eliminate false teaching.

Educates the People

Peter was instructed by Christ to “Feed my sheep” in the 21st chapter of John. Today many churches are full of starving sheep! Many people today within the church are intimidated with the Bible because they are largely ignorant to the content contained therein. Two people are to blame for the amount of ignorance within the church – the individual Christian and the one who stands in the pulpit each week. How does an expository ministry educate people in a more efficient manner than other preaching ministries? First a working definition of expository preaching must be provided. Haddon W. Robinson in his book – Biblical Preaching defines expository preaching in the following way:

Expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through the preacher, applies to the hearers.

What is another leading preaching style that is prevalent in our land today? One of the most prevalent is the style of topical preaching. Topical preaching picks a topic, goes to the Bible for support, selects a starting text, builds an outline upon the topic with many supporting or proof texts, and then rarely makes it back to the starting text. Many topical preachers are seeking to be relevant to the events of society in order to connect with their congregations. How is expository preaching different from topical preaching? Expository preaching starts with a text [usually works through a given book of the Bible verse by verse] and then seeks to expound the truth of the Word in that given text. The goal of the expository sermon is to instill in the hearts and minds of the people the truth contained in the selected text. Therefore, it becomes clear that one who practices the art of expository preaching will better educate his people over the course of time than one who jumps from text to text each week based upon differing topics. When an expository ministry is carried out in a proper manner, the overall biblical education level of the congregation will be higher than one who practices topical preaching. This is the case simply because the expositor will deal with the text verse by verse leaving his hearers with the truth of what was happening in the overall context of the specific book. Therefore, when a faithful expositor completes a book of the Bible, his congregation should have a good grasp of that entire book – whereas one who jumps from book to book each week will leave his congregation starving for the truth of the Bible.

Elevates Theology

Faithful exposition of God’s Word will elevate to the eyes, minds, and heart of the congregation the proper theology of God’s Word. Many churches today are full of congregations that cannot define words such as, propitiation, sanctification, justification, glorification, redemption, or atonement. Much of the cause is due to improper preaching methods in the pulpit. Preaching methods such as topical preaching enable the preacher to skip over tough passages and specific theological issues that may not agree with his theological opinion. Expository preaching [verse by verse] forces the pastor to deal with the text. While it is still a possibility to have an expository preacher skim over theological truths and subjects in a text, it becomes much more difficult and even apparent to the congregation. Therefore, an expository ministry will elevate to the mind the specific theological issues contained in the text. For instance, when a preacher preaches through Ephesians, it will become very apparent – very quickly - that the subject of election will be dealt with in the first several verses of the text. This enables a congregation to leave the study of Ephesians gaining theological and practical truths that will make them better Christians and more biblical in their theological understanding of God. Therefore, expository preaching as a whole will elevate the theological understanding of the people in a much more efficient way than topical preaching.

Eliminates False Teaching

False teaching and false teachers have been a thorn in the side of the church since its conception and it remains one to this present day. How is the best way to overcome false teaching or false teachers in our local church setting? The best way to battle false teachers is to preach the Word in an expository manner. Expository preaching will uncover the lies of false teaching as the text is expounded. Topical preaching has a way of clothing false teaching and improper theology in the clothing of Bible verses which enable it to fly under the radar screens in most churches. Expository preaching will uncover the lies of false teachers as the text is preached faithfully – and this will eliminate the false teacher’s ability to hide their lies within the church. Popular false teachers on our religious broadcasting stations utilize topical preaching methods in order to utilize the Bible to further their agenda. Therefore, it is evident that a proper expository ministry will help eliminate the agenda of false teachers in our day.

Our Discussion

1. Is their room for topical preaching in our pulpits?
2. What are other ways topical preaching is dangerous to the church?
3. What are complaints given to expository ministers?
4. How can expository ministries better connect with their congregations?
5. What movements attack expository ministries?

God Bless,

Rev. Josh Buice
.....................................
[Reply To This Post]

Allegory vs. Accuracy --- Is Allegory a Safe Hermeneutic?

2006-06-01T23:39:00.000-04:00

All Christians at some point must make a choice at the fork in the road of Bible interpretation – will they go off down the road of allegory or will they stay focused on what the Bible is actually teaching? Good hermeneutics are essential to learning the Bible. If an individual approaches a text with poor hermeneutics he or she WILL end up in some form of false doctrine.

I have found that many people in our present day hold to a form of Bible interpretation known as allegory. Allegory is a form of Bible interpretation where a person reads a text and says, “This is a picture of _______” and then they begin filling in the blanks. The first time a person sits under a preacher who preaches with this type of hermeneutic, it may seem like good solid preaching and the preacher may get many AMENS from the congregation. However, when the Bible student goes further into the text and studies out exactly what the text is saying, it will become abundantly clear that the allegorical pictures from the preacher’s sermon cannot be defended with the Bible!

Church history provides us with many good examples for Christian living and ministry. However, when we view some of the giants of church history, we will also discover that some of these individuals held to a strong allegorical method of interpretation. Augustine – one to whom we all appreciate and respect as a great theologian held to allegorical interpretation. Origen was at one time the most respected scholar in church history; however, his interpretation skills were based primarily upon allegory. It was not until the Reformation that such interpretation was rejected by the likes of Calvin and others. Although the Reformation paved the way for much truth and understanding, it did not completely wipe away the allegorical method of Scripture interpretation.

As we have discussed the issue of Freemasonry in Christianity in a previous post – we discovered that the Freemasons we interacted with view Scripture through the lenses of allegory. When I presented solid evidence of why Freemasonry was unbiblical and should be rejected by all Christians, they reversed the Scriptures by applying their own interpretation through allegory. Allegory places in the text things that are not there and it waters down solid truths that happen to be present.

When reading present day books and listening to present day preachers, it does not take long to discover that many writers and preachers still hold to an allegorical hermeneutic. The problem is not just the Freemasons! The problem is found on the bookshelves of our Christian book stores and in the pulpit of many of our churches.

Alan Redpath wrote a book titled, The Making of a Man of God which has some good points for men to consider in their Christian walk. However, if one reads the book, it will not take long before allegory is popping off of the pages left and right. Mr. Redpath’s book is about the life of David – one of my heroes of the Bible. Redpath takes David’s life from the Bible and starts with his early days and outlines his life throughout his struggles with Saul until he becomes King. The book also speaks about the problems David faced while serving as King and the grievous sins that he committed.

In chapter two, the stage is set for the battle between David and Goliath. Mr. Redpath suggests that Israel is the present day church, Goliath is Satan, and David is a picture of Christ who comes to defeat the great enemy of God and the Church – Goliath [Satan]. If a preacher were to stand and proclaim this in a sermon, he would undoubetedly receive AMENS and quite possibly great compliments from the congregation at the back door. Some may even say, “Wow, isn’t it amazing how Bro. SO&SO brings out the truths of Scripture for us untrained people to see.” However, if those untrained individuals decide to study that picture of allegory out in detail, they will not find any biblical support in the Old Testament or in the New Testament for the allegorical hermeneutic. Redpath states the following at the beginning of chapter two:

“The Old Testament as you know, is full of pictures of New Testament truth. It is not only a book of history, through it is that, revealing to us the great seed-plots of God’s plan of redemption for the human race; it also illustrates many great truths later developed in the New Testament, setting them before us in a pictorial language so that we may apply them in our hearts and daily lives……………David here is a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ, who overcame Satan at Calvary, and also a picture of every child of God who is being made one with Him through faith and obedience.”

As you see, Mr. Redpath is utilizing a method of allegorical interpretation. The pictures he is imposing on the text seem good and profitable to us as Christians, but the problem with his position is the lack of biblical evidence to make such suggestions concerning the text! We as readers have no authority to impose pictures on the text that the Bible never intended.

Before confusion sets in among those who may read this post, I am not removing any opportunity for some event in the Old Testament to be a picture or type of something or someone of the New Testament. For instance, when Christ prophesied of His death, burial, and resurrection in Matthew 12 – He used an Old Testament event as a picture!

Matthew 12:38-41
Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [is] here.

Therefore, it would be a good practice to leave out any typology and allegory unless solid biblical evidence exists to back up the pictorial language suggestion. Allegory denies the sufficiency of Scripture at its core and it denigrates the truth of the text! Therefore, it is my conclusion that we should deny the allegorical hermeneutic and cling to a clear and solid exposition of the text. The text is sufficient and it is powerful enough without us adding to or seeking to spiritualize a narrative, historical event, or prophecy of the Scriptures. May we seek to honor God with our study and preaching of His Word! When we read 1 and 2 Samuel, we can view the life of King David with much to learn about history and much to learn about the Christian life. However, if we start imposing pictures on the text that do not exist, we become guilty of perverting the central truth of Holy Scripture.

All for the glory of God and the God of glory!

Rev. Josh Buice
.......................................
[Reply to this post]

Is It Possible To Lose Your Salvation? --- A Biblical View of Eternal Security

2006-05-01T15:21:00.001-04:00

A commuter airline pilot named Henry Dempsey who flew a twin engine airplane out of Portland Main arrived at the airport and inspected his aircraft before boarding. Once he and his co-pilot boarded the plane, they soon received the go ahead for take-off. When Dempsey and his plane lifted off, Dempsey heard an unusual noise from the rear of the plane. After the aircraft reached cruising altitude, Dempsey handed over controls to his co-pilot and walked back to find out what was causing the noise. As Dempsey walked toward the back of the aircraft, the plane hit an air pocket and caused the plane to suddenly jump. This movement sent Dempsey falling onto the passenger door. As Dempsey’s weight hit the door, the door flew open. What Dempsey did not realize was the noise he had heard was the passenger door. The door had become jammed and was not properly secured. As the door opened, Dempsey was sucked out of the aircraft. It became obvious to the co-pilot what had occurred, and he radioed the control tower and declared an emergency. He told the control tower that Dempsey had been sucked out of the aircraft’s passenger door, and he must land the plane with the door in the open position and staircase in the downward position. As the plane approached the runway all of the emergency vehicles were in place and prepared for a rough landing. As the plane approached the runway, the emergency workers were amazed to see Henry Dempsey hanging onto the passenger staircase. When the plane touched down, they rushed to the plane and found Dempsey hanging onto the staircase only inches from the tarmac. The emergency workers had to literally pry the hands of Dempsey from the staircase.

For Dempsey, holding on to the staircase was a matter of life and death. Henry Dempsey knew that if he ever let go of the staircase he was a goner! Although this story may not appear to have much theological significance, it should be noted that many people today have a theology much like Henry Dempsey had when he flew out of the aircraft. Today in the church, many people seem to think they are holding onto Christ and if they ever let go – they’re a goner! Today two popular positions exist which downplay, dismiss, and denigrate the doctrine of eternal security.

Ticket To Heaven

A great population of individuals exist today which seem to believe they hold a ticket to heaven because they prayed a prayer, became a member of a local church, or because they were baptized. These individuals “went through the motions” of religion, however, their life never changed! Many people claim to be on their way to heaven, but their lives don’t show forth true evidence of believing faith. If asked about their faith, they may say, “The Bible teaches – ONCE SAVED – ALWAYS SAVED!” The people who live life in this manner and hold to a doctrine of “once saved – always saved” but have never been truly redeemed by the LORD actually denigrate the doctrine of eternal security. Due to such positions and behavior, those who hold to the doctrine of eternal security have been the subject of rebuke and criticism. It is for this reason that many people continue to suggest a paradigm shift should be made to a position of “Perseverance of the Saints” rather than “Once Saved – Always Saved”.

Saved Again - Lost Again

Another rift within the church today is the belief that a person can actually lose their salvation. A large population of believers today actually hold to a position that claims a person can be saved and then commit some sin that will cause the person to fall from GRACE. Much like the first group, this group also denigrates the doctrine of eternal security. The actual doctrines of redemption, atonement, substitution, and propitiation must be ignored or downplayed in order to hold to a position that teaches a person can lose their salvation.

For Our Consideration

For this topic, we must answer the following questions:

1. How secure is our salvation?
2. What Scripture best teaches the doctrine of security?
3. Is it possible for a person to be saved by GRACE and somehow lose their salvation? Is there biblical support?
4. If a person can lose their salvation, what SIN would cause a person to fall from GRACE? Is there biblical support?
5. Would “eternal security” be more properly labeled – “Perseverance of the Saints”? – Why?
6. Does the position which states that a person can lose their salvation denigrate the doctrines of redemption, atonement, substitution, and propitiation? How?
7. What role does the Holy Spirit play in our security?

Please post your position according to proper biblical exegesis and research. May this topic sharpen our lives and make us more biblical in our understanding of the doctrine of eternal security – or “Perseverance of the Saints”!

For the glory of God and the God of glory!

Rev. Josh Buice

Click Here To Reply To This Post

Paul’s Theology –-- Total Depravity or Partial Deficiency

2006-04-01T08:56:00.000-05:00

We are living in a day and hour where man has an elevated opinion of himself. The typical person in our society knows nothing of sin or the consequences thereof. This type of behavior is understandable outside the church, but when it spills over into the church – it poses a large problem. Sin is more than just a little bad behavior that needs to be dealt with, it is what damned all of humanity to hell, and it is precisely what Christ died upon the cross to eliminate, extinguish, wash away, and destroy through the atonement of the elect.

In order to discuss the doctrine of soteriology (salvation), a person must first come to a proper understanding of depravity. How far down did man fall through sin? What were the overarching consequences of man’s sin? Those are issues which must be understood prior to a study of salvation. The depravity of man is the foundation for the study of soteriology.

John Calvin

John Calvin taught a doctrine called Total Depravity. Calvin defended and refined the Augustinian approach to salvation which involved Total Depravity, Predestination, and Irresistible Grace. Augustine had developed much of his theological position in response to a British Monk named Pelagius. Pelagius rejected the doctrine of original sin and Predestination. Pelagius’ teachings were known as Pelagianism. In the end, Augustine won the long debate and Pelagius’ teachings were condemned as heresy. Calvin came along later and refined the theology of Augustine into a more systematic approach which was often referred to as Systematic Augustinianism.

Total Depravity

The depravity of humanity is due to our sinful condition which came forth from our Father Adam. Romans 5:12 alludes to original sin which was inherited by all of humanity following the sin of Adam and Eve. Therefore, it goes without saying, all of humanity is guilty before God (Romans 3:10; 3:23). Calvin and Augustine taught that man was completely unable to repent, turn to God, come out of the world of iniquity, or choose God without man’s heart being regenerated by God. Calvin had a view of depravity which placed man in a position of total inability and God in the position of total ability in the salvation process. The doctrine of Total Depravity claims that man is completely dead spiritually (Ephesians 2:1) and has no ability to turn from sin to Christ apart from a supernatural working of God.

Jacobus Arminius

Jacobus Arminius taught a distinctively different doctrine than Calvin. Jacobus Arminius was born only 5 years before the death of John Calvin. At age 17, Arminius traveled to Geneva to attend Calvin’s school. Arminius studied under Theodore Beza – the successor of Calvin. It was not until over a decade later when Arminius received his position of professorship at Leiden in 1603 that he rose to the forefront in the Calvinism debate. Arminius rejected the teachings of Calvin and Theodore Beza openly. Arminius taught that man was totally depraved, but he openly rejected the idea of Predestination and Unconditional Election. Arminius said that such views made God the author of evil.

Prevenient Grace

The doctrine of Prevenient Grace claims that all men have been given the ability to turn to God if they choose. The doctrine of Prevenient Grace is directly linked to Arminius. Arminius was accused of Semi-Pelagianism through this teaching, but he denied Pelagianism as well as Semi-Pelagianism. Years later a man named John Wesley came along and extensively defended Arminius’ teaching including the doctrine of Prevenient Grace. Through his acceptance, defense, and rise to popularity throughout his ministry, John Wesley took the doctrine of Prevenient Grace and made it largely a Methodist doctrine.

Calvinism vs. Arminianism

Although neither Calvin nor Arminius were responsible for their complete doctrinal approach, their names became the defining points of the doctrines. Therefore, today we still have the debate of Calvin vs. Arminius in many circles of ministry and Christianity.

The Aposlte Paul's Theology

In Romans 3:10-18 Paul writes:

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips: Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet [are] swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery [are] in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Paul does not seem to indicate in this section of verses that man is able to turn to God. In fact, he says “there is none that seeketh after God.” Furthermore, Paul writes in Ephesians 2:1 “And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;” Paul said that “we” were dead in trespasses and sins. This seems to indicate an inability to turn to God. Did Paul believe the doctrine of Prevenient Grace? Did Paul hold to a partial deficiency of man or a total depravity of man?
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Issue for our discussion:

1. Can a person defend the doctrine of Prevenient Grace from Holy Scripture?
2. Is Prevenient Grace just part of the Semi-Pelagianism heresy warmed over?
3. Does Prevenient Grace disregard Ephesians 2:1?
4. Does Paul teach against such doctrines as Prevenient Grace in Romans 3?
5. Can a person hold to both Prevenient Grace and Total Depravity?

Please respond to this discussion based upon the Holy Scriptures. May God bless us as we study and learn the true doctrines of Scripture. May our discussions bring honor and glory to God!

For the glory of God and the God of glory!

Josh Buice

Click Here To Reply To This Post

Coffee Shop Theology --- Innovation or Iniquity?

2006-03-08T11:04:00.000-05:00

Today’s culture is rapidly changing as technology rapidly increases. The days of old fashioned church services with old brown hymnals are a thing of the past. The modern sanctuary is filled with new high tech ways of getting information out to the church body. From large screens displaying power point presentations to nursery pagers - technology is changning the typical worship service. These technological advances are changing the way we participate in the typical worship service.

Today, parishioners view church services via live feed over the internet, on television channels nationwide, and the same services are broadcast over the radio to thousands of ears each week through FM, AM, and XM channels. Website ministries offer mp3 downloads, streaming audio, and podcast versions of church services.

In our fast moving and innovative culture, a population within the evangelical community is interested in attending church services from the local coffee shop through their laptop computer, ear phones, and high speed wireless connection. This innovative population is drawn to the idea of tuning into their local church service from a couple of blocks away while sipping an Espresso Roast in the local Starbucks. Has innovation crossed the line? Where should the local church draw the line with this type of behavior? Should this type of behavior be tolerated within the local church community?

Hebrews 10:25 states – “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some [is]; but exhorting [one another]: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” The early church was a community of believers in the Lord Jesus Christ which gathered together for the sole purpose of corporate worship. The local church community was a support group, spiritual family, and the body of Christ carrying out the specific tasks of service within the church body and evangelism in the community. The “forsaking” of the assembly was frowned upon heavily in the early church days, but in our day and time – corporate worship is viewed as optional. The Christian community is not under open persecution from the government and society. In America, we exercise our freedom to worship and attend services each week without the risk of personal affliction. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that the average church member has denigrated the need for worship and gathering as a church body. This type of outlook leads to weekend adventures at the ball field, lake, and mountain trails with the family – rather than worshipping Christ Jesus in a corporate church setting. The idea that church attendance is optional also leads the highly innovative population to the coffee shops with their laptop computers.

While technology is a positive tool for evangelism, discipleship, and other ministry options – have we allowed technology to drive us away from the house of God? Have we lost our sense of urgency and need for corporate worship? After looking at this subject according to the biblical model, do you believe it is possible to attend church from the coffee shop and remain in the will of God? Do you believe this type of worship behavior will allow individuals to experience the joy and blessings of the Lord? Where will corporate worship be in 20 years if the coffee shop worship model continues to grow? What would you say to a church body issuing church discipline on those who habitually forsake the assembly of believers?

Please approach this subject with a biblical foundation and a humble spirit. I pray that our interaction together on this topic will bring about much fruit in our lives.

For the glory of God and the God of glory!

Josh Buice

Click Here To Reply To This Post

Emotion vs. Exegesis --- The issue of Limited Atonement

2006-02-04T15:14:00.000-05:00

I walked into the small Independent Baptist Church and took my seat with my Father-In-Law for the revival meeting. Just before the service started, the pastor made his way over and introduced himself. When I introduced myself as a Baptist pastor, he asked if I was “Southern Baptist”? When I responded, you could tell that was a “bad” thing in their congregation.

Through the years, I have had many friends and family members who were members of Independent Baptist Churches. It is an unwritten rule that says, “Independent Baptist Churches should not have Southern Baptist preachers in their pulpits – because they are LIBERAL!”

The thought of liberalism within Southern Baptist Churches is almost always based upon the doctrines of Calvinism. It seems that many who are in the Independent Baptist movement categorize Calvinism with liberalism – which is quite the contrary. Further study would show that John Calvin and other Reformers were not liberals – they were conservatives – ultra conservatives - who bucked the doctrines of the Catholic Church! They were interested in doctrinal purity and they would not allow the perversion of Holy Scriptures to continue.

“. . .when, lo, a very different form of doctrine started up, not one which led us away from the Christian profession, but one which brought it back to its fountain . . . to its original purity. Offended by the novelty, I lent an unwilling ear, and at first, I confess, strenuously and passionately resisted . . . to confess that I had all my life long been in ignorance and error. . . .

I at length perceived, as if light had broken in upon me, [a very key phrase, in view of what we will see] in what a sty of error I had wallowed, and how much pollution and impurity I had thereby contracted. Being exceedingly alarmed at the misery into which I had fallen . . . as in duty bound, [I] made it my first business to betake myself to thy way [O God], condemning my past life, not without groans and tears (see note 14).

God, by a sudden conversion subdued and brought my mind to a teachable frame. . . . Having thus received some taste and knowledge of true godliness, I was immediately inflamed with [an] intense desire to make progress" (see note 15).”
------------------------------
14. John Dillenberger, John Calvin, Selections from His writings, pp. 114-115.
15. John Dillenberger, John Calvin, Selections from His writings, p. 26.
The quote above was taken from desiringgod.org. See link: “http://www.desiringgod.org/library/biographies/97calvin.html”
-------------------------------
These are the words of John Calvin. Calvin wrote these words about his conversion. If the truth were known, we as a Church owe a great deal of respect and gratitude to this man of God.

I was recently listening to a preacher that I have grown to love through the years, and he said in his sermon, “I’m not a Calvinist! I’m not going to be a Calvinist! I don’t care what the Convention thinks! I don’t care what the Denomination thinks! I don’t care what the Association thinks! I don’t care what religion thinks! I don’t care what some preacher’s opinion is, I’m not a Calvinist! I’m not going to be a Calvinist! I never have been a Calvinist! I aint gonna have it here! We are not going to listen to it! It is RADICAL HERESY!” He went further to say, “I have divided friendship with some folks over that.” The emotional debate of Calvinism can become rather heated. It has pushed people away, divided churches, and prevented proper missions from being carried out. The debate by many non-Calvinists seems rather immature and out of context. The real question remains - what saith the Holy Scriptures?

Out of the 5 point system of Calvinism, the most controversial subject is based upon “Limited Atonement”. The fact that man is depraved, elected to Salvation based upon the Will of God, Convicted and drawn to God’s Grace by God Himself, and secured to eternal life (once saved – always saved), is totally clear in Holy Scripture. The turning point comes when someone suggests that Jesus only died for those the Father elected to Salvation. The rift between people is usually based upon this central point called “Limited Atonement”.

The question for this month’s theological discussion is centered upon the veracity of Limited Atonement. Can Limited Atonement be proven with Holy Scripture outside of the systematic theology of Calvinism? Can Limited Atonement be proven with proper biblical exegesis? Can Limited Atonement be substantiated outside of logic, common sense, and without the other points of the T.U.L.I.P. to rely upon?

Please state your position with proper exegesis. Please keep your position / response as brief as possible. Remember, no emotional rants will be tolerated on this subject, and all points should be considered fully with respect to all individuals who weigh in on this subject.

May God grant us wisdom, knowledge, prudence, and understanding as we approach this historical subject. May our outcome be for His glory!

Josh Buice
For the glory of God

Popcorn Preaching Evaluated

2006-01-02T20:01:00.000-05:00

During my visit to Georgia for Christmas, one of my family members told me that her church rented an entire theater for “The Chronicles of Narnia” debut. In the same conversation, she said her pastor preached an entire message the following Sunday morning on the movie. According to my family member, her pastor explained all of the details, hidden meanings, and character relevance of the movie.

We are living in the days of “fast food” Christianity which heavily condones “topical preaching” and “topical” sermons. The ministries that are viewed on the television and listened to on the radio and internet consist mainly of topical messages. I am convinced that many churches are full of people who don’t know the overarching contextual message conveyed in the Scriptures. The largely ignorant congregations today are the result of “popcorn” messages rather than true expository preaching. How can a pastor expect his congregation to learn the Holy Scriptures when he is popping in and out of different books each week? Furthermore, how can a pastor expect his congregation to understand the Scriptures when he stands and delivers a message on “The Chronicles of Narnia”?

It seems that many preachers are seeking to become relevant to the culture and attractive to the culture with “topical series” preaching. Have the Holy Scriptures lost their relevance to our culture? Why are preachers and ministries bent on altering their preaching style to conform to the desires of the people? It seems that many churches are becoming stronger in number but weaker in doctrine.

Is there a need for topical preaching in the local church? Is there a need for any topical preaching through revival crusades, internet, radio, or television ministries? For clarification, when I speak of topical messages, I am referring to a sermon that is proclaimed in a non-expository style. For instance, in a recent message, a preacher read his text from Proverbs, and then moved frantically through the Bible using many different verses in many different locations. He finished up by quoting a verse from the book of Revelation. He was preaching on a topic rather than the text. Having made this clear, I believe any preacher can stand in the pulpit as a guest preacher or as an evangelist and proclaim an expository sermon that contains a thematic topic while accurately delivering an expository message. The question remains – can topical preaching be useful and beneficial to the church?

Dr. Stephen Olford believed in true expository preaching. Dr. Olford spent over 63 years in the ministry as a preacher of God’s Word. Dr. Olford said, "In every period of church history there has been heresy and apostasy, and it's no different today," he said. "Men and women will not endure sound doctrine. I've heard men say, 'If I preach like that, what you call expository preaching ... people won't accept it.' So what? 'People will leave me.' So what?” Dr. Olford goes on to say, “It is in that context that Paul says, 'Preach the word.' We don't budge on that issue," Olford said. "It's all this business of trying to bend the Word as it were to conform with our age, when Paul says, 'be not conformed under (any) circumstances.' This is a mighty imperative. You haven't preached a message if you haven't expounded from Scripture that dominating theme that you are seeking to get across, which is doctrine. The church is built on doctrine (http://www.baptist2baptist.net/b2barticle.asp?ID=99 - 1-2-06).”

Can true doctrine be taught by popcorn preaching? Do you feel that the church is in serious decline because of topical preaching rather than true expository preaching?

May God truly bless us as we examine the issue of topical and expository preaching.

Josh Buice
Practical Theology Discussions

Click Here To Reply To This Post

Divorced Ministers in the Pulpit - A Theological Approach

2005-10-12T11:04:00.000-04:00

Ministry is not an easy calling. Many people view ministry as any other vocation, but that is simply not a healthy assessment. Ministers are often on call 24 hours per day, and most faithful ministers spend hours working to prepare a minimum of three sermons or Bible studies each week. This type of pressure and responsibility can bring about serious marital and family problems if the situations are not corrected. Barna research group says, “half of all pastors (49%) reveal that their family life has suffered significantly as a result of the pressure and demands of their ministry. (1998)” Barna also states, “one out of every eight pastors (12%) have experienced a divorce and most pastors who have been divorced have since been remarried. (2001)” With the issue of divorced ministers in our society, we must face the question regarding divorced ministers serving in the local church.

A prominent pastor in the 1980’s was serving in South Carolina at a very large and healthy church. The pastor and his family lived in a two story home on a golf course, owned a Lincoln Town Car, and was given the freedom to preach unlimited revival and special meetings throughout the year. After much search and prayer, this pastor resigned from his church and went into full-time evangelism. He sold the home on the golf course, the Lincoln Town Car, and moved into a three room apartment on the outskirts of town. He started preaching in local churches and revival meetings as requested, and God seemed to be blessing this man and his family. After several years, he was able to afford a better automobile and a better home for his family, but he was still on the road most weeks throughout the year. During a weekend break between meetings in the early 90’s, his wife walked down the hallway of their home and announced to the preacher and two children that she was tired of living the life of a preacher’s wife, and she was going to file for divorce. She said, “I would like to see what the world has to offer.” Within a few weeks, the divorce was finalized, the family devastated, and the ministry was brought to a stand still.

In the weeks to follow, most pastors and evangelists turned their back on this preacher, and this caused much depression during a dark hour in his life and ministry. He suffered greatly under this heavy burden for several years. Following this dark hour, a start up church was interested in calling this preacher to pastor their church. They were aware of his history, and they saw no reason why they could not call him to pastor their church according to the Bible. He accepted the call, and their church has grown to a level that now supports him on a full-time basis. To this present day, this pastor has never remarried, and is serving his congregation faithfully.

According to the Word of God, should this man be allowed to pastor any congregation? If he was not a pastor, should he be allowed to serve in any ministerial role within the local church body? Biblically speaking, would this gentleman have grounds to serve in evangelism full-time? What exactly does the Word of God say about elders, deacons, ministers, or pastors who divorce? If he remains unmarried, should this change the outcome of our position?

May we all address this topic with the utmost humility and self examination. May God use this topic to strengthen us on a theological and family level. May we all as men of God seek to be the husbands that God has called us to be in order to bring about glory to His name!

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Reply to this posting - Click Here -

War - A Christian's Response

2005-09-01T13:48:00.000-04:00

On September 11, 2001 the United States of America experienced a catastrophic attack of terrorism that rocked the entire country and changed the landscape of two cities. In response to this attack, our military acted by invading Afghanistan and destroying terror training facilities along with capturing hundreds of terrorists. The President and military leaders issued a stern warning to the entire world concerning the harboring of terrorists and terror facilities. After much warning and patience, the United States of America invaded Iraq in a pre-emptive attack based on information concerning W.M.D. (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and terrorism activity by the leadership of Iraq and the country’s superpower - Saddam Hussein.

On September 1st 2005, no W.M.D’s. have been discovered, thousands of Americans have lost their lives, and hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on the war in Iraq. Two weeks ago I received a phone call informing me that Thomas Strickland, a gentleman that graduated high school and attended the same University with me, had been killed in combat in Iraq. Many people today are mourning the death of their family members and friends. On a positive note – the evil dictator named Saddam Hussein has been captured and is going to be brought to justice within a free society. The people of Iraq are no longer under oppression by a murderous dictator, and they can rebuild their own lives and operate in a free society. The entire world including the United States is much safer now that Hussein and his counterparts are being brought to justice.

The political battle has been consumed with finger pointing games and much of the previous Presidential Election was based upon the war in Iraq. The liberals claim it is an unjust war that could have been avoided, and others claim it is for the betterment of the world and the people of the United States that we have taken on this monumental task of liberating Iraq and fighting terror.

My question for our theological consideration is whether or not the pre-emptive attack on Iraq can be justified biblically? Furthermore, I would like to address the question of war in general, along with the question of whether or not war can be justified biblically? What determines the necessity of war, or can any reason provide adequate justification for killing other human beings? What does God think about the killing of innocent people through war? What does God think about the soldier who takes another human being’s life within the boundaries of “war”?

May God teach, sharpen, and humble our hearts through His powerful Word!

God Bless,

Josh Buice
For the glory of God and the God of glory!

To respond to this post - Click Here

Methodology Rather Than Theology --- Is Church Growth a Bad Thing?

2005-08-04T09:46:00.000-04:00

Recently the pastor of the largest church in America, Joel Osteen, appeared on Larry King Live. Osteen is the pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston Texas. The church had 57,000 in attendance for their grand opening of their new facility in July. Besides proving to the world that he is a heretic, he also proved to be a true “seeker” in his method of ministry. This trend of mega-church methodology has many people talking. Is the mega-church a proper model for ministries in our society? Does the mega-church lose the discipleship focus of the local church setting? Can a mega-church avoid pitfalls such as liberalism and false doctrine? Should a mega-church be the goal for each local church in our communities?

By speaking of “seeker” churches I am not talking about having big screens, internet sites, radio ministries, or even television ministries. When I speak of these types of churches I am speaking mostly about their methodologies along with their theological stances.

Is there a danger with the “church growth” and “seeker sensitive” churches today? Does this model have the potential to divide the SBC in the days to come? Today a model of “church growth” exists which seems to be growing in number and popularity. The model called the “Willow Creek Model” consists of churches that seek to gain numbers without being confrontational with the gospel and the message of repentance.

Laura M. Kaczorowski describes the Willow Creek Community Church located near Chicago in the following way, “Millions of souls in the Chicago metropolitan area are being targeted for redemption, but not with hell fire, brimstone, or any other traditional methods of conversion. Instead, the Evangelical Christian leaders at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, are betting that modern sound and stage equipment, a secular auditorium, and sermons targeted to Baby Boomers will eventually foster traditional beliefs about Jesus Christ in unchurched suburbanites. Offering parking attendants, recreation, professionally styled drama, and a plethora of special interest services and groups, Willow Creek Community Church, an interdenominational Evangelical Protestant church, is specifically designed for the manufacture of converts. Willow Creek does not look or sound like a traditional Fundamentalist church, which often involves uncomfortable pews, long prayer, pleas to fill the collection plates, and tearful invitations to save your soul. Quite the opposite of these stereotypes, a typical service is a fast paced production designed to entertain and cajole without making anyone the least bit uncomfortable about being in a church or hearing the Word of God. And it has been amazingly successful(http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/superch.html).”

Joel Osteen said that he never uses the word “sinner” in his messages, and this is the type of message heard under the “Willow Creek” model. This model is focused on numbers rather than the well being of the person’s soul. Many of the “Willow Creek” type churches have allowed membership without conversion and baptism, which is a clear violation of the Scriptures. My question is - do you think this type of model is a true church of Jesus Christ? Are the type of "seeker" sermons following the biblical model? Is this true preaching? What should pastors and church leaders do to prevent such models in their own body? How should we address this within the SBC or within the local Baptist associations?

For God’s Glory!

Josh Buice

To post your opinion -- click here

Freemasonry in Christianity --- Is there room on the pew?

2005-07-12T15:50:00.000-04:00

Today the local church is suffering greatly under the watch of preachers who have little regard for those who enter the fellowship of the church. Some preachers are guilty of trying to build a church, so they invite anyone and everyone to become a member of the church body. Other preachers are not trying to build a church, but they are guilty of the same thing when people seek membership within the local church. In both cases the preacher never asks for the people to give a testimony in order to validate their relationship with Christ. This often leads to churches that are full of unconverted church members.

Many churches today have no qualifications for membership and they are willing to accept anyone who walks down the aisle and shakes the preacher’s hand. Is this the biblical model? Doesn’t this harm the view of church membership and cause problems within the body (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)?

Recently I have been teaching a series on cults on Wednesday evenings. The series goes through major cults in our day and exposes their heretical teachings. I am currently studying “Freemasonry”. I was amazed and surprised as I learned what these people believe. Not only was I amazed due to the teachings of Freemasonry, but I was also amazed of the percentages of Masons within the local church. Many Masons have their “G” symbol on their license plate while others wear it on a ring. The Masons pride themselves on secrecy and they operate under specific vows to never break their secrecy and oaths. I am planning to teach on Freemasonry during the final week of our cult series. My goal is to expose the teachings and ideology of the Masons.

Many mainline denominations have severed ties with Freemasonry. These groups include the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church of England, the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Synod Anglican Church of England, the Assemblies of God, the Church of Nazarene, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Reformed Presbyterian Church, the Christian Reformed Church in America, the Evangelical Mennonite Church, the Church of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland, General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, Grace Brethren, Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Baptist Union of Scotland, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Presbyterian Church in America.

In 1992, a man by the name of James Holly requested that the Southern Baptist Convention conduct an investigation on Freemasonry. The SBC agreed and came to the conclusion that the teachings of Freemasonry were somewhat incompatible with Christianity, but the subject was open to each individual’s conscience.

Should the SBC sever all ties with Freemasonry? Should pastors lead their individual churches to adopt policies that prohibit Masons from joining the local church? What advantages would this have within the church? Would it purify the local assembly? Would it open the eyes of church members to the dangerous doctrines of Freemasonry?

God Bless,

Josh Buice
----------------------------------
Resources on Freemasonry:

1. “The Masonic Lodge – What You Need To Know – Quick Reference Guide” by: Ed Decker

2. “Fast Facts On The Masonic Lodge” by: John Ankerberg & John Weldon

3. “Should A Christian Be A Mason” by: E.M. Storms

4. http://www.biblebb.com/files/J94-52-1.HTM by: Eddy D. Field II and Eddy D. Field III

5. "The Deadly Deception: Freemasonry Exposed by One of Its Top Leaders" by: Jim Shaw & Tom McKenney

6. "One Nation Under Gods" by: Richard Abanes.

7. "Closer Look. Freemasonry" - NAMB article.

8. Comparison Chart – NAMB chart.

9. “Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions” by: John Ankerberg and John Weldon

Invitations or Investigations ---- The issue of evangelistic invitations

2005-07-01T08:04:00.000-04:00

Billy Graham is one of history’s greatest preachers. Billy Graham was converted at age 17 during a Mordecai Ham revival meeting. The revival meeting was held in the fall of 1934 and it lasted for three months. Billy Graham attended night after night and was captivated by the evangelist’s message. At the conclusion of one service, Billy Graham went forward during the invitation and accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Savior and Lord.

Since that night in 1934, God has truly used Billy Graham to propagate the gospel of Christ throughout the entire world. From the beginning, Billy Graham has remained the same preacher with the same gospel message to the ears of mankind. From his first sermon in 1937 to what has been titled his final crusade in New York this past week, Billy Graham has always invited people to “come to Christ” during the invitation.

Anyone who has attended a Billy Graham crusade will testify that literally hundreds and even thousands respond during the invitation, and many critics ask the question, “Do you think all of those people are genuine?”

Today’s churches have changed drastically since the 1930’s. The churches have changed, the revival meetings have changed, and the programs of the church have also changed. I would agree that much of this change is for the good and has helped equip the church to accomplish the necessary tasks around the world, however; one change that has developed in recent years seems to cause alarm among some Christians and church leaders. The change I am speaking of is the removal of evangelistic invitations from church services. In years past and with Billy Graham, an invitation was offered for people to openly and publicly respond to Jesus Christ. Today the trend is moving away from public invitations and toward private counseling sessions with the Pastor on the following day.

Have we compromised with this new trend in the church today? I believe we have compromised when we will openly invite people down the aisle of the “Price is Right” and will close a church service without a public invitation to “come to Christ”! Much of the preaching today is “psychology” sermonettes that are directed to the mind rather than the heart. We still need to stand and plead with people to repent and turn to Christ. May God open our hearts to His Word and allow us to invite people everywhere to repent and come to Christ!

What is your view on this subject based on the New Testament?

Revelation 22:17
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Josh Buice
For the glory of God and the God of glory!

To respond to this post click here

Heresy or Harmony? Should the doctrine of Southeast Christian Church and Bob Russell be accepted by The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?

2005-06-16T14:33:00.000-04:00

The Southeast Christian Church located in Louisville, Kentucky is one of the most impressive church growth models in the world. Southeast Christian Church began in 1962 with only 55 members and an annual giving of $6,488. Since 1962, the Church has grown to over 20,000 members with an annual giving of over 21 million (2001 statistic - When God Builds a Church - 10 Principles for Growing a Dynamic church by Bob Russell with Rusty Russell pg. 286). The pastor of Southeast Christian Church is Bob Russell. “At just twenty-two years of age, Bob became the Pastor of Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, Kentucky. Thirty-eight years later, that small congregation of 120 members has become one of the largest churches in America, with 20,000 people attending the three worship services every weekend (http://www.southeastchristian.org/preach_bobrussell.cfm).”

On several occasions, Bob Russell has been invited to preach in Chapel Services at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. To many, this is nothing to be concerned about, since Bob Russell has been apart of leading such a successful church, he should be allowed to preach in the Chapel Services or speak on matters of church growth. On the other hand, some people disagree with Bob Russell being invited to preach in the Chapel Services due to the fact that he is not a Baptist, and after all, we believe the Baptist doctrines are the correct interpretations of Scripture. The most disturbing difference in Bob Russell’s denomination and the Baptist doctrine is the issue of Baptismal regeneration. Many suggest that Bob Russell does not hold to a strict “Baptismal Regeneration” view point, however, when looking into the subject on the website of the Southeast Christian Church, the following statement was posted:

“When should we be baptized?
A person should be baptized at the time he or she trusts in Christ. The Bible teaches we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8), but in the New Testament church, a person's baptism was always the first expression of faith, not separate from it. So baptism was not just a symbol or a memorial of faith, but was intended to offer a means of union with Christ and a benchmark of transformation, marking the place and time a person made a commitment to Christ (Rom. 6:1-8). At Southeast, we are attempting to restore the original intent and practice of baptism. Therefore, we ask a person to be baptized at the point that he is ready to make a commitment to Christ(http://www.southeastchristian.org/com_whatwebelieve.cfm - Accessed 6-16-05 at 3:06pm).”

1. Based on this statement from the Southeast Christian Church, should Bob Russell, their Pastor, be invited to preach on the campus of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary?
2. Does the Southeast Christian Church’s doctrinal statement reveal heresy?

Please post your position concerning the topic. Answer the two questions above based on Scripture.

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

To God be the glory, great things He has done!

Josh Buice

------------------
Sources:

1. When God Builds a Church - 10 Principles for Growing a Dynamic church by Bob Russell with Rusty Russell

Click here to post your reply to this article

"When Hell Freezes" -- Is it possible for Hell to freeze over?

2005-05-31T12:24:00.000-04:00

The phrase, “When Hell freezes over”, has been used over the years for the purpose of saying, “it will never happen”, in a descriptive way. If the truth were to be known, some people actually would argue that it is possible for Hell to freeze. The people who hold to this radical view of Hell are not unfamiliar with Scripture, in fact; some could actually be teaching in our Seminaries and Pastoring well known churches. Three main views concerning Hell exist among serious students of God’s Word. These three views are as follows, Hell is a literal place with literal fire where annihilation is impossible, Hell is a literal place without literal fire therefore no annihilation, and Hell is a literal place with literal fire that consumes its victims to the point of annihilation.

As I sat in my Hermeneutics class in the Spring of 2004, the Professor made the following statement, “I hold the position that Hell may or may not have flames.” This statement troubled me and even caused me to lose sleep. How could a Professor at a conservative Seminary make such a statement? Once I started looking into the subject, I found that many other people hold to similar views of Hell.

First, the traditional and historic view of Hell is that Hell is a literal place that burns hot with literal fire. Most conservative Bible believing Christians will take this position. It stems from the fact that Jesus preached more about Hell than He did about Heaven, and He used phrases to describe the place such as, “Where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.” The traditional position is also viewed through the eyes of Luke 16:19-31 concerning the rich man and Lazarus. The Bible tells a story about a rich man who died and went to Hell. While in Hell, the Bible says, “He lift up his eyes being in torments” and later in the passage it says, “I am tormented in this flame.” One position claims that Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. The parable position is based on the fact that the passage (Luke 16:19-31) is in the midst of other parables in the Book of Luke, therefore; it must be a parable as well. The second position is that Luke 16:19-31 is a literal story. The literal story position is based on language of the passage. It is a fact that no parable in Scripture ever includes a proper name, yet this story includes two proper names, Abraham and Lazarus. Those who claim Luke 16:19-31 is a literal story also point out that many parables start off with the saying, “And he spake this parable…” and this story does not contain the popular introduction. The traditionalist view is also based upon the meaning of the word Hell in Scripture. The term Hell or geenna {gheh'-en-nah} in the Greek has an interesting meaning. “Hell is the place of the future punishment called "Gehenna" or "Gehenna of fire". This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction (Blue Letter Bible).” The traditionalist claims that since this place was always burning in order to consume the dead bodies of animals and criminals, it was a great illustration for Jesus to use in order to describe the future place of punishment for those who reject Jesus Christ.

Secondly, the less common view of “separation only” involves complete separation from God’s mercy, love, and grace without hope of restoration and salvation, but without any literal fire. This view is rooted in the view that all language in the Bible concerning Hell is simply pictorial. The “separation only” view takes the position that all language of fire in Revelation is apocryphal rather than literal. The "separation only" proponents claim that the fire should never be considered as literal because it was only used to describe in human words the most severe condemnation upon those who reject Jesus Christ.

Last of all, the “annihilationist” claims that Hell is a literal place that is composed of literal fire. Where the annihilationist and the traditionalist differ is in the length of the judgment upon those who reject Jesus Christ. The traditionalist claims that the literal fire will burn forever (all of eternity), however; it will never annihilate the victims. The annihilationist claims that the literal fire will burn those who reject Jesus Christ for a period of time, but will eventually consume them to the point of complete and total annihilation. Edward W. Fudge in the book, Two Views of Hell, claims that the saved receive an immortal body, but that is never the case with the lost. He claims that the lost will be forever destroyed by the flames of Hell.

After reviewing the basic belief systems above on the subject of Hell, what is your position? Do you believe that Hell contains literal fire? Do you believe that Hell is a literal place? Do you believe that Hell is capable of freezing? Post your position and comments on this subject by clicking on the link below.

God Bless,

Josh Buice

Mark 9:44, 46, 48
Where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.

Click here to post a comment

Theology Papers

2005-05-17T08:35:00.000-04:00

Many of our members are involved in higher education in Seminaries across the country. Therefore, we are putting together a resource page with papers covering a wide range of topics. Please make sure you always cite the author properly if you choose to use any of their information.

Papers For Download

Chip Thornton

Bro. Chip Thornton is a phD student at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and he also serves as the Associate Pastor to Belmar Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky.

Download -> Sermon Preparation

Download -> The Da Vinci Code Review

Download -> Justification and the Sufficiency of Scripture - Romans 10:1-13

Download -> Plain Speech on Church Discipline

Contact P.T.D.

2005-05-17T08:28:00.000-04:00

If you have a question or if you need to speak with someone from the P.T.D. regarding a specific matter, please contact Rev. Josh Buice or Chip Thornton at the following E-mail addresses:

May God bless you!

P.T.D.

P.T.D. Membership

2005-05-16T16:51:00.000-04:00

Each month when a new theological topic is posted for discussion, a message is sent out to every P.T.D. member with the topic and a link to the page. If you would like to be added to the listing, please send us your e-mail address by filling out the form at the bottom of this page. NOTE: Your e-mail address will never be posted on the web and it will never be sold off to spam organizations. Your e-mail address will always be safe within our community.

God Bless,

P.T.D.

About P.T.D.

2005-05-16T16:29:00.000-04:00

The Practical Theology Discussions website is open for all Christians within the local Church to discuss theology. The P.T.D. website offers ministers, staff persons, Seminary professors, elders, deacons, and anyone within the Church a platform to discuss theology.

The format usually follows a monthly topic where everyone studies, reads, and posts according to the specific topic. The goal of the P.T.D. site is to bring honor and glory to God through our study of His Holy Word. |||| Rev. Josh Buice is the moderator of the site. In order to bring honor and glory to God, it is requested that you always treat everyone respectfully while discussing the various theological topics.

If you join the P.T.D. e-mail list, you will receive a monthly mail out to inform you when the new topic is posted and ready for discussion. Your e-mail address will never be abused through the P.T.D. community.

All for the glory of God and the God of glory!

P.T.D.

Preaching about New Testament “tithes” and “offerings” – Sinful or Sacred?

2005-04-14T02:37:00.000-04:00

In our day of serious religious confusion concerning miracles, speaking in tongues, and the blessings of God, the television preachers are embarking on another heated subject which has the entire world’s attention; the subject is MONEY! Many television ministries are completely centered on money. It seems as if they could care less if the entire world is going to burn in hell; they are asking for people to send a check before they go!

"It's a matter of your faith. You got one-dollar faith, and you ask for a ten thousand-dollar item, it ain't gonna work. It won't work. Jesus said, ‘According to your faith’, not ‘according to His will, if He can work it into His busy schedule.’ He said, ‘according to your faith be it unto you.’ Now I may want a Rolls Royce and don't have but bicycle faith. Guess what I'm gonna get? A bicycle" (Frederick K.C. Price, "Praise the Lord" broadcast on TBN, 21 September 1990, taken from Documentation for Christianity in Crisis by Hank Hanegraaff).

Kenneth Copeland explains, The Laws of Prosperity, "You must realize that it is God's will for you to prosper. This is available to you, and frankly, it would be stupid of you not to partake of it".

Is there any wonder why people are angry, confused, and discouraged by this type of preaching? When a person actually obeys the message of these heretics, discouragement is soon to follow rather than prosperity. Those who actually follow their guidance and send their money often receive a past due bill in the mail rather than the “blessings of God”. There is a big difference between walking by faith in the area of Christian stewardship and walking by stupidity in the area of a completely false gospel.

Following a Sunday morning message, I went visiting in the community where I pastor. I visited one of my members homes who had not been attending for several weeks. During our discussion, I asked him if he had any reason for not attending. He replied, “Well, now that you mention it, I do have one thing I am not pleased with. I don’t like hearing you preach on money.” I replied, “Sir, I have not preached one sermon on money since I have been the pastor of this church, can you explain?” He replied, “Well, you mention it occasionally in your message.” I replied, “I may have touched on it where the text covered it, but as far as preaching on money, I have not done that at this point.” He said, "Let me give you something I have been reading, it may help you see where I stand on the issue." At that point he went back into the house and brought back a blue folder. The blue folder contained a 42 page document titled “Tithing is Unscriptural Under the New Covenant.” He had researched the topic of “tithing” on the internet, and had fully dissected the entire article complete with highlighted phrases, scriptures, and marginal notes. The author of the article stated, “It's a sin to enforce tithing on New Testament Christians!” The member of my church handed me the packet and said, “Read the article and come back to discuss it with him at a later date.” I went home and read the entire article. I have made attempts to meet with the gentleman to discuss the article, but he has not had time. Hopefully he will find time to discuss the article in light of scripture in the days to come.

Based on this conversation, what are your thoughts or insights on the subject of New Testament tithes and offerings? Should we bring our tithes and offerings into the storehouse (local church) in our day? Are we bound to the ten percent from the Old Testament? What should our instructions be toward our congregation? Are we stepping out of bounds by preaching about Christian stewardship? If a person decides not to give a specific percentage to God through the local church, is he robbing God? Is a person required to give through the local assembly, or can he mail his “tithe” to the television preacher’s ministry? Does Christian stewardship involve giving more than money to the Lord?

Please post your thoughts based on scripture. This is our spring board for the discussion. Once your specific position is posted, others will be free to engage on the topic based on your position along with their insights as well. Feel free to engage in the conversation further once your post has been made, discuss the topic to its fullest extent in order to gain the most from this study.

May this sharpen us in the area of biblical stewardship! To God be the glory!

Josh Buice

Malachi 3:10
Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it].

Post Your Reply

Teetotaler vs. Loosey-Goosey -- the issue of alcohol in Christianity - PART II

2005-04-01T21:12:00.000-05:00

Billy Sunday
“The most damnable, corrupt institution that ever wiggled out of hell and fastened itself on the public.” – Alcohol Industry

“Lincoln said, "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." I say, if the saloon, with its train of diseases, crime and misery, is not wrong, then nothing on earth is wrong. If the fight is to be won we need men - men that will fight - the Church, Catholic and Protestant, must fight it or run away, and thank God she will not run away, but fight to the last ditch.”

Dr. David Miller (Former Trustee SBTS) (Quotes taken from sermon “RECHABITE RELIGION”)
“If you participate on any level of drinking alcoholic beverages you ought to repent! If you wont repent you ought to resign, because you bring disgrace to the name of the Lord and you denigrate the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

“If I run across one more man who says to me, ‘I don’t sell the stuff, I just rent the building’ I am going to scream!”

“1 out of 3 casual drinkers become sopping drunks or problem drinkers.”

JESUS DID NOT MAKE OR DRINK ALCOHOL
by: Bruce Lackey
http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/teach/wine.html (Accessed March 15th 2005).

“The scripture commands us to "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Thessalonians 5:22), we can be sure that the Lord Jesus would not have done something that would have been associated with such an evil practice as that described in Habakkuk 2:15.”

“Leviticus 10:9-11 commands the priest of God, "Do not drink wine nor strong drink...that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken..." Now, since Hebrews 2:17 calls Christ "a merciful and faithful high priest," we would expect Him to obey all scriptures pertaining to that office. If He had made or drunk alcoholic wine, He would have disobeyed these verses and would have been disqualified from teaching the children of Israel the statutes of the Lord.”

“Christ did not come to cast a stumbling block before anyone; yet, Romans 14:21 teaches that a person who gives another alcoholic wine does just that. "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.’”

“John 2, the miracle of turning water into wine, does not require that it be alcoholic. Many insist that it was, on the basis of verse 10, which says, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now." They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men's taste had been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine, which Jesus made, was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible, if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine that they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.”

Alcohol Consumption:
http://www.1timothy4-13.com/files/teach/bib&wine.html (Accessed March 15th 2005).

“In John 2:9, Jesus turns water into wine at the marriage feast. Considering all the above cautions and prohibitions regarding intoxicating beverages (see link above), it would seem impossible (the one thing that God cannot do is violate His very character) for Him to make an intoxicating beverage and offer it to others."

"In regards to producing the pure stuff, it's just a matter of boiling (just one of a few methods) then sealing."

"The word "wine" is referenced 212 times in the Old Testament. A survey of these usages done indicates that 92% of those references are "negative" in context. This doesn't even consider the use of the words "strong drink."

CONCLUSION:
by: JOSH BUICE:
People drink alcohol for the effect rather than the taste. That is proof that the Christian has no business impairing himself / herself with such toxins as alcohol. The defense of the moderate drinker is often based on the cultural differences of parts of our country and the cultural differences of other countries. This argument is a weak argument. You cannot base theology on the choices of other countries. If you examine the city of London, they drink alcohol on a regular basis, but their city is also full of vile and wretched sin. They have pornography in the weekly newspaper, so should that indicate that pornography should be tolerated? It is not safe to base theology on the choices of another country.

DID JESUS MAKE, GIVE AWAY, AND CONSUME ALCOHOL?

If Jesus really made the water turn into alcoholic wine, the people, including the disciples would not have even remembered the miracle due to their drunken condition, or it would open up an opportunity for the liberal world to discredit the validity of the miracle since everyone was drunk (maybe they thought they saw the water turn into wine).

If Proverbs 31:4 “[it is] not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:” instructs a King and Prince to abstain from alcohol, and Leviticus 10:9-11 "Do not drink wine nor strong drink...that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath spoken..." instructs the Priest to abstain, wouldn’t it be necessary for the Prince of Peace, King of Kings, and Lord of Lord’s to abstain from alcohol as well?

If Romans 13:14 says “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to [fulfil] the lusts [thereof].” Would it be possible for Christ to deny His own Character by allowing others to make a provision (open avenue / door) for other sins of the flesh (adultery, lust, and other sins described in Proverbs 23) that follow the consumption and alteration of alcohol by providing intoxicating wine at the wedding feast in Cana?

If Habakkuk 2:15 says “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to [him], and makest [him] drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!” Would it be possible for Christ to give these people (the better part of the town of Cana) intoxicating drink without violating scripture?

If Proverbs 23:20 says “Be not among winebibbers (drunkards)” wouldn’t Christ be violating scripture by attending a party where people were well drunk on alcohol?

If 1 Corinthians 5:11 instructs people to not keep company with those who profess Christ but are drunkards, wouldn’t that be a clear violation of the Holy Writ for Christ to attend such a party with drunk people?

If Romans 14:21 says “[It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” Wouldn’t that be a clear command to abstain?

Romans 14:21
1. Stumbleth (1 out of 3 social drinkers become alcoholics!)
2. Offendeth (new Christians who were previous alcoholics)
3. Weak (anybody who takes one drink becomes “weaker” and looses his or her ability to react properly in certain situations such as driving, but most importantly, in the area of sin!)

If Romans 14:19 says “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.” Shouldn’t we abstain from any drink that causes severe problems in family life, church life, and in the local community? Alcohol is not consumed for taste, it is consumed for the effect that follows the taste. This being said, all people who use alcohol are impaired to some degree through only one drink.

Isaiah 5:11-14 tells us that Hell hath enlarged herself due to wicked people, but in that description we also see the drunkard. Wouldn’t it be a violation of scripture for Christ to provide people with alcohol which could very well be used to prevent their salvation and send them to Hell?

We need to care for the souls of people much more greatly than to instruct them that moderate drinking is allowed by Scripture. We as Pastors will all stand and give account before God for how we cared and watched for the souls of our congregations (Hebrews 13:17).

In this study, I have been referred to as a legalist, Pharisaic, and a false interpreter of scripture due to my strong abstinence stand. My brothers, there is a clear difference between a legalist and a conservative, and I am not a legalist. I want to rightly divide the Word of Truth, and I want to avoid walking down the road of liberalism because Dr. Somebody says that Jesus made and drank alcoholic wine. It is a danger to base convictions on what somebody else said. For me, I will take the Holy Writ of God – It provides enough evidence to teach, preach, and warn against alcohol consumption and to be a 100% Teetotaler.

God Bless,

Josh Buice
Proverbs 20:1

Reply to this post by clicking here.

Teetotaler vs. Loosey-Goosey -- the issue of alcohol in Christianity

2005-03-15T20:13:00.000-05:00

Whatever happened to old fashioned conservative values within the Christian community? Today many professing Christians, theologians, seminary professors, and pastors are suggesting that social drinking (consumption of alcoholic beverages) is not condemned by scripture. In fact, many are engaged in social drinking on a regular basis, and conclude that scripture allows any Christian to drink socially as long as the Christian does not become “drunk” or “intoxicated” by the drink.
---------------------

“Almost four in 10 violent crimes involve alcohol,
according to the crime victim, as do four in 10 fatal
motor vehicle accidents. And about four in 10 criminal
offenders report that they were using alcohol at the
time of their offense.”

“Two-thirds of the violent crime victims who were
attacked by an intimate--a current or former spouse or
a boyfriend or girl friend--report that alcohol had been a factor.”

“Among spouse violence victims, three out of four
incidents were reported to have involved alcohol use by
the offender.”
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/ac.pr
(Accessed March 13th 2005)

Alcoholism usually begins with social drinking then a person will find excuses to drink more often (Burgess 13). Burgess, Louise Bailey. "Alcohol and your health" 1973.

---------------------
The Bible uses two main terms to describe alcohol. These terms are wine and strong drink. These Greek words are both used to discuss fermented drinks in Scripture. The word oinos {oy'-nos} translated wine in English is used for both nonalcoholic "fresh fruit of the vine" juice, as well as a mildly intoxicating beverage, while sikera {sik'-er-ah}, translated strong drink in English; describes a much stronger beverage, such as liquor. “Strong drink is an intoxicating beverage, different from wine; it was an artificial product, made of a mixture of sweet ingredients, whether derived from grain and vegetables, or from the juice of fruits (dates), or a decoction of honey (Thayer’s Lexicon).” The wine that is consumed in our day is made up of 9-11percent alcohol, and the liquor consists of 40-50 percent alcohol. The wine and strong drink of the Bible days was much less intoxicating than what we have today; however, advocates of the abstinence viewpoint claim that the Bible condemns both uses of the word for alcohol.

I would like to pose a series of questions regarding the topic of alcohol consumption by Christians:

1. Can a Christian drink one alcoholic beverage of choice without making provision for and opening the door to sin (Romans 13:14)?

2. Can a Christian drink one alcoholic beverage of choice in the presence of lost people and still remain a faithful and successful witness for Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16)?

3. Can a Christian drink one alcoholic beverage of choice without conforming to the world’s standards (Romans 12:1-2; 2 Corinthians 6:14-18)?

4. Can a Christian drink one alcoholic beverage of choice in the presence of other Christians without making another Christian stumble (1 Corinthians 8:13)?

5. How does a Christian determine if he/she is drunk? Where is the line drawn? Is it possible to become scripturally drunk through just one drink?

6. Hebrews 13:17 instructs Christians to obey and submit to those who have the rule over them. It also states that those individuals which have the rule over the people will give account of their rule before God. If a church leader or seminary professor instructs their congregation or class that alcohol consumption is biblical if practiced in moderation, and a person who takes that counsel turns out to become a raging drunk and harms many in his / her path, will God be pleased with such teaching?

I personally hold to a separated and conservative view of alcohol consumption. In other words, I am considered a Teetotaler! It is time that men of God in pulpits across America preach against the "loosey-goosey" compromise lifestyle which is killing marriages, harming children, and taking lives on the highways. If we would all do our part by placing a hand over the holes of running water which is coming out of the dam of alcohol use within Christianity, we could make a difference. But, sadly is the fact that too many pastors, theologians, seminary professors, and church leaders are turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the sight and sound of the water which is breaking through the dam, and the result will be devastating in years to come for those inside and outside of the church. It is my conviction based on scripture that all committed Christians (in the will of God) should practice 100% abstinence from alcohol (leadership or layperson). I believe that through the answer of the above questions, with answers based on Scripture, it is impossible to walk away with an allowance viewpoint concerning alcohol. This is the spring board for our discussion, and I will post replies to anyone who would like to discuss the subject further.

God Bless,

Josh Buice
----------------------------
Proverbs 20:1
Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

AUDIO MESSAGE: "Total Abstinence From Alcohol" Pastor D. A. Waite, Th.D., Ph.D

---------------------------------------
Post a reply to the discussion -- Click Here

The Woman Deacon -- a future trend?

2005-03-08T18:34:00.000-05:00

As I sat through my Christian Formations class, I experienced great heartache as I heard future pastors and church leaders speak about the office of deacon within the church body.

The subject came up regarding the possibility of women serving as deacons within the church under the plurality of Elders. This seems to not pose any great trouble when viewed according to the above mentioned model, because no authority will be given to the deacons (man or woman) who serve under the Elders. According to this model, the office of deacon is reserved for service within the church rather than rule. However, when viewed according to the model laid out by the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 3, we see some interesting guidelines.

First, we see that the deacon is called to be the HUSBAND of one wife. The words for husband and wife are both used.

Secondly and most importantly, verse 12 speaks about the deacon ruling / managing the children and home well. If the deacon is to rule the home, how can we as Baptists claim that this office is open to the woman? We do understand that the woman is not the "leader" of the home, but merely the manager of the home.

EPHESIANS 5:23-24
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.

Verse 12 uses the word: (proistemi {pro-is'-tay-mee}) regarding rule. This word means "to place over" or "set over" and it is also a masculine middle participle. Would this limit the office of deacon to men only? The overwhelming majority of students in the class held the position that women serving in deacon positions is biblically sound, but it seems that 1 Timothy does not hold that position.

What are your thoughts or insights?

God Bless,

Josh Buice
---------
1 Timothy 3:12
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Post Reply -- Click Here