Some Postmodern Motivational Posters

Phil Johnson posted these motivational poster parodies of the emerging church movement. You can go to this web page he created where you can print them if you want to. Here is a small sample. Enjoy!

Biblical Church Leadership – Pt 11

Biblical Qualifications of Elders (Continued)

“ 3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:3-7, NASB)

Verse 3 continues with the qualifications of elders with “not addicted to wine”. Not only must an elder not be given to drunkenness, but he should not even be seen as a drinker. He needs to be careful where and with whom he associates with. If he is a man who frequents bars he can easily be accused of being a drinker. His thinking must never be distorted by alcohol, and must lead a lifestyle that is distinctly different from that of the world. His life should set an example for others, inspiring them to lead a life of holiness.

He should also not be “pugnacious”, meaning that he should not be constantly ready to fight and engage in physical violence. He should be “gentle” and “peaceable”, which means that he should be gracious and not desire to hold grudges, not quick to fight and avoids disharmony. He should also be “free from the love of money”. His motivation should come from a love for God and the people under his care. The opposite trait, covetousness, is a character displayed by false teachers, not those who are genuinely committed to God. Being peaceable and gentle does not mean that there are not occasions where elders should not be tough. There are times when the elder must be tough on false teachers and take action against the spread of false teaching. (Titus 1:10-13; 2:15) He must also confront other sinning elders. (1Timothy 5:20) He must at times be confrontational and authoritative. But there must be balance and the elder must also maintain an attitude of warmth and compassion.

It is important that the elder demonstrate leadership in his own household. If his leadership cannot be modeled there, it certainly will not be demonstrated in the church. It includes everything that would be associated with his household. His children must be respectful, under control and display a reverence for God. And this should be carried out in such a manner that those observing his home life could say that it is managed excellently. And this is where the issue of divorce can come into play. If a man is divorced, it illustrates a major flaw in his spiritual leadership. It is obvious that the home was not managed well. And even if there were biblical grounds for a divorce, there would need to be a long period of time elapsed to demonstrate strong family leadership. This may not seem fair in the case of a biblically permitted divorce, but remember, the overriding principle for qualified elders is that they be blameless. There must not be anything that could be used against them that would incur blame. If a man cannot take care of his home, he certainly will not be able to take care of the church.

The last qualification is that he is not to be “a new convert”. The danger here is that his pride would be a stumbling block. Pride caused Satan to fall. (Isaiah 14:12-14, Ezekiel 28:13-15) I have observed that in some churches, there seems to be too much eagerness to promote men to positions of leadership who simply are not ready for it. This is tragic and sets him up for a fall and also in the long run hinders the church. There needs to be a great deal of consideration of the qualifications of the man. And it takes time to build leaders. There is definitely a maturing process that must take place before they are fit for spiritual leadership. (1 Timothy 5:22) He must also have an excellent reputation with those outside the church. Remember the key issue is that the elder must be blameless.

Well this post marks the end of the series on Biblical Church Leadership. Leadership is extremely important in the church and the men who are chosen to lead the church can affect the spiritual health of the congregation in a positive or detrimental way. If you want to read an excellent resource on this subject, I recommend Alexander Strauch’s book, “Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership”. Another excellent resource is the 9marks website.

Biblical Church Leadership - Pt 10

Biblical Qualifications of Elders (Continued)

"2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, "

The candidate for elder must display a “hospitable” attitude toward others, displaying a welcoming and generous spirit. The Greek is composed of two words that essentially mean to love or show affection to strangers. In the early church, believers had to depend on each other’s hospitality for their survival. This included helping other believers who were strangers who perhaps needed to flee their homes in another town due to persecution. I can’t help but wonder, in our society that stresses individualism where self-sufficiency is highly prized, if it does not make this concept more difficult for people in the church to truly grasp today. Christians who are heavily persecuted in other countries probably have a greater appreciation for this.

The next trait is “able to teach”. The elder must be skilful in his teaching ability. This is extremely important, since this will be one of his primary duties. This is more than merely being able to teach, but more importantly, the content of their teaching. There are those who can teach, but they are teaching the wrong things. 2 Timothy 2:15 tells us that that leadership must be proven skilful handlers of God’s Truth. Elders are to be able to lead the church in matters of doctrine and practice, and unless he is able to handle the Word of God with precision and accuracy, he will be unable to accomplish this task and is unqualified to lead. Furthermore, any who display a sloppy careless attitude toward Scripture should not considered for eldership and any who are already in leadership displaying this trait should be dismissed. Sad to say, this is seldom taken into account in evangelicalism at large. Much of the problem lies in the fact that churches do not understand the Scriptural mandate for church leadership, so they follow the world’s standard, not God’s. Too many leaders are chosen simply because they display considerable charisma and can garner a wide following. Just because people are following someone does not mean they are fit for biblical leadership.

Let’s take a brief look at 2Timothy 2:15.

"15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Timothy 2:15, NKJV)

I quoted that passage from the NKJV, because I think it captures the meaning with a little more sharpness. The phrase “rightly dividing the word of truth” literally means to cut it straight, and it denotes the precision and accuracy that God demands in the handling of His Word. It is unfortunate that a large majority of evangelicalism places little emphasis on this important quality. Instead, the emphasis seems to be on the eloquence of speech and mere communication skills. This is not to say that strong communication skills are not important, but that the content of what is said is even more important. Scripture, in references to leadership in the church, places great emphasis on the accurate handling of God’s Word. Let’s look at another passage, 1Timothy 5:17.

“ 17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”(1 Timothy 5:17, NASB)

Elders who serve with a greater commitment and strive for excellence are to be held in high esteem, and deserve to be paid more generously. In particular, those who work the hardest and seem to be more prominent should be acknowledged with greater honor. What is implied in this text is that there are elders who are particularly driven to work harder at studying Scripture for preaching and teaching. The phrase “work hard” literally means to labor to the point of exhaustion. This further underscores the premium Scripture places on the importance of preaching and teaching by the elders in the church. Preaching involves the open proclamation of biblical truth, with the intention of exhorting and admonishing the congregation to take heed to God’s Word. Teaching emphasizes instruction in doctrine and is essential to protect the flock against heresy. Preaching and teaching are essential to the health of the church. And this desperately needs to be emphasized, especially in the current climate in the evangelical church.

Paul also exhorted Timothy to “preach the word”, whether it was popular or not. This was to be done regardless of what people wanted.

" 2preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." (2 Timothy 4:2, NASB)

I hope to finish up this series in part 11. Hopefully I will be posting it early next week. It is a little difficult right now to post with any great frequency. There are too many things going on, especially during the summer months.

Biblical Church Leadership – Pt 9

Biblical Qualifications of Elders (continued)

“1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.” (1 Timothy 3:1, NASB)

In verse one, the terms “aspires” and “desires” are used to describe the attitude of the candidate toward the office of “overseer” or elder. Aspires means to “reach out after”, and denotes an external action, not just internal motive. The second word, “desires”, means to “long for”, have “strong passion” which refers to an internal desire. This describes an individual who is driven to externally pursue the position of leadership because of a strong internal desire to do so. This is important because unless the man is strongly motivated to fulfill this role, he will not have the drive necessary to succeed in carrying out his God-given duties. Pastors should not be coerced into such a position. When you think of all the pressure one will be under in this position, the only thing that will sustain him will be the heart’s desire to see people respond to God’s Truth and grow spiritually. The last thing that a congregation would want is a man who stands in the pulpit only because he feels he has to. That type of man will never make the kind of leader necessary to fulfill the obligations of pastoral leadership. In 1 Peter 5:2 elders are exhorted to serve with a sense of divine calling and an urgency to fulfill the task at hand. This should be with eagerness, not indifference or laziness. Elders should be self-motivated and should not need to be constantly prodded along to fulfill their tasks.

“2shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness;” (1 Peter 5:2, NASB)

In addition to having the desire for the office of elder, a man must meet certain qualifications. The overarching qualification is that he must be “above reproach”, meaning that there is no wrongdoing that he can be legitimately charged with. In other words, he must be blameless. This is crucial since he is to be an example to the people under his care. The remaining qualifications expand on the requirement to be “above reproach”.

"2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach," (1 Timothy 3:2, NASB)

Next in the list, “the husband of one wife”, literally means “a one-woman man”. This really isn’t speaking of his marital status, but his moral purity. While issues such as divorce do indeed factor into the fitness of a man for eldership, the focus here is on his sexual purity. I will discuss the issue of divorce as we proceed further in the list of qualifications. But this matter is crucial since this tends to be a weak point that often leads to failure in the life of many leaders. Unfortunately, we witnessed the tragedy of this occurring in the life of the pastor of the church we were members of for several years, where he became involved with another woman in the church. The key concern with this qualification is whether or not the man is what we would call a “womanizer”. Does he tend to be flirtatious, or is he dedicated to his wife and honor her in marital faithfulness. This is no small matter especially if you have ever observed the adverse effect the sexual sin of a pastor has on the congregation. This sin will obviously negatively affect his walk with the Lord. And it is inevitable that it will cloud his thinking and render him useless to provide spiritual direction to his flock. Having been part of a congregation where this took place, I can certainly testify that the consequences are terrible. If the pastor is in no condition spiritually to provide guidance to the congregation, the inevitable outcome is that the congregation will wane spiritually, and it won’t be long before sin permeates the congregation. As Alexander Strauch points out:

“If the elders are not faithful, one-woman husbands, they will subtly encourage others to be unfaithful.” [1]

This leads into the next qualification that he is to be “temperate”. The word in the Greek is “nefaleo”, and it means to be sober, abstaining from wine or at least its excessive use. However, used in the context here, it means to be “sober-minded” (as it is translated in the ESV), especially since the very next verse deals specifically with the subject of consumption of alcoholic beverages and states that he is not to be “addicted to wine”. "Temperate" here means that he is to be “alert”, “watchful” and “clear-headed”. It is vitally important that elders display the capacity to think clearly so that they can keep vigilant watch over their own life and the congregation. This is why it is so important that the elders take great care to be sure they are not allowing their minds to be distorted by material filled with warped doctrine. You can learn a lot about where a man is headed theologically by the types of books and materials he utilizes and claims have had the most impact on his life. I am not referring to books of a questionable nature that he may be reading to discern how false teachers are twisting the truth, but the books that he relies on for theological guidance that are making an impression on his life. In essence, the elder must not allow himself to be intoxicated by teaching that will distort his thinking, whether it is false doctrine or worldly philosophy. Paul in Acts 20:28 warned the elders in Ephesus to “be on guard” for themselves and also “for all the flock”, knowing that the “savage wolves” were just waiting to come in among them and devastate the flock.

The elder must also be “prudent” and “respectable”. The term “prudent” comes from the Greek word “sofron” and means to be “self-controlled” and able to restrain his desires and impulses. In other words, he does not react impulsively, but he is to be disciplined in his life, especially spiritual matters and is able to prioritize spiritual matters making them the utmost importance. This leads into the next quality, “respectable”. This means “well arranged” or “orderly” (from the Greek “kosmio”). This means that they are able to order their lives in such a manner as to not be in a state of constant chaos. If they are not able to accomplish this in their own life, how will they be able to keep order in the church? The ability to maintain order is extremely important to keep the church from degenerating into a state of chaos.

(To be continued...)

1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 71.

Can You Rely On Personal Revelation?

Here is a great video clip taken from CrossTV's series "A Workman Approved By God". I am sure nearly everyone has heard the phrase from someone, "God told me!" or the "Holy Spirit said" followed by some subjective experience they are convinced came from God, yet cannot be verified from Scripture. In fact, it often contradicts the Bible.

The Ill Effects of Decades of Shallow Teaching

The dearth of solid expositional preaching and teaching have given way to multitudes a congregants who are now vulnerable to the various forms of false teaching prevalent in evangelicalism today. Phil Johnson in his recent post put it well:

"But the accrued apathy of at least four-plus decades of neo-evangelical influence has left evangelicals virtually defenseless against doctrinal error—especially the subtle varieties. The Emerging movement has aggressively exploited that weakness, challenging (on one front or another) practically every historic evangelical doctrinal distinctive. The Emerging Church has therefore become practically the mirror opposite of what fundamentalism was supposed to be."

Scripture illustrates the devastating consequences of not growing in our knowledge and understanding of God's Truth. The Corinthians fell into this trap and it made them vulnerable to deception. (2 Corinthians 11:2-4) In fact, their lack of growth in the knowledge and application of Scripture resulted in a sin infested congregation. (1 Corinthians 3:1-3;1 Corinthians 5) It is of vital importance that believers continually study and understand the text of Scripture in order to build wisdom and understanding to keep them from falling victim to various false doctrines and to keep their hearts pure before God. In fact, it is the primary function and duty of the local church to actively pursue the task of equipping the congregation to thoroughly understand Bible doctrine, so that they are not tossed about "by every wind" of false doctrine, regardless of how subtle the nuance may be (Ephesians 4:11-16). It is tragic that the shallowness of contemporary evangelicalism has left multitudes vulnerable to every false teaching that blows their way, especially those errors that are ever so subtle.

Important Reasons to Preach the Word

Excerpt from “Five Reasons to Preach the Word” by John MacArthur

2 Timothy 3:1-4:4

"Lastly, this whole matter of preaching the Word not only because of the danger of the seasons, the devotion of the saints, the dynamic of the Scripture, the demand of the sovereign, but lastly, this is really important, because of the deceptiveness of the sensual...because of the deceptiveness of the sensual. The great enemy of the Word of God is anything outside the Word of God...the word of Satan, the word of demons, the word of man. And we are living in very dangerous seasons concocted by seducing spirits and hypocritical liars propagated by false teachers. And here's what makes them successful...look at verses 3 and 4. "The time will come, and it does, it cycles through all of church history, when they will not endure sound doctrine." People don't want to hear sound doctrine. "Sound" means healthy, whole, wholesome. They don't want wholesome teaching. They don't want the sound, solid Word. They just want to have their ears tickled. That's all they want. They're driven by the sensual, not the cognitive. They're not interested in truth. They're not interested in theology. All they want is ear-tickling sensations. That's what they want. They refuse to hear the great truth that saves and the great truth that sanctifies. And according to chapter 2 verse 16, they would rather hear worldly empty chatter that produces ungodliness and spreads like gangrene.

We're in such a season now. They tell us that being doctrinal, being clear about the Word of God is divisive, unloving, prideful. The prevailing word...the prevailing mood, I should say, in the world of post-modern western culture is that everybody determines truth for himself and everyone's opinion is as valid as everybody else's opinion, and there's no room for absolute authoritative doctrine. And, folks, that's one other "ism" you can add to the list of dangerous seasons, relativism."

This article originally appeared here at the Bible Bulletin Board.
“Five Reasons to Preach the Word”
By John MacArthur
Copyright 1998
All Rights Reserved

Are You Really Listening?

30"But as for you, son of man, your fellow citizens who talk about you by the walls and in the doorways of the houses, speak to one another, each to his brother, saying, 'Come now and hear what the message is which comes forth from the LORD.'
31"They come to you as people come, and sit before you as My people and hear your words, but they do not do them, for they do the lustful desires expressed by their mouth, and their heart goes after their gain.
32"Behold, you are to them like a sensual song by one who has a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument; for they hear your words but they do not practice them.
33"So when it comes to pass--as surely it will--then they will know that a prophet has been in their midst." (Ezekiel 33:30-33, NASB)

Ezekiel was careful to accurately proclaim the message that God had for the people of Israel. He proclaimed it with passion and clarity, and expressed himself eloquently. It is clearly evident in this passage that the people enjoyed listening to what Ezekiel had to say. In fact, they made a point of encouraging others to come and listen to the prophet. The people came and sat under the teaching of the prophet, yet they walked away without their hearts being changed!

In much the same way today, there are multitudes of people who flock to hear eloquent preachers, but walk away unchanged and continue on in their lifestyle just as they did before. They even give lip service to the message and comment how they liked what was said. But unfortunately, many never apply the truth that was expounded to them.

Just like in Ezekiel’s day, there are many who appear to be merely entertained by solid preaching. But the solid exposition of God’s truth is not meant to be a form of Christian entertainment. It is meant to be taken to heart and applied to effect a change on an individual’s life.

We are reminded in the New Testament in the book of James of this very thing.

22But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.
23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror;
24for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
25But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. (James 1:22-25, NASB)

We are to be doers and not merely hearers of the Word. James tells us that those who merely hear but do not put into practice what they hear, “delude” (Gr. paralogizomai) or deceive themselves.

It is imperative that we earnestly seek to apply what we hear. Once the messenger delivers the message based on God’s Truth, it is our responsibility to take heed. God holds us accountable for our response. Ezekiel knew the sobering responsibility God charged him with and if he failed to follow through, God would hold him responsible for the fate of those he failed to warn. However, once Ezekiel delivered the message God commanded him to give, the responsibility rested on the people who heard the message. (Ezekiel 3:17-21; 33:1-9)

God holds us accountable for applying His truth that has been made available to us. May we always be eager to apply what we hear to our own lives!

Biblical Church Leadership – Pt 8

Biblical Qualifications of Elders

Now that we have covered the biblical structure of church leadership, which consists of a qualified team of elders that are called to lead the church, we will look at the biblical qualifications of an elder or “pastor”.

The qualifications of the men selected for eldership is extremely important and cannot be emphasized enough. To appoint the wrong man to this type of position will ultimately spell disaster for the church. As Strauch points out:

“The most common mistake made by churches that are eager to implement eldership is to appoint biblically unqualified men. Because there is always a need for more shepherds, it is tempting to allow unqualified, unprepared men to assume leadership in the church. This is, however, a time-proven formula for failure. A biblical eldership requires biblically qualified elders.” [1]

We need to keep the following crucial points in mind:

• Eldership is not to be treated as an honorary position in the church, open to those who are merely faithful in church attendance, or who are advanced in years.


• Elders are not to be chosen based on good friendships, wealthy people who give generously, or those who exhibit a great deal of charisma.


• Elder positions can be filled by anyone exhibiting the biblical requirements; NOT just seminary graduates. [1]
  

Paul gave Timothy a specific list of qualifications that all elders must meet in 1 Timothy 3. This not merely a wish list, but a must have.

“1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Timothy 3:1-7, NASB)

Notice in this list of qualifications, many of the personal character qualities are listed before “able to teach”. It is not that teaching ability is any less important of course. In fact, if a man is unable to teach, he is automatically disqualified for pastoral leadership. But equally important is the personal integrity of the man being selected to serve in the capacity of leadership. To falter in any one of these areas automatically disqualifies a man from pastoral leadership.

So why are these character qualities important? Because he is to be an example to the congregation, and the possession of these character qualities makes the doctrine that is taught attractive to those who hear. Titus chapter 2 provides the reason that a Christian’s conduct is important, since it will “adorn the doctrine of God”.

“9Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, 10not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.”
(Titus 2:9-10, NASB)

This of course is for all Christians, but it is vitally important that the leadership possess sound character, because they are doing far more than just teaching rote doctrine; they are providing an example to the congregation. (1 Peter 5:3) The term “adorn” means to make attractive, and our conduct should attract people to the Gospel.

Our actions speak volumes. Titus 2:7-8 tells us that our good conduct will leave our opponents with nothing that they can say against us. Our behavior is ultimately important, because if our actions do not line up with our words, it really renders meaningless whatever doctrine we supposedly believe.

It is interesting that when Paul introduces doctrine in his writing, he always backed it up with the “why”. In other words, he introduced the doctrine, then he explained that in light of that doctrine, this is the way we should conduct our lives. Look at the book of Romans. The first half outlines doctrine, and the remainder is the practical outworking of our faith, how it should effect how we live.

The lifestyle and personal character is foundationally important to the leadership of the church, since the pastoral leadership is to lead by example. And the congregation is to follow the example. These are not merely qualifications that only eldership team should possess, but the congregation should strive to achieve these character qualities as well.

I will expand on these qualifications in a future post.

1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 68.

Slow Blogging

My posting may continue to be quite slow for awhile in fact, I may decide to take a complete break for awhile at some point here. There are just too many things going on right now. I am currently taking a class on church history and unfortunately, it looks like my wife and I are going to be faced with the daunting task of looking for a new church home. It is unfortunate, but it does not seem likely that the type of reform that needs to take place in our church in terms of implementing a more biblical approach to ministry are ever going to take place. Back in December, I wrote that our church was going to be in the process for filling the vacancy for senior pastor that was left as a result of the dismissal of our senior pastor. There seemed to be the realization that we did not have a biblical model for church leadership. There also seemed to be the keen awareness that the church had adopted some very spiritually unhealthy practices in carrying out the ministry of the church.

But unfortunately, other than coming to the realization that there needs to be leadership comprised of a team of elders, it does not seem that the remaining pastoral staff is willing to allow the remaining necessary changes to take place. These would be changes that would lead to a spiritually healthy church. Things such as more in-depth teaching just do not seem to be part of the agenda. And there seems to be a continuing influx of postmodernism, despite warnings given to the leadership concerning the dangers of the emerging church.

It is not so much that there is rank heresy currently being taught, although it is inevitably going to creep in. In fact, I am wary of many of the beliefs of some of the people. I believe that it is only a matter of time before heresy begins to pervade the church. But it is currently more of the error of omission; things that should be taught, but simply are not. And it is continuing to have a very adverse effect on the maturity of the congregation, contributing to the unhealthy spiritual condition.

I was hoping that there were going to be some major changes that would turn things around, but it appears that the remaining leadership is not open to these changes. Unfortunately, I think that it is time to go, and that saddens me. This is not what I had hoped for, but I am trusting that the Lord will lead us to something better.

9Marks Interview – Feminism in the Church

Here is a great interview with Randy Stinson, Russell Moore and C.J. Mahaney concerning the biblical role of men and women in the church and family at 9Marks. This is no trivial matter, but it is an important subject that needs to be addressed more often in our churches. Even in churches that are essentially complementarian, lack of frequent teaching on this subject will eventually allow for a feminist viewpoint to subtly creep into the church. Especially since there is an attempt to obliterate gender role distinctions not only by society in general, but even by those who identify themselves as evangelicals.

Some Good Q & A on Male Leadership

Jim Hamilton has some good questions and answers on male leadership in the church posted on his blog. He deals with some major objections to the notion of a male only leadership in the church.

This issue, to me, is a little different than differing views on eschatology. I even have an easier time with those who hold differing views on spiritual gifts. As long as someone recognizes the error of the hyper-charismatic movement and the outright abuses of the “sign” gifts, and in particular, the error of the Word-Faith movement, I really don’t have a problem with the view of the possibility of the miraculous sign gifts being active in the church today. Even though I believe that they are not normative for the church today.

But the biblical evidence to support male leadership within the church is overwhelming. It is abundantly clear, and the only way someone can deny the evidence is by warping the text of Scripture to mean something that it simply does not mean.

If we just dismiss this issue as no big deal, then what else can we let slide? The same line of reasoning is utilized by the homosexual groups in their argumentation to justify the toleration of the homosexual life style. If we allow the convoluted teaching of the pro feminists to pervade the church unchallenged, what will we allow the door to swing open to accommodate? Will this allow pro homosexual groups an opportunity to use the same logic and reasoning to gain a foot hold?

The post on Hamilton’s blog mentions this in question # 10. He rightly points out that "what is at stake is the authority of Scripture to determine what Christians believe and do." This may ultimately determine our views such as whether we say that homosexuality is sinful since "many of the same arguments used for the view that women can teach men are used by those who want to legitimate 'alternate lifestyles'".

Strauch also points this out in "Biblical Eldership".

"Biblical feminists misuse the Galatians 3:28 passage by pressing the text far beyond its intended meaning and declaring the plain, literal interpretation of the headship-submission passages to be simplistic. Following the same methodology of interpretation as the biblical feminists, so-called Christian homosexuals claim the right to same-sex relationships. Because the Bible says "neither male nor female," they claim that all the specific biblical passages prohibiting homosexuality must be understood culturally and in the light of Galatians 3:28. But does Galatians 3:28 truly abolish all sexual distinctions? Can men now marry men, or women marry women? The conclusions that those who hold an egalitarian viewpoint draw from Galatians 3:28 are plainly at odds with numerous portions of Scripture."
("Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 65)

I believe there is more at stake here than many may think.

The Dangers of Following Jesus - Piper

The Dangers of Following Jesus
By John Piper


Matthew 10:24-25

"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master; it is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household."

As I have prayed and meditated over the last several weeks on what I should say tonight I have come to distill it into one sentence.

Jesus had love to suffer for me that I might have faith to suffer with him.

I have been reading the sufferings of Jesus in the light of the Salmon Rushdie affair. Rushdie published a novel entitled Satanic Verses. In it he put the Muslim prophet Mohammed and the Muslim god Allah in a bad light. He was accused of blasphemy and the Ayatollah Kohmeni ordered him executed and offered bounty for his death.

I have put myself in Rushdie's place and felt how utterly vulnerable he is. I do not look on this as a distant and strange thing. To me it is very close. I felt this so strongly two weeks ago that I wrote to the former Bethlehem interns who are now scattered around the country as pastors and teachers. Here is what I said:

What will you do when your preaching is so clear and pointed in its missionary implications concerning the blasphemy of Muslim teachings about Jesus that your name appears on the hit list along with Rushdie's?

There is a hair's breadth between me and the condemnation of the Ayatollah. One slight turn of social and historical affairs and the militancy of the Muslim defense of the honor of Mohammed and Allah could make us the target of a thousand guns. Are you ready? Read of the wild-eyed, irrational spit and fists in Matthew 26:67 and then read Matthew 10:24-25.

I want you to see the connection that I saw in these verses.

Matthew 26:67 simply says this: "Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him."

Matthew 10:24-25 says, "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master . . . If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household."

Now Salmon Rushdie is no follower of Jesus as far as I can tell. That's not the point. The point is that we Christians by definition believe that Allah is not the true God as Muslims know him and Mohammed is not a true prophet. Jesus really is the Son of God and really did die on the cross and rose again and reigns at God's right hand until he puts all his enemies under his feet, including Mohammed and his followers. And saying that is enough to get me killed—and you.

The days will soon be gone, if they aren't already, when you can assume that it is safe to follow Jesus—to stand for his majesty and his commandments. So I have been thinking much about whether I am willing to pay the price. And if I say yes, where will I get the courage and the freedom to suffer with Jesus?

It isn't just Islam with its endorsement of holy violence that makes following Jesus dangerous today. Consistent Biblical Christians, who don't absorb the spirit and trends of the age, are increasingly at odds with major forces in our society. And what makes the situation so volatile is that those forces are increasingly strident and increasingly invested with legal sanction.


The above excerpt was taken from the article, "The Dangers of Following Jesus" by John Piper, at Desiring God. You can view the remainder of the article at desiringGod.org.

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: www.desiringGod.org. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700.

Biblical Church Leadership – Pt.7

Male Leadership in the New Testament Churches

The practice of male leadership continuing in the New Testament is clearly evident in Scripture. It is interesting to note that approximately 70 percent of the New Testament was penned by the apostle Paul (or a close associate), who is the dominant figure – other than Jesus – in the New Testament. Furthermore, all the Old and New Testament writers were male, as well as the predominant characters were also male. Much to the chagrin of the feminists, the Bible appears to be overwhelmingly patriarchal.

It is simply mind-boggling that there are Bible-believing Christians who can claim that the New Testament teaches an egalitarian approach to gender roles. This approach to gender roles is referred to as Biblical Feminism or Egalitarianism. It is simply the teaching that the New Testament does not teach gender role distinctions between men and women in terms of headship and submission. But it is impossible to support this viewpoint biblically without engaging in what could be termed “hermeneutical ventriloquism”; making the Bible say what you want it to say. [Strauch, pg. 55-56]

But Scripture is very clear on the role of men being in leadership throughout the New Testament, including the marriage relationship. Paul made this point very clear in Scripture, emphasizing the divine order in the husband-wife relationship. Consider the following passages of Scripture:

Ephesians 5:22 – “Wives be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord”
Ephesians 5:24 – “But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their own husbands in everything”
Ephesians 5:23 – “For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church”
Colossians 3:18 – “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord”
Titus 2:1,3-5 –
“1But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.” “3Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.”

It is clear that Paul admonished the Christian wives to be submissive to their husbands. The solid biblical basis for this is found in Ephesians 5:23. To further clarify the meaning of “the head of the wife”, Paul uses the analogy of the headship of Christ over the church. The term “head” is used in a figurative sense meaning, “authority over” and “leadership”. It does not mean “source” or “origin” as feminists would claim. [Strauch, pg.57] Colossians 3:18 is another passage that teaches the same principle in Ephesians 5. It should be clearly apparent that each Scripture that deals with the relationship of the wife to the husband, that submission to their husband is clearly taught (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1).

The predominant teaching is that submission is to be “as to the Lord” and “as is fitting to the Lord” (Col. 3). Submission is therefore to be in the same manner as she would submit to the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul consistently taught that the marriage relationship is to serve as a living picture of Christ’s relationship to the Church (Ephesians 5:23). There should be no question that the marriage relationship between the husband and wife is to mirror the relationship of Christ to the Church. It should also be clearly evident from Scripture that the headship-submission is not culturally induced, but is an integral part of the marriage relationship by divine mandate.

The headship and submission roles also carry over to the local church. In fact, Paul used the household analogy when defining the order of the local New Testament church (1 Timothy 3:15). Male headship is to be the biblical norm for the local church (1 Timothy 2:8-3:7). With the family being the basic social unit with the establishment of male leadership, it should therefore not be shocking that men are to be elders or fathers of the larger local church family.

Just as there are certain codes of conduct set forth to govern the family, there are also principles pertaining to the governing of the church family as well. Paul wrote Timothy specific instructions on how the church is to be governed in his letter of First Timothy. Paul wrote certain instructions so that Timothy would “know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God”.

Of particular importance in the church’s social structure is the behavior of women within the church. Due to the influx of false teaching, it appears that traditional gender roles were being challenged, resulting in the women behaving in a manner unacceptable for Christian behavior. In 1Timothy 2:9-10, Paul addresses the issue of modest dress. 1 Timothy 2:11-14, Paul deals with the issue of submission in the church.

“11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:11-14, NASB)

That passage should alone provide the answer to the question of women being elders. The prohibition clearly prohibits women from teaching and exercising authority over men. Women were encouraged to learn, but to do so under submission to the leadership authority of the teaching male elders. Women were also specifically forbidden to teach and lead men in the church. It is not that women are not allowed to teach at all. Women are encouraged to teach in other situations, such as instruction to the younger women in the church (Titus 2:3-5). It is just that they were not to be publicly teaching men in the church.

Discussion on this topic inevitably stirs up heated debate. But the restriction on women elders is not the result of personal opinion or cultural norm. Paul supports his restriction on women teaching and leading men based on the original order of creation.

“For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:13-14, NASB)

The statement of the fact that Adam was created first, underscores that fact that God created man as “first among equals”. [Strauch, pg.60] God uniquely created man, equipping him with the physical, emotional and spiritual capacity to head the marital relationship. And it is also God’s design for the woman to complement Adam’s headship. It is no insignificant matter that God did not create Adam and Eve at the same time. God made the woman after the man, from the man and for the man. God brought her to the man and the man named her (Genesis 2:20-23; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9).

It is important to note that the Fall illustrates the necessity for preserving the distinctive creation differences between men and women. 1 Timothy 2:14 clearly explains that it was Eve and not Adam who fell into deception. Satan cleverly perceived that Eve was the weaker one who was vulnerable to being deceived (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Peter 3:7; 2 Timothy 3:6). It should be profoundly apparent that men are more suited for leadership by God’s design. Men are better suited for battling against subtle deceptive false teaching and doctrine twisting. It is also noteworthy that immediately following the prohibition against women leading men in 1 Timothy 2, he immediately launches into a discussion concerning the qualifications of those responsible for leadership in the church (1 Timothy 3:1-7). The phrase “the husband of one wife” (verse 2) and “one who manages his own house well” (verse 4) are clearly directed at men and not women.

1. Alexander Strauch, "Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership", p. 55-61.

The Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus - Spurgeon

From:

The Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus
April 9th, 1882
by C. H. SPURGEON(1834-1892)

This Jesus Christ was really and truly man; for Paul says he was “of the seed of David.” True he was divine, and his birth was not after the ordinary manner of men, but still he was in all respects partaker of our human nature, and came of the stock of David. This also we do believe. We are not among those who spiritualize the incarnation, and suppose that God was here as a phantom, or that the whole story is but an instructive legend. Nay, in very flesh and blood did the Son of God abide among men: bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh was he in the days of his sojourn here below. We know and believe that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. We love the incarnate God, and in him we fix our trust.

It is implied, too, in the text that Jesus died; for he could not be raised from the dead if he had not first gone down among the dead, and been one of them. Yes, Jesus died: the crucifixion was no delusion, the piercing of his side with a spear was most clear and evident proof that he was dead: his heart was pierced, and the blood and water flowed from there. As a dead man he was taken down from the cross and carried by gentle hands, and laid in Joseph’s virgin tomb. I think I see that pale corpse, white as a lily. Mark how it is distained with the blood of his five wounds, which make him red as the rose. See how the holy women tenderly wrap him in fine linen with sweet spices, and leave him to spend his Sabbath all alone in the rock hewn sepulcher. No man in this world was ever more surely dead than he. “He made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death.” As dead they laid him in the place of the dead, with napkin and grave clothes, and habiliments fit for a grave then they rolled the great stone at the grave’s mouth and left him, knowing that he was dead.

Then comes the grand truth, that as soon as ever the third sun commenced his shining circuit Jesus rose again. His body had not decayed, for it was not possible for that holy thing to see corruption; but still it had been dead; and by the power of God by his own power, by the Father’s power, by the power of the Spirit for it is attributed to each of these in turn, before the sun had risen his dead body was quickened. The silent heart began again to beat, and through the stagnant canals of the veins the lifeblood began to circulate. The soul of the Redeemer again took possession of the body, and it lived once more. There he was within the sepulcher, as truly living as to all parts of him as he had ever been. He literally and truly, in a material body, came forth from the tomb to live among men till the hour of his ascension into heaven. This is the truth which is still to be taught, refine it who may, spiritualize it who dare. This is the historical fact which the apostles witnessed; this is the truth for which the confessors bled and died. This is the doctrine which is the keystone of the arch of Christianity, and they that hold it not have cast aside the essential truth of God. How can they hope for salvation for their souls if they do not believe that “the Lord is risen indeed”?

This excerpt taken from the article "The Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus" from the Spurgeon Collection at the Bible Bulletin Board.

The Crucifixion

35And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. 36And sitting down they watched him there; 37And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 38Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. 39And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, 40And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 41Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. 44The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth. 45Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. 46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 47Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias. 48And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. 49The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. 50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; 52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. 54Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

(Matthew 27:35-54, KJV)

Christ's Agony - Edwards

Excerpt from:

Christ's Agony
by Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)

"And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." [Luke 22:44]

Our Lord Jesus Christ, in his original nature, was infinitely above all suffering, for he was "God over all, blessed for evermore;" but, when he became man, he was not only capable of suffering, but partook of that nature that is remarkably feeble and exposed to suffering. The human nature, on account of its weakness, is in Scripture compared to the grass of the field, which easily withers and decays. So it is compared to a leaf; and to the dry stubble; and to a blast of wind: and the nature of feeble man is said to be but dust and ashes, to have its foundation in the dust, and to be crushed before the moth. It was this nature, with all its weakness and exposedness to sufferings, which Christ, who is the Lord God omnipotent, took upon him. He did not take the human nature on him in its first, most perfect and vigorous state, but in that feeble forlorn state which it is in since the fall; and therefore Christ is called "a tender plant," and "a root out of a dry ground." Isa. 53:2. "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him." Thus, as Christ's principal errand into the world was suffering, so, agreeably to that errand, he came with such a nature and in such circumstances, as most made way for his suffering; so his whole life was filled up with suffering, he began to suffer in his infancy, but his suffering increased the more he drew near to the close of his life. His suffering after his public ministry began, was probably much greater than before; and the latter part of the time of his public ministry seems to have been distinguished by suffering. The longer Christ lived in the world, the more men saw and heard of him, the more they hated him. His enemies were more and more enraged by the continuance of the opposition that he made to their lusts; and the devil having been often baffled by him, grew more and more enraged, and strengthened the battle more and more against him: so that the cloud over Christ's head grew darker and darker, as long as he lived in the world, till it was in its greatest blackness when he hung upon the cross and cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me! Before this, it was exceedingly dark, in the time of his agony in the garden; of which we have an account in the words now read; and which I propose to make the subject of my present discourse. The word agony properly signifies an earnest strife, such as is witnessed in wrestling, running, or fighting. And therefore in Luke 13:24. "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able;" the word in the original, translated strive, is agwnizesqe. "Agonize, to enter in at the strait gate." The word is especially used for that sort of strife, which in those days was exhibited in the Olympic games, in which men strove for the mastery in running, wrestling, and other such kinds of exercises; and a prize was set up that was bestowed on the conqueror. Those, who thus contended, were, in the language then in use, said to agonize. Thus the apostle in his epistle to the Christians of Corinth, a city of Greece, where such games were annually exhibited, says in allusion to the strivings of the combatants, "And every man that striveth for the mastery," in the original, every one that agonizeth, "is temperate in all things." The place where those games were held was called Agwn, or the place of agony; and the word is particularly used in Scripture for that striving in earnest prayer wherein persons wrestle with God:they are said to agonize, or to be in agony, in prayer. So the word is used Rom. 15:30. "Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me:" in the original sunagwnizesqai moi, that ye agonize together with me. So Col. 4:12. "Always labouring fervently for you in prayer, that ye may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God:" in the original agwnizwn agonizing for you. So that when it is said in the text that Christ was in an agony, the meaning is, that his soul was in a great and earnest strife and conflict. It was so in two respects:

1. As his soul was in a great and sore conflict with those terrible and amazing views and apprehensions which he then had.
2. As he was at the same time in great labour and earnest strife with God in prayer.

This article can be viewed in its entirety at the Jonathan Edwards Collection at the Bible Bulletin Board.

Biblical Church Leadership - Pt. 6

Male Leadership

Contrary to what many in contemporary society think, excluding women from the role of church leadership is not a ploy to discriminate and dominate unfairly over women. To discriminate against women is a sin that grieves the heart of God. While it is true that there have been times when men have abused their authority and acted cruelly toward women, that behavior is inexcusable and anyone who truly seeks to adhere to Scripture would recognize that error and avoid making the same error. It is unfortunate that there have been times where male have unjustly and cruelly discriminated against women.

But unfortunately, the feminist approach in its attempt to carry out justice for the wrongful acts of discrimination, have gone too far and denied the complementary functions of men and women. These role distinctions were designed by God so that the sexes complement each other in order to perform different functions in society. The Bible teaches that both men and women are indeed equal in personhood and value, but have distinctly different gender roles designed by God. It is tragic that there is so much confusion concerning these distinctive roles. Women are in effect, being exploited by a false view of female identity.

I have seen so many attempts to contort Scripture on this subject, in an attempt to discredit the notion that the Bible emphatically teaches that men are to be in charge of the spiritual leadership in the church. Yet if we take Scripture as it is plainly written, it teaches nothing but the fact that only men are to serve in the role of Spiritual leadership. The way I see it, attempts at undermining male leadership is just another sign of how the church is being unduly influenced by the culture.

But it is impossible to get around the emphasis on male leadership in Scripture. The most obvious example of male leadership is the person of Jesus Christ. He was the Son of God, not the daughter of God. This was theologically necessary to His person and work.

- He was to be a first-born male (Luke 2:23)
- He was the “last Adam”, making Him the antitype of Adam, not
Eve, which mandated that He be a male. (1 Corinthians 15:45, 47; Romans 5:14)
- He needed to be the first-born son of David and Abraham; He was the King, not Queen of Israel.
- In the created order, the male partner alone is charged with the authority and headship role. Therefore Jesus could not have been a woman, and He is the Head of the Church and the model for male leadership.
- Jesus appointed and trained twelve male apostles (Luke 6:12-16). His choice was after spending an entire night praying to His Father, indicating He was acting in obedience to His Father’s will.

It is interesting that in spite of these facts, there are those who claim that Jesus was just accommodating the culture. But since when did Jesus at any time in His life display an accommodating attitude toward the culture. It is clearly illustrated in Scripture that He stood in stark contrast to the culture, including the false rabbinical traditions. Scripture clearly tells us that Jesus showed no partiality to anyone (Matthew 22:16).

Another common argument is that the work of redemption by Christ did away with all male-female distinctions. But if this is the case, then why did Jesus not indicate this by appointing women to be apostles. It would stand to reason that He would have appointed at least one woman to be an apostle. Rather, Jesus continued with the Old Testament order of creation with male headship. And this practice was continued by both Paul and Peter.

The fact that Jesus maintained an all male apostolate does not take away from the fact that he sought to honor women, ministered to them and encouraged them in their service and devotion to God. This was distinctly different from the religious leaders of that time. However, Jesus still established an all male apostolate as the foundational office of His Church (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14).

We can also look at the example of the apostles when they appointed servants to care for the church’s widows. Seven men were appointed to the task, not women (Acts 6:1-6). It is also apparent when Peter addressed the churches in Asia Minor, instructing the Christian women to submit to their husbands, using the example of the women in the Old Testament. He also admonished the men to take care of their wives and consider them as “fellow heir of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:1-7). In doing so, Peter was upholding both gender role distinctions and male-female equality. Those who want to find justification to allow women elders are at a loss to find valid examples used in Scripture.

1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, p. 51-54.

Some Thoughts on the Eschatological Controversy

Since the controversy that has ensued due to John MacArthur’s opening message at the Shepherd’s Conference, my interest in eschatology has been piqued once again. I am amazed at all the controversy that has been stirred up as a result of MacArthur’s message. But I am interested in exploring the differing views on eschatology once again. There are good men, sound men of the faith, who hold to differing view on this matter. And we need to be careful concerning the charges of heresy leveled at those embracing the differing views. This included those in the “Reformed” camp who refer to those of us who embrace the pre-millenial view, and refer to it as “cultic” and heretical. I find it interesting that for so long I have heard those charges made from those in the amillenial and postmillennial camp against premillenialists , and now that the tables have been turned, they cry foul.

One thing that has gotten really irritating is the range of definitions that you hear on what it means to be “Reformed”. I have read many comments in this recent controversy that include things like “MacArthur really isn’t reformed” and even the notion expressed in a comment thread on another blog, that John Piper is really not “Reformed” either. If being “Reformed” in their strict definition means that one MUST embrace the amillenial position, then I really do not fit their definition either. The sad thing is that I do embrace most of Reformed theology and I am in substantial agreement with Reformed theology, but apparently for many that will not suffice.

Rather, I am compelled to abide by the teaching of Scripture and to teach accordingly by my convictions as I see revealed in the text of Scripture. One simply cannot blindly embrace a theological view independent of Scripture, but weigh everything in light of the inspired text of the Bible. We must always be ready to change our theology if we find it is out of step with the Bible, not bend the Bible to fit our theology.

But we also need to beware of another error. That is the error of ignoring what others have gleaned from Scripture, especially those who have gone before us. God has ordained that there be teachers in the church, teachers who are dedicated to studying the text of Scripture and have a desire to help others understand what God has given us in the divinely inspired text of Scripture. This, of course, is not some secret knowledge only revealed to the one teaching, but the same truth that is accessible to every believer. It is foolish, in fact potentially downright dangerous, to ignore what others have gleaned from Scripture. I believe that it ultimately leads to spiritual arrogance. While additional insights are often gleaned over time, we need to be careful of some “new” truth that no one else has ever seen. It could be something that has been previously overlooked. But it also could be that we are looking at something the wrong way. That can lead to theological error. We need to be careful about new “truth”. As Charles Haddon Spurgeon wisely said, "I cannot agree with those who say that they have 'new truth' to teach. The two words seem to me to contradict each other; that which is new is not true. It is the old that is true, for truth is as old as God himself".

Rather than clinging to the solid theological foundation that we have as a result of the efforts of the reformers and building upon it, the church has developed the propensity to set aside solid theology in favor of new found fads and methods. This has left the church wide open and vulnerable to error.

I believe that it is extremely beneficial to consider the teaching of those who have gone before us and understand how they drew the conclusions they have. This is not a case that just because many men down through history have held a particular viewpoint that it makes them automatically correct, nor does that make them the final authority. But we still need to understand their conclusions. We must also discern what is a primary or a secondary doctrine. On matters of primary doctrine that strike at the very core of the Christian faith, we had better cling tightly to the truths that have been established; on matters of secondary doctrine, we need to exercise grace, especially when it comes to more obscure subject matter, such as the finer points of eschatology. This is not to say that eschatology is unimportant, but there are valid reasons for men drawing different conclusions on those matters.

We need to take the time to carefully consider what Scripture teaches and be willing to adjust our theology in light of what we discover. We also need to consider the differing views and be careful to avoid misrepresenting those who hold to opposing views. This is one reason that in light of the current controversy, my interest has been piqued concerning the subject of eschatology, particularly amillenialism. One book that I am reading from the amillenial perspective is Kim Riddlebarger’s book, “A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times”. This book has been recommended by many. I doubt that I am going to be persuaded into the amill camp, but I am enjoying reading the book so far and gaining a better understanding of the amillenial position rather than hearsay from secondary sources. I want to gain a more thorough understanding, rather than abide by someone’s overly simplistic definition.

I just hope that in matters of more secondary importance, believers can be more inclined to exercise more grace toward one another. This does not mean that we cannot have strong opinions concerning our convictions. It is certainly acceptable to teach according to our convictions and I believe that we should. But we also should exercise restraint before leveling charges of heresy against each other.

Amillenialists in an Uproar

Well it seems that the amillenial folks are all stirred up as a result of the opening session of the Shepherd’s Conference, where John MacArthur delivered the message on "Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Pre-Millennialist." Now, I was not there to hear what MacArthur said, but if everything I have heard is true, I think that I would have taken a little different approach to the topic, even though I am in substantial agreement with MacArthur. But I am not sure if it is more of a case that the amill crowd had taken things a bit too personal.

While I disagree with the amillenial view, I do not see it as rank heresy. It is certainly within the realm of biblical orthodoxy, though I disagree with the arguments in favor of the view. I still find merit from Scripture for the premillenial view.

But there have been plenty of charges railed against those of us who hold to a premillenial view from the amillenial camp. And the disagreements have not always been expressed in very gracious terms. Last year, Jason Robertson over at Fide-O went the amillenial route. I am certainly appreciative of the fact that Jason has taken the time to express his eschatological views on his blog. It has certainly been helpful in gaining an understanding of the amillenial position, even though I do not agree with his view. But I think that it is important to explore and discuss this subject and understand the differing views. I have been in several Independent Fundamental Baptist churches, where the only view that was taught was the dispensational premillenial view, and it seemed that anyone who even hinted at another view such as amillenialism, was almost considered a rank heretic.

I still hold to a dispensational premillenial view of eschatology because I see support for it from Scripture. I will share my thoughts in some upcoming articles.

For discussions on the subject of MacArthur’s message, you may want to check out these articles.

Tim Challies

Founder’s Ministries

Fred Butler