A Southern Baptist’s Pilgrimage From Racism

Today Dr. Malcolm Yarnell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary has posted a previously unpublished essay that recounts his experiences with racism as a child through his time as a young pastor in the Deep South.  He also exposes the pathology of much of the church growth teaching over the past few decades as well.  You can read it here.

Trevin Wax on the State of the Blogosphere

Trevin Wax gives us a very insightful post on the state of the blogosphere as 2010 rolls around.

I think he’s particularly perceptive on the impact that social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are having on blogging.  I’ve been having similar thoughts recently as I have seen my blogging decrease as I’ve seen the time I’ve spent on Twitter increase.

The Manhattan Declaration: ECT in Miniature

Your humble correspondent has long feared that some of the well known evangelical signatories to this document have at various times and to varying degrees pursued religion as a way to achieve political ends by other means.  It appears that my worst fears may be realized.

I make that statement not to necessarily call their genuine Christianity into question, but to question their judgment.  In recent decades, when there has been an opportunity for evangelicals to cooperate for some political end with those who confess another gospel, too often the gospel has received the short shrift.  After all, it’s much easier to attract large numbers for the sake of some political cause (however laudable) than it is to attract them with the gospel.

What is particularly ironic is that a number of evangelicals who have promoted the Manhattan Declaration and who are seeking to use their influence to persuade others to sign it have of late been calling for evangelicals to become more “Gospel Centered.”  Yet the Manhattan Declaration is a document that, like Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) of the 1990’s, affirms as Christian those who clearly do not confess the same gospel. It is particularly troubling to see those who have previously criticized such ecumenical initiatives sign on to this one.  Despite the claims of some prominent signatories to the contrary (claims which have been contradicted by at least one of the framers of the Manhattan Declaration, Chuck Colson, who was also one of the principals in ECT) I submit that the Manhattan Declaration is cut from the same cloth as ECT.

No compromise you say?  The Manhattan Declaration and ECT are apples and oranges?  Unfortunately, I cannot agree.  How can the following statements from the declaration (among others that could be cited) be anything but compromise, given that it is a joint declaration by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and evangelicals?

We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

we are compelled by our Christian faith…

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences…

A truly prophetic Christian witness…

It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season.   May God help us not to fail in that duty.

May God help us indeed.  In what sense could the evangelical signatories to this document be said to have proclaimed the Gospel by this action?  How is this a “truly prophetic Christian witness?”  I submit that it can only be said to be such if what amounts to the Social Gospel is in view.  A conservative Social Gospel will no more save than the liberal one.  God forbid that the Gospel be exchanged for a mess of ecumenical pottage.

John MacArthur, James White, Frank Turk, among others, have posted responses delineating why they cannot sign the document.  I commend their responses to your reading.

All the above being said, the document does have many statements that are unobjectionable.  Furthermore, I have no quarrel with co-belligerence with those of any faith or no faith on issues of mutual concern.  What is at issue is yoking together with non-evangelicals under the banner of Christianity when we are in fundamental disagreement over what a Christian is.

Unfortunately (for the sake of discussion of this topic) the holidays are upon us and I am unable to post at length regarding this issue at this time.  I may unpack things a bit further in the near future.

For the uninitiated, here are articles on ECT by James White and Geoffrey Thomas.

I also recommend reading Erwin Lutzer’s Why The Cross Can Do What Politics Can’t and John MacArthur’s Why Government Can’t Save You.

Faith in Christ

Essays on The Distinguishing Traits of Christian Character (1829) by Gardiner Spring, D.D.

ESSAY X.

FAITH IN CHRIST

There are errors on the subject of faith in Christ, which it is nowhere more important to observe and avoid, that when we consider it as a test of Christian character.  There are those who affirm, that the faith of the Gospel is nothing more than a general assent to the doctrines of revelation, unaccompanied by love to them, or a dependence on Christ for salvation.  It is not necessary to animadvert upon this description of faith, for every man who reads the bible must perceive, that faith in Christ is there described as a holy act.  But if it is nothing more than the assent of the understanding to the doctrines of the Gospel, then is it possessed by some of the vilest men on the earth, as well as by the fallen spirits in hell  (James 2:19).

There are also, those who teach, that the faith of the Gospel consists in a strong persuasion of our personal piety.  If a man believes that he is one of God’s elect people; that Christ loved him from eternity; that he died for him in particular; and that he is a regenerated, pardoned sinner; this persuasion is by many supposed to constitute him a believer in the scriptural acceptation of the term.  Hence the stronger a man’s persuasion of his own interest in Christ, and the blessings of his salvation, the stronger his faith! And hence the sentiment has obtained that unbelief consists in not believing, or doubting that we are Christians; and all those fears which disturb the peace of good men, and all those apprehensions lest they should be deceived in their hopes, and fail of everlasting life, are stigmatised as unbelief.  Now, that these cannot be either the faith or unbelief of the Gospel is abundantly evident from a number of considerations, on which we cannot enlarge, and will merely suggest.  Nothing can be the object of saving faith, except what is revealed in the scriptures.  Now it is nowhere revealed in the scriptures, that any one of us in particular, is pardoned and justified and individually interested in Christ’s redemption; and if any one imagines that this revelation has been made to him in particular, he deceives himself and the truth is not in him.  Besides, the scriptures always represent faith as terminating on something without us; namely, on Christ and the truths concerning him; but if it consist in a persuasion of our being in a state of salvation, it must terminate principally on something within us, namely, the work of grace in our hearts; and how inferior is such an object of faith to the all-sufficiency and glory of the great Redeemer?

It is not easy to give a definition of faith, that comprehends all its properties.  In its most general character, it is reliance upon the testimony of God’s word. It is receiving the truth in the love of it. The apostle Paul uses the phrase, received not the love of the truth as synonymous with the phrase, believed not the truth. Faith, however, when viewed as an evangelical grace, possesses altogether a peculiar character.  It is not simply reliance upon the divine testimony, but particularly upon the truth of God revealed in the scriptures concerning Jesus Christ. So the scriptures themselves represent it.  “These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, ye might have life in his name.” (John 20:31)  “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.” (Rom. 10:9)

I cannot better describe this grace, than by adverting to the state of mind, which precedes and exercises it.  When, by the operations of the Holy Spirit, a man is made sensible that he has sinned against the Holy God, he deeply feels that he is fallen, guilty, condemned and undone.  He sees that he lies at the mere mercy of that God whom he has offended, who is under no obligation to pity him, and may most righteously destroy him for ever.  Under the righteous sentence of a holy law, he does not see how God can be just, and yet extend pardoning mercy to a wretch like him, until he becomes acquainted with that soul-reviving truth, that “he so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).  In this wonderful expedient, he discovers a remedy which vindicates the authority of the divine law in the dispensations of pardoning mercy, and relieves his soul from the oppressive apprehension that there is no forgiveness with God.  Through this Redeemer, he ascertains that he is invited and commanded to return to God, with the hope and assurance of mercy; and is confirmed in the belief that “whosoever cometh to Jesus Christ, he will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37).  And he is emboldened to go.  The good deeds, the religious performances, which once used to encourage him, afford him no encouragement now: but renouncing them all, he returns to God with an implicit, active, and exclusive reliance on Jesus Christ and his redemption, as God’s appointed way of saving sinners.  He approves of this method of salvation; he delights in it; he chooses it as his only refuge.  He no longer rejects the mystery of the cross, or stumbles at the corner-stone which is laid in Zion, but glories in the cross of Christ, and is happy to adventure his all for immortality on this sure foundation: and thus does he “receive, and rest on Christ alone for salvation as he is offered in the Gospel.”  And this is faith in Christ.

This heavenly grace, is one of the fruits of the spirit, and evidences of regeneration. “He that believeth shall be saved” (John 3:36).  “No man can say, that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 12:3).  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God” (1 John 5:1).  Do you possess this heaven-inspired grace? What do you know of Jesus Christ as the Saviour of sinners?  What glory have you ever discovered in that great moral wonder, “God manifest in the flesh,” as the Prophet, the Priest, the King in Sion?  Have you from the heart, received the record, that God has given of his Son?  Have you discovered any thing in Christ, that qualifies him to be your Saviour, and that can encourage guilty, miserable men to trust in his grace?  Is he precious to you, as to those who believe? Is it your happiness to commit your cause to better hands than your own; to relinquish all your self-righteous confidences, and cast yourself into the arms of Jesus?  What things were gain to you, do you count loss for Christ? Is every thing you are, and have done, and can perform, in your own view, nothing, that you may win Christ, and be found in him, not having your own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith?  (Phil 3:8-9).  In a word, with a just view of the character, and a supreme attachment to the person of Christ, can you yield yourself into his hands as a full and complete Saviour? Can you look to him to be sanctified by his Spirit; to be governed by his laws; to be protected by his power; to be saved by his death; to be disposed of at his pleasure, and to be the means of promoting his glory?  If you can, all is well!  In the comprehensive promise of that covenant to which faith makes you a party, lie concealed the life and immortality of the Gospel.  Life and death, earth and heaven, things present and things to come, joys high, immeasurable, immortal—what shall I say?—All are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s (1 Cor. 3:22-23).

Dismissing Dispensationalism for the Wrong Reasons

Note:  The following is an edit of a comment I left on SBC Impact, and to some degree it still reflects that context.  Rather than see it buried in an old thread, I thought it best to post the main points here.

Too often with discussions in which eschatology is the subject, opposing views are badly misrepresented, whether it is pretribulationists arguing that all other views are liberal or those with other views charging dispensationalists with heresy. The responsible practice of one sincerely seeking the truth is to read primary sources to better understand the various views, and not to simply rely on polemical works by those with whom one is already inclined to agree, although those works can sometimes be quite useful.  If you want to know what pretribulationists teach, read Ryrie, McClain, Saucy, MacArthur, Bock, Blaising etc.  For historic premillennialism (i.e. non pretrib) read George Eldon Ladd, Russell Moore and also C.H. Spurgeon, J.C. Ryle and Horatius Bonar.  For amil, read Venema, Hoekema, Poythress, Riddlebarger, Gaffin, O.P. Robertson, etc. For theonomic postmillennialism, read Bahnsen and Rushdoony. For partial preterism read Sproul and DeMar.  Of course, THE primary source is the Bible itself.

Despite what one might gather from anti-dispensationalist diatribes, every pretribulationist doesn’t agree with every jot and tittle of the Scofield Reference Bible. Also, Progressive Dispensationalists aren’t the only ones who have attempted to make some modifications to their eschatological viewpoint. Dr. Russell Moore notes in The Kingdom of Christ that there has been just as much movement on the part of several recent covenantal amillennialists as there has been by progressive dispensationalists.  Also, the historic premillennialism of George Ladd has some significant differences with the older historic (or covenantal) premils like Spurgeon, Ryle and Bonar.  Yet, it is often assumed that Ladd’s views are representative of older non-dispensational premils.  Theonomic postmillennialism has important differences with the historic Reformed or Puritan view.  Yet pretribulationists are alternately charged with being Scofield clones or are dismissed because modifications and clarifications have been made to dispensationalism since Scofield and Chafer, even though all of the other views have also seen attempts to varying degrees at further development, revision or modification in recent years.

The charge that dispensationalism is a new teaching and therefore to be rejected is often repeated. Ironically some today evidently fail to recognize that their own views, when taken in their totality, often represent a position that is of more recent vintage than dispensationalism. I’m thinking particularly of inaugurated eschatology with its already/not yet emphasis, which is largely a 20th century phenomenon that draws from Ladd in particular as well as other sources. If Ladd’s conception of the Kingdom of God is the only legitimate view, (as some have argued) then there are a lot of other figures in church history that flunk that test as well, including most amils prior to Hoekema, most premils prior to Ladd, as well as postmillennialism, which was the predominant view prior to the 20th Century.  I also find it interesting that many who point to Ladd’s eschatological views as being the way forward also often fail to note his abandonment of inerrancy and to reckon with whether his treatment of OT prophecy was a factor.

The charge of novelty can obviously also be brought against continuationism, particularly with regard to tongues or what has been termed a private prayer language in recent SBC controversies.

Another example is New Covenant Theology in its various manifestations, which is so recent that it arguably does not have a definitive expression or definition beyond being both non-covenantal and non-dispensational. If you are baptistic, non-dispensational and yet do not hold to covenant theology complete with Sabbatarianism as taught in historic confessions like the 1689 London Baptist Confession, the New Hampshire Confession and the 1925 and 1963 versions of the Baptist Faith and Message, you hold to a view that is quite recent, although I realize that exceptions here and there could be named through the years.   (As for covenant theology, given the 2000 years of church history, it is a post-reformation development that does not predate dispensationalism by very much.)

Of course, pointing out that a strong case can be made that the above views can be demonstrated to be more novel than dispensationalism proves little if anything with regard to whether or not they are biblical. The point is that it is folly to simply note that a teaching appears to be novel and just dismiss it out of hand the way that so many attempt to do with dispensationalism. Likewise, it is hardly responsible to simply point to someone on the lunatic fringe, however popular they may be, and thereby dismiss the camp with which they are identified. Recently I was taken aback when a young scholar posted on his blog that he abandoned dispensationalism after seeing an episode of Jack Van Impe’s show. If that’s reason enough to bail, then should amils abandon their view because of Harold Camping’s rantings or because it is the predominant view among many neo-orthodox and liberal scholars who reject the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture?  Should continuationists abandon their view when confronted with faith healers, the Word of Faith “prosperity gospel,” “Holy Laughter” and those who have taught that speaking in tongues is necessary to be saved?  Should non-dispensationalists abandon their identification of Israel with the church because it has often served as the justification for anti-Semitism?

Note on Baptist Why and Why Not

I do plan to begin posting here more regularly, Lord willing.  However, since I don’t plan to maintain the heavy focus on Southern Baptist issues, in all likelihood I will not be posting any more chapters from Baptist Why and Why Not.  This work was published in 1901 by the Baptist Sunday School Board (now called Lifeway.) It was edited by J.M. Frost, who was instrumental in the creation of the Sunday School Board and was its first chief executive.  It is an important work on Southern Baptist faith and practice from the beginning of the 20th century.

Because some of my readers had found the previous posts to be of interest, I wanted to note that several years ago my friend Don Elbourne had posted Baptist Why and Why Not on his website, along with several other historic Southern Baptist writings from the same period that may be of interest.

Phil Johnson on “neo-evangelicalism”

Phil has addressed this issue before,  but this short post is an excellent introduction, especially for those who are not familiar with the term.  What is the result of this movement that began in the middle of the last century?

The average American today thinks evangelicalism is a political position or a religious ghetto rather than a set of biblical beliefs.  The task for the remnant who still believe and teach classic evangelical doctrine is to remain faithful and remember that the gospel—not the combined clout of a large politically-driven movement—is the power of God unto salvation.

Hiatus

I created this site in January, not long before I left a message board that I had been heavily involved in for a number of years.  (The posts prior to 2009 were moved from previous blogs.)  My intention was to cut back on my online interaction, with this site still giving my the opportunity to occasionally post about topics of  interest.  Based on my previous blogging experience in which I had only posted sporadically, I wasn’t expecting for it to receive much traffic or to take up much of my time.

However, in Feburary I commented on several posts about various controversies on other blogs, posted about them here and before I knew it, I was as deeply involved in online discussion as I had been before, if not moreso at times.  While this is hardly a heavily visited site compared to many, blogging (along with social networking) has at times taken up far more of my time than I anticipated or desired.

That being said, I don’t regret expressing a point of view that was largely underrepresented in the blogosphere at the time.  Overall I am thankful for the experience and the opportunity that blogging has afforded me to be able to discuss various issues with fellow Christians, and in some cases, men who are leaders of some note.  I’m very grateful for the public and private encouragement that I’ve received over the past several months as a result of my efforts.  However, I’ve come to realize that I simply need to “unplug” for a while, especially regarding online theological discussions that have little direct relation to my present calling and responsibilities.

I have been known to say that a lot of internet theologians would be much better off doing less typing and more reading, and I believe the time has come for me to take my own advice.  I also have several personal and professional goals and responsibilities that take precedence over this kind of online interaction.  Due to some health issues I had last year, I have been providentially hindered from working outside of the home for most of the past year, but Lord willing, that soon appears to be coming to an end.

It’s been an interesting and at times rewarding ride, but the time has come for me to get off, at least for now.

Don’t Be Fooled, The Pew Won’t Save You! by Bob Jennings

Lest any suspect the previous post of teaching salvation by church membership, (and it clearly is not) here’s a warning against presumption and trust in anything other than Christ:

HT:  Puritan Fellowship

Don Johnson on the Local Church

HT:  Truth Matters

Here is a copy of the tract that Bro. Johnson mentions.