I sincerely want to thank everyone who has made blogging at New Leaven a great experience for me.  I’ve learned so much from you. Thanks.

Why this move? Well, I’m transitioning into a new ministry and plan to focus on that right now.

At any rate, I’m not done blogging.  I will still be blogging.  But not at New Leaven.

TC R

The Calvinist thinks that all he needs to do is filter all of Scripture through this logic machine and out comes this airtight, fallacy-proof system.  Now consider John 3:16:

“For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.  (John 3:16 HCSB, emphasis added)

When the Calvinist is done with this verse, “the world” and “everyone” refer only to “the world and everyone of the elect.”  Really?!

Why can’t “everyone” mean just that—”everyone”?  And whatever happened to the plain meaning is to be preferred?

We are not animals, which live on instinct.  We are human beings who direct our lives based on our decisions.  Therefore, even though God has a good plan for your life and knows what He wants you to accomplish, it is up to you to plan your course, to make life changes that will move you toward it, and to stay on course.  (Myles Munroe, The Principles and Benefits of Change, p. 163, emphasis added)

From the above quote, I draw three assumptions: 1. Every human being has been granted free will.  2. Every human being is responsible for the end result of his or her decisions.  And 3. Though God has a “good plan” for every human being, he leaves it up to each individual to choose.

Now it’s becoming increasingly difficult for me to believe that some individuals destinies have already been decided before they were born for the following reasons: 1. This seems to negate any belief in freedom of choice or free will.  2. The love and grace of God seem to be restrained, only being applied to a few.  3. Though marred by sin, each person bears the image of God and is therefore still valuable to God.

A meaningful proposal: it seems more in keeping with the love and grace of God to believe in what is commonly called Prevenient Grace (at least my version of it, which I believed is shared by Arminians), that is, that God has elected every single person—who has ever lived and will ever live—in Christ Jesus, and therefore he died for all, thus giving all an equal opportunity to come to the Father through him.  Now given that opportunity, it is up to that individual to either accept the offer of salvation or reject it.

Therefore there is no such notion of God accepting only a few and passing over the rest.

Publisher’s Description: Through more than forty years, John MacArthur has opened and taught the Word of God in one local congregation, Grace Community Church, Los Angeles. Consequences have followed which no one anticipated, and which the preacher attributes to ‘the sovereign hand of God’. A people united to Christ, and to their pastor, became a channel for blessing across the earth. It has been a ministry marked by characteristics that re-appear in every spiritual advance – not concern for ‘relevance’; not special attractions for young or old, male or female; but love for God and dependence on his Word and promises. MacArthur has proved, without ever intending to do so, that true preaching of the Word of God is international, ‘because if you teach the Bible it transcends every border, every language, every culture. It is as relevant today, and will be tomorrow, as in all the years since God put it down.’ That is why his sermons are heard or read in more than two hundred countries around the world today.

By the end of this summer, 2011, John MacArthur will have preached through the entire New Testament, over some 43 years, at one place, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA.  These Bible expositions continue in the MacArthur Commentaries.

Again, despite points of disagreement, this devotion to the Word and the Church, in one place, must be duly noted.  And it has: John MacArthur: Servant of the Word and Flock.

Expository preaching is a necessary corollary of the doctrine of the God-breathed nature of Scripture. The idea is not so much that God breathed into the Scriptures, but that the Scriptures are the product of His breathing out. Independent of what we may feel about the Bible as we read it, Scripture maintains a “breath of God” quality.  Thus, the preacher is to make God’s Word known and make it understandable. He is to limit himself to it without adding or subtracting.  (Derek W.H. Thomas, “Expository Preaching,” in Feed My Sheep, p. 35)

Derek Thomas, himself a careful exegete of Scripture, though he has chosen his words carefully as the above quote reveals, says something that should make those of us who are committed to expository preaching, stop and think: “Scripture maintains a ‘breath of God’ quality.”  Of course Dr. Thomas is here referring to Scripture as a product, that is, God-breathed.

But I wish to use “Scripture maintains a ‘breath of God’ quality” to challenge the very nature of expository preaching that many hold to.  (1) While I agree that expository preaching, properly defined, is a necessary corollary to the doctrine of inspiration, I object to those exegetes who think their conclusions are all there are to be had in any given text of Scripture.  Yes, if Scripture maintains a “breath of God quality,” then as we seek to faithfully interpret Scripture, we should from time to time expect fresh insights.

(2) Expecting fresh insights as we seek to faithfully handle Scripture leads me to a second objections: we should never hold others to our definition of expository preaching, whether our own or one borrowed.  For example, I consider every effort of sharing God’s Word with others, with the intent of either to reprove, rebuke or exhort as a kind of exposition.  Now mine may not be as polished and refined as yours, but with the correct intent, that “breath of God quality” has the final say.

At any rate, I would encourage the reader of Scripture to acquire as much skills and tools as needed to correctly handle the Word of God, knowing that Scripture itself is God-breathed and therefore should be reverenced by the interpreter.

The appearance of yet another book on preaching perhaps calls for some explanation. If the names on the title page are not sufficient in themselves to answer any query as to “why,” I suggest the following: preaching in the contemporary English-speaking world—and even in the evangelical and Reformed community—has not been impervious to the negative forces brought to bear on proclamation as a method of evangelism and discipleship. A video-drowned and educationally-challenged culture, and a church bent on accommodating herself to the dominant communication theories of the day, challenge the minister committed to the “foolishness of preaching.” He faces significant pressure to truncate and thin out his message, to entertain, to explore alternative media, and even to abandon historic modes of proclamation altogether. Such a milieu is discouraging in the extreme for the preacher (young or old, novice or master) who simply wants to be faithful. In this setting, every encouragement is useful. Indeed, it helps to beat this old drum and remind men that they are not crazy for wanting to remain faithful, to say to them, “Stay at the wheel; hold fast; keep on; don’t give up; you’re not alone.” For this reason alone, this book may prove to be a real comfort and inducement to servants of the Word.  (Ligon Duncan, p. vii, emphasis added)

I’ve already read the first chapter, “The Primacy of Preaching” by Al Mohler.  I’m one who believes in the primacy of preaching.  But I’m not sure I’m prepared to say like Martin Luther that the preaching of the Word is the first essential mark of the church.  Perhaps Luther is correct.  Perhaps it is.

At any rate, I’m looking forward to the rest of Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching.

For example, in the first chapter Wiersbe defines ministry thus:

Ministry takes place when divine resources meet human needs through loving channels to the glory of God.  (p. 3)

So if you’re looking for richly packed, insightful, yet concise, readings on Christian ministry from a seasoned saint and pastor, let me recommend On Being A Servant of God.

30 readings over 30 days.

No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.  (NIV, emphasis added)

But exactly what “the prize” has thrown me a bit of a curve ball.  However, I see a parallel in 2 Timothy 4:6-8 and “the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day” (NIV).

In other words, Paul’s salvation was never in danger of being forfeited.

“If your creed and Scripture do not agree, cut your creed to pieces, but make it agree with this book. If there be anything in the church to which you belong which is contrary to the inspired word, leave that church.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon

I’m also reminded of Luther before the Diet at Worms, 1521.

At a recent lecture, a cameraman planted himself close to Don Carson’s podium, palpably distracting the audience from Carson’s message.  With only a moment’s hesitation, Carson paused and asked the man to move, explaining, “We are talking about the gospel.  The gospel is a lot more important than media.”  During the same lecture, Carson also referred to an e-mail exchange he had with his daughter Tiffany, who gently chided her day that he was the only one who sent his daughter emails that required the use of a dictionary.  These vignettes reveal two vital aspects of Don Carson’s life and passion: the gospel and his family (Editor’s Preface, p. 9)

My first exposure to DA Carson was his massive The Gagging of God.  While I never quite finished it, I’ve read large portions of it.  At the time, it was simply too daunting.  But I’ve since read other Carson works with great satisfaction and have been better for doing so.

Publisher’s Description: This collection of essays, written in honor of scholar D. A. Carson, examines the state of New Testament studies in contemporary times.

I’ve actually begun reading Stanley E. Porter’s essay “Greek Linguistics and Lexicography.”  Porter writes, “It is in tribute to Don’s important teaching and research in these areas, and with the wish that the model that he has demonstrated will be continued by others, that I offer this essay as a further contribution to the fields of Greek linguistics and lexicography” (p. 20).  Sample pages here.

The team of contributors along with editors Andreas J. Kostenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough, includes Stanley Porter, Grant Osborne, Mark Dever, John Woodbridge, Douglas Moo, Peter O’Brien, Eckhard Schnabel, Craig Blomberg, and David Pao.  Thanks to Crossway, a review is forthcoming.

This is a great interview.  Note Rick Warren from the 2:46 mark…

Rick Warren shoots straight in this one.

Well, according Why I Am a Baptist (I want to thank commentator Elnwood for point this out; see here), edited by Tom J. Nettles and Russell Moore, two Southern Baptists,  Wayne Grudem has a chapter titled A Baptist Because of the Bible.

Why I Am a Baptist was written back in 2001.  Grudem may have changed denominations since.  But I’m not aware of this.

Publisher’s description: 

“In this groundbreaking new book, Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle take on the topic of hell and our eternal destiny, with a sense of humility and a deep respect for the inspired Word of God. They will address questions such as “Will everyone be saved?” and “Does God Get What He Wants in the End?” as well as reviewing in depth, everything Jesus said about Hell.

 However, the authors warn that we have to guard ourselves against “a heartlessness” when we talk about this theology and this doctrine, because ultimately this about people. Chan and Sprinkle lay all the evidence on the table and present all the facts from Scripture, so that people can decide what to believe for themselves.”  source, emphasis added

While Rob Bell appears to be “arrogant” and depending on “human reason and persuasion” in Love Wins, we have Francis Chan and his co-author in Erasing Hell, taking a “humble orthodoxy” approach, even quoting Psalm 25:9.

Though I have mixed feelings about the way Francis Chan has positioned himself against Rob Bell in this video clip, his “laying the evidence on the table and letting the reader decide” and “fasting and praying” to get Hell right—seem fair to me.

Then, we have Mark Galli, senior editor of Christianity Today, with his response to Bell’s Love Wins forthcoming—God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the God News Is Better than Love Wins.

Let’s call it the year of Hell!

About four pages in to A Happy Marriage, I decide to quit.  Why? I encountered “profanity.”  I think I’ll read Coach Tony Dungy’s Quiet Strength: A Memoir—instead.

And yes, the God questions have come: 1. Where was God?  2. Why didn’t God stop these Tornadoes and Tsunamis? 3.  Perhaps God is not altogether in control as we thought?

While being aware of the very real anguish and angst of many questioners, my own conclusion are these: 1. God’s sovereignty despite Tornadoes, Tsunamis remain intact.  2. Disasters, whether human or non-human wrought, are to highlight the sinfulness of sin.  3. I do not believe it is the decretive will of God to bring about Tornadoes, Tsunamis, earthquakes and the like to devastate the lives of many.  4. However, while I do not believe it is God’s decretive will to cause these disasters, I do believe that God is able to bring about ultimate good from them.

So talks of a sadistic God or the non-existence of God are not necessary.  Neither should we question the God’s sovereignty, or as RC Sproul is fond of saying, “There’s no maverick molecule running wild in the universe.”

There has been a wonderful alteration in my mind, in respect to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, from that day to this… God’s absolute sovereignty…is what my mind seems to rest assured of, as much as of any thing that I see with my eyes…The doctrine has very often appeared exceeding pleasant, bright, and sweet.  Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God… God’s sovereignty has ever appear to me, a great part of his glory.  It has often been my delight to approach God, and adore him as a sovereign God.  (Jonathan Edwards, quoted in John Piper’s The Supremacy of God in Preaching, pp. 78-79, emphasis added)

The New England pastor and theologian, Jonathan Edwards, penned these words at around age 26 or 27, looking back nine years to the time he fell in love with the doctrine of the sovereignty of God.

The sovereignty of God is one of the great doctrines of Scripture.  In fact, some may even consider it the central doctrine.

My usual counter question is: “Why are Americans so fixated on hell?” Far more Americans ask me about hell than ever happens in my own country. And I really want to know, why is it that the most prosperous affluent nation on earth is really determined to be sure that they know precisely who is going to be frying in hell and what the temperature will be and so on. There’s something quite disturbing about that, especially when your nation and mine has done quite a lot in the last decade or two to drop bombs on people elsewhere and to make a lot of other people’s lives hell. So, I think there are some quite serious issues about why people want to ask that question.

Having said that, I am not a universalist. I’ve never been universalist. Someone quoted a theologian saying, “I’m not a universalist, but maybe God is.” That’s kind of a neat way of saying, “OK, there’s stuff in Scripture which is a little puzzling about this, and we can’t be absolutely sure all down the line.” But it seems to me that the New Testament is very clear that there are people who do reject God and reject what would have been His best will for them, and God honors that decision. How that works and how you then deal with the questions which result I have written about at some length.

I don’t think myself that Rob Bell has quite taken the same line that I did in Surprised by Hope. I haven’t actually had the conversation with Rob since his book was published. So, one of these days, we will and we’ll have that one out. I do think it’s good to stir things up because so many people, as I say, particularly in American culture, really want to know the last fine-tuned details of hell. And it seems to be part of their faith, often a central part of their faith that a certain number of people are simply going to go to hell and we know who these people are. I think Rob is saying, “Hey wait a minute! Start reading the Bible differently. God is not a horrible ogre who is just determined to fry as many people as He can forever. God is actually incredibly generous and gracious and wonderful and loving and caring. And if you paint a picture of God which is other than that, then you’re producing a monster and that has long-lasting effects in Christian lives and in the church.”  (bold added)

HT: Trevin Wax

There are several sound bites in N.T. Wright’s response.

Perhaps Wright and Bell can put their future potential dialogue in a booklet or something to that effect.

“It blesses me to know that Jesus had black in His blood, because this destroys any perception of black inferiority once and for all.”  (Oneness Embraced, p. 122, emphasis added)

Now, Dr. Evans is careful to point out that this doesn’t mean that Jesus was black, as some black theologians have argued.  Evans further notes that such would “fail to respect the distinct Jewish heritage of Christ” (p. 121).

At any rate, Dr. Evans came to this conclusion from two vantage points: 1. the Davidic line which is made up of Hamitic ancestry; and 2. four of the five women in Matthew’s geneaology (1:1-16) are of Hamitic descent—Tamar, Rahab, Bathseba, and Ruth.

Also read sermons.  But make sure that they were published before 1900!  Read the sermons of Spurgeon and Whitefield and Edwards and all the giants.  Those men themselves read the Puritans and were greatly helped by them.  They seem to have lived on the Puritans.  Well, let the younger preacher in turn live on them, or perhaps be led by them to the Puritans.  (Preaching & Preachers, p. 120, bold added)

1. Of course D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was coming from a Calvinist position, hence the biased nature of his suggestion in where to look (since he considered Arminianism non-theological, p. 101).  But this must be attributed to his overcommitment to Reformed theology.

2. Lloyd-Jones suggestion to read sermons before the 1900s perhaps has a lot to do with the theological liberalism of the early 1900s that he wished to safeguard younger preachers against.  Also, keep in mind Lloyd-Jones was born on 20 December 1899 and died 1 March 1981.

Were Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones alive today, who would he tell us to read?  (As far as reading the sermons of preachers of yesteryear, I’m quite impoverished.)