The Essentials of Christianity

The entire section at the beginning of this sermon, dealing with ‘reformations’ is fatally flawed in its reasoning. He criticizes Piper for his desire for the church to reflect things he sees in Jonathan Edwards, or Tom Ascol for his desire for Southern Baptist Churches to reflect more closely the theology of the Founders and their Calvinistic theology.

If Piper liked Edwards for Edwards’ sake then Yarnell would be right. However, its precisely because Piper believes that Edwards was more faithful to biblical teaching that he hold Edwards up as a model in some/many areas.

In other words it IS a reformation to biblical truth. They are using the example of people in the past who have done a better job (in some ways) than we have.

His comments in this section are not particularly insightful and they are an underhanded swipe at those he mentions.

I would agree with Robin. I do not think a swipe was taken at all. It could be said this way, “I do not have totally grasp of the Bible and neither do these men.” There is more to learn and more to see. Going back past these, reveals much!

Grosey,

David

Chadwick

Glad to see you here. I hope all went well with your revival.

Sorry about the sideways thing. If you print it out, it would be a lot easier.

Concerning you anabaptist question, I don’t see any reference to anyone following Anabaptust. Is there anyone you have in mind?

Thanks Ron!

I actually agree with Er. Yarnell that, we should be cautious about, practically, using Reformation ecclesiology as the template of our worship. But, as an historian, I want to be cautious about detaching the New Testament from the context of the early church, namely the church within a generation of the apostles. For the early church, although not the template itself, provides helpful historical perspective by which we can interpret scripture. As one who believes in the historio-grammatical methodology for interpreting scripture, I believe that the history of the early church is indespensible for biblical interpretation.

Thank you for the interaction. The only negative criticism of substance would be the one that implies I am arguing for a return to Anabaptist theology. No, I am not. It is just that the existence of the Anabaptists and their theology throws into sharp relief the inappropriateness of employing the persecuting Magisterial Reformers as sufficient exemplars for a totally consistent New Testament Christianity. This is not to say that the Puritans, the Reformers or the Early Church fathers do not have much to teach us, because they certainly do. It is to say that they do not teach us all that we need to know, nor are they to serve as the necessary filters through which we hear the Word of God. Maturity calls us to appreciate all Christians and to exalt Jesus Christ alone as Lord in both word and deed.

that should be reasons.

“Luther and Calvin were transformed by reading the book of Romans on their own. There was some growth to be done, but their writings show such growth. Even Southern Baptists rely on early writings, those who are non-Calvinists. The reformation was to get back to what the Bible says, not what the RCC told people it said. Indulgences were the reason Luther nailed the 99 thesis.”

But these ‘brilliant’ theologians kept baptizing babies and offering sacraments. That is still being done today in many reformed congregations.

Too much of the Reformation was about political power based on the state church.

“I don’t mind disagreement, let’s just base it on facts please.”

Again, I can find the reference to Martin Luther even stating that he would like to see a church made of up of TRUE believers along side the state church. Which tells me he was aware of some of the more serious problems with his going along with the NEW improved ‘reformed’ state church. Zwingili was well aware of this problem, too, as we study the lives of his former students who ended up being hunted down by the state church.

“BTW Wanda, your argument about some old dead guys is the exact same argument non-Christians use for not believing the Bible.”

Well, that would be silly. The old dead guys I am referring to did not write Inspired scripture. But you would think they did by the way the reformed movement quotes them.

Dr. Yarnell,

I do love to listen to you preach and the passion you bring to each sermon. Robin, thank you for making this link available on the SBCToday website.

Your sermon seems to follow on to the same concept you have forwarded in your new book “The Formation of Christian Doctrine”,…when you surmised …. “For John Smyth the concept of further light was useful in his transition from Seperatist to Baptist covinctions. Smyth recognized theological inconsistency was “folly or weakness” but accounted it “a virtue to retract erroers”. Smyth was ever read to change his theology for the better, in spite of long standing conventions and the opprobrium of traditionalists.” (page 153).

One technical question…. Are you trying to convey that the Matthew 7:21 in the section “not everyone who says” …. Is conveying the same idea as “confess” in Romans 10:9? It appears to me that the Lord is not connecting “λέγω” as the same confession given in Romans.

It appears to “confess or say” as portrayed in the Roman account is to “be known” demonstrating that the word is near you in the heart and in the mouth.

Thank you again for the your work,
Blessings,
Chris

John Mark,

Roman Catholicism is a church with many false innovations. Of course, the same may be said of Lutherans and Presbyterians, although the latter two are closer to New Testament theology. I am afraid I do not understand the context of your reference to “just another Christian denomination.” Hopefully, you do not mean that there is some parity between denominations that Baptists should blindly accept according to some lowest common denominator mentality.

Chris,

Thanks for reading my book. As to your question, Matthew 7:21 and Romans 10:9 both refer to Jesus as Lord in the context of eternal salvation. If we were to do so, exactly how should we distinguish the two inspired claims, one by the Lord and one by his apostle, that confessing or saying Jesus is Lord is necessary for salvation? On what biblical basis would one derive such a distinction, other than that the two verses use the synonymous terms, “homologeo” and “lego”? Moreover, the Word who spoke, “Lord,” in Matthew 7 is the same Word who enables us to speak, “Lord,” in Romans 10? Finally, what purpose would such a distinction serve, other than perhaps preserving a theological system? Is there a biblical purpose or a philosophical purpose behind the need to divide the two sayings?

If I might respond to your question to Robin, I wonder how you would define a true church as opposed to a false church? Should a true church ever speak against the commands of Christ?

In Christ,
Malcolm

Thanks for re-phrasing your question, John Mark. In response, please note that I consider the Roman Catholic church in the same way I do Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, although I do prefer the latter’s doctrines in some ways: the churches hold to innovations that countermand the New Testament, and thus may be classified as sub-New Testament.

Roman Catholicism is a church with many false innovations. Of course, the same may be said of Lutherans and Presbyterians, although the latter two are closer to New Testament theology. I am afraid I do not understand the context of your reference to “just another Christian denomination.” Hopefully, you do not mean that there is some parity between denominations that Baptists should blindly accept according to some lowest common denominator mentality.

Dr. Yarnell, you’re now drawing an analogy minus the argument with respect to Rome’s official teachings and, let’s say the Book of Concord or the Westminster Standards.

That’s a patently false analogy, for, historically, Baptists qua Baptists have held to the gospel of justification by faith alone along with Lutherans and Presbyterians while, with respect to Rome, asserting that Romanism’s gospel if false – for it denies justification by faith alone. How can you say that Rome is just another church with false innovations LIKE those of the Lutherans and Presbyterians. We obviously differ with both over sacramentology – but that’s not Marks’ question. Indeed, you analogy ONLY holds with respect to sacramentology. With respect to Presbyterians, our differences over sacramentology are particular instances of our ecclesiological differences…No Baptist here denies any of that….but John Mark didn’t ask you about that. He specifically asked you about THE GOSPEL. I suppose I need to clarify…do you believe that Rome’s official teaching with respect to the Gospel qua Gospel is a true, saving Gospel? Yes or No. If so, how so? The reason John Mark is asking is because he interacts with Romanism several times a week at the Beggarsallreformation blog.

You seem, in my opinion, to comparing apples and oranges. Indeed, did not one of the speakers at the J3:16 conference seek to tar Dr. Schriener at SBTS with affirming the Council of Trent? Do you agree with that statement? If so, on what basis?

Chris,

You have claimed there is a distinction between the two texts. Exactly what would the distinction between the two texts be and does the distinction undo the exegesis offered?

In Christ,
Malcolm

Brother Yarnell,

That does seem to be the clear intent of the context of the Matthew 7 in our Lord’s sermon being that that mere profession by those of dubious intentions is far from a confession sweetly savored and known by the Lord.

I would say emphatically, along with the Apostle Paul, that the Romans 10 passage is an expression confessed by the heart changed will of the one known by Christ… “Romans 10:10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

Paul’s indicative thesis on Justification throughout the letter solidifies the context….and his recent previous argument Paul makes clear… Romans 9:16 “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.”

I don’t know if God could be any clearer to teach us that salvation is completely determined by Him alone and not by us at all. Now that does not mean that our confession is worthless. On the contrary it is not only required, but is essential, since it is that confession that brings glory to God alone and it is that confession that leaves no disappointment.

I hope that we do not have an impasse on such a clear and simple passage. Verse 13 is absolutely indicating the willingness of God to save some whether Jew or Greek as Paul is teaching throughout the section.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Malcolm,
I appreciate your willingness to disagree, but I believe and would challenge that the human being has a responsibility to hear and believe in the gospel as well. Divine election is a Godly determinism as Paul has so clearly taught throughout Romans. Unfortunately, fatalism is a philosophical explanation that may or may not do justice to what God has done in choosing and calling those that believe.

I do not believe that God has fashioned man as automatons, but he has fashioned man in His own image. And even as God has fashioned us in His image, that amazing creation does not gain man any autonomous sanction to peace beyond the counsel of God.

I certainly agree with you that Reformed Theology has many failings, especially in the ecclesiastical forms emanating during the years of Luther, Calvin and others. But, SBC Baptist’s since 1845 were firmly established in the covenant of grace that was gleaned from parts of the Reformation period. Baptists have a firm record on the biblical foundation of justification; especially those of Romans 9 and 10 where all of salvation is of God and none of man. Salvation is never gained by the good will of man, nor his best intentions. If Paul is correct… Romans 9:16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.” ….. where then is the mercy of man more powerful to elevate the responsibility of the human?

The philosophical ramblings of “automatons and fatalism” are simply foreign to the language of grace and justification given to those children adopted into the family of God by the work of Christ alone.

Blessings,
Chris

Dr. Yarnell,

You said and I agree that …for I do believe that the human being has a responsibility to believe in the gospel.

From your perspective, what role does God’s grace play in man’s ability to believe?

And one more thing if you don’t mind. A follow-up from above.

In your view, is the Gospel denied by the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness and Rome’s denial of sola fide?

Thank you,

Mark

Brother Yarnell,

It appears that you are depending upon philosophy (fatalism, determinism, etc.) to bolster your arguments against Paul’s clear teaching in Romans. Look just beyond the passage I cited concerning that it is not man’s will at all in matters of justification as Paul illuminates…. Romans 9:17-18 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” (18) So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
What you are saying to me is that it is possible to read this scripture and somehow come to the meaning that God is not the one that shows mercy and He is not the one who hardens as well….but it is man’s responsibility to make God appear righteous on His promises? Some of the Jewish converts in the Roman church did seem to have this same struggle.

Is there not a covenant of grace that God has shed abroad since the inception of making His word known to us? I’m not referring anyone to any theological system for grace (denominationally or reformed), but simply that God has provided His ways and means of grace by way of covenant. It appears to me that the New Covenant gives us a clear view of this grace…..

Hebrews 9:14-15 “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (15) For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.”

As far as you and I,…it does appear that we read these texts from a different understanding of how God is operating in the world and in eternity. It also appears that we agree that confession is essential….and it appears that we both love God and have confessed him as Lord. The difference that I may proffer… is that I know God’s purposes and plans are irrefutable and not like our ways, while you seem to think that the reception of redemption depends primarily on man’s responsibility and if it does not then God is not causally reasonable to declare that to His creation.

Since this post was primarily about confession,…I am glad that we both confess Christ and follow Him alone as Lord and Savior. Another post on the true history of the SBC would be fascinating and informative and probably not much different that what is experienced even today. I too pray that God will continue to give me light to His Word,..I have much to learn!

Blessings,
Chris

Chris,

First, actually I deny the philosophies of fatalism and determinism, so how in the world could I build my exegesis of Romans 9-11 upon them?

Second, please recognize that the Reformed doctrine of the “covenant of grace” is not the same thing as the New Covenant. Rather, by “covenant of grace,” the Reformed mean a trans-biblical covenant that depends upon some creative reading of Scripture.

Third, you are correct that we read Scripture differently, but not in the manner you describe. I certainly do affirm the sovereignty of God in salvation and his irrefutable purposes. I just believe that classical Calvinism takes its own logic and imputes it to the divine decrees or, as you term them, irrefutable purposes.

Thanks for the invitation to write on Baptist origins. I am actually doing so for publication but cannot disseminate that without violating a contract. But stay tuned!

In Christ,
Malcolm