Someone well said;
A minister without boldness is like a smooth file, a knife without an edge, a sentinel that is afraid to let off his gun. Men will be bold in sin, and ministers must be bold to reprove.
How are ministers to reprove sin? Well it is based on Scripture. If a minister were to reprove sin based on society and the norms implemented by society, then ministers would today be approving of homosexual marriages. Oh, wait, we have ministers that are doing that already. Ok, then we would have ministers approving of husbands and wives ending their marriages because they just are not compatible. Oh, wait, we have that also. Ok, then we would have ministers that are approving of killing babies in the womb because it is the mother’s choice whether to be an incubator for nine months. Well, we have that going on also. These three issues are results of society driven decisions that preachers make for no other reason but that it goes against conventional thinking.
How does a preacher interpret scripture in order to boldly reprove sin? Does the preacher have the authority to reprove sin? What does it mean to interpret Scripture? Well, there are various positions on this. I want to point out a position that seems to be under attack by various others in order to place themselves as being enlightened and informed.
There are some that would have one believe being dogmatic about a position is being arrogant. Arrogance has nothing to do with stating clearly a biblical conviction, the church has affirmed through various councils and other doctrinal statements. When one interprets Scripture and arrives at a conclusion, it does not mean that one may be cocksure of their position. If I were to say that I believe something personally with no historical authentication, that is an arrogant place to arrive and one that says he/she is “cocksure” is being arrogant to say such a thing. However, when one says they are convinced by Scripture a position is correct it is vitally important that one state their position, and how one arrived at that position, then anyone that disagrees will be wrong.
As I move further in this argument, let me assure you that a believer in Jesus Christ does not come to this position on their own. The Bible tells us in 2 Peter 1:20 “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation.” The position that makes one state a Biblical conviction is a position arrived at, not by the person only, but by study and many hours of prayer and working out one’s own salvation with fear and trembling.
Thus, let us test this position out in an everyday environment. Let us say that you, as a pastor, have a Bible study where you meet with various people to pray and give guidance. In this Bible Study you have a scripture that is read and then discussed. As this discussion proceeds you allow for various interpretations of the selected text to be propagated, by others giving only their position based on their own decision. This propagation leaves one believing that any position that has been advanced is the correct position. However, there is a serious theological dichotomy when one believes that each pericope of Scripture has one interpreted truth that is correct. As a faithful minister of the Gospel you find yourself in a dilemma. If you remain silent you allow for each person that presented a different interpretation to leave with the understanding that their interpretation was the interpreted truth and will probably be advanced in future teaching. Or, you state your position explaining how you arrived there and posit the interpreted truth among those in the Bible Study. This stance will not win you any friends and it may cause a lively discussion to ensue. This particular stance will cause discussion among the group and cause you, as the preacher, to engage that discussion. However, this is the correct stance. It is based on historical evidence and is also presented not as a private interpretation.
Some may not agree with me on this and that is alright. I certainly leave that with you to determine your position. However, before you begin to imply that I am being unreasonable and charge that I am pushing my interpretation on others, you need to remember a text that we are given as Pastors. 2 Timothy 3:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Then Paul reminds Timothy again in 2 Timothy 4:2-5 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage–with great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
These are the instructions that ministers have. However, how are we to do these things without a reliable source? We have a reliable source, but when we have one text with various meanings we do not have a source that is reliable. I am not suggesting that various people do not come to the text with various understandings and cultural nuances. I am suggesting that an over-zealous desire to guard against arrogance when interpreting Scripture will lead to a post-modern relativistic position that advocates all positions as valid. Many of our doctrines have been hammered out on the anvil of truth through the various councils. We do not have private interpretations of Scripture and we certainly do not advocate that we have the personal authority to say; “Thus saith the Lord”. We do stand up and say; “Thus saith the Lord” because we have the authority of the church behind us in the interpretation of God’s Word.
Some may advocate the reliability of the text. However, one needs to understand that we have the completed text before us and it has stood the test of time. Let’s say that through archelogical findings some historian were to find one of the missing letters Paul wrote to the Corinthians. The question would be; Is that letter Holy Spirit inspired Scripture? I tell you, no it is not. It would be treated as nothing more than the writings of the Apocrypha. Why? Because we have a closed cannon. How can I say that with authority? This issue was debated and The Church in 393 AD in the Synod of Hippo, produced a list of texts equal to the 39-to-46-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament. Jerome, when translating into Latin, rejected the extra 7 Old Testament books as Scripture, but translated it at the Pope’s insistence. However, today both Catholics and Protestants have the same 27-book New Testament Canon. My point? We have a reliable sufficient text and that text tells us that there is no further extra-biblical revelation. Also, it tells us that there is no private interpretation.
What does that have to do with our debates in general, and our latest debates in particular? In general, it seems that some want to elevate the debate to a point that says all interpretations of scriputure are valid. This is not even worthy of debate, but let’s just handle one issue. In a debate over doctrine, someone presents that the Trinity is not in the Bible and thus is a non-scriptural argument to describe God. According to the logic of some, I am to advocate that it is a good point and because I am humble in my interpretation of Scripture I should say nothing in order to allow free flowing discussion. I know that in the Council of Nicea there were some definitive arguments advocating the Trinity and for me to remain silent and point to various texts that reveal this Doctrine would be tantamount to ministerial malpractice.
In particular, to our latest debates, one would think that we are to accept an interpretation of Scripture to allow for “open” communion when we have for nearly 500 years as Baptist practiced “close” communion. While I love my brothers that practice “open” but restricted communion, I disagree with them. Am I to be humble about my interpretation and allow another interpretation to be advocated without any debate? According to some, that is exactly what I am to do. Just because one debates a certain issue does not mean that one is trying to “kick out” someone else. In the weeks following the J316 Conference I have seen two scholars defend their words because others took them out of context to use as a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). I say this because at no time did those responding to the articles that came out of the J316 Conference contact these two scholars privately to voice their concerns. It seems that if one would like to speak about differences and disagreements it would behoove one to contact the person with whom one disagrees. I can tell you from personal experience when one is contacted privately it makes for a better conversation than it is when one is hit with a WMD in a public arena.
As I close, let me say one thing. The Bible does have only One Truth and it is not open for individual private interpretations. As one crusty ole codger has well stated in a previous comment stream “<i>“You know the Bible has only one truth. It is our responsibility to seek that truth. All of church history tells us that truth is best arrived at corporately.”</i> Thus, we may stand and boldly say; “Thus saith the Lord.”
I wholeheartedly agree with you throughout most of this post. However, when the ‘scholars at the J316 conference’ make public statements, you shouldn’t expect those who disagree to respond privately.
For instance, I, along with some friends signed a letter to the editor of a moderate-leaning state Baptist newspaper regarding the inflammatory tone of the editorial page against conservatives. The editor called me personally to rebuke me for not coming to him privately with my concerns first. He said I had violated Matthew 18. I disagreed with him (and still do) because the his statements were made in the public eye, and my personal offense was not the issue.
Would it be better to have contacted them privately first? In some ways, I’m sure it would be. But I know if I were called some of the things that people were called at the J316 conference, I wouldn’t want to wait to respond to those public false allegations.
Brother Tim,
I believe you are right to say as the “crusty ole man” has said, and that scripture does say, there is Truth. He came and dwelt among us and provided for sinners in writing His Word, and an interpreter (Holy Spirit) to teach us His Word.
2 Peter 1:16-21 “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. (17) For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”– (18) and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. (19) So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. (20) But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, (21) for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.”
The Holy Spirit is the mover, as usual, to evidence the Truth that scripture reveals. As the church meets together for worship and fellowship where-ever and when-ever, she depends upon truth and understanding to bring wisdom and substance.
Proverbs 7:1-9 “My son, keep my words And treasure my commandments within you. (2) Keep my commandments and live, And my teaching as the apple of your eye. (3) Bind them on your fingers; Write them on the tablet of your heart. (4) Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,” And call understanding your intimate friend; (5) That they may keep you from an adulteress, From the foreigner who flatters with her words. (6) For at the window of my house I looked out through my lattice, (7) And I saw among the naive, And discerned among the youths A young man lacking sense, (8) Passing through the street near her corner; And he takes the way to her house, (9) In the twilight, in the evening, In the middle of the night and in the darkness.”
Galatians 1:6-12 “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; (7) which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. (8) But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (9) As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! (10) For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ. (11) For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. (12) For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”
It is not enough to invent that any group can lay claim to the innovation of truth. Such would finally determine to please men. Yet only the church is given the stewardship to teach the truth so that it can return as planned in the purposes of God. Those that God has called to Pastor His flock, marked out locally throughout the earth by His Word, are commanded to feed the sheep. If an Under-Shepherd is not willing to feed,… but is more inclined to argue, quarrel, and squabble,… then he has misunderstood the Truth. Under-Shepherd’s must decide whether they are willing to follow men or the Chief-Shepherd, because the tendency of men is to side with men and use men as their chief defense ,…usually in great number and majorities.
As far as communion goes, I must stick with Paul and his admonition from the scriptures and as Christ has given to His disciples.
1 Corithians 11:23-28 “For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; (24) and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” (25) In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” (26) For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. (27) Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. (28) But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”
A man (not his brother, not his sister, not any priest, not his pastor, not his church) must examine himself,…and in doing so he is to eat. Pastor’s “must” preach, teach and explain the word so that the people hear this and can do as the scripture has clearly commanded and as spoken by our Lord, Matthew 26:26-28 “While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. ”
Tim, it is certainly within your prerogative to decide to defend communion by looking to the interpretations of the history and the host of ways and means within a convention. Scripture is not forced into that position to defend its command; it simply brings us back to proclaiming the Lord in the command.
Blessings,
Chris
I’m with you on this issue, Tim. I believe there is one truth (although there is room in my mind for those who disagree with how I see it),and I want my pastor to speak that truth to me, in love, and challenge my actions, and help bring me in line with what the Lord wants me to be. I can’t respect someone who does not speak the truth.
You must be careful, however, to stand firm on the whole counsel of God, not just the hot button issues. I have found (and this blog has shown) that many pastors minimalize some sins–usually the sins with which they struggle the most–while standing firm on those sins that are not a problem with them personally. This leads to hypocrisy, and makes it impossible for the pastor to have any credibility whatsoever.
I am finding more and more that the greatest pastors are the ones who are humble, contrite, and very aware of their own sin. These pastors have found a place to serve where the people allow them to be human, and that lends itself to credibility, which can give the pastor the right to speak truth boldly.
When I was a pastor, I spoke boldly, yet tried to be transparent about my shortcomings. Often the people did not seem to want that–they wanted a perfect pastor. Or, I wasn’t transparent enough–I might mention that I struggle with holiness, but everyone could see where my real stuggles were (I weighed 285 pounds). I’m sure that led people to see me as a hypocrite, preaching against homosexuality, adultery, abortion, smoking, etc., yet all the while violating the Scripture’s teaching on gluttony and moderate living.
Brother Tim,
A brief commentary on the commentary of the J316.
It still strikes me oddly that people are upset with the J316 conference. What in the world did the boys and girls who do not identify with the same system that the J316 men engage in their teaching really expect. Did they expect these men to give Calvin a seat at the table to defend all of his systems of theology? Why cry over milk you can drink.
This is simply politics. And as a good friend of mine has said, politics are not bad, they are simply affairs aired on behalf of a group. J316 was an opportunity to have words written and published for future young and old minds alike to read and discern. But, the fact is for the SBC political players, the words do get written, published and affirmed. We simply need to judge the value. Some with more or less authority based upon your political affiliation within the wider religious community.
In the larger scheme of biblical theology,…the J316 experience will grow faint quickly and be replaced by another.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Jason,
If you are 6’7″, then 285 is not bad. However, just because someone is over weight does that mean they are gluttons? My mother is over weight and I can assure you she is not a glutton. There have been weight issues in my family for years, but gluttony has not been an issue. I can assure you that there was no vomitorium in our home when we grew up. I also can assure you that gluttony is a pet peeve of some within our convention that never battled a weight problem. As to your condition, only you can say what you struggle with and what you do not. However, I just do not believe you to be a glutton. Overweight, maybe but a glutton? Look at the historical context of how Jesus used that word and I believe you will find something much different that what we are dealing with in today’s society.
Brother Chris,
It still strikes me oddly that people are upset with the J316 conference. No more clearer statement has been written in describing J316.
Did they expect these men to give Calvin a seat at the table to defend all of his systems of theology? Calvin was given a seat at the table is was the Synod of Dort that was not allowed to speak freely. :)
Blessings,
Tim
Thanks Tim. I am not 6’7″, but 6’2″. I carried 285 pretty well, but I’m much more content now at 193. When I was a big boy, I swore that I was not a glutton. But my waistline gave me away. Just like the alcoholic who says, “I am not a drunk,” very often the glutton says, “I don’t eat THAT much.” But the proof is in the proverbial pudding.
I didn’t mean for you to take the bait, Tim, but it seems like you did. You are defending gluttony, as if to minimalize it in comparison to any other sin condemned by the New Testament. It shouldn’t surprise you to find out that I have studied gluttony a great deal, and have found that in the Bible, it is always placed in the same context, if not in the same breath, at drunkenness. I find that really interesting, that as long as I have been old enough to hear preachers, I have heard preachers railing against the sin of alcohol (not drunkenness, as it says in the Bible), but they ignore the warnings against gluttony. The Bible says quite clearly that gluttons and drunkards have no place in the kingdom. Yet we minimalize it, I suspect from personal experience that it is because we want that extra helping of fried chicken, or an extra scoop of rocky road.
But glutton was only one example. I promise you we have scores of pastors who struggle with all kinds of sins–lust, pornography addiction, gossip, the inability to control their family, etc. I wonder if many pastors are fulfilling a call to ministry that was never really from God in the first place. And all I am saying is that before we stand up and take an authoritative stand against sin in our churches, we’d better take a good long look in the mirror. Preferably, a full length mirror.
If that is the case Chris, Tim, then which church is preaching truth? Presbyterian, Methodist, Roman Catholic? How would one be able to discern without studying scripture for themselves? How is what you are saying any different than Romans Catholics and priests? I’m having a hard time following this logic.
J316 would have been fine had it not misrepresented Calvinism. It would have been a far better gester to do as the Building bridges conference. I think the J316 conference was political. Just as the sending of tapes with the same misrepresentations was sent to every minister in Florida was political. I don’t think you would have stood silent to misrepresentations which have the ability to trash reputations, in fact you haven’t. So why should Calvinists? I’m personally glad that there are those speaking out against the horrid misrepresentations that were made at this conference.
BTW Tim, where is what you are saying about my listening to the church any different that those of us who have read and agree with what John Calvin has said concerning the Doctrines of Grace? That is what strikes me oddly.
BTW fact: There has always been non-Calvinists and Calvinists in Southern Baptist life. If closed communion is not shown to be in scripture then it should be changed in the BFM. The BFM has been changed how many times?
Sister Debbie,
I would possibly argue a little different concerning the existence of truth.
As Timothy was instructed …. 1 Timothy 3:15 “but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”
The church is the pillar and support, not the governing system of truth. There is, in my humble opinion a huge difference in understanding the pillar and support opposed to governing authority. So, it is incumbent upon the church (called out ones, singularly yet in unity) to know what pillars and supports do. We are called to hold up the message and work of Christ by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit. This brings us to the already established unity of the Spirit. We don’t create the unity of the Spirit, it already exists,…we simply recognize the true cornerstone and how it is Christ sustaining the pillar and support by what he has done.
There are zealous folks that begin to mistake a convention or an association for the work of the church. As Wes said earlier…the “church are the people” under the Lordship and Headship of Christ. So, there is no organization, convention, seminary, etc. that has one wit of power, nor one wit of authority. I would listen closely to our friend Peter,….
2 Peter 3:14-18 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, (15) and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, (16) as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (17) You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, (18) but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
Unprincipled men can exist within your congregation, so be on guard. So, I agree with you…we must study and be able to discern the will of God. This is done by knowing the scriptures. I can know the difference in the Catholic doctrine of faith and the biblical doctrine of faith, and I’m not that smart. So, yes we must all be willing to study and know His Word.. so that we bring glory to God in worship and in the edification of the saints. We should be careful not to fall in love with conventions or associations or any other pseudo-church manufacture.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother Jason,
Please do not take my comment # 5 as a defense for anyone to eat anything as much as they would like. I would certainly be one to advocate moderation concerning the intake of food. At the same time, I believe that your would agree, there are some that partake certain foods in moderation but it blows them up like blow fish. Does that mean they are gluttons because certain foods are more likely to increase their girth than others? As I heard one person tell me about refusing one particular item in the starch line; “a moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips“.
I will always defend moderation when it comes to food because we need food to survive. However, you have thrown alcohol in this argument. As you said, I cannot refuse to take the bait. You throwing alcohol out to me is like placing raw bloody meat in shark infested waters. :) I will not defend moderation in alcohol because one does not need alcohol to survive.
Sister Debbie,
If closed communion is not shown to be in scripture then it should be changed in the BFM. The BFM has been changed how many times?
Pray tell who Paul penned the book of 1 Corinthians to? Was it to the Church at Corinth, or was it to the city of Corinth? If you say the church then, according to 1 Corinthians 11:28, what are we to examine ourselves for? Paul has already pointed out some of the issues that were making the church violate the principles of the Lord’s table. Also, if it is the church then would you not agree that Paul was speaking to Baptized Believers? If you say no, he was speaking to all believers, baptized or not, then you have to re-think for whom the letter was written. Also, you have to do some serious hoop jumping to get out of Acts 2:41 that there is no orderly presentation of the church’s order.
Oh, one more thing. The BF&M has been updated three times since it was originally adopted in 1925. In 1963 it was updated by a committee chaired by Dr. Hershell Hobbs, as a result of the Elliot issue at Midwestern. In 1998 a committee added the article entitled The Family, as a result of the homosexual issues. In 2000 a committee chaired by Dr. Adrian Rogers updated the BF&M as a result of the reality of a postmodern culture, complete with rampant relativism and the denial of absolute truth. Thus, the issue of closed communion should have come to the forefront in 2000, but it didn’t. Why? Because it saw that closed communion is the way to stand firm against a postmodern culture that is complete with rampant relativism.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Chris,
One more thing. I do not see anyone falling in love with conventions, seminaries or any other pseudo-church. However, neither do we throw out the men and women of God that has been placed in those positions in order to keep us accountable and to train us.
Blessings,
Tim
I’ve been a part of six SBC churches in my life, and to the best of my memory, all six practiced open communion (ie. inviting all those who had placed their faith in Christ). Some of these have been strongly conservative, confessional churches, a couple were pretty much a-theological.
I realize my experience my not be typical, but I think the majority of SBC churches practice open communion. I would like to see the BFM changed so that it better reflects who we really are on that issue.
(I’m open to correction if I’m wrong about the statistics, I’ve never seen a study done on that issue.)
Brother Tim,
We seem to be living in a time where we seem to depend upon those pseudo-church defined positions to be the “go to folks” for truth and training, yet this was not the norm for the early churches. The church is the pillar and support of the truth,..she seems adept enough to mature with that legacy. Seminaries can be a good idea, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that seminaries are more susceptible to heresy than the church, just look at the short history of the SBC with Southern and Southwestern. And for good reason,….only the church has Christ as her head.
Some may not throw out the men and women of seminaries, but they just do not allow them to commune at the Lord’s Table while in fellowship with believers if they are visiting from another city. Maybe these men and women of those seminaries will see the command of Christ as a proclamation of worth and fight to persuade a convention on the need for its observance with those that call upon the name of the Lord. Many do already, but some insist on creating disunity through demanding their abstinence from the Lord’s Table.
Blessings,
Chris
Yeah, I shouldn’t have thrown alcohol into the mix (figuratively, not literally). That subject has a lot of buckshot in it. The only reason I did was because the sin of gluttony and the sin of drunkenness are always linked in Scripture. You show me a drunk, and I’ll show you a glutton whose sin is just as deep, dark, and destructive.
I don’t want to get into an argument over physiology here. For one thing, I don’t know enough about it, and for another thing, I’m not really sure even how to spell it. But I have learned a lot through my own personal experiences, and one thing I have learned is that when it comes to putting on weight, it is always calories in versus calories out. If there are certain foods that make a person blow up like a balloon, it is likely because those foods are loaded with calories and cause one to gain weight. Any balloon affect would be temporary, in the form of gas, which we all know most Baptists are fully capable of expelling with no problem :>). If a person lives a moderate lifestyle, taking in fewer than 2500 calories a day (depending on height, weight, gender, etc), they will generally not be overweight, even with a relatively sendentary lifestyle. Of course, I am in a position where I can mask my gluttony, because I ride so much. That is another issue altogether. Am I a glutton if I have to take in more food to fuel the machine? Is Michael Phelps a glutton when he consumes 12,000 calories a day? I think these issues are not so clearly defined as we would like them to be.
Brother Brent,
Where have you served during your time? I do not ask this as a negative. I only ask this to say that once you cross the Blue Ridge Parkway, you will find very few SBC churches that practice open communion.
Brother Chris,
We seem to be living in a time where we seem to depend upon those pseudo-church defined positions to be the “go to folks” for truth and training, yet this was not the norm for the early churches. This would be a correct statement. However, the norm for the early churches was called Associations. :)
Brother Jason,
Can we agree that is is not the sin of gluttony that causes the over weight issue as much as the sin of slothfulness?
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
I do agree with you on the association of saints throughout the early churches. The Apostle made emphatic and consistent introductions to all the saints as he penned his letters to the churches along his way. He did not treat them independent, but as brethren whether with him on the journey or working throughout the churches all along the way. That is the association we should long for….and encourage communion among those saints in every place never ceasing to give thanks while lifting each other up in prayer consistently. He was always about the business of imparting some spiritual gift and expecting the same from all the saints in every place.
Ephesians 1:15-17 For this reason I too, having heard of the faith in the Lord Jesus which exists among you and your love for all the saints, (16) do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; (17) that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.
Galatians 1:1-5 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), (2) and all the brethren who are with me, To the churches of Galatia: (3) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, (4) who gave Himself for our sins so that He might rescue us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, (5) to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen.
1 Corinthians 1:1-3 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, (2) To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: (3) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:5-9 For just as the sufferings of Christ are ours in abundance, so also our comfort is abundant through Christ. (6) But if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; or if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which is effective in the patient enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer; (7) and our hope for you is firmly grounded, knowing that as you are sharers of our sufferings, so also you are sharers of our comfort. (8) For we do not want you to be unaware, brethren, of our affliction which came to us in Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of life; (9) indeed, we had the sentence of death within ourselves so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead;
Romans 1:7-12 to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (8) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world. (9) For God, whom I serve in my spirit in the preaching of the gospel of His Son, is my witness as to how unceasingly I make mention of you, (10) always in my prayers making request, if perhaps now at last by the will of God I may succeed in coming to you. (11) For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift to you, that you may be established; (12) that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.
Please don’t hear me wrong,…I am sure seminaries can provide a benefit (I benefit greatly) and association with fellow Christians is assumed, but each and every church should be the “environment” to aim at unity of the Spirit through the Word. Seminaries at best can be supplemental, not as intended or what has grown to become through the Latin etymological depiction where the “seed” of priestly training is sought. We as a Christian society have a difficult enough time separating the professionally trained from the Godly called. The churches must step into the forefront and realize that seminaries provide supplemental (if that at times) not primary understanding to the unity of the church.
Blessings,
Chris
When I first read your question, Tim, I thought, “no. I don’t agree with that.” But almost immediately, as I thought about your statement, I began to ponder it. It’s been four hours since I read it, and I still can’t get my mind wrapped around it. What is the correlation between gluttony and slothfulness? If a person who lives a sedentary lifestyle eats 12,000 calories a day, it is gluttony, but if another person leads a very active lifestyle, that 12,000 calorie a day diet isn’t gluttony at all, it is only fuel. Hmmm.
Maybe it is a question of knowing one’s body and activity level, and knowing the amount of fuel we need.
I’m going back to pondering your statement.
Brother Tim,
Which side of the Blue Ridge Parkway are you referring? East or west?
I must agree with brother Brent. I have been a member of Southern Baptist churches in Bishopville, SC; Burgaw, NC; Wilmington, NC; Southern Pines, NC; Troy, NC; Roxboro, NC; Hickory, NC; Chicago, IL; Raleigh, NC; and Dallas, TX, and all of them practiced open communion, meaning all who have publicly professed faith in Christ.
I have pastored four churches in Sabinal, TX; Oxford, NC; Winston-Salem, NC; and Lewisville, NC and all have also practiced open communion according to my previous definition.
Perhaps you’re speaking of churches in the mountains, eh?
Les
Brother Jason,
I could be wrong, but I have not seen gluttony referenced in the OT. There are dietary laws, but I do not believe gluttony is referenced. The place I see gluttony referenced is in the NT. I know that you remember one principle in Biblical Interpretation is historical setting. What is there about the historical setting of the NT that brings about the thought of gluttony? Greek culture! From what I understand of Greek culture, their pleasure driven desires would lead them to eat until they were full, then go to a vomitorium and regurgitate their food in order to return to the banquet to eat more. That, from what I understand, is gluttony.
I am advocating that a person that takes in 12000 calories, but burns it up because of the activities and work-out routines is not a glutton. Neither is one that takes in 1200 calories but because of inactivity has an expanded girth.
Brother Les,
Please notice the geographical locations of the churches you have listed. I am not saying that NC churches have a strong practice of close communion. I am saying that once you get west of the Blue Ridge Parkway the majority of SB Churches have “close” communion written in their Constitutions.
Also, maybe I missed it, and if I did I am sorry. However, would you help me with your definition of “open” communion?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
First, I think we do agree that if a person consumes 12,000 calories to fuel a very active lifestyle that is not gluttony. I read about guys who were driving bicycle rikshas in Denver at a convention this summer. They had to consume 16,000 calories a day, and still lost weight over the summer. Amazing! From my experience, you would have to be extremely inactive to have an ample girth only taking in 1200 calories a day. Just your heart beating and your diaphram working burns several hundred calories every day. If a person is large taking in only 1200 calories a day, then I see your point–gluttony is not their problem, slothfulness is. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Second, a couple of examples from our Hebrew friends. “And they shall say to the elders of the city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’” (Deut 21:20)
“Be not among drunkards or gluttonous eaters of meat, For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.” (Prov 23:20-21).
“The one who keeps the law is a son with understanding, but a companion of gluttons shames his father.” (Prov 28:7)
“Put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony” (Prov 23:2)
Ezekiel declared that the sin of Sodom went beyond the obvious, saying that they were “proud, gluttonous, and lazy.” (16:49)
Numbers 11:34 refers to a place called Kibroth-hattaavah, which means “graves of gluttony,” because it was there that they buried people who were cravers of Egyptian meat.
Do you seriously believe that the Greeks were worse than we are when it comes to excess? ‘Cause I think we got ‘em beat, in just about every way. When they write the history of late 20th/early 21st century America, it will be a story of excessive pleasure–from sexuality to alcohol to food to material goods. We make the Greeks look like amateurs.
Brother Jason,
I will go back to the OT and do more research. Thank you for your gracious correction.
Blessings,
Tim
I think our current cultural problems related to food and alcohol are both indicative of a similar cultural trait. Americans are people of excess. We gladly sacrifice quality in favor of quantity. Cigarettes and cheap beer are the best examples. If people smoked an occasional pipe or cigar after dinner as in times past, I don’t think too many people would have an issue with it, Christian or otherwise. But cigarettes are an excellent example of the desire to endlessly and gratuitously satisfy a craving and people suck down one after another. If people lowered a pint of fine ale at the end of the work week or had a glass of fine wine after dinner, then we would doubtless not be embroiled in SBC alcohol debates every couple of months. But cheap booze is to alcohol what cigarettes are to tobacco. A way to cheaply overindulge.
Lest tobacco and alcohol abstainers become too smug, the same applies to food. Most Americans have a nearly endless supply of cheap crappy food and we take advantage of it. Calories over quality. And we show it (myself included)
I think there’s a reason drunkenness and gluttony are almost always linked in scripture. They are essentially the same vice.
Brother Tim,
Thanks for your clarification of the direction of the Blue Ridge Parkway to which you were speaking. I agree it is much more prevalent west of the Parkway.
I mentioned in my comment open communion “meaning all who have publicly professed faith in Christ.” In my church, you cannot take Communion unless you have publicly confessed Christ as Savior and been baptized by immersion. In addition to our church members, it is open to all others who have publicly identified with Christ as Lord and Savior in their local protestant church. That’s what I mean by open communion and that’s how I explain it everytime.
Regarding BFM2K, I believe I am in agreement with it regarding communion as it only addresses members of the church and is silent on visitors from other churches.
Regards,
Les
Les
“Regarding BFM2K, I believe I am in agreement with it regarding communion as it only addresses members of the church and is silent on visitors from other churches.”
That is an interesting interpretation of our confession, but I will let Tim question you on that.
My question is this, on your blog you stated that you agreed with Spurgeon on his statement that Calvinism is the gospel. I was wondering, my church along with a vast majority of churches in the SBC do not adhere to the 5 points of Calvinism. Does that mean Immanuel and all other churches not adhering to Calvinism are not preaching and believing in the gospel? After all, if Calvinism is the gospel, as you believe, then those who do not adhere to TULIP can’t be preaching the gospel. Using your understanding of the gospel of course.
Now, if this is the case, since the vast majority of churches in the SBC do not adhere to Calvinism and are not preaching the gospel (if your logic is played out) then the next logical step is that the vast majority of SBC churches are not churches at all since proclaiming and propagating the gospel is a distinctive of a New Testament church (See BF&M Article VI).
Les, it seems to me that if your logic is played out and the vast majority of churches in the SBC do not adhere to the five points of Calvinism, then they are truly not churches and the only true churches are those who believe in TULIP. That sounds awful “Landmarkish” to me.
What did you actually mean when you agreed with Spurgeon that Calvinism is the gospel?
Les,
You sound real “Landmarkish” to me, too. What is your answer to Robin? Are the only true Churches those that preach and teach the five points of Calvinism?
Also, Les, your communion is not exactly an open communion. You are asking them to all be saved and baptised by immersion.
David
Robin,
Excellent question. No I don’t think only Calvinists preach the gospel. I’m not that exclusivist, unlike you guys. Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes. Can the gospel be preached and one not believe in Calvinism? Yes. I haven’t made those exclusivist claims nor did C. H. Spurgeon. You need to stop thinking so linearly. If you apply your linear thinking to all doctrines, then you’re going to have a terrible time with the Trinity.
If you’re interested in knowing my view on Landmarkism, tune in to my blog on Monday.
David,
LOL! Landmarkish? Please. :)
I said that was MY definition of “open communion.” What would you call it?
It’s real fun to see the way you guys run to each other’s defense and don’t let the poster actually answer the questions posed to him. How many BI guys does it take to answer Les’ questions?
You guys are a lot of fun. :)
Les
Les
Thank you for your interaction, but please understand what I believe before you label me an exclusivist without defining what you mean. I am exclusive as far as the Bible is exclusive just like I believe you are.
So, are you saying that those who deny limited atonement as a valid doctrine, somehow contradict their own beliefs and preach it anyways if they are preaching the gospel according to your definition of the gospel? Are you saying that those who deny limited atonement, but preach the gospel according to your definition are somehow theologically schizophrenic?
Finally, if my thinking is faulty in that it is linear, then what kind of thinking must I do in order to agree with you that Calvinism is the gospel and that those who may not believe in Calvinism somehow overcome that belief by still preaching the gospel?
Brother Les,
Your explanation of open communion is the same as found here. It says; “We practice “open Communion,” welcoming all who love Christ, repent of their sin, and seek to live in peace with one another.”
As to your exposition of the BF&M, I believe you would do well to read here. It seems Dr. Finn would not agree with you. For a more complete understanding of Dr. Finn’s teaching on this subject you can go here.
In all honesty, Brother Les, your explanation of Open Communion seems, to this reader, to be a bit schizophrenic.
Blessings,
Tim
Robin,
My reference to exclusivist was referencing all of the people you guys are trying to keep away from table. You know exactly what I mean.
Second question: No.
Third question: biblical belief.
Tim,
Now I’m being accused of being a Methodist? LOL!
I suppose there are other things that I don’t agree with young Mr. Finn about. Just because we’re both Calvinists doesn’t mean that we agree on all aspects of doctrine. BTW, I didn’t that Nathan was your standard.
Regarding my explanation of open communion, whether you think it’s schizophrenic or not, it’s still biblical.
As you said on my blog: thanks for the conversation but I think I’ll leave the conversation now.
Have a great Lord’s Day!
Les
Les
First, I don’t know what you mean. I don’t have the power to exclude anyone.
Second, let me get this straight. You said:
“No I don’t think only Calvinists preach the gospel. I’m not that exclusivist, unlike you guys. Is Calvinism the gospel? Yes. Can the gospel be preached and one not believe in Calvinism? Yes.”
In your “biblical” thinking Calvinism is the gospel, yet when someone does not agree to the tenets of Calvinism and/or preaches contrary to it, they still preach the gospel. WOW! If that is your type of “biblical” thinking, I believe I will stick with mine.
Gentlemen (specifically Robin & Les),
It may help to read Spurgeon the way I think he meant to be understood. When he says “Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.” He is speaking in the context of his previous statement. He is not saying that only Calvinists believe the Gospel. He is stating his conviction (like so many others around here when referring to their own soteriology) that his understanding of the working of the gospel is what is commonly called Calvinism by ‘nickname.’ That’s like my brothers here which call themselves merely ‘biblicists’ by nickname when they recite their understanding of the Gospel…now, I could get offended at that, because who among us does not consider his theology to be biblical? But, alas, I digress. To Spurgeon, to speak of the Gospel was to speak in terms of God’s gracious, sovereign gift of salvation…and that, he understood in terms of a Calvinist soteriology.
I do not believe that Spurgeon was attempting to cast anyone else in any sort of negative light…by calling them un-Christian or heretical. He passionately stated his belief from a convictional standpoint.
Sola Gratia!
Scott
If that is where Les stands, then let him state it. But I would also caution him in his statement. Peter Lumpkins quoted Dr. Greg Welty in this statement from Welty,
“I find the popular Spurgeon quote to be unhelpful, that “Calvinism is the gospel.” I understand what Spurgeon was trying to say, but I think it can be both misleading and unhelpful, to the extent that I never use that quote myself.
I believe the wisdom of Welty is superb here.
If a former presidential candidate for the SBC truly wants to bridge differences of opinions, then he might refrain from statements that are “both misleading and unhelpful.”
May you, Les, and all have a blessed Lord’s day.
Robin
Robin,
You ‘believe the wisdom of Welty is superb here’ because you don’t like what Spurgeon said and wish it we’re repeated. :)
To the earlier question, the churches I referred to were 1-Virginia, 2-Texas, 2-Kentucky, 1-North Carolina. Thinking back, one of them may have had closed communion, but I can’t remember for sure. At any rate, I understand the evidence is anecdotal.
My point is that the BFM is a confession that ‘confesses’ something most churches don’t practice, so it should be changed. We can discuss another day the merits of open/closed communion, but to leave the BFM saying that we believe something that most of our churches don’t practice isn’t a good idea.
*Should be “weren’t” above, not “we’re” and for some reason my smiley is showing up in a place that makes no sense. I placed it after the first paragraph.