Category Archives for BF&M

Herschel Hobbs on Ephesians 1:4

August 9, 2017

By Ron F. Hale

In 1974, Word Book Publishers released Dr. Hobbs book on Ephesians entitled: New
Men in Christ. Dr. Hobbs admits his book “is more devotional that technical.” Yet, you
will find it deep enough to engage most pastors and clear-cut enough to cause serious
laymen to dig deeper.
Hobbs believed the apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesians showing them their place in
God’s eternal redemptive purpose in Christ. They were a called people with a purpose
–to propagate the gospel. Composed of both Jews and Gentiles, “in Christ” they found
both a unity of persons and purpose.
The “asterisks” represent corresponding direct quotes by Hobbs without adding my
personal thoughts or commentary. Due to limitations of word count, I could not include
all of Hobbs’ material from pp. 13-20.

According as* he hath chosen us** in him before the
foundation of the world,*** that we should be holy and
without blame before him**** in love:***** (Ephesian 1:4
KJV).

* “According as” – may be read “even as.” This connects the following words with
“who hath blessed us” in verse 3. So, God has blessed us in that “he hath chosen us in
him before the foundation of the world.”

** “hath chosen” – is a first aorist middle (reflexive) form of the verb meaning to
pick out or select. From it comes the words “elect” or “election.” Paul is introducing his
great treatment of what is called the doctrine of election. This doctrine has been
variously understood. Some, placing their entire emphasis upon God’s sovereignty, see
it as God’s choosing certain individuals for salvation to the exclusion of all others. Such
a position ignores the free will of man.
Basically, election means that God has taken the initiative in his purpose to save men.
Apart from that initiative no man can be saved. But initiative does not mean fatalism.
Rather is an expression of God’s love and grace. Therefore, election should not be

viewed as God’s purpose to save as few but as many as possible. To relate election to the
few is to ignore the many exhortations to preach the gospel to all men. And it runs head-
on into such phrases as “whosoever believeth” (John 3:16) and “whosoever will” or is
willing (Rev. 22:17; see Isa. 55:1).
Election never appears in the Bible as mechanical or blind destiny. It stems from a God
of love and grace, and relates to man who is morally responsible. In no case does it
appear in violation of the will of man (cf. Matt. 11:28; 23:37-38). In John 6:44 Jesus
said, “No man can come to me, except the Father … draw him.” “Draw” is God’s
initiative; “come” is man’s response through his free will. Of course, an all-wise God
knows beforehand who will believe or refuse to do so. However, foreknowledge of an
event does not necessarily mean that one is responsible for it. God has done all that even
he can do to save men. But he does not coerce men against their wills. Through the Holy
Spirit he draws, but men must come to him in personal, willing faith.

*** “in him before the foundation of the world” – It should be noticed that God
has chosen us “in him” or in Christ (cf. v.3). And this choice was made “before the
foundation of the world” or the cosmos. This means that the election took place before
the creation of the universe or man. It was no afterthought with God after man had
sinned. But knowing that he would do so, in eternity God chose to do something to
enable man to be restored to his fellowship. The choice under consideration, therefore,
did not take place in time. It was in the eternal purpose of God (cf.3:11). This suggests a
method of election rather than the persons involved. It was a chose based on God’s
grace, not upon man’s merit. It was an act of his sovereign will. But this does not rule
out man’s free will. God provided, but man was/is still free to accept or reject. Otherwise
God’s sovereignty would have violated man’s freedom. To have done this would reduce
man to a puppet, rather than a person capable of God’s fellowship. By his own choice
God must be sovereign and man must be free. This can mean only that in his sovereign
choice God by grace offered man a means of salvation, with man left free to his reaction
to it.

**** “that we should be holy and without blame before him” — Now what
was/is the purpose and goal of God’s gracious sovereignty? This refers to character as
well as standing with relation to God. In his electing grace God proposed to place man in
a condition of righteousness through Christ (Rom. 1:17; 10:1-4). Thus man would be
once again in fellowship with a “holy” and “blameless” God. “In Christ” the believer is
regarded by God as being holy and blameless. This also is a work of God’s grace. At the
same time subsequently the Christian is to grow in this state into the likeness of the
character of God in Christ. He both is and must become, again, by God’s grace.

*****“In love.” Some interpreters connect “in love” with verse 4 as it appears in the
King James Version. But others read it as a part of verse 5. This latter position, which I
prefer, expresses the sphere in which God did his electing or foreordaining. Thus it
reads, “In love having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to
himself, according to the good pleasure of his will” (v.5). (Note the order “Jesus Christ.)
So Paul anticipates the historical event whereby Christ became Jesus of Nazareth in
order to activate in time God’s eternal purpose. However, he is still thinking of the
electing grace of God as before the foundation of the world.
“In love having predestinated.” Whatever Paul meant by predestination, it was done in
the sphere of God’s love. How may we understand “having predestinated”? Some read it
as in election that some souls are predestinated for heaven and others for hell. But as we
have pointed out, this position magnifies God’s sovereignty to the neglect of man’s free
will. In this light may we not find another sense which is in keeping with the nature of
both God and man?
The verb translated “having predestinated” is a participle meaning “to horizon
beforehand.” This verb is used six times in the New Testament (Acts 4:28; Rom. 8:29-
30; I Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11.
One papyrus example uses it in the sense of fixing a boundary of a piece of land. Another
is rendered “survey.”
Unfortunately the word “predestinated” has come to mean for many an arbitrary
decision on God’s part where the future is in a fixed mold with no regard for man’s free
will. But the original Greek, the papyri, as well as the basic meaning of the word in the
New Testament, says otherwise. It is especially true in this verse. The Greek word in this
case is the one from which comes our word “horizon,” but with a prefix added that gives
it the special meaning “to horizon beforehand.” God did this by drawing a circle about
those who are to be saved. Keep in mind that this refers to the mode set in eternity, not
to temporal action within the context of history. In the light of the papyri examples cited
previously, may we not say that before God created the universe and man he drew a
circle, or built a fence (set a boundary) saying that all who are within this fence shall be
saved?
And what is this fence? The fence is Christ. God elected that all who are “in Christ” shall
be saved. The phrase “in Christ” or its equivalent appears ten times in eleven verses (vv.
3-13). So if you are “in Christ” you are saved. If you are not “in Christ,” you are not
saved. God in his sovereignty decreed “in Christ,” but each person in his free will decides
whether or not he will be “in Christ.” Thus God’s sovereignty and man’s free will are
harmonized. Therefore, the doctrines of election and foreordination in the New
Testament are, for all practical purposes, the same.   The former expresses God’s will;
the latter shows how His will is accomplished.

Southern Baptist Military Chaplain Conducts ‘Transgender Policy Briefing’ for Army Reserves Unit

July 17, 2017

By Heather Clark, Columnist and Content Editor
Christian News Network

Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared at Christian News Network and is used by permission.   

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Concerns are being raised after a Southern Baptist military chaplain recently conducted a “transgender policy briefing” for members of an Army reserves unit that is based in Nashville—a briefing that was mandatory and was determined by the chaplain as not being violative of the convictions of Christian soldiers.

On June 23, the 304 Military Police Battalion advised soldiers that they were required to attend a “transgender policy briefing” that day.

One soldier within the unit, who identifies as a Christian and was concerned about the briefing, contacted Chaplain Capt. Erick Barrett to obtain information and spiritual counsel about the instructional period. Barrett received his ecclesiastical endorsement from the North American Mission Board, which is a part of the Southern Baptist Convention.

However, to his surprise and dismay, the soldier learned that it was actually Barrett himself who would be conducting the briefing. The soldier, whose identity has not been revealed, was even more surprised when Barrett advised that he didn’t think the training would be violative of his faith.

 Barrett nonetheless passed along the soldier’s desire for a religious accommodation to Commander Lt. Col. Kim Wilson, who denied the request. The soldier followed up with a letter.

“Capt. Erick Barrett informed me that he did not believe the ‘Transgender Brief’ would violate my sincerely-held belief; however, [he] would submit my request for accommodation through the chain of command,” the soldier explained to Wilson.

“The ‘Transgender Policy Brief and Training’ requires me to participate in something that I believe is contrary to what my religion teaches,” he explained. “… I do believe that participation in such training will bind my conscience to another religion, thus violating my conscience and faith tenants.”

Wilson again denied the request, stating that the briefing was mandatory under the direction of the Army. The soldier consequently attended the instructional session against his will.

The site Barbwire has published audio of the briefing, which Christian News Network has reviewed. During the hour-long session, Barrett took those present through the Army’s new policy on accommodating transgenders in the military, advising that the briefing “isn’t about what Chaplain Barrett believes,” but rather Army protocol. He asked how soldiers can follow the policy if they aren’t aware of it.

“How many different gender identities are there in the world today?” Barrett quizzed those gathered, advising that there are 42. “Ladies and gentlemen, we live in a world where truth is defined by the individual. That’s a reality. It’s not something that’s up for discussion. That’s just the world we live in.”

He outlined, however, that the U.S. military only recognizes two genders—male and female—and that soldiers will be held to the standard that aligns with that gender. So, when a woman decides to be a man or a man decides to be a woman, they will be held to the standard for that gender.

Barrett repeatedly stated that all soldiers are to be afforded dignity and respect, and emphasized that in the Army, “We do not discriminate, we do not isolate, we do not segregate.” At one point, he remarked that for a long time, “there have been men [in the military] that look like girls and girls that look like men.”

He also provided the example of a male soldier who transitions into a woman and quizzed soldiers on whether or not it would be considered proper under Army policy for the man to now use the women’s facilities.

“A transgender soldier begins using female barracks, bathroom and shower facilities. Because she did not undergo a surgical change, the soldier still has male genitalia. Is the soldier using the correct facilities?” Barrett asked.

“Yes,” the soldiers replied.

“Is the soldier operating within Army policy?” he asked.

“Yes,” those present again answered.

Revelation of Barrett’s leadership of the briefing has generated disappointment from others in the Armed Forces, including Capt. Sonny Hernandez, who serves as a U.S. Air Force Reserve chaplain. Hernandez characterized the chaplain-led presentation as being “godless.”

“There was no reference of Scripture, God, Jesus, repentance, or faith, which would be expected of an ecclesiastically endorsed evangelical who claims to be a Christian,” he wrote for Barbwire on Saturday. “For almost an hour, Chaplain Barrett pontificated about the Army’s policy on transitioning from male to female, or female to male, and reiterated innumerable times how soldiers’ gender is determined—while God was not included in this determination.”

“Chaplain Barrett did not exercise ‘responsible pastoral care,’ since he never mentioned that transgenderism ‘is a sin that violates God’s biblical standards,’ nor did he reference ‘repentance’ or the ‘Name of Jesus.’ After listening to the audio, objective listeners would never even know this chaplain is a professing Christian,” Hernandez lamented.

The North American Mission Board has described Barrett’s decision to conduct the transgender policy briefing as being “unfortunate” and states that it will provide “clearer guidance” to chaplains about such matters for the future.

Editor’s Note: Hernandez’ opinions are solely his and do not necessarily represent the views of any government, military or religious organization. Hernandez contributed to this report, an issue of public interest, as a civilian on his own time.

5. Requiring Baptists to be Baptists

June 6, 2016

Dr. Rick Patrick | Senior Pastor
First Baptist Church, Sylacauga, AL

The membership requirements for a church to remain in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention are so weak that we run the risk of watering down our doctrinal standards in the areas of baptism and congregational polity. Additionally, one wonders if lax membership requirements, combined with generous church planting support systems and theological education tuition subsidies, might be attracting to our fold those who do not truly embrace our Southern Baptist principles and convictions. Can we honestly say that we are making more Southern Baptists when many of these so-called converts are actually BINO’s—or Baptists In Name Only?
Continue reading

1 2 3 22