The Young, Restless and Reformed…

April 27, 2012 0 comments

I just came across a post my fellow elder at Christ Reformed Church made on Facebook regarding “the Young, Restless and Reformed.” I thought his thoughts were worthy of re-posting here on the Reformed Baptist Blog…

I’ve been thinking much lately about the resurgence of Calvinism and the YRR. And I don’t have all my thoughts put together yet, but I’m convinced that much of the inconsistency in both doctrine and practice among many in this crowd is due – in part – to the free access people have today through the Internet to Reformed teaching. Allow me a minute to ramble…

When I came to see the doctrines of grace I was challenged to read – and r-e-a-d – and READ. I spent a thousands of hours in the scripture and reading good books (and continue to this day). It was a slow process of study, evaluation and examination over decades. I mean, I don’t just quote John Owen, I’ve actually read Owen’s Death of Death (twice) and quite a few volumes of his Works and Edwards’ Freedom of the Will (twice). There are literally hundreds of theological books that I’ve labored through – long before the Internet and 30 min. pod casts and 9 minute YouTube clips.

And I wonder…can it be that the YRR developed their theology (at least a segment of this group) from reading the cliff notes, listening to podcasts and YouTube videos without the years of deliberate, careful, serious study from the scripture and primary sources?

I mean, I talk to these young Calvinists and they have EVERYTHING figured out. They have an opinion about EVERYTHING. And typically it’s because they read a blog post, followed a Facebook discussion or went to a conference and read a single book. But it’s not from years of developing a comprehensive worldview and theological understanding from the scriptures. I hear guys debating topics that just months earlier they have never even heard of, but now they are champions of one opinion or another – and they want to get all in the face of older, more seasoned, more well studied saints who have spent years studying these things.

I may be way off track here, but there seems to be something amiss when I see 20-something year old Calvinists who have embraced the doctrines of grace for only a few years leading “ministries” and with “apologetics” websites and debating every Arminian under the sun. I’m not saying that young men cannot study and be knowledgeable, but I’m more and more convinced that if you haven’t put in the time – personally – in the scriptures, laboring in the text, reading good books prayerfully with an open Bible…they just need to be seen and not heard for a decade or so.

Brian Dempsey
Associate Pastor
Christ Reformed Church, Lawrenceville GA

Post Divider

It’s worse to be under sin than to be haunted by the devil

March 31, 2012 0 comments

The following is an excerpt from Jeremiah Burroughs book The Evil of Evils…

Sin is worse than to be continually in the presence of the devil. It is worse for a man or woman to be under the power of any sin than to be continually haunted by devils, and to have the sight of devils before their eyes and be in company with them. If God should lay such a judgment upon a man or woman that wherever they might be they should see devils before them, it is still worse to be under the power of any one sin.

Many are mightily terrified in the dark. “Oh! There is the devil in the room,” and they think he comes to them, and there are apparitions of devils. They are troubled with this. Oh! These men and women are haunted by devils and there are houses haunted by devils. This is a miserable condition.

Now are you haunted by any wicked lust and sin? Certainly you are in a worse condition than any man or woman haunted by devils, or any house haunted by the devil. Is there any house in your parish where there is blaspheming, oaths, railing at goodness, Sabbath-breakings, and such things? This house is worse than any house haunted by devils, for sin is a great deal worse than the mere presence of the devil.

I remember reading of a tyrant, a man named Maxensius, in Hetrusia. He invented this torment to put men to death. He would have a dead man’s carcass tied about their bodies and so let them go wherever they would. But he still carried the dead carcass about him and, at length, the stench put him to death. This was his tyranny.

If you should have a dead man or woman tied about your body, maybe the face of a dead man if hideous to you, but if they should be tied around you so that when you lie in bed, and when you rise, when you sit to eat meat, it should always be with you and you should endure the stink and purification, what a sore evil would this be?

Now if, in the presence of a dead carcass, there is so much evil, then in the presence of the devil there is much more. Now sin, any one sin tied close to your hearts, that you carry about with you wherever you go, know there is in that sin greater evil upon you than if a dead carcass should be tied to you, yes, than if the devil should haunt you wherever you go; because the presence of the devil is not as much as turning the souls of men and women into the nature of the devil and making souls of men and women so like to him.

Post Divider

Problems with the “Permanence View” of Marriage

March 29, 2012 0 comments

The Permanence View basically states that the exception clauses in Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:15 do not allow for divorce and remarriage. Matthew 19:9 is said to be speaking a Jewish betrothals and 1 Corinthians 7:15 is said to perhaps allow for divorce, but not remarriage in the case of abandonment.

I hold to the exceptions as stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 25, Paragraphs 5 & 6)…

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.

VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God has joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.

I have a hard time with the Permanence View interpretation of both Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:15.

In the case of Matthew 19:9, it is said the exception is dealing not with marriage, but Jewish betrothal though the context is marriage. Also, if the reason the word “fornication” is used is because it is only speaking of betrothal in the exception, why then is the subsequent marriage to another spoken of as “adultery” if it fails to meet the exception? I find the Permanence View of the Matthew 19 exception clause to be far more problematic than the traditional view.

In the case in 1 Corinthians 7…to say that a believer abandoned by an unbeliever is not under bondage in such cases means they are free to cease pursuing the marriage and allow the unbeliever to divorce BUT they are not free to remarry makes the clause “not under bondage” have no practical meaning. Someone who is being abandoned by their spouse doesn’t have any say in the matter one way or the other if the one departing is insistent. How then could “bondage” in such cases only be speaking to one’s disposition towards the departing spouse or divorce without the liberty to remarry? What I mean is, if that is the meaning, it doesn’t makes sense for Paul to even write about “not being under bondage” as within this context it would have no practical meaning. Consider this pastorally…a sister in Christ has a husband who commits adultery, divorces her and marries his secretary. It seems to fly in the face of the meaning of words for me to tell her she is “not under bondage” but must not remarry until her ex-husband dies.

Finally, I must confess that I would be hard pressed to officiate a wedding wherein one of the parties had been divorced. I’d have to be very well acquainted with the situation because almost everyone (after the fact) tries to make their divorce fit into the exception clauses whether it does or not. It can be nearly impossible for a minister to know the truth of the matter years after the fact so I tend to err on the side of caution.

Post Divider

Should churches have ‘evangelists’ on staff?

March 13, 2012 0 comments

A few questions recently came up on the Reformed Baptist Page on facebook, “What role does the evangelist play in the local church?” and, “Should the local church employ evangelists on staff? I suppose many Reformed Baptists may not be aware that this subject is covered in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

If we are going to be confessional on this point, we should not recognize ‘evangelist’ as an office in the church. I agree with the confession, “evangelist” is a function/gift (as was a prophet), not an office.

1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith
Chapter 26, Section 8

“A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.” [The Baptist fathers did not recognize 'evangelist' as an office in the church]

In considering the nature of the ‘evangelist’, while it is not wrong to support who serve in this way, the church is not particularity called to do so as it is pastors (see 26.10 in the confession). Personally, I believe we have a heap of tradition we are sitting on from the last two centuries of Baptist history that cloud our thinking on this subject.

Post Divider

Receiving Truth on Arminian Terms

March 09, 2012 0 comments

Evangelical truths are easily received on Arminian terms where that rooted enmity is allowed to retain control over all its decisions, and to be self-sufficient. But when these truths urge man’s utter inability to repent and believe without the grace of God first working in them, then that enmity pleads free will, and resists with all its might the sovereignty of God in the salvation of men.

excerpt from Apostasy from the Gospel by John Owen

Post Divider

What is Baptism? A Baptist Speaks from the 17th Century

December 09, 2011 1 comment

Contemporary Baptists have a narrow view of baptism. For many, all they see in baptism is the believer’s “first act of obedience” and “proclaiming their faith to the world”. While these things are true, there is far more to baptism than that.

Below are 7 statements on baptism derived from Henry Danvers (a 17th Century Baptist) book entitled A Treatise of Baptism. Danvers made these points to show that what they (the 17th century English Baptists) were saying about baptism was in agreement with what those Protestants who practiced paedobaptism were saying. While he did this to demonstrate that infant baptism was incompatible with the things that define the sacrament itself, it is interesting to note that the English Baptists of his day were in agreement on these points.

  1. Baptism is sign that is “preached to the eyes” which had been preached to the ears and hearts by the Scriptures respecting the whole mystery and blessings of the gospel as well as the duty and obligation therein. [today we would consider this statement coming from a very "Reformed" understanding of sacramental theology]
  2. Baptism is a sign of present repentance in the believer.
  3. Baptism is a sign of present regeneration in the one baptized.
  4. Baptism is a sign of the believer’s covenanting with God; to die to sin, and to live for Christ in faith.
  5. Baptism is a sign of God’s covenant with the believer, of the washing away all sins by the blood of Jesus Christ. [It's interesting to note that Danvers acknowledges that God was doing something in baptism; that is, as the believer is demonstrating his commitment to God in baptism, God is also demonstrating His commitmment to the believer. There is also an affirmation that baptism is a "sign of the covenant" in these last two statements. We would consider these points to be "Reformed" views today though English Baptists in the 17th Century also maintained these distinctions.]
  6. Baptism is a sign of the believer’s union with Christ.
  7. Baptism marks out the believer as a member of the visible church.

I think it is interesting to note that Danvers understanding of baptism was far more “Reformed” and developed than that of most modern day evangelicals. Indeed, most Christians haven’t even begun to consider that there may be more to it than simply a “first act of obedience” and “public commitment to the Lord”.

Post Divider

Where Do You Look for Help?

November 26, 2011 0 comments

I lift up my eyes to the hills.
From where does my help come?
My help comes from the LORD,
who made heaven and earth.

~Psalm 121:1&2

“What then is the meaning of this unsettled looking of the Prophet, who casts his eyes now on this side and now on that, as if faith directed him not to God? I answer, that the thoughts of the godly are never so stayed upon the word of God as not to be carried away at the first impulse to some allurements; and especially when dangers disquiet us, or when we are assailed with sore temptations, it is scarcely possible for us, from our being so inclined to the earth, not to be moved by the enticements presented to us, until our minds put a bridle upon themselves, and turn them back to God. The sentence, however, may be explained as if expressed in a conditional form. Whatever we may think, would the Prophet say, all the hopes which draw us away from God are vain and delusive. If we take it in this sense, he is not to be understood as relating how he reasoned with himself, or what he intended to do, but only as declaring, that those lose their pains who, disregarding God, gaze to a distance all around them, and make long and devious circuits in quest of remedies to their troubles. It is indeed certain, that in thus speaking of himself, he exhibits to us a malady with which all mankind are afflicted; but still, it will not be unsuitable to suppose, that he was prompted to speak in this manner from his own experience; for such is the inconstancy natural to us, that so soon as we are smitten with any fear, we turn our eyes in every direction, until faith, drawing us back from all these erratic wanderings, direct us exclusively to God. All the difference between believers and unbelievers in this respect is, that although all are prone to be deceived, and easily cheated by impostures, yet Satan bewitches unbelievers by his enchantments; whereas, in regard to believers, God corrects the vice of their nature, and does not permit them to persevere in going astray. The meaning of the Prophet is abundantly obvious, which is, that although all the helps of the world, even the mightiest, should offer themselves to us, yet we ought not to seek safety anywhere but in God; yea, rather, that when men shall have long wearied themselves in hunting after remedies, now in one quarter and now in another, they will at length find, from experience, that there is no assured help but in God alone.”

John Calvin

Post Divider

Joyfulness, An Issue of Christian Character

September 10, 2011 0 comments

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.: Galatians 5:22-24

If joy is a fruit of the Spirit, why is it we sometimes mope about infecting everyone around us with our sour countenance? We give into pessimism, feelings of betrayal, and thanklessness because of our lot in life, feels of betrayal, etc.. To our sinful minds these feelings are justified but not before God. Indeed, joy is a fruit of the Spirit. To live without joy is not only a miserable existence, but a demonstration of poor character.

How then do we overcome a joyless disposition? The answer is simple but not always easy. We must be deliberate to cultivate this area of our lives. If you are not cultivating joy in your life, expect as little success in this area as you would have in Bible knowledge if you never read your Bible.

“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things”~ Phillippians 4:8

Post Divider

My Journey in New Testament Textual Criticism

August 16, 2011 4 comments

The principles behind New Testament Textual Criticism have been an interest of mine for almost twenty years now. For most of that time I was an advocate of the Traditional Text (as found in the Majority Text). About five years ago, I began to see that many of my basic presuppositions were incorrect and moved on to become an advocate for the “critical text”. I actually did two lectures at Christ Reformed Church in Lawrenceville, GA  dealing with this subject. In one lecture I debunked some of the key arguments to which I used to hold, and in the second I presented a positive case for the “critical text”.

Over the last five years I have continued to study this subject and find myself at yet another crossroads in the journey. After wading through these issues in sermon preparation and continued studies of key sources, I’ve become very disillusioned with the science behind modern textual criticism. Even as far back as two years ago I began to have serious doubts in the viability of the reasoning behind the modern ‘reasoned eclectic’ understanding of this subject (which results in the “critical text”).

Having left my prior position in support of the Traditional Text due to arguments that were truly unsustainable, and then having equal doubts about the principles behind the “critical text”,  I went through a period of “textual agnosticism” where I doubted any method could be used to sufficiently address this issue. Enter Maurice Robinson and the Byzantine Priority Theory. I had read Robinson years before but I had not advanced to the place in my studies where I could fully grasp the significance of his arguments (at least what I understand at this time-I’m not claiming to “fully” understand this subject; it’s likely to always be a work in progress).

What strikes me about Robinson is that he addresses most of my reservations about the methods and the assumptions of modern textual criticism and promotes a view for the priority of the Byzantine Textform without employing any of the arguments I debunked five years ago. His approach to looking at the big picture of the actual history of the text is refreshing.

If this post has interested you, than you may be interested in the following links.

Post Divider

Michele Bachmann and Submission

August 13, 2011 1 comment

Like most modern, American Evangelicals, Michele Bachmann is confused on the teaching of biblical submission to her husband.

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” ~Ephesians 5:22-33

If a women is going to follow Christ in her marriage, she is to FOLLOW her husbands leadership “even as Christ is the head of the church”. She “respects” her husband by acknowledging his leadership and following him. The husband is to love his wife “even as Christ loved the church” and be self-sacrificing in his leadership. The roles of husband and wife are not conditional. That is, a wife must still submit to a lousy husband and a husband is to love and cherish a lousy wife. This is confirmed in the following verse.

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives…” ~ 1 Peter 3:1

Here in 1st Peter we are taught that wives must “be in subjection” to their husbands, even if they “obey not the word.” The passage goes on to say that God may use her godly influence as a submissive wife to win the husband.

The modern evangelical position on the roles within marriage for both wives and husbands is biblically anemic. When over half of our marriages end in divorce it is foolish to think that our unbiblical understanding of the role of husband and wife is not a large part of the problem.

Post Divider