Founders Ministries Blog: How to stay out of debt

Tom Ascol has posted a video with a little known secret for how to stay out of debt and stay there. Check it out.

John Gill Give Away!!!

I'm giving away a free copy of John Gill's collected works on CD Rom on my other blog. You can sign up here.

Why I Believe in Closed (Close, or Strict) Communion

The first thing that I must address here is terminology. Not all people mean the same thing by "closed communion." Some, when they hear the term assume that it means that only those who are members of a particular church are admitted to partake of communion. I don't believe in this, and I don't think that this is historically what is meant by the term "closed communion." What I believe this historically meant is that baptism is a prerequisite for communion. It's also called "strict communion." It is a practice that Baptists have historically been maligned for because we do not permit those who were so called "baptized" as infants to participate in communion in our churches--though we recognize that they may be genuine Christians. Baptists have been called bigoted for this practice. Even some Baptists have shied away from this practice because we don't want to offend our gospel believing friends. However, I think that if one is convinced that the Bible teaches believer baptism and wants to be consistent in practice, closed communion is the logical position to hold. There are more reasons for this than I care to go into here; however, I will list a few:

1) Everyone practices some type of closed communion. No one would admit unbelievers to the Lord's Table. One has to draw a line at some point, or communion would be a meaningless event.

2) All other denominations have historically seen baptism as a prerequisite for membership. Baptists are actually in agreement with the majority of the Christian tradition in maintaining that Baptism is a prerequisite for communion. I once went to visit an Episcopal church, just to observe, and when it was time for the "Eucharist," the rector invited "all baptized Christians" to partake. In practicing closed communion, Baptists do not practice anything different regarding communion than other denominations--we just disagree about what baptism is.

3) Baptists, by definition, believe that baptism is an ordinance for believers only. This means that when an infant is sprinkled it is NOT baptized at all. If a Baptist is consistent, he will not recognize an infant baptism, or even a sprinkling, a legitimate baptism at all. With this being the case it is not that Baptists are making a judgment about the salvation of those who are so called "baptized" as infants. We are making a judgment about the legitimacy of their baptism. If they are not baptized at all, then according to my reason #2 above, they ought not be admitted to communion in any church.

These are just a few arguments for why I believe in closed communion. This is not an exhaustive list, and I admit that I haven't even begun to make a Scriptural argument yet. The case that I make here is based on history and logic. I admit this, and I am prepared to use Scripture to defend the case that I am making here.

New Audio: Does Jesus Scare You More than the Storm?

I got a chance to preach tonight at Lebanon Baptist Church in Cleburne, TX. My friend, Todd Peebles, is the pastor there, and he allowed me to come and share. I am very happy that we were able to record it and now I am able to share it. Click here to listen.

This is a message on the story of when Jesus calmed the storm from the account in Matthew 4:35-41. I believe this text teaches that Jesus is one and the same with the God of the Old Testament and that as such he exercises sovereignty over his creation.

New Recording of My Preaching

I recently had a friend (Todd Peebles) here at the seminary record one of my old sermons to an mp3 file that I had previously only had on tape. The text is Psalm 15, and it was preached back in November or December of 2004. Right click on the phrase "one of my old sermons" above, and click "save target as" to download it. Or just click on it and you can listen to it stream.

Spiritual Disciplines of the Christian Life: Free Audio

Christianaudio.com gives away a free audio book every month. I've been downloading them for a year now and have simply never thought to share it on my blog. I've benefited from several classics, and this month they are giving away Donald Whitney's book Spiritual Disciplines of the Christian Life. I read this book during my first year at Southern Seminary and it is a great overview of practical discipleship. I cannot recommend it highly enough. Here is a link to their site. You will also need to use the coupon code for this month: MAR2009.

Win a Premium Calf Leather ESV Study Bible

Several of my friends have already linked to this blog which is giving away a "Premium Calf Leather ESV Study Bible. Go to the site and register for your own chance to win.

Prospectus Approved!!! Almost.

I just met with my supervisor this morning about my prospectus submission. The significant aspect that needed revised was the thesis statement. I had originally proposed a statement that was too vague: "This thesis will argue that Gill's commentary on the Song of Solomon was written with a presupposition that the book is about Christ and the Church, and a presupposed ecclesiological vision flowing from other texts throughout the Bible." This statement was followed by a paragraph fleshing out what I intended which my supervisor said contained a better thesis statement: "None of Gill's ecclesiological claims flow directly from the Song, but in every reference to an ecclesiological claim within the Song, Gill draws support from similar images elsewhere in Scripture from which these claims are actually derived." I plan to make the necessary revisions and my prospectus should be approved early next week. My fear now is that I have overstated my claim. I use the word "every." While I know that this was extremely common, I will have to see as I write whether the claim can be substantiated.

New John Gill Blog

I have created a new blog and will probably be contributing to it much more than I do this one. It is a blog devoted to research on John Gill, a Particular Baptist pastor in 16th century London. That is who I am writing my thesis on. I have been joined by Allen Mickle and Jonny White, both Ph.D. students also writing their dissertations on Gill. You can find this new blog here.

New Features for my Blog

It has been a while since I've done anything new to my blog besides the occasional post. Those are also usually few and far between. However, I was just looking through the features available on blogger and I thought I would give some new things a try. First, I've added Adsense (pending approval). I don't know how successful this will be, but it may be a way to generate just a little side income. I'm not going to get too excited though. I have no idea who reads this blog anyway. Second, I've added a block on the side to show who follows this blog. As I mentioned earlier, I don't even know who reads this. So if you are a regular reader of my blog, please add yourself to my blog followers so I will get to know some of the people who read what I put out there. Finally, I thought it would just be fun to add a poll. This would also be a feature that would help me to get some idea of how many people see my blog. So if you don't want to show yourself as one of my followers, then please, participate in my surveys just to help me gage whether it is even worth it to post anything at all. The first poll that I have introduced is "Do you think that John Gill was a hyper-Calvinist?"

John Gill: Advocate of the Use of Means in Evangelism?

John Gill is usually considered to be the father of the hyper-Calvinistic Baptists. There is a very long tradition of calling Gill a hyper-Calvinist. A 900 page dissertation has even been done on the subject of Gill and hyper-Calvinism. However, my own reading of Gill has uncovered several passages that make me question this common assumption. I will not argue one way or the other, because honestly the issue is very technical and it is not the specific area of his theology that I am studying, but I want to post a few quotes from Gill here just for others to see--and you can judge for yourself whether John Gill was a hyper-Calvinist:

From His Commentary on Song of Solomon II:14:

It is reported of the dove, that it will allure wild doves by its familiar converses into the dove-house with it: those who are called by grace, will use all proper ways and methods to allure and gain others to Christ, and to compliance with his ways and ordinances, as the church does the daughters of Jerusalem in this Song.

Do these sound like the words of someone who doesn't think that evangelism matters? Do they sound like the words of someone who opposes evangelism? It seems very clear to me that in this passage, Gill was advocating the proper "use of means for the propagation of the gospel to the heathen."

Forthcoming Blog Posts on John Gill

I've been working on my Th.M. Thesis on John Gill for the past few months and I was just directed to this blog, Helm's Deep: December, for some forthcoming posts on Gill in January.

The Election of 2008 and the Comming Apocalypse

As election day draws near. Premellinnial Dispensationalism is looking a little more plausible to me. As I think of what might happen on that day, visions of the seven seals come to mind like something you might see in a "Left Behind" book.

However, I must be reminded that I have nothing to fear. For one, if the end times are upon us, believers can rejoice in the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. We can also remember that our God sets up kings and tears them down at his will. He holds the hearts of kings in his hands and turns them which ever way he wishes. Regardless of how bleak the political situation seems, our God reigns and His Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom.

John 3:16 and Particular Redemption

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

Probably no verse is used more as an objection to the Calvinist "L" (LIMITED ATONEMENT) than John 3:16. Those who object quote the verse and point to the word "World." They say that Calvinists try to make the word "world" mean "elect." The accusation is that Calvinists are not taking the plain sense of the word "world" here. However, I don't think that this is a fair objection. For one, this is not how Calvinists understand the verse. Maybe some do, but a better understanding is to accept what the text actually says. God loved the whole world--EVERYONE--Universally. This is not saying at all that Jesus died in the place of every person in the same sense. All this part of the verse speaks to is God's LOVE for the world--not who was purchased in the transaction that took place on the cross.

The second half of the verse (in my view) is actually in the favor of a Calvinistic interpretation. "That whosoever believeth...." Now, some emphacize the "whosoever," and emphacize the unlimited nature of that word. However, that word is not alone. It says, "whosoever believeth." The word "whosoever" is limited by the word "believeth." For this reason, all Christians have to "limit" the atonement to some extent. Not everyone is saved--only those who believe.

In the end, John 3:16 is no verse to use as an objection to particular redemption. It is untrue to claim that Calvinists have to go against the plain meaning of the "world" in this text. What the text does imply, is that anyone who believes can be saved. This is something that both Calvinists and non-Calvinists can agree on. We all must preach the gospel in the power of God, knowing that the gospel is freely open to anyone who believes. God is powerful enough to soften the hardest heart and open blind eyes, and to breath life into dead men.

Are You Old Enough to Be a Church Member?

Upon completion of my M.Div. I went to another state and served as a full time pastor for the first time. While in the interview process I discovered something that I had never seen before in their constitution and by-laws. This particular church required that individuals must be 18 years old before they could join as church members. I thought it was odd, and I expressed my disagreement with such an idea, but I agreed to go along with it in hopes that it would change after I had taught what I believed the Bible says about church membership. In God's providence, I wasn't at the church long enough to lead that kind of change, and I really never thought of the issue again . . . until yesterday.

Yesterday I visited a baptismal service at one of the mega-churches in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The church was not a "Baptist" church, but it did hold to baptism of believers alone by immersion. As I looked over the bulletin, I noticed on the back it gave the church's requirements for membership. The statement included the same requirement for membership that I had seen before. A candidate for membership must be 18 years of age before being considered for membership.

Upon seeing this statement, my mind began racing to think of all the reasons why I disagree with such a position. I think that I will list these reasons in case anyone else that reads this runs into a similar situation. However, I must admit many of the reasons overlap and run together.

1. This just seems to be a business understanding of how to conduct church life, rather than a biblical one. Nowhere in the Bible does it give us any warrant to withhold church membership to someone because they are a "minor." I can understand that the motivation may be good. This policy may be in place in order to keep decision making in the hands of those who have the maturity to understand what is involved in many areas of the business of a local church. Or, it may be in place in order to prevent manipulation when it comes to church votes. However, at the root, it is an arbitrary age that depends more on business than the Bible.

2. Membership in a local church ought to be closely tied to baptism. If a church does not believe that individuals under 18 years old are competent to be church members, then they ought to withhold baptism as well. I'm not advocating withholding baptism, but rather, I'm just showing what should be the logical implications of a policy like this one.

3. If membership is reserved to those over 18 then there is no biblical recourse to follow when church discipline is needed for those who are younger. Matthew 18 and the Corinthian letters give us clear instructions on how and why to practice church discipline. But if we do not recognize baptized believing children as members, we have no biblical recourse to follow when a professed believing child falls into unrepentant sin. It may be that this is one of the reasons for such a policy. In our society it would be shocking to think of practicing church discipline on a child. However, in my mind, if someone is old enough to give credible evidence of conversion and to follow the Lord in baptism, then they ought to be held accountable just as any other church member.

4. The policy goes against a biblical view of what church membership is about. Church membership is the covenanting together of a body of believers to worship together, agreeing to hold one another accountable in the pursuit of following Christ. Such a policy excludes from membership many of those who need this accountability.

Conclusion

I must admit that there is a dual danger. On the one hand, we must be vigilant to make sure that those who we baptize are of an age that they are competent to understand and embrace the gospel. I do not want to advocate infant baptism by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, I see no biblical warrant to withhold the benefits of church membership from any baptized believing person--so long as they are not under discipline.

Off the top of my head that is about all of the reasons I can think of. Anyone reading is welcome to add reasons, or to challenge the reasons that I gave.

My Position on Women in Ministry and a Biblical Justification

I recently had an interview with a church where I was asked what my position was on women in ministry. I answered with what I thought to be biblical, though I knew that it would be an unpopular answer. I tried to be gracious and loving, yet I do not thing that I could avoid offending some that were in the room. Later, someone who I love very much and who loves me very much asked me how the interview went, and they were shocked to find out what my position was. So I thought it would be good to post on my blog what my answer to that question is.

My Position

The first thing that I must say is that I believe that there are countless opportunities for women to minister in the church in a biblical way. I believe that the Bible permits women to serve in just about any serving capacity that you can find within the church. Teaching children, teaching women, hospitality, and even counseling other women are all biblical ways that women can serve. However, I do believe that the New Testament gives a limitation when it comes to certain things—that is, teaching or exercising authority over a man. Basically, I do not believe that the Bible permits a woman to be a pastor, or an elder. I also believe that in regard to Sunday School or other discipleship classes within the church a woman should not be put in a position of teaching or exercising authority over men. There are those that take offense to that saying, “why do you think that I can only teach other women and children?” However, I don’t believe that teaching women and children is any kind of put down. That kind of ministry is vitally important and of great value to the church and to the kingdom of God—it should never be looked down on as if it were subordinate to the teaching of men.

Biblical Justification

Brace yourselves. To modern and post-modern ears that have been thoroughly saturated with the feminism of our day, the biblical text that I’m about to quote is quite possibly one of the most offensive passages in the Bible. I must remind you that this is a direct quote and it is not my own words. This is what Paul said to Timothy:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
(1Ti 2:11-15)

What are we supposed to do with a Scripture text like this? There are really only three options available:
1) You could say that Paul is saying exactly what it sounds like Paul is saying—that women are not aloud to teach or exercise authority over a man—but that we know better now and that Paul was wrong. This is often the tactic that liberals will try to take. After all, to a liberal, the Bible is a human document where men wrote about their experience with God. If our experience with God is different then the Bible must be outdated. However, I don’t think that this position could be accepted by those who want to accept the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Those who want to allow women to teach men in the church today, but who still hold that the Bible is authoritative will usually go with option number two below.
2) You could say that this passage in 1 Timothy doesn’t really mean what it says. Commonly they way that this works out is there will be the explanation that Paul was dealing with a church that had some women that were being disruptive, so he was writing to correct that specific error. Since we don’t have that problem today, then what Paul said must not apply to us. I think that the problem with this is that nowhere in the text does it ever tell us that the church was having that kind of problem. This solution is merely a conjecture. Modern interpreters have accepted that we know that it is perfectly ok for a woman to teach men, so they read back into the text a hypothetical situation in order to get around the plain meaning of the text. Another way of saying exactly the same thing is that Paul’s situation was culturally conditioned. According to this view, there were cultural reasons in Paul’s day for why he said what he said. However, this is problematic because Paul actually gives his reasons for saying it in the next verses. He does not name anything to do with culture but he grounds his teaching in the created order, and in the order of the Fall. This is extremely unpopular and offensive to modern ears. We just don’t argue this way anymore, but this is what Paul said, and I believe that he was inspired by God and inerrant when he wrote those words. Therefore, I believe that option number three is the most tenable option available if we want to be faithful to Scripture.
3) Paul meant exactly what he said, and that is still authoritative and binding for the church today. Therefore, any role within the church that consists in teaching or exercising authority over men ought to be limited to men only.

Conclusion

At the heart of this issue is not a chauvinistic agenda to keep women in their place, and it is not about who can teach a mixed Sunday School class. The heart of the issue is the authority of the Bible. If I didn’t believe that the authority of the Bible was at stake I would drop the issue and I wouldn’t care at all. But at the heart, I don’t think we can get away from the fact that we have a clear statement in the Bible about the issue. If we want to go along with our culture into the blurring of gender roles so that there are no distinctions, then we have to follow one of the two first options I gave. Either we must say the Bible is wrong, or we try to find some explanation of why we don’t have to obey this clear command.

I know that my position is unpopular, and I know that I’m at disagreement with some of the people who have always been closest to me throughout my entire life. However, in order to be faithful to the Bible and to my Lord Jesus who inspired those words, I must submit to him and not to social, traditional, or even familial pressures.

They Don't Speak for Me: Part II (revised)

3. Calvinism Makes People Into Robots.

This too is an unfair straw-man mis-characterization of Calvinism. No true Calvinist believes such nonsense. The most common explanation that I know of for human freedom given by Calvinists such as myself is what is called "Compatiblist Freedom." Basically, it means that man makes real free choices and God is sovereignly in control of all things and that those two truths do not conflict with one another. There are two common examples of this truth: 1)Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers and at the end of the Joseph story it says that though his brothers meant it for evil, God meant it for good. The brothers made real choices that they were responsible for yet God was the one who sent Joseph ahead for the salvation of many people. 2)The book of acts says that Jesus was crucified by wicked men but that they were carrying out what God had determined would happen. The men who crucified Jesus were making real choices and were accountable for them, but they were ultimately doing what God had planned.

This may be a hard thing to understand, but I believe that it is what the Bible teaches, and the Bible doesn't seem to teach that the two contradict one another.

More on Calvinism to come.

ADDITION: I will add one other example of this truth that is very important in regaurd to the authority of the Bible. I belive in that God breathed the very words of Scripture. If the human authors of Scripture had complete and total freedom, then we can have no confidence that the Bible says what God wanted it to. A veiew that sees God as the ultimate cause of human actions is vital to our being able to say that the Bible is God's Word--otherwise all we have is man writing about his experiences with God.

They Don't Speak for Me

I've written before on this blog concerning the "issue" of Calvinism in the SBC, and I think my views are fairly clear. However, in the interest of being clear, I want to address a few things that are commonly assumed about Calvinists that do not describe what I believe.

1. Evangelism is unimportant since God has already chosen who will be saved.
I hold to a form of evangelical Calvinism that was held to by Baptists such as William Carey and Adoniram Judson. Carey is considered the father of the modern missionary movement. It is just not based in history to think that Calvinism is either anti-missionary or lacks zeal in evangelism.

Rather, I believe that God ordains both the "ends" and the "means" in salvation. He not only has ordained to save each person who will be saved, but he has also ordained the means by which they will be saved--the preaching of the gospel. The fact is that the lost world is dieing and going to Hell, and the only hope that they have is that they hear us preach the Gospel and believe. We don't know who is going to respond and who isn't, but if we don't preach lost sinners will die and their blood will be on our hands.

2. Calvinism is for Presbyterians

This is also not true. Baptists have had two streams from almost the beginning of the English speaking Baptist movement--General and Particular Baptists. Among the English Baptists most of the General Baptists fell into heresies such as Arianism--denying that Jesus was God. The Particular Baptists were the more enduring form which American and Southern Baptists trace their roots. The Particular Baptist confession that was most held to was the 2nd London Confession of 1689. This was brought to America as the Philadelphia Confession, and it was probably the most common confession of Baptists both North and South before the New Hampshire confession was written. This confession is a clearly evangelical Calvinistic document--which has been widely (though not uniformly) embraced by Baptists for over 300 years.

To calm any fears of a form of Presbyterian church government, I will say that I stand with the traditional Baptist church government of "congregationalism." I believe that it is taught in the Bible and I have written a lengthy paper defending this view in a previous post. To make it short and clear--I believe that the hightest authority for making decisions for any local church is the gathered congregation. No outside man made body can impose it's will against the will of the congregation, and no elder or church officer can be given the authority that belongs only to the gathered congregation. A gathered local church of Christ is ruled by Christ through the Biblie and by no other human authority.

I have more to say about this issue, but my time runs short. I will post again soon with some more common misconceptions about Calvinism in Baptist life.

Video: This Too Shall Be Made Right

Found this video on Saidatsouthern.com. It's an unofficial video of Derek Webb's song, "This Too Shall Be Made Right."

Video: John Piper at T4G08