Pastor Jeff Durbin and the crew at Apologia Studio and special guest Dr. James White: On this episode we respond to some comments made by the “3 Mormons” channel. Mormonism teaches that men and women can become gods and goddesses of their own planets. The “3 Mormons” try to defend that teaching in one of their videos.
Article by Pastor Dan Phillips (original source here)
Christian worship is a supernatural event – but it is not a magic show.
In pagan worship, forms and rituals are thought to be inherently effective. The Latin phrase is ex opere operato, “from the work worked.” It is the idea that we can do things that in turn will make God do things. This is the essence of paganism and of magic: that forms of worship or manipulation produce supernatural effects simply by our performing them correctly.
In Harry Potter, it’s saying the right gibberish-Latin words (“Wingardium leviosa!”). In other literature, it’s gestures, or words-plus-gestures. In some lands, it’s sacrifice and incantation.
My fear is that some evangelicals – despite our call to reject all paganism – unwittingly entertain a faux-baptized form of the same sorts of expectations and beliefs.
How so?
We (correctly) affirm that the Bible is not just a book, not a mere collection of human musings. It is the word of God, “living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12). It is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16), and communicates the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13). It is the means of saving faith (Romans 10:17), and of growth in holiness (John 17:17). It is truly a marvel, a gift from God.
So we (again correctly) make the preaching of the Word the center of our corporate worship. This reflects the stated priorities of Christ (John 8:31-32) and His apostles (1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 4:2). So far, so good.
But here comes the disconnect: sometimes both preacher and hearers get the idea that, if we do that right – that is, preach the Word faithfully – then God must do great and wonderful things, along the lines of our expectations. Sinners will be saved, saints will be transformed and matured, churches will grow. Glory all around. It’s guaranteed!
Right? Wrong.
I yield to no man in my absolute conviction of the centrality of God’s written word to all thought, faith, worship and practice. It is that very conviction which compels me to point out the corollary truth:
The glory of God requires not only faithful preaching of the Word, but also faithful hearing of the Word.
Once you see it, you will find this verity literally all over Scripture. Take Deuteronomy 28:1 – “And if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.” This verse brims with vital truth. Continue reading
Dr. Steve Lawson was with a group of pastors, advocating the virtues of Expositional Preaching. Opening up the meeting for a Q and A, the first question asked was this:
“Dr. Lawson, tell us, how would you preach on Obamacare?”
Here was Dr. Lawson’s reply:
“OK, here’s what you do. Have you got a pen and paper? I want you to write this down.
You turn to the book of Romans and you start in Romans 1 and verse 1, and you preach all the way through the entirety of the book of Romans.
Did you write that down?
Then what I want you to do is go to the Gospel of John. I want you to start in John 1, verse 1 and preach all the way through the Gospel of John – just take your time.
Did you write that down?
Then I want you to go to the book of Psalms and start in Psalm 1 and verse 1, How blessed is the man… and I want you to go all the way through verse by verse through all the 150 Psalms, till you come to the end of Psalm 150, Hallelujah, praise the Lord.
And every time you see the word ‘Obamacare’, stop and address it.
Otherwise, keep going.”
(this excerpt is a transcript taken from the Master’s Seminary – Fall 2018: Fundamentals of Expository Preaching with Dr. Steven Lawson, Session 3)
Article by Stephen Kneale (original source here)
If you are Reformed Baptist (Particular Baptist, if you prefer), you will have agonised over when it is best to bring somebody into membership. Much of that stems from two Baptist beliefs, namely 1) baptism brings a person into membership of the local church; and, 2) baptism is for those who have expressed faith in Christ and can thus rightly be considered in the covenant. The question for Baptists centres around when it is appropriate to baptise someone and bring them into membership. We want to ask, what constitutes a credible profession of faith? and, how do we avoid (so far as it is possible) admitting unbelievers and those who make false professions to membership?
Just in case you think this is a uniquely Baptist problem, our paedobaptist brethren have to contend with the same question. For some, it arises for any who come to faith and were not the children of believers. For others, even if they are happy to apply the sign of the covenant fairly liberally on that front, all of them put the mockers on their kids from taking the other sign of the covenant at the Lord’s table until there is some evidence of genuine belief. So, to be clear, paedobaptism isn’t a ‘get out of difficult conversations about genuine conversion’ card.
There are two basic schools of thought on this issue. One insists that we must wait a good chunk of time before we see some fruit of repentance. It looks to assess how one is walking over a period of time before they will baptise and admit you to membership. The other says that we should simply baptise and welcome into membership on the basis of a credible profession. So, such that somebody claims to trust in Christ and can give a story that is capable of being believed, we admit them to membership.
I want to give four reasons why I believe the second of these two options is preferable.
It is the NT pattern
Throughout the NT, we see a simple pattern established. Individuals came to faith in Christ, were baptised and joined the church (cf. Acts 2:41). This was in response to Jesus’ Great Commission to go into all the world and make disciples, baptising them as the sign of belonging to Christ (cf. Matt 28:19f).
This seems to be the established pattern such that Paul can say, ‘don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?’ (Rom 6:3). As Tom Schreiner, in his Baker commentary on Romans, rightly points out, ‘Since unbaptized Christians were virtually non-existent, to refer to those who were baptized is another way of describing those who are Christians, those who have put their faith in Christ. Paul is saying here that all Christians have participated in the death and burial of Christ, for all Christians had received baptism.’
Throughout the book of Acts we see no time elapse between a profession of faith and admittance to baptism. There are no examples in scripture of a period of testing and waiting before we are willing to baptise. In line with the NT pattern, we should be looking for a credible testimony as the basis upon which we bring people into the church.
It gives us grounds for church discipline
Again, in line with what we see as the NT pattern, it is a standard Baptist belief that baptism brings an individual into membership of the church. As one comes into membership, there are rights and responsibilities that go along with that commitment. Joining the church gives you access to the Lord’s table – affirming your ongoing standing in Christ and with his people – but brings you into an accountable relationship with the church whereby they will hold you to your profession and all that it entails. When people profess faith and enter the church quickly, they are brought into the local church family and can enjoy fellowship on the same terms as everybody else. Continue reading
This excerpt is adapted from What’s So Great about the Doctrines of Grace? by Richard D. Phillips. (original source of this article here)
I am writing to praise the doctrine of limited atonement because it so exalts the cross of Jesus Christ, which gained a full redemption for all those appointed by God to eternal life. But what is the cash value of this doctrine? Does it offer something to my Christian experience or is it just abstract theology? What’s so great about the doctrine of limited atonement?
First, whenever a doctrine receives the prominence the Bible gives to Christ’s atonement, it must be significant to our lives.
The solemnity of the subject matter of Christ’s atonement urges us to consider it of great significance and to think carefully about it, in conformity with the Scriptures. In this respect, limited atonement should be received as a great doctrine simply because of its importance to Jesus and His saving work.
Second, if we grasp how personal in its application and how efficacious in its effects is the cross of Christ, we will find solid ground for our assurance of salvation.
There can be no assurance if the ultimate cause of our redemption is found in ourselves. The Arminian concept of a universal atonement, Packer remarks, “destroys the Scriptural ground of assurance altogether… . My salvation, on this view, depends not on what Christ did for me, but on what I subsequently do for myself.” This is why assurance of salvation is a field of theology and Christian experience plowed only by the Reformed. Murray notes, “It is no wonder that the doctrine of assurance should have found its true expression in that theology which is conditioned by the thought of the divine atonement or effective redemption, the irreversibility of effectual calling, and the immutability of the gifts of grace.
It is when you realize that even your faith is the outworking of Christ’s saving death for you, by the electing will of the Father, as applied by the Spirit, that you know the solid ground on which your salvation stands. If you truly believe–and the Bible gives you tests to determine whether you do–you can rest your heart in God’s sovereign grace and begin looking forward to an eternity of glory in the kingdom that you are now called to serve.
Lastly, limited atonement impacts us powerfully with regard to the psychology of our devotion to the Lord.
There are some who die for principles, and we admire them for it. Socrates accepted the cup of hemlock for the principle of tacit consent to civic rule. For this, his influence has spread far and wide across the ages. There are others who die for causes. If we share the cause, we may honor the martyr’s name. Nathan Hale has gone down in American history as the revolutionary who declared, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” Schoolchildren are taught those words even today, and we remember him with respect. Logically, the doctrine of universal atonement places Jesus in this category, though as the most noble of people who died for the greatest possible cause.
But there is another category of devotion that rises far above the rest. Some die for principles and others for causes. But what about someone who dies for me? This calls for a different kind of devotion altogether.
The movie Saving Private Ryan tells of a rescue operation immediately after the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944. The War Department learns that three out of four sons in a family named Ryan have died in battle on the same day. The Army’s top general orders that the fourth son be rescued from behind German lines, where he parachuted on D-Day. An elite squad of Army Rangers is assigned to find Private Ryan. The search leads to a bridge where German tanks are trying to break through Allied lines, and there the squad is destroyed as the quest finally succeeds. As the captain who saved Ryan lies dying on the bridge, surrounded by the bodies of the men from his squad, he draws Ryan close and gasps: “Earn this. Earn it.” The movie concludes with Ryan, as an old man, returning to the cemetery where the men who died for him were buried. Falling to his knees at Captain Miller’s grave, he says to the white plaster cross: “Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I’ve tried to live my life the best I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that at least in your eyes, I earned what all of you have done for me.” Turning to his wife, who comes up beside him, he stammers: “Tell me I have led a good life. Tell me I’m a good man.”
We praise God that we are not required to earn what Christ has done for us, for we never could do so. We receive His death by simple faith alone. Jesus never demands that we earn what He did for us. But the Bible does tell us to live “in a manner worthy of the Lord” (Col. 1:10). So we can turn to His wooden cross every day and pray, “If, with all Your glory, You, the Son of God, died for me, then I can live for You.” We live not merely for a principle and not even for a great cause. We live for a person, the Lord Jesus Christ. He died not merely for a principle or even for the greatest of causes. He died for us. So every Christian can say, “I live for Him, because He died for me.” He died for me.
These 10 issues are drawn from Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage by Jim Newheiser. (original source of this article found here)
Some people get married too soon. After love at first sight and a whirlwind romance, they quickly plan a wedding, exchange rings, and settle into a marriage that soon turns sour. So much pain can be avoided by working through issues before that wedding day. While courtship and engagement is, of course, the time to plan a wedding, it is also the time to plan a marriage. Here, drawn from the work of Jim Newheiser, is a list of issues to work through before you get married.
Are you both in love with the gospel, and is it impacting your lives? This is, of course, the most foundational question of all. Are you a Christian? And is your future spouse a Christian? Are you both confessing your sins before God and one another? Are you both extending and receiving forgiveness? Do not marry anyone until you are convinced he or she is a Christian; do not marry a Christian until you are convinced that you, too, are a believer.
Do you respect each other’s character? Having been convinced that your future spouse is a believer, are you also able to respect their character? Does that person have the kind of character that will be a blessing to you throughout your marriage? These will be issues of leadership and submission as well as issues of parenting, working, temper, and much else. In short, is this person displaying mature and maturing Christian character?
Do you have compatible life goals? Do you and your future spouse have similar goals for the future? Are you both committed to foreign missions, for example, or just one of you? Are you both eager to begin a family, or just one? Do you know how many children you each want to have and when you’d like to begin having them? How about the type and level of your commitment to the local church? Do not assume that you both have the same or even similar life goals. Talk!
How do you function together in group settings? While much of married life will be lived in relative isolation, much will also be lived in community. For this reason it is important to consider how your future spouse behaves in public and how the two of you behave together. How do the two of you work together in public? Are you both meeting people and making friends? Is one of you content to be alone and isolated? Does your future spouse have close friendships or have many of his or her former friends become isolated? Continue reading
Article by Josh Buice (original source here)
When it comes to worship, there are no shortage of opinions on how it should be done. However, when it comes to worship, we must likewise remember that we have a sufficient guide in holy Scripture. Everything about how God desires to be worshipped can be found in the pages of the Bible.
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper at the very moment of his Last Supper with his disciples. His time of celebration with them involved the observation of the Passover feast—a yearly meal designed to remember the deliverance of God’s people from Egypt. The Passover feast predates the tabernacle, the establishment of the law, and Israel’s priesthood (Ex. 12:15-17). As Jesus celebrated with his followers, he likewise pointed them to the culmination of the Passover in the Lord’s Supper since Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises and sacrificial system of Israel’s history. Jonathan Edwards wrote in his A History of the Work of Redemption, “Christ and his redemption are the subject of the whole Word of God.” [1]
Since Jesus instated the Lord’s Supper as a means of continual worship (see the language of 1 Corinthians 11:26), the way in which we engage in worship at the Lord’s Table matters. We should intentionally aim at theological precision and emotional balance. We should approach the Lord’s Table with tears of sorrow and smiles of joy. We must avoid superficial cliché worship and sacramentalism at the same time. With that in mind, there are two ways to engage in worship at the Lord’s Table that honor God.
A Heart of Sorrow
As Jesus ate and drank with his disciples, he said these words, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). We are to remember the body and blood of Jesus that was nailed to a Roman cross and we’re called to proclaim his death until Christ returns.
As Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper, he said, “Do this in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24). To remember the death of Jesus requires a sober mind and one that leads to a heart of sorrow. Consider the Son of God betrayed by a friend, accused of blasphemy, beaten beyond recognition, publicly humiliated, nailed to a cross, and raised up in open shame. Consider the pain and discomfort he was experiencing at that moment. Consider the crushing weight of the sins of all of his people being laid upon him. This scene brings us to a place of sorrow.
Furthermore, our sorrow is not merely sentimental—it’s personal sorrow. It’s personal sorrow based on personal sin. The crushing blow of the God’s wrath was unleashed on Jesus for the sins of his people. As we remember this scene, we have to recall the fact that Jesus was paying for our sin debt—our personal sins—each and every one of them. This should bring us to a proper place of humility and sorrow.
A Heart of Joy
How can the scene of the dying Savior bring us to a place of joy and celebration? The emotion of sorrow seems much more fitting, so how do we arrive at joy as we stand in the shadow of the cross of Jesus? The answer is found in how Jesus’ sacrifice became the fulfillment of the long awaited promise of Genesis 3:15. Did Jesus satisfy the Father’s wrath? Did Jesus pay in full our sin debt? With absolute certainty he accomplished those realities, and in doing so he accomplished the plan of redemption in victory.
Consider the words of the apostle Paul as he describes the work of Jesus, stating he forgave us “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him” (Colossians 2:14–15).
We can celebrate at the Lord’s Table as we consider the victory that has been secured by Jesus for each and every one of his people. Not one single sin will be held to our account. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Every single sin was nailed to the cross and Christ paid our debt in full. By doing so, Jesus disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame. His substitutionary death was the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15, therefore, we can celebrate as we gather around the Lord’s Table to remember the body and blood of King Jesus. We don’t approach the Lord’s Table with a heart fueled by superficial clichés. We approach the Lord’s Table with a heart filled with sorrow and overflowing with joy. J.C. Ryle, in his commentary on Matthew 26, writes the following:
Are we in the habit of coming to the Lord’s table? If so, in what frame of mind do we come? Do we draw near intelligently, humbly, and with faith? Do we understand what we are doing? Do we really feel our sinfulness and need of Christ? Do we really desire to live a Christian life, as well as profess the Christian faith? Happy is that soul who can give a satisfactory answer to these questions. Let him go forward, and persevere.
(1) Philip Graham Ryken and R. Kent Hughes, Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2005), 330.
Chris Castaldo (PhD, London School of Theology) serves as lead pastor of New Covenant Church in Naperville, Illinois. He is the author of Talking with Catholics about the Gospel and co-author of the recently released The Unfinished Reformation: What Unites and Divides Catholics and Protestants After 500 Years. Chris blogs at www.chriscastaldo.com. (original source of this article found here)
“I will build my church,” Jesus declared (Matthew 16:18). And what a magnificent and agonizing process has unfolded for two millennia. Essential to this work is the formation of living stones — men and women drawn from the quarry of sin, whose lives now testify to gospel grace.
But how does Christ construct his church? One answer is suggested inside the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, in letters six feet tall, where Christ’s promise is written in Latin: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church . . .” Illumined by encircling windows, these words sit as a crown atop the crypt of the apostle himself, who is hidden far beneath the high altar, a reminder of the authority given to Peter’s heir who sits upon the papal throne.
Martin Luther was not the first to question papal authority, but his argument was especially incisive. When Luther’s ideas began to congeal in 1520, he articulated his concerns in a seminal work: To the Christian Nobility. This treatise was occasioned by attacks from the pope’s theologian, Sylvester Prierias, who asserted papal absolutism with such bravado that Luther called it a “hellish manifesto.” Convinced of Scripture’s supreme authority, and believing German nobility to be sympathetic to his position, Luther, in light of historical precedent, urged nobles to embrace the responsibility of church reform.
Luther’s treatise laid an ax at the Roman institution — the social, political, legal, and religious conventions that undergirded Western Christendom. Of central concern was the papal claim (championed by Prierias) that only the pope can reliably interpret Scripture and speak without error. Luther viewed such traditions as religious accretions that threatened the church’s integrity if not eradicated.
Looking back, we sometimes wonder how the accumulation of Roman tradition developed from the Galilean’s fishing boat to Luther’s day; that is, from the day of Pentecost to the sixteenth century. While the story is protracted and complex, the following overview will attempt to offer some perspective, giving particular attention to the development of ecclesial authority in the papal office.
First Pope
Our story begins with a reminder from Lord Acton who suggested the best way to ensure the cogency of one’s position is to make the best possible argument for those we believe are wrong. While the following narrative is not an argument per se, it is intended to demonstrate that the misguided trajectory of papal authority developed rather naturally in the scope and sequence of Western history, a development that cautions followers of Christ in every age.
Catholic historians typically acknowledge that there is no straight line from the current pope to the apostle Peter. In the words of Eamon Duffy, “There is, therefore, nothing directly approaching a papal theory in the pages of the New Testament,” and from all indications, “there was no single bishop of Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the apostles.”
It was around 150 AD when the loose pattern of presbyterial authority began to give way to a single Roman bishop, an office that eventually developed into a monarchical position under Bishop Victor (189–198) and to a greater extent under Bishop Stephen I (254–257) who claimed some of the powers and honors attributed to the apostle Peter. Stephen’s invocation of Matthew 16 was the first instance of a bishop of Rome attempting to elevate himself over other bishops with an authority that was qualitatively superior.
The conversion of Constantine, and his subsequent investment in church institutions, placed Roman bishops at the center of imperial life. They soon became affluent and politically engaged potentates, acquiring the urbane trappings of aristocracy. The bishop’s political influence increased when Constantine transferred the capital of the empire to Constantinople in 330, a move that left Rome’s bishop as the single most important individual in the city. But which of these bishops should be considered the first pope? Continue reading