Monthly Archives: July 2017

Mandates of Expository Preaching

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Mandates of Expository Preaching by Eric Davis (original source here)

Expository preaching is that type of preaching which seeks to approach the word of God in a manner befitting of the God of the word. As such, its aim is to submit to the authorial intent of a passage, unpacking the meaning in its grammatical and historical context, then explaining, illustrating, and applying the text accordingly.

Therefore, expository preaching is that method of preaching which keeps most in step with the way in which the Holy Spirit inspired the word. It seeks full submission to what the Spirit laid down in Scripture.

Recently, John MacArthur taught a seminar in a doctorate program at the Master’s Seminary for expository preaching titled, “Mandates of Expository Preaching.” With over 50 years experience in weekly expository preaching, the church does well to listen to what he has to say on the matter. Here is a summary of what was taught.

Expository preaching establishes the authority of God over the mind of the hearer.

Churches whose teaching and preaching are more loosely tied to sound exposition from Scripture can tend towards demagoguery. In those cases, the authority is more in the guy than God. That is an unsafe place to be, both as a leadership and congregation.

Expository preaching is a safer place to be simply because the ministry philosophy is submission to every word of God. And submission to the word of God is submission to the God of the word.

The primary duty of the pastor is to establish that God is the authority, not him (Titus 2:15). Preaching is to be authoritative which means it must have a transcendent and divine authority. Our authority is a delegated authority. When you are an expositor of Scripture, you are constantly declaring the authority of the word of God.

Expository preaching affirms the lordship of Christ over the church.

There is a de facto assault by self-appointed, narcissistic pastors who present themselves as if they’re the head of the church by making the dominance of their personality the functional head of the church. Pastors won’t verbally deny the headship of Christ over the church, but they do in practice. They do so when they remove the Bible from its governing position in the church. Doing so usurps the place which belongs only to Christ. Continue reading →

Assurance

Posted on by
Reply

This excerpt is taken from Can I Be Sure I’m Saved? by R.C. Sproul.

At a practical level, people who are struggling with their assurance of salvation often approach me and ask, “How can I know I am saved?” In response, I ask them three questions.

First I ask, “Do you love Jesus perfectly?” Every person to whom I have asked that question has responded candidly, “No, I don’t.” That’s why they are not sure of the state of their souls; they know there are deficiencies in their affection for Christ, because they know that if they loved Christ perfectly, they would obey Him perfectly. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). So as soon as we disobey one of His commandments, that’s a signal to us that we do not love Him perfectly.

Second, when a person acknowledges that he doesn’t love Jesus perfectly, I ask, “Do you love Him as much as you ought to?” The person usually gives me a strange look and says, “Well, no, of course, I don’t.” That’s right; if the answer to the first question is no, the answer to the second question has to be no, because we’re supposed to love Him perfectly, but we don’t. Therein lies the tension that we experience about our salvation.

Third, I ask, “Well, do you love Jesus at all?” Before the person answers, I usually add that I’m asking about his love for the biblical Christ, the Christ whom we encounter in the pages of Holy Scripture. Why do I say that?”

Many years ago, I taught at the Young Life Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and I did a lot of work in those days with and for Young Life. When I was training staff in Colorado, I said: “Let me warn you about one grave danger of this ministry. I don’t know personally of any ministry to young people in the world that’s more effective than Young Life at getting next to kids, getting involved in their issues, getting involved in their problems, ministering to kids where they are, and knowing how to get them to respond. That’s the greatest strength of this organization—and it’s also your greatest weakness. Because Young Life, as a ministry, makes Christianity so attractive to kids, it would be easy for kids to be converted to Young Life without ever being converted to Christ.”

In just the same way, it’s possible to love a caricature of Jesus rather than Jesus Himself.

So when I ask people “Do you love Jesus at all?” I’m not asking whether they love a Christ who is a hero for kids or a Christ who is a good moral teacher. I’m asking whether they love the Christ who appears in Scripture.

Now if someone can say “Yes” to that third question, that’s where theology comes in. Consider this question: “Is it possible for an unregenerate person to have any true affection for Christ?”

My answer is no; affection for Christ is a result of the Spirit’s work. That is what regeneration is all about; that is what the Spirit does in quickening. God the Holy Spirit changes the disposition of our souls and the inclination of our hearts.

Before regeneration, we are cold, hostile, or indifferent (which is the worst kind of hostility) to the things of God, having no honest affection for Him, because we are in the flesh, and the flesh does not love the things of God. Love for God is kindled by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, who pours the love of God into our hearts (Rom. 5:5).

So if a person can answer “Yes” when I ask whether he has an affection for Christ, even though he may not love Jesus as much as he ought to (i.e., perfectly), that assures me the Spirit has done this transforming work in his soul. This is so because we do not have the power in our flesh to conjure up any true affection for Jesus Christ.

HT: Rain Smith

Is God Simple or Complex?

Posted on by
Reply

Persis Lorenti is a member of Grace Baptist Chapel in Hampton, VA where she serves as bookkeeper and deacon of library/resources. She blogs at triedbyfire.blogspot.com and out-of-theordinary.blogspot.com. You can follow her on Twitter @triedwfire.

Article: Classic Theism: Is God Simple or Complex? (original source here)

My Sunday school teacher posed this question during class a few years ago. The question surprised me because the answer seemed obvious. If God is so far beyond my comprehension, how could he be simple? Therefore, he must be complex, right? Wrong. The teacher was not referring to whether God was easily understood but rather to the doctrine of divine simplicity.

Simply stated, this doctrine teaches that there “is nothing in God that is not God.” [1] Nothing comprises God. Neither is there anything that lies behind or alongside him that provides the basis for his existence.[2] This is affirmed in the Westminster Confession 2.1 which states that God is “without body, parts, or passions.” The London Baptist Confession (LBC) 2.3 also adds “one God, who is not to be divided by nature or being.”

As a counter example, we learn in biology that all living things are composed of cells, which are made of several components. But in chemistry, we learn that those cellular components are made up of molecules, which in turn are made up of atoms of different elements. For years scientists believed that atoms were the building blocks of matter, but the search is not over. Physicists today are detecting particles smaller than a proton. Thus, we still don’t know what is the fundamental basis of matter. The physical universe also requires something outside of these necessary parts to put them together. But God is not like this. He cannot be subdivided or broken down into his essential building blocks. If that was the case, those parts would account for his being God and take the credit for his God-ness. He would also be dependent upon a maker apart from himself to combine those parts into “God,” but all that is in God is God. He just is.[3]

This may sound rather esoteric and only fit for the seminary classroom, but what about the average believer in the pew? Does simplicity make any difference at all? It does indeed, and here are a few implications of this doctrine.

– Simplicity safeguards our understanding of God. The Trinity is not three Gods (tritheism). Neither is God comprised of 1/3 Father, 1/3 Son, and 1/3 Holy Spirit (partialism). We confess One God in Three Persons. Simplicity is also the foundation of God’s independence and immutability. Complex beings are dependent on their parts and their maker, but as a simple being, God is dependent upon nothing. He will never change because then he would cease to be himself. Change also implies a lack of perfection as though he needed any improvement.[4] Continue reading →