A.W. Pink said, "To insist that some men, at least, do thwart God's will and overturn His counsels, is to repudiate other Scriptures equally explicit. Weigh well the following:" "But He is one mind, and who can turn Him? and what His soul desireth, even that He doeth" (Job 23:13). "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations" (Psa. 33:11). "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD" (Prov. 21:30). "For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" (Isa. 14:27). "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else! I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure" (Isa. 46:9-10).
They're back and at it again folks. Justice Sunday II is in full swing. Though information is limitied at this time, Justice Sunday II, per their advertisement, seems to be centering around the Supreme Court, the Ten Commandments, and President Bush's possible appointee(s) to the Court. Those participating this year are: Senator Zell Miller (D-GA); Tony Perkins, Family Research Council; Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family; Chuck Colson, Prison Fellowship Ministries; Bill Donohue, Catholic League; Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum; Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Family Research Council; Dr. Jerry Sutton, Two Rivers Baptist Church; Bishop Harry Jackson, Hope Christian Church. (I must say, I was delighted to see the absence of Dr. Al Mohler's name on this Justice Sunday roster for whatever his reason may be). 
JSII wants God to "save the United States and this Honorable Court." I know that "save" here means to "preserve, protect and endure," but how do they propose to do this? Political activism by the church. This is so foolish ladies and gentlemen, again. It is the Lord who establishes governments and they are under His sovereign control (Psalm 2:1-5; Rom. 13:1-7). The Lord Himself came not to make society moral or encourage His disciples to fight for cultural change; but to build His church and that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
A piece of ECB trivia: Seven out of the nine sitting Supreme Court judges were appointed by Republican Presidents; only three of those judges are conservatives. The track record is poor to say the least. The hope for the moral crisis our nation currently faces is not judicial appointees of any bench, but is through the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed; believed; obeyed; followed; and lived.
In light of Justice Sunday II's recent announcement, let's set the record straight on a few key things:
1. As Christians and as individual citizens in a free society, can we make our voice known on political issues without violating the standard of Scripture? Yes. We enjoy that freedom as individuals constitutionally in our nation to voice our views in a lawful manner and to do so in a way that doesn't tarnish or diminish our testimony for the Lord, His gospel, or His Word and still show respect for those in governing authority in our land (Romans 13:1-7). We may do so through voting, contacting our Senators or Congressmen; through lawful assembly, and local community involvement. We can make our voice known, but then we must leave the results to the Lord; for He is sovereignly in control over all the affairs of men and will even use unrighteous governments and their leaders to fulfill His perfect and providential will on the earth.
A.W. Pink says it in these powerful and biblical terms: "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: He turneth it whithersoever He will (Prov. 21:1). What could be more explicit? Out of the heart are "the issues of life" (Prov. 4:23), for as a man "thinketh in his heart, so is he" (Prov. 23:7). If then the heart is in the hand of the Lord, and if "He turneth it whithersoever He will," then is it not clear that men, yea, governors and rulers, and so all men, are completely beneath the governmental control of the Almighty!
No limitations must be placed upon the above declarations. To insist that some men, at least, do thwart God's will and overturn His counsels, is to repudiate other Scriptures equally explicit. Weigh well the following: "But He is one mind, and who can turn Him? and what His soul desireth, even that He doeth" (Job 23:13). "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations" (Psa. 33:11). "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD" (Prov. 21:30). "For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? And His hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?" (Isa. 14:27). "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else! I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure" (Isa. 46:9-10). There is no ambiguity in these passages. They affirm in the most unequivocal and unqualified terms that it is impossible to bring to naught the purpose of Jehovah.
We read the Scriptures in vain if we fail to discover that the actions of men, evil men as well as good, are governed by the Lord God. Nimrod and his fellows determined to erect the tower of Babel, but ere their task was accomplished God frustrated their plans. God called Abraham "alone" (Isa. 51:2), but his kinsfolk accompanied him as he left Ur of the Chaldees. Was then the will of the Lord defeated? Nay, verily. Mark the sequel. Terah died before Canaan was reached (Gen. 11:32), and though Lot accompanied his uncle into the land of promise, he soon separated from him and settled down in Sodom. Jacob was the child to whom the inheritance was promised, and though Isaac sought to reverse Jehovah's decree and bestow the blessing upon Esau, his efforts came to naught. Esau again swore vengeance upon Jacob, but when next they met they wept for joy instead of fighting in hate. The brethren of Joseph determined his destruction but their evil counsels were overthrown. Pharaoh refused to let Israel carry out the instructions of Jehovah and perished in the Red Sea for his pains. Balak hired Balaam to curse the Israelites but God compelled him to bless them. Haman erected a gallows for Mordecai but was hanged upon it himself. Jonah resisted the revealed will of God but what became of his efforts?
Ah, the heathen may "rage" and the people imagine a "vain thing"; the kings of earth may "set themselves," and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Christ, saying, "Let us break Their bands asunder, and cast away Their cords from us (Psa. 2:1-3). But is the great God perturbed or disturbed by the rebellion of his puny creatures? No, indeed: "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision" (v. 4). He is infinitely exalted above all, and the greatest confederacies or earth's pawns, and their most extensive and vigorous preparations to defeat His purpose are, in His sight, altogether puerile. He looks upon their puny efforts, not only without any alarm, but He "laughs" at their folly; He treats their impotency with "derision." He knows that He can crush them like moths when He pleases, or consume them in a moment with the breath of His mouth. Ah, it is but "a vain thing" for the potsherds of the earth to strive with the glorious Majesty of Heaven. Such is our God; worship ye Him."
2. Is it biblically permissible to unit the body of Christ by turning them into a "voting block entity" or "religious PAC" to use in threatening or militant tones to try and strong arm politicians to fulfill our political agenda? No. The role of the church collectively and biblically, has never been to promote governmental legislation or to act in an aggressive manner against the governing authorities over us. The Apostle Peter warns against this in 1 Peter 4:15 when he exhorts those who are suffering under the tyrannical and torturous reign of Nero, to not suffer as a "troublesome meddler." Or as they are known in our day... "political agitators." They were to suffer for only being a Christian as a faithful witness of the gospel; not suffering as a Christian for being a political agitator against the governing officials--as noble as it might appear. Nero was unjust and ruthless--a wicked madman who had a bloodlust vengeance against Christianity. But still, the Lord gave the instruction to keep to the work of the gospel. To try and twist politicians with the threat of not being re-elected (we will remember in November was the montra last July) is prohibited biblically; and is not befitting of Christlikeness or His gospel. (The role of the church is clearly and primarily defined in 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus. Take an hour today and reread those great pastoral epistles and discover afresh the role, purpose and function of the body of Christ; what pleases the Lord and brings glory to His name.)
3. Is using a Sunday Evening Worship Service in a local church and turning it into political rally permissible in the Word of God? Never! There is not one example in the N.T. where the assembling of God's people worship of the Lord, the preaching of His Word, the sharing of His gospel, the fellowship of His people, the practice of baptism and communion, prayer, etc. is ever to be subverted for political strategery against sitting politicians or judges. That is not the purpose of local church worship gathering (Acts 2:42ff). This is astonishing that Sunday Worship services today have now evolved into political/cultural rallies without virtually a sound being heard from the evangelical community. Justice Sunday 1 was a disappointment. Dobson's political muscle in many ways over the last year has atrophied. He was certainly trumped in the aftermath of JS1 by "The Senate 14" who now control the "procedural activity" of the senate without the formality of senatorial rule change, a majority vote, or constitutionality. He and his well-meaning JS1 friends can stir the evangelical community up in a political froth for a few days, get some petitions signed, and a waterfall of phone calls ringing on The Hill. But the pragmatic results are very disappointing: with a conservative, Christian President: with Republicans having a majority in the House and Senate; and with all the airtime and banter that Dobson & Company have been afforded these past few years, there has still yet to be one piece of real legislation enacted into law that represent conservative, evangelical, Christian ideals and values. So why not do what we know God has clearly commanded us to do? To subvert the worship of God and preaching of God's Word on the Lord's Day (even if cloaked in spiritual language) for a political concern is unthinkable. What would the Apostles say of today about the state of contemporary evangelicalism in America? Elevating temporal political concerns over the eternal worship of our Lord is unthinkable. Who spiked the "living water" thinking that this is now biblical Christianity to do so?
Paul exhorted the Corinthians with these words: "For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake (2 Cor. 4:5). "We do not preach ourselves..." Paul never promoted himself, but in humility preached only Christ Jesus as Lord. He never preached any other cause or message; he never lowered the gospel to political fare; he never used the gathering of God's people for worship for anything except that which gave glory to the Lord by exalting His name according to His truth; and Paul had ample opportunity, but he remained faithful as "a servant of Christ, a steward of the mysteries of God..." (1 Cor. 4:1). He stood before kings and governors, but yet his purpose was never legislative, but only "Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). He even warned the church at Corinth "to not exceed what was written" (1 Cor. 4:6). Paul was concerned about sectarianism dividing the church and he put the kibosh on it immediately. It's a good principle. Do not exceed what Scripture teaches--that's the grace restraint for life and godliness in each of our own lives as well.
Pray for those in authority over you (1 Tim. 2:1-3); honor them (1 Peter 2:17); submit to them (Romans 13:1-7); to not be political agitators (1 Peter 4:15); but let your good works be visible for men to see as we live as salt and light (Matthew 5:12-16); preach His Word in season and out of season (2 Timothy 4:1-5); proclaim His gospel (1 Corinthians 9:16); live holy lives (1 Peter 1:13-15); recognize your duty to the magistrates in a pagan society (Titus 3:1-2); remember your depravity (Titus 3:3); and rejoice in your deliverance (Titus 3:4-7). The result of such godly living is: “These things are good and profitable for men.” (Titus 3:8).
This is how we are to live to the glory of God in a lost world.
Grace and peace,
Steve Camp
(Colossians 1:9-14).
Say No to Retirement & Yes to Redirection
5 hours ago
42 comments:
Not much to add but "amen," Steve.
Dear Jus:
Thank you for post. To help you in this discussion:
1. Does not justify ECB. Excercising individual 'voice" through voting and other recognized channels is not ECB at all. Do you understand what it is? ECB is using political process to try and cure the moral ills of this nation absent of the gospel and standard of His Word.
2. This is not a straw man. Do you realize that Dobson and company have threatened politicians with being reelected by taking out full page ads against them in their own voting districts with militant accusatory language towards them? This goes way beyond voting. It sounds like you're either not well read on this subject or just naive.
Your point following is also not on target. Making your voice known is fine: but becoming "political agitators" (1 Peter 4:15) trying to oust certain ones and affirming others that only agree with our agenda is not befitting of Christ nor consistant with the Scriptural mandate for the church or our response to governement. We may certainly hold others to accountability, but that is not what is taking place on Justice Sunday Ii nor is it the issue here.
Lastly, the political rally is in substitute for the worship of God. That is without debate even from those promoting it. When the people of God are gathered together for the purpose of His worship, the teaching of the Word, etc. and that is given a back burner to political considerations, then something is dramatically wrong.
I would suggest to you Jus, that you do take some serious time to understand these issues better and study God's Word correctly about them. Your post is fine, but its a bit off target here and seems only a surface reaction, not thought through well.
I would encourage you to study Acts 17; Roms. 13: 1 Peter 2 and 4; 1 Tim. 2 and 6 and Jer. 29 to begin with. William Hendrickson is excellent and John MacArthur has some very practical commentaries too.
Stay in the Word...
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
Stay the course Steve.
Great post, Steve.
Where have all the good reformers gone?
ECB + Emerging church = A new kind of protest.
Hey did you guys hear Dr. jeremiah today. Wow he was sizzling. Wouldve made us all beam and gush with hearty amens. While he was talking about Constantine I kept thinking of the ECB way.
Isn't it funny that...
Jesus in His day faced one of the most corrupt governments of all time (Romans), yet He and His disciples didn't march down the street carrying a sign. He didn't lead any campaigns on Rome.
And that the Jewish society, being of outwardly moral excellence, was the most inwardly wicked collection of leaders the world has every seen? -[They killed God in the flesh. What evil can ever top that?]
Jesus made it clear in Matthew 12:43 - 45 that the WORSE state a man can be in is outwardly moral and yet not know God.
What are these people thinking? There is no doubt that this issue runs deeper than just a group of zealous Christians who slightly misunderstand the scriptures...
I find it striking that the previous "Justice Sunday" event was held in Louisville, KY, and this one will be held in Nashville, TN, both of which are "conveniently" located within the Bible belt. Similar in size, I think it is no accident that these particular cities have been chosen. I feel that the organizers are unashamedly and openly attempting to play on the emotions of the southern Christian constituency in particular, in order to promote their agenda.
As they say, politics make strange bedfellows, and the Protestant community as a whole is being lured into political "trysts," (for lack of a better term)--being used as expendable pawns in a master game of chess.
These events are saddening, disconcerting, and the exploitation that is occurring is bordering on obscenity. This is a vivid example of a gross misuse of power, and the organizers should be ashamed.
Russ,
That is a needless and ridiculous attack on me for such common use of terms. It seems to me that you are a way too sensitive in this area and it might serve you well to stop looking for opportunities to express your displeasures with whatever or whoever you think has done you wrong.
You said:“Your comment…shows that you are ignorant of what took place at the execution of the Messiah…
Tell me Russ, where do I say that Jesus was killed by man and not by giving up His spirit? Where do I deny that the sin of you and I put Him on the cross? Where do I point out that the Jewish leaders are solely responsible for the death of Christ and therefore the responsibility lies on them alone? How does my sentence even make sense if this is what I am trying to say??
You’re splitting hairs here and looking way too deep into a very broad statement. I only wished to point out that the religious leaders of that day (who did plot to kill Jesus and ultimately put Him on the cross when Herod found no fault with Him), were morally pure on the outside. My point was that yes, those Jewish leaders were more wicked than anybody who will ever live (Jesus pronounce curses on them and said they would be cast into ‘outer darkness’ and would be subject to 'greater punishment'), and yet they were morally pure on the outside. Thus proving that even the most wicked of generations ever to walk the earth would’ve stood tall and proud with the moral agenda of this age.
The object of my statement isn’t to point out the wickedness of those Jewish leaders, but that outwardly moral people can commit the worse crime in the history of the universe! Standing against abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school etc means nothing if your heart isn’t cleansed, and if those Jews were alive today they would probably join forces with the religious right –despite their being wicked on the inside.
No, I am not ignorant of Acts 4:27-28, which says that God put Jesus on the cross. Yes I understand that God used the Jewish leaders as a vessel of wrath prepared for destruction to carry out His good pleasure. But no, this does not take the responsibility off of Judas, Caiaphas, and the other religious leaders who crucified God in the flesh despite His sinlessness, His miracles, and His fulfilled prophecies. I in NO way mean to place any additional blame on the Jewish people, this was completely devoid of the point I was trying to make. But to say that those Jewish leaders were no more evil than anybody who lives today is, in reality, truly ignorant of the scriptures and the severity of the crime committed.
Please do not see this as an attack on any particular RACE, but an attack on outwardly moral people who are capable of committing the worse of sins.
Here is what Dr. MacArthur's Study Bilbe says on 1 Peter 4:15: Peter is dealing with matters that would lead to persecution. Such as getting involved with revolutionary, disruptive activity, or interferring with the funciton and flow of government. (It might also refer to being a troublesome meddler in the workplace). A Christian living in a non-Christian culture is to do his work faithfully, exalt Jesus Christ and live a virtuous life, rather than try to overturn or disrupt their culture." That's the issue here. ECB seeks to overturn cultural moorings through pollitical means. (your example of whether a democracy or dictatorship is irrelevent. the form of government is not what's in quesiton, but how the Christian lives under any government is (Rom. 13:1-7).
You wrote: "Peter does not make a distinction between expressing political concerns and expressing theological concerns." Jus, You take this completely out of context.
As Dr. MaxArthur pointed out, the context here is "suffering" (in fact suffering under the wicked hand of Nero). Peter makes the comparison between suffering as a "thief, murderer, evil doer or a troublesome meddler" to suffering for the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the distinction. Suffering for doing things that were crimes against the laws of the day vs. suffering for living for Christ and sharing the gospel. The whole of his epistle is about suffering and submissiveness.
This, of course, is not the manner or method of evangelical co-belligerence. This is nothing new; I have been addressing this for many years (since the mid 1980's). The issue here is simple Jus, the purpose, function and role of the church is not to be battling government over moral suasion or religious rights; or trying to upset or overthrow the cultural even if one thinks their cause is moral and based upon traditional family values. We are to only suffer for being a Christian--being persecuted for Christ's sake and for His gospel. Any other kind of suffering, noble as it sounds, Peter does not acknowledge as suffering for Christ. That's the point.
Where ECB comes in (a term I coined) is that they are trying to fight spiritual battles with carnal weaponry (2 Cor. 10:1-4). Abortion, Gay marriage, etc. are not political problems, but are issues of the heart and are spiritual ones. They need the gospel; not legislation.
ECB makes their focus political rather than biblical--of which Dr. Mohler calls (and i agree with him fuly) "the idolatry of politics." No ECBer to date has offered or produced any biblical foundation for its practice and existence. NONE.
Lastly, we are permitted biblically to be faithful Bereans (Acts 17:9-11) examining what anyone might teach in light of Scripture. Paul commands it and commends it in doing so as being "noble of character." You or I have the duty, Jus, to measure Dobson, Mohler, Camp, Johnson, anyone etc. against the clear infallible, inerrant standard of Scripture. ECB clearly falls short in this area. We don't have the right biblically to go around holding unsaved people to that same standard (1 Cor. 5; Rom. 6:20) as they do in many of their writings and radio broadcasts (Being constantly critical of non-believers for living like non-believers.)
Thank you for your post. Keep on and may we all think biblically--not politically or pragmatically.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
PS - Try something that I did yesterday. I called Dobson's organization yesterday and the FRC too. I had a lovely talk for about 30 minutes concerning Justice Sunday with their appropriate staffers. I asked them, "do you have a pamphlet outlining from the Word of God the bibiical call to co-belligerence on these cultural issues you are asking us to fight as Christians? The person said, "what exactly do you mean?" I simply repeated my request and she said no. She went on to say that no one has ever asked them that before, but she wholeheartedly agreed that it should be done and then wondered out loud, "how come we are doing this without the Bible as our authority?" Good question don't you think?
I did the same thing with Dr. Richard Land's group during the SBC convention about a month ago here in Nasvhille. They said virtually the same thing: they had no material written giving a biblical foundation for their engaging the church in political activity to fight the moral ills of the day facing our nation and using the political process as their methodology rather than the heralding of the gospel or the preaching of God's Word. Before I left, they had me write down several questions I had brought up including Scriptures and were going to consider bringing this up at their next leadership meeting. That person also apologized and then said to me, "how come no one has asked us this until now?" Again, a very good and telling question.
What does that say to you? What is this revealing about these organizations and the whold Justice Sunday concept? It is saying that these groups, as well meaning as they are, do not think or operate primarily from a biblical world-view; just a pragmatic political one (their words, not mine). the tragic thing is that they are influencing millions of evangelicals down this path championing moral causes (many of which i agree) but in a methodology that is foreign to the Scriptures.
Think about this Jus...
Steve
"Brian said...
Hey did you guys hear Dr. jeremiah today. Wow he was sizzling. Wouldve made us all beam and gush with hearty amens. While he was talking about Constantine I kept thinking of the ECB way."
He does not have any discernment about Ken Blanchard's teachings. They are shocking. And many teachers are going down the same broad way. What gives?
The pied pipers of purpose.
Dr. David Jeremiah Joins Ken Blanchard at the Lead Like Jesus Conference
-----------------------------------
Dr. David Jeremiah, of Turning Point Ministries, will be speaking at Ken Blanchard's Lead Like Jesus Conference this year. Because Lighthouse Trails Publishing made this fact known on a recent radio program when asked if this were true, Dr. Jeremiah wrote a letter to Deborah Dombrowski, defending his position regarding Ken Blanchard. Shortly after Dr. Jeremiah sent the letter to Deborah Dombrowski, Turning Point began making the letter public. Because we have been contacted by numerous people regarding this matter, we are obliged to make this information available to the body of Christ.
-----------------------------------
Continue here for more shocking evidence that things are sick in the church:
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/
jeremiahblanchard.htm
Jus,
Obviously I said this in jest; I word it this way to show just how radical these ‘crusaders’ are. Just because there was no democratic republic in no way opens the door for the possibility of Jesus acting this ridiculous.
“Jesus and his disciples didn't vote either, but that isn't a reason for Christians not to vote.”
You’re comparing apples with oranges here. Voting is not a spiritual issue. In fact, one can vote privately without:
-Joining forces with other moral lost people for the sake of political gain. [Leading to unholy unions and inclusivism].
-Making enemies out of lost people who are just living like their depravity. Enemies we should love and evangelize, not judge and condemn.
-Picking and choosing certain sins to attack while leaving all others by the wayside. Therefore mudding the water in the eyes of the watching world.
-Bringing unneeded persecution and HATRED towards Christians for the WRONG REASONS.
I could go on. Point being, reform out society on your knees instead of blaspheming the name of God in front of an already crumbling society.
I made the statements about the time of Jesus to emphasize that this is not our true commission as Christians, and it is in fact never commanded in the NT. We need to get back to obeying what we’ve been told, recognizing that His kingdom is not of this world, and evangelize the lost instead of pushing them away and causing them to hate us for acting according to their nature.
SDG
Thank you Timothy for your post.
The issue of Sunday night worship service is not a matter of when, but of what... When recognized pastors/elders of any congregation call for the public gathering of God's people for worship and preaching of God’s Word and His gospel, we should honor their leadership and have fellowship one with another (Heb. 13:17).
But taking a recognized time in a particular local church and purposely subverting the worship of God and the preaching of God's Word to focus on lesser things like judicial appointees, culture wars, etc. is nowhere condoned biblically. When do the Lord, His glory, His Word and His gospel ever play “second fiddle” to any cultural issue. That is a legitimate concern.
Why don't the ECBers rent a hotel ballroom on a Friday evening and have their program without subverting the eternal things of God to political pragmatic problems?
The secondary issue with ECB-Justice Sunday 1 & 2 is sharing the pulpit and platform with Romanists. (The Reformation actually did occur didn't it?) When do the false gospel, false church and false leadership of Romanism ever been welcome on the platform of any evangelical church to share the pulpit on any issue? When did Paul, our Lord or any of the apostles for that matter ever partner with or create alliances with those "angels of light" in their day for the cultural purpose of moral political suasion? Never--it was unthinkable to them.
Certainly this violates 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1. A believer in Christ can no more have an equally yoked alliance with a non-believer in a spiritual ministry or enterprise than Christ and Belial could be yoked together to share in some “moral cause” led by religious co-belligerents? In fact, the Lord in Matthew 23 in His pronouncement of the seven woes, declares eternal condemnation and indicts as rubbish the “religious morality, decency and practices” of the co-belligerents of His day, the scribes and Pharisees. He calls them hypocrites—strong language to be sure. Then why today do ECBers think at a political rally championing “family values; the ten commandments and Supreme Court judiciary selection” that a Christian and a Romanist could be yoked together in any kind of alliance with Christ attached to it? This is very serious.
Besides brother, what if the ECB agenda could be fulfilled? What if our government and culture embraced this moral political social family value ethic and the Reconstructionists won the day? What then? All that we have then unsaved people living a little bit better lives--but still are unregenerate, lost, and facing eternal perdition. Will the church then decide when the world is moral enough to actually get to the business of presenting the gospel and preaching God's Word again? Why not just do what the Lord has commanded us to do initially?
We need a new reformation...
Grace and peace to you,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
Russ,
Thank you for your kindness. In the future I will strive to do a better job clarifying my statements in order that I might not risk offense with any of the brethren. Please forgive me for this. I guess I was shocked at your reply because that was so far from what I had in mind. I was not offended however, and I certainly accept your apology.
You said: “And the fact that you are willing to place one sin above or below another makes it seem that you have become a judge of these matters. Are you a judge of Torah?”
Certainly not! I am not placing any *one* sin above any other, I base this view of different levels of punishment from the scriptures. Particularly:
2 Peter 2:20-21 (NKJV)
For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.”
And also,
Hebrews 10:28-29 (NKJV)
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
And,
Luke 12:46-48 (NKJV)
46 the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”
And finally,
Matthew 11:21-24 (NKJV)
21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”
Cross reference Matthew 10:15 and Mark 6:11
My point being, those who A) knew God’s will and didn’t do it as opposed to those who never knew it, and B) saw the Creator of the universe in the flesh, partook in His ministry, and saw His miracles, and yet still murdered Jesus, will both be punished more than any other human beings ever to disobey the law. Therefore, my original point stands. The Pharisees where outwardly moral and would join any such cause today standing up against the truth of scripture, but in reality they were the most wicked generation to every walk the face of the earth.
Do those scriptures strengthen my 'poorly made' argument? I pray so.
SDG
Amen Campi,
Keep stirring the Co-BEEE's!
Nathan,
I'd like to impress you with what efrayim was trying to convey to you. We here in America have a false religion much like that of Constantine. With our creed and Doctrine we have at sword point tried to convert the Pagan into Christian. It is a religion based souly on anxiety. Constantine forced everyone including Arians to accept the fundamental doctrines of the faith without allowing the Holy Spirit to do His work and thus man tried to sieze the Kingdom of God.
We have a religion here in America that lets men in white sheets who burn crosses think that if they have their doctrine squared away; pray a prayer, they can believe and I've heard them quote on documentaries"Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour!"
What gives? My father graduated from a fundamental university that cheered the day Martin Luther King Jr. was shot to death.
Jesus used word pictures for those who despised others and thought they were righteous. Many men back then were conservative in their doctrine and gaurded the Word in light of the Macabee revolution. Jesus said they weren't righteous enough? What gives?
In the book of Acts God was moved by Cornelius. He was a Roman who was moved to love and support the precious Jew. Until you bow your knee to His race; you cannot know that you love Yeshua. Salvation is of the Jews.
The Gospel went to Israel and then on. It is amazing to note that the Arab would bow to their God as well and they would be one of the first in that day. In fact the syriac translations are some of the most well kept and meticulously cared for.
What an amazing day that was at Pentecost when Yehovah breathed upon the earth. oh that He would return again.
Please consider this Nathan before you compell efrayim to think that he is splitting hairs. He is helping us. We are so illiterate to the first languages and have hid YHVH behind the King of England's wishes and for some reason his wishes still exist today.
Oddly enough Dr. Jeremiah has written on the New Age movement. My parents know him personaly. His mentor was my Uncle Carson Fremont from the mission field in Hong Kong. His father helped found Cedarville College. He was home grown in the fundamentalist movement. If he is New Age then that will be a shock to me. I have written him on the "seeker sensitve" movement and as of yet; he and MaCarthur seem to be the only ones directly speaking to it.
Perhaps Lutzer as well although he is usually a little more indirect to stimulate people to think.
Is Jeremiahs position as strong as I would like it to be? No, but I wish to pray for him.
Don't pull up the weeds! The enemy has laid what is existing today. God will sickle them up. We must do like Campi and White are doing. Contend for the faith while encouraging unity at the same time.
The sheep are scattering like flies. If you find a man that is willing to listen like Jeremiah; please don't shoot more ammo at him. Please consider this.
Brian wrote:
>my Uncle Carson Fremont from the >mission field in Hong Kong.
Oh my... what a small world. Uncle Carson & Aunt Darlene (now w/ Jesus), Aunt Joyce, Marcia, Paul, Carol, John. They've been as close as blood relatives to our family since I was knee high to a grasshopper. :-)
"Uncle" Carson has mentored many, many others like Dave Jeremiah. This world has not enough Carson Fremonts.
Hey Breuss how about that. It is a small world indeed. Yeah Dad and uncle Carson were the best of friends in Hong Kong. Robert Hedrick is my dad's name. We were all a buch of happy fundy's back then. I miss those days; but know the circle will be back together one day. Johny Fremont was my mentor in regards to humor. Have you heard from Paul or Marcia? And Carol...whoa I almost forgot everybody.
Hey and to think last week we were in disputes. Elohim bless you.
Take care Batman. Do you get that a lot?
Campi wrote:
>The Lord Himself came not to make >society moral or encourage His >disciples to fight for cultural change
Absolutely. When Matthew and John witnessed and chronicled Christ's statement to Peter, "put your sword into its sheath" and to Pilate "my kingdom is not of this world", the point to the early church in its persecution was clear: Christ's kingdom is not won by sword (or vote). It is not of this world. We have too many evangelicals waving swords that belong in their sheaths.
Hey Bruess,
If you read 'Under The Shadow Of The Dragon' by Uncle Harry Ambacher you will find that Uncle Carson led a man named Teddy Chang to the Lord and my dad pastored and discipled him. Uncle Harry hitched a star to Teddys wagon and the rest is history in Hong Kong. It is amazing what God did with that little man in Hong Kong whom Uncle Carson led to Jesus.
It was all God though. Not Teddy or my Dad or even the great Uncle Carson. I sure do miss him. He was so full of life. I guess he mentored me as well. Had it not been for men like him...Well he just helped me see that God was real and helped me look past all the fundamentalism I grew up with. He was faith in action.
After we moved back to the States; things got a little tough for Mom and Dad in fundy circles. It was all part of God's soveriegn hand though.
Speaking from the perspective of a Southern Baptist, I find it particularly distressing when I find that pastors and denominational leaders, two of whom have been named in your comments, Steve, and who worked to formulate the BFM 2000 so blatantly disrespect it. The day the Convention passed it, all the discussion centered around the Section on the nature of Scripture, and, in our theological upheavals, it appears that was the only portion that certain among us took seriously anyway.
The BFM 2000 says:
With respect to the Christian and the Social Order:
All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ. In the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography. We should work to provide for the orphaned, the needy, the abused, the aged, the helpless, and the sick. We should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death. Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love. In order to promote these ends Christians should be ready to work with all men of good will in any good cause, always being careful to act in the spirit of love without compromising their loyalty to Christ and His truth.
With respect to Religious Liberty
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.
Note the highlighted portions.
The problem I see here isn't so much that there are those of us that have organized but that many of them are simply leaders from whom I personally have heard very little from in recent memory with regard to the gospel itself when addressing these issues. Many, when they do, seem to address the gospel in a tangental fashion. Granted, I don't listen to Focus on the Family much as it is, but when I do, I don't hear much in the way of sin being the root problem. Some leaders have a habit of inserting their feet into their mouths. Dr. Land got himself into trouble a few years ago at a large SBC church in Raleigh, NC in which he, among other things, called certain Democrats some not so nice names from the pulpit and declared that anybody in the congregation that disagreed with him was in the wrong. His comments made it into the Biblical Recorder in all their glory too. Granted his job is to represent the SBC in WDC regarding political and ethical issues, but in recent years, I can't help but wonder if it's really a good idea for the SBC to keep one person in denominational leadership in such a position for so long when they seem to be ignoring the full content of the new BFM.
Anybody familar with denominational politics in the SBC knows that some associations and state conventions have tried to make the new BFM a test of fellowship since it was passed. Why then are we not holding our denominational leaders to the standards of the documents that some of them helped draft? If we're not going to follow it, then why did they draft it? Are we only going to unite around the parts we like or take seriously? How can assoications dare to hold local churches to these documents as some have tried and not cry out for particular visible leaders to do the same?
I admit that I would not have as much of a problem with these moralizing crusades if they would:
a. Present us a biblical justificaiton for them. I mean lay out an exegetical defense. I'm theologically Reformed and have profound disagreements with my Arminian brethren, but I'm also the first to say that I have much more respect for those among them that (a) articulate what I believe correctly and (b) make an attempt to provide an exegetical basis for their theology...I may disagree with them profoundly, but at least they've made the attempt.
b. Devote time in both their public communication efforts and their written literature to the root issue: the unregeneracy of the human heart. That's painfully absent from much of this movement.
Christ is King of all the world, and, in His function as Judge is judge of both regenerate and unregenerate. I'm all for the moral will of God being expressed in secular laws, but am dismayed that the church would resort to the secular laws to achieve ends the gospel itself must undergird. Feel free to complain about unregenerate men acting unregenerately...as long as you and your movement are doing something about that problem to go along with the rest of what you are trying to achieve. As the BFM states, the gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone and such efforts cannot succeed if men's hearts are unregenerate.
c. Not associate with just anybody and everybody. As you so rightly point out, to associate with Rome, whose gospel simply does not save, and with Word of Faith teachers who harbor serious doctrinal heresies of their own is simply unsupportable. The Reformers would be horrified.
Focus on the Family and The Eagle Forum both oppose pornography. So does the radical feminist movement. Shall we invite Patricia Ireland into our pulpits to address that issue too should the need arise? Of course not. why then do we consort with Rome and others? We oppose the NOW's political agenda, but we also oppose Rome's theological agenda. We'll not consort with the NOW, but we'll consort with Rome, who has anathematized the very gospel that makes us who we are?!
As an aside to Jus, the argument that we live in a free society and this boils down to our legal right to free association isn't the issue...Nobody denies we have that legal right in our society, thus what is legal for us and a freedom we enjoy as individuals is not the issue. The issue is whether, as evangelical Protestants we should be comporting with Rome and others in these efforts in the name of Christ. To me, that violates the portion of the above confessional document that says we should work with men of good will without compromising loyalty to Christ's truth. I'll work with a Catholic to oppose abortion when I vote...but allowing one to speak from a Protestant pulpit seems to blur the line. When Dobson can brush aside Al Mohler's comments about the Pope and Catholicism as just one of those silly things that he expects a Southern Baptist to say, that betrays a level of compromise that goes further than cooperating on a common goal to consorting with the enemy.
d. Not usurp the declared meetings of local churches for these events.
How I wonder does this fit in with the regulative principle of worship, if, that is, any of these congregations have any inkling of what it is?
Related to this, I'd like to respond to a couple issues Jus raised:
>>Perhaps you can point me to the positive biblical basis for mandatory evening services in the first place.
That would be an incident, not an element of worship. The local church is free to set its meeting times. Perhaps you could point us to a positive biblical basis for holding a political rally during the set worship service of a local church or in lieu of said services? The content of said services would be an element that requires biblical justification.
>>>Again, is this actually being promoted as a Sunday evening worship service in the first place?
Let's put it this way: If they are holding the event in lieu of the Sunday service at the same time as the "normal" service and promoting it within that local congregation how would that not be promoting it as a worship service? As Steve said, why can't they rent the ballroom of a local hotel or convention center?
Dear Gene:
Thank you for saying so well and so biblically the concerns surrounding these issues. I am very grateful and will be quoting you in future blogs.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Col. 3:16-17
Dear Jus:
Firstly, you might want to listen to a series that JMAC did on Titus 3:1-8--he is clearly against ECB in all its forms. John has been my dear friend for about 16 years and it has been a joy to be ministered to by him and to learn from him. (And by saying that, I am not affirming that John has read my articles or agrees with me on everything I have tried to write on this issue).
Secondly, you wrote: "As Mr. Steve Hays (who has apparently picked up on this thread)" Oh please... Aren't you the one who initially informed him about this discussion and then posted a comment on his blog with links to my blog; articles and comments about this discussion? If I am wrong, I'll stand corrected.
Thirdly, two follow ups:
(a.) You wrote: "Yes, _you say_ they are "purposely subverting the worship of God and the preaching of God's Word," but, of course, _it's not a worship service to begin with_, is it?"
I think this is part of the problem. Yes it is a worship service. I met with a member of Two Rivers today who confirmed that.
(b.) You also wrote: "You also characterize ECB as "a spiritual ministry or enterprise," but that's another false characterization. It's not a gospel ministry. It's not the mission of the church. It's something else, and that's all right, because _ECBer relationships are not the church_."
You're right, ECB is "something else." You just proved my case...thank you, I am indebted to you. And here I didn't think any good thing could come from someone who believes in Theonomy and Reconstructionism...
Grace and peace to you,
Steve
1 Peter 2:12-15
Dear jus:
You wrote: "It's not the mission of the church."
But that is precisely what evangelical leaders in this movement claim... That is their appeal to the church-at-large; that this is a "mission of the church" - that they're "on a mission from God" (a kind of "Blues Brothers" approach to "political, cultural, moral ministry" :-).
In addition, no one in ECB is affirming that this political. cultural, moral movement is benign spiritually. They would deny that... Again, that is part of the concern here. Their practice so far has been: ECB = "political remedies for moral maladies, propagated from church and evangelical leaders absent of the heralding of the gospel and preaching of God's Word."
I can honestly say, Jus, for you and others who are on the opposite side of the biblical fence on this issue, if these gatherings by ECBers were to biblically inform the body of Christ across our land on the following I would be affirming them and not challenging them:
1.) the role of government, Scripturally;
2.) the role of the church in a pagan society and to government, Scripturally;
3.) the role of the individual believer in a pagan society and to government, Scripturally;
4.) how we are to engage society and/or government when we disagree with its practices and moorings, Scripturally;
5.) what are the issues facing our culture that we should biblically address and why, Scripturally;
6.) how we can/should pray for our government officials in those matters, Scripturally;
7.) how do we bring the gospel into that arena so that we can fulfill the Lord's clear command for the church in the Great Commision, Scripturally;
8.) how does God sovereignty and our human responsibility as regenerated beings in Christ through the Holy Spirit practically unfold itself in this arena, Scripturally;
9.) and lastly, what kind of actions as citizens of this earth, upholding the laws of the land, but yet faithful first and foremost to the Lord and His Word can Christians engage themselves without comprosing their testimony or the standard of Scripture?
If their purposes for gathering were anything resembling the above I could be for them...
Listen to Peter's instruction to the dispersed and persecuted under Nero's ruthless reign: "13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
14or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
18Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God" (1 Peter 2:13-20).
This is how the Lord has designed that we are to live in our day and age as well. This brings Him glory... amen?
In His Sovereign Will, Plan and Pleasure,
Steve
Rom. 13:1-7
Jus, (boy you've sure got a lot of people responding to you on this one)
I am sorry that you fail to see the testimony of the scriptures in our great commission. I have briefly laid out a few my arguments in the post above, and your responses are so far from refuting them than I rest my case. Its seems like you are confused on what spiritual issues are, and what social order, protection, safety, and general kindness issues are. –And in your confusion you keep repeating yourself in hopes that a repetitious argument will somehow stick. Christ didn’t say or do anything in regards to this issue because He plainly said “My kingdom is not of this world” –‘If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting.’ Instead, you would prefer to follow the one example in the New Testament where this subject is clearly seen: the Pharisees. Good luck.
>>>>
Why can't Christians write letters, vote, and persuade others to vote _and_ preach the gospel for eternal change?
I never said otherwise. I was once a lobbyist in the NC General Assembly for a group that wanted to get some help for persons with terminal illnesses like AIDS and cancer; I regularly write letters to my senators, and I vote. I'm also involved in ministry in my local church. The question is "Where do you draw the line?"
Personally, I've not heard Dobson preach the gospel proper in a long time. I tire of tuning into D.James Kennedy and hearing all about America's decline, but very little in the way of biblical exposition from his own pulpit. Easter is about the only time of year when his ministry airs some pretty good apologetic material. I realize his church does a great deal...my problem lies with the inconsistency with his public television ministry and the local ministry of his church. Surely his folks aren't getting a lecture on American politics every week, but you wouldn't know it from his public ministry. His church pioneered Evangelism Explosion, so I honestly don't believe he's all politics and no gospel. My "beef" with him is that for folks that are that visible, that's often the only thing the public will ever know about these leaders.
There's nothing wrong with writing letter, etc...and nowhere, not one time have I ever condemned that practice. Please don't insert words that I did not write. If you notice, I went on to say that I don't have a problem with them organizing to do these things as long as they at least make the attempt to do certain things, and I'm all for the moral will of God being expressed in secular laws, and you can feel free to complain about unregenerate men acting unregenerately...as long as you and your movement are doing something about that problem to go along with the rest of what you are trying to achieve.
However, in the context of the BFM, it sets its own delimiters for means...and the one place where we the civil power being mentioned it explicitiy says the church should not resort to it to carry on its work. I'm merely following the natural reading of the BFM. More on this below.
I will concede that part of the problem with the BFM is that, in typical SBC fashion, it attempted to be a compromise document on several levels, so it's not terribly clear in some areas.
>>> it's up to you to prove that ECBers _have_ "compromised their loyalty to Christ and His truth".
Do you really want to go there?
Not all ECBers have compromised the gospel and I have not said they all have...but a sampling of their leaders is telling.
A. I remember when Dr. Falwell was literally charging President Clinton and Hillary with being involved with murder during a regular airing promoting some sort of tell all video during the Clinton era.
B. When James Dobson says things like this: DOBSON: Well, first of all, he [Mohler] did not make a vehement anti-Catholic statement. He's a Southern Baptist, for Pete's sake. You expect a Southern Baptist to say that he does not honor the pope in the same way the Catholics do. It's a different theology. Is that not right? That's not an attack on the Catholic Church." he has compromised the gospel.
James White says it well. "Excuse me? How can any rational person switch "false church/false gospel" into "You expect a Southern Baptist to say that he does not honor the pope in the same way the Catholics do"? Those are not even slightly equivalent statements. Honor the pope the same way Catholics do? No kidding! Can you imagine if someone dared to read the language of the WCF/LBCF regarding the Pope as the man of sin? Goodness, you'd probably be arrested. Let's be real clear here. Al Mohler was right in 2000. Rome is a false church. Why? Because Christ's Church is subject to Christ's Word, and Rome is not. Because Christ's Church presents Christ's gospel, and Rome does not. And Rome's gospel cannot save because it tears the very heart out of the gospel and replaces it with a semi-Pelagian treadmill of sacramental forgiveness---or, in lots of places in the world today, has dumped that for an inclusivistic/universalistic mishmash of New Age philosophy and post-modernism that would make Pope Pius IX spit nails. In any case, the gospel of grace has been anathematized by Rome---and thrown under the bus by pseudo-evangelicals, but it remains the only power of God unto salvation."
C. It's no secret that we're signing onto these moralizing campaigns along with the Word of Faith teachers like Parsley. We're including men like T.D. Jakes, a modalist, one of the most influential and visible false teachers in this country. Recently one of the largest SBC churches in my area got together with the local radio station to raise money working with Phillips, Craig, and Dean and neither the radio station nor the leadership of this church, a church that I once served on as ministry staff responded to complaints from myself and many others from as far away as FL about using these men to do this knowing full well that they preach the gospel of Oneness Pentecostalism, not the gospel of Christ. John Hagee is on record as not believing we should evangelize Jews.
What ECB leaders have taken a stand against these men? Al Mohler is about the only one. I'm not nearly as hard on Al as Steve has been. Al was the Editor of a Baptist Newspaper before coming to SBTS, so I expect him to be vocal regarding a plethora of issues. For that reason, I'm willing to cut him some slack. I honestly haven't heard Richard Land address these issues in a long time. I expect him to be very vocal too, since that's his job...but, as I said, I have to wonder, given his increasingly shrill tone if it's not a good idea to rotate folks out of his position on a more regular basis. That, of course, brings up another issue...the SBC employs Land and his agency for the purpose of doing these things for us. Why then are so many SBC churches also getting on the bandwagon? Are they not satisfied with the work of the denomination?
D. Rome, Sabelliius, and the Neo-Gnostics are enemies of the gospel, sir. Whose next, Benny Hinn? The Mormons? The Jehovah's Witnesses? The E in ECB is EVANGELICAL? Are Catholics, modalists, and neo-Gnostics evangelicals? I realize Steve coined the term ECB, but the irony is that the ECB movement, if it was to adopt the name for itself, would have to redefine the evangelion to use it!
E.. 2 John seems clear on this: 9Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
Seems to me if you let them in your pulpit, you're crossing that line.
Did Paul consort with the Ebionites and Elkeasites to spread the gospel? Did John ally himself with the Gnostics? Do you honestly think it is okay to stand in common cause with enemies of the gospel as long as you can agree on a political agenda? It's one thing to go the synagogue to preach the gospel, another to comport with the Sanhedrin. Then why are the ECB's allying with Rome and these others? The least they could do is exercise some discernment and not shoot the apologetic community in the foot in the process. Seems we're willing to consort with enemies of the gospel and Christ to further our political goals, raise money for our radio stations, or what have you. Isn't it ironic that we'll not have common cause with folks who are both political "enemies" and theological/spiritual "enemies," but we'll have common cause with folks that have declared themselves enemies of the gospel and irreformable.
F. How soon we forget the cries of the last decade to literally "Take over" local school boards.
G. The rubber really meets the road when these organizations will organize protests and rallys and intensely lobby state legislatures for such things as constitutional amendments forbidding gay marriage without the presence of an evangelical church in any gay neighborhoods and, when the ones are present they do a sum total of zero to reach out to homosexuals.
Case in point: Atlanta. It is no secret that FBC Atlanta has moved out of Midtown. This happened at the turn of the century. She was one of the only evangelical churches in Midtown, the largest "gay ghetto" in the SE, with the exclusion, perhaps of Wilton Manors, FL. All the other churches are liberal...I mean liberal, not neo-orthodox. There are two "African-American" churches in the area. I think they are evangelical, but I know for a fact that neither do any outreach to the gay community.
For at least five years now, there has been no working evangelical presence in that neighborhood that reaches out to these men and women, and there is one ministry in the metro area that visibly reaches out to homosexuals with the gospel, and it is located in Roswell. I know who leads it, and he has told me how difficult it is, because he's always under pressure and he's the only one really doing anything. He's in a large church, but the ministry is very small. Meanwhile the gay men in Atlanta are falling into methamphetamine addiction, the STD rates are rising, etc. Only God changes hearts, but it seems to me this mission field is wide open. Yet...no church planted, no help for his ministry.
A few years ago, at a Gay Pride march, a couple persons with AIDS needed a place to sit in the shade because they were exhausted. The parade was on a Sunday, and FBC was letting out. Two men asked the PWA's to please get off the grounds. The church across the street, a liberal Methodist congregation, went and got them up and gave them water. This event is still in the memory of the gay community in Atlanta. It's these little things that make or break a testimony and send people into churches that don't preach the gospel, to the peril of their souls.
All this is to say that these organizations can raise all this money and lobby soooo intensely, but they can't cooperate to plant a church or start more ministries to actively reach out these large pockets of gay men who are in desperate need? I know some of them personally. What's wrong with this picture? We'll lobby against gay marriage and write checks to these PAC's (and that's what they are PAC's), etc, but there is precious little awareness of these kinds of ministries and many of them are struggling to stay afloat. There is extensive development going on in that area and the condos, for example, are ripe for the planting of Bible studies where home missionaries can work to teach the gospel to these folks. God will give results if He has so decreed, but since when did we have to peer into His decretive will to plant churches and establish Bible studies and work the mission field?
I wrote my congressman and senators to support such an amendment, and I specifically voted my congressman into office this past election because of that person's support of such an amendment, but I also support these ministries on a regular basis. These ECB organizations have taken on a life of their own, where they devote all of their energies to politics and address the root issues in a tangential fashion. As I said, I have no problem with politcal activity, as long as these other things are being done too. I don't see that. I see us fighting to keep 5 ton monuments to the Ten Commandments on the grounds but not living the Ten Commandments daily. I see us lobbying against homosexual marriage but not planting churches or establishing Bible studies in gay neighborhoods that have no churches and need the gospel desperately. I see us pressing for 1 million baptisms as the sine qua non of church growth (what happened to a regenerate membership?) and filling our ranks with unregenerate members, not planting churches in areas that desperately need them. I see us asking PWA's to get off the grounds and essentially handing them to the liberal church that has no gospel , literally across the street, and not taking a clear stand for the content of the gospel and our very identity as Protestants in the name of political expediency by consorting with the declared enemies of the gospel.
>>>_No one_ is claiming that ECB is "pursuing the ends of the gospel of Christ". It's something different.
A. How do you know? If the movement isn't as nebulous as it claims, then we should be able to tell what it is and isn't. We should be able to get an answer to a request for an exegetical defense of their works. Since we can't, we really don't know. All we have is what we observe.
B. If it's not a gospel ministry, what is it? Is it part of the work of the church or not? The BFM says that the church should not resort to using the state to do its work. IMO, part of the problem with ECB ministries is the same problem as many para-church ministries: People gravitate to them as a substitute for the local church. When I know of situations like the one in Atlanta that have gone unmet for so long while intense political work has gone on, I have to wonder if somebody's priorities aren't a tad bit out of place.
C.Regarding the BFM it says "its work" and then ties this to the gospel of Christ." Where in that section or any does the BFM restrict the gospel of Christ to evangelism? Does the gospel of Christ not include the Lordship of Christ in every area of life? Is it not the gospel of the kingdom? Is it simply a spiritual gospel about spiritual forgiveness? That's a tidy dichotomy you have there.
The BFM states: The Kingdom of God includes both His general sovereignty over the universe and His particular kingship over men who willfully acknowledge Him as King....Means and methods used for the improvement of society and the establishment of righteousness among men can be truly and permanently helpful only when they are rooted in the regeneration of the individual by the saving grace of God in Jesus Christ...The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Are you seriously limiting "the work of the church" to the rubric of evangelism? I have no problem with laws that promote and establish Christian principles...my problem is with the means we're using. We're employing resources for x without doing y. When y is mentioned, its not put at the core.
There is nothing wrong with working with men in common cause...but not when it compromises truth, not when it usurps the worship services of the local church, not when it resorts to the civil powers to carry out its duty. What you don't hear is as telling as what you do hear from these folks. As Steve challenged you: ask for a statement for the exegetical foundation of these crusades and you can't get an answer.
>>>Nowhere in the Bible is ECB activity forbidden, but you expressly forbid it for Christians.
I did not "expressly forbid" it: I wrote:
"I admit that I would not have as much of a problem with these moralizing crusades if they would: provide a biblical justification for them, devote time in their public communication efforts and their written literature to the root issue, not associate with anybody and everybody, not usurp the declared meetings of local churches for these events...I'm all for the moral will of God being expressed in secular laws, and you can feel free to complain about unregenerate men acting unregenerately...as long as you and your movement are doing something about that problem to go along with the rest of what you are trying to achieve.
Where did I "forbid"Christians from ECB? Please do not put words into my mouth. My problem is the inconsistency within the movement, not its existence, and that, if you are seen to disagree with it or point out these glaring problems, folks jump on you for "laying down teachings of men," and "legalism." No, I'm just calling for some sanity in these proceedings.
Jus divinum wrote:
>It's not a gospel ministry.
And because our two views are antithetical in their exegesis of the text, there will never be an agreement on this issue. The above is flat wrong. *Any* activity of the collective church (official or otherwise) *is* de facto ministry. ECB has no exegetical claim to "common grace" in its cobelligerence precisely because the moment the church comes together is the moment in which the gospel is involved and ministry is *done*. The idea that ECB is a collection of individuals coming together as simply citizens is a mirage.
Jus Divinum wrote:
>"As Mr. Steve Hays
You'll have to excuse those of us who simply dismiss the theonomically inclined argument outright without feeling the slightest compunction to answer.
Jus Divinum wrote:
>Why must everything be done at once?
Because the gospel is inherent to everything that a Christian does in the marketplace of ideas. There is no equivalence to buying a car, or attending a sporting event, or mowing the grass AND engaging the marketplace of ideas. The moment a "philosophy" is involved is the moment "the gospel" becomes involved de facto (whether we admit it or not).
>_No one_ is claiming that ECB >is "pursuing the ends of the gospel of >Christ".
And that's precisely the problem. ECB has deluded itself into thinking it can involve itself in the philosophies of the world without involving the gospel or doing the ministry of the gospel. ECB is a violation of 2 Cor. 6 because its collective existence *is* ministry that involves the gospel.
Engaging the philosophies of the world is *never* a neutral activity for the Christian. Therefore, ECB can never claim its activity is legitimately in the realm of common grace.
Jus Divinum:
>BTW, I'm not a theonomist. >The "general equity" of God's law
Which, given everything else you've stated here, merely proves what some of us have been saying for some time... that there's little pragmatic difference between the "general equity" view of the confessions and "theonomy".
Dear Jonathan (Jus):
Per your quesiton:
Read the last year's worth of blogs and website articles by Dobson, Perkins, Land, Rogers, Mohler, and sometimes Colson, etc. (this will cover last July's Senate debate on a proposed Constitutional Ammendment on traditional marriage, over and above what DOMA did; to Judicial Filibusters, to present concerns). Then listen to the hundreds of online interviews, sermons and updates that I have this past year as well on their respective websites and you will have your evidence (do your homework brother).
The reason that I named this movement ECB (Evangelical Co-Belligerence) is because one leader after another, with Dr. Dobson leading the charge, was targeting millions of evangelicals through the local church to rally them on these issues. But you will quickly discover that most if not all in the forefront of this movement do not provide any biblical support for the church to "rise up and be counted" in the cultural wars as they prescribe (even at these nationally promoted events).
If I have overlooked any biblical presentation justifying ECB and their movement, by one of their leading voices, please direct me to the links or websites that do so that I may read their Scriptural conclusions and convictions. (To date, none exist that I have been able to find.) I want to honor the Lord by being accurate and bibical in all that I do for His glory. I have no problem recanting on any issue if someone can show me biblical evidence to the contrary.
But Jonathan, and I mean this to encourage you, I would hope that you would invest a considerable amount of time in researching these things biblically and through the various websites, etc. as well. For there are some tremendous men of God like R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, Phil Johnson (see Phil's blog today) and others who do not support this political movement within evangelicalism and the local church today either. Have you read any of the ECT documents? ECB is just a continuing page right out of their playbook.
Also, I have heard from literally hundreds of pastors of reformed and non-reformed churches from around the country who are equally as concerned; who also have not seen any biblical foundation for this latest movement within evangelicalims. They may not have "the microphone" as their counterparts do, but these are dear servants of the Lord whose voice should not be dismissed lightly.
BTW: I have spoken with F&F and the FRC recently and both of them told me that they don't have "any information that is biblically written to support their actions." Both affirmed to me "that rallying and engaging the local church is their target audience." And both voiced to me, "I wonder why we don't have any material like that... we should if the Bible is our final authority too... dont' you think?" I fully agreed.
BTW: Have you spoken to any of them lately?
Grace and peace,
Steve
PS - Are you a student at Cornerstone in G.R.?
PSS - For the record: I am a reformed baptist (Calvinistic and Baptistic, 1689 Confession); I am a conservative politically; I am not antinomian; and I am a biblicist. I believe in cultural engagement (partnering with other Christians and the local church; by the heralding of the gospel and the preaching of God's Word), but I do not support evangelical co-belligerence.
Dear Jus,
I like men like Dobson, Falwell and some of the other c-bee's as well; but it was hard for me to admit that something is way out of balance.My heart goes out to them because I know they are sincere in what they feel is right. Please consider(and I am serious, I don't mean this as a joke.) that when men of God take a strong stand against tinky-winky and Sponge Bob yet roll the red carpet out for the Pontiff...something is seriously wrong.
Have you ever studied early Christian history. For a quick synopsis I recomend "Trail of Blood" , you can find it on the web for free @Byran Station Baptist Church. It is interesting to note that Ana-Baptist(first named the people of the way, then Christians, then given the title of Re-Baptiser..Ana-Baptist: they did not believe in fighting in war or capital punishment. Now I am not saying that you have to adopt their beliefs, but look at how far we have come and are men like Falwell true Baptist by the true historical definition let alone clear teaching in scripture. These are just some things to think about and research. The only people around today that live as the true Baptists once did are Mennonite.
As for some Reformed Baptists and some Westminster faculty, I've read their critiques...they fail to realize their own position of general equity is implicit grounds for theonomy.
Hey Jus,
No, I would prefer not to interact with your arguments. First of all I do not have the time to respond to all of the stuff you threw out there, and second of all, others in this blog have already refuted your arguments enough to where I don’t have much to add.
It seems you just want to justify the fact that you are making enemies of lost people for no good reason, and you are causing the name of our God to be “blasphemed among the gentiles” (gentiles in this case being the lost), instead of honestly dealing with the ramifications of what this sort of action causes to the name of Christ.
(It is funny however that you start this conversation as a rebuttal to my comment about Jesus not leading any campaigns on Rome, and that the Roman government was not such that this could be done. But then you turn right around and try to use John the Baptist as your ‘scriptural reference’ for him standing up to Herod. Bottom line, the reference to JTB has no relevance to the topic at hand; therefore I did not mention it. You seem to be confused on what actual preaching of the gospel and calling people to repent truly is.)
I just want to deal with a root issue here. I pray that you would go back to Matthew 5. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” Do you see that the earth is not under our dominion, but that with meekness we will in the end it will be given to them? How can you keep this attitude of meekness though all of your political rallies, marching down the street, and speaking out so vehemently against the outward sins of lost people like homosexuals, pornographers and abortionists? “Blessed are the poor in spirit…blessed are those who mourn.” How can you with a straight face claim that you are portraying these godly attitudes to the watching world by all of the rallies and fuss? Please remember what the primary mark of true godliness is: humility. And as hard as it may be, we should never even have an appearance of anything opposite to this. Dissention should be avoided at all costs, as we should strive to "live peaceably with all men." I’m sorry to be this objective, but ECB and associates are miles away from this kind of portrayal…and that’s a fact.
You say: “Well, so far I have refused to call any of the people who disagree with me the equivalent of Pharisees. I will continue to do so.”
Please forgive me for coming across in this manner. I am not calling anyone a Pharisee. I only wish to point out that point out that from what you have argued, the only model in the NT that follows this type of action were the Pharisees. Remember how the Pharisees believed the Messiah would come to deliver them from the Romans? They thought that God’s kingdom was of this world, and that the Messiah was going to come on the throne and reclaim the kingdom! Instead, Jesus came humbly and on a donkey. They focused so much on the external, and the fact that they were under pagan rule, that they didnt even recognize God in the flesh when He came to them.
The greatest in the kingdom of heaven is the servant, the foot-washer, the humble. Where do you want your focus to be? Do you want to spend much time, money, and energy on outward morality? Or do you want to focus solely on being humble, being a servant, and demonstrating a godly, humbly attitude to all men?
SDG
Dear Jus:
I will respond one last time to you on this thread. However, feel free to email me at stevecamp@a1m.org if you would like to continue to dialogue on this important issue...I am here to serve the Lord.
A few brief comments:
1. I always go to the source of any issue I am addressing... I have sent many emails with all the ECBers i have addressed. I have always done this for twenty plus years. I will sit with anyone, anytime to discuss matters of faith. Al Mohler is a friend and I respect him deeply and his voice and witness for the gospel.
2. The link that you quoted from, from Dr. Land's organization isn't a biblical foundation for ECB (co-belligerence is different than political activism.) I agree with those five points Dr. Land outlined.
3. you said, "again, you've said more than once (I think) that the law doesn't apply to unbelievers. " I have never said this nor do I believe this. Where did yo get this from? I have written extensively on the law of God and am very burdened that it is absent from most gospel preaching.
As to my comment about ECBers being critical of "nonbelievers for living like nonbelievers" is not denying the law of God written on the hearts of all people. It is to say that some evangelical leaders in ECB are faultiing nonbelievers for not living better lives... and this absent of regeneration in Christ. Dr. Dobson for example has made a career of this hasn't he? And that is a shame. What nonbelievers need to hear is the message of the gospel of grace and that includes the preaching of the law of God to bring conviction upon their souls. But let's be honest here, how would we be living if we didn't know the Lord and have His restraining grace in our lives?
4. You wrote: "BTW, do you have positive "biblical support" for selling music CDs? I'm not trying to be annoying. I think some people should say you should do this for free. Since you're not a pastor (right?) you can't say that the church at large ought to pay you for your gospel ministry (a right Paul enumerates for gospel ministers)."
I think I see where the problem is now coming from. You really don't much about me, what I believe, who I interact with, etc. Get on my website and read the 107 THESES... I have called CCM music to reformation for many years and left the industry because of the secular ownership of all major CCM labels. I do not charge anything for my CD's. They are for whatever people can afford and if they can't afford anything, they may have it for free. I don't charge tickets to my concerts or demand hefty honorariums. I come to churches for love-offerings only. I don't believe in charging for the gospel or for worship or any kind of ministry. That has been my practice for over ten years now.
5. Lastly, you still don't understand the difference between ECB, political activism, cultural engagement and Little League.
Functioning in society Jus, as citizens means that we interact with non-believers at many different levels--including Little League, soccer, McDonald's movies, and so on... That is not the issue here.
But parnering with those of different faiths who deny sola fide (Romanism) in confronting the social ills of society absent of the gospel and the Word of God preached (not one event they have ever held has shared the gospel, prayed for the ones commiting the moral ills or preached the Word as to the churches biblically duty to impact culture) is prohbited biblically (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1)
Dr. Mohler's paper "ST/SA" is a prime case of this (and remember I love Al, respect him, support him at many fronts, have served with him, I have preached at Southern Seminary, led class seminars there, have ministered at conferences with him, etc. but I don't agree with him on this issue and I am far from being alone on this). No Scripture was mentioned in the entire paper (except one brief verse out of Acts on page 12 pertaining to C.S. Lewis). No systematic theology was presented to show how you can have "cultural co-belligerence without theological compromise." (his words). Calvin in the Institutes does not quote Scripture at every turn; but the entirety of his work, which I affirm, is deeply doctrinal and always theological. Al's paper was neither. And he was speaking in front of an ecumenical audience and missed a great opportunity to share the gospel; call them to repentance; and challenge them from the words of Scripture not his own cultural burdens.
I have been in those same scenarios; and by God's grace have not stuttered when it came to His gospel or preaching the Word. I have even been beat up after certain meetings and have been persecuted for the cause of Christ. I also know the temptation that exists for us all with pride, furthering our name, enjoying media opportunity, etc. If I ever get invited back to Larry King you have my word on this, I will lovingly share the gospel and the plumbline of Scripture with him when asked; but I will also lovingly call him to repentance on his show for how many times has he heard the gospel and has had many Christian leaders on, and yet, he is comfortable with them in doing so. Where is the offense of the cross? Not me or them offending him, but where is his offense to the cross?
I tell you why he welcomes them and is "at home" with them... he has never been confronted with his own sin, his lost state, his depravity, his alienation from a holy God, and no one has ever called that dear man to salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. I will make this commitment to you all, if I am ever invited back (I was asked to come on a few years ago, but the them of that show was cancelled at the last minute due to a pressing issue in Iraq) by God's grace, Larry will be given the call to repentance and to folllow Christ.
ECB is a dangerous unbiblical movement that well prove fatal for biblical Christianity in the long run. I am all for engaging the culture from a biblical worldview with other believers; I am for voting, making speeches, contacting your Congressmen, holding public forums to inform other believers of their civic duties; but I am not for the wholesale militant and threatening tones by turning the body of Christ into a PAC (a religious right) that certian evangelical leaders use as political muscle or capital in trying to force an agenda.
BTW, I know many congressmen and senators; my own brother-in-law was a Congressmen out of the state of Nebraska and my sister-in-law works extensively with Washington and foreign dignitaries today. Christians in government can make a valuable contribution to the laws of this nation and to its people. But moral rightness and real change, and they will tell you this, comes only through the gospel.
Al Mohler and others are not political commentators; elected officials or lobbyists. They are ministers of the gospel, preachers of God's Word, shepherds of God's people--my whole concern in all of this is that we need to encourage them to get on with their heavenly charged duty to "preach the Word in season and out season" and leave the lessor things of politics to those we have elected and to the "we the poeple."
I'll keep listening to Limbaugh, Hannity, Matthews, Noonan, Coulter, York, Thomas, etc. Why? They are better than Mohler, Colson, Dobson any day at political commentary and giving solid information. But Al especially is one of the greatest voices for the gospel we have in the world today--preach it man... just preach it!
I'm finished on this thread... let's move on. And again, any of you, including Jus may email me for futher dialogue. stevecamp@a1m.org
Grace and peace,
Steve
Apparently, John Piper has a fault. I'd also be interested to know if his thoughts about his own activity has changed in subsequent years (subsequent study).
2tal wrote: _John Piper mentions in "Brothers We Are Not Professionals" that he has been thrown in jail for fighting abortion._
I like and admire John very much. My question is what specific actions was he doing in "fighting abortion" that warranted jail? Was he part of an operation rescue sit in? Was he lawfully handing out Bibles, giving cold drinks and coffee to those entering the abortion clinics while sharing the gospel but someone filed a complaint against him? Did he unintentially offend a police officer who was trying to move the pro-life supports away from an abortion clinic's entrance? The circumstances would bear upon my response to you...
Some more information form anyone about this would be most helpful before I comment. Thank you all in advance.
Grace and peace,
Steve
1 Tim. 4:12-16
My somewhat lengthy response to Piper's defense of civil disobedience is given at my own blog (per the Rules of Engagement): http://breusswane.blogspot.com/
I'm not sure I agree that there is a one-to-one correlation between "rescue" of the weak and an abortion clinic "rescue". When we're exegeting these texts, among the first order of interpretation is to understand to *whom* is the directive directed. The pastor is not a "king". I'd have to study the contextual issue of Psalm 82 more before I sign off on Piper's forceful use of it regarding abortion.
jus divinum wrote:
>it seems that his _real_ disagreement >is with E*C*B, which is Christians >cooperating with _non-Christians_ to >bring about social goods...
This is somewhat correct, I think... although Rod Parsley's entrance into ECB muddies the waters on this point. Personally, I don't think there's distinction between Parsley and Donahue.
And then there's still the question of whether the dichotomy between the gospel and "social goods" is justified exegetically.
Steve,
My reading of the following quote coincided with the reading of your post and I thought it might be food for thought. Thanks for the good post(s).
soli Deo gloria,
Mark
“You see, beloved, by what hath been said, that it is the greatest duty and concernment of Christians to be mute and silent under the greatest afflictions, the saddest providences, and the sharpest trial that they meet with in this world. If this be so, then this truth looks sourly and wistly1 upon several sorts of persons. As,
1. First, This looks sourly and sadly upon murmurers, upon such as do nothing but mutter and murmur under he afflicting hand of God. This was Israel’s sin of old2, and this is England’s sin this day. Ah! what murmuring is there against God, what murmuring against instruments, and what murmuring against providences, is to be found amongst us! Some murmur at what they have lost, others murmur at what they fear they shall lose; some murmur that they are no higher, others murmur because they are so low; some murmur because such a party rules, and others mutter because themselves are not in the saddle; some murmur because their mercies are not so great others’ are; some murmur because their mercies are not so many as others’ are; some murmur because they are afflicted, and others murmur because such a and such are not afflicted as well as they.”
1. ‘Wistfully,’ earnestly
2. Exod. xvi. 7-9; Numb. xii. 14, xvii. 5, 10; Exod. xv. 24; Deut. i. 27; Ps. cvi. 25.
(Brooks, Thomas. A Mute Christian Under the Rod. Choteau, MT: Old Paths Gospel Press. p. 40.)
https://ifreemoviewebsite.org/
Watching movies either in theater/ on PC/ on Android devices gives great entertainment to movie lovers
Post a Comment