"Run to the Cross"

I've heard or read the phrase in the title of this post more times than I can remember. I've even heard it in songs. I have a question about it:

What does it mean?

The phrase "run to the cross" is not in the Bible. I looked. In order to answer the question, you have to give me an answer that indicates how this phrase means the same thing for everyone. You can't just tell me what YOU think it means. If it doesn't mean the same thing for everyone, then how can anyone admonish anyone else and expect that they will understand the admonition.

You see, I think we Christians too often use vague language like this and expect that everyone should know what we are talking about. But such is not the case. So can anyone tell me what this means?

Anyone?

Giving Sight

There’s a difference between making didactic arguments and influencing people’s attitudes.

Let’s say that many thoughtful blogs make didactic arguments. The articles I write do. They are intended to be instructive and provide interested individuals with the material to discuss things influentially later.

But influencing people’s attitudes requires making positive appeal to the sensibilities of the person or people you are talking to. An example of this happened yesterday. I had a discussion with a Christian steeped in that sort of theology that focuses on the miraculous as a benefit to the physical welfare of the believer.

Specifically, he brought up as a matter of discussion a devotion by Joseph Prince he had recently read. He said that a woman who was blind came to him for healing. He told her to close her eyes and tell him what she saw.

“Nothing,” she replied.

Then Joseph Prince told her to imagine herself with perfect vision and tell him what she saw. She then described a beautiful scene of green fields, etc. When she opened her eyes, she had perfect vision.

So my brother was amazed by the miraculous physical healing that we can have if we only have the right understanding of how to think about God.

Now, my didactic argument is based on the principle that our purpose is to glorify God. So thinking from the account we have here, let us assume that it is true that the woman was miraculously healed. God can certainly do it and he can use flawed and sinful people in the process. I don’t know if Joseph Prince is fabricating miraculous accounts for his own glory or not. Some, if not most or all, of faith healers are certainly fakes. But I’m not going to pontificate with skepticism for which I have no basis in knowledge.

Now, Christians who follow faith healers cognitively attribute such miracles to God. That’s not a bad thing. That’s what it means to give God the glory. God does good things that we want to use to tell others about God. The problem is that it’s a really low view of God. The gospel is so much greater and more glorious than mere physical miracles. The gospel is the sacrifice of His son to atone for our sins and when we are associated with Christ, then we get to suffer sacrificially in His service of the gospel to others as long as we are here on earth.

That’s the rub. It’s the suffering that most glorifies God because it is aligned with the gospel in the pattern of it. Physical miracles are temporary. How many people healed by faith healers are immune to death? None of them. Suffering betrays a spiritual truth that the sufferer knows that transcends death.

Worse, there is an implication in the Joseph Prince devotion, as is in the general school of “faith” that dwells on such things, that implies what I would consider a serious error. That error is that while it can be said that God did the miracle, he did it in response to some act of faith. So really, this teaching implicitly focuses on the ability of the miracle recipient to obtain the miracle by generating the right kind of faith. If someone gets a miracle because they have the right faith, then the miracle recipient is the one who is glorified. When things are good, we don’t need God. When things are not good, then the Bible is a self-help book and God is the manager of the great health-care/welfare system in the sky.

The thing is, I might write this here, but when I have a real person in front of me that I can talk to and work with, my conversation looks vastly different.

In this case, I told my Christian brother about a blind man I know. He was a successful businessman up until a few years ago when he was struck blind. He went into a period of despair when that happened until he realized that God could work through him despite his blindness. He now writes a weekly article where he encourages Christians around the world and has participated in street evangelism efforts.

I didn’t add to it any commentary. I didn’t need to. But I could tell by the look in his eyes that his understanding of how God works through our weaknesses was improved. Blindness in this case wasn’t something to be healed of. Blindness was something that yielded a greater spiritual vision. Ultimately, God was glorified by inflicting temporary weakness on his creation because a greater and enduring strength was to be seen by it.

The Truth About the Same-Sex Marriage Agenda

Lest any think that the homosexual agenda is honorable and honest:

Russian-American journalist, Masha Ghessen, said the following last month at the Sydney Writers Festival:

"...fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."

At least she's being honest in this case about the Same-Sex Marriage Agenda. She says in this same speech that she is uncomfortable with lying. Why? If lying is wrong, then don't do it. But if it is wrong, then you have to understand that those against whom you fight have a moral foundation that for the same time holds both lying and homosexual activity to be sinful. And what moral foundation do they have?

HT: Stand to Reason

Calling All Pastors

I’ve heard time and time again about the special call to be a pastor. Different denominations or churches have their checklists to determine if someone has that special calling. Almost all agree that someone needs to feel the call such that one cannot help but to preach the gospel.

To be honest, it bothers me. The reason is because I don’t see that pattern in the Bible as something normative where something else is taught in scripture as normative. That, and I’ve seen too many pastors who I’m sure met the items on the checklist and felt that great call to be a pastor who had no business in a pulpit.

Disclaimer: this isn’t intended as an in-depth look at all the passages in the Bible related to this, but more of a summary of a few items I’ve noticed with a reference to the teaching of the Bible in general. I can do specifics, but I’ll spend all my time typing up every little thing and lose the few people who read this in the first few chapters.

First of all, when the Bible talks about a “calling”, it always refers to salvation. So any calling applies to all Christians. The calling to be a pastor is no more special or pertinent than it is to all Christians to fulfill their purpose in the Kingdom of God. The pattern of the Roman Catholic Church was that priests and other clergy were held in high regard as ministers as opposed to the masses of Christians who were not called into ministry. To a large degree, this mindset has carried into the Protestant churches despite the principles of the Reformation to the contrary.

As much as men fit for being pastors are encouraged to follow that calling, all Christians must be taught that each of us have a ministry that requires no less of a commitment to fulfill. Seminaries have typically been set up as Pastor-making schools, but there needs to be ministerial education for all Christians.

Second of all, Paul talks about his great desire to preach the gospel. I may be wrong, but I think many people look at this as normative for pastors (but not for anyone else). Paul nowhere indicates that this is normative for anyone in ministry other than himself. He nowhere mentions Timothy’s great desire to preach the gospel. He simply charged Timothy in his role as a pastor.

Jesus’ call of Peter was not according to his strongly feeling called. If Peter felt anything, it was an inclination to deny him when death was on the line. Jesus’ commission of Peter had more to do with Peter’s submission to the truth of the gospel than a special feeling.

For myself, I’ve never felt called to be a pastor. I am the pastor of my family and it’s my responsibility to see to their spiritual development. I take that mantle with more commitment than the professional pastor of a church. Churches have people leave and join all the time. How many pastors go looking for the people on the rolls who never attend? By I desperately don’t want my wife and children to consider themselves members of some other family. They happen to be my family and my charge.

But as for the pastor of a church, I’ve never considered my gifts to be strong in all the areas where today’s pastors are expected to excel. If God made it clear that I was the man who needed to assume the role of the pastor of a church, I expect he would give me all the tools I need to accomplish what he had for me to do there.

But that’s the point I’m getting at here. God gives pastors. It’s not on account of some emotional investment, but on a steadfast commitment to fulfill the role that God entrusts to us. And it’s the same for everyone – not just pastors.

The Nature of Fellowship in the Church

Mike Bergman wrote an article for SBCVoices where he asked the question, "How Does Your Church Train Up Men?" My answer was long with a few random factors, but it ended with a section on what Christian fellowship should look like, at least in part:

What should happen as a general pattern is that church membership should come with an understanding that you will have godly people who will disciple you and your family. They will be in your business. But as you grow and mature in the church, you will be asked to lend similar guidance to others according to your gifts.

One problem we have is that our culture is entirely too private. We think that church is where we go to be on our best behavior, not have our motives questioned. So we leave church and we get to relax and be our own little depraved selves. That is the antithesis of what church is supposed to be.

We should be uncomfortable away from our brothers and sisters in a world that is hostile to us. We should be comfortable with the people who are charged with being their brothers’ keepers because these people will help us glorify Christ with everything we are. We should rejoice in that. Christian men should long for the iron that sharpens their iron.

I Have Problems With the New Traditionalists

The blogosphere associated with the SBC is consumed with the recent “Statement of the Traditional Southern Baptist Understanding of God’s Plan of Salvation”. I’m not going to go in-depth about it because of this. There are a few observations I want to make. And I make the observations I make because I read supporters of this document who write that the document isn’t meant to be divisive or claim to speak for all Southern Baptists.

But that’s not what it says. And if supporters claim that the intent is other than what it says, then we learn something about their capacity to correctly parse what they read. This speaks to their ability to understand the Bible well.

The title:

1.    “…Traditional Southern Baptist…”

The presumption is that what will be presented is THE traditional understanding. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

In the Preamble:

2.    “Every generation of Southern Baptists has the duty to articulate the truths of its faith…

The presumption is that the truth of Southern Baptist faith will be articulated. Therefore, the insinuation is that Reformed theology is not true – or at least not truly Southern Baptist. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In the first statement

3.    “The precipitating issue for this statement is the rise of a movement called “New Calvinism” among Southern Baptists.”

If the precipitating issue is the rise of a movement, then how does the statement in my #2 observation above fit? Does every generation need to make a statement against “New Calvinism”? The preamble goes on to identify what the authors believe “New Calvinism” is. Without going into detail, there is nothing new about “New Calvinism”. It’s the same Reformed theology that has been present all along with the understanding that there are, and always have been, varieties of Calvinism. But even these varieties have been around. I’ll say more about this in a few points, I’m sure.

4.    “This movement is committed to advancing in the churches an exclusively Calvinistic understanding of salvation…”

The use of the word “exclusively” is false. Calvinists want to teach Calvinism. I’ve never had a class on Calvinism, and I’ve had a few, where the Calvinistic professor didn’t also positively present a typical opposing view. I’ve always had it presented also where the respectable theologians who hold the view were treated honorably. I’ve heard many lessons given by non-Calvinists where respectable Calvinist theologians were treated dishonorably. In my experience, therefore, it’s the non-Calvinists who desire to be exclusive – not the Calvinists.

5.    “…characterized by an aggressive insistence on the “Doctrines of Grace” (“TULIP”), and to the goal of making Calvinism the central Southern Baptist position on God’s plan of salvation.”

And indeed, the use of the term “aggressive” is a characterization that is shared by non-Calvinists, in my experience. The purpose by the authors of this statement is to vilify Calvinists while ignoring their own sin. It’s written that we should not think too highly of ourselves. The authors have demonstrated that they have disobeyed this admonition.

6.    “…Calvinists have been present in Southern Baptist life from its earliest days…”

This acknowledgment is important. Compare this to my observation #1. There’s still more about this to come.

7.    “Even the minority of Southern Baptists who have identified themselves as Calvinists generally modify its teachings in order to mitigate certain unacceptable conclusions (e.g., anti-missionism, hyper-Calvinism, double predestination, limited atonement, etc.).”

This is an utter lie. The conclusions stated have never been held by mainstream Calvinism, with one exception: Limited Atonement.

8.    “The very fact that there is a plurality of views on Calvinism designed to deal with these weaknesses (variously described as “3-point,” “4-point,” “moderate,” etc.) would seem to call for circumspection and humility with respect to the system and to those who disagree with it.”

The fact that the non-Calvinists want to distinguish themselves from Arminians by not assuming another moniker, “Traditional”, indicates that their position is not particularly monolithic. The fact that some people accept some aspects of Calvinism and some aspects of non-Calvinism indicate that there is probably some spectrum of belief we all fall on with regards to soteriology in the SBC. So it’s disingenuous to say that Calvinists are diverse because their position is weak and non-Calvinists are monolithic because our position is strong. It’s an attempt to mischaracterize everyone’s position in order to make the non-Calvinists appear to have the high road.

9.    “For the most part, Southern Baptists have been glad to relegate disagreements over Calvinism to secondary status along with other important but “non-essential” theological matters. The Southern Baptist majority has fellowshipped happily with its Calvinist brethren while kindly resisting Calvinism itself. And, to their credit, most Southern Baptist Calvinists have not demanded the adoption of their view as the standard. We would be fine if this consensus continued, but some New Calvinists seem to be pushing for a radical alteration of this long-standing arrangement.”

Which is a statement made by someone who demands the adoption of their view (non-Calvinistic) as the standard. It’s interesting that these New Calvinists have not been identified.

10.    ‘We propose that what most Southern Baptists believe about salvation can rightly be called “Traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology, which should be understood in distinction to “Calvinist” soteriology. Traditional Southern Baptist soteriology is articulated in a general way in the Baptist Faith and Message, “Article IV.”’


Read Article IV. It is consistent with 5-point Calvinism. What is proposed in this new “Traditional” statement goes far beyond Article IV. Who is pushing for the adoption of their position? Let’s look at the next statement:

11.    “While some earlier Baptist confessions were shaped by Calvinism, the clear trajectory of the BF&M since 1925 is away from Calvinism.”

And they call their position “Traditional”? If anything, by this admission they are the New Non-Calvinists.

12.    “Without ascribing to Calvinism, Southern Baptists have reached around the world with the Gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.”

Apparently, Southern Baptists have done it by ascribing to Calvinism as well, even more so in the past according to the statement I answered in #11.

13.    “Baptists have been well-served by a straightforward soteriology rooted in the fact that Christ is willing and able to save any and every sinner.”

That’s debatable. There has been some decline in baptisms since 1925 and some wonder if it’s not because the soteriology has drifted toward non-Calvinism.

14.    “While we are not insisting that every Southern Baptist affirm the soteriological statement below in order to have a place in the Southern Baptist family, we are asserting that the vast majority of Southern Baptists are not Calvinists and that they do not want Calvinism to become the standard view in Southern Baptist life. We believe it is time to move beyond Calvinism as a reference point for Baptist soteriology.”

So the admission is that Calvinism has been waning, but in recent years there has been a resurgence of Calvinism – hence the moniker “New Calvinism” – and it makes non-Calvinists worried that the balance will return to a more Calvinistic soteriology. So they want to get away from Calvinism altogether in order to make this less likely. This contradicts what they said in my #10: ‘“Traditional” Southern Baptist soteriology, which should be understood in distinction to “Calvinist” soteriology.’ But their goal, as I indicated in #9, is to redefine (or at least clarify) Baptist soteriology as non-Calvinistic. They are the ones pushing their agenda – not Calvinists.

That’s from the preamble. What follows in the document are the articles of Affirmation and Denial. It’s interesting that they want to specifically define themselves over and against Calvinism where they said they need to “move beyond Calvinism as a reference point”.

I won’t go into much of what they say in the articles for one exception. This exception has already been pointed out by others, but I believe it to be a dangerous statement that was made. It’s certainly a non-Calvinistic statement to make, but it’s also a non-Arminian statement to make. In fact it’s downright non-orthodox Christianity:

15.    “We deny that Adam’s sin… rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned.”

Now, to be fair, go to the document and read it in context. They do affirm that “because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin.” However adding that no one is guilty before they have personally sinned effectively guts the doctrine of Original Sin. It also denies the truth of such passages as Rom 5:12 and Eph 2:3.

Does Science Tell Us How To Interpret the Bible?

Here is a great impromptu panel debate on a TBN program, Praise the Lord. I'm not typically a watcher of TBN. It's Christianity "light" and open to all sorts of ministerial lunacy. This seems to be one instance where they accidentally let in a couple of people who knew the Bible and were willing to stick up for it.

Young Earther, Ken Ham, sticks it to Old Earther, Dr. Hugh Ross, with interaction by such names as Ray Comfort, Dr John Bloom, Sean McDowell, and Eric Hovind. It's worth watching and thinking about.


BTW, I'm a Young Earther. I believe it's possible for the rest of the heavenly bodies to be older than the earth and have been created after the earth and for the light to make it to earth. I think God could pull this off easily and that it could even happen without breaking the laws of physics. I don't think the current understanding of physics is particularly well advanced. We'll get there if physicists can set aside some of the unrelated philosophical presuppositions that they are using as models for proposing cosmological theories.

The debate boils down to the nature of revelation. For Ken Ham, The Bible is authoritative as the revelation of God. For Dr. Ross, natural revelation is equal to the Bible as authoritative. I agree with Ken Ham. Sola Scriptura.

ht: Answers in Genesis