Peter Jones, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On February 27, 2014 By Peter Jones In Theology, Worship Like

Just Preaching Jesus Doesn’t Produce Assurance

Imagine two scenarios: In the first, there is a pastor who preaches Jesus. His sermons focus around Christ and his work on the cross. They focus on what he did to save us and redeem us. This preacher looks for Jesus in every text, even the Old Testament ones. The primary application to every one of his sermons is “Trust in Christ” or some derivation of that particular point. He does not normally exhort men to be obedient. He thinks this will lead them to trust in themselves instead of Christ. He does not preach against gossip or lying. He sticks to what Jesus has done and assumes that this is enough.

The second man also preaches Jesus. But he believes preaching Christ does not mean preaching only what Jesus has done upon the cross, but how we should live because of what Jesus has done. He does not believe calling his flock to live obediently will necessarily lead to legalism. So he preaches the crucifixion as the only hope of mankind. But also preaches against gossip, lying, sexual immorality, pride, wrath, laziness and a host of other sins. He reminds his people that Christ has conquered these sins and that because they trust in him they are to be a new kind of people who are killing sin in their lives by the power of the Spirit.

Under which man’s preaching is a Christian more likely to gain assurance? Under which man’s preaching is a man who does not have true faith, most likely to recognize his need for evangelical repentance? We automatically assume the first. The man who points us to Jesus is the man most likely to provide assurance and the motivation for true repentance. However, I want to argue that this is not the case.

A Christian, who really wants to follow Christ, will be hounded by doubts under the first man’s preaching. He constantly be asking himself, “Do I really trust in Christ? Do I have true faith? Am I really saved? Yes, there is the inward testimony of the Spirit. But what if I don’t really have Him? Under the first man’s preaching there is no objective way to assess one’s salvation.

This is also why a man who is part of a church, but not truly converted can sit under the first man’s ministry for years and never know he is not a Christian. Why? He believes he is a Christian. He believes he trusts in Christ. And there is no objective way to prove otherwise. He can sit there week after week and say, “Yes, I really do trust in Christ.”

Under the second type of preaching both of these men go the opposite direction. The true believer, the one with evangelical faith, begins to put off sins like pride and lust and gossip. He messes up and repents and then gets back in the fight. But he is not fighting in his own strength. He is fighting with the Spirit. He knows he will not be perfect, but because objective ways of evaluating growth are put before him, he can see where he is at. He can look back and see the Spirit’s work in his life. This together with Christ’s work, the sacraments, the witness of his fellow believers, and the internal testimony of the Spirit give him assurance that he is saved.

What about the false believer, the one who thinks he belongs but really does not have true faith? How will he respond under the second man’s preaching? Let’s say the man is a liar. When the second preacher says, “Men whose lives are characterized by lying do not have true faith,” the line will be clearly drawn in the sand. This false convert has three choices:

He may go out and try to improve his life, but devoid of the Spirit he will fail.

He may realize he does not have true faith and cry out to Christ to forgive his sins and give him strength to overcome them.

Or he may realize he does not have true faith and leave the church.

But the one thing he cannot do is pretend like he can trust in Christ and yet keep lying. The second preacher has made it clear that these two things are incompatible.

Every time the shalls and shall nots are preached correctly they bring proper motivation to the Christian’s obedience and give him a chance for assurance. They also pull out of hiding hypocrites and put them in front of a mirror so they can see who they really are. Assurance does not come from simply pointing to the objective work of Jesus, but it also comes from seeing the subjective work of Jesus in our lives. The evangelical preacher puts both of these before his congregation.<>

On February 19, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture, Wisdom Like

Taking Lessons from Two Navy SEALs

I grew up reading books on the military. My father is a military history buff. The books I read focused on the experience of individuals as they went to war, like We Were Soldiers Once…and Young. However, over the years I stopped reading war memoirs. Recently I dipped back into war stories by reading two accounts of Navy SEALs who were involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. Paul and Christ often describe our life as one of battle. So it was not surprising that as I read those books I came across lessons that translate easily to the Christian life.

Book Reviews

The first book I read was Marcus Luttrell’s Lone Survivor. The initial part of the book is the account of Luttrell training to be a Navy SEAL. The second part is his account of a ill-fated recon mission where his three friends were killed. The book is excellent. There are things I disagree with, but it was well written. The reason for the training becomes clear in the second part of the book when they are attacked. His rescue by Afghan villagers was also fascinating. He showed the interplay between the Taliban and the local villagers. He explained a law in the villages that once you promised to protect a man the whole village is responsible for him. Thus it was a huge risk for the village to take Luttrell in. Overall it is a very good book to get insight into the training and mindset of America’s military elite.

The second book I read was American Sniper by Chris Kyle. I did not enjoy this one nearly as much. It suffered from a scattered narrative. Also there was a lot more machismo in this book. Kyle seemed to enjoy the bar fights he got into. Kyle is America’s top sniper. He has over 160 confirmed kills and probably killed over twice that many men. The most fascinating part of this book was his relationship with his wife. In the book he notes that over 90% of Navy Seals get divorced. It is not hard to see why. There are short sections of the book written by his wife that give insight into the difficulties of being married to Navy SEAL. Eventually, he refused to redeploy and stayed home. Kyle was killed in February 2013 by a fellow soldier at a shooting range in Texas.

Lessons Learned

Mental Toughness

Nothing stuck out to me when I was reading Marcus Luttrell’s book like his mental toughness. The Navy SEAL training, the firefight on the mountainside, the refusal to stop fighting despite three broken vertebrae, crawling across rocks and throwing himself down mountains all made me realize how easily I give up on things. As Americans, we are not very tough. We think we are. But most of us have not had to endure cold, hunger, deprivation, berating, and absolute physical exhaustion and then be asked to keep going. Yet toughness is an essential ingredient of the Christian life. The life of Paul, Peter, John, and Jesus all remind us that mental toughness, the ability to keep going and not give up, is basic to our spiritual walk. (See Hebrews 12:2) Do I give up too easily on hard work? Do I complain about the labor the Lord has given me to do? After reading this book I found myself whining less and working harder.

Loyalty to Each Other

These men have a deep loyalty to each other. In Luttrell’s book, when he was MIA for several days, fellow SEALs gathered at his Mom’s housed and stayed there all week until they found out about whether he was alive or dead. These men know what they went through to become SEALs. They know the hardships they endured and the lengths they would go through to save each other’s lives. This creates strong bonds of friendship and loyalty. This loyalty did not prevent disagreement. But it did usually prevent a breach of fellowship. I wish churches could display more of this mindset. We are bound, not by our training, but by our redemption. This unity in Christ should give us a great loyalty towards our fellow Christians, yet so often we tear each other to pieces instead of fighting the enemy (Galatians 5:15).

Accountability is Good, but the Fear of Man is Dangerous

Throughout both books the men and their superiors were constantly asking the question, “What will the media think if we do that?” Accountability like this can be good. Chris Kyle was very careful about who he shot. He had to have witnesses and the person had to be a threat. He had to give a report on each kill. Accountability like this can keep men from making foolish choices.

However, in Luttrell’s book you see the negative side of this. Luttrell and his men were on a recon mission when they came in contact with some goat herders. These men carried no guns, yet one of them had a long range radio. They were clearly Taliban, yet they posed no immediate threat. There was debate about whether or not they should kill them. In the end, they let them go, which I think most readers feel was the right decision. Luttrell indicates this decision was made in part because of the fear of what would happen if the media found out they killed unarmed men. But letting those men go cost the lives of three of his fellow soldiers on the ground and sixteen other military men who came and tried to rescue them in a helicopter. I think if he had to go back he would kill the goat herders thus saving the lives of numerous American soldiers.

As Christians, there is a need for us to be accountable to those around us. We need checks and balances, which members of our local church usually provide. People should be in our lives who know us and keep us from making bad decisions. However, there is also a need to have freedom to act in the way we see fit. . We need to give the benefit of the doubt to our brothers and sisters who make different decisions. In some circles there can be a fear of man that paralyzes us from making the right decision. That is not accountability. That is bondage.

Single Purpose

These men are good, very good at what they do. There is a singular focus on their task that is worthy of emulation. I am sure there is something about war that causes you to focus. The threat of death will strip away all other concerns. As a Christian, especially as a pastor (II Timothy 2:4), the way the SEALs focus on their job was convicting. We are too often like soldiers who forget we are in a war. We wander around spiritually fat and out of shape with our guns filled with sand and our minds on the pleasures of this world. As Christians, we need to have a laser beam focus on the task given to us by our Lord and we need to remember that we are at war.<>site копирайтинг для ов

On February 13, 2014 By Peter Jones In Scribblings Like

A Week Later: Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye

Here are some links that discuss the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye debate, which took place on February 4th. Here is a link to the actual debate.

Rick Phillips wrote a great piece at Reformation 21 about how the debate was primarily about assumptions. Both Phillips and the Mohler link below are some of the best.

Here is Al Mohler’s observations on the debate.

Both Ham and Nye’s mistakes are pointed out in this post.

Gary Demar explains how he would debate Bill Nye.

Here is an article that thinks Nye was foolish to debate Ham at all. He is not a friend of Ham, but he makes some interesting points about the nature of debates.

Here is an article that reflects the postmodern attitude that dogmatism of any kind is wrong. Thus this persons thinks both Nye and Ham were wrong. Not because they got their facts wrong, but because they believe in facts at all.

Ben Burlingham has a Ph. D and teaches chemistry. He follows up the debate with some suggestions on how the average person can witness to scientists.<>

On February 6, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture, Theology 7

How Ephesians Killed My Radical Christianity

Note: This has nothing to do with David Platt’s book Radical. I have never read it or to my knowledge read anything else he has written.

What is a Radical?

Definitions matter. So before proceeding I wanted to define the term “radical.” By “radical,” I mean that strain of Christian thinking that says living a normal Christian life, getting married, having children, raising them in Christ, loving your spouse, being faithful at your job, attending worship, reading your Bible, praying, loving the saints, and then dying is not enough. It is that strain of Christianity that says, “There must be something more that I must do to be a good Christian.” The radical thinks and preaches that, “Good Christians do amazing things for Jesus.” This type of thinking is found in all branches of Christianity. There are mission weeks, revival meetings, monks who abandon all, elusive second blessings, pilgrimages to Rome, women who leave marriage and children far behind, men who leave jobs to enter the ministry, young men who believe that memorizing the Westminster Shorter Catechism is a means of grace, preachers who imply that Word and Sacraments are not enough, and conference speakers who demand that we pray more and more. The halls of faith echo with phrases like: Be radical. Give it all up for Jesus. Sacrifice everything.

I was raised to think like this and my guess is that many of you were as well. Our Christian life was driven by questions like , “Am I doing enough?” But over time I found that this pressure to do great things for God was not just burdensome, but it was unbiblical. The epiphany came as I studied Ephesians a few years back.

Radical Indeed

The first chapters of Ephesians are some of the most glorious chapters in all the New Testament. All Scripture is inspired by God, but maybe Ephesians is blessed with a double portion. Here are a few of the verses about our great salvation.

We are blessed with every spiritual blessing (1:3).
We are chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world (1:4).
We have redemption through his blood (1:7).
We have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (1:13).
We were dead. Now we are alive (2:1).
We have been raise up with Christ and seated with Him (2:6).
We were once strangers to the covenant, but now have been brought near (2:12-13).
We have access through Christ by the Spirit to the Father (2:18).

And on and on and on it goes. (See especially 3:17-21.) Paul gives us a grand picture of the great redemption we have in Christ and the great work our Lord did for us. Chapters 1-3 of Ephesians are Paul’s unfolding of this mystery (3:9) to the saints at Ephesus. In chapter 4, Paul begins to explain to the saints what this mean for their daily lives. Ephesians is neatly divided between what God has done for us in Christ (1-3) and how we are to respond (4-6). Or to use other terms it is divided between the indicative and imperative.

Not So Much

The first three chapters are radical. Coming back from the dead is radical. Being made clean is radical. Being united to the covenant, as a Gentile, is radical. But when we get to chapters 4-6 the radicalness disappears. After reading chapters 1-3 we would expect Paul to turn on the jets. We are Spirit-filled, covenant included, blood bought, once dead-now alive, Christians. We were made to do great things. If Paul were a modern preacher he would follow this up with a call to evangelize or do missions or go give all you have to the poor or change the world (or at least your community) or start a neighborhood Bible study. He would close Ephesians with a call to be radical.

But the real Paul disappoints us. There is nothing in these chapters about doing amazing things for Christ. There is nothing about missions or evangelism. There is nothing about changing the world or your community. There is no call to give away all you have. Paul does not encourage the men to examine themselves to see if they are called to the ministry. Women are not encouraged to leave all behind and be “fully devoted to Jesus.” There is no call to parents to make sure they raise “radical” children. So what does Paul tell us to do?

Live with one another in lowliness and patience (4:2).
Reject false doctrine and grow into maturity (4:13-15).
Put off the old man. (4:22)
Don’t lie. (4:25)
Get rid of sinful anger. (4:26-27)
Stop stealing and work hard so you can give to those who have need (4:28).
Watch your speech (4:29, 31, 5:4).
Be kind to one another (4:28).
Don’t be sexually immoral (5:3-7).
Avoid fellowship with darkness (5:11).
Speak to one another songs (5:19).
Give thanks (5:20).
Wives submit to husbands (5:22, 24).
Husbands love wives (5:250).
Children obey parents (6:1-3).
Fathers raise godly children (6:4).
Work hard for those over you (6:5-9).
Fight against the Devil and his minions (6:10-20)

Not very radical is it?

A Bad Kind of Radical

Paul is radical, but not in a way we like. He is radical about killing sin. He wants us to stop having fits of anger. He wants us to cut out our gossiping tongue. He wants us to be thankful in all circumstances. He wants us to pray. He wants us to get rid of greed. He wants us to make sure we keep our speech clean. All of this sounds pretty boring and hard. What sounds more exciting a speaker talking about reaching your community for Christ or one talking about taming your wayward tongue?

We don’t like Paul’s call to be radical because it is a lot easier to love the lost whom we haven’t seen than our wife who we see every day. We don’t like it because forgiveness is hard (4:32) and fornication is easy (5:3). We don’t like it because we would rather be known for doing something amazing than be obscure and keep the peace (4:3). We don’t like it because he says a lot about submission and nothing about evangelizing the ladies at Starbucks. In the end, those calls to be radical aren’t radical at all. They are just a distraction. The Christian life is not about going some place for Jesus or doing great things for him. It is being holy right where we are. It is loving our brothers and sisters in our churches. It is being faithful to our family obligations. It is working hard at our vocations. In a fallen world, if we do this, we are being radical enough.

<>разработать цена

On January 28, 2014 By Peter Jones In Culture, Family and Children Like

The Center

I am no poet nor am I the son of a poet. I have never studied poetry, in any substantive way, and I claim to know little-to -nothing about the different types of meters, styles, etc. Yet, I have impulsively promised to you with a poem on food this week, and it is delivery that I have attempted. I will say that I am good with food, so I assumed, perhaps foolishly, that I would be good if poetry and food were combined. Quickly, I learned that having the relative capacity to enjoy a good meal does not mean that you know how to express your thoughts about it in any effective or artful way. Yet, my vow to deliver has been given, and so, here is my ode to food. All of the food listed, excepting the collard greens, are the kinds of stuff my wife currently cooks. The collards are a link to my childhood in Mississippi where we would pick them from beside the woods and take them home where they would be lovingly prepared and eaten. It is my hope that, as you read on, you will get a feel for my own table and what kind of food shows up there.

The Center

Cabbage and carrots shredded in piles
Potatoes and eggs on the 4^th of July
Parmesan and croutons named for a tyrant
Lettuce and tomato heaped on a plate
With dressing poured like lava

To make us fat.

Angel rolls one per hand
Steaming wheat from the oven
Sourdough torn and dipped
A loaf from France sprinkled with garlic
Mounds of yellow heaped on top

To make us fat.

Collard greens rise from the South
Black-eyed peas sing in the mouth
Mashed spuds covered in cheese
Refried beans cooked in bacon grease
Each one baptized in salt

To make us fat.

Spinach lasagna with ricotta
Beef roast 8 hours in the pot
A rack to eat without a fork
Fennel and cream on flattened pork
Seconds added to each platter

To make us fat.

Olives planted around the sides
The vine laughing at the end
The king seated at the head
Merry making wine in the middle
Grace given from the Creator

To make us fat.

“My soul will be satisfied as with fat and rich food, and my mouth will praise you with joyful lips.” ~ Psalm 63:5

<>

On December 17, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture, Theology Like

Darkness and Hell at Christmastime

By Peter Jones

For some reason Christmas has become too angelic, all lights, Santa, glitter, and shining cherubs on gaudy Christmas cards. There is a sliver of truth to this, of course. When Christ came as a child the true light shineth. When Christ came he did bring gifts. But Christmas is also (maybe even mostly) about demons and Hell and darkness. It is about the darkness of eternal fire. It is about the worm that does not die. It is about the terrors of death. It is about the dragons that live in our own hearts. There is nothing wrong with rejoicing in the light, but if we forget the darkness the light loses its potency. It is easy at Christmas time to take the light for granted, to forget what Christ actually came to do. Christmas songs can be a great remedy for this memory lapse.

It may come as a surprise that many of the Advent and Christmas songs we sing mention this darkness and hell. I thought I would quote a few lines from these songs to give some perspective on what exactly Christ came to do.

O Come, O Come Emmanuel is one of the best carols to show who we were before Christ came. It views God’s people as in exile and bondage to Satan and in need of rescue. Verses 3 and 4 clearly bring this out.

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan’s tyranny
From depths of Hell Thy people save
And give them victory o’er the grave

O come, Thou Day-Spring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night
And death’s dark shadows put to flight.

Anytime you are tempted to believe that Christmas has nothing to do with evil, Hell, death, and Satan sing this song.

The fourth verse of the song Savior of the Nations, Come has these lines in it:

From the Father forth he came and returneth to the same
Captive leading death and hell, High the song of triumph swell.

The final verse of Good Christian Men Rejoice, says, “now ye need not fear the grave.”

Of course, Joy to the World, talks about Christ coming to make his blessings flow “far as the curse is found.”

Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence, says that Christ descends ‘from the realms of endless day, that the powers of hell may vanish.”

Lo, How a Rose E’re Blooming, states that Christ “dispels with glorious splendor/the darkness everywhere.”

Of the Father’s Love Begotten says in verse 3:

He is found in human fashion death and sorrow here to know
That the race of Adam’s children doomed by law to endless woe
May not henceforth die and perish In the
dreadful gulf below evermore and evermore.

I am sure there are some I have missed. In addition to these references to Hell and darkness, numerous Christmas songs speak specifically of Christ’s victory over sin, which means his victory over death and Hell.

And of course, the Scriptures speak to this as well. In Matthew Jesus’ birth is not follow by peace on earth, but by Herod killing the children and Joseph fleeing with his family to Egypt. The battle begins at the Incarnation. Herod knew this. Unfortunately, we often do not.

In Luke the power of Christ’s birth is sung about. Mary states that when God sent Christ he:

Showed strength with his arm
Scattered the proud
Put down the mighty
Filled the hungry
But sent the rich away empty

Christ’s entrance into the world was not warm and fuzzy. He came to crush the serpent and all those who align themselves with him.

Zacharias says that Christ came so:

We should be saved from our enemies
and from the hand of all who hate us..
That we will be delivered from the hand of our enemies.

Christmas is about a King who came to banish all the powers of darkness and Hell, not just a baby born in a manger. When the angel came to Mary and the angels sung to the shepherds the end of our enemies was already at hand. Christ came to destroy all our enemies. Don’t let Old Saint Nick and fat baby faced angels and “Santa Baby” cause you to forget about darkness, Hell, Satan, Herod, death, and sin during this Christmas. To forget these things is to forget why Christ came.

Cross posted at Singing and Slaying<>продвижение турфирмы

On December 5, 2013 By Peter Jones In Culture, Worship Like

The Disembodied Preacher: Why Streamed in Preaching is Bad

Many churches are moving to a multi-campus system where the main pastor’s sermon is streamed in to various campuses every week. Even those churches which cannot do this often wish they could. But I believe it is a serious and devastating pastoral error to assume that a man on a screen can shepherd a church. Streamed in preaching is detrimental to the church of God because it substitutes electronic images for a flesh and blood man thus severing that crucial geographical and physical connection a minister is to have with his people. We are called shepherds for a reason. I am not criticizing learning via video, though there are drawbacks to this as well. I am particularly criticizing preaching via video. Here are some of the problems with streaming the main pastor’s sermons instead of having an on-the-ground man doing the preaching every week in person.

First, the man who is streamed in has become a preacher, not a pastor. I understand that this can happen at any church. In fact, it probably happens at a lot of churches. The failure of men to shepherd their flocks is epidemic in the American church. We preach. But we do not shepherd. Our hands are not dirty. Our flock sees us once a week. But the “remotely connected” model makes a virtue out of it. Pastoring is impossible if you are one place and your congregation is in another. Of course, preaching is part of shepherding, (and in some Protestant circles takes center stage during the course of the Lord’s Service) but it is not the whole.

Second, streaming in a man’s sermon is a celebrity act. We do it, not because it is biblical, nor because it is logical. We do it because the pastor is famous. While being famous is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, why use the main pastor instead of one the elders who shepherd the church Monday through Saturday? The answer is that people want to hear the main pastor. He is the celebrity preacher they come to see. By streaming him in we buy into a celebrity oriented cultural mindset that is detrimental to the life of the church.

Third, it makes preaching a disembodied act where the congregation’s response plays no part in the preaching of the word. When a man stands in the pulpit he should scan his people to see how they are responding. Preaching is a dialogue between the pastor and his sheep. The main pastor can do this at his church. But he cannot at the other campus churches. R.L. Dabney talked about understanding the temperature of your congregation when you get into the pulpit. Are they flat? Then you need to gradually bring them up to the right heat. Are they too excited and inattentive? Then you need to keep up the heat, but focus it. Charles Spurgeon said that if he felt the congregation’s interest waning he would throw in an illustration to get their attention back. A streamed in pastor cannot interact with the congregation, which is an essential part of preaching. This makes me wonder if streaming in a man is preaching in the classic sense of the term.

Fourth, this model assumes that what happened from Monday-Saturday in a church is irrelevant to Sunday morning preaching. The streamed in pastor cannot know what has happened in all the campus churches. Again, this is probably the case in a lot of churches. The pastor does not know what happened to the Hayes family this week or to Mr. Johnson. But that does not make it right. Shepherding means understanding what has happened in the life of the church during the week. He does not need to know every detail, but he should know generally what has gone on. What if one church had a tragic car wreck and another church had wedding on Saturday? What if an elder just resigned for sexual infidelity? What if the community just experienced a great tragedy or triumph? Are these things irrelevant in the preaching of the Gospel on Sunday morning? I am not saying that the sermon must be dictated by the events of the previous week. But those events give context to the preached Word. When preaching is streamed, the Word becomes decontextualized.

Fifth, it keeps good men out of the pulpit. Many churches that stream in their pastors devote a lot of time to training leaders. They do this through books, conferences, video, hands on training, etc. If this is so, why not put these men in the pulpits of these campus churches? Why does the main pastor have to be the one preaching? Is it beneficial in the long run for these campus churches to orbit around one man? I think this goes back to the second point. Streamed in preaching is a celebrity act.

Sixth, it makes watching the main pastor impossible. A congregation is supposed to observe their pastors. Paul appeals to his behavior among the members of the church. They watched him. (See Acts 20:18, I Thessalonians 1:5-6, II Thessalonians 3:7-9). There is also the general admonition that the people are to watch their leaders (See I Timothy 4:12, Hebrews 13:7, I Peter 5:3). A church body should be able to observe on a regular basis the attitude and actions of her leaders. Leaders should not just interact with staff and elders, but with the congregation. Some might object by saying these churches get to watch their other leaders, just not the main pastor. To which I reply, then the other leaders should be preaching to them, not the main pastor.

Seventh, it assumes that every church has the exact same preaching needs. Now in one sense every church does. We are all sinners saved by grace who need to be taught the whole counsel of God so that we might grow in holiness. But churches are not clones. Each congregation has a different personality, which comes from their history, the collection of people Christ has brought to the church, their leadership, and the community they live in. Is the congregation mainly 20-40 year olds? Is it ethnically diverse? Is it in the city, the country, or suburb? Is it an old church that has been around for many years or a church planted two years ago? Is it mainly new converts or transfer growth? Are most of the members factory workers or business men? Is it in a college town? The way these questions are answered will affect the way a book of the Bible is preached. Two pastors can both be preaching through Ephesians and yet apply the text differently because of their congregation’s needs. Of course, some points will be the same no matter what. But the application can and should vary depending upon the needs and personality of the congregation. This also applies to what a pastor should preach. One church might be struggling with legalism. Galatians should be put on the menu. One church might be struggling with members leaving the faith. Put Hebrews on the list. But in a “remotely connected” model the assumption is that all churches are struggling with the same things at the same time.

Here are few questions to consider:

What is the rationale behind multi-campus churches where a single man preaches to numerous congregations in different geographical locations? Why do we think this is necessary and good? Does the Bible give us a paradigm for doing ministry this way? How is this model not a capitulation to our celebrity culture?

Why do we not stream in the worship music? (I think I got this question from Carl Trueman.)

Is it possible to faithfully shepherd a local body over many years without knowing that body? Can a minister preach sermons that apply to the people in front of him if he does not know the people who are in front of him? Can a minister faithfully preach the word on Sunday if the only people he ever meets with Monday through Saturday are church staff and other elders?

What is the long term effect on churches when a pastor is streamed in? How does this practice affect the planting of other churches and the raising up of leadership? How does it affect the congregation’s view of the average preacher? Does this model feed certain sinful hungers in American culture that we would do better to avoid? How does the disconnect between the week to week shepherding and the Sunday morning preaching influence the congregation?

Can a minister be incarnational, in the best sense of the word, if he isn’t even in the same town as the church?<>klimentovo

On December 4, 2013 By Peter Jones In Scribblings, Theology Like

Peter Jones: Why Christ Cannot Be the Organizing Principle of Dogmatics

I am almost done with the first volume of Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics. It has been an amazing read. Below is a quote I like from early in the book. It shows Bavinck’s precision in thinking something through that at first blush seems right. Throughout this chapter he has been talking about the task of dogmatics (theological study) and how dogmatics should be organized. Here is Bavinck’s definition of dogmatics: Dogmatics can be defined as the truth of Scripture, absorbed and reproduced by the thinking consciousness of the Christian theologian. Here is the quote where Bavinck explains why Christ cannot be the way we organize our theology.

However, the christological organizing principle is subject to even more objections [than the Trinity as organizing principle]. However attractive it may seem at first sight, it is still ununsable. It often rests on the false assumption that rather than Scripture the person of Christ specifically is the foundation and epistemic source of dogmatics. However, we know of Christ only from and through the Scriptures. In addition, though Christ is quite certainly the central focus and main content of Holy Scripture, precisely because he is the midpoint of Scripture, he cannot be its starting point. Christ presupposes the existence of God and humanity. He did not make his historical appearance immediately at the time of the promise [in Eden] but many centuries later. It is, moreover, undoubtedly true that Christ revealed the Father to us, but this revelation of God through the Son does not nullify the many and varied ways he spoke through the prophets. Not the New Testament alone, nor only the words of Jesus, but Scripture as a whole is a Word of God that comes to us through Christ.

What struck me about this quote is how many modern Christians do exactly what Bavinck says we should not do; separate Christ from the Scriptures or elevate the words of Jesus above the rest of the words of the Bible.<>

On November 22, 2013 By Peter Jones In Theology, Worship Like

Hughes Oliphant Old on Anabaptism

Yesterday I posted some quotes from Hughes Oliphant Old’s book, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century. Old’s book is one of the best I have read on the history of baptism during the sixteenth century among Reformed churches. One of the great feats of the book is to show how the Anabaptist threat shaped the way the Reformers thought about baptism. Old shows how initially there were certain ideas among the Reformers that were wrong. However, they did not realize their errors until they ran into the Anabaptists. Being confronted by the encrusted rituals of Rome on one side and the flaming revolution of Anabaptism on the other side forced the Reformers to dig deeper into the Scriptures. Old’s chapter on Anabaptism is an excellent resource. He explains the differences among the Anabaptists themselves and then draws some basic conclusions about their theology. What I think is most important is that Old shows how Anabaptism was not one limb on the Reformation tree, but was a different tree altogether. And while I know you cannot draw a straight line from Anabaptists to modern-day Baptistic thinking there are enough similarities that should give Baptists, compromised Presbyterians, and general evangelicals pause before they claim reformed soteriology, but reject reformed sacramentology.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from Old on the Anabaptists.

“At issue in this question of believers’ baptism was an attempt to found a new church for the spiritually elite.”

“What happened in the social revolution was for Muntzer an exact parallel to the crisis of the conversion experience. It is the same dramatic reversal whether on the objective plane of history or in the subjective experience of the soul. Premillenarianism [as understood by Muntzer] and Anabaptism are logical twins.”

Proto-Anabaptists in Zurich “wanted to move out and form a new church made up of those who were fully committed Christians.”

“One notices that it [baptism] is not a sign of what God will do in the life of the baptized, as Zwingli had understood it, but rather it is a sign of what the baptized has done already and will do in the future. It would appear that for Grebel baptism is not so much an act of God as an act of the one baptized.”

“For the circle of Conrad Grebel, as for Muntzer, believer’s baptism was the one key to the reform of the Church. If only those who gave evidence of a firm and mature faith were baptized, then the church would be free from impurities. Believer’s baptism would be the effective sword used to separate the true Christian from Christendom”

“The Anabaptists found it difficult to believe that Christendom was really Christian. As the Anabaptists saw it, there was only a very small number of real Christians in the world.”

For the Anabaptist, “the first responsibility of truly apostolic preaching was to bring people into the crisis experience.”

“For the Anabaptist, salvation was gained neither by the medieval sacramental system nor by faith, but rather by the conversion experience…baptism of children before they had this crisis experience would tend to prevent the development of the crisis experience.”

“The Anabaptists were, to be sure, not so much rationalists as they were voluntarists.”

The study of Hubmaier’s On the Christian Baptism of Believers “shows most clearly that the opposition to infant baptism arose primarily from an understanding of salvation radically different from that of classical Protestantism.”

“Several things should be apparent from even this brief study of these Anabaptist leaders. Anabaptism was not simply the ‘The Radical Reformation.’ Certainly it was not a radical reformation in the sense that it took the principles of the Protestant Reformation to their logical conclusions. It is far more a reaction against the Protestant Reformation. It is a very different approach to reformation than anything the classical Protestant Reformers had in mind. It was a taking of a different road than the Reformers, not simply going further along the same road.”

As I read Old’s account of Anabaptism one thought kept creeping into my mind: We are all Anabaptists. Even in Presbyterian circles, the themes of crisis conversion experiences for all including children, wanting a pure church full of pure Christians, rejection of anything like Christendom, and a voluntary approach to the Christian faith are dominant. The question Old’s book forces us to ask is “How Reformed are we really?” The answer would probably come as a surprise to a lot of us who believe that we walk in the footsteps of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox.<>оптимизация ов

On November 21, 2013 By Peter Jones In Theology, Worship Like

Hughes Oliphant Old on Baptism

The title of scholar in the church is not easily come by. It requires years and years of gathering information, digesting that information, and then dispensing it so God’s people can benefit from it . That is why Hughes Oliphant Old is such a treasure to the church, but especially the reformed church. He is a scholar of the highest caliber and has done his work in an area that for years was ignored by the church, liturgical worship. I do not know of any author who has written so many helpful works on reformed worship. He has written some very practical works, such as Leading in Prayer where he gives example after example of prayers he wrote for various parts of worship. He has written a popular, but learned book on reformed worship that traces the different facets of worship to their biblical origins and through their historical development. He has written a seven volume set on the history of the reading and preaching of God’s Word in worship. Finally, he has written numerous academic works on various aspects of worship, such as, The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century.

Whenever I read a book that influences the way I think and live I like to introduce people to it, like introducing them to a new friend. So without further delay I would like to introduce you to the last book I mentioned above. Very few books have clarified my thinking on an issue like this one. In The Shaping of the Baptismal Rite Hughes Old traces the reformers thinking on baptism by looking at how they changed the baptismal rites and liturgies from the Middle Ages, as well as how those rites and liturgies changed throughout the years of the Reformation itself, especially as the Reformers interacted with the Anabaptists. The book is a wonderful combination of history, theology, liturgy, and Bible. There are so many great quotes in the book. One of Old’s strengths is clearing the mud away from an issue and helping the reader see exactly what is at stake and why a certain practice developed the way it did. Today I would like to pull out a few quotes,which show how the Reformers viewed baptism. Tomorrow I will post some quotes from the Anabaptist perspective to show the contrast.

“The early Reformed theologians were all in agreement that even before the children of believers made a confession of faith, even before they were old enough to make a decision, the Holy Spirit was at work within them applying the benefits of redemption in Christ. As Oecolampadius puts it, ‘Christ washed us from our sins by his blood and in this grace our children also participate.'”

Old spends a lot of time on Oecolampadius who seems to have influenced the Reformers quite a bit. I had heard his name, but was not familiar with his theology or contribution to the Reformation until I read this book.

“At the very heart of the Protestant Reformation was the revival of Augustinian theology with its strong emphasis on the primacy of grace. The Reformers believed that God took the initiative for humankind’s salvation. In the light of such a strong doctrine of grace the baptism of infants was quite understandable. In fact, the baptism of infants demonstrated very powerfully that our salvation rests not on any knowledge or work or experience or decision of our own, but entirely on the grace of God.”

“Baptism is a divine action because of the divine institution of the sacrament, the divine promises behind the sacrament, and the divine empowering of the ministry.

“Another matter which should be equally clear from this study is that the position of the Reformers in regard to infant baptism was an integral part of their whole theology.”

“Covenant theology is in fact the sacramental theology of the Reformed Churches.”

The two quotes above make me wonder whether reformed soteriology can be maintained where there is a loss of reformed sacramentology? Can a reformed view of God’s grace and sovereignty in salvation be kept if there is a low or wrong view of the sacraments?

“The confession of the daily sins of the already baptized Christian, the forgiveness of these sins, growth in grace, the spiritual gifts of understanding and enlightenment, the daily increase in faith, hope, and love, and the sanctifying of the Christian life are understood as the fruit of baptism. While baptism stands at the beginning of the Christian life, its fruit is born throughout the whole of the Christian life. The earliest Reformed theologians saw in baptism a sign not of a one-time-only repentance and cleansing of sin, but rather as a sign of a continual cleansing of sin.

“The Reformers came to the conclusion that the central sacramental action [in baptism] was washing, not a dramatization of the death and resurrection of Jesus in and out of a grave of water. “

In the quote above, Old is explaining why some Reformers used immersion, but it never became the dominant mode of baptism.

“Reformed Churches should not in their liturgical practice give ground to a separation of the baptism with water and the baptism of the Spirit.

“The final, and perhaps the paramount, goal of this reshaping of the rite of baptism was the concern that this sacrament should be clearly a sacrament of grace.”

“The Reformers continued to baptize the children of Christians because the practice was consistent with the revelation of God’s grace in Jesus Christ.”

<> раскрутка ов спб