WHY I AM A CALVINIST..PART 2.......by Phil Johnson

Part II: Spurgeon: “Calvinism IS the Gospel”
There are, these days, quite a few self-styled Calvinists who disagree with my assessment of Arminianism and insist that Arminianism entails an absolute denial of certain fundamental gospel truths. Those wishing to make that argument will invariably quote a famous statement by Spurgeon, taken from the chapter in his autobiography titled “A Defence of Calvinism” in which Spurgeon said this:

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.
I absolutely agree with what Spurgeon says there, in the sense that he meant it. And the context of that statement explains clearly what he meant. He was pointing out that the principle at the heart of all gospel truth is the same principle that drives Calvinism: “Salvation is of the Lord.” Salvation is God’s work; it’s not something we do for ourselves. That’s the truth he was defending.
Spurgeon was not saying that we ought to use the five points of Calvinism the way Campus crusade people use the “Four Spiritual Laws.” He wasn’t saying that all you ever talk about is the doctrines of election and reprobation you are faithfully preaching the gospel and the whole counsel of God. Unfortunately, I think that’s what a lot of careless Calvinists think Spurgeon meant when he said “Calvinism is the gospel.”
But if you read Spurgeon’s whole article on Calvinism, he makes very clear what he meant. In fact at the beginning of that very same paragraph—as his preface to remarking that “Calvinism is the gospel”—he wrote this:
“Salvation is of the Lord.” [Jonah 2:9.] That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.”
Did Spurgeon believe Arminianism was in error? Absolutely. So do I.
Did he believe it was damnable error? Absolutely not, and he made that clear, too.
At the peak of the Downgrade Controversy, some of Spurgeon’s critics accused him of being driven by a doctrinaire Calvinist agenda. It’s not really Modernism that Spurgeon hates, they said. It’s anything that departs from his old fashioned Calvinism. This whole controversy is a furtive campaign against Arminianism. That’s what really has Spurgeon bugged. He thinks modern Christians aren’t Calvinistic enough.
Spurgeon replied in The Sword and the Trowel with a paragraph that said this:
Certain antagonists have tried to represent the Down Grade controversy as a revival of the old feud between Calvinists and Arminians. It is nothing of the kind. Many evangelical Arminians are as earnestly on our side as men can be. We do not conceal our own Calvinism in the least; but this conflict is for truths which are common to all believers.
In another place, he was even more explicit:
We care far more for the central evangelical truths than we do for Calvinism as a system; but we believe that Calvinism has in it a conservative force which helps to hold men to the vital truth, and therefore we are sorry to see any quitting it who have once accepted it.
So he had a bone to pick with people who once affirmed the doctrines of grace and had now abandoned Calvinism in favor of new ideas that smacked of Socinianism. But he regarded evangelical Arminians as his true brethren and fellow soldiers—as long as they affirmed the doctrine of justification by faith, the principle of sola fide, the absolute authority of Scripture, the penal aspect of Christ’s atonement, and other essential gospel truths.
Speaking of Arminians in particular, he said:
Those who hold the eternal verities of salvation, and yet do not see all that we believe and embrace, are by no means the objects of our opposition: our warfare is with men who are giving up the atoning sacrifice, denying the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and casting slurs upon justification by faith. The present struggle is not a debate upon the question of Calvinism or Arminianism, but of the truth of God versus the inventions of men. All who believe the gospel should unite against that “modern thought” which is its deadly enemy.
So Spurgeon did not regard Arminians as hell bound heretics. He regarded them as brethren. Did he think they were in error? Yes? Were they guilty of gross inconsistency in their own theology? He would have answered emphatically, yes. Was their main error significant? Spurgeon did not shrink from referring to it as “heresy”—meaning unorthodox doctrine, heterodoxy, serious error. But he was very careful to make clear that he did not regard Arminianism per se as damnable heresy or utter apostasy from essential Christianity. Virtually all mainstream Calvinists from the time of the Synod of Dort until now would agree with him on every count.
For example, Gordon Clark, one of the highest of high Calvinists, said this with regard to whether Arminians are authentic Christians or not:
An Arminian may be a truly regenerate Christian; in fact, if he is truly an Arminian and not a Pelagian who happens to belong to an Arminian church, he must be a saved man. But he is not usually, and cannot consistently be assured of his salvation. The places in which his creed differs from our Confession confuse the mind, dilute the Gospel, and impair its proclamation.”
Which is to say that Arminianism is inherently inconsistent. Arminians technically affirm the fundamental, essential truths of the gospel. Then they try to build a theology on top of that which is totally inconsistent with the solid foundation they have affirmed.
I agree with that assessment of Arminianism. It’s an attempt to reconcile the sovereignty of God with human responsibility—and the Arminian method of reconciling those two truths involves a view of human free will that is inherently inconsistent with certain gospel truths every Arminian actually affirms.

I AM AND YOU WILL SEE...............

Mark 14:60-62And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."


We can take Jesus at his word that he will come again in unmistakable power. This is what he was telling his judges when he added, "you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

When he returns, he will be the Judge who looks into men’s hearts, and yes, judges not by what he sees or hears, but by righteousness.

He will judge the hearts of men, and our hearts will be revealed for what they are according to our response to him. Do you know what those judges ought to have done when Jesus declared who he was? They ought to have fallen on their knees before him.

When the Day of Judgment comes they might protest that Jesus had not given enough evidence for himself, just as so many today make the same claim. But here already is the verdict of Scripture: Whoever believes in [Jesus] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.  

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil (John 3:18-19).

Injustice was rendered at Jesus’ trial, but true justice will be rendered when he returns in power as Judge.

IS HE THE LIGHT OF YOUR WORLD????? BY REV. SOSEDKIN

“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me . . . will have the light of life.” John 8:12

Alexei was in his early 30s when he lost his eyesight because of a rare illness. His wife, friends, and relatives soon left him. Only his loving mother stayed. Depressed, he spent his days listening to the radio.

That’s how he heard the good news of Jesus for the first time.
Alexei contacted us, and I had the privilege of visiting him several times and presenting him with a New Testament on tape. He told me that he enjoyed the Gospel of John the most. Why? Because John often contrasts light with darkness. Alexei could really relate to that contrast.
In today’s passage from the gospel of John, Jesus calls himself the light of the world. He truly is the light who fully reveals to us God’s love and the way of salvation. In his light we see ourselves for who we really are—sinners in need of a Savior. His light removes the darkness of sin from our lives and shows us the road ahead.

Alexei’s physical vision was impaired, but the Lord blessed him with keen spiritual sight. When he heard the call to believe, Alexei gave his life to Jesus. I still remember the words of his testimony: “I am blind, but I see the light of Christ. And for me that matters the most.” Have you seen the beautiful light of God’s salvation? Have you let this light shine into and transform your life?


PRAYER
Father, thank you for sending your bright light into our dark world. In Christ’s light we see not only our sinfulness but also your glorious salvation. Shine, Jesus, shine! Amen.

WHY I AM A CALVINIST..PART 1.......by Phil Johnson

. . and why every Christian is a Calvinist of sorts.

Part I: Is Arminianism damnable heresy?
I love the doctrines of grace and don’t shy away from the label “Calvinist.” I believe in the sovereignty of God. I’m convinced Scripture teaches that God is completely sovereign not only in salvation (effectually calling and granting faith to those whom He chooses); but also in every detail of the outworking of Providence. “Whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Romans 8:30). And He makes “all things work together for good to those who love God, [i.e.,] to those who are the called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). Quite simply, He “works all things according to the counsel of His will” (Ephesians 1:11).


That’s what people commonly mean when they speak of “Calvinism.” When I accept that label, I am not pledging allegiance to the man John Calvin. I am not affirming everything he taught, and I’m not condoning everything he did. I’m convinced Calvin was a godly man and one of the finest biblical expositors and theological minds ever, but he wasn’t always right. As a matter of fact, my own convictions are baptistic, so I am by no means one of Calvin’s devoted followers. In other words, when I accept the label “Calvinist,” it’s only for convenience’s sake. I’m not saying “I am of Calvin” in the Corinthian sense.
Furthermore, I’m not one of those who wears Calvinism like a big chip on his shoulder, daring people to fight with me about it. It’s true that I can get feisty about certain points of doctrine—especially when someone attacks a principle that goes to the heart of the gospel, like substitutionary atonement, or original sin, or justification by faith and the principle of imputed righteousness. When one of those principles is challenged, I’m ready to fight. (And I also don’t mind beating up on whatever happens to be the latest evangelical fad.)


But Calvinism isn’t one of those issues I get worked up and angry about. I’ll discuss it with you, but if you are spoiling for a fight about it, you are likely to find me hard to provoke. I spent too many years as an Arminian myself to pretend that the truth on these issues is easy and obvious.
Now, don’t get the wrong idea. I do think the truth of God’s sovereignty is clear and ultimately inescapable in Scripture. But it is a difficult truth to come to grips with, so I am sympathetic with those who struggle with it. I’m Calvinistic enough to believe that God has ordained (at least for the time being) that some of my brethren should hold Arminian opinions.


Over the years I have probably written at least twice as much material trying to tone down angry hyper Calvinists as I have arguing with Arminians. That’s not because I think hyper Calvinism is a more serious error than Arminianism. As a matter of fact, I would say the two errors are strikingly similar. But I don’t hear very many voices of caution being raised against the dangers of hyper Calvinism, and there are armies of Calvinists out there already challenging the Arminians, so I’ve tried to speak out as much as possible against the tendencies of the hypers.
That’s why I’m probably a whole lot less militant than you might expect when it comes to attacking the errors of Arminianism. Besides, I have gotten much further answering Arminian objections with patient teaching and dispassionate, reasonable, biblical instruction—instead of angry arguments and instant anathemas.
Why not take a more passive, lenient, brotherly, approach to all theological disagreements? Because I firmly believe there are some theological errors that do deserve a firm and decisive anathema. That’s Paul’s point in Galatians 1:8-9; and it’s the same point the apostle John makes in 2 John, verses 7-11. When someone is teaching an error that fatally corrupts the truth of the gospel, “let him be anathema.”


But let me be plain here: Simple Arminianism doesn’t fall in that category. It’s not fair to pin the label of rank heresy on Arminianism, the way some of my more zealous Calvinist brethren seem prone to do. I’m talking about historic, evangelical Arminianism, of the classic and Wesleyan varieties — Arminianism, not Pelagianism, or open theism, or whatever heresy Clark Pinnock has invented this week — but true evangelical Arminianism. Arminianism is certainly wrong; and I would argue that it’s inconsistent with itself. But in my judgment, standard, garden variety Arminianism is not so fatally wrong that we need to consign our Arminian brethren to the eternal flames or even automatically refuse them fellowship in our pastors’ fraternals.
If you think I’m beginning to sound like an apologist for Arminianism, I’m definitely not that. I do think Arminianism is a profound error. Its tendencies can be truly sinister, and when it is allowed to go to seed, it does lead people into rank heresy. But what I’m saying here is that mere Arminianism itself isn’t damnable heresy. It’s just grossly inconsistent with the core gospel doctrines that Arminians themselves believe and affirm.

But as long as I’m sounding like a defender of Arminianism, let me also say this: There are plenty of ignorant and inconsistent Calvinists out there, too. With the rise of the Internet it’s easier than ever for self taught lay people to engage in theological dialogue and debate through internet forums. I think that’s mostly good, and I encourage it. But the Internet makes it easy for like minded but ignorant people to clump together and endlessly reinforce one another’s ignorance. And I fear that happens a lot.

Hyper Calvinists seem especially susceptible to that tendency, and there are nests of them here and there—especially on the Internet. And more and more frequently these days I encounter people, who have been influenced by extremism on the Internet, touting hyper Calvinist ideas and insisting that if someone is an Arminian, that person is not really a Christian at all. They equate Arminianism with sheer works salvation. They suggest that Arminianism implicitly denies the atonement. Or they insist that the God worshiped by Arminians is a totally different God from the God of Scripture.

That’s really over-the-top rhetoric—totally unnecessary—and rooted in historical ignorance. A couple of years ago, when I started my weblog, I mentioned that tendency in the first entry I posted, which was titled “Quick and Dirty Calvinism.” At the end of that post, I said this: My advice to young Calvinists is to learn theology from the historic mainstream Calvinist authors, not from blogs and discussion forums on the Internet. Some of the forums may be helpful because they direct you to more important resources. But if you think of the Internet as a surrogate for seminary, you run a very high risk of becoming unbalanced.

Read mainstream Calvinist authors, however, and you’ll have trouble finding even one who regarded Arminianism per se as damnable heresy. There’s a reason for that: It’s because while Arminianism is bafflingly inconsistent, it is not necessarily damnably erroneous. Most Arminians themselves—and I’m still speaking here of the classic and Wesleyan varieties, not Pelagianism masquerading as Arminianism—most Arminians themselves emphatically affirm gospel truth that is actually rooted in Calvinistic presuppositions.

Life to Its Fullest

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life . . . to the full.” John 10:10

Yekaterina, age 55, lives in the Ukraine. She became a Christian five years ago. Her son is an unbeliever and a drug addict. In Yekaterina’s own words: “He doesn’t value his life. He can see that he is perishing, yet he doesn’t believe that there can be a different life with God.”

Of course, this description of a sad spiritual and physical predicament applies not only to Yekaterina’s son. Many people all over the world live with an empty heart, with no hope or sense of purpose. What can the gospel say to them?

In our reading for today Jesus talks about a radically different life. But he first warns us against the thief who steals, kills, and destroys—who is interested only in himself. Then Jesus tells us that he came to this earth for us. He gives up his own life in order to grant us the gift of life—life to its fullest!

This life is much richer and more amazing than anything this world can offer. Full life in Jesus is eternal, and yet it starts immediately. It’s simple, yet rich. Life in Christ is so different because at its foundation is God’s grace, love, and forgiveness.

How is your journey going today? Do you feel God’s purpose in your daily actions? Thanks to Christ, we can now enjoy life in God’s presence—life to its fullest.

ARE YOU LIVING LIFE TO ITS FULLEST FOR CHRIST????????

PRAYER
Father, we praise you for the full life you have given us in Jesus Christ. Because of his death we can live. Help us to tell others about his wonderful gift of purposeful life. Amen.

WHAT CHILDREN GIVE THEIR FATHER'S

Phil Ryken
Educator Allan Shedlin has recently conducted a series of 100 interviews documenting what fathers can learn from being fathers. According to Shedlin, being a dad

-- reminds fathers of what is really important, of what needs are fundamental;
-- exposes them to a new, deeper kind of love;
-- diminishes their self-absorption;
-- demonstrates the value of asking good questions;
-- helps them appreciate the responsibilities and obligations of power;
-- reminds them of the value of playfulness, imagination, enthusiasm, and wonder; and
-- makes them laugh.

THE RIGHT TO CALL

Matthew 26:53-54 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”


Jesus did not fulfill the expectations of a powerful Messiah. His miracles, notwithstanding, he seemed little more than an itinerant preacher from a lower class family.

He certainly did not seem powerful in front of his judges. The reason, of course, is that he came not to judge but to save, and he came to save through service and sacrifice. Jesus’ lack of power was not due to mistakes –

if only he had selected better followers with brains and courage; if only he had not rankled the establishment so much; if he had cashed in on his miracles at the opportune time, he could have been a contender!

No, Jesus knew exactly what he was doing all the time, which was to fulfill his destiny to be our Savior.

When Peter struck out with his sword back in Gethsemane, Jesus rebuked him and the disciples with the above response.

This is the man before whom legions of demons cringed begging for mercy from him (cf. Mark 5:1-13).

This is the man who ordered a raging storm to stop and it immediately obeyed (cf. Mark 4:35-41).

No, Jesus lacked neither power nor the wisdom to use his power. He hid his power to fulfill his mission.

PETER, PAUL, AND MURRAY? [Part 3]...... By Nathan Busenitz

Over the last two days, we’ve looked at the question: Are there still apostles in the church today? Our answer has been “no” for the following reasons: (1) the qualifications necessary for being an apostle, (2) the uniqueness of Paul’s apostleship, (3) the authority of the apostles and the close of the canon, and (4) the foundational nature of apostleship within church history. Today we will consider a fifth and final reason why we believe the apostolate has ceased.

5. The Historical Testimony of Those Following the Apostles
In our previous point, we contended that the apostles were given for the foundation stage of the church (Eph. 2:20), and that the early church recognized this foundation stage as a specific time-period that did not continue past the first century.
But it is important to go one step further, and note that the earliest church fathers saw the apostles as a unique group of men, distinct from all who would follow after them.
(A) Those who came after the apostles did not view themselves or their contemporaries as apostles.
According to their own self-testimony, those that followed the apostles were not apostles themselves, but were the “disciples of the apostles” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 11; Fragments of Papias, 5; cf. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 6; Ignatius, Against Heresies, 1.10), the elders and deacons of the churches.
Thus, Clement (late first century) in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, notes that:
The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.
Ignatius, for instance, purposely avoided equating himself with the apostles. Thus, he wrote, “I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 11; emphasis added).
(B) Those who followed the apostles viewed apostolic writings as both unique and authoritative.
Moreover, in keeping with our third point (from yesterday), it was “the doctrine of the apostles” (cf. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 13; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 1) that was to be guarded, taught, and heeded. Thus, the “memoirs of the apostles” were held as canonical and authoritative within the early church (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2.5; Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 10.9). Along these lines, Justin writes:
And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things (The First Apology of Justin, 67).
The doctrine and writing of the apostles was unique, having been written by the authoritative representatives of Christ Himself.
(C) Those who followed the apostles saw the apostolic age as a unique and unrepeated period of church history.
The fathers saw the “times of the apostles” as a distinct, non-repeateable period of church history (cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.36.54; Reply to Faustus, 32.13; On Baptism, 14.16; et al). Thus, Chrysostom wrote on the uniqueness of fellowship during the apostolic age:
I wish to give you an example of friendship. Friends, that is, friends according to Christ, surpass fathers and sons. For tell me not of friends of the present day, since this good thing also has past away with others. But consider, in the time of the Apostles, I speak not of the chief men, but of the believers themselves generally; “all,” he says, “were of one heart and soul. and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own… and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.” (Acts 4:32, 35.) There were then no such words as “mine” and “thine.” This is friendship, that a man should not consider his goods his own, but his neighbor’s, that his possessions belong to another; that he should be as careful of his friend’s soul, as of his own; and the friend likewise. (Homily on 1 Thess. 1:8-10; emphasis added)
Chrysostom looked back to the deep affection that characterized the apostolic era to provide a contrast to the relative lovelessness of the church in his day. In so doing, he underscores the fact that he understood the apostolic age to be long past. One additional passage might be cited in this regard:
I know that ye open wide your mouths and are amazed, at being to hear that it is in your power to have a greater gift than raising the dead, and giving eyes to the blind, doing the same things which were done in the time of the Apostles. And it seems to you past belief. What then is this gift? charity. (Homily on Heb. 1:6-8; emphasis added)
Many more examples from church history could be given. Eusebius’s whole history is based on the progression of church history from the “times of the apostles” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 8, introduction). Basil, in his work On the Spirit, points to previous leaders from church history (specifically Irenaeus) as those “who lived near the times of the Apostles” (29.72). Tertullian (whom we cited yesterday) spoke of events that occurred “after the times of the apostles” (The Five Books Against Marcion, 21).
Historical Conclusions
Consistently, the fathers (from the earliest times) mark the apostolic age (and the apostles themselves) as unique. Their writings were unique and authoritative. Those that followed them were not considered to be apostles. Nor were the times that followed seen as equivalent to the times of the apostles.

Thus we conclude, once again, with Grudem:
It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church – not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield – has taken to himself the title of “apostle” or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title “apostle” to themselves, the immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have. (Systematic Theology, 911)

A Final Note
Throughout these posts we have leaned heavily on the work of Wayne Grudem (specifically, his Systematic Theology). This has been intentional for two reasons: (1) he makes excellent, biblically-sound arguments (and we appreciate everything he writes, even if we don’t always agree with his conclusions); and (2) he is a well-known and respected continuationist.
It is significant, in our opinion, that (as a continuationist) he argues so convincingly for the cessation of the apostolic office and the uniqueness of the apostolic age – since this is the very premise upon which the cessationist paradigm is built.
While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices.

JARS OF CLAY

We have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God . . . . . 2 Cor. 4:7

When Marina returned from the hospital, she was excited because in her hospital room she had heard something amazing. In plain, heartfelt words another patient, Antonina, had told her about God’s grace and explained how to be spiritually healed by Christ’s wounds. Antonina invited Marina to visit her church when they were both out of the hospital.

Marina couldn’t wait for Sunday! In church her heart was Drawn to Jesus. Later in a letter she wrote, “When I entered the hospital, I was so depressed. But I learned about Jesus and was encouraged by his gospel. It’s all thanks to Antonina, who cared enough to talk to me.”

What made Antonina such an effective evangelist? I believe it was her willingness to share the treasure in her heart, the gospel. Paul writes about treasure hidden in jars of clay. In the Middle East it was customary to keep jewelry and gold coins in such jars. The containers looked modest, but inside were precious objects.

Similarly we might have a humble appearance. Our speech and biblical knowledge might be imperfect. But we are blessed by the precious good news of Jesus in our hearts. As we continue our journey of faith, let’s remember that the power is in the message, not the messenger! Let us generously share our testimony so that God’s grace might touch even more souls around us.

PRAYER
Our Father, despite all our weaknesses and imperfections, you give us a great calling. Help us to tell others about the hope we have in you. Use us for your glory, not ours. Amen.

PETER, PAUL, AND MURRAY? [Part 2]...... By Nathan Busenitz

Are there still apostles in the church today? Yesterday, we answered this question in the negative, and began giving the reasons for our conclusion. These reasons included (1) the qualifications necessary for being an apostle, and (2) the uniqueness of Paul’s apostleship. Today we will consider two more reasons why we believe the apostolate has ceased.

3. Apostolic Authority and the Closing of the Canon

It is our belief that, if we hold to a closed canon, we must also hold to the cessation of the apostolic office.

We turn again to Dr. Grudem for an explanation of the close connection between the apostles and the writing of Scripture:

The New Testament apostles had a unique kind of authority in the early church: authority to speak and write words which were “words of God” in an absolute sense. To disbelieve or disobey them was to disbelieve or disobey God. The apostles, therefore, had the authority to write words which became words of Scripture. This fact in itself should suggest to us that there was something unique about the office of apostle, and that we would not expect it to continue today, for no one today can add words to the Bible and have them be counted as God’s very words or as part of Scripture. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 905–906)

Hebrews 1:1–2 indicates that what God first revealed through the Old Testament, He later and more fully revealed through His Son. The New Testament, then, is Christ’s revelation to His church. It begins with His earthly ministry (in the four gospels), and continues through the epistles – letters that were written by His authorized representatives.

Thus, in John 14:26, Christ authorized His apostles to lead the church, promising them that the Helper would come and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had taught them. The instruction they gave the church, then, was really an extension of Jesus’ ministry, as enabled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 3:5–6; 2 Pet. 1:20–21). Those in the early church generally understood apostolic instruction as authoritative and as being on par with the OT Scriptures (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:9; 2 Pet. 3:16).

To cite from Grudem again, “In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the New Testament. Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolutely authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church” (Ibid., 911).

The doctrine of a closed canon is, therefore, largely predicated on the fact that the apostles were unique and are no longer here. After all, if there were still apostles in the church today, with the same authority as the New Testament apostles, how could we definitively claim that the canon is closed? It doesn’t seem that we could.

But since there are no longer apostles in the church today, and since new inscripurated revelation must be accompanied by apostolic authority and approval, it is not possible to have new inscripturated revelation today. The closing of the canon and the non-continuation of apostles are two concepts that necessarily go hand-in-hand.

4. The Foundational Role of the Apostles

Closely related to the above is the fact that the apostles were part of the foundation period of the church (Eph. 2:20). Since (following the construction metaphor) the foundation stage precedes the superstructure, it is appropriate to infer that the apostles were given to the church for its beginning stages. As Grudem writes, “God’s purpose in the history of redemption seems to have been to give apostles only at the beginning of the church age (see Eph. 2:20)” (Ibid., 911, n. 9).

Our interpretation of “foundation” (as a reference to past period within the church’s history) is strengthened by the evidence from the earliest church fathers. The foundation stage was something the fathers referred to in the past tense, indicating that they understood it as past.

Thus, Ignatius (c. 35–115) in his Epistle to the Magnesians, wrote (speaking in the past tense):

“The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people.” This was first fulfilled in Syria; for “the disciples were called Christians at Antioch,” when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in Against Heresies, echoes the past tense understanding that Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church (in 3.1.1) and later refers to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the church” (in 4.21.3).

Tertullian (c. 155–230), in The Five Books Against Marcion (chapter 21), notes the importance of holding to apostolic doctrine, even in a post-apostolic age:

No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. (Emphasis added)

Lactantius (c. 240–320), also, in The Divine Institutes (4.21) refers to a past time in which the foundations of the church were laid:

But the disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine Master doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He had endowed them with power and strength, by which the system of their new announcement might be founded and confirmed.

Other examples could also be added from the later Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Chrysostom, for instance, would be another such source (from his Homilies on Ephesians).

Our apologies for the extended survey of historical literature, but our point is simply this: The earliest church fathers, from just after the apostolic era, understood the work of the apostles to constitute a unique, “foundational” stage of the church. The fact that they reference this in the past tense, as something distinct from their own ministries, indicates that they understood that the apostolic age had passed, and thus the foundation stage was over.

(To be concluded tomorrow)

PETER, PAUL, AND MURRAY? [Part 1]...... By Nathan Busenitz

Forgive the cute title, but it underscores an important question in the cessation/continuation debate — namely: Are there still apostles in the church today? In other words, could someone today (perhaps a guy named “Murray”) be an apostle in the same vein as Peter or Paul?

At the outset, we should note that by “apostles” we do not simply mean “sent ones” in the general sense. Rather, we are speaking of those select individuals directly appointed and authorized by Jesus Christ to be His immediate representatives on earth. In this sense, we are speaking of “capital A” apostles – such as the Twelve and the apostle Paul.

It is these type of “apostles” that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2:20; 3:5; 4:11 and in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30. This is important since, especially in Ephesians 4 and in 1 Corinthians 12–14, Paul references apostleship within the context of the charismatic gifts. If “apostleship” has ceased, it gives us grounds to at least consider whether or not some of the other offices/gifts have ceased as well. If the apostles were unique, and the period in which they ministered was unique, then perhaps the gifts that characterized the apostolic age were also unique.

The question then is an important one, underscoring the basic principle of the cessationist paradigm – namely, the uniqueness of the apostolic age and the subsequent cessation of certain aspects of that age.

There are at least five reasons why I believe there are no longer any apostles in the church today (and in fact have not been since the death of the apostle John). We’ll unpack these reasons over the next several days.

1. The Qualifications Necessary for Apostleship

First, and perhaps most basically, the qualifications necessary for apostleship preclude contemporary Christians from filling the apostolic office.

In order to be an apostle, one had to meet at least three necessary qualifications: (1) an apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8); (2) an apostle had to be directly appointed by Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; 10:41; Gal. 1:1); and (3) an apostle had to be able to confirm his mission and message with miraculous signs (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4). We might also note that, in choosing Matthias as a replacement for Judas, the eleven also looked for someone who had accompanied Jesus throughout His entire earthly ministry (Acts 1:21–22; 10:39–41).

Based on these qualifications alone, many continuationists agree that there are no apostles in the church today. Thus, Wayne Grudem (a continuationist) notes in his Systematic Theology, “It seems that no apostles were appointed after Paul, and certainly, since no one today can meet the qualification of having seen the risen Christ with his own eyes, there are no apostles today” (p. 911).

2. The Uniqueness of Paul’s Apostleship

But what about the apostle Paul?

Some have contended that, in the same way that Paul was an apostle, there might still be apostles in the church today. But this ignores the uniqueness with which Paul viewed his own apostleship. Paul’s situation was not the norm, as he himself explains in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9. He saw himself as a one-of-a-kind anomaly, openly calling himself “the last” and “the least” of the apostles. To cite from Grudem again:

It seems quite certain that there were none appointed after Paul. When Paul lists the resurrection appearances of Christ, he emphasizes the unusual way in which Christ appeared to him, and connects that with the statement that this was the “last” appearance of all, and that he himself is indeed “the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 910).

He later adds:

Someone may object that Christ could appear to someone today and appoint that person as an apostle. But the foundational nature of the office of apostle (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14) and the fact that Paul views himself as the last one whom Christ appeared to and appointed as an apostle (“last of all, as to one untimely born,” 1 Cor. 15:8), indicate that this will not happen (Systematic Theology, 911, n. 9)

Because Paul’s apostleship was unique, it is not a pattern that we should expect to see replicated in the church today.

(To be continued tomorrow)

THE SCRIPTURES.........

Mark 14:49 But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.

Jesus could have gotten away when the band tried to arrest him in the garden. We know from the Gospel of John that the men literally fell back when Jesus first spoke to them, no doubt because of the authority that emanated from him. This is not the first time that the guards had tried to arrest Jesus. Another time when he was teaching in the temple courts, the religious leaders had sent them to arrest him. But they came back empty handed. When asked why, they replied: “No one ever spoke the way this man does” (John 7:46). Even now Jesus could have ordered them away.But the Scriptures must be fulfilled. With that statement Jesus closes his escape hatch. Jesus must fulfill what was spoken of him. Don’t misunderstand him, though. Jesus was not a man trapped by his destiny, but embolden by it. He was not a Frodo bemoaning that the cup of sacrifice had to be born by him. "The Scriptures must be fulfilled" was not a curse, but rather a motto that carried him on into the sufferings he must endure to be a ransom for man’s sins. The Scriptures that had given hope to generations after generations would be fulfilled in him. With that knowledge he could submit to this puny band of men who did not know what they were doing or with whom they were dealing.

Martin Luther Said........

I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth. Martin Luther

THE NEW......NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION By DR Phil Ryken

Five years ago the International Bible Society produced a revision of the New International Version, commonly known as the NIV. The distinctive feature of the new translation was its use of gender-neutral language. Although the Bible was only published in Britain, there were also plans to release it here in America. However, under a storm of protest from conservative critics, the International Bible Society was forced to change its plans.At the time, the Society published a statement that it had “abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version.” That explains why this spring’s release of Today’s New International Version, or TNIV, comes as a shock. The Society seems to have gone back on its promise. As its name suggests, and as its editors admit, the TNIV is in fact a revision of the NIV.Conservative Christians have been quick to attack the TNIV, partly out of a sense of betrayal. “Today’s New International Perversion,” screamed one headline. Unfortunately, as is typically the case, many people have made up their minds about the TNIV without actually studying it. The question is, How accurate is the new translation? Although I have not yet reached a settled opinion, my initial impression is that while in some respects the TNIV is an improvement, some of its changes make it less than fully reliable for the church.Curiously, although the main justification for the TNIV is its supposed “gender accuracy,” the “Word to the Reader” at the front of the Bible says little about this. It speaks vaguely about how “diverse and complex cultural forces continue to bring about subtle shifts in the meanings and/or connotations of even old, well-established words and phrases.” But the main thing that supporters of the TNIV talk about is its gender usage.Here it must be said that in some cases, the TNIV is an improvement. One good example is Romans 3:28. The NIV says, “We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (Rom. 3:28). Obviously, justification is not for men only, but for everyone who believes. So the TNIV is not wrong to say “a person is justified by faith” (Rom. 3:28; cf. Gal. 2:16).There are some problems with the TNIV, however. In an effort to get rid of words like “man” and “men,” “him” and “he,” the TNIV often changes masculine, third person, singular pronouns into plural, gender-neutral pronouns. For example, whereas in the NIV Jesus says “If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me” (Rev. 3:20b), the TNIV has this: “If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me” (Rev. 3:20b). This distorts the Bible’s emphasis on personal responsibility, or on God’s relationship with the individual Christian (see also John 6:50; Heb. 9:27).As a general rule, the TNIV also replaces the words “son” and “sons” with “children” or “people.” This is also a distortion, because it removes the biblical emphasis on the rights of sonship, which in biblical times included inheritance (e.g. Gal. 4:5). At times the word “brother” is replaced with words like “someone” or “person,” and the word “father” is changed to “parent.” For example, the TNIV translates Hebrews 12:7 like this: “Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children [not ‘sons’]. For what children are not disciplined by their parents [rather than ‘father’]?” (Heb. 12:7). By eliminating the original metaphor, this translation alters the meaning of the biblical text.Such changes unnecessarily accommodate biblical language to contemporary culture. There are many places where the Bible intends to use language in a gender-specific way, and in these places its intention should not be thwarted. Perhaps the most unfortunate example is Hebrews 2:6, where the TNIV asks, “What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?” People who are familiar with this verse will recognize that “the son of man” has disappeared. But what about people who don’t know the verse?Other changes are not gender-related, but deserve to be mentioned. The word “saints” has been replaced with phrases like “God’s people” (Rom. 8:27), which is true enough, but which loses the original emphasis on holiness, and also the connection with sanctification. If the word needed to be replaced—which is debatable—it might have been better to use “holy ones” as a substitute.The TNIV sometimes changes the word “Jews” to “Jewish leaders” (e.g. John 19:12; Acts 13:50). This change is motivated by concerns about anti-Semitism, but again this is unnecessary. Matthew and John were hardly anti-Semites! They said “Jews” rather than “Jewish leaders” because they wanted to show the corporate responsibility of their own people for the Messiah’s death, just as they wanted to show that their people could find salvation through his resurrection.Much of the recent outcry over the TNIV has been all too hysterical. However, it must also be said that by suddenly going back on its former agreement, the International Bible Society has done its part to arouse the opposition. In the long run, the important question is whether the new version is suitable for Christians who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. While recognizing that no translation is perfect, I cannot give the TNIV my endorsement. In fact, I have recently signed a public statement that says: “In light of troubling translation inaccuracies—primarily (but not exclusively) in relation to gender language—that introduce distortion to the meanings that were conveyed better by the original NIV, we cannot endorse the TNIV translation as sufficiently accurate to commend to the church.”I am especially concerned that people who use and trust the NIV will become confused. The TNIV is not the NIV, and has introduced some unfortunate changes. And as for the verses where the TNIV is an improvement, there is something you should know: many of the same improvements are already available in the English Standard Version (ESV). This is because the translators of the ESV were concerned to use gender-neutral language, with one important qualification: they would only do so where this could be done without losing significant aspects of the original meaning.

Here is a great quote!!!!!

“I looked for the church and found it in the world. I looked for the world and found it in the church.”

Andrew Bonar

JOHNATHAN EDWARD'S RELIGIOUS AFFECTIONS.......By Nathan Williams

http://www.ccel.org/e/edwards/affections/religious_affections.html
Note: This book has been reprinted and re- titled with the name FAITH BEYOND FEELINGS. By Jonathan Edwards. Introduction by Charles Colson and edited by James Houston.
Thia is a great read, I pray you all enjoy it, and are Blessed by it. Charles J. Paul



If you have never read Jonathan Edwards’s Religious Affections, you are truly missing out on a monumental Christian work. This treatise will not only challenge you in the way you think about your own salvation, but it will challenge you to think more deeply about everything in your life. In many ways, reading Edwards for the first time is like discovering a world which you knew very little about. His thoughts are profound and very much worth the time and effort to understand.

Edwards states his own purpose for writing Religious Affections in the preface to the book. He desires to discuss, “What are the distinguishing qualifications of those that are in favour with God, and entitled to his eternal rewards?” Or stated another way by Edwards himself, “What is the nature of true religion? And wherein lie the distinguishing notes of that virtue which is acceptable in the sight of God?” Edwards seeks to explain as only Edwards can what characteristics are truly signs of a genuine believer in Christ and what signs do not necessarily indicate saving faith.

There is a wealth of knowledge to be gained from Religious Affections. However, for this particular post I want to narrow in on the second section of the book. This portion is entitled, “Showing what are no certain signs that religious affections are truly gracious, or that they are not.” Edwards points to twelve signs that you cannot rely on to confirm the operation of grace in your heart. We’ll give a short synopsis of some of these signs to hopefully whet your appetite for more.
I. “It is no sign, one way or other, that religious affections are very great, or raised very high.”

His basic argument is that you cannot trust high emotional fervor as a sign of true conversion. Often times we view those with huge emotions as those who are simply putting on a show. Scripture very much puts true religion in the affections and many of the most revered believers in the Bible experienced very immense emotions concerning the things of God. Many Christians seem nervous about those who experience strong religious emotions, but Edwards points to multiple passages of Scripture that commend strong emotions. We are told in I Peter 1:8 to be “rejoicing with joy unspeakable, and full of glory.” Psalm 68:3 says, “But let the righteous be glad; let them exult before God; Yes, let them rejoice with gladness.” However, Edwards is quick to explain that ultimately you cannot trust strong emotions as evidence of grace. There are many instances in Scripture where strong religious fervor did not indicate salvation. The multitudes were strongly affected after the resurrection of Lazarus, but were not truly saved. Edwards summarizes by saying, “In a word, it is the concurring voice of all orthodox divines, that there may be religious affections raised to a very high degree, and yet nothing of true religion.”

II. “It is no sign that affections are truly gracious, or that they are not, that they cause those who have them, to be fluent, fervent, and abundant in talking of religious things.”

Sometimes when we see someone speaking much of religious things, we brand them a hypocrite and throw them into the same category as the Pharisees. On the other side of the coin, many people hear someone talk often of spiritual things and immediately assume that that person is obviously a true believer. There is a careful balance to be maintained when dealing with conversation concerning spiritual things. It may come from a heart that is in fact overflowing with grace and longs to speak of what the Savior has done, or it may come from a selfish heart desiring attention and approval.

III. “It is no evidence that religious affections are saving, or that they are otherwise, that there is an appearance of love in them.”

Many may argue that love is the chief of the Christian affections and cannot be duplicated by someone who is unregenerate. Edwards argues that love is the most excellent of all Christian virtues and that is exactly why Satan will attempt to counterfeit it. Men do not counterfeit that which is worthless, only that which is valuable. He does point out that love is a very difficult virtue to imitate, but that there will be many attempts at it. “It is evident by the Scripture, that there may be strong affections of this kind, without saving grace…”

IV. “It is no certain sign that affections have in them the nature of true religion, or that they have not, that they dispose persons to spend much time in religion, and to be zealously engaged in the external duties of worship.”

Scripture teaches that those who are true believers will spend much time in exercising religious duties. Acts 2:46-47 says, “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.” Edwards goes on to list many religious duties that Christians are eager to be engaged in from singing to gathering for worship to sharing the gospel with unbelievers. However, he is careful to note that an eagerness to be engaged in religious duties is often found in those who are unbelievers. The Pharisees are a perfect example of this. They were relentlessly engaged in religious duties, but were obvious hypocrites in the exercise of them. The bottom line is that according to Edwards we cannot trust external duties to indicate saving faith.

I believe Edwards’s Religious Affections provides a timely word for us in the 21st century. In a day when our churches are filled with those who profess to be saved, but show little real evidence of salvation, it is important for us to sit at the feet of Edwards and allow him to explain what are the genuine signs of saving faith and what are not. While this has been a far to short synopsis of a few of the things Edwards discusses, I trust it will prod you to pick up this old classic and discover the riches of Edwards. I’ll come back, perhaps next Saturday, with some of the signs Edwards believes do identify true saving faith in an individual.

Can You Take the Prosperity Gospel to the Bank? Rev. Richard D. Phillips

Tonight’s question has to do with the so-called Prosperity Gospel, as taught in the Word of Faith movement. “Is this sound teaching?” I am asked. Or, as I would like to put it, “Can we take it to the bank?” This teaching is spread by numerous televangelists, such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagen, Kenneth Copeland, and T. D. Jakes. The question I received asked about the aptly-named Creflo Dollar, who pastors a 20,000 member church in Atlanta, so I want to focus on his teaching.

According to his websites,1 Creflo Dollar believes in total life prosperity. This means that those who trust in God will “prosper economically, socially, emotionally, mentally, and physically.” It is, he says, God’s will for you to have financial prosperity. He argues this from the fact that we are called God’s heirs, and by citing passages like Psalm 35:27, which says that God, and I will cite the King James Version, “hath pleasure in the prosperity of his servant.” On this basis, Dollar exclaims, “Claim it NOW! You possess the blessing to seize and command wealth and riches to come to you.” Later, he writes, “Owning corporations is a part of your destiny as a believer,” citing as proof the large catches of fish Peter was able to make after he had joined up with Christ. According to Dollar believers also have power to heal themselves and others, to ensure their ability to bear healthy children, and even to raise the dead by their own command.

I want to respond by citing just a couple of passages from Scripture that did not make it onto Creflo Dollar’s website. The first that comes to my mind is Matthew 6:19-21, in which Jesus told his disciples:

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Dollar packages his teaching in a Believer’s Bill of Rights. Jesus, however, taught in strikingly different terms. In Luke 9:23-25 he said, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?”

Just these two citations not only debunk the Prosperity Gospel, but also show that it relies on a selective presentation of Bible texts. Viewers are constantly being told to take God’s Word at face value, while passages are presented without context or comparison to other Bible verses. A key principle of Bible interpretation is that Scripture interprets Scripture. If Jesus says you are not to devote yourself to storing up money on earth, then broad and general statements about God’s blessing cannot mean that he intends us to all enjoy earthly riches.

In addition to their selective use of Scripture it is important to know the Word of Faith teachers’ concept of faith. Without doubt, one of their key texts is Hebrews 11:1, which says, again in the King James, that “faith is the substance of things hoped for.” That is a verse to which they constantly refer. According to them, this means that by faith you have power to possess practically anything. Dollar writes, “Words are nothing but containers.” God speaks in order to create and so can we, causing things to take substance by the power of faith. This is where the expression, “Name it and claim it,” comes from, the view that faith is a divine power capable of shaping reality, a teaching that fits in quite well in with the dominant pantheistic and mystical attitude of our age.

But faith is not a power. By believing something, you do not possess power to make it happen. Believing might make you more confident, the way a baseball player is more likely to hit the ball if he believes he can. But faith does not grant to you the attributes that God possesses as Creator. Christian faith is powerful not because of itself but because of its object. Our faith is generally weak, but the Savior we grasp by faith is strong. The power we gain from him is for godliness, for self-sacrifice and service, for endurance in poverty and difficulties.

The third aspect of the Prosperity Gospel I want to point out is perhaps its most pernicious. According to teachers like Dollar, if you lack prosperity in any area of your life, if you are suffering in any way, if you are poor or sick, if you are unable to have children, if your child is sick or perhaps has died, the reason is that you just didn’t believe hard enough. This is their fool-proof answer to the evidence against their teaching. It is also a cruel and godless manipulation that is mainly used to draw money out of peoples’ wallets as a sign of their renewed commitment to faith. In one article, Dollar lists twelve things you must do with your money to show the kind of faith needed to make you rich. Giving to teachers like him is placed ahead of providing for family and children, paying bills, and giving to the poor.

I want to conclude by returning to the question I received. The writer seemed to realize the problems of the Prosperity Gospel. But he is afraid of “saying or viewing God's anointed teachers in the wrong way.” The problem with this is that false teachers generally promote themselves as “anointed.” But the Bible plainly tells us that we must be on guard against false teachers. Jesus said in Matthew 24:24 that “false Christs and false prophets will appear,” and even anticipates their deceptive use of purported miracles. In 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Paul describes the false teachers who will arise in the church as “lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive … treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God-having a form of godliness but denying its power.” I cannot think of a better description of Creflo Dollar, or Benny Hinn, or Kenneth Hagen, or T.D. Jakes. Paul concludes his description with advice we need to follow: “Have nothing to do with them.”

Given the certain threat of false teachers, it is the duty of every Christian to obtain a sound grasp of doctrine from the Bible so as not to be, as Paul puts it in Ephesians 4:14, “blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming.” Standing firm upon God’s Word, we are to shun and oppose false and anti-Christian teachers who rise up in the church, “speaking the truth in love” (v. 15) for the protection and edification of weaker brothers and sisters in Christ’s fold.

Harold Camping's False Doctrine of the Church By Dr Phil Ryken

For many years the worship services of Tenth Presbyterian Church have been broadcast over Family Radio, a national network of Christian radio stations. The services—which are produced by The Bible Study Hour—feature the teaching of Dr. James Montgomery Boice, as well as prayers, hymns, and Scripture readings from Tenth Church.

This mutually beneficial partnership in ministry has helped to spread the good news about Jesus Christ across America. Every week countless listeners are exposed to reverent worship and sound biblical instruction. Everywhere I go, I hear testimonies from people whose lives have been touched by The Bible Study Hour. Here at Tenth we praise God for the faithful men and women who have helped put our worship services on the air.

Family Radio has continued to broadcast sermons from Dr. James Boice. However, the network is no longer willing to air the weekly hour-long worship edition of The Bible Study Hour. This programming change is directly related to a significant shift in the theological views of the network’s founder, Harold Camping. Since Camping’s teaching influences many radio listeners, and since it has begun to affect Tenth’s wider ministry, it now seems necessary to examine his views according to Scripture.

In a recent essay entitled “The End of the External Church,” Harold Camping argues that the time has come for faithful Christians to leave the organized church. The essay begins as follows: “The Bible discloses the fact that the last great spiritual event that will occur in this world is that there will be a period of great tribulation which will be immediately followed by the return of Christ and the end of the world.” For biblical support, Camping turns to Matthew 24, where Jesus says, “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. . . . Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken” (Matt. 24:21, 29).

Harold Camping believes that the final tribulation has come. His evidence is sketchy, but it includes the current fascination with signs and wonders, including the charismatic practice of “being slain in the Spirit.” Camping views this phenomenon as the last Satanic sign foretold in Revelation 13. He also notes that in the present era we have unprecedented opportunities to spread the gospel around the world. Surely this means that we are getting close to the end of history, when the full number of the elect will be saved.

If it’s the end of the world, then what should Christians do? Harold Camping thinks we should leave the church. In his view, “Satan has occupied the churches and has become victorious over the saints.” The evangelical pulpit has become a “high place,” like the ones where people offered pagan sacrifices in the Old Testament, and thus it needs to be torn down.

Camping takes Matthew 24:15-16 as a command for Christians today: “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation . . . stand in the holy place . . . then . . . flee into the mountains.” In this verse Jesus was telling his disciples what to do when Jerusalem was destroyed. However, on Camping’s reading, this verse commands Christians to flee the church. Here is his conclusion: “No longer are you to be under the spiritual rulership of the church. . . . God is finished with the era of churches being used of God to evangelize. . . . We must remove ourself (sic) from the church. . . . [T]he church era has come to an end and the church no longer has any divine authority.”

What shall we say in response? First, that it is always a risky business to predict the end of the world. Harold Camping should know, because his own prediction that it would end in 1994 is now history. We know Jesus is coming soon, because the Bible tells us to expect his return at any moment. We also don’t know exactly when. Jesus said, “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matt. 24:36).

Even if we did know, this would be no time to panic. Still less would it be a time to give up on the church, which God has promised to endure until the very end (see Matt. 16:18). Rather, it is a time to live stable, godly lives, which always includes remaining committed to the local church. As Peter told the early Christians, “The day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming” (2 Pet. 3:10-12).

The current controversy also shows how important it is to know how to interpret the Bible. Harold Camping’s recent essay repeatedly makes elementary errors in hermeneutics, or biblical interpretation. In particular, it takes prophecies concerning Jerusalem that have already been fulfilled and mistakenly assumes that somehow they will be fulfilled again in the church.

We greet these developments with a sense of sadness and Christian concern. We fear that Family Radio is at risk of squandering its rich legacy of gospel ministry. We believe that Harold Camping’s teaching about the church is not only false, but also dangerous, because it encourages people to leave the community God has ordained for our growth in grace. It is our prayer that the network will reaffirm the importance of the visible church, which everywhere in the New Testament is viewed as essential to God’s plan for saving the world in Jesus Christ.

OUR CHAMPION

Isaiah 52:13-15
Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted. As many were astonished at you - his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance, and his form beyond that of the children of mankind - so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.

Far from being trapped in the chain of events leading to his death, Jesus resolutely set his course so that it led to the cross. He did so, not begrudging his Father, but because he desired to fulfill the will of his Father. Nor did he resent his people for whom he died, angry that he had to pay the price for our failures. It was for the joy set before him – the glory of the Father, his glory in obeying the Father, and the glory to which a depraved people would be raised – for such a joy he resolutely went forth into the greatest battle ever to be fought.

The story of the cross is the story of the Warrior King who delivered his people through great power. The one who appeared as Lamb was in truth the great Lion, the King, who had come to deliver his people from captivity and lead them into his eternal kingdom. The one who appeared to be a hapless victim was in truth fighting a mighty battle to win his people. Each step toward the cross, each hour upon it, was in reality another advance for our Champion in winning his victory.

In theology the sufferings of Christ are referred to as his humiliation. That is an accurate description, to be sure, when contrasted to his glory both before his incarnation and following his resurrection. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the “humiliation” of Jesus Christ was the most powerful and glorious work ever to be accomplished. It was not weakness that led Jesus to the cross; it was tremendous resolve and power on his part to willingly endure the afflictions of his own creatures.

Q&A WITH DR. RC. SPROUL

How can we as Christians ascertain when God's Word was applicable only to a certain culture and therefore may not be applicable to us today?


The real question here is, Is everything that is set forth in Scripture to be applied to all people of all time and of all cultures? I don’t know any biblical scholar who would argue that everything set forth in Scripture applies to all people at all times. Since Jesus sent out the seventy and he told them not to wear shoes, does that mean that evangelists today would be disobedient unless they preached in their bare feet? Obviously that is an example of something practiced in the first-century culture that has no real application in our culture today.

When we come to the matter of understanding and applying Scripture, we have two problems. First, there is understanding the historical context in which the Scripture was first given. That means we have to go back and try to get into the skins and into the minds and languages of the first-century people who wrote down the Scriptures. We have to study the ancient languages—Greek and Hebrew—so that we can, as best as we know how, reconstruct the original meaning and intent of the Word of God.

The second difficulty is that we live in the twentieth century, and words that we use every day are conditioned and shaped by how they are used in our here and now. There’s a sense in which I’m tethered to the twentieth century, yet the Bible speaks to me from the first century and before. How do I bridge that gap?

I also think we need to study church history so that we can see those principles and precepts that the church has understood as applying across the centuries and speaking to Christians of all ages. It helps to have a historical perspective. You’ve heard the cliché that those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. There is much to be learned through a serious study of the history of the world and the history of the Christian faith, and how other generations and other societies have understood the Word of God and its application to their life situation. By doing that, we’ll readily see elements of scriptural instruction that the church of all ages has understood not to be limited to the immediate hearers of the biblical message but to have principle application down through the ages.

We certainly don’t want to relativize or historicize an eternal truth of God. My rule of thumb: We are to study to try to discern a difference between principle and custom. But if after having studied we can’t discern, I would rather treat something that may be a first-century custom as an eternal principle than risk being guilty of taking an eternal principle of God and treating it as a first-century custom.