Friday, June 14, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Audio in which I get a little upset at the abortuary
Listen here. If I was out of line, I welcome feedback.
(I'd have video footage but my camera's battery died before this occurred.)
Later, as this woman was leaving, I fired up the iPod Touch:
(I'd have video footage but my camera's battery died before this occurred.)
Later, as this woman was leaving, I fired up the iPod Touch:
Friday, May 24, 2013
Norman Abortuary Outreach, 24 May 2013
See the video playlist here.
Don't miss my first open-air preach in Spanish. Unless you don't speak Spanish.
Don't miss my first open-air preach in Spanish. Unless you don't speak Spanish.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
The Holy Innocents' Foundation of Oklahoma is guilty
What do you know? Roman Catholics actually opposing abolition of human abortion.
Whodathunk.
Whodathunk.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Baweeted from TeamPyro
I just wanted to ask a question, but my comment was baweeted.
Judge for yourself whether my comment, which follows below, was "intentionally derailing", as DJP unfairly put it.
Methinks sometimes Frank and Dan need to re-evaluate how they deal with people. I'm unaware of any history I have forged of being an unrepentant troll at that blog.
Deleting my comment is a little harsh, ISTM. I don't see how it's irrelevant, either. I didn't question the veracity or inspiration of the Bible. I questioned DJP's interpretation, and how he used texts about the invisible church to refer to the local visible church without qualification or explanation of how he got from one to the other, especially since the point of his article was to draw a distinction between local visible churches and other gatherings of Christians (ie, other manifestations of the invisible church).
Anyway, if those are such basic questions that he doesn't want to deal with them, that's his prerogative since it's his blog. But since it was his mistake, I thought he might want to explain how he got from here to there.
Just doing my part to help peel back traditions and get to what Scripture teaches, so that we recognise traditions for what they are and can properly assess whether they're good or bad, in light of Scripture. But not everyone wants to do that in every area...
Judge for yourself whether my comment, which follows below, was "intentionally derailing", as DJP unfairly put it.
If I may, I'd like to call attention to the fact that the following verses cited in DJP's article are talking about the INVISIBLE church, not the local church.
Eph 4:4-5 and 7, 5:23 and 25, and Jn 8:31-32; 17:17, 21, 23
Eph 4:11 is about ministry among believers, not specifically the local church.
I'd like to see more exegesis showing that Eph 4:15-16 is referring to the local church rather than the invisible church, say, Christians in a particular locality who are joining together to do something.
2 Tim 4:1-6 is presumably about most anyone who would speak in God's name, regardless of location or context.
Matt 28:18-20 is indistinct, since the invisible church at that time was the visible church.
These are some things on which I've been ruminating. I'd be interested in y'alls' thoughts. Be gentle; sometimes a question is a real question.
Grace and peace,
Rhology
Methinks sometimes Frank and Dan need to re-evaluate how they deal with people. I'm unaware of any history I have forged of being an unrepentant troll at that blog.
Deleting my comment is a little harsh, ISTM. I don't see how it's irrelevant, either. I didn't question the veracity or inspiration of the Bible. I questioned DJP's interpretation, and how he used texts about the invisible church to refer to the local visible church without qualification or explanation of how he got from one to the other, especially since the point of his article was to draw a distinction between local visible churches and other gatherings of Christians (ie, other manifestations of the invisible church).
Anyway, if those are such basic questions that he doesn't want to deal with them, that's his prerogative since it's his blog. But since it was his mistake, I thought he might want to explain how he got from here to there.
Just doing my part to help peel back traditions and get to what Scripture teaches, so that we recognise traditions for what they are and can properly assess whether they're good or bad, in light of Scripture. But not everyone wants to do that in every area...
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Some questions for those who think they've arrived
There are other excellent collections of such things out there. These are some notions I thought of myself.
Romans 7 refers to Paul's life as a redeemed, regenerate man. Here are six arguments to that effect.
Why does Jesus teach His disciples to pray in the following way?
Luke 11:4 "And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us."
What sins, if those who are walking in the Spirit don't sin? Is this only a prayer that brand new believers are supposed to pray? Where does Jesus indicate anything of the kind?
Why did Paul say "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the foremost"?
Why "I am" and not "I was"?
Why does Paul refer to "my brothers" in 1 Cor 1:10-12, when he is rebuking their quarrelling?
If only people who stop sinning entirely reach Heaven, what is 1 Corinthians 3:9-15 about?
The Scripture mentions numerous times that God chastens His children. Does He chasten people when they don't sin? If chastening as sons occurs after sin, how is it that they are referred to as children at that time? Why doesn't it refer to apostates or sinners or de-regenerated people, who once belonged to God but have fallen into condemnation because they sinned?
What do Hebrews 12:4-13 mean?
Philippians 2:27 Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. 28 I am the more eager to send him, therefore, that you may rejoice at seeing him again, and that I may be less anxious. 29 So receive him in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men, 30 for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.
--The church lacked in its service to Paul. But he is still treating them like Christians.
--Paul is sending him so that he may be less anxious. Yet we are supposed to cast ALL our anxieties on Christ (Paul even says so later in the book - 4:6). Maybe Paul was unregenerate when he was writing the Epistle to the Philippians.
Why does Paul differentiate between the righteousness of his own that comes from the law and the righteousness that he has by faith (in Philipppians 3) if
1) it's so much better to be free from sin in this life through our own perfect obedience?
2) he had achieved perfect obedience to the law?
Why does he go on to say what he says in v12? Should we consider you more spiritually advanced than the Apostle Paul?
What do verses 13-16 mean? Why does he say that those who are mature should think that way? Wouldn't someone who has achieved perfection already be mature?
Philippians 3:17 - 17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.
Why should these BROTHERS join in imitating Paul? That's an invitation to keep growing to maturity. Isn't a perfect person already mature? Isn't a lack of maturity sinful? Why does he call them BROTHERS?
What do Philippians 4:2-3 mean?
Why is it that Paul is so certain that these women's names are in the book of life if
-election is false?
-they are in the middle of dissent?
What do Philippians 4:14-16 mean? Are those other churches that neglected to provide for the scanty needs of an apostle of the Lord entirely false churches, entirely populated by unregenerate people?
Is it not a sin to doubt? What does Jude 22 mean, in that case?
What does Acts 15:6-11 mean, especially the parts boldfaced here?
6The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8“And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
What is it about circumcision that is a yoke that the apostles said they weren't able to bear? Why are the commands of the NT more bearable than OT laws?
Why does Paul pray for the Colossians in Col 1:9-10 if they are NOT yet walking in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him, or bearing fruit in every good work?
As a matter of fact, why does Paul still treat the Corinthian church, Galatian church, and all thsee other churches as actual churches filled with actual Christians if they were sinfully allowing these divisions, sinful doctrines, and negligent behaviors among them? Why didn't he tell them all that they were headed to Hell?
The Bible says that we are to keep careful watch over ourselves and our doctrine. When you fail to realise that you have sinned, such as when you speed while driving, you have failed to do what you were supposed to do. Even if you repent immediately it doesn't matter because you keep telling me you are perfect and wallking in the Spirit.
You are supposed to have perfect joy at all times. How are you in perfect joy right now? And what will you do if you ever fall into depression?
Do you never waste even a nanosecond of time? Do you always use all of every second of every day for God's glory in all ways?
Do you always use all of your money and every single cent of your money in a way that brings the maximum amount of glory to God?
In what way is the New Covenant better than the Old Covenant? How are the new promises better than the old?
What does it mean that Christ has died for all sins once for all?
What does Hebrews 4:16 mean? Why do believers need to find mercy and grace on an ongoing basis?
What does Hebrews 5:1-3 mean?
Why doesn't the author of Hebrews call the recipients of the epistle to be re-regenerated because of the faults in them as listed in Hebrews 5:11-14?
What is a "dead work", as in Hebrews 6:1 and 9:14? Why is it set in opposition to faith?
Do you teach and confess that it is impossible to renew the one who falls away to repentance again, as in Hebrews 6:4-6? Or do you teach, contrary to that passage, that those who fall away into an unregenerate state can come back to God?
Why is the author of Hebrews convinced of better things concerning the recipients, since they love Him, even though they are guilty of these things he just mentioned? Is not failing to realise the full assurance of hope until the end a sin as well?
Why does the author of Hebrews use the example of a unilateral covenant in which Abraham had no part, no role to fulfill, in this discussion in Hebrews 6:13-20?
If the law made nothing perfect, as in Hebrews 7:19 and 10:1, why do you think we can be made perfect thru obedience to the law now?
Wasn't the epistle to the Hebrews written post-Jesus' coming? Why didn't he say anything about that at that point?
What does Hebrews 10:10 mean? Were all of the recipients on their deathbeds, such that he was 100% sure they had all persevered until the end already?
What does Hebrews 10:18 mean?
Did Abraham, who is said to have been justified by his faith in Genesis 15:6, become un-justified when he lied to Abimelech? When he took Hagar into his bed so as to jump-start the promise that he would have a son?
Was Lot un-justified when he offered the men of Sodom his daughters? If so, why is he called righteous in 2 Peter?
If Jeremiah and Job had died right after their complaints against God, would they have gone to Hell?
If Peter had been stabbed by a Roman soldier right after cutting off Malchus' ear, would he have gone to Hell?
Which between Barnabas and Paul reverted to an unregenerate state when they separated over the question of whether John Mark would accompany them on their mission?
Why didn't Jesus call Philip to repent and be re-regenerated when he lacked faith in John 14:8?
Why didn't Jesus call the disciples to repent and be re-regenerated after His resurrection but before His ascension, given that they had doubted His resurrection?
What does Romans 12:3 mean?
What do Galatians 2:16-17 mean?
Why can it be that there are those who preach Christ out of selfish ambition in Philippians 1:15-18?
Can one who is perfect be conspicuous in failing to be mentioned in the love he ought to have?
Paul singled out Timothy in Philippians 2:20 - "20 For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare."
And then v25 - I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, 26 for he has been longing for you all and has been distressed because you heard that he was ill.
Is it not falling short of perfection to be surpassed in the excellence of love for a church by someone else?
Romans 7 refers to Paul's life as a redeemed, regenerate man. Here are six arguments to that effect.
Why does Jesus teach His disciples to pray in the following way?
Luke 11:4 "And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us."
What sins, if those who are walking in the Spirit don't sin? Is this only a prayer that brand new believers are supposed to pray? Where does Jesus indicate anything of the kind?
Why did Paul say "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the foremost"?
Why "I am" and not "I was"?
Why does Paul refer to "my brothers" in 1 Cor 1:10-12, when he is rebuking their quarrelling?
If only people who stop sinning entirely reach Heaven, what is 1 Corinthians 3:9-15 about?
The Scripture mentions numerous times that God chastens His children. Does He chasten people when they don't sin? If chastening as sons occurs after sin, how is it that they are referred to as children at that time? Why doesn't it refer to apostates or sinners or de-regenerated people, who once belonged to God but have fallen into condemnation because they sinned?
What do Hebrews 12:4-13 mean?
Philippians 2:27 Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. 28 I am the more eager to send him, therefore, that you may rejoice at seeing him again, and that I may be less anxious. 29 So receive him in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men, 30 for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.
--The church lacked in its service to Paul. But he is still treating them like Christians.
--Paul is sending him so that he may be less anxious. Yet we are supposed to cast ALL our anxieties on Christ (Paul even says so later in the book - 4:6). Maybe Paul was unregenerate when he was writing the Epistle to the Philippians.
Why does Paul differentiate between the righteousness of his own that comes from the law and the righteousness that he has by faith (in Philipppians 3) if
1) it's so much better to be free from sin in this life through our own perfect obedience?
2) he had achieved perfect obedience to the law?
Why does he go on to say what he says in v12? Should we consider you more spiritually advanced than the Apostle Paul?
What do verses 13-16 mean? Why does he say that those who are mature should think that way? Wouldn't someone who has achieved perfection already be mature?
Philippians 3:17 - 17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.
Why should these BROTHERS join in imitating Paul? That's an invitation to keep growing to maturity. Isn't a perfect person already mature? Isn't a lack of maturity sinful? Why does he call them BROTHERS?
What do Philippians 4:2-3 mean?
Why is it that Paul is so certain that these women's names are in the book of life if
-election is false?
-they are in the middle of dissent?
What do Philippians 4:14-16 mean? Are those other churches that neglected to provide for the scanty needs of an apostle of the Lord entirely false churches, entirely populated by unregenerate people?
Is it not a sin to doubt? What does Jude 22 mean, in that case?
What does Acts 15:6-11 mean, especially the parts boldfaced here?
6The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8“And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10“Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
What is it about circumcision that is a yoke that the apostles said they weren't able to bear? Why are the commands of the NT more bearable than OT laws?
Why does Paul pray for the Colossians in Col 1:9-10 if they are NOT yet walking in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him, or bearing fruit in every good work?
As a matter of fact, why does Paul still treat the Corinthian church, Galatian church, and all thsee other churches as actual churches filled with actual Christians if they were sinfully allowing these divisions, sinful doctrines, and negligent behaviors among them? Why didn't he tell them all that they were headed to Hell?
The Bible says that we are to keep careful watch over ourselves and our doctrine. When you fail to realise that you have sinned, such as when you speed while driving, you have failed to do what you were supposed to do. Even if you repent immediately it doesn't matter because you keep telling me you are perfect and wallking in the Spirit.
You are supposed to have perfect joy at all times. How are you in perfect joy right now? And what will you do if you ever fall into depression?
Do you never waste even a nanosecond of time? Do you always use all of every second of every day for God's glory in all ways?
Do you always use all of your money and every single cent of your money in a way that brings the maximum amount of glory to God?
In what way is the New Covenant better than the Old Covenant? How are the new promises better than the old?
What does it mean that Christ has died for all sins once for all?
What does Hebrews 4:16 mean? Why do believers need to find mercy and grace on an ongoing basis?
What does Hebrews 5:1-3 mean?
Why doesn't the author of Hebrews call the recipients of the epistle to be re-regenerated because of the faults in them as listed in Hebrews 5:11-14?
What is a "dead work", as in Hebrews 6:1 and 9:14? Why is it set in opposition to faith?
Do you teach and confess that it is impossible to renew the one who falls away to repentance again, as in Hebrews 6:4-6? Or do you teach, contrary to that passage, that those who fall away into an unregenerate state can come back to God?
Why is the author of Hebrews convinced of better things concerning the recipients, since they love Him, even though they are guilty of these things he just mentioned? Is not failing to realise the full assurance of hope until the end a sin as well?
Why does the author of Hebrews use the example of a unilateral covenant in which Abraham had no part, no role to fulfill, in this discussion in Hebrews 6:13-20?
If the law made nothing perfect, as in Hebrews 7:19 and 10:1, why do you think we can be made perfect thru obedience to the law now?
Wasn't the epistle to the Hebrews written post-Jesus' coming? Why didn't he say anything about that at that point?
What does Hebrews 10:10 mean? Were all of the recipients on their deathbeds, such that he was 100% sure they had all persevered until the end already?
What does Hebrews 10:18 mean?
Did Abraham, who is said to have been justified by his faith in Genesis 15:6, become un-justified when he lied to Abimelech? When he took Hagar into his bed so as to jump-start the promise that he would have a son?
Was Lot un-justified when he offered the men of Sodom his daughters? If so, why is he called righteous in 2 Peter?
If Jeremiah and Job had died right after their complaints against God, would they have gone to Hell?
If Peter had been stabbed by a Roman soldier right after cutting off Malchus' ear, would he have gone to Hell?
Which between Barnabas and Paul reverted to an unregenerate state when they separated over the question of whether John Mark would accompany them on their mission?
Why didn't Jesus call Philip to repent and be re-regenerated when he lacked faith in John 14:8?
Why didn't Jesus call the disciples to repent and be re-regenerated after His resurrection but before His ascension, given that they had doubted His resurrection?
What does Romans 12:3 mean?
What do Galatians 2:16-17 mean?
Why can it be that there are those who preach Christ out of selfish ambition in Philippians 1:15-18?
Can one who is perfect be conspicuous in failing to be mentioned in the love he ought to have?
Paul singled out Timothy in Philippians 2:20 - "20 For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare."
And then v25 - I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, 26 for he has been longing for you all and has been distressed because you heard that he was ill.
Is it not falling short of perfection to be surpassed in the excellence of love for a church by someone else?
Monday, May 06, 2013
Romans 7:14-25 and Paul's struggle
Here I present some exegetical reasons why Romans 7:14-25 refers to Paul's struggle up to the point in his life when he wrote it, as a regenerate Christian desiring to live for Jesus, instead of referring to his pre-Jesus life, or to his life as lived as a Jew under the Mosaic Law.
1) He uses the present tense throughout the passage.
"I am of flesh..."
"For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate."
If the competing views are true, we'd expect to see verbiage more like this:
2) Paul already discussed what it was like when he didn't know Jesus, when he was under the condemnation of the Law, in verses 7-13.
3) Verse 15b says: "I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate..."
18b: "...the willing is present in me..."
19: "For the good that I want..."
19b: "...practice the very evil that I do not want..."
20: "But if I am doing the very thing I do not want..."
21: "...the one who wants to do good..."
The only person about whom it is true to say that he wants to do good, hates evil, is willing to do good, etc, is the regenerate person. How do we know this?
Romans 8:6-8 - For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Does doing good, being willing to do good, desiring not to do evil, and such things please God? Yes, of course.
And the only way that one can escape from being in the flesh are those who are born again by the Spirit of God, those who are alive in Christ. One is either alive in Christ or dead in sin, and those who are dead in sin and in the flesh cannot please God, and these statements Paul makes in Romans 7 are inapplicable to them.
4) Even if Paul is speaking about himself as under the Mosaic Law or as before he knew Jesus, he still affirms total depravity here. "Nothing good dwells in me..."
5) Verse 23 ("I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members") does not make sense unless there exists a battle, a duel between good and evil, in the regenerate person. Lost, unregenerate sinners don't battle against sin, and they follow the lusts of their glands/bodies/hearts/evil thoughts without much compunction.
6) Paul does not cry out for mercy from the Law or to be born again at the end of his discussion. Rather, he cries out for deliverance from the body of this death. The sinful nature remains in his flesh, he feels the weight of the struggle, and he longs to be free from his body (ie, to die and be with the Lord and thus free from the presence and temptation of sin) so as to be released from this struggle.
DISCLAIMER: In no way is any of the above intended to excuse sin, diminish sin's severity, or deny that regenerate people are able to do the right thing and can deny temptation every single time that temptation arises.
1) He uses the present tense throughout the passage.
"I am of flesh..."
"For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate."
If the competing views are true, we'd expect to see verbiage more like this:
14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I was of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For what I was doing, I did not understand; for I was not practicing what I would have liked to do, but I was doing the very thing I hated. 16But if I did the very thing I did not want to do, I agreed with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer was I the one doing it, but sin which dwelt in me. 18For I knew that nothing good dwelt in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing was present in me, but the doing of the good was not. 19For the good that I wanted, I did not do, but I practiced the very evil that I did not want. 20But if I was doing the very thing I did not want, I was no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwelt in me.But we don't. The present tense maintains throughout.
2) Paul already discussed what it was like when he didn't know Jesus, when he was under the condemnation of the Law, in verses 7-13.
3) Verse 15b says: "I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate..."
18b: "...the willing is present in me..."
19: "For the good that I want..."
19b: "...practice the very evil that I do not want..."
20: "But if I am doing the very thing I do not want..."
21: "...the one who wants to do good..."
The only person about whom it is true to say that he wants to do good, hates evil, is willing to do good, etc, is the regenerate person. How do we know this?
Romans 8:6-8 - For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Does doing good, being willing to do good, desiring not to do evil, and such things please God? Yes, of course.
And the only way that one can escape from being in the flesh are those who are born again by the Spirit of God, those who are alive in Christ. One is either alive in Christ or dead in sin, and those who are dead in sin and in the flesh cannot please God, and these statements Paul makes in Romans 7 are inapplicable to them.
4) Even if Paul is speaking about himself as under the Mosaic Law or as before he knew Jesus, he still affirms total depravity here. "Nothing good dwells in me..."
5) Verse 23 ("I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members") does not make sense unless there exists a battle, a duel between good and evil, in the regenerate person. Lost, unregenerate sinners don't battle against sin, and they follow the lusts of their glands/bodies/hearts/evil thoughts without much compunction.
6) Paul does not cry out for mercy from the Law or to be born again at the end of his discussion. Rather, he cries out for deliverance from the body of this death. The sinful nature remains in his flesh, he feels the weight of the struggle, and he longs to be free from his body (ie, to die and be with the Lord and thus free from the presence and temptation of sin) so as to be released from this struggle.
DISCLAIMER: In no way is any of the above intended to excuse sin, diminish sin's severity, or deny that regenerate people are able to do the right thing and can deny temptation every single time that temptation arises.
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
"There is nothing that can be done to make this a true church."
The Babies Are Murdered Here page (ie, Marcus Pittman of Crown Rights Media and Pastor Jon Speed of Syracuse, NY) continues to embarrass themselves and go back on their word by continuing to comment with considerable frequency on Abolish Human Abortion even though they said over a month ago that no matter what AHA would say, they were done talking about it.
Yet just today they have revealed their quasi-papist ecclesiology in a very strange statement. (In all fairness, it probably seems so strange because the men behind the BAMH documentary have shown themselves to be loose cannons who easily fall into foolish statements when caught off-the-cuff on Facebook.)
This raises a number of questions for the author of this statement.
1) What is the author's answer to Matthew Martellus' article regarding the unbiblical nature of the "true church/false church" distinction?
2) What is the author's answer to the recent related questions raised by Steve Hays?
3) What precisely are the biblical requirements to be a true church to which the author refers?
Might they agree with what 9Marks says about what a church is and does?
To wit:
From other statements Pittman and Pastor Speed have made, I know that their stated reason for saying things like this is that the church doesn't currently have elders, and it is unbiblical for a local church to appoint elders by itself, from within its own congregation.
How does this make sense, however?
a. Imagine three Algerian men who separately receive an Arabic New Testament while traveling in France, take a ferry back to Algeria, then the Lord saves all three of them in a short span of time.
Later, in God's providence, the men meet each other and discover they are followers of Jesus, and resolve to follow the NT pattern and commands and meet together regularly for fellowship, encouragement, prayer, worship, and Bible study. Yet because of their isolation and the persecution around them in society, they don't meet another Christian for 10 years, and no Christian older than them for their entire life.
A church? Or not-a-church?
b. Where is the prescriptive teaching in the NT, anywhere, that elders/overseers are only valid when they are appointed by pre-existing elders?
Counterexamples are obvious in history.
Who appointed Martin Luther? Zwingli? Calvin? Do you count by-then apostate Roman ordinations? That's pretty ironic.
Athanasius was removed from his bishopric several times and exiled, yet came back. Does BAMH have some evidence that another elder came alongside and re-appointed him? Does excommunication not mean anything? If church structures are only to be followed in some cases, where is BAMH's definition and explanation?
c. On a related note, Pastor Speed is a Baptist. Does he claim an unbroken chain of elder-to-elder ordination all the way back to the apostles?
Why wouldn't the same criticism be applicable to whoever his episcopal (small-e) forebear was? And wouldn't that mean that his own ordination as elder is invalid, as there would have been nothing that could make that earlier church a true church?
d. Why is it that the men of the earliest church in Acts didn't show an above-all-else interest in establishing elders?
Acts 11:19-25 - Barnabas goes and helps preach the Gospel in Antioch, and yet doesn't stay to establish elders. Rather, he leaves to look for Paul. And yet there comes to be a church in Antioch (as soon as Acts 15:30). How?
Acts 13:44-52 - Paul and Barnabas are driven out of Pisidian Antioch after only about a week.
According to the qualifications for elders in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3, an elder can't be a new convert. I suppose we are to assume that no church existed in Pisidian Antioch at that time? Just... a ragtag bunch of people who loved Jesus?
Acts 17:32-18:1 - Paul sees converts in Athens but doesn't stay to train any elders.
e. The Ethiopian eunuch, converted by Philip on the way back to Ethiopia, could never have been a member of a true church, at least not for the years until someone in the chain of ordination running back to the apostles also made it down to Ethiopia to be the elder.
Acts 8:39 - When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.
I guess the Holy Spirit got a little impatient and forgot that it's a good and wonderful thing for believers to worship together in local churches. He had a brilliant opportunity to delay whisking Philip away until Philip had been able to train the eunuch as an elder himself, then officially ordain him. Instead, the Holy Spirit wasted His chance.
f. Of course, that raises the question of when Philip himself was ordained to do evangelism work. Acts 6:5 indicates that he was selected to serve the daily allotment to the widows on the Jerusalem church's support rolls. No indication is given that he was duly appointed for evangelism ministry.
g. Which means the Holy Spirit was in error for sending him to the eunuch in the first place in Acts 8:29.
h. Which also means that Philip did an evil, rebellious, cowboy thing by preaching the Gospel all by himself in Samaria in Acts 8:5-8.
i. Which means that Peter and John should have rebuked Philip for going way above his pay grade when they arrived in Acts 8:14-17. But they didn't. Another opportunity wasted!
j. Speaking of which, not just Philip but a whole bunch of people were in sin for preaching the Gospel without a license in Acts 8:4. The text seems to speak commendably of them, however. Hmm. Weird.
k. Titus 1:5 - For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you...
There weren't elders in Crete before Paul sent Titus to appoint them.
Were there no churches? Where then were the Christians at that time?
l. Why do the long lists of qualifications for the office of overseer in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 include such things as "if anyone desires to be an overseer" but mention nothing about another elder of some other visible local church, unrelated to the church in question and not a member of it, appointing the elder? Is it not, rather, true that if someone is qualified and if one desires to be an overseer, he has fulfilled the biblical qualification?
This statement from BAMH reveals a pharisaical attitude - binding on the conscience of believers a requirement that the Bible does not itself impose.
Yet just today they have revealed their quasi-papist ecclesiology in a very strange statement. (In all fairness, it probably seems so strange because the men behind the BAMH documentary have shown themselves to be loose cannons who easily fall into foolish statements when caught off-the-cuff on Facebook.)
There is nothing that can be done to make this a true church.The "this" refers to the church to which a fair number of abolitionists in Norman, OK belong.
(Source) (Screenshot)
This raises a number of questions for the author of this statement.
1) What is the author's answer to Matthew Martellus' article regarding the unbiblical nature of the "true church/false church" distinction?
2) What is the author's answer to the recent related questions raised by Steve Hays?
3) What precisely are the biblical requirements to be a true church to which the author refers?
Might they agree with what 9Marks says about what a church is and does?
To wit:
The church is the God-ordained local assembly of believers who have committed themselves to each other. They gather regularly, they teach the Word, celebrate communion and baptism, discipline their members, establish a biblical structure of leadership, they pray and give together. Certainly the church may do more, but it is not less than this.The church to which the BAMH author refers does all of these things, and yet it is not a "true church" in his estimation. One could be forgiven for figuring that he won't allow it the title of "true church" because of personal animus, obstinacy, and/or a personal motivation to diminish AHA.
From other statements Pittman and Pastor Speed have made, I know that their stated reason for saying things like this is that the church doesn't currently have elders, and it is unbiblical for a local church to appoint elders by itself, from within its own congregation.
How does this make sense, however?
a. Imagine three Algerian men who separately receive an Arabic New Testament while traveling in France, take a ferry back to Algeria, then the Lord saves all three of them in a short span of time.
Later, in God's providence, the men meet each other and discover they are followers of Jesus, and resolve to follow the NT pattern and commands and meet together regularly for fellowship, encouragement, prayer, worship, and Bible study. Yet because of their isolation and the persecution around them in society, they don't meet another Christian for 10 years, and no Christian older than them for their entire life.
A church? Or not-a-church?
b. Where is the prescriptive teaching in the NT, anywhere, that elders/overseers are only valid when they are appointed by pre-existing elders?
Counterexamples are obvious in history.
Who appointed Martin Luther? Zwingli? Calvin? Do you count by-then apostate Roman ordinations? That's pretty ironic.
Athanasius was removed from his bishopric several times and exiled, yet came back. Does BAMH have some evidence that another elder came alongside and re-appointed him? Does excommunication not mean anything? If church structures are only to be followed in some cases, where is BAMH's definition and explanation?
c. On a related note, Pastor Speed is a Baptist. Does he claim an unbroken chain of elder-to-elder ordination all the way back to the apostles?
Why wouldn't the same criticism be applicable to whoever his episcopal (small-e) forebear was? And wouldn't that mean that his own ordination as elder is invalid, as there would have been nothing that could make that earlier church a true church?
d. Why is it that the men of the earliest church in Acts didn't show an above-all-else interest in establishing elders?
Acts 11:19-25 - Barnabas goes and helps preach the Gospel in Antioch, and yet doesn't stay to establish elders. Rather, he leaves to look for Paul. And yet there comes to be a church in Antioch (as soon as Acts 15:30). How?
Acts 13:44-52 - Paul and Barnabas are driven out of Pisidian Antioch after only about a week.
According to the qualifications for elders in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3, an elder can't be a new convert. I suppose we are to assume that no church existed in Pisidian Antioch at that time? Just... a ragtag bunch of people who loved Jesus?
Acts 17:32-18:1 - Paul sees converts in Athens but doesn't stay to train any elders.
e. The Ethiopian eunuch, converted by Philip on the way back to Ethiopia, could never have been a member of a true church, at least not for the years until someone in the chain of ordination running back to the apostles also made it down to Ethiopia to be the elder.
Acts 8:39 - When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch no longer saw him, but went on his way rejoicing.
I guess the Holy Spirit got a little impatient and forgot that it's a good and wonderful thing for believers to worship together in local churches. He had a brilliant opportunity to delay whisking Philip away until Philip had been able to train the eunuch as an elder himself, then officially ordain him. Instead, the Holy Spirit wasted His chance.
f. Of course, that raises the question of when Philip himself was ordained to do evangelism work. Acts 6:5 indicates that he was selected to serve the daily allotment to the widows on the Jerusalem church's support rolls. No indication is given that he was duly appointed for evangelism ministry.
g. Which means the Holy Spirit was in error for sending him to the eunuch in the first place in Acts 8:29.
h. Which also means that Philip did an evil, rebellious, cowboy thing by preaching the Gospel all by himself in Samaria in Acts 8:5-8.
i. Which means that Peter and John should have rebuked Philip for going way above his pay grade when they arrived in Acts 8:14-17. But they didn't. Another opportunity wasted!
j. Speaking of which, not just Philip but a whole bunch of people were in sin for preaching the Gospel without a license in Acts 8:4. The text seems to speak commendably of them, however. Hmm. Weird.
k. Titus 1:5 - For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you...
There weren't elders in Crete before Paul sent Titus to appoint them.
Were there no churches? Where then were the Christians at that time?
l. Why do the long lists of qualifications for the office of overseer in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 include such things as "if anyone desires to be an overseer" but mention nothing about another elder of some other visible local church, unrelated to the church in question and not a member of it, appointing the elder? Is it not, rather, true that if someone is qualified and if one desires to be an overseer, he has fulfilled the biblical qualification?
This statement from BAMH reveals a pharisaical attitude - binding on the conscience of believers a requirement that the Bible does not itself impose.
Monday, April 29, 2013
When "last word" doesn't mean anything
Pastor Jon Speed and Marcus Pittman of Babies Are Murdered Here made a video last month about Abolish Human Abortion.
There are many pieces of material in the video that are false and easily refuted, but we have wanted to carefully prepare a substantive response, so it is taking a little longer than we hoped. We have only one full time abolitionist to BAMH's at least 2 full timers, after all, and quite a few other full time evangelists team up with BAMH.
However, I post this brief clip of the full-form video, starting at the 12:35 mark or so, to show Pastor Speed's hypocrisy.
First, the clip that is most relevant for our purposes today:
Note his words about no matter what response AHA should make.
Note also that this video was posted 27 March 2013.
And now, I present to you, dear reader, some obvious counter-examples.
(Link, screenshot captured 29 April 2013. 29 April 2013 comes after 27 March 2013 on the calendar.)
(Link, captured 29 April 2013) Note the other abolitionist who noticed BAMH's hypocrisy.
Captured 05 April 2013.
Another thread, 31 March 2013.
Some other passive-aggressive status updates and such that obviously are aimed at AHA:
"...with nobody in command" (screenshot)
Almost two weeks after (screenshot)
Judge for yourself who is being honest here.
There are many pieces of material in the video that are false and easily refuted, but we have wanted to carefully prepare a substantive response, so it is taking a little longer than we hoped. We have only one full time abolitionist to BAMH's at least 2 full timers, after all, and quite a few other full time evangelists team up with BAMH.
However, I post this brief clip of the full-form video, starting at the 12:35 mark or so, to show Pastor Speed's hypocrisy.
First, the clip that is most relevant for our purposes today:
Note his words about no matter what response AHA should make.
Note also that this video was posted 27 March 2013.
And now, I present to you, dear reader, some obvious counter-examples.
(Link, captured 29 April 2013) Note the other abolitionist who noticed BAMH's hypocrisy.
Captured 05 April 2013.
Another thread, 31 March 2013.
Some other passive-aggressive status updates and such that obviously are aimed at AHA:
"...with nobody in command" (screenshot)
Almost two weeks after (screenshot)
Judge for yourself who is being honest here.
Ready, fire, aim
Michael Coughlin has written an ill-conceived hit piece on abolitionists, and one of his comments was so ludicrous that I had to comment.
I don't know whether he will publish the comment, but I figured I'd save it for posterity and publish it here just in case.
----
Maybe if AHA spent as much time protesting idolatry instead of attacking the brethren
1) This is a hypocritical statement, sir. Unless you believe we are unregenerate, then you have also offered a criticism of brethren. By your own standards, you have "attacked the brethren".
If your reply appeals to the basic concept of "Wounds from a friend can be trusted", then why didn't you consider that's precisely what we are doing? How is it that criticism has suddenly been equated to "attack" in these sorts of interactions. It makes no sense.
Are you "attacking" the lost when you do street preaching? Of course not. Be consistent.
2) You did not inform yourself before writing this article, and so your criticism is actually much closer to an attack than what we do or intend to do. We don't pull the trigger until we know whereof we speak. You could learn from us in this.
I'm asking you to acknowledge that you spoke rashly without knowledge, and that you will pray for God's grace to be slower to speak and quicker to listen in the future.
3) Protesting idolatry? Just what do you think abortion is. and what is its source, if not idolatry?
4) Here, read this, please.
What you should have done is asked us about this before speaking.
5) If by "protesting idolatry" you mean speaking out against the errors of Rome, we have done that many, many times.
6) However, Romanism has not resulted in the deaths of 55 million innocent people in this country in the last 40 years.
Historically speaking, for all of Rome's evil activities and persecutions, I doubt one could plausibly lay 55 million deaths at her doorstep since the first uppity thought occurred to a bishop of Rome. 55 million is A LOT.
And what's more, Rome has put the evangelical church to shame with her pro-life work over 40 years.
Yes, Rome is evil. Yes, Rome preaches a false Gospel. But there are worse things, such as a sin-addicted culture that rejects the Gospel outright and murders children left and right.
we’d believe AHA was really trying to be Christian
Oh, I get it. Our engaging in public criticism of a church about which you know basically nothing for reasons about which you know basically nothing is enough to cast doubt in your minds as to whether we're Christians, despite all we've said and done, all the times we've preached the Gospel and refused to secularise our message.
In that case, sir, we are not at all interested in what you think about us. You should repent, however, of this wicked way of thinking about brethren. It is entirely unbecoming.
Grace, peace, and clearer thinking to you,
Rhology
I don't know whether he will publish the comment, but I figured I'd save it for posterity and publish it here just in case.
----
Maybe if AHA spent as much time protesting idolatry instead of attacking the brethren
1) This is a hypocritical statement, sir. Unless you believe we are unregenerate, then you have also offered a criticism of brethren. By your own standards, you have "attacked the brethren".
If your reply appeals to the basic concept of "Wounds from a friend can be trusted", then why didn't you consider that's precisely what we are doing? How is it that criticism has suddenly been equated to "attack" in these sorts of interactions. It makes no sense.
Are you "attacking" the lost when you do street preaching? Of course not. Be consistent.
2) You did not inform yourself before writing this article, and so your criticism is actually much closer to an attack than what we do or intend to do. We don't pull the trigger until we know whereof we speak. You could learn from us in this.
I'm asking you to acknowledge that you spoke rashly without knowledge, and that you will pray for God's grace to be slower to speak and quicker to listen in the future.
3) Protesting idolatry? Just what do you think abortion is. and what is its source, if not idolatry?
4) Here, read this, please.
What you should have done is asked us about this before speaking.
5) If by "protesting idolatry" you mean speaking out against the errors of Rome, we have done that many, many times.
6) However, Romanism has not resulted in the deaths of 55 million innocent people in this country in the last 40 years.
Historically speaking, for all of Rome's evil activities and persecutions, I doubt one could plausibly lay 55 million deaths at her doorstep since the first uppity thought occurred to a bishop of Rome. 55 million is A LOT.
And what's more, Rome has put the evangelical church to shame with her pro-life work over 40 years.
Yes, Rome is evil. Yes, Rome preaches a false Gospel. But there are worse things, such as a sin-addicted culture that rejects the Gospel outright and murders children left and right.
we’d believe AHA was really trying to be Christian
Oh, I get it. Our engaging in public criticism of a church about which you know basically nothing for reasons about which you know basically nothing is enough to cast doubt in your minds as to whether we're Christians, despite all we've said and done, all the times we've preached the Gospel and refused to secularise our message.
In that case, sir, we are not at all interested in what you think about us. You should repent, however, of this wicked way of thinking about brethren. It is entirely unbecoming.
Grace, peace, and clearer thinking to you,
Rhology
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
9Marks on Parachurch Ministries: A Review
I was invited to read this here article from 9Marks, ordinarily a ministry I hold in high regard, about parachurch ministries. Once I'd read about half, I decided a note-taking walkthrough would be more beneficial than a mere reading, and once I had reached the end I realised just how problematic the entire piece was.
The article gets off to a pretty bad start:
Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, and Creflo Dollar? These are not Christian leaders. They are not even Christians. So much for discernment.
MARK 1:
No Scriptural commands. This is just his own opinion.
1) Says who?
2) What does "protect" mean?
3) The church needs protection?
That is not all the church is called to do. The church is commanded to make disciples of all nations, baptising them, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded. Teaching and preaching the Word is necessary and awesome, but to say it's "above all others" requires argument, which he didn't give.
1) This is again a mere assertion, not an argument.
2) Nothing says that this was a parachurch thing. The church is supposed to provide for widows (cf James 1:27, 1 Timothy 5:9-16). This was a church thing.
He arrives at his conclusion via an unwarranted jump.
The primary ministry of *the apostles* was the ministry of the Word, sure. But the church is not the same thing as the apostles, and neither are modern elders.
MARK 2:
Here is where the article's assumed and problematic jumps back and forth between Visible Local Church (hereafter, VLC) and Invisible Universal Church (IUC) commence.
So, if he means that not all gatherings of Christians constitute a VLC, agreed.
MARK 3:
It *is* supposed to act like the IUC.
There are certain things non-VLC entities shouldn't normally do that VLCs do, certainly, such as establish elders.
But what about the other things he mentioned that VLCs do?
--commit themselves to each other
IUC is supposed to be committed to each other, to love each other, etc. We are supposed to love the brethren. Look at the way the churches participated in Acts, the way the churches accepted Paul in the various epistles like Philippians and Philemon.
--gather regularly
"Parachurch ministries" can do this.
--teach the Word
"Parachurch ministries" can do this.
--celebrate communion
To be honest, I have always taken it as a given that the Lord's Table should be celebrated among VLC, and that does seem to be the actual practice of the earliest church in Acts.
Acts 2:42They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Acts 2:46Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
And of course, 1 Corinthians 11:17-33.
Yet we see no explicit command in the NT that VLCs are the only context in which communion can be celebrated.
Also, if communion is not to be closed, it is open to not-strictly the people of the VLC on any given day; rather members of the IUC can partake as well.
--baptise converts
Like Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch? Or Philip in Samaria? That guy was just a crazy renegade! He should have been disciplined for his impudence, daring to take it upon himself to baptise people who were getting saved.
Or like Luke 9:
49John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” 50But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
--discipline their members
It's true that there are specific instructions in the NT for expelling persons from a VLC for specific reasons.
But here are a few things to think about:
1) If someone is excommunicated for good reason from a solid VLC, should I as a member of a different VLC just ignore their excommunication? Isn't that part of the point behind the SBC's "letters of __ standing", sent from one church to the church a particular person is applying to join?
2) Are the following Scriptures only directed at people who were within the walls of the one particular VLC and were excommunicated?
2 Tim 3:1But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.
Sentiments such as Psalm 101:7He who practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; He who speaks falsehood shall not maintain his position before me.
Is it totally OK for me to accept a Titus 3:10 person into my church, given how they acted before?
10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
A "parachurch org" can just as easily create a code of conduct modeled after Scripture as a VLC can create a confession/bylaws/constitution. And a "parachurch org" can fail to do so just as easily as VLCs can and do.
--establish a biblical structure of leadership
If Acts 6 is an example of a parachurch org, then this can be done as well, since one could be at least forgiven for thinking the biblical structure of leadership would presumably be the way the Acts 6 parachurch org was set up.
--pray and give together
Parachurch orgs can do that just as well as VLCs can. Why? Because they're supposed to be populated by members of the IUC.
So, it turns out that there is not really a whole lot of difference here. Sure, a VLC is distinct from not-a-VLC, but not all not-a-VLCs are created equal.
MARK 4:
These would be poor examples of telling a VLC what to do. But there are other ways that VLCs get stuff wrong. For example, numerous of them DO partner with Romanists, and numerous of them ARE becoming more "relevant" in a bad way. It is a good thing for them, a helpful and loving thing, to offer correctives and admonish them.
Would this author contend that, say, Pirate Christian Radio, CARM, or Grace To You (if you doubt GTY's status as a parachurch org, why was John MacArthur mentioned in the opening paragraph?) are therefore exhibiting signs of poor health, because they tell VLCs not to partner with Romanists and not to give in to passing fads of "relevance"? These are parachurch orgs, after all, admonishing VLCs of which they are not a part.
(1) Christ loves the Church. (2) This love for the Church expresses itself in a concern for her purity and faithfulness. (3) Lack of purity and faithfulness are met, in the example of Rev. 2-3, with letters of reproof and exhortation. (4) We also have the mind of Christ. (5) Therefore, if we love the Church as we ought, we will also be concerned with her purity and faithfulness, and speak up to exhort and reprove our fellow brothers and sisters as need arises.
I am unsure what this statement means, but it does not bode well for the strength of this author's overall powers of discernment.
This sentence circles back on the rest of the article, like a snake swallowing its own tail. The proper differences haven't been substantiated or laid out in Scripture yet.
VLCs often do too. Not all VLCs have extensively detailed confessions of faith to which they subscribe, if not slavishly, quite strictly. A significant number of VLCs in America don't have much of a confession at all, don't require any sort of explicit assent to it if they do, don't take action if a member, say, blogs or Facebooks things contrary to that confession or even teaches those things in Sunday School or small group, and wouldn't have the cojones to initiate church discipline toward such a person in any case.
What's the difference again?
The author might have been in the wrong parachurch org.
Perhaps he'd like to direct his criticism at Dr James White and Alpha & Omega Ministries, for allowing real live pædobaptists like James Swan and TurretinFan to post on his blog and even occasionally sit in for him during his Dividing Line broadcasts.
There are also VLCs in this world that allow for membership to both credobaptists and pædobaptists. I am friends with a man in South Africa who attended just such a church for years.
The author needs to flesh this out more. To what is he referring? How would such things deleteriously affect the health of the church? Does criticism create a negative impact on church health? How so?
The leaps he is making are severe.
MARK 5: No argument here.
Let us note, however, that where the "rocks of history are strewn with the shipwrecks of parachurch ministries", those same rocks boast the corpses of many, many VLCs as well, probably more than "parachurch orgs".
We *all* need to heed the warnings of Scripture. It is possible for a VLC to lose her lampstand. It is possible for a presumed member of the IUC to be a false convert, or a hidden reef, a concealed antichrist.
2 Corinthians 13:5 applies to all professing Christians, not just those who don't happen to be meeting with their VLC at the time or who do things with other Christians outside their VLC.
MARK 6: No argument here.
Again, though, the same things can be said of VLCs. There are VLCs in the world that boast tens of thousands of members, and "parachurch orgs" that have a handful.
Has the author been paying attention to recent patterns and issues within the Southern Baptist Convention at all?
MARK 7: No argument here.
Again, though, the same things can be said of VLCs. There are VLCs in the world that boast annual budgets worth $tens of millions, and "parachurch orgs" that have $a few dozen to their name.
Replace "parachurch organization" with "VLC" here, and is it any less credible an account?
It may surprise the author to know that we abolitionists are familiar with some VLCs that suppress discussion about Gospel faithfulness out of fears that it might hurt the donor base.
MARK 8: More of the same.
One of the best reasons for a VLC to exist is to bring people together who are passionately committed to the gospel but who might not agree on every secondary doctrine.
To be healthy, all VLCs must maintain a deep commitment to the core of Christianity—the gospel—no matter what else they do. Beware of any VLC that does not hold to the gospel with a firm grip.
Most VLCs have a doctrinal confession that clearly articulates the gospel. But does it matter? Is it relevant on a day-to-day basis?
There is almost nothing more corrosive to a VLC than a doctrinal statement that has become irrelevant.
MARK 9:
So if a VLC is empowered and asked to hold a parachurch org accountable, that's great and welcome.
But is it "not protecting" the church if the reverse should hold?
Are wounds from a friend trusted or despised (Proverbs 27:6)?
But healthy VLCs don't need transparent and honest relationships with other evangelical VLCs, and should not invite critique from those churches?
VLCs are not above reproach. Defensive postures on the part of VLCs are indications of illness.
This is of course true, but it's almost tautological. Of course Christians are to submit to each other in love, and supposed to admonish each other in love.
And all members of the IUC are supposed to be members of a VLC, and each VLC is supposed to have biblical leadership, in normal circumstances and when possible. Again, the author isn't saying anything to set parachurch orgs apart.
CONCLUSION:
Yes, the IUC. Plenty of VLCs have fallen by the wayside (such as all 7 from Revelation 1-3) and many more will follow them. Yet members of the IUC do all sorts of things for the kingdom of God. Where is the biblical injunction to restrict all activities for the kingdom of God to the VLC? The author hasn't provided one. In fact, he barely touched Scripture at all during his article.
The article gets off to a pretty bad start:
From Joel Osteen to John Piper, from Creflo Dollar to Tim Keller, from Joyce Meyer to John MacArthur, it’s difficult to find Christian leaders who don’t lead a parachurch ministry.
Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, and Creflo Dollar? These are not Christian leaders. They are not even Christians. So much for discernment.
MARK 1:
No Scriptural commands. This is just his own opinion.
It exists primarily to protect the church.
1) Says who?
2) What does "protect" mean?
3) The church needs protection?
The church has a unique and high ministerial calling that stands above all others: the right teaching and preaching of the Word.
That is not all the church is called to do. The church is commanded to make disciples of all nations, baptising them, teaching them to observe all that Jesus commanded. Teaching and preaching the Word is necessary and awesome, but to say it's "above all others" requires argument, which he didn't give.
A good biblical model for parachurch ministries is found in Acts 6
1) This is again a mere assertion, not an argument.
2) Nothing says that this was a parachurch thing. The church is supposed to provide for widows (cf James 1:27, 1 Timothy 5:9-16). This was a church thing.
And so, it appears that what would become the church’s office of deacon was established to protect the primary ministry of the church, that is, the ministry of the Word.
He arrives at his conclusion via an unwarranted jump.
The primary ministry of *the apostles* was the ministry of the Word, sure. But the church is not the same thing as the apostles, and neither are modern elders.
MARK 2:
Not all gatherings of Christians are “church.”
Here is where the article's assumed and problematic jumps back and forth between Visible Local Church (hereafter, VLC) and Invisible Universal Church (IUC) commence.
So, if he means that not all gatherings of Christians constitute a VLC, agreed.
MARK 3:
A healthy parachurch ministry avoids acting like the church.
It *is* supposed to act like the IUC.
There are certain things non-VLC entities shouldn't normally do that VLCs do, certainly, such as establish elders.
But what about the other things he mentioned that VLCs do?
--commit themselves to each other
IUC is supposed to be committed to each other, to love each other, etc. We are supposed to love the brethren. Look at the way the churches participated in Acts, the way the churches accepted Paul in the various epistles like Philippians and Philemon.
--gather regularly
"Parachurch ministries" can do this.
--teach the Word
"Parachurch ministries" can do this.
--celebrate communion
To be honest, I have always taken it as a given that the Lord's Table should be celebrated among VLC, and that does seem to be the actual practice of the earliest church in Acts.
Acts 2:42They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Acts 2:46Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
And of course, 1 Corinthians 11:17-33.
Yet we see no explicit command in the NT that VLCs are the only context in which communion can be celebrated.
Also, if communion is not to be closed, it is open to not-strictly the people of the VLC on any given day; rather members of the IUC can partake as well.
--baptise converts
Like Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch? Or Philip in Samaria? That guy was just a crazy renegade! He should have been disciplined for his impudence, daring to take it upon himself to baptise people who were getting saved.
Or like Luke 9:
49John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name; and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow along with us.” 50But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not against you is for you.”
--discipline their members
It's true that there are specific instructions in the NT for expelling persons from a VLC for specific reasons.
But here are a few things to think about:
1) If someone is excommunicated for good reason from a solid VLC, should I as a member of a different VLC just ignore their excommunication? Isn't that part of the point behind the SBC's "letters of __ standing", sent from one church to the church a particular person is applying to join?
2) Are the following Scriptures only directed at people who were within the walls of the one particular VLC and were excommunicated?
2 Tim 3:1But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.
Sentiments such as Psalm 101:7He who practices deceit shall not dwell within my house; He who speaks falsehood shall not maintain his position before me.
Is it totally OK for me to accept a Titus 3:10 person into my church, given how they acted before?
10Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
A "parachurch org" can just as easily create a code of conduct modeled after Scripture as a VLC can create a confession/bylaws/constitution. And a "parachurch org" can fail to do so just as easily as VLCs can and do.
--establish a biblical structure of leadership
If Acts 6 is an example of a parachurch org, then this can be done as well, since one could be at least forgiven for thinking the biblical structure of leadership would presumably be the way the Acts 6 parachurch org was set up.
--pray and give together
Parachurch orgs can do that just as well as VLCs can. Why? Because they're supposed to be populated by members of the IUC.
So, it turns out that there is not really a whole lot of difference here. Sure, a VLC is distinct from not-a-VLC, but not all not-a-VLCs are created equal.
MARK 4:
parachurch leaders will tell “the Church” what “the Church” needs to do. They will advise it to partner with Catholics...to become more relevant,
These would be poor examples of telling a VLC what to do. But there are other ways that VLCs get stuff wrong. For example, numerous of them DO partner with Romanists, and numerous of them ARE becoming more "relevant" in a bad way. It is a good thing for them, a helpful and loving thing, to offer correctives and admonish them.
Would this author contend that, say, Pirate Christian Radio, CARM, or Grace To You (if you doubt GTY's status as a parachurch org, why was John MacArthur mentioned in the opening paragraph?) are therefore exhibiting signs of poor health, because they tell VLCs not to partner with Romanists and not to give in to passing fads of "relevance"? These are parachurch orgs, after all, admonishing VLCs of which they are not a part.
(1) Christ loves the Church. (2) This love for the Church expresses itself in a concern for her purity and faithfulness. (3) Lack of purity and faithfulness are met, in the example of Rev. 2-3, with letters of reproof and exhortation. (4) We also have the mind of Christ. (5) Therefore, if we love the Church as we ought, we will also be concerned with her purity and faithfulness, and speak up to exhort and reprove our fellow brothers and sisters as need arises.
to patch holes in the gospel by caring for the poor
I am unsure what this statement means, but it does not bode well for the strength of this author's overall powers of discernment.
But if this inclination is not tempered by a clear understanding of the differences between church and parachurch, these well-meaning church members will pressure the church to look and act like a parachurch ministry.
This sentence circles back on the rest of the article, like a snake swallowing its own tail. The proper differences haven't been substantiated or laid out in Scripture yet.
Parachurch ministries often have the luxury of ignoring secondary doctrines.
VLCs often do too. Not all VLCs have extensively detailed confessions of faith to which they subscribe, if not slavishly, quite strictly. A significant number of VLCs in America don't have much of a confession at all, don't require any sort of explicit assent to it if they do, don't take action if a member, say, blogs or Facebooks things contrary to that confession or even teaches those things in Sunday School or small group, and wouldn't have the cojones to initiate church discipline toward such a person in any case.
What's the difference again?
I didn’t care that much about the mode of someone’s baptism when I was in a parachurch ministry.
The author might have been in the wrong parachurch org.
Perhaps he'd like to direct his criticism at Dr James White and Alpha & Omega Ministries, for allowing real live pædobaptists like James Swan and TurretinFan to post on his blog and even occasionally sit in for him during his Dividing Line broadcasts.
There are also VLCs in this world that allow for membership to both credobaptists and pædobaptists. I am friends with a man in South Africa who attended just such a church for years.
But a healthy parachurch ministry should avoid pressuring a church to dismiss church doctrine that may not have much meaning in a parachurch context, but which has a real impact on the health of the church.
The author needs to flesh this out more. To what is he referring? How would such things deleteriously affect the health of the church? Does criticism create a negative impact on church health? How so?
The leaps he is making are severe.
MARK 5: No argument here.
Let us note, however, that where the "rocks of history are strewn with the shipwrecks of parachurch ministries", those same rocks boast the corpses of many, many VLCs as well, probably more than "parachurch orgs".
We *all* need to heed the warnings of Scripture. It is possible for a VLC to lose her lampstand. It is possible for a presumed member of the IUC to be a false convert, or a hidden reef, a concealed antichrist.
2 Corinthians 13:5 applies to all professing Christians, not just those who don't happen to be meeting with their VLC at the time or who do things with other Christians outside their VLC.
MARK 6: No argument here.
Again, though, the same things can be said of VLCs. There are VLCs in the world that boast tens of thousands of members, and "parachurch orgs" that have a handful.
The danger of pragmatism is that we can begin to trust in skill, techniques, or programs more than we trust in the Spirit’s work or in the clear commands of Scripture.
Has the author been paying attention to recent patterns and issues within the Southern Baptist Convention at all?
MARK 7: No argument here.
Again, though, the same things can be said of VLCs. There are VLCs in the world that boast annual budgets worth $tens of millions, and "parachurch orgs" that have $a few dozen to their name.
I was speaking to a friend about her move to the head office of a large parachurch organization. She said that,as she began to get to know the office culture, she made two lists of people in the office: one list of those who were godly, and another list of those who were in power. And she said—tellingly—that they were different lists.
Replace "parachurch organization" with "VLC" here, and is it any less credible an account?
Nothing so endangers the health of a parachurch ministry than suppressing discussions about gospel faithfulness out of fears that it might hurt the donor base.
It may surprise the author to know that we abolitionists are familiar with some VLCs that suppress discussion about Gospel faithfulness out of fears that it might hurt the donor base.
MARK 8: More of the same.
One of the best reasons for a parachurch ministry to exist is to bring people together who are passionately committed to the gospel but who might not agree on every secondary doctrine.
One of the best reasons for a VLC to exist is to bring people together who are passionately committed to the gospel but who might not agree on every secondary doctrine.
To be healthy, all parachurch ministries must maintain a deep commitment to the core of Christianity—the gospel—no matter what else they do. Beware of any parachurch organization that does not hold to the gospel with a firm grip.
To be healthy, all VLCs must maintain a deep commitment to the core of Christianity—the gospel—no matter what else they do. Beware of any VLC that does not hold to the gospel with a firm grip.
Most parachurch ministries have a doctrinal confession that clearly articulates the gospel. But does it matter? Is it relevant on a day-to-day basis?...There is almost nothing more corrosive to a parachurch ministry than a doctrinal statement that has become irrelevant.
Most VLCs have a doctrinal confession that clearly articulates the gospel. But does it matter? Is it relevant on a day-to-day basis?
There is almost nothing more corrosive to a VLC than a doctrinal statement that has become irrelevant.
MARK 9:
But here is a way for parachurch ministries to be protected by the church: if more parachurch ministries sought accountability relationships from a church, both for individuals and for the organization as a whole, they would find themselves protected from the dangers implicit in marks 2 through 8.
So if a VLC is empowered and asked to hold a parachurch org accountable, that's great and welcome.
But is it "not protecting" the church if the reverse should hold?
Are wounds from a friend trusted or despised (Proverbs 27:6)?
A healthy parachurch ministry needs transparent and honest relationships with evangelical churches,and should invite critique from those churches.
But healthy VLCs don't need transparent and honest relationships with other evangelical VLCs, and should not invite critique from those churches?
Parachurch organizations are not above reproach. Defensive postures on the part of parachurch ministries are indications of illness.
VLCs are not above reproach. Defensive postures on the part of VLCs are indications of illness.
Parachurch organizations would gain much from submitting, as an organization, to the leaders of healthy gospel-centered churches.
This is of course true, but it's almost tautological. Of course Christians are to submit to each other in love, and supposed to admonish each other in love.
And all members of the IUC are supposed to be members of a VLC, and each VLC is supposed to have biblical leadership, in normal circumstances and when possible. Again, the author isn't saying anything to set parachurch orgs apart.
CONCLUSION:
But we should never forget that his chosen method for the expansion of the kingdom is his church.
Yes, the IUC. Plenty of VLCs have fallen by the wayside (such as all 7 from Revelation 1-3) and many more will follow them. Yet members of the IUC do all sorts of things for the kingdom of God. Where is the biblical injunction to restrict all activities for the kingdom of God to the VLC? The author hasn't provided one. In fact, he barely touched Scripture at all during his article.
Friday, April 19, 2013
An Apology to the Atheist Hub
The Atheist Hub and the Therefore God show invited me on to their program to talk about abortion, their interest evidently piqued somewhat by the comment box debate EssenceOfThought and I had over at my most recent video offering.
We worked out the details of the show, and the program (I guess they actually do it live via Google Hangout) was going to take place this Saturday afternoon Central time. I initially agreed to do it but then upon trying to work out the details of where I would be and all that, given my plans with my family this weekend, I realised that I would not be able to devote the necessary time to sitting in front of my laptop.
I have posted an apology publicly and have privately addressed my apologies to the Atheist Hub, and I would like this also to stand. They did not mistreat me in any way. The cancellation is on me.
I hope we can reconnect some time in the near future. I regret this, as it would have been an enjoyable time, I am sure.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Why wait?
So a convicted rapist of a 13 year old girl in Oklahoma is threatening suicide if the state doesn't pay for sex-change therapy.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out of this life, buddy.
I mean, he wasn't even smart enough to molest a child in California. He'd have gotten his sex change, no muss, no fuss. Location, location, location.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out of this life, buddy.
I mean, he wasn't even smart enough to molest a child in California. He'd have gotten his sex change, no muss, no fuss. Location, location, location.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)