JackHammer

Eleven years ago, I saw Utah for the first time, from behind the windshield of a Hertz-Penske moving truck, pulling the family car on a trailer, with my wife at my side and the family cat on her lap. We saw the sillouette of the gorgeous Wasatch mountains against the night sky, and we wondered what life in Utah would bring us. Would we, could we have a ministry in Ogden? And of course, one of the big questions at the top of our list — how would we witness to the Mormons.

Life in Utah was different than we expected. We have yet to meet a polygamist (as far as we know). We don’t see wild-eyed, bearded prophets like we were expecting. We don’t get shunned, and jobs are as available to us as they are to anybody. We had heard that non-Mormons could not buy land in Utah. I now am buying my second home since moving here. Our church has owned its own property for over forty-five years. The LDS (Latter-Day Saints) people are friendly and kind and make good neighbors, and I have no complaint about them.

When we got here, we were most surprised by how much the LDS church dominates cultural life. The news media openly discusses church news. Even sports-talk radio stations regularly discuss the LDS church. Every spring and fall before the General Conference, stores have special sales and discounts that are directly connected to church doings. Even as I sit here at my keyboard hunting and pecking away, our entire state is celebrating a Mormon holiday. This morning there was a parade and businesses are closed for the day, as Utah celebrates “Pioneer Days” — a part of our Mormon heritage.

I am very grateful that God sent my family and me to Utah. It is a great privilege to serve the Lord and stand for him in such a place as this. And, God is doing some wonderful things here in this state. By God’s grace, we will see more in the years ahead. One thing is for sure — as is the Temple of Diana, so will be the LDS Temple.

Witnessing to Mormons is a demanding task. All of the “conventional” approaches to witnessing simply do not get any traction here. LDS doctrine has taken all of this into account, and has the advantage of being in flux, so that Read the rest of this entry →

When I googled the “reformation doctrine of justification,” I got 1450 sites. “Reformational doctrine of justification, ” 45 sites. “Reformed doctrine of justification,” 4040. “Reformers doctrine of justification, 106. Many reformed claim justification as a doctrine originated by the reformers out of their study of Scripture.

Not many histories of the doctrine of justification have been written. A few have been penned by reformed theologians. When you read the table of contents of the very few volumes, you will get the history of the doctrine in the Old Testament, next in the Apostolic Age, then in times of the patristics, and finally you jump to the reformation. They read as though there was an actual total apostasy of the doctrine of justification. The reformed writers say that you can see justification implicitly in the early and late church fathers, but not until the reformation do you see the doctrine developed. Is that true?

A Gap in the History of Justification

If that is true, that is, that the New Testament doctrine of justification stopped Read the rest of this entry →

We live in the midst of a revival of replacement theology. A growing gaggle of Gentile commentators call national Israel long dead and buried, but I am happy to announce that reports of her death are greatly exaggerated. God still plans for Israel, even while we speak. Among other human authors, that’s what the Apostle Paul tells us, and especially in Romans 11. He also explains these types of accusations—Gentile arrogance or conceit—when he writes (vv. 23-26):

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Paul warned Gentile believers about becoming proud because unbelieving Israel was cut off from blessing so that the blessing might be offered to Read the rest of this entry →

Mark Dever pastors the Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC, one of the most well known Southern Baptist churches in the United States.  Dever is well respected by a great number of young, professing fundamentalists, especially for his 9 Marks organization.   What I read at 9 Marks is better than most of what I read in fundamentalism, at least for what fundamentalism writes.  I also admit that I believe the 9 Marks.  Our church has the 9 Marks.  Here is what 9 Marks says is its mission:

We believe the local church is the focal point of God’s plan for displaying his glory to the nations.  Our vision is simple: Churches that reflect the character of God.  Our mission is to cultivate and encourage churches characterized by these nine marks.

9 Marks then says that these are the nine marks:

1. Expositional Preaching
2. Biblical Theology
3. Biblical Understanding of the Good News
4. Biblical Understanding of Conversion
5. Biblical Understanding of Evangelism
6. Biblical Understanding of Membership
7. Biblical Church Discipline
8. Promotion of Christian Discipleship and Growth
9. Biblical Understanding of Leadership

Have you ever been attempting to describe to someone the type of church he should be looking for?  Haven’t you used certain characteristics as the means of that description?   Like 9 Marks, I too want churches to dedicate themselves to certain traits, fleshing out what Scripture says about the church and imitating the distinctives that we see from there, instead of being fad oriented.  I desire for men to trust the sufficiency of God’s Word as it relates to their churches, instead of running to conferences to hear what the latest growth or management guru says a church ought to be.

The Baptist Distinctives

I still think that the Baptist Distinctives are nice marks for a church.  I wouldn’t recommend a church that did not have them.  They are Scriptural and do act as a certain benchmark for obedience to God.  They are obviously not everything, but if you look at the Baptist Distinctives, you will see some basics that have historically characterized God’s churches.  For those who don’t know them, they are:

• Bible Sole Authority for Faith and Practice
• Regenerate Immersed Church Membership
• Autonomy of Each Church
• Pastor and Deacons:  Two Church Offices
• Soul Liberty, the Priesthood of the Believer
• Immersion and Lord’s Table:  Two Church Ordinances
• Separation of Church and State
• Separation Both Personally and Ecclesiastically

Those distinctives should characterize a church and they are a bottom line for what I see as a New Testament Church.  I don’t really know if 9 Marks would see the Baptist Distinctives as important as their nine marks.  I do.

What’s Missing?

Read the rest of this entry →

I expect Kent to bump my post soon.  But only because I am so late in getting something up for Monday.  Wednesday is normally his day.

In the past few weeks we’ve had quite the discussion about how to find a life partner.  It actually got me to doing more than maintenance of the jackhammr.  Actually, it was my “drive-by” post that stirred the waters or fed the fire.  Now most of you have just sat by the fire watching the three jackhammrs spar with each other and put up with an occasional burst of ammunition from the “Soldier of War.”  I don’t mind that.

I said briefly in my post that sons go (I intend to also show that daughters are given).  This was first taken as an affront to Kent’s thorough exegesis and historical study.  In his best example, he has said that the Father chose the Bride for the Son.  This is true.  He says that in the model he follows, the father chooses and the son approves.  This is good; because no earthly father is going to know his choice is perfect like our heavenly Father would.

I’ll admit that I have not developed a “WAY” as Kent has, but this month has helped, and yet I still think sons go.  The reason is that even in Kent’s best example, the Son went.  The Father chose, but the Son was sent.  Because the Trinity is Divine, the arrangement worked out cleanly (although when the Son came, he was at first rejected–John 1:12).  When human nature is put into the equation, Kent puts the father and son into the choosing.  More fatherly input, but the son approves also.  In my mind the next step continues in the same manner, father and son.  Rather, son and father.  Because the Son actually was sent and the Father approved, we should follow this same pattern in finding a life partner.  Sons go because the Son was sent:

But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.  (Matthew 21:37)

Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.  (Mark 12:6)

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  (John 3:17)

That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which hath sent him.  (John 5:23)

And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.  (John 6:40)

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?  (John 10:36)

Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.  (Acts 3:26)

But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,  (Galatians 4:4)

In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.  Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.  (1 John 4:9-10)

And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world.  (1 John 4:14)

The Father did not abdicate his responsibility by sending the Son; He had already chosen.  The Son could not have fulfilled His responsibility if He had not gone.  While the Father chose, he did not hand the prize to the Son on a platter.  The Son was sent from the comforts of Heaven to seek his Bride (Luke 19:10).  This reason, from the best of all examples, is why I believe sons go–the Son was sent.

Does Genesis 24 present a unique pattern for obtaining a life’s partner?  Or is it just one of many examples that together indicate there is no particular way of finding a wife?  One argument is that we’ve got other illustrations, such as the one of Jacob in Genesis 28, that offer another legitimate and parallel method.  It seems that Jacob is the only one referenced as an alternative.   It seems like only a bad alternative.   I quote John Calvin as a basis for what men thought of Genesis 24 as a pattern, and he writes this on the first few verses of Genesis 24, available many places online:  “Abraham here fulfils the common duty of parents, in laboring for and being solicitous about the choice of a wife for his son . . . Now this example should be taken by us as a common rule, to show that it is not lawful for the children of a family to contract marriage, except with the consent of parents; and certainly natural equity dictates that, in a matter of such importance, children should depend upon the will of their parents.”  But what about Jacob?

In Genesis, Moses placed Jacob’s deception of Isaac within the larger context of marriage. The last two verses of chapter 26 inform us that Esau was 40 years old when he had married two Hittite women, causing Isaac and Rebekah great grief.  Isaac was 40 when he married Rebekah (25:20).   Wifeless Jacob is also 40.   The covenant blessings of Abraham will pass through Jacob and his descendants. Genesis 24 is a very detailed description of how Abraham obtained a wife for Isaac from among his own relatives, rather than from among the Canaanites.   There Abraham strongly emphasized that under no circumstances was Isaac to return to Padan-aram.

After Jacob deceived his father and stole his brother’s blessing, Esau planned to kill Jacob and he waited for his father’s death.  Rebekah heard of Esau’s intentions so set out to save Jacob’s life.  She said nothing to Jacob about marriage (Gen 27:42-45).  She warned only of Esau’s plan to kill him and then urged him to flee to her brother Laban in Padan-aram to stay for “a few days” until Esau’s anger diminished.

Marriage was mainly a pretext for sending Jacob away to spare his life.  When Read the rest of this entry →

First, I want to be clear in this post that I agree with virtually every statement that has been made about the modern catwalk program called dating.  I Thessalonians 4:3-5ff should settle that issue for every believer.  I believe that parents are in charge of their children throughout this process, and that children must submit to and follow the guidance of their parents.

I agree with Pastor Brandenburg all the way up to the point where he says “only.”  I think that betrothal is one way that a man finds a wife, but I cannot argue, as he has, that every way of finding a wife besides betrothal falls under the heading of “the lust of concupiscence.”  There are other legitimate points that can be made about this process, and I want to make those arguments in this post.

I don’t mind strong positions, and I most certainly appreciate Pastor Brandenburg’s strong stand on this issue.  I will say that this is the first time I have seen him lay out his case for it, and I am glad to read it.  And, so far as I know, based on discussions we have had on this in the past, he isn’t trying to line up a mate for his children while they are still under thirteen — which is a refreshing difference from the betrothal crowd I knew when I was growing up.  I don’t mind saying that I much prefer his way of doing things to theirs.  The only other betrothal people I ever knew of had contracts on their children by age five. 

That approach has no basis in Scripture, no matter how many texts one might bend and stretch to make their case. 

Pastor Brandenburg is absolutely correct that betrothal was commonly practiced in medieval times.  Anyone who reads literature from that time period will know this.  And, like many customs of that time, the practice has been caricatured beyond recognition, giving it very scarecrow-like qualities.  Certainly, like anything else, the system can go wrong.  We are, after all, a fallen race, and whatever we touch we mess up.  But in many cases, the system was marked by a loving father seeking the best interests of his children. 

So, no, I don’t believe that betrothal is a WRONG way to find a wife.  Certainly, we see examples of it in Scripture.  I see that it has been argued that betrothal is the ideal way to find a wife.  Perhaps so.  The principles behind the betrothal idea are certainly good and right, and therefore are ideal.  I will reserve judgement on the practical aspects of it until Pastor Brandenburg has laid them out in his promised fourth post. 

My point in this post (with apologies for the lengthy introduction) is simply to say that there are other ways that fall under the heading of “ideal.”  And to say that those other ways are also lawful.  But before I do so, I need to answer the claim that betrothal is the ONLY way for a man to obtain a wife.

Are You “BO” (Betrothal Only)?

The key argument that has been made for betrothal is that God gave a wife to Adam, and to Christ.  Without this argument, the arguments from Abraham are Read the rest of this entry →