JackHammer

You won’t find the English word “practice” in the King James Version of the Bible. We do have the Greek word for “practice,” which is praxis. If you say “praxis” to people, they’ll think you have a speech impediment. The first time it appears in Scripture is in Acts 19:18 and it is translated “deeds.” It is found five other times and translated “works” and “office” (Rom 12:4) also. BDAG, the foremost Greek lexicon, says that it is “a function implying sustained activity,” “a way of conducting oneself, way of acting, course of action,” or “customary daily activity.” The verb form is prasso, which is found 38 times. BDAG says it means to perform an act or engage in an activity and shows how that prasso is used in that way.

Something that is “practical” is something that can be put into practice. Teaching is practical when it shows how to practice what is being taught. When we preach the Word of God, we want the listeners to practice Scripture. We don’t want just head knowledge, but we desire for the stuff in the brain to be lived out. Accurately obeying Scripture is the practice of Scripture. Living God’s Word can’t be easier than it is. We can’t take everything the Bible says to do and turn into something different than what Scripture says and have it be more practical. When it is practical, it is still Biblical.

The Problem

We have our problem, however, when men think that something that isn’t Biblical is superior to Scripture because it is either easier to practice than what the Bible says to practice or it seems to work better than what God has actually told men to do. This is Read the rest of this entry →

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 →

Jacob went to find his wife.

Joseph found his wife.

Moses found his wife.

Eleazar took a wife.

The priests were instructed to “take a wife.” — Leviticus 21:13

The pattern is continued in Jeremiah 16:2

Hosea went and took his wife.

Jesus went to find his bride.

Proverbs 18:22 says,

Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favor of the LORD.

it doesn’t say,

Whoso’s father findeth him a wife obtaineth favor of the LORD.

My point in this drive-by post is just to say a few things related to finding a mate, marriage, and complementarianism.

1. Godly families rear their boys to be men and their girls to be ladies; therefore, the boys and girls should also find their mates in different (complementary) ways.
2. Parental involvement is present with both boys and girls, but vastly different.  If your son has not been trained by you how to seek and find a wife on his own (but with your guidance), how is he going to lead the family YOU put together for him?
3. Fathers, please recognize the huge responsibility you have to prepare your son to be able to find his wife. You are definitely involved, but the involvement shrinks as your son gets closer to marriage.

All of Genesis 24, the longest chapter in Genesis, the book of beginnings, tells the story of Abraham obtaining the life’s partner for his son. To review that first line, what is Genesis 24 about? It is all about a man acquiring a wife. We should regulate our lives by Scriptural example. It’s not as easy as plain statements, but we’re supposed to gather some doctrine and practice from Old Testament narratives. Genesis 24 isn’t for nothing. It has some purpose.

Some have used Genesis 24 as merely a picture of Christ and the church. They usually do the same thing with Song of Solomon. I believe those efforts represent something closer to an allegorical hermeneutic. I take the position that types should be stated. If there isn’t some strong connection of the dots, I don’t see a type or a figure. I can say that the ark is a picture of salvation because of other statements in Scripture about Noah and the flood.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that Genesis 24 is about the man leaving father and mother and cleaving to his wife. A pattern is provided. We should judge that pattern by propositional statements found elsewhere in the Bible. We should look at other examples. Everything combined should form the doctrine and practice. I’ve already looked through Scripture at other examples. Principles flesh themselves out that we see modeled here in Genesis 24. Let’s see what they are.

PRINCIPLES IN A PATTERN FOR THE OBTAINING OF ONE’S SPOUSE (Genesis 24)

Principle One—The Authority (Genesis 24:1-2, 49-51)

The chapter starts with Abraham even as he is the patriarch, the one in charge. As the chief executive of his household, he exerts authority over the man who oversees the entire home business, a house manager, something like we see referenced in the some of the parables of Jesus in the NT (Matthew 24:45, “Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?”). The servant was the ruler over Abraham’s household, but in the chapter the servant repeatedly and subserviently refers to Abraham as his “master,” which is the word for “lord” (adone). The man is doing Abraham’s bidding all along the way, doing his lord’s will.

Later in the chapter Rebekah’s father Bethuel and her brother Laban stand in the way between the servant and Rebekah. They must decide if she we will go. In v. 49 the nameless servant makes it clear that they are dealing with Abraham in this circumstance. They decide in v. 51 that Isaac can have Rebekah as wife.

The Scriptural way depends upon authority for the obtaining of a life’s partner on both the man’s and the woman’s side. Following authority is the basis for making the right choice. The objectivity of the parent keeps it from emotions or hormones, deceit and defeat. Permission must be granted from the woman’s authority. Also, in the example of the family of Abraham, there is no independent adulthood between the two families. We have two homes in Scripture. In the first home, a man and a woman are under parental authority. In the second home, the man leaves his father and mother, the woman marries him, he becoming her head and she is help meet. There is not an in between marriage time when men or women operate unilaterally to parental authority. When that does happen in Scripture, it occurs almost unanimously to great harm to those who separate from the authority of their father.

The history of dating, essentially an English and mainly American phenomenon, is one in which the process toward marriage steps out from under the authority of parents. The children take the task into their own hands. Today parents are instructed to do so and often gladly do. Those who don’t do it gladly are most often marked as a kind of bigots. This history coincides with a radical cultural change that paralleled with the industrial revolution. Dad’s employment sent him away from home. School went from something small and close to home to something big and further away. Students far outnumbered adults. Boys and girls had more freedom to spend time relatively alone. The parents were less involved with their children. Boys and girls began announcing what they had taken into their own hands. Parents must accept. Now parents endorse.

Without parents initiating, the process took on all sorts of new dimensions. Feelings were now love. Love became the means of choice, but it was actually lust. With the kids taking charge, new dating skills were developed akin to the strange woman in Proverbs. Both boys and girls learned how to seduce at an early age. Less time was spent on skill, intellect, and spirit building and more on mating rituals. The music and fashion industries marketed to this. The young people bought what they were selling. Where we stand today, this has a stranglehold even on Christian college campuses. It is true that much of it is no longer about marriage, but about gratifying short-term physical and emotional desire.

When we see in Scripture this pattern followed of the children taking the authority in the choice of life’s partner, it is often embraced by rebels or godless pagans. Samson ordered his parents around and it lead to his downfall. Jacob, perhaps because he himself didn’t follow his parents instruction, didn’t restrain his own children enough, and this resulted in the sorry incident with Dinah and the Shechemites and then Judah’s corrupt dalliance with Tamar. A lot of problems in the Old Testament revolve around doing this the wrong way.

Dating today just imitates the worst examples in the Bible regarding authority. The whole history of dating contradicts the biblical, historical, and then really traditional way of getting a wife or husband. The point of dating has been for children to initiate the process. Even if the parents are closely involved, the young people are checking each other out and dressing and acting in a way to get that done. The kids then report back to their parents what they like and want. They take the Samson route or the foolish bread boy of Proverbs 7. The temperature goes up, the IQ goes down, and the relationship with the parents drastically changes. If the parents intervene, the kids resent it and the culture backs them up.

In the story of Isaac, the two marriage candidates aren’t involved with each other at all. They must fully trust authority in their lives. This is pictured as the ideal. It is the way of faith, even as we will see later in the chapter. It is the way of answered prayer. The parents are the ones doing everything, including doing the checking out. Of course, to those who don’t like this way, that means the parents pick out someone ugly for their child. After all, they don’t care about the physical as much as character and other matters, so they ignore looks. This isn’t true. Parents want a good match for their children too, but they don’t have to be affected by the looks in the same way that their children will be, where lust is involved. It also allows the looks and character issues to be balanced off.

Part of the attack on God’s way is also an attack on parental authority and ultimately the role of the Dad. Part of the conspiracy of Satan is to destroy the home and a great way to do that is to obliterate the role of the man in the home. He is succeeding at that and this is one of the ways. Dads don’t choose and then they don’t protect their daughters any more. They are a mere figurehead. They might get to choose what television channel the family will watch. Moms are often taking charge in the dating scene, feeling the emotions of their daughters along with them, role-playing, doing dress up, perhaps nostalgic of some of the best feelings they ever had in their life, when they were dating. So much emphasis is placed on dating and the wedding that the marriage is a several decade afterthought, if it lasts that long.

God is a good God, so His way is better, but it is His way. It’s understandable why kids want to be the ones involved all along, but that isn’t the pattern in Scripture. We are to be regulated by the pattern that God has given us for His honor and glory. Without faith it is impossible to please Him.

Principle Two—The Affiliations (Genesis 24:3-4)

Abraham is concerned first about what family she comes from. This relates to what she believes. The Canaanites were polytheists. Abraham’s family believed in the same God as Abraham. False religion was an immediate deal breaker. Abraham limited the possibilities to only the ones who would fit into his family’s belief system. Beliefs are the chief issue in a marriage. We don’t even approach people that don’t believe like we do.

Abraham utilized his servant. The servant was his networker. He went to look on behalf of Abraham, having the same thoughts about things. He went a long ways to get it done. We might need to go away from our own church and network with another church. The beliefs of the church and then the family are the first topics that should be considered in this search to find the wife. Since the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), that makes the most sense today as an application of getting to the location where the qualified possibilities are. I believe the church is a far better perimeter than the institution of the college. Colleges often bring together varied belief systems that will clash in areas not important to college, but very important to a life’s partner candidate.

In the realm of affiliations, there are other passages that apply to this. An obvious one is 2 Corinthians 6:14-16. The candidate should be a believer. In the case of Abraham, it was a family of monotheists, what we would see in principle as limiting ourselves to believers today. Amos 3:3 says it with “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” One reason people get divorced is “irreconcilable differences.” Different beliefs can be that kind of difference. Peace in Scripture relates to belief and practice more than anything. A friend of the world could not be classified as a potential life’s partner (James 4:4). An “enemy of God” would be the wrong person to marry. Other qualities will enter in, but this relates to affiliations, and we look to where we will have the most peace, that is, our own church or a church of like faith and practice.

—more coming in part four