The Syrophenician Woman

A recent opinion post on Associated Baptist Press made quite a splash. The author of the opinion clearly ditched the view of Jesus as sinless Son of God for Jesus the racist who was gradually learning better. That is part of the background of this post. [ABP is now Baptist News, and the story has moved HERE.]

A collated reading of Matthew 15:21-28 and Mark 7:24-30
Then Jesus arose, and went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entered into an house, and would have no man know it: but he could not be hid; For a certain woman of Canaan [the woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation], whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came out of the same coasts and came and fell at his feet: and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But Jesus answered and said unto her: Let the children first be filled. It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. And she said, Yes. Truth, Lord: yet the dogs under their masters' table eat of the children's crumbs which fall from the table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. And when she was come to her house, she found the devil gone out, and her daughter laid upon the bed.

The above is a collated or combined reading of Matthew and Mark from the King James Bible. I hope no one is troubled by it. The intent is to not to create a new version, but just to get the full description of the historical accounts while saving a little space.

Many people find this story problematic when they first encounter it. To call this woman a dog and refuse to help her? Where else is one so rebuked by Christ for coming to Him? For some it is only problematic to their understanding, for they believe God is sovereign and what He does is right regardless of whether they understand it. For some it is problematic to their faith, for they presuppose certain things are right and God's actions must fit into this concept.

Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan His work in vain;
God is His own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.

Notes on the text
a certain woman of Canaan, the woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation. Some critics have complained about the tri-fold description, while themselves using such descriptions for others. The three descriptors may be nationality (Syro-Phenician, as opposed to Lybo-Phenician perhaps), religion (Greek, heathen, of a different religion) and "race" (Canaan; or just that she resided in the regions called Canaan).
would have no man know it: but he could not be hid. Here speaks the language of accommodation; the language of God as man; anthropomorphism, the perception of human qualities in divine beings. This is how it appeared from all human recognition and understanding.
a woman of Canaan...came out of the same coasts. If Jesus went into the land of Tyre and Sidon, this appears to be the only time He went into Gentile territory. In my opinion, it is more consistent with the text and the "limit" of His mission that He only went very near to the border of that land, but was still in the land of Israel. The woman came out of the coasts/borders of Tyre and Sidon and came to Jesus. As Jesus needed to go through Samaria, so He deliberately placed Himself in this woman's vicinity.
his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away. At first Jesus answered not a word (cf. John 8:6). Her continual crying brought the disciples distress. Whether they wished her sent away full or empty it is not clear, but sent away nevertheless! She crieth after us. She bothers us. She annoys us. She brings us too much attention.
I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This first address is to the disciples rather than the woman. They were involved in this limited sending (cf. Matt. 10:5) so should be aware of it. Hidden from them was what Simeon saw in the babe in the Temple (cf. Luke 2:3). Jesus' answer silenced the disciples, but not the woman. We ought always to pray, and not to faint.
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. Strong in faith, nothing doubting. Instead of being perplexed with doubts, by faith throw yourself at Jesus feet for mercy, "Lord, help me." So will I go in unto the king, and if I perish, I perish (but I will perish there; cf. Esther 4:16).
It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs. To be more offended than the woman is to not have a proper view of the helper, to not have an importunate need, and to be more set on fault-finding than truth-finding. If a 21st century reader is more offended than the "offended party", then he lacks the great faith that resided in that party. He was "Lord" when she asked for help and still "Lord" after He seemingly refused it. Jesus' answer was devastating, but not derogatory; trying but yet the truth. Those who deserve nothing will appreciate anything. "Behind a frowning providence, He hides a smiling face."
And she said, Yes. Truth, Lord. The humble acknowledgement of the importunate. Complain on, O complainer. Deny on, O disbeliever; but this woman says "TRUTH!"
the dogs under their masters' table eat of the children's crumbs. (These dogs were household pets, not wild scavengers; pets that were near the children under the master's table.) Something in what Jesus said and how He said it dropped a crumb of hope for the helpless woman. Under the Master's table a glimmering faith picked up the crumb and cherished it. I shall not be sent away empty for there is enough in the Father's house and to spare (cf. Luke 15:17).
O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. His purposes will ripen fast, Unfolding every hour. Does the text not reveal why He came to the borders of Tyre and Sidon. The disciples understood a get-away. But the woman who heard He was there got what she wanted.
And her daughter was made whole from that very hour. The bud may have a bitter taste, But sweet will be the flower. The healing was immediate.
And when she was come to her house, she found. The immediate healing of the daughter was first viewed by the mother on her arrival, though she doubted it not.

Instead of complaining & condemning, hawing & hemming, explaining away the Lordship of Christ, realize God moves in mysterious ways; His ways are not our ways. The Syrophenician woman caught a crumb many theologians have missed.

Jesus commended the woman's faith. Jesus cured the woman's daughter. Surely she could not have hoped for more.

God moves in a mysterious way
His wonders to perform;
He plants His footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never failing skill
He treasures up His bright designs
And works His sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust Him for His grace;
Behind a frowning providence
He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding every hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flower.

Blind unbelief is sure to err
And scan His work in vain;
God is His own interpreter,
And He will make it plain.

Smith Memorial Singing

The 30th Annual Smith Memorial Singing will be held tomorrow (d.v.), March 7th at the New Harmony Community Center, northwest of Tyler, Texas. The Community Center is located on FM 724 in the New Harmony Community, between State Hwys 64 & 110. More info: Myrl Jones, (903) 593-0955. (1991 Revision/Cooper Revision)

Scriptural preaching, without notes

Most preaching seems to be done from a full outline of what is to be preached, or a printed manuscript of the entire sermon. Preaching without notes is to enter the pulpit with only a Bible – no notes, manuscript, or predetermination of what will be said. In his book A Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, John Broadus asks, “How can a man pray that God will guide him through a forest, when he has already blazed the entire path, and committed himself to follow it?”

What it is not (or ought not be).
Preaching without notes is not preaching without preparation. Some who preach without notes advocate preaching without any preparation whatsoever. If they mean by this not preparing an outline or manuscript, I agree. If they mean by this not studying the Bible, I emphatically disagree! No man should enter the pulpit without prayer (Acts 6:4) and Bible study (II Tim. 2:15). Both of these are commanded by God. God by His Holy Spirit will direct a man of God in what to say, but failure to pray and study the Bible is disobedience and presumption – not faith.

Preaching without notes is not inspired preaching. In the early days of the church, God inspired men to preach, prophesy and write correctly without any mixture of error. No preacher today has that kind of inspiration. But we do have the Bible and the divine guidance by the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. Though a preacher cannot speak with inspired apostolic authority, he can speak for God from the Bible as he is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Preaching without notes is not memorizing a manuscript and reciting it. It is extemporaneous preaching – preaching with a head full of study, a heart full of prayer, a spirit full of confidence in God seeking the divine guidance of the moment to bring the message of God rather than the message the preacher wants.

What it is (or ought to be).
Preaching without notes is preaching following the New Testament example. No example can be found of Jesus Christ, His apostles or preachers speaking while reading notes, outlines or manuscripts. Shouldn’t biblical Christians prefer to develop the style of preaching found in the Bible?

Preaching without notes is liberating to the preacher. It frees his mind from following his own predetermined course. It allows for the principle that the Spirit helps us with our preaching. It even frees the preacher’s eyes from a written page and allows him to look up at his hearers rather than down at a page.

Preaching without notes is consistent with the call to preach. Preaching is of divine appointment (I Tim. 1:12; II Tim. 1:11; et al.). Most anyone can read a manuscript, and with training most people can arrange an orderly discourse. If preaching is no more than that, why is there a divine call and gift to preach?

Preaching without notes is practical. Preaching without notes is adaptable to all times and situations. Preaching with notes or manuscript may be done only when one has previously prepared. If called on unexpectedly, the noted preacher must frequently decline. But we are to be instant out of season as well as in season, always ready to give an answer to any man at any time.

Some objections.
“I might forget what I want to say.” Certainly you might. If I forget something I want to say and say something God wants said instead, we will be none the worse.

“By using notes I can organize my thoughts, as well as control the length of the sermon.” Yes, but it was not organization of thought, but the power of the Holy Spirit that blessed Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost. God never emphasized organization and education – but yield to Me and preach My Word.

“I know godly men who preach with notes and have been blessed of God in their work.” Yes, I agree. In July of 1741 in Enfield, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards preached a sermon titled Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. He reputedly stood motionless in the pulpit, holding a candle in his right hand and his sermon manuscript in his left hand. As he read, he was interrupted by outcries – some sinners fell to the floor, some clung to the church pillars fearing they might slip into Hell. Yet if we reason that we should use a manuscript because Edwards did, we could also reason that we should become Protestants because Edwards was. God will do as He pleases. But we should seek the best light we have and obey it.

Scriptures that might apply.
One cluster of scriptures often submitted to the discussion are: Matthew 10:19-20; Mark 13:10-11; Luke 12:11-12; & Luke 21:12-15. “It is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.” A careful examination shows that these have a more specific application than a pastor preaching to his flock. Those who were delivered up to the authorities would have words given to speak by the Holy Ghost without having taken any forethought as to how they would respond to the charges. Yet these passages can yield to us a principle of God speaking through His people in this age. Matthew 10:19-20 applies this principle to the limited commission to the church during Christ’s earthly ministry; Luke 21:12-15 applies it to the destruction of Jerusalem and possibly the time before Christ’s return; Mark 13:10-11 applies it to the time preceding the coming of Christ; Luke 12:11-12 speaks in broader and more general terms. Therefore a principle of God giving words to speak to His people runs the gamut of the church age.

A few have suggested Luke 24:29 (Tarry ye...until ye be endued with power from on high) in connection with preaching without notes. Though power from on high is needed in our preaching, this verse refers to what would transpire on the day of Pentecost.

Some of Paul’s passing remarks concerning his preaching have some import on the matter. “...the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” I Cor. 1:21. “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.” I Cor. 2:4. “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God...” II Cor. 10:4. It is inevitable that it must be admitted that arranging notes, outlines and preparing manuscripts (as well as the theories of proper speech, pulpit manner, etc.) arise from the wisdom of men rather than biblical precept and example. Preaching is not considered foolishness when it meets the required forms and procedures of modern speech. Practically the same materials are found in secular colleges and universities as in seminaries concerning how to prepare and deliver speeches/sermons. Let it be admitted that these materials and methods are drawn from secular sources, and it is therein admitted that carnal rather than spiritual weapons have been chosen. “Which things we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth...” I Cor. 2:13.

Another implication for preaching without notes is the evidence of the sermons of the New Testament, especially the book of Acts. The sermons are lacking the telltale signs of the modern sermon. None have a title, and can hardly be understood to have developed from an outline format reminiscent of modern scholarship.

I Peter 4:10-11 clearly identifies speaking as a gift from God entrusted to stewards to use to minister to others. It is this God-given gift that separates preaching from other forms of oratory. “Without the power of the Spirit, human rhetoric accomplishes nothing of eternal value” (Jarred Edgecombe). If scriptural spiritual preaching can be arrived at by exclusively human means (such as homiletics, speech classes, practice, imitation, etc.) do we not nullify the need of a God-given gift?

Conclusion.
Many honest and godly men put in much time studying and preparing sermons. By doing so, they learn much and have something to say to their congregations. On the other hand, sermon preparation can degenerate into studying sermons in order to speak to others, rather than studying the Bible for God to speak to us. In the hands of some, sermons sink into the mire of catchy titles, strange stories, amazing outlines, unbelievable alliteration, and a host of other attention-getting gimmicks.

Preaching without notes is not without its abusers. Some lazy preachers use it as an “easy-out”. They excuse their slothfulness, refusal to study the Bible, and neglect of improvement and hard work with an insincere “God will give me something to say.” But God abhors laziness, and the Bible commends labour, diligence, and perseverance.

Profitable preaching without notes is possible through frequent study of God’s Word, much time spent in prayer, and openness to the leadership of God’s Spirit. It is thoroughly biblical, as well as quite practical. May we search and see whether this be so.

(Originally printed in The Baptist Waymark)

The Christian apologist and obscurantist methodology

There is "often a problem with Christian apologists (or any type of apologist). Many apologists intent on defending the Christian faith (or their particular version of it) follow an 'obscurantist' methodology where all the evidence that supports their conclusions is brought to light while all that which may cast doubt on their conclusions is never revealed or is presented in a manipulated light. When their goal becomes to win an argument, truth will more than likely get lost through a polished rhetoric. In other words, truth becomes the servant of their argument rather than their argument the servant of truth. They may persuade those who are not really searching for truth (including themselves), but, in the end, they hurt their cause and dishonor Christ." -- Doing Theology is About Pursuing Truth, Not Prejudice by C. Michael Patton

Some say one needs “epistemic humility”—a real understanding that you could be wrong. But taken to an extreme, it posits Christians cannot have absolute certainty about anything the Bible says. We should study the Bible and theology in order to learn what God reveals and not simply to prop up our system.

When music takes shape

"The whole point of shape-note is not about being a wonderful, trained singer, or about demonstrating years spent learning the material you’re singing. It’s about making a joyful noise." -- When music takes shape, by Emily Burnham in Bangor Daily News 2/16/09

In Him is all our rest

1 – When Jesus would His grace proclaim,
He calls the simple, blind, and lame
To come and be His guest;
Such simple folk the world despise;
Yet simple folk do realize
In Him is ALL their rest!

2 – They view the truth of Jesus’ light,
Of Jesus’ blood, and Jesus’ might,
Which others cannot view;
They walk in Christ, the living Way
And trust no other righteousness
Which others cannot do.

3 – They all declare, I nothing am,
My life is bound up in the Lamb,
My strength and might are His;
My worth is all in Jesus found,
He is my Rock, my anchor-ground,
And all my hope of bliss.
-- J. Berridge

Qualifications of elders

After noting the character traits mentioned in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, Nathan White of Berean Baptist Church in Powder Springs, GA writes,
“By observing this list, we can clearly see that the qualifications for an elder are centered on personal character, reputation, faithfulness, and sanctification, as just a basic summary.

Interesting that the scriptures do not mention a man’s:
* Educational level, as if a seminary degree is somehow a necessary asset to enter the ministry (it does mention that an elder must be ‘able to teach’ and ‘refute those who contradict’.)
* Popularity, as if a man’s ability to attract large crowds, demand a large hearing, or ‘change a lot of lives’ has anything to do with the holy office.
* Results (pragmatism), as if we are to look at the response to his message and determine if he is qualified. (Example: “Lot’s of people are getting saved, and God is moving, thus this man must be anointed!”)
* Likability, rhetorical skills, ability to be culturally-relevant or creative in presentation, etc.”

He makes a good point. Read the entire article at the link above and also Bart Barber below.

"What's missing today is an application of biblical standards for evaluating churches and elders/pastors/overseers. We grade according to wordly, material standards. There are biblical standards; we just ignore them. Churches draft "job descriptions" for jobs already described in the Bible, and do so with little or no reference to those biblical materials. Character is not measured; performance is. This is, in my study of the Bible, a flawed and carnal approach. The implications are far-reaching." -- In his comments re his post An Exemplary Pastor

The Sum and Substance of Religion, By J. C. Philpot

"There is no true religion independent of the inward work and witness of God the Spirit in the conscience. Take away the Spirit’s work, and what is left? Nothing but a dead carcass of forms. If a man deny the inward teachings of the Spirit of God to be the sum and substance of religion, he has no other refuge but Popery; and, to be thoroughly consistent, he should declare himself a Papist at once; for there is no real stopping–place between vital religion wrought in the heart and conscience by the power of God the Spirit, and that which stands in external forms, rites and ceremonies." -- As printed in the “Old Faith Contender”, November 1965

Joseph Charles Philpot (1802-1869) was an English Baptist minister born in Kent. According to "Gospel Standard, he was the son of a clergyman (evidently Anglican), and "he became a fellow of Worcester College Oxford. In 1828 he was appointed a curate at Stadhampton. He seceded from the Church of England in 1835 and cast in his lot with those who later became known as the Gospel Standard Baptists, becoming sole editor of their magazine in 1849."

The exorcists

The exorcists. Acts 19:13-16

When the apostle wonders wrought,
And healed the sick, in Jesus' name;
The sons of Sceva vainly thought
That they had pow'r to do the same.

On one possessed they tried their art,
And naming JESUS preached by Paul,
They charged the spirit to depart
Expecting he'd obey their call.

The spirit answered, with a mock,
"Jesus I know; and Paul I know;
I must have gone if Paul had spoke;
But who are ye that bid me go?"

With fury then the man he filled,
Who on the poor pretenders flew;
Naked and wounded, almost killed,
They fled in all the peoples' view.

John Newton (1725-1807)
Olney Hymns, 1779.

The threat of ecumenism

On a recent blog one brother wrote, "I think anything organized with participation by different religious groups or individuals of different religious groups is ecumenical." Is anything organized with participation by different religious groups ecumenical? Does presence and organization define ecumenical? What part does intent play?

What is ecumenical? According to The Merriam Webster Dictionary, ecumenical means "promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity." The Random House Unabridged Dictionary gives a further refinement of it as "of or pertaining to a movement (ecumenical movement), esp. among Protestant groups since the 1800s, aimed at achieving universal Christian unity and church union through international interdenominational organizations that cooperate on matters of mutual concern." According to American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, this could also include "promoting worldwide unity among religions through greater cooperation and improved understanding." So ecumenism might be something as innocuous as promoting Christian unity, or as dangerous as uniting the world’s religions in one organization.

In dealing with the concept of ecumenism, perhaps it’s hard for Baptists to strike a happy medium. One sees something scurrying out from every rock he turns over, and every stick looks like a snake. Another needs prescription glasses so badly he couldn’t see ecumenical compromise if it were staring him in the face. There is a real threat of ecumenism as some attempt to unite the denominations by abandoning the faith once delivered to the saints. "Let’s ignore the Bible & truth and just be one big happy family." Then there is a trivialization of ecumenism which fears a Baptist and a person of another denomination standing in close proximity are engaged in "an ecumenical movement". The challenge is to walk the path in the center, without falling into the ditch on the right or left; to pursue unity of the faith and love of the brethren without dispensing the Scripture and its truth.

The threat of ecumenism – the attempt to falsely unite
Christian unity is not wrong. The modern ecumenical manner of achieving it is. The ecumenical movement seeks to break down denominational barriers and just worship together as "Christians". The movement is alive and well. A worldwide promoter among Christian denominations is the World Council of Churches, whose aim is to proclaim the oneness of the church of Jesus Christ and to call the churches to the goal of visible unity. By methods such as dialogue, study documents, common prayer and worship, churches from the Anglican Church to the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church to the Waldensian Church (yes, you read that correctly) unite in the WCC and seek for unity. Again, unity is not wrong. But abandoning the faith once delivered to the saints is! It seems clear to me that the methodology of the WCC, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, and all such movements do not hold a high view of the Scriptures or the once-delivered faith.

The trivialization of ecumenism – seeing ecumenism under every rock
Like Chicken Little who believes the sky is falling or the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, the “ecumenist-behind-every-non-denominational-gathering” mentality trivializes real ecumenism. When the sky really is falling and when the wolf really comes, no one believes us because we have lost our credibility.

There are some gatherings that are not ecumenical that attract various brands of Christians. One obvious example is pro-life rallies. Because of agreement on the sanctity of life, these rallies attract Baptists, Protestants, Catholics, Jews and others. But the intent is not to unite all these people in one denomination. The intent is to unite in a social and political way to rally support for the sanctity of life. Is working in a Rescue Mission "ecumenical"? Many churches seem to work together to supply food and service for the homeless, etc., without compromising any of their standards or seeking organizational union.

Realize also that something does not have to be ecumenical to be wrong. Some Baptists I know seem to struggle to find the proper way to frame an argument against certain things they believe are unscriptural and/or inadvisable. If they can’t define it clearly some other way, they frame it under the specter of ecumenism. Surely everyone will shy away from it then! Yet something can be wrong for reasons other than ecumenism. False worship can be just that, without any ecumenical trappings. For example, a friend might want you to attend church and worship with him. He has no intention of ecumenism. He intends rather to convert you to his belief.

The challenge – the pursuit of unity and love without disposing of scripture and truth
Unity is a command, a privilege, and a goal. The pursuit of unity is not an evil, but rather a good. The pursuit and proclamation of unity on a false basis is an evil. Is it too simple to ask that we simply be Christians?

With the multitudinous clamoring voices claiming to be Christianity, many declare unity impossible. But the Jerusalem church exhibits the possibility of unity. The divine voice pronounces they were "with one accord in prayer and supplication" and "of one heart and of one soul." We might say that the accord has been broken and cannot be recovered. Nay, rather amidst the discord in Corinth, Paul beseeched his brethren in the name of the Lord Jesus, "that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

"With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; [Endeavour] to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," remembering "they that worship [God] must worship him in spirit and in truth."

Levels of fellowship

Related to the next post I will be making on ecumenism, I have been thinking about the different types of fellowship Christians might have with their fellow men. Here are a few thoughts, and I would appreciate your input on the correctness (or not) of this.

Human fellowship (our commonness as fellow creatures in God's creation)
Social fellowship (those with whom we interact on a regular basis)
Political fellowship (those with whom we share in a political cause)
Familial fellowship (those with whom we share a family bond; perhaps a natural family, a spiritual family, etc.)
Ecclesial fellowship (those with whom we share a common church bond)

We should be careful to not go to seed on this, recognizing that a Christian is one person in whom all these must coincide and not result in confusion. But, for example, if there is such as thing as a spiritual familial relationship, wouldn't that suggest that we could have some fellowship with a person who is a part of this same family even though he or she might differ on church matters, making it unlikely or impossible for us to have ecclesial fellowship?

Should Holmes have been more tolerant?

Rev. Obadiah Holmes by Sam Behling
The Persecution of Obadiah Holmes in America by J. M. Cramp
Our Baptist Heritage Obadiah Holmes: A Baptist at His Best by Barry W. Jones

"Obadiah Holmes remained adamant that his worship of Christ should not be under the control of a priest or bishop, or a magistrate or government. He and his Baptist contemporaries in Rhode Island opposed any government interference in religion and vice versa. Holmes believed this so strongly that he once took 30 lashes at the hands of magistrates and clergy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, rather than be denied his right to worship as he saw fit."

At the above links you can read a little about Obadiah Holmes, an early American Baptist who felt so strongly about freedom of religion that he was willing to suffer for it. Men and women of that caliber were the forerunners of obtaining legal freedom of religion in the United States of America.

Today freedom of religion is often confused with tolerance. The modern tolerance seems to hold that all religion is equally valid, and for that reason folks ought to "tolerate" all sorts of beliefs.

Holmes was not "tolerant". He stood for freedom of religion, not tolerance. Tolerance implies someone is superior and in a position to tolerate an inferior. Holmes wanted equality of religion before the governmental authorities. This idea is not based on the equality of all religions, but on religion being between God and man -- not God, man and his government.

Holmes was not ecumenical. He would not be forced to worship with the Puritan Congregationalists, and so signaled by keeping his hat on when hauled into their sanctuary. His freedom of religion required him to believe others should be free to consort with other beliefs if they so wished, but it also meant those who did not so wish should not be forced to.

Union, by Trott

"Does union consist in being mingled together as the opposite parties of a controversy? For my own part I am free to acknowledge that I admire the spirit manifested and the course proposed by Abraham, when he said to Lot, "Let there be no strife between me and thee and between my herdmen and thy herdman; for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before thee? Separate thyself I pray thee, from me." Genesis 23:2-9. This example I would recommend to my brethren in Virginia and elsewhere, so far as the strife has extended; not for the purpose of of disunion, but to prevent strife.

"Let us say to those whom we have called 'brethren', but who are only our brethren's children, let us not remain together to keep up controversy, let us separate.

"I certainly think with the wise man that; "It is better to dwell in a corner of the house top, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house." - Proverbs 21:9. Whether this course is not more congenial with the spirit of the Gospel than to continue together in strife, judge ye.

"We urge upon our brethren to take the Bible as their only standard both of faith and practice, to turn to it for instruction, and to practice what and as the Master has said. We go to no higher antiquity than Christ and His apostles for authority, neither stop we short of that." -- Samuel Trott in Does Union consist in being mingled together? 1833

Disagreeing with tolerant liberalism

"What is paraded before the public as 'Liberalism', is anything else but liberal. Disagree with that mentality, and you will immediately find that these folk are not liberal at all! They are a bigotted, narrow-minded, and arrogant group of people." -- Stanley Phillips in "Creationism vs. Darwinism (Evolutionism or Longitudinalism)", an e-mail, Wed, 18 Jun 2008

Practical benefits of sound doctrine

The practical benefits of sound doctrine are:
1) It pleases God (Gal. 1:10)
2) It leads to biblical practices (2 Pet. 2:14, 15)
3) It builds spiritual strength (Rev. 3:8)
4) It builds influence for witnessing (Rev. 3:8)
5) It promotes faithfulness (Eph. 1:1)
6) It gives glory to God through a NT church (Eph. 3:21)
7) It refuses to be led astray by hearing false preachers, false teachers (Rev. 2:9; 3:9)
Posted by Arch Bishop at In Defense of Landmarkism, but no longer available on the site.

You might enjoy reading...

Becoming Baptists: Conversion in Colonial and Early National Virginia.

State Convention this coming Saturday

The Texas State Sacred Harp Convention with be held (d.v.) this coming weekend -- Saturday February 21 and Sunday February 22, 2009.

The Convention will meet at the Wellborn Community Center on 4119 Greens Prairie Road West in College Station, Texas. Singing will start at 10:00 a.m. on Saturday and 9:30 a.m. on Sunday. The Sacred Harp Revision to be used is the 1991 Revision (Denson/Red book). Hope to see you there Saturday, Lord willing.

Click link above for map and contact information.

Thomas Bradbury said...

"I may preach to the ear, but I cannot reach the heart. My words are but as empty vapour without the Spirit’s power. Joseph Irons' hymn is painfully, yet pleasantly, true:--

'We have listen’d to the preacher,
Truth by him has now been shown;
But we want a greater Teacher,
From the everlasting throne;
Application is the work of God alone.'"

-- From The Masters of Assemblies, by Thomas Bradbury, April 13, 1879

True Love

I Corinthians chapter 13.

Systematic theology

Systematic theology and the Bible.

Anyone who purchases and peruses a Systematic Theology will recognize a vast difference in structure, appearance, style and organization between it and the Bible. Why? Is that good, bad or indifferent?

What is Systematic Theology?
A sampling from the internet indicates a hodge-podge of ideas that have a core agreement. For a concise definition, Norman Manzon says the goal of systematic theology "is to address and arrange all Bible subjects topically in a formal, systematic arrangement."

"Systematic theology is a discipline of Christian theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs. Inherent to a system of theological thought is that a method is developed, one which can be applied both broadly and particularly." -- Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

"Systematic theology is any study that answers the question, 'What does the whole Bible teach us today?' about any given topic.

"This definition indicates that systematic theology involves collecting and understanding all the relevant passages in the Bible on various topics and then summarizing their teachings clearly so that we know what to believe about each topic." -- Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, pg. 13)

According to John Stevenson, systematic theology is "the study that follows an analytically devised scheme to organize into a single system all of the truth that we have about God and His universe."

"The word theology means 'study of God'. Systematic refers to something being put into a system. Systematic theology is, therefore, the division of theology into systems that explain its various areas. For example, many books of the Bible give information about the angels. No one book gives all the information about the angels. Systematic theology takes all the information about angels from all the books of the Bible, and organizes it into a system - angelology. That is what systematic theology is all about - organizing the teachings of the Bible into categorical systems." -- GotQuestions.org

The benefits of Systematic Theology
The practical benefit of systematic theology is the collecting of all the information on any particular topic and studying it as a unit -- all the Bible says about creation, all it says about redemption, all it says about the church, all it says about baptism, &c. In that sense systematic theology is Bible study and based on the Bible. When placed in book form there is usually a summarization of the various subjects by chapter. It is ordered and presented in a logical (and sometimes "chronological") fashion to attempt to make it easy for the human mind to grasp.

The pitfalls of Systematic Theology
When we describe a Systematic Theology as a presentation that makes it easy for the mind to grasp, that brings up a question. Given the vast difference between a Systematic Theology and the Bible, do we then conclude that God has presented the Bible in a way that is difficult for the human mind to grasp? If the answer is no, then why do we need systematic theology? If the answer is yes, then (1) did God intend to present His truth in a comprehendible fashion, but did not, or (2) are we foolishly trying to make easy something God has purposefully made difficult? I'm not sure I have the answers to these questions.

Perhaps the most dangerous element of systematic theology is not the system itself, but how the individual Christian responds to it. The individual may allow the theologian to do his or her studying of the entire range of the Bible on any given subject. Once he falls into that trap, he may then study the Bible not with a "what does this mean" attitude, but with a "how does this fit my (adopted) theology" attitude. (And this can even be a problem if we have our own systematic theology.) John Stevenson wrote, "We must recognize that God and the Scriptures rule over our theology and not the other way around." For many individuals, their system rules the Scriptures, rather than the Scriptures forming their system. Sometimes this happens by forming a system without taking into account all the Scriptures have to say on a given subject. With the preconceived ideas in tow, each verse or paragraph or chapter is forced through the theological grid we've developed. We effectively inoculate ourselves from the Scripture rule as we hide safely behind our system. "It can't mean that!" "That would contradict what I believe about ...." (Maybe what I believe about .... needs to be contradicted.)

Probably speaking of other systems, Alfred Lord Tennyson nevertheless speaks truth to the fate of our theological systems:
Our little systems have their day,
They have their day and cease to be.
They are but broken lights of Thee,
And Thou, O Lord, are more than they.
("In Memoriam", 1850)

May our systematic theology be the theology of the Bible.

Logos Bible Software

Information about Logos Bible Software 3, CLICK HERE.

Are your beliefs sincere enough?

According to this story, New York parents, based on religious grounds, can opt out of vaccines that public schools require children to have. But the attorney for the Bayport-Blue Point Union Free School District decided the beliefs of Ron and Rita Palma "were not 'sincere' enough."

How long will it be before we all have someone else telling us what we believe?

Thou Art the Man by M.L. Vaughn

In the Book of books we read of two of God's chosen men who committed great crimes, yet condemned those who committed them as being worthy of death until the guilt was placed on them.

In Genesis 38 we read of Judah, the son of Jacob, who condemned a woman to be burned until she proved him to be the guilty man. Then he declared her to be more righteous than himself.

David the Psalmist, declared to be a man after God's own heart, committed the great crime of having Uriah put in the front in battle that he might be killed and that he might get his wife, II Sam. 11 and 12. God sent Nathan to David with his parables, and when David heard the parable he said, "The man must die." Then Nathan said to David, "Thou art the man." Then David confessed to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Later he said, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight." (Psalms 51:4)

How careful we should be in passing judgment on others. We should first get the beam out of our own eye before trying to get the mote out of the other fellow's eye. None of us should set himself up as being more honourable than Judah or David to whom it was said, "Thou art the man."

This old selfish nature of ours is so prone to condemn faults in others, but often the verdict comes ringing back, "Thou art the man."

Psalms 19:14 : "Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer." May this be the prayer of us all.

By Elder Marshall Lewis Vaughn (1858--1947), Mt. Enterprise, TX. First printed in 1940 in The Baptist Progress. Reprinted in The Baptist Waymark June 1986.

Literal or figurative

"But in addition to the foregoing rule, which guards us against taking a metaphorical form of speech as if it were literal, we must also pay heed to that which tells us not to take a literal form of speech as if it were figurative. In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative." (Augustine, Book III)

Providences of God recorded

PSALM 78 PART 1
C. M.

Providences of God recorded.

Let children hear the mighty deeds
Which God performed of old,
Which in our younger years we saw,
And which our fathers told.

He bids us make his glories known,
His works of power and grace;
And we'll convey his wonders down
Through every rising race.

Our lips shall tell them to our sons,
And they again to theirs;
That generations yet unborn
May teach them to their heirs.

Thus shall they learn in God alone
Their hope securely stands;
That they may ne'er forget his works,
But practise his commands.

Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
The Psalms of David, 1719.

Can't believe it

President Obama rejected arguments that the spending in the $819 billion (now 937 billion; now ...) stimulus bill should be replaced by tax cuts.

"What do you think a stimulus is?" Obama asked incredulously. "It’s spending — that's the whole point! Seriously.”

How much for ACORN, Mr. President, a group under investigation for election fraud? How much for the digital television converter box coupon program? How much to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees? How much for "smoking cessation activities"? How much for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film? How much for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters? Tell us, Mr. President. Stimulus? Seriously?

Speaking of stimulus and spending...
Remember the Congress blasting corporate executives who came to Washington on corporate jets asking for money? And the complaints about how some companies are spending their bailout money?

Well, I think they were right to complain, but...

...this weekend Democrat House members are meeting at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa in Williamsburg, VA. Quess who's paying?

"Democrats spend taxpayer money on their retreat but do not permit lobbyists to accompany them. The public pays for a charter train from Washington to Williamsburg for many of the 200 members who attend, as well as conference rooms, security and catering."

Word for today

wind·throw: (noun) the uprooting and overthrowing of trees by the wind
Pronunciation: \ˈwin(d)-ˌthrō\

In forestry, windthrow refers to trees uprooted or overthrown by wind. By extension, sometimes used to refer to associated things, such as the ground-hole left by the windthrown tree. Breakage of the tree bole instead of uprooting is sometimes called windsnap. -- Reference.com, Wikipedia.com, etc.

More than a hypocrite

"Am I am pharisee?" Have we ever asked ourselves that question? If we are, we probably haven't!! If we haven't, we should. Every aspect of our lives must be held up for inspection under the light of God's Word. This examination will not hurt us -- it can only help us.

What is a pharisee? To us the word is usually synonymous with hypocrite -- one who feign qualities, virtues, or religious devotion he does not possess. A pharisee is certainly a hypocrite, but more than just a hypocrite. Not the common variety -- but a religious hypocrite; not the lukewarm, but the fanatical. All hypocrites are not pharisees, but all pharisees are hypocrites. To define and understand the pharisee, we must examine the biblical record.

The implication from the Gospels is that the Pharisees were the most numerous and influential sect of the Jewish religion in Jesus' day. The Pharisees were divided from other factions chiefly because of differing positions concerning the law of Moses (Phil. 3:5). By observing their practices, doctrines, and attitudes, we may notice the distinguishing traits of the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were zealous (Rom. 10:2), though their zeal was misguided. They were devoted to their religion. They worked hard and traveled far to make converts (Matt. 23:15). Their devotion to their sect, its tenets, and its traditions was greater than their devotion to God (Mark 7:7,9). Their religion was a false one that shut men out of heaven (Matt. 23:13,15). In their blind zeal for their sect, they carried on a relentless campaign against Jesus and His work. The Pharisees' system of man-made doctrine was not compatible with Jesus' teachings. They impugned His character (Matt. 9:34; 12:24), denied His miracles (John 9:13-18), laid snares for His speech (Matt. 19:3: 22:15), threatened Him (Luke 13:31), attempted to stone Him (John 8:59), and eventually obtained agreement to His death (John 18:3; Matt. 27:20-22; Luke 23:13). Their devotion to their cause and their antagonism towards those who opposed it was so great they could justify the crucifixion of Jesus, and consent to the death of Stephen.

The Pharisees emphasized ritual and outward observance -- washings (Mark 7:3,4), fasting (Matt. 6:16; 9;14), strict Sabbath observance (Matt. 12:2), tithing (Matt. 23:23), public prayers (Matt. 6:5; Luke 18:11), etc. The hypocrite must necessarily have the outward in order to appear religious and righteous before men. Outer form replaces inner character as a sign of who is religious and right.

Doctrinally, Pharisees were strait and narrow (Acts 26:5). If the Sadducess were the religious liberals of Jesus' day, the Pharisees might be called the fundamentalists. They believed in a literal resurrection, angels & spirits (Acts 23:8), and were painstaking in their devotion to law-keeping (with their traditions, of course). Due to their lack of the Spirit, they were doomed to follow the letter. They were so sure they were right, everybody else must be wrong. They were the only scholars (John 7:15). They were self-righteous, covetous, treacherous, merciless -- even bloodthirsty -- but with skillful manipulation of the scriptures, they could justify every action (e.g. Mark 7:7-13).

The Pharisees were no mere hypocrites. They had so refined hypocrisy into a religious system, that Jesus identified their doctrine as hypocrisy (Luke 12:1 with Matt. 16:6, 12). They had a reputation for righteousness (Matt 5:20), but it was a self-heralded righteousness. The Pharisees feigned a religious devotion they did not possess. In the final analysis, they sought to exalt themselves and impress men rather than please God (Matt. 23:5). [Note: they did not necessarily try to please men, but tried to impress them; e.g. Matt. 6:2,5,16].

Jesus did not condemn their keeping of the law, but rather their exalting traditions above God's commands. He did not condemn their scrupulous observance of the details of the law, but rather their failure to observe its major themes. He did not condemn their zeal, but rather the misguided direction of it. Jesus' renunciation of the Pharisees shows that they exalted tradition over commandment, letter over spirit, seen over unseen, minor over major, ritual over spiritual, and that they condemned others while condoning themselves. Every single doctrine and practice was not bad, but their system moulded it all into a deadly combination. Their religion was a farce which outwardly continued that which was once inwardly meaningful to others.

Realize that any keeping of God's commands will be dubbed pharisaical and legalistic by some. Christianity has certain ritual (e.g. baptism, communion, etc.) and certain outwardly visible demands (e.g. modest dress, plain speech, etc.). These should be obeyed without concern for what one might be called. But Pharisees felt that these kinds of things alone marked them as righteous. Some outward things will be part of righteous separated living, but only an inward change of heart -- a washing in the blood of Christ -- makes one righteous. Realize also that claiming one way/doctrine/religion is right and another is wrong is not necssarily pharisaism. The apostles claimed their faith was from God and that both Judaism and paganism were wrong. But Pharisees found their rightness in being a Pharisee. Christians found their rightness in God.

Let's not worry about pharisaism among others. The question before us is, "Am I am pharisee?" If I travel far and wide to convert others to a religious affiliation rather than preach the gospel -- I am a Pharisee. If I exalt my forefathers, history and traditions above the commands of God -- I am a Pharisee. If I relentlessly, though insidiously, attack the words of God -- I am a Pharisee. If I observe outward motions without inward movement -- I am a Pharisee. If I follow the letter but not the Spirit -- I am a Pharisee. If I major on minors and minor on majors -- I am a Pharisee. If I feign righteousness and devotion -- I am a Pharisee. If I use the Bible to try to convict others, and it never condemns me -- I am a Pharisee.

The result of Pharisaism in Judaea was the existence of a self-righteous religionist who thumbed his nosed at sinners. I wonder if one reason Pharisees compassed land and sea to make one proselyte was that they would not reach down to the masses under their feet? And perhaps they could not, because the masses knew what they were. Maybe they had to find someone who didn't know them!! The failure of the Pharisees, though, did have the effect of highlighting the One who spoke "not as the scribes," and "the common people heard Him gladly."

The problem of pharisaism is not just one of legalism, ritual and tradition. These are symptoms of the problem. When religious affiliation and doctrinal correctness become more important than relationship with God, then religion becomes a clean-swept shell of a house which is completely empty inside. The outside must be kept freshly painted and beautifully adorned -- that it may appear someone dwells within. Sepulchres, however lovely, merely hold dead men's bones!

When presented with this challenge, we usually look at someone else (Matt. 23:29-35). The publicans and harlots had an advantage over the Pharisees -- they knew they were sinners (Matt. 21:32; Luke 5:30-32). The Pharisee will not get what the publican got until he gets where the publican was. Read Luke 18:9-14. May we, like Nicodemus, seek Him even if we must come by night. May I not say "I thank Thee that I am not as other men are," but rather, "God be merciful to me a sinner."

(A slight rewrite of an article that appeared in The Baptist Waymark, March-April 1995, page 1)

Note: In an e-mail on February 6th, Brother Hoyt Sparks called attention to two references that add information to show the totality of who the Pharisees were: John 8:23, "Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world"; and John 8:44, "Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of you father ye will do."

Can't help it

According to the AP, "President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that failure to act on an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into a long-lasting recession that might prove irreversible..." Why hasn't someone called this "scare tactics"?

And this "recovery" plan includes $70 million for super computers to research climate change, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $335 million to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, $150 million to insure honeybee farmers, and on and on. But we find that certain politicians who want to spend our tax money aren't willing to pay theirs!! If these people think more taxes are the cure for our nation's problems, why, oh why, wouldn't it behoove them to pay their taxes instead of avoiding them??

Isaiah 42:1-4

Isaiah 42:1-4. "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."

(Common Meter)

Behold my SERVANT, whom I love,
My chosen ONE in Time.
HE is the ONE my soul desires,
My SPIRIT dwells in HIM.

HE shall bring judgment to the Earth
Himself HE will abase.
No glory seek nor self proclaim
Till HE hath run HIS race.

A bruise’d reed HE shall not break,
Nor, quench the smoking flax.
HIS judgment show in all HIS TRUTH
And in HIS Righteous acts.

HE shall not fail nor be dismayed,
Nor, let his judgment fall.
Till HE shall reign in all the earth
And manifest HIS law.

Ye trembling saints upon your knees,
Ye mourners at sin’s door;
HE is the ONE who trod your path,
HE, all your burdens bore.

Come unto HIM without delay.
HE bids you rise and come,
Shall such an ONE who bled for you
Not safely bring you home?

Let those who cannot hear HIS voice
In darkness travel on;
But you, who hear this sound of grace,
Come gather at HIS throne.’

HIS tenderness, HE will display
To every sinner called.
Provide their every need and want
For CHRIST is ALL in all.

Hymn by Mike A. McMinnis 7/28/2008

A secure job?

In Jobs That Will Never Go Away, writer Romy LeClaire Loran lists the following as "jobs that will never go away": Accountant, Computer Support Specialist, Entrepreneur, Mechanic, Paramedic, and Teacher. Assuming things don't get too far out of sorts, that may be so. Regardless, some of you might find the article interesting.

Was the flood universal?

Was the flood of Noah's day universal? Did it cover the whole earth? Or is the Genesis flood account a myth based on a local flood? While the scientist denies the possibility of a universal flood and the modernist scoffs at such a preposterous idea, the Christian must choose to either compromise or stand firm. Is there evidence by which Christians may substantiate their claims? If we believe the Bible there is. Here are a few simple thoughts.

1. It was the purpose of God to destroy the entire human race (except Noah's family) from off the face of the earth. Read Genesis 6:12-17. A local flood would not have fulfilled God's purpose of judging the entire population for their sinfulness.

2. If the flood had been local only, the ark would have been unnecessary. God could have simply told told Noah to leave the area before the flood came and return when the flood waters abated.

3. The terminology used throughout the account indicates an event of universal proportions. In Genesis chapters 6 through 8 (if I counted correctly), "the earth" is used 34 times; "every" 14 times; "everything" 11 times; "all flesh" 8 times; "all" 7 times; "filled" and "whole" twice. An expression such as "under the whole heaven" (Gen. 7:19) cannot be reduced to a local area.

4. To cover the Ararat mountains, whose highest peak is almost 17,000 feet, would require a universal flood. Water seeks its own level. The whole earth would have been covered at least to that depth/height.

5. God's promise to Noah after the flood (Gen. 9:11) is a promise of universal rather than local application.

You don't have to believe in a universal flood if you choose not to. But you can't reject a universal flood without denying the words of the Bible. Which will you do?

Singing tomorrow

A Sacred Harp singing will be held tomorrow (d.v.) Saturday the 31st at Cowden Hall at Southwestern Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. Starts around 9:30 am.

(Not so) Old Baptist quotes

Referencing I Cor. 1:1-18, C. B. Scott wrote, "although Paul plainly states he did not baptize 'all' of the people who made up the Church of God at Corinth, it is also evident he assumed 'all' of them had been baptized by someone."

"I have heard it said that the individual churches are the highest ecclesiastical authority on earth. The truth is that individual churches are the ONLY ecclesiastical authority on earth, established as such by the highest ecclesiastical authority in heaven, Almighty God." -- Excerpt from "A Little Leaven Leavens the Whole Lump", by Lynwood Jacobs in Zion's Landmark, Vol. 108 No. 10, August 1975

Something new

Was looking at the following in It's Not a Language, It's Not Prayer, and Now It's Not Private Either and thought it worth repeating.

My father used to warn me that if I thought I discovered something in the Scriptures that was new, something that no one had ever seen before, I had better be careful. "Don't run too far ahead of the pack," he would say, "or you might discover that you aren't even on the right trail." That was and remains good advice. Though our practice is determined and regulated by Scripture and not experience or history, we nonetheless need to ask why a fence is where it is before we tear it down. -- Hershael W. York

Sorry politics again.

H.R. 1, The text of the Economic Stimulus Bill. Read it and weep....

Or jump for joy if you think this is our salvation.



Say it ain't so, Joe. Or Nancy. Or somebody.

According to House speaker Nancy Pelosi, (spending millions on) "contraception -- will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

Something rotten

According to Marcellus (in Shakespeare's Hamlet), something is rotten in Denmark. Maybe. But to me it seems like the smell is coming from Washington, DC.

According to current news reports, the President has warned Republicans that they need to quit listening to talk-show host Rush Limbaugh "if they want to get things done". Now that can be spun into several different garments, but I hate to hear that kind of rhetoric at a time when some Democrats in Congress are speaking of reviving the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". Last year, then candidate Barack Obama's press secretary wrote that the Senator "does not support re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine." I suppose time will tell.

Under the "fairness doctrine" the FCC required broadcasters to present "controversial issues of public importance" in a fair and balanced manner. Who could complain about that? Free speech advocates, that's who! Broadcasters were required to provide time for opposing viewpoints. In practice, for example, a Christian radio station, existing expressly to provide information and inspiration from a Christian viewpoint might be required to give time to an anti-Christian viewpoint on "controversial issues of public importance". More likely, in practical terms, if push comes to shove this will result in stations avoiding the requirements to broadcast specific opposing views by nixing both sides.

The concern, at least on one side, is demonstrated in Steve Rendall's article The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back. "Hidden" near the bottom is what I believe is the true "problem" (fear). Rendall writes, "The most extreme change has been in the immense volume of unanswered conservative opinion heard on the airwaves, especially on talk radio. Nationally, virtually all of the leading political talkshow hosts are right-wingers...The same goes for local talkshows." Too bad the average talk-show listener, for whatever reason, prefers to listen to the conservatives. Let's be "fair" and put some talkers on the air whom listeners don't want to listen to! Again, the practical effect will not be the hearing of both sides, but the muting of both sides. But I am sure that will pass the test for the proponents of the (un)fairness doctrine.

And finally, seemingly unrelated, what's up with the continual blaring of and barking about the TV digital converter box change? It seems one can't turn on the TV without a politician or someone else in a commercial warning of the change from analogue to digital, or else something scrolling across the TV about it. Supposedly by February 17 of this year, all television stations will broadcast in digital only -- though Democrats in the Senate have introduced a bill to delay the transition from February to June. Who cares? Oh, but "the elderly and the rural poor" will be without a converter box and unable to receive any TV broadcasting. Senator Jay Rockefeller says, "We risk leaving those who are most reliant on over-the-air broadcast television for their information literally in the dark." If they are left in the dark, perhaps they want to be. It won't be because they haven't seen the change mentioned on their TV's. (Perhaps they're not watching them.)

I'm a generally trusting sort of guy, but have become quite cynical when it comes to our Federal government. What are you guys doing? Why are you so concerned? Are you putting something in that little box? Shades of 1984? If you're really all that concerned, why not buy some converter boxes, throw them in the back of your limo, and start bringing them around to us? Oh, never mind. Just stay away from us and leave us alone. If you could just do that, we'd appreciate it.

Today's word

Nixie [nik-see] -- a letter or parcel that is undeliverable by the post office because of an incorrect or unreadable address.

A Biblical timeline from creation

The following is one way to approach estimating the age of the earth, adding and comparing the ages of the patriarchs, reigns of the kings and other dates mentioned in the Old Testament.

1656 years from the sixth day of creation until the flood.
620 years from the flood until Joseph was sold into slavery.
(2276 years from the sixth day of creation until Joseph was sold into slavery.)
430 years sojourn in Egypt.
40 years journey to Canaan.
450 years period of Judges.
40 years reign of Saul.
40 years reign of David.
40 years reign of Solomon.
369 years existence of the Southern Kingdom (Judah).
40 years captivity.
483 years (of Daniel's 70 weeks) till the coming of Christ.
4238 years from Creation to Christ.

Obviously there are variations of interpretation and addition. For example, when do the 430 years of affliction start? If started with Abraham instead of Joseph then approximately 4048 years from Creation to Christ.

[Note: I got the period of Judges by adding the servitude years plus the years of rest. Some students believe there could be some overlap in the different judges' years. I got the years of Southern Kingdom by adding the reigns of the kings, but also cross-referencing them against their reigns compared to the reigns of the Northern kings. And then there is when the 70 weeks hit in reference to Christ -- his birth? triumphal entry? etc.]

Does God really know ALL things?

Job 23:10 - But he knoweth the way that I take...
Psalm 147:5 - Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
Proverbs 15:3 - The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.
Acts 15:18 - Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Hebrews 4:13 - Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
I John 3:20 - For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

Does God really know ALL things?

Baptist history proof

I love Baptist history. The main problem with it, used as proof, is that it proves we have believed all kinds of things.

Differences are not necessarily personal

"Dr. [Tom] Ascol believes ... that Limited Atonement is biblical. Personally, I don't know how on earth he comes to that conclusion, but I believe that he does. Now, here's my choice: I can take offense that Tom would believe such a thing or would say such a thing, or I can shed all of this twenty-first-century victim mentality, grow up a bit, and reconcile myself to the fact that people just disagree about these things. People aren't trying to offend me; it is just that their ideas offer me the opportunity to take offense any time I so desire...I can acknowledge that in doing so Dr. Ascol is not going out of his way to denigrate me. He's trying to promote his ideas. Where our ideas differ, a contest of ideas may well ensue. Ideas matter and are personal, so there will likely be some personal feelings involved. But Dr. Ascol does not advance his ideas in order to attack those who disagree. The attack upon those who disagree is merely a consequence of his passionate advocacy of his ideas." -- Bart Barber on Praisegod Barebones blog, Monday, December 1, 2008

Old Baptist quotes (7)

"It is not strange...that those who have no deep, inward experience of Christ formed in the soul, through faith, should fall an easy prey to a mechanical regeneration through baptism and to the delusion that in partaking the wafer they really partake of Christ. The untaught and thirsty of the desert plains readily follow every mirage." -- J. B. Gambrell in the introduction to Baptist Refreshments, according to the Scriptures, L. R. Burress, Nashville, TN: Marshall and Bruce Co., 1915, pp. 4-5

"Some justify the divisions of Christians by appealing to the right of religious liberty, which allows men to worship as they please. True, before men, the worshipper is justified in the exercise of his own will, but before God the worshipper is taught to pray, 'Thy will be done on earth'." -- L. R. Burress, p. 12

"A moment's thought will convince us that the eternal individual existence (eternal children) error makes void every operation of grace. One never lost will not have need of a Saviour. God could have known an eternal child, but could never have foreknown one." ---Elder C. H. Waters, 1906.

Changing of the guard

Isaiah 6:1-4 -- In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke.

The citizens of the United States of America approach this inagural day with mixed emotions. There is the historic occasion of our first black President. For Democrats, there is the joy of controlling the House, the Senate and the White House. For Republicans, there is the despair of once again being the minority party across the board nationally. For independents -- who knows? Their emotions may run the gamut. Though not exactly the same, Americans face change as did the Jews who had lost a king who reigned 52 years.

Isaiah saw the Lord. He was high and lifted up. He was still on the throne. He was its fullness. Seraphim adored Him continuously. He was holy, holy, holy. The whole earth was full of His glory.

That has not changed. American politicians will change. World leaders will change. World problems will change. But God is still on His throne. Holy, Holy, Holy. Amen.

A Biblical TV Guide

But shun profane and vain babblings. II Timothy 2:16

Beware of false prophets. Matthew 7:15

Flee fornication. 1 Corinthians 6:18

Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin. Romans 6:13

Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. James 4:7

Abstain from all appearance of evil. I Thessalonians 5:22

Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? James 2:7

What are you watching?

Strong's opinion

"The Revelation 20:1-10 passage constitutes a part of one of the most figurative books of Scripture. It ought to be interpreted in a manner that does not contradict the plainer statements of Scripture." -- Paraphrase of A. H. Strong from his Systematic Theology

Jesus' charming name

Jesus, I love Thy charming Name,
'Tis music to mine ear;
Fain would I sound it out so loud
That earth and Heaven should hear.

Yes, Thou art precious to my soul,
My Transport and my Trust;
Jewels to Thee are gaudy toys,
And gold is sordid dust.

All my capacious powers can wish
In Thee doth richly meet;
Not to mine eyes is light so dear,
Nor friendship half so sweet.

Thy grace still dwells upon my heart,
And sheds its fragrance there;
The noblest balm of all its wounds,
The cordial of its care.

Philip Doddridge, 1717.

In Memoriam

Funeral services for A. D. Munsinger are scheduled for 2:00 p.m. Thursday, January 15, 2009 at Autry Funeral Home Chapel, in Jacksonville, Texas. Bob Goodnight, Adrian Neal and Kevin Gentry will be holding the services. Visitation will be 6:00-8:00 p.m. Wednesday, also at Autry Funeral Home. Burial will be at the Taylor Cemetery in Gallatin. Bro. Munsinger is survived by his wife, four children, friends and other family.

Brother Munsinger has been a friend of our family since before I was in our family.

"Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord."

Parallels between Philippians 2 and John 13

Some of the parallels between this hymn (Philippians 2:5-11) and Jesus washing the disciples feet (John 13:1-17) are intriguing:

John 13:4 - He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments...
Phil 2:7 - But made himself of no reputation...

John 13:5 - ...he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet.
Phil 2:7 - ...and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

John 13:12 - So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again...
Phil 2:9 - Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name

John 13:13 - Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
Phil 2:11 - And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Old Baptist quotes (6)

"Does God put a premium on ignorance in the ministry? We know the he has no use for the pride of learning, but neither does he care for the arrogance of ignorance." -- A. T. Robertson, Baptist author and educator

"Go directly to the Bible for truth. If truth is accepted second-handed, a man will find himself like the carpenter that sawed each board by the one had just sawed instead of by the first board every time." -- Clem Boggs, United Baptist preacher, Lawrence County, Kentucky

Being a carpenter by trade, I especially liked this illustration. When I cut rafters, every rafter was marked and sawed according to the pattern. It could have become quite a mess to mark the next one by the one I had just sawed instead of going back to the pattern. The Bible gives the pattern. We need to go back beyond what is a copy of the pattern to the pattern itself, to be sure we are cutting correctly.

The kingdom and priesthood of Christ.

PSALM 110 PART 2
L. M.

Thus the great Lord of earth and sea
Spake to his Son, and thus he swore:
"Eternal shall thy priesthood be,
And change from hand to hand no more.

"Aaron and all his sons must die;
But everlasting life is thine,
To save for ever those that fly
For refuge from the wrath divine.

"By me Melchizedek was made
On earth a king and priest at once;
And thou, my heav'nly Priest, shalt plead,
And thou, my King, shalt rule my sons.

Jesus the Priest ascends his throne,
While counsels of eternal peace,
Between the Father and the Son,
Proceed with honor and success.

Through the whole earth his reign shall spread,
And crush the powers that dare rebel;
Then shall he judge the rising dead,
And send the guilty world to hell.

Though while he treads his glorious way,
He drinks the cup of tears and blood,
The suff'rings of that dreadful day
Shall but advance him near to God.

Isaac Watts (1674-1748)
The Psalms of David, 1719

Baptist Roots in America

Baptist Roots in America: The Historical Background of Reformed Baptists in America, Samuel E. Waldron, Booton, NJ: Simpson Publishing. 1991, paperback, 50 pages. ISBN: 096225083X. $6.95 (This book is out-of-print. A PDF version can be downloaded at Simpson Publishing for $2.00.)

At the time he wrote the book, Sam Waldron was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. He is now a pastor of the Heritage Baptist Church of Owensboro, Kentucky and Professor of Systematic Theology at the Midwest Center for Theological Studies.

Other books and pamphlets by Waldron include A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, A Reformed Baptist Manifesto: The New Covenant Constitution of the Church, To Be Continued? and Faith, Obedience, and Justification: Current Evangelical Departures from Sola Fide.

This book is not a history of Baptists in America, or even a history of the Reformed Baptist movement in America. Waldron's purpose is to demonstrate the Baptist roots of the mid-twentieth century Reformed Baptist movement in America. He also declares why he thinks the movement was needed. He sees Reformed Baptists as the true successors of the Particular Baptists, and finds modern fundamentalism & evangelicalism to be a deviation from historic Baptist thought.

First is a brief chapter on "The Rise of Particular Baptists in America". This is brief look at Baptist history in early America giving information on the rise and then the growth of the Particular Baptists.

Second, Waldron looks at "The Decline of Particular Baptists in America". In this chapter he undertakes to answer the question "What happened?" "How did Calvinism and the Particular Baptist heritage almost totally disappear by the mid-twentieth century in America?"

After noting what he sees as an "innate tendency" of the depraved heart to compromise or reject God's truth, Waldron posits seven specific major factors for the decline of Particular Baptist theology. They are:

1. The American, Democratic Ethos -- popular American ideas of freedom, equality, fairness, independence, rights, etc. were against the Calvinistic theology of election, particular redemption and irresistible grace.
2. Revivalism -- though originating in a Calvinistic base, Waldron sees American revivalism as degenerating into anti-creedalism and Arminianism.
3. Methodism -- the Methodists were most frequently the frontier combatant and companion of the Baptists as Americans spread south and west, influencing the thinking of Baptist church members.
4. Inclusivism -- Baptist common battles for religious freedom, etc. may have caused them to emphasize fellowship around these common principles rather than separation over diverse doctrines in other areas.
5. Hyper-Calvinism -- reaction against "hyper-Calvinism" may have driven some to the opposite extreme.
6. Modernism -- as Waldron puts it, the anti-creedalism that opened the door to Arminianism could not be shut later against modernism. Modernism hides behind anti-creedalism, claiming the same rule of faith and practice as the orthodox believer while denying the very faith they hold.
7. The Fundamentalist movement -- too much emphasis on the fundamentals to the exclusion of a healthy emphasis on other doctrines (soteriology & ecclesiology); dispensational premillennialism; Keswick/higher life teaching rooted in Wesleyan perfectionism.

In the third chapter, Waldron briefly notes "The Rise of Reformed Baptists in America". He gives little particular elements of the historical rise, but rather focuses on some general elements that paved the way for the Reformed Baptist movement -- the popularity of Charles H. Spurgeon, the writings of A. W. Pink, the influence of Reformed theologians such as J. Gresham Machen, and the accleration in reprinting Puritan and Reformed literature. He does seem to pinpoint the original rise of the Reformed Baptist in the northeastern United States in the 1960s. It is interesting that this theology should resurrect in the location where it most likely first died.

Finally in his "Concluding Observations", Sam Waldron warns against the danger of hyper-Calvinism, encourages the upholding of Reformed confessional Christianity (for Baptists particularly found in the 1689 London Confession); and exhorts Reformed Baptists to impact American Christianity for its betterment. He insists the name "Reformed Baptist" is a good one -- the bearers are both Reformed and Baptist. In contrast, many Baptist and Reformed believers deny that one can be both.

When I first noticed this book on paperbackswap.com, I got a misconception of what it was supposed to be. I was initially disappointed to find that this book would not contain much historical information about the rise of Reformed Baptists in the 1960s. Once I understood the purpose of this book, I was able to appreciate it for what it is rather than depreciate it for what it isn't.

My Landmark and Primitive Baptist friends will both object to some things posited by Waldron. I also have disagreements with some of Waldron's assertions and positions. For the most part the book hits on target. It is correct that the Particular Baptists early on became the dominant Baptist group in the United States. It is equally true that sovereign grace soteriology was held by these Baptists and that it gradually diminished among the mainstream of its descendants. Waldron probably emphasizes too much the "death" of this soteriology (and perhaps underemphasized Baptist ecclesiology), since it was continued without interruption by the Primitive Baptists. He evidently concludes them out of the heir-ship of this theology because of some things he views as "hyper".

Waldron's seven major factors for the decline of Particular Baptist theology are certain to find detractors. He has done a good job in advancing the reasons behind the soteriological shift. There is probably something here with which almost everyone can agree or disagree. My thought is that readers might most readily draw back from points 1, 3, and 7 -- the American democratic ethos, Methodism and the Fundamentalist movement.

With a little thought one should be able to see how the average American, emphasizing his freedom and independence, might chafe under a "Calvinistic" system in which God chose who would be saved, fully paid for it, and sovereignly gave it to that person without his asking. The fact that others reconciled it in their minds is not evidence that the majority did not.

Methodism's role might surprise some. But as Americans spread south and west, Methodism was the chief rival for the hearts, minds and souls of the people as the Baptist farmer-preacher tended his flock and the Methodist circuit-rider rode his circuit. Rivalry turned to respect as Baptists and Methodists lived in the same communities, shared the same meeting houses, and married into one another's families. A trek through the minutes of an ancestral Georgia church brought this home to me in an unique way. At the beginning of the 19th century, these Baptists would not allow the Methodists to use the Baptist-owned meeting house. Within 40 years they were adopting a resolution of great appreciation to the Methodists for allowing the Baptists the use of their house while they were building a new one!

On first reading many might recoil from the idea of fundamentalism negatively affecting the Baptist heritage. Some early fundamentalist leaders were predestinarians, and fundamentalism shared agreement with Baptists on the fundamentals of the faith. But the struggle with modernism called for emphasis on the fundamentals and inattention to other doctrines so that fundamental soldiers might combine together to battle modernism. Ben M. Bogard's early jibes against fundamentalist J. Frank Norris (and their later collaboration) help make the point. Though fundamentalism initially agreed on the fundamental of the literal second coming of Christ, over a period of time dispensational premillennialism captured the fancy of most fundamentalists. Though the large number of Baptists who embrace dispensational premillennialism might think otherwise, it contains some elements unfriendly to Baptist soteriology and ecclesiology. I think back to the many times the Scofield Reference Bible was highly recommended to me, with the caveat that Scofield was right on everything but the church. Well, if he was wrong on so important an issue, his other views bears scrutiny as well!

Waldron does a good job presenting his thesis. I am not persuaded to admit to some of his points. I think the Baptist heritage was preserved in various ways through the period in which he finds the great dearth. But the emphases of the rising Reformed Baptists should cause us to inspect our faith, shine the light on any deficiencies, and sound once again the cry "Back to the Bible."

Has God shown you some things?

A story of two old Primitive Baptist deacons in the wilds of the Georgia flatwoods, as told by John Crowley of GA:

One deacon was always having dreams and visions which strongly supported his own notions of church politics, etc. Seeing the other brother somewhat sceptical, the dreamer said, "Don't the Lord ever speak to you?" "Well," the sceptic replied, "He's SHOWN me a few things, but He's never actually SPOKE to me....and now I know why. He spends all his time talking to you."

The bride, the Lamb's wife

In the age to come, the bride is with those who inhabit the New Jerusalem, according to John's writing in Revelation 21:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away...I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;...And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it. And there shall in no wise enter into it any ...but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Who are these people? Is it not all who are written in the Lamb's book of life?

Complete in Him

Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him...

Hungry? Jesus said, I am the bread of life.
In the dark? Jesus said, I am the light of the world.
Outside? Jesus said, I am the door.
Fearful? Jesus said, I am the good shepherd.
Dead? Jesus said, I am the resurrection, and the life.
Lost? Jesus said, I am the way.
Unlearned? Jesus said, I am the truth.
Disconnected? Jesus said, I am the vine.

More than a hypocrite

Am I a Pharisee?

If I travel far and wide to convert others to a religious affiliation rather than preach the gospel -- I am a Pharisee.
If I exalt my forefathers, history and traditions above the commands of God -- I am a Pharisee.
If I relentlessly, though insidiously, attack the words of God -- I am a Pharisee.
If I observe outward motions without inward movement -- I am a Pharisee.
If I follow the letter but not the Spirit -- I am a Pharisee.
If I major on minors and minor on majors -- I am a Pharisee.
If I feign righteousness and devotion -- I am a Pharisee.

Will power

One man said it took a lot of will power....

but he was able to give up trying to quit smoking!

This year thou shalt die

Jeremiah 28:16-17 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD. So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month.

Death is certain (Thou shalt die)
The wages of sin is death, and all have sinned
It is appointed unto men once to die (Heb 9:27)
Eccl 8:8 There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.
Job 30:23 For I know that thou wilt bring me to death, and to the house appointed for all living.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Death is soon (This year)
Our life is ever on the wing, And death is ever nigh;
The moment when our lives begin, We all begin to die. (Watts)
James 4:14: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
Job 14:1: Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.