No Room for Personal Vengeance - Voddie Baucham - Romans 12:19-21

Here's a link to a recent message by Voddie on Romans 12: 19ff. His message centers on the theme of vengeance and how we are not to repay evil for evil, as the attitude of "avenging ourselves" of a wrong-doing ultimately puts us in the place of God. With vengeance, Christ's death was not enough, and we are insisting on adding another death to Christ's. Rahter, our attitude should be one of compassion for our enemy: "if they are hungry, give them something to eat" rather than seeking revenge.

It was interesting to me in the message how Voddie did seem to dodge to topic of how it's apparently ok to defend yourself. So while we shouldn't avenge ourselves, there's nothing wrong with shooting and killing someone who breaking into our home? I've got some issues with that. Voddie made an illustration of the veteran who comes home, unable to sleep with the thoughts of people he killed in foreign lands, so I wonder, how is that any different than killing another person in self-defense? More and more I'm seeing defense as something the magistrate provides, and I think he could have gone further with this message to extend Paul's message in Romans 12, of "overcoming evil with good", to include challenging those who are ready and willing to shoot and kill anyone who breaks into their house. I would have also liked to have heard him extend this message into the topic of Christians serving in the military, and if doing so is consistent with Romans 12, but he'd likely be stepping on a few too many toes with that one...

GFBC Annual Spring Conference 2011 with Conrad Mbewe

Our family was blessed to be able to attend one of the sessions of Grace Family Baptist's Annual Spring Conference for this year, and the following are some of the notes that I took. Pastor Conrad Mbewe was the guest speaker, visiting from Kabwata Reformed Baptist Church in Lusaka, Zambia, Africa (more about him at his blog here).

Pastor Mbewe spoke on the topic of authority and submission. Opening with I Peter 3:13-17, the Apostle Peter is writing to the dispersia of Pontious, Galatia, and believers scattered all over various countries. Peter teaches with a focus on salvation, which is the organizing principle of their lives. As obedient children, so we should be holy, living lives consecrated to God - lives distinct from the Gentiles (the unbelieving world.)

In Ephesians 5, we are instructed to submit to one another out of reverence to Christ. Col. 3:18 also emphasizes submission, that God has established an order to his people. We honor and respect God by respecting an honoring those in authority over us. We are to be subject, not for America's sake, but for the Lord's sake. We are keeping the vertical plane in the right place.

The question becomes, what if the leader is a despot? This was not a new issue at the time, and Peter addresses the subject of suffering at the hands of the unjust. In doing what is right we might be called upon to suffer for it.

In I Pet. 2:17, we read about being subject to every institution. Submission and authority is a not a side-issue, but rather is at the center of godliness and holiness. Our individual holiness pours into other areas of life.

Peter avoids splitting the hairs of obeying issues such as national vs. state, but rather gives blanket instruction to honor all authority. When Paul speaks of submitting to leaders, we are indirectly submitting to God, and in Paul's situation, he wasn't talking about a Christian leader but rather a despot and a tyrant. National and state leaders that rule are servants of God (I Pet. 2). These governors ensure the way that we live with one another, and uphold laws against those who break them, punishing those who do evil and praising those who do good. Rom. 13 - rulers are ultimately servants for our good. Pay taxes, respect and honor those in authority, as submission to authorities pleases God.

My notes were a little scattered, as we had some kid issues, but there were also a few notes on marriage, and that the one who brings up together in marriage is God. Our vows are made to Him, and we do not need a civil magistrate. We register to satisfy the laws of the land. We should be careful not to use the freedom that we have in Christ to breach the laws of the land.

A bland Romans/Galatians commentary

I've been recently flipping through a somewhat bland commentary on Romans and Galatians by a handful of different commentators, and wanted to jot down a few thoughts.  This isn't an overly good commentary, but some of the images and illustrations are interesting.  The book strays away from being a substantial or satisfying systematic theology, but rather offers a glossy surface overview of these two books, with the occasional Arminian flavoring (I noticed that two of the writers were associated with Fuller Theological Seminary, and its interesting [providential] that I was just listening to a Mark Dever interview with Wayne Grudem talking about his experience with Fuller and the downward slide of how this particular school moved away from Biblical inerrancy.  As another completely unrelated note, Grudem also mentioned the site on The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, which I did not know about previously but which looks to be a wealth of good information, so I'm going to add this to my Delicious links and check it out later.  Here's the link to the Grudem interview)

Anyhow, not much more to say about this Romans/Galatians Zondervan commentary.  Not sure how or why I got this, but to summarize: the content isn't overly deep (sidebar blurs about the "Global warming"issue?) the theology is a little wonky, but the images are interesting.

Polity (and Baptism) in the Local Church with Mark Devers

Recently listened to Mark Dever of 9Marks deliver an excellent message on the topic of church polity, what what caught my notice the most was his closing comments on the topic of baptism, that literally capped off the last final moments of the message.  I'm jotting a few notes down here because I think Pastor Dever is right on about this.

Dever identifies how there is no teaching of infant baptism in the new testament, nor are there any parallels of it to circumcision in the new testament.  The Apostle Paul denies the connection in Colossians 2, and rather parallels spiritual circumsicion to physical baptism, with the idea being that when you are born again you are to be baptized.

There is no mention of baptizing infants in the Didache, and there is no record of infant baptism in the first or second century.  By the third century there are a few disputed cases, but by the end of the third century the baptisms are Rome-style "saving" baptisms.  Until the time of Zwingli and Calvin, there is no infant baptism articulated that is not saving.

Dever's presented a summary that the oldest opinion would be that of believers baptism, the second oldest opinion that of the "saving" baptisms of the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and the third oldest  being 1,000 years later with the reformers.

In Romans 6 Paul is assuming that all those who have the new life have been baptized (again, being born again then baptized).  There is an implies acceptance of the cognitive gospel prior to baptism.

Here's the link to the message:  Polity in the Local Church with Mark Dever

I Corinthians 11 and Why I am not a Methodist

I was recently at a Methodist church in town (not for worship, but rather for coffee at their poshly-decorated coffee nook/gift shop), and while there I took a look at some of their documents and doctrine, and more or less confirmed what I already knew about Methodism, and affirmed why I am NOT a Methodist.  It has less to do with their ordination of women (which, of course I have some I Tim. 2 issues with) or their Armenian traditions (which I have some Romans 8 issues with) but more over the Weslean tradition and Wesley's 25 articles. Per this one:

Article XVII—Of Baptism

Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.

I've yet to see from Scripture where baptism of children or infants is illustrated or instructed.  From the churches site, "Those that are baptized as children must make the choice to confirm their belief in Christ to continue as members of the church."  To continue as members?  I do not understand the strange idea of a half-sacrament.  Scripture seems to give a solid example of baptism of professing adults, not children.  How can baptism be done with the idea that a confirmation needs to follow separately?

The other article that caught my attention was sixteen, on the "sacraments":


Article XVI—Of the Sacraments

Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God’s good will toward us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in him.

I've come to question recently the usage of the word "sacrament", since, by definition, it's held to be a means of divine grace, and when individuals partake of the Lord's Supper, or baptism, they may, or may not, be partaking in these ordinances with the right heart attitude (a non-believer could ask to be baptized - likewise a non-believer could take the elements of the Supper).  So in these situations, is grace ALWAYS understood to be imparted?  I can think of individuals who have walked from the faith but yet were baptized as infants.  Was grace still imparted in that infant baptism?  I would argue not - not just because I do not recognize infant baptism as a valid administation of the baptism ordinance, but because the implication becomes that grace was poured out and essentially WASTED.  I don't think that's right, and this also seems to clash with the reformed doctrine of limited atonement. 

Another thought:  per MW, the English word sacrament is from the Latin sacramentum, which means to make holy, or to consecrate.  Yet are the elements made holy?  Or is the meal, as an ordinance, one of remembrance?  It feels a little like treading into glorifying the meal and the components of the meal, more than the message of the meal, and understanding, per I Cor. 11, the propriety of worship and the proper observation of the meal and preparation of the heart.  This reminds me of another fault with this particular UM church, as on it's site, regarding the Lord's Supper, the warning was merely, "God offers this relationship to everyone, so all who desire to receive are welcome to participate."  All who desire to receive, regardless of genuine faith and repentance?  I was at a UM church long ago, and I recall how, as the elements were about to be distributed, the pastor gave the feeble warning of, "Only partake of these elements if you are a Christian, or thinking of becoming one..."  I'm sure that was right out of I Cor. 11.

There are other things, but those are some of the principle reasons I'm not a Methodist.  Another note from the site was about "If You Have Children", followed by instructions on where to put them for church (because, why would you want them with you during the worship service?  That's just silly to worship together as a family.)

Romans 8:15

Romans 8:15 (New International Version)
"For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.  And by him we cry, 'Abba, Father.'"

In our adoption , we are chosen by God and brought in, given full access to the Father.  The forgiveness though Christ is the doorway to adoption, and forgiveness marks our authenticity as children of God.

Romans 6:1

Some notes on Romans 6:1, and the concept of continuing to sin for grace.  Not sure where these notes came from (I think it was a message from a Dallas Reformed Seminary mp3.)

Perfectionism is not taught in the Bible, and yet on the flip side is the attitude that sin is not all that serious.  The writer of Hebrews instructed to "pursue holiness".  Its important to understand the idea being that sanctification is just as important as justification.  Hebrews speaks especially about being set apart for God.

Sanctification of God, taken from Ezekiel, speaks about God being set apart from false gods.
Sanctification of man, in the Old Testament, was illustrated in separating from what was unclean.
Sanctification of the redeemer we see in the example of how Jesus sanctified self (John 17).

Sanctification is ultimately about the believer being set apart more and more for God.  This is a continuing process solely through the indwelling and working of the Holy Spirit.

Darth Vader Exegesis

After recently reading this post at the Blessed Quietness website, it turns out that I'll be going to Hell unless I read the KJV version of the Bible, so I decided that following my last read of the Bible (the "heretical" NASB) I'd better give the KJV another go, if for no other reason than to sharpen up on my Shakespearean English (if not to avoid hellfire!)

Anyhow, I found that the library has an MP3 format of the AV that I could download and listen to while washing dishes at night. And this edition is actually pretty fascinating: the Old Testament is read by Alexander Scourby, who has a rich English accent (he sounds like a Beatrix Potter character) and the New Testament is read by none othen than Darth Vader himself, James Earl Jones. His reading is actually fascinating, because as you listen you sort of visualize Darth Vader reading this aloud, sitting in that pod-thing in "Empire Strikes Back" (the thing he'd open up, tell off an Imperial admiral, then close again). In a strange way, its like you can visualize Vader reading a book like Romans out loud, maybe in a time-frame just prior to the end of "Return of the Jedi", and possibly pondering the words of Chapter 12 and contemplating turning from evil?

Romans 12:9 "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."

In any case, the narration is fascinating and James Earl Jones has a deep, engrossing voice that really makes the AV fascinating to listen to.  And of course, every time he introduces a chapter of "Luke", you can't help but think - oh, you know how the rest of it goes...

Gen. 25:19-26

Some notes that I found recently on a Voddie sermon about Genesis 25:19-26. Voddie presenting a doctrinal overview of predestination in terms of the lives of Isaac, Esau and Jacob. The overview included a detailed look at Romans 9, as well a look at the London Baptist Confession.

Voddie mentioned how Genesis so far spoke tremendously about Abraham and his life, but we don't see much about Isaac. V. 20 gives a sneak peek of Laban, who will resurface later in the life of Jacob.
In terms of Isaac and Abraham, there are a number of parallels: Both dealt with issues of barrenness, in light of God's promise that they will be fathers of a prosperous nation. The distinction, however, is that Abraham, when told he would have a child at his old age, laughed at the promise. Abraham also turned to the sinful human option and had a child with Hagar, which was not God's plan. Isaac, on the other hand, when presented with a situation of a barren wife, fell on his face and prayed. Voddie specualted that, in light of his father's sin with Hagar, he directly witnessed the friction between his mother and Hagar and did not want to repeat this. Sounds completely logical to me.

Rebecca had two children, Jacob and Esau. Jacob was described in Hebrew as "akave" (going with the phonetic here) that means "heel-grabber", a reference to his character. The contention between the brothers is also reflective of contention between mother and father: Isaac was fond of Esau, particularly of the wild game that he caught, while Rebecca was fond of Jacob. Favoritism is never a good thing.

Romans 9 presents a doctrinal exposition of the life of Jacob and Esau. The issue of predestination can be a tricky, and difficult, one for me, but it is one that I find to be consistent with scripture. Voddie shared a series of passages from the London Baptist convention on the topic: those saved are chosen out of the good please of the will of God, while others are "left to act in their sin" and get what their sins deserve. It's not God's injustice that sends men to Hell, but man's want/bent to sin.

One of many challenges that arise is the question of, "If God has already predestined certain individuals, why share the gospel then?" The answer is because God told us to in His word, and because this is the means and process that God uses to call the elect. Voddie pointed out that an "arrogant Calvinist" should be a contradiction: "I'm saved and there's nothing in me God would have wanted to save." It's humbling.

Another question is, is this just? The answer is that it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy. Can what is made question the maker? God predestined us to adoption according to the council of His will:
John 5:21 - "The Son gives life to whom He will"
John 6:65 - "No one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

Otherwise, the alternative is that there are people who are smart enough, or holy enough, to "figure it out" moreso than other people. This emphasises human effort and initiative, moreso than the grace of God, and it's God's grace alone that makes us alive in Christ.

Romans 8 - "those whom he foreknew he also predestined" - you can't separate predestination from salvation. According to Lorraine Boetner, foreordination is the work of a wise and merciful heavenful father, as opposed to the working of blind, physicial fate.

Voddie also spoke about the "prescient" view and the fallacy of this viewpoint, that God's predestination of individuals is based on seeing into the future, and knowing from future actions that someone will be good or bad. The fallacy here is that God is basically little more than a time-traveler, and this takes away from His sovereignty. The prescient view can't explain Roman's 9 and how God could love one and hate another.

As far as applications presented, we as believers should adore God for His grace and NOT for our own ability. The wrong view is one of, "God saw that I would someday choose him", and commend me for being "smarter" than others to find the path to salvation.

Another point is that success in sharing the gospel does not depend on us. God has guaranteed the salvation of His elect. We should avoid over-introspection of whether or not we are of the elect, but rather our focus should be on repentance and believing the gospel. The same situation with our children: we should not fuss over worrying if our children are "elect" or not, but rather focus on sharing the gospel with them.

Adopted for Life - Dr. Russell Moore

The other weekend my wife and I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Russell Moore speak at the 2010 Spring Conference, 'Adopted for Life', hosted by Grace Family Baptist church. We found out about this, providentially, through one of my wife's home school chat boards and, adoption being a topic we've both discussed many times over the years, we considered checking it out. But what really appealed to me was finding out that the sessions were being led by Dr. Moore, who's teachings I had (again providentially) just recently started listening to thanks to Monergism and some of his MP3 sermons listed there (the first message that I heard from Dr. Moore was a fascinating message on the life of T. T. Eaton. I enjoy opportunities to learn more about church history, so the Eaton message was a fascinating one.)

My wife and I took Friday as a date night, and after dinner we attended the first part of the Adopted for Life seminar. Meeting at Trinity Lutheran church on Spring-Cypress, the event was well-attended, largely with folks from Grace Family Baptist but also with a number of visitors (as an aside, Trinity Lutheran has a gorgeous, massive sanctuary with a beautiful pipe organ in the upper loft portion of the church. I'm sure that the worship music must sound fantastic - plus I was impressed to see ESV Bibles supplied in the pews. If only I didn't have problems with the Lutheran views of absolution and consubstantiation it would be worth visiting sometime... :)

Anyhow, notes about the conference: as we arrived, I had the chance to meet Dr. Moore at the door, and I told them that it was great to meet him and that I had enjoyed a number of his messages via Monergism's site. He was a very cordial individual, and his teaching throughout the duration of the weekend was immensely beneficial.

The first two sessions opened with an introduction by Voddie Baucham, followed by hymns, then Dr. Moore spoke two sessions (two more sessions followed on Saturday.)

The first Friday session addressed adoption as gospel and mission, with the second section covering adoption as spiritual warfare. In the first message, Dr. Moore presented the large picture of adoption as something God has put into the world as a depiction of the gospel. Specific to scripture he cited Romans 8 and Paul speaking of the "brotherhood" of the church in Rome of Jews and Gentiles together, and how monumental this was. In the church today, the term "brother" is frequently overused and simplified, but at the time of Paul, writing this about jews and gentiles together was a huge thing, comparing them as being part of the same family. Back then, "gentile" was a much more shocking thing to be, along the lines of individuals like Goliath and Jezebels. But here was the message of adoption into the church, beyond DNA, bloodlines, and genetics - now all part of the same family.

I find it noteworthy how through these lectures Dr. Moore challenged many views that I myself have always just been en grained to think, or taken for granted, such as notions of "I'd like to adopt someday, but first I'd like to have children of my own" - views like that (I'm sure I've thought this myself at some point) betray a false view and definition of a "normal" life, as if for those who cannot have their own biological children, that God is "cheating them out of something." But the fact of the matter is, this type of thinking stems from a darwinistic understanding of protecting your genetic material, and does not reflect a true brotherhood of the spirit, but rather just of the flesh.

Dr. Moore then went on to talk about individuals like Abraham who, even though he's the father of the nation of Israel, was in fact grafted in from the land of Ur, adopted by God. Abraham didn't possess a natural born right to be the father of many nations, but it was purely by the grace of God adopting him into this role.

There were more notes, but this is the majority of what I took. The emphasis of the seminar was adoption and foster care, and Dr. Moore's message was very inspiring. I've researched into adoption, both the steps required and the financial aspects, and its something we haven't eliminated as a possibility. At this point, its about getting our financial situation in order first (plus, with a very young one in the house who keeps us awake at night, it might be nice to let a little time pass for her to grow a little more first.) But it believe that caring for the orphans is Biblically a responsibility and an obligation that I think is important for believers to all give consideration to.

That's about the summary of notes. It was great to actually meet Dr. Moore and hear him speak, and I'd love to catch the opportunity to hear him again sometime.