Posted on 08/26/2006 1:17:19 AM PDT by alpha-8-25-02
"I'm reminded every Father's Day at church when the pastor has a very hard time finding a Biblical example of a great father/son relationship."
Try God, the Father and Jesus, the Son. I think their relationship just might solve the problem.
The same could be said of the disciples of the Pharisees. No doubt some of them might have come into the kingdom by the tortured route of Pharisaism. God is, indeed, sovereign and can use all the poor attempts of men to preach His gospel.
That does not absolve the teacher to teach truth, or to present the gospel in a biblical fashion. Decisionalism is not a biblical gospel method. Humanly speaking we might have warm affecions for Graham, et al, but their methods leave much to be desired. I think this is the allusion to "twice the sons of hell".
At least that is how I read this author.
No doubt, but it is you that is attaching personalities to the piece, not the author. Perhaps you are looking to gain sympathy to your view by naming names. The author chose not to do that.
However, I would point out that the responsibility to preach the gospel is primarily directed to the church, not to individuals operating in a semi-autonomous fashion under various boards of directors or as independent agencies. Billy Graham, Campus Crusade and Inter Varisty Christian Fellowship are not churches to the best of my knowledge.
IMO, the most extreme forms of decisionalism and the semi-Pelagian error comes from these independent entities.
No where in the scriptures are children of God called "children of hell" and to do so, even for shock value, demeans and devalues the grace of God in the lives of those who have responded to the message by making them some sort of second class citizens in the family of God.
Whether the disciples of any modern evangelist are "children of God" or not is known to God alone. The burden, according to the author as well as the Scripture, is on the teacher, not the disciple. The effect may be unfortunate, especially for those involved as the recipients of false evangelistic techniques, but it is the teachers who are responsible before God.
In case you hadn't noticed, the verses you quoted from Paul had nothing to do with the message, or how the gospel was being preached. They had everything to do with the motivation of the preachers. Paul nowhere hold up "bad preaching" as something to be admired or copied. In fact he warns against "false gospels" esp. those that mix works and grace. Cf. Galatians 1.
It should come as no surprise in these parts that Reformed Christianity has always considered Arminian-induced decisionalism as a false expression of biblical Christianity.
That's what the pastor alway says. ;O)
"No doubt, but it is you that is attaching personalities to the piece, not the author. Perhaps you are looking to gain sympathy to your view by naming names. The author chose not to do that."
Of course he chose not to do that. For him to give examples would cause him to have to explain how all of the converts under these ministries are going to hell as "children of hell" when they believe they have trusted Christ for their salvation.
"However, I would point out that the responsibility to preach the gospel is primarily directed to the church, not to individuals operating in a semi-autonomous fashion under various boards of directors or as independent agencies."
Paul says in Eph. 4:8-16, "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."
Specific gifts were given to men to equip others to do the work of the ministry. Although we traditionally interpret these gifts as offices in the church they are to equip people to be able to do ministry, not just the church. Peter says, 1 Pe 4:10, "As every man hath received the gift, [even so] minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God."
To limit the preaching of the gospel to the institutional church would render the mission work of William Carey, Hudson Taylor, Dawson Trotman, the Auca Indian martyrs, the evangelism of George Whitfield all to no avail.
"The burden, according to the author as well as the Scripture, is on the teacher, not the disciple."
The burden is on the Holy Spirit to make effective the call of God. All that these people are doing is sowing the seed of the gospel. The soil and the harvest are up to God and God alone. Nothing and no one can snatch the seed away from those who have been chosen from the foundation of the world. The emphasis should be on the teaching after salvation; the maturing of the believer, not hindering those desiring to come into the kingdom.
lol, you will find that the hats and frocks wear well, and the buckles on the shoes never need shining
That being said, topcat is right. We have an obligation to preach and teach the word accurately. I think it was Charles Spurgeon who stated something to the effect that he would preach as an Arminian but teach as a Calvinist. It is one thing to present the message of Christ so that people will respond to the hearing of the gospel, but it is quite another to teach them about regeneration contrary to God's word.
I've been involved with a number of the groups you've mentioned in time, effort and support. My wife, for a while, was on the ministry staff of one of these groups. In most cases they are very fine organizations. But their bible studies usually contain questions like:
Allow me to ask, can anyone come along and proclaim themself an apostle or prophets or evangelists or pastors or teachers?
There is good reason why "we traditionally" have interpreted this passage as referring to offices in the church. That's what Paul was dealing with. He did not have in view some quasi-ecclesiastical office.
"that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,"
It is the church through its elders which has the duty to see that whoever apsires to these office have the true gifts and calling to teach the true faith.
"From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. And when they had come to him, he said to them: "You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, ... Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears." (Acts 20:17,18,28-31)
The alternative is the sort of spiritual anarchy that exists in many quarters. Cults like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, and Oneness Pentecostals and semi-cults like the "Toronto Blessing" folks of a few years back become the rule. Everyone is left to follow those who appear right in their own eyes.
Every man with a mic without ecclesiastical obligations gives you various and conflicting "winds of doctrine".
To limit the preaching of the gospel to the institutional church would render the mission work of ...
You're arguing pragmatism, not theology.
Nothing and no one can snatch the seed away from those who have been chosen from the foundation of the world.
Absolutely true. However, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to do things decently and in order. If the church through its officers is sanctioned by God with the care and feeding of the flock, then we ought to be very careful about setting up other groups to do that work.
The emphasis should be on the teaching after salvation; the maturing of the believer, not hindering those desiring to come into the kingdom.
How is requiring God's church to do its ordained part an cause for hindering folks from coming into the kingdom?
"Read Amos 1:4-7. How can you apply this to your life?"
Join the IDF, keep your head down and hold on to your seat.
Yes, you are right. I forgot about Samuel. And it is true that even godly parents can have children with more of a propensity for doing rotten things than others. My guess is, that since some have been ultra-blessed in this department, they WILL, without a doubt, be tested more than others. That's where one cannot just sit back on their laurels and think God will rescue them and their children, without so much as lifting a finger. Everyone will be tested to the point which it can be dealt with. More blessings=More testing because there's more resources to solve problems. But, in the end, we're all just people who have problems to solve, and each person must be responsible for solving their own problems. Not government or some other such thing, as many are led to believe.
BTW, I also think Jeremiah(the weeping prophet) is a good example of a father/son relationship. He remained loyal to God, the father, to the point of just being a, bearer of bad news, simply because the people would not listen at all...
Exactly right. And if we presuppose that on earth there is a correct and Scriptural church of God, given by God, then it behooves us to find that church and strengthen it as best we can.
Calvin realized that a Biblical, judicial structure of the church was vital to preserving God's word. Checks and balances. The diagonal appeal to a board of elders.
The alternative is the sort of spiritual anarchy
Exactly. While a Presbyterian system does not ensure 100% faithfulness, it is the best system possible (and appears to be Biblically-mandated.) Just like our republican form of government is not perfect, it still remains the optimum system yet devised. No central, controlling authority but the word of God. And no independent doctrine without peer review and approval in light of Scripture.
LOL. I see myself as a cinched but barefoot Puritan. 8~)
The dismantlement of ecclesiastic accountability is all part of the modernist's push to further deconstruct Christianity and the authority of God's word.
"The dismantlement of ecclesiastic accountability is all part of the modernist's push to further deconstruct Christianity and the authority of God's word."
I don't think anyone is calling for this. The question is the validity of para church ministries, like Ligonier Ministries, Key Life, Vision America or seminaries or campus ministries like Inter Varsity, Campus Crusade or Navigators or mission societies like AIM or Overseas Missionary Fellowship or Wycliff, that are not under the direct authority of a church.
"Scuse me?
"The Rev. Dr. Michael S. Horton is Professor of Apologetics and Theology at Westminster Seminary California. He is also the editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation magazine and the main host of The White Horse Inn radio broadcast. He received his M.A. from Westminter Seminary California, his Ph.D. from Wycliff Hall, Oxford and the University of Coventry, and also completed a Research Fellowship at Yale University Divinity School.
Dr. Horton is the author/editor of more than fifteen books, including, Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, A Better Way: Rediscovering the Drama of God-Centered Worship, The Law of Perfect Freedom, Made In America, Where In The World Is The Church, We Believe: Recovering the Essentials of the Apostle's Creed, Covenant & Eschatology, and many others.
Dr. Horton is a minister in the United Reformed Churches of North America. He has served two churches in southern California, and currently resides with his wife and four children in Escondido, California. [From the White Horse Inn web site]
And while you correctly say that Ligonier is an independent ministry, RC Sproul is under the authority of Saint Andrews Chapel. If he preaches heresy at Ligonier, I'm sure he will be held accountable by the Session at St Andrews. (Esp since many of his CDs and radio programs are recordings of his Sunday School classes and sermons at St Andrews.)
Westminster Seminary is an independent non profit corporation not under the authority of any church.
One more nit to pick: It is interesting to refer to a seminary as an "independent non profit corporation." While I can't find a specific denominational affiliation, it is important to know that among Reformed Denominations, young men don't just "go to seminary." They are under the care of their sponsoring church. A sponsoring church will not send a budding teaching elder to a heretical seminary. The accountability is there because if you teach heresy, no students. No students, no money. No money, shut the doors and turn off the lights. The accountability is clearly there.
It is not my purpose to defend every parachurch group, whether Reformed or otherwise.
However, let me try to make a distinction and see if this helps. You may not agree, but I think it is a worthwhile exercise.
Let me start with Westminster Seminary. Westminster Seminary does not ordain officers in the church. It does not evangelize or send out missionaries. It merely performs a (partial) training function. If you are familiar with Reformed/Presbyterian polity, the authority to ordain teaching elders/pastors rests with the presbytery or classis in each denomination. Thus, the elders in the church are ultimately responsible for who is ordained or licensed to preach the gospel and who is not. The local presbytery performs the checks and balance over the product of Westminster Seminary.
Organizations like Key Life and Ligonier do not, in general, go into a town where there are existing Christian churches and hold evangelistic crusades. Neither do they deputize pastors, evangelists and missionaries. In other words they do not preach the gospel as that term has been traditionally understood. Their primary purpose is to make materials available for the church to use as it carries out the work of the Great Commission. They do not undertake to do the work themselves. The same is true to to a certain degree with Gary DeMar's work.
By telling them that the only time they can hear the Gospel is on Sunday between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M.
Since no one is saying that, it is a red herring. No Reformed church that I'm aware of views its activities as being limited to certain hours of the week. That's more a fundamentalist view of the church than Reformed.
Both of these commands were given to individuals not the institutional church since it was not in existence when they were given. That is theology not pragmatism.
So tell me, how does one reign in rogue "preachers" with bad theology in this individualistic model?
Although Horton and Sproul are ordained by various churches, they are ministering in independent para church ministries that are accountable, not to the churches, but to independent Boards of Directors; Horton to the seminary he teaches at and his own independent apologetic ministry and Sproul to Ligonier. Now they may be preaching/teaching in a church at the same time, but their independent ministries are not subject to church discipline. They can go on without church sanction. Churches can withdraw their ordination and the teaching ministries can still go on.
Seminaries are in the same situation. They may be connected to a denomination or system of theology but they are accountable to independent Boards of Directors, not any particular church. From my experience, students attend seminaries on their own, not because a particular church sends them. The church might recommend a seminary that is close to them theologically, but ultimately it is the student who decides and pays for the education.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.