For Elders Thinking Of Inviting Arminius Into Their Pulpit

From the time he entered the pastoral ministry, James Arminius (c. 1559–1609) was a controversial figure but he was also a minister in good standing in the Reformed Churches. Despite the intense controversy that his views and teaching generated, views that fractured the church, that nearly ignited a civil war in the Netherlands, that split a university, and that ultimately led to the convocation of the greatest international synod in the history of the Reformed churches, the Synod of Dort (1618–19), Arminius remained and died a minister in good standing in the Reformed churches. Partly this was a fluke. Arminius died in 1609 and the Synod did not conclude for a decade later. At the time of his death there was great controversy but there was not unanimity as to what Arminius was actually teaching. This was intentional. Arminius was intentionally vague, even to the point of being deceptive.   Continue at R. Scott Clark

When the Good News Becomes Bad

Introduction

The word “Gospel” is so familiar and frequently used that it is possible to lose sight of its genuine meaning, “good news.” This question is vital as we face a series of movements within our churches which seek to redefine the meaning of the Gospel. In each case we are being offered “another Gospel” (Gal 1:6). The Good News of Christ faces a threat on the order of that faced by the Galatian Christians.

What Happened to this Good News?

 

The fathers in the early church spoke the Gospel, but their concerns tended to focus on apologetics, the Trinity, Christology, the canon of Scripture and the church. As often as not the “Gospel” message among the early fathers was that Christ had come, and salvation is available to those who trust Christ and behave themselves. This was not good news for sinners.

By the thirteenth century the Gospel of grace was understood as a progressive transformation of a person’s moral life. The gospel equaled sanctification. People were thought to be morally sick and in need of an injection of a medicinal substance called grace. In this scheme, one is as justified as he is sanctified, and sanctification comes by cooperating with this medicine (grace) received in the sacraments. Their Gospel exclaimed: “salvation is available for those who cooperate with grace and obey the Law.” This was more bad news for sinners. Instead of Christ’s perfect righteousness earned for us, we were left with a partial righteousness worked in us.   Continue at R. Scott Clark

Once More: Reformed and Charismatic?

Our friends at DGM have done it again. This time it’s a lecture by Tope Koleoso that has folks discussing the question of the relations between the charismatic movement(s) and Reformed theology, piety, and practice.

Tom Chantry, a Particular Baptist friend, has replied to this specific video. This topic was covered on the HB in 2008 in response to an essay by Calvin College prof Jamie Smith and in 2009 in response to a query from HB reader Nick. There’s no need to repeat those posts here but I want to say a couple of things:

There is an objective definition of the adjective “Reformed.” Words mean things and the adjective “Reformed” signifies “that theology, piety, and practice derived from Scripture and confessed by the Reformed churches in their ecclesiastical catechisms and confessions.”

Objection: But the meaning of words change. The word “nice” used to mean “stupid” but that’s not how we used it any more.

Answer: I understand that the meanings of words change but there is a difference between the natural evolution of the meaning of a word and theft. When a word has been in continuous usage by an identifiable society of people, and when the meaning and intention behind the word has remained constant, the sense of the word cannot suddenly be said to have “changed” when another group simply lays hold of the word by force and re-defines it.  Continue at R. Scott Clark

See also: Why Reformed Pastors Need Not Be Charismatic – Part 3

Joel’s Not So Bad After All? Mark Driscoll on Joel Osteen

So says YRR (Young, Restless, and Reformed) leader Mark Driscoll in an interview (regarding his forthcoming book) published by the TGC:

Q: You observe that “appreciated people” exchange grumbling for praying, competing for celebrating, bitterness for thankfulness, performing for serving, and boasting for encouraging. What’s an “appreciated person”? Isn’t that what Joel Osteen wants me to be?

A: I am aware of the theological differences that exist between our tribe and Pastor Joel. I also know my Reformed brothers like to treat Pastor Joel like a piñata, but there are worse things than being happy and encouraging at a time when the most common prescription medications are antidepressants. A few guys in our tribe could learn to talk about something other than painful, arduous suffering once and a while—if nothing else than for the sake of variety. Our identity is not in our joy, and our identity is not in our suffering. Our identity is in Christ, whether we have joy or are suffering. 

So, there are two utterly competing accounts of Joel Osteen’s message before us.  Either Osteen’s is a false gospel or he has been misunderstood. James Gilmore, author of The Experience Economy, has produced a scorecard by which to evaluate Osteen’s message. The key phrases under the Osteen column are telling. More pointedly, Mike Horton writes:  Continue at R. Scott Clark

So You’re About to Call a Pastor?

This is a sensitive topic. People don’t always think rationally or biblically or confessionally about the office of pastor. Many folk don’t understand what ministers do and most people who are involved in the pastoral search process are well-meaning but inexperienced. Most congregations only do a search every 7-10 years.

Having been intimately involved in the hiring process I know how difficult it is to find good people for highly responsible positions. Searching to fill a position is difficult even when one knows exactly what the job requires and the qualities for which one is looking. If one is not sure of the sort of person or qualities or even what the job entails, the search becomes considerably more difficult. Add to this mix the fact that, in churches, most searches are conducted by committee and we all know how much more difficult committees can make things. Think of 7 people with seven different sets of criteria and 7 different job descriptions!

Some of these difficulties are in the nature of the animal. Most conservative and confessional (NAPARC) Reformed (and Presbyterian) congregations are small and all of them are non-profit organizations. This means that they are under-staffed and under funded. They rely on volunteers to do many important tasks including calling a pastor. Even if the search is being conducted by the ordained elders (as it ought to be) it is still the case that all the elders probably don’t have the same degree of experience in conducting searches.   Continue at R. Scott Clark

There Is Spiritual Evil in the World

Since the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut there have been numerous explanations offered to account for what happened. Television reporters and commentators have spoken about evil. One said that “evil rolled through” Newtown.

It does not take particular genius to see that mass murder is evil but it is important that we understand that evil is not something that rolls or just appears in otherwise innocent bucolic places. Evil is something that fallen creatures do. Scripture explains that the Evil One had already fallen. The Evil One made use of the serpent in order to tempt the first image bearers. As the Reformed theologian Caspar Olevianus said, Adam made a false covenant with Satan and repudiated the covenant the Lord had made with him. Adam accepted the Liar’s offer but instead of eternal life and glory through obedience Adam earned death and corruption through disobedience. He is our father and we are his heirs.

At the birth of Jesus, the Evil One sought to destroy him in his infancy. In his attempt to eliminate the One who could destroy him, he waged war on infant boys through King Herod. Our Lord Jesus confronted the reign of the Evil One in the world through weakness. The Evil One attempted to seduce the Second Adam as he had the first. Again he offered The Man that which was not his to give on condition that the Last Adam should make covenant with him. Jesus rebuked him...   Continue at R. Scott Clark

See also: John MacArthur

THE ISRAEL OF GOD

Introduction

There is much more to "end-times" or ultimate things (Eschatology) than what we say actually happens in the last days. We say what we do about eschatology because of what we think God is doing in history.

At the center of the debate is the question of "the Israel of God" (Gal 6.16). Of course, this is not a new question. During our Lord's earthly ministry and after his resurrection and before his ascension, the disciples asked him repeatedly, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1.6).

Indeed, there was a widespread rabbinic and popular notion that the Messiah should be a powerful politico-military figure of Davidic strength and skill—"David has slain his tens of thousands" (1 Sam 18.7). John 614-15 records,

After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, "Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world." 15 Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself.

It was not, as some might have it, that the timing was off, but rather that an earthly kingdom was contrary to his every purpose. Again, at the end of his life, during his triumphal entry, he did not come to establish an earthly kingdom, but rather to fulfill prophecy, "Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt" (John 12:15; Isa 40.9; Zech 9.9).

Jesus had taught the disciples and others that he came not to bring an earthly kingdom as they expected, but rather he came to bring salvation from sin. At the end, when "the men of Israel" could no longer tolerate his refusal to submit to their eschatology, their plan for history, they crucified him. Scripture says,

In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him." (Matt 27.41-2)

It is also a sad fact that many Christians have agreed with the chief priests and teachers of the law. Classic Dispensationalism has long held that the Pharisees had the right method of interpreting the Bible, they simply reached the wrong conclusions.   Continue at R. Scott Clark