Home » Posts tagged 'preaching'
Tag Archives: preaching
John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus and Sending Authority in Matthew 3
Paraginomai Versus Ginomai
The Greek verb paraginomai appears only three times in Matthew, an intense or emphatic form of a common verb, ginomai. All three occur in Matthew 2 and 3:
2:1, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.”
3:1, “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea.”
3:13, “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.”
The magi, those kingmakers from a powerful far eastern nation, came with royal authority and bringing kingly gifts. Herod recognized their authority. It troubled him. John the Baptist, the forerunner and herald of the King who would sit on the throne of David forever, came heralding or preaching. The King Himself, Jesus, came to begin His work in an official capacity.
Luke 7:20 uses the same unique verb, paraginomai, to describe John the Baptist ascending to his divine task, parallel with Matthew 3:1. The only usage in Mark, 14:43, sees an official, governing body of chief priests, scribes, and elders with Judas coming to arrest Jesus. The Apostle Paul uses paraginomai in 2 Timothy 4:16, saying, “At my first answer no man stood with me.” He described no one joining him in an official capacity in public court. It’s an obviously technical word to denote the function of a person who came into court to defend the accused (John Phillips, Exploring the Pastoral Epistles, p. 454).
Official Capacity
The only use of paraginomai in Hebrews (9:11) reads:
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.
This verse describes Christ, the anointed one, come an high priest, so again in a high, official capacity, so with authority. In the New International Commentary on Hebrews, Paul Ellingworth says concerning Hebrews 9:11, The use of paraginomai instead of the usual ginomai suggests “an official public appearance” (p. 449). So also Harold Attridge in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, commenting on the dramatic nuance of the word (paragenomenos, participle of paraginomai), says, “He has arrived on the heavenly scene as High Priest” (p. 245).
John the Baptist was a man sent (apostello) from God (John 1:6). That verb (“sent,” apostello) is also very technical, expressing the nature of an envoy or an ambassador. Jesus asked (Matthew 21:25), “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” The implication in Matthew by Jesus (cf. Mk 11:30, Lk 20:4) was that God authorized the baptism of John. He got it from heaven.
The Lord Jesus came like John with sending authority. Jesus said, “As my Father hath sent (apostello) me, even so send I you” (John 20:21). God also expects sending for all His workers. It’s more than reading the Great Commission, saying you’ve got it because you read in Matthew 28:18-20. That command went to a plural, “Go ye.” One should assume that “ye” meant people in the group. It did not imply that anyone or everyone could go with His authority (“power”). “You” is also plural in John 20:21.
Romans 10:15
The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 10:15,
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
The word “preach” is kerusso. This is the same word applied to John the Baptist and his preaching. The kerux is someone to announce the Lord’s coming, to give His message, and to prepare the way for Him. Again, Romans 10:15 asks of the plural, “they.” Who “sends” (apostello) “them”? Christ sends as Head of His church.
John the Baptist “came” in an official capacity. God “sent” John in an official capacity. The New Testament uses the same terminology for every believer. How shall they hear without a kerux? How shall they kerusso except they be apostello? God the Father sent John and Jesus directly. Jesus then sends true believers by means of the church. He heads the church. God sends believers only through true churches.
A Special Cast of Characters
Ones Christ sends constitute a special cast of characters and yet not one, not one because it applies to everyone. Every one bringing glad tidings or the gospel of peace should be and must be sent. That should be every member of a church, a member of Christ’s body with Him as Head.
As a personal example, individual churches sent my wife and I. A true church sent us in 2020 from California to Oregon. The same true church sent us in 2021 from Oregon to Utah. In 2022, a true church in Utah sent us from Utah to Indiana. The church in Indiana sent us for a few months to England at the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023 Since February 22, 2023, my wife and I function as heralds with authority of or from our church in Indiana. We requested and received letters, which we possess, from three total churches in all this (California, Utah, and Indiana).
God sent John. He came. Sent and came are unique words of sending. God sent Jesus. He came. The same pattern applies to the work of every true believer.
How serious would you take the sending of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States? If the United States of America authorized you for a legitimate task, would you acknowledge the honor bestowed? Can you recognize the greater honor of the Lord Jesus sending you through a true church?
What In a Salvation Presentation Is the Chief Factor Toward Someone’s Conversion?
The Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky in his Complete Letters (1868-1871) wrote:
If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth.
Just know that if you remain with Christ, you also remain with the truth. Jesus said, “I am the truth” (John 14:6). That quote though makes it sound like something other than the truth is the main factor leading to saving faith. Others might echo the sentiment of Dostoyevsky, especially when one considers their methodology.
Three Categories
I will divide into three categories of argument or evidence for or vindication of the gospel message unto salvation. This answers, why should I believe the gospel?
Listening to professing conversion testimonies through my whole life, I heard different reasons for someone receiving the gospel. When I listen to apologists talk alone or in conversations with skeptics, I have heard them give varied reasons people will receive the gospel. People state epistemic, moral, and aesthetic arguments, evidence, or vindication. Thought leaders express these three, ranking them for their impact. People include them in their testimonies or salvation stories.
Epistemic
An epistemic presentation or epistemic preaching gives knowledge or information, makes intellectual arguments, trying to persuade the mind of a skeptic or lost person. This would include exegesis of scripture, using the Bible for elucidation of and authority for truth. It connects everything to history and will even show the compatibility of the scriptural account with history, science, archaeology, everything in the real world.
Moral
A moral presentation or preaching relies on the goodness of someone in the life of the skeptic or lost person. The moral quality of a friend, acquaintance, co-worker, or family member impacts him or her to the degree that they acquiesce to that influence. A person with a wrecked life sees this as the only way out. Maybe he sees it as the path away from drugs, obesity, alcohol or other harmful addictions. Perhaps he witnesses the quality and diligence of the efforts of a co-worker, making a moral impression upon him.
Aesthetic
An aesthetic presentation or preaching relies on the beauty or emotional effects of a personal testimony, a moving story, a fearful threat or warning, or just well-told, expressive anecdotes. It also may be the feeling of community or comradery of a group of individuals, how they get along, show friendship and solidarity, and experience satisfaction in all that.
Compelling Argument
Skeptics
Many skeptics would say that Christianity or the Bible doesn’t present compelling epistemic argument to persuade them. It does not provide enough knowledge to give up their present life to follow Jesus Christ. It is harder to believe that a man rose from the dead than to believe that men lied and said he rose from the dead, when he really didn’t. Even if they don’t possess great reasons for not believing the gospel account, they don’t have enough good ones either.
I heard one skeptic, still a skeptic though, report a frightening dream. He was on an airplane. The plane was crashing and in a semi-conscious state, he prayed to God for deliverance. When he woke up, it shook him. In his heart of hearts, despite his skepticism, he acknowledged the innate instinct or impulse to look to God for salvation.
Dostoyevsky
The profession of Dostoyevsky relates to either a moral or aesthetic urge or compulsion. Online Britannica gives some context to his quote that began this article:
In 1847 Dostoyevsky began to participate in the Petrashevsky Circle, a group of intellectuals who discussed utopian socialism. He eventually joined a related, secret group devoted to revolution and illegal propaganda. It appears that Dostoyevsky did not sympathize (as others did) with egalitarian communism and terrorism but was motivated by his strong disapproval of serfdom. On April 23, 1849, he and the other members of the Petrashevsky Circle were arrested.
Dostoyevsky spent eight months in prison until, on December 22, the prisoners were led without warning to the Semyonovsky Square. There a sentence of death by firing squad was pronounced, last rites were offered, and three prisoners were led out to be shot first. At the last possible moment, the guns were lowered and a messenger arrived with the information that the tsar had deigned to spare their lives. The mock-execution ceremony was in fact part of the punishment. One of the prisoners went permanently insane on the spot; another went on to write Crime and Punishment.
Dostoyevsky passed several minutes in the full conviction that he was about to die, and in his novels characters repeatedly imagine the state of mind of a man approaching execution. The hero of The Idiot, Prince Myshkin, offers several extended descriptions of this sort, which readers knew carried special authority because the author of the novel had gone through the terrible experience. The mock execution led Dostoyevsky to appreciate the very process of life as an incomparable gift and, in contrast to the prevailing determinist and materialist thinking of the intelligentsia, to value freedom, integrity, and individual responsibility all the more strongly.
1 Corinthians 1: Greek External Evidence and Jewish Experiences
I expressed here in other articles that men offer their reasons for not believing for which Paul accounts in 1 Corinthians 1. He says, Greeks seek after wisdom, Jews seek after signs. You could say that Greeks want intellectual arguments, something akin to their arguments in the Greek city states. They want external evidence.
Jews seek after signs. They tended in that day toward wanting further experiential proof. Something needed to move them in a personal way to prove reality. Even after the ten plagues in Egypt, most of the Jews still balked at listening to Moses and following what He said, that God told him to say. Scripture indicates that experience is not a basis of faith.
Faith Comes By Hearing the Word of God
The Bible provides the authority for what men need for salvation. In a simple way, it’s Romans 10:17: “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” God will use the testimony of others, what they say and do. He might use a bad dream, smiting someone in his inner consciousness. God moves people with overwhelming beauty.
Hebrews 11:6 says that a person requires believing that God is a rewarder. Along these lines, Romans 2:4 says the goodness of God leads someone to repentance. Someone won’t receive Christ unless he thinks he’s better off with Christ as the Captain of his life.
Scripture does more than an epistemic presentation or preaching. It targets the mind, no doubt, but it reaches further than that. It affects the rebellion of a person in His will. Romans 1 says men know God (Rom 1:19). They suppress the truth though (1:18, hold the truth in unrighteousness). Their perverse natures rebel.
I believe scripture indicates in many places that the rebellion relates to human will or pride. People want their own way. They will choose their own way against their own self-interest. Men make choices that doom them, which they make so that they can stay in charge.
The Reach of Scripture
Jesus starts the sermon on the mount with, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:3). A person must understand his own spiritual poverty, that he is not the master of his own fate. He can’t even get what he really wants on his own. He doesn’t have anything to get there. That humility doesn’t just occur. God works in a person through His Word.
When Hebrews 4:12 says that the Word of God is powerful to divide soul and spirit, that goes further than the mind. The soul includes emotion and will. God works in an epistemic, moral, and aesthetic way, all three. However, it must start with the mind. Someone must believe the gospel is true. God sanctifies through the truth.
Even with the moving of personal testimony and some stirring of emotions, everyone must receive the truth, which starts with the mind. For a person to believe, he must understand the gospel. More occurs through the gospel than just the intellectual, but that must occur.
Today I see the emotional or experiential calls for salvation as the biggest problem in evangelicalism. Evangelicals think more about what people will like or how they feel. They do not want to tell the whole truth, because people won’t like it. God saves people through the truth, not by leaving out the hard parts. Jesus never did that. Let’s do what Jesus did and then all of His apostles.
Cohesion
Agreement
The moral and the aesthetic must agree with the epistemic, but salvation centers on the epistemic. All the events of the gospel happened. Jesus is Savior. He is Lord. It doesn’t matter how you feel about it.
Moral and aesthetic presentation must cohere with the truth. You cannot separate truth from goodness and beauty. People get their view of God very often if not the most often from the aesthetic. If the aesthetic contradicts the epistemic, someone will get the wrong God. He will imagine a different God than presented by scripture. This keeps him from salvation. Even if he receives this god, it isn’t God.
Effect
A good moral example alone doesn’t save someone, but a bad one can hinder or repel salvation though. This includes a lascivious lifestyle presented as a product of the grace of God. Furthermore, regarding aesthetics, someone gets a wrong understanding of God from false worship music. He associates God with lust and worldliness. The right music doesn’t save, but wrong music, false worship, hinders or repels salvation.
The moral and aesthetic are important, but we must focus on the epistemic. Give the whole plan of salvation. Target the understanding. Don’t attempt to persuade with emotions and experiences. Use your stories to illuminate the truth to persuade in the mind. Scripture and the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest.
Men Seek Signs and Wisdom, But God Saves by the Foolishness of Preaching the Gospel
1 Corinthians 1:18-32: The Foolishness of Preaching
In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul said God uses the foolishness of preaching to save. God saves people through the foolishness of preaching. Paul started out this section in verse 18 by saying that “the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.”
It’s not that the cross is foolishness or that preaching is foolishness. People think it is foolishness and Paul is saying, “That thing they think is foolishness; that’s what God uses to save.” God uses a means that does not make sense. Because people think the gospel is foolishness, they become offended from it.
Of all the offenses of the gospel, Paul gives at least two. (1) The Cross, and (2) Preaching. The cross is offensive. It is this way also in at least two ways. (1) Someone on a cross needs saving. Saving comes by a powerful means. (2) The cross would be to say that Jesus is the Savior or the Messiah. I’m not going to write about that in this post. Instead, preaching.
Rather Signs or Wisdom
Paul in essence asks, “Why use preaching when Jews seek after signs and Greeks after wisdom?” (1 Cor 1:22) He divides all men into these two different methodological categories. Jews and Greeks need signs and wisdom, not preaching. In my thirty-five plus years of ministry, I agree that every audience of ministry breaks down into those two general categories.
When you think of signs and wisdom, that might seem like two items people should like and want. They are two biblical words. In a very technical sense, a sign is a miracle. Almost exclusively, I think someone should view a miracle as a sign gift. I will get back to that.
Wisdom. Isn’t Proverbs about wisdom? We pray for wisdom. How could wisdom be bad? Proverbs 4:7 says, “Wisdom is the principle thing.”
Signs and Wisdom
Signs
Signs are something evident in a way of supernatural intervention. If there is a God, won’t He do obvious supernatural things? “If He doesn’t do those, why should I believe in Him? I want to see some signs. Wouldn’t He give me those if He really wanted me to believe in Him? That would be easy for Him, if He really did exist. If God did give me signs, I would believe. Since He doesn’t, then I won’t believe or I don’t need to believe.”
The absence of signs is not that God is not working. He works in thousands of different ways in every moment. They are all supernatural. We even can see how God is working in numbers of ways.
People would say they want more than God’s providential working. That isn’t enough. They want God to make it easy for them to believe by doing something amazing and astounding like what they read that Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Jesus, and the Apostles did. People desire direct supernatural divine intervention.
Churches feel the pressure to fake signs, because people want them. They aren’t signs, because they’re faking them, which redefines even what a sign is. Churches also conjure up experiences that give an impression that something supernatural is occurring. People can claim a sign from a lowered expectation of what a sign is. Even if it isn’t something supernatural, people want to feel something at church that might have them think the Holy Spirit is there. This is their evidence for God.
Wisdom
Wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1 isn’t God’s wisdom, but human or man’s wisdom. This could be what people call “science” today. It is scientific proof or evidence. They need data or empirical evidence. This is very brainy arguments.
God is working in the world. It is good to talk about that. This is known as the providence of God. He upholds this world and all that is in it in many various ways. I love that.
A lot of evidence exists out there for everything that is in the Bible: archaeological, scientific, psychological, logical, and historical. People will say that’s what they need and that’s what makes sense to them. Even if they’re not saying that, it makes sense to believers that they need intellectual arguments.
Jews and Greeks in 1 Corinthians 1 represent all apparent seekers in God. If churches and their leaders are seeker sensitive, they would provide signs and wisdom. In a categorical way, that’s what they do. They use the preferred ways of their audience, rather than what God says to do. Apparent seekers are not the source for a method of salvation. God is.
You could give analysis as to the place of signs and wisdom as categorical approaches for ministry philosophy. Churches are rampant with both. Paul is saying, eliminate those as methods. Use the God-ordained method only.
God wants preaching as the method of accomplishing salvation. People are not saved any other way than preaching. Many reasons exist for this, some given in 1 Corinthians 1 and others in other biblical texts.
The Gospel Is the Power of God Unto Salvation, pt. 7
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six
Not long ago in evangelicalism, the terminology “lifestyle evangelism” arose. Early in this series, I wrote that the lifestyle is part of the message, but cannot replace the gospel itself. “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).
In my encounter with lifestyle evangelism, I found it to mean living a life a Christian should live around an unbeliever. From the unbeliever’s experience with that life, he wants to know what caused it, and asks. Then a Christian can explain in a non-pressure kind of way. I believe the words “lifestyle evangelism” originated in the 1976 book by C. Bill Hogue, titled: Love Leaves No Choice: Lifestyle Evangelism. Many characterize this lifestyle as “nice.” Be nice to people. They want you to be nice to them. Then when they ask what’s different, you connect it to the gospel.
Instead of “Lifestyle Evangelism”
In a technical sense, I do not see lifestyle evangelism in the Bible. The life surely should accompany the gospel. It should not contradict the gospel. Salvation comes through the gospel, which means preaching it. That is what I see in the Bible. Many do not think you are “nice” when you preach the gospel to them.
You want to preach the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation. Salvation will not occur without the gospel and it comes through preaching. That does not mean that you keep preaching the gospel to those who refuse to hear it.
Based on Romans 1:16, getting the gospel out to people is getting the power of God unto salvation out to people. What the lost need for their salvation stays away from them, sometimes with the reasoning of lifestyle evangelism. They think they do not want the gospel. Usually they cannot know what they need and that they need the gospel, because they do not have the gospel. The gospel gives the power that begins working toward a desire for salvation.
The Effect of the Knowledge of Romans 1:16
When I get up in the morning, I begin thinking about preaching the gospel. Do I mean going door-to-door? I could mean that. I could ring a doorbell, wait for someone to open the door, and start to try to preach the gospel to someone. What if I do not go door-to-door, does that remove the possibility of preaching it?
I think it is easier to get into the preaching of the gospel by going door-to-door. It ensures I will do that. However, in very cold weather areas or during very cold weather times, not everyone will open the door to listen to you preach. I am not attempting to discourage you from preaching in the Winter in cold weather areas. What if people do not open the door because it is so cold or during a certain time of the year, you will not ring door bells or knock on the door because of the cold?
You have to look for and pray for opportunities to preach the gospel. I call this being aggressive. If I do not go door to door and I want to preach it to someone else, I cannot stay in my house. I have to leave the house to see that happen. I still must go to where people are, and then I give attention to possible opportunities. If it is even possible, I must take that opportunity.
Taking the Opportunity with the Gospel
My wife and I right now are living in a small studio apartment. We have no car, so we walk for what we need. We have a very small refrigerator, so we have to go there more often. As I get old (yes, I’m getting old), I have to stop more often. Sit. Rest. That might mean getting a hot beverage somewhere.
It has been very rainy, cloudy, and dark where my wife and I are. It was sunny yesterday for the first time in I don’t know how long. We both got a coffee and we sat outside of the coffee place in the Winter across from a man, who sat outside. I began talking to him and that turned into a gospel conversation with an explanation of the gospel. Opportunities are there for the one looking for them and taking them. I grabbed it, like reaching for something that I want and taking it off the shelf. I just did it.
When I preached the gospel, it was not forced. It is normal for me to bring the gospel into a conversation. I wasn’t going through the motions, like someone who must just get this done. No, I want to give the gospel, that is, to take opportunities. I do, because the gospel is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). I assumed that man across from me was lost and nothing was more important to him than salvation, and so, the gospel.
Know How To Start the Gospel
If you are going to preach the gospel to people, you will need to know how to start. At first, you need to plan that. You prepare for it. You think about that first sentence you will say and the direction you will take. The goal is to get from starting a conversation to preaching the gospel. All of this relates to the gospel being the power of God unto salvation.
Before you ever get to how you start a conversation that leads to the gospel, you must think about how you will encounter people. You will not preach to anyone if you do not see anyone. You have to leave the house to do that. Before you plan on how you begin a gospel conversation, you plan on where you will go to see people.
You may see people all the time. People have many different realms in which they meet people. How do they bring Jesus into those contacts? Very often it starts with the trouble for everyone without the gospel. People know they’re in trouble, which is how Paul begins the gospel in the book of Romans.
The gospel conversation could start earlier than the trouble of the lost person. It could begin with the true nature of mankind. He is not an accident. God made him for a purpose.
I like to say to someone, “When Darwin looked at a cell, he saw a blob.” Today when we look at a cell, we see irreducible complexity. Even on a cellular level, life did not arise from an accident.
More to Come
The Gospel Is the Power of God Unto Salvation, pt. 3
If the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, then what does that say about the Holy Spirit and His work? Does He have a part? The gospel is a message from the Bible and the Holy Spirit works through that message. The Holy Spirit speaks through the Bible. I have appreciated the language, “the mouthpiece of the text.” In Ephesians 6:17 language, the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit works, but He works through the Word of God. This helps explain one aspect of how the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
The Substance of the Preaching of the Gospel
Furthermore, the gospel made of scripture or the declaration of scripture itself is powerful, as Hebrews 4:12 says. “The gospel is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.” This couples or harmonizes well with Romans 10:17, “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.
The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, not some kind of work of the Holy Spirit separate from words. I’m speaking of the unbiblical teaching of “regeneration precedes faith.” No. The gospel is the power of God unto regeneration, part of salvation. Even though scripture does not teach regeneration preceding faith, it says gospel preaching precedes faith. The Holy Spirit uses the message to regenerate, just like the Word of God generated the world in Genesis 1.
The Greek term for “word” in “word of God” in Romans 10:17 is rhema, not logos, both translated “word” in the New Testament. Rhema does not speak of scripture or the Bible as a whole, but an individual passage. Faith does not come from opening the pages of the entire book, but using the specific texts of scripture in the appropriate manner. There isn’t power in a wrong interpretation as if the Bible is a kind of talisman with magical qualities. The power comes through its message, what the text actually says.
What I’m writing fits with 1 Corinthians 1:21, when Paul says “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” This again corresponds to Romans 1:16, written also by the Apostle Paul. “Preaching” isn’t a tone or a style, yelling or bellowing forth. It is the Greek word, kerugma, which refers to the substance of the communication. It is not preaching the act, but preaching as in the message of the declaration. The preaching is what is being said, not how it is being said.
More people are not converted because someone is more clever in his speaking. People are saved because they hear the truth, the right content, and they respond to that. As you read this, you might think that something else could help the gospel along. I don’t think we should separate sincerity and compassion from the message itself. Paul uses the terminology, “speak the truth in love,” in Ephesians 4:15.
Compassion or the Lack and More Either Diminish or Adorn as Part of the Message
First, it is love to speak the truth, as opposed to (1) speaking error and (2) not speaking it, remaining silent. Jesus spoke the truth. Paul spoke the truth. Also though, someone could speak the truth without love or do it with some other wrong motive. This is one of the wrong motives referred by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13. Though you speak with the great eloquence, that is, with the tongues of men and angels, if you don’t do it with love, it is “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”
Sounding brass, what I like to call a gong, and tinkling cymbals, which imagines banging on forged metal platters, both percussion types of instruments, don’t have meaning without accompanying instruments that would offer a melody. They also dissipate upon striking, needing to be hit again. Without love, our communication is temporal.
Jude writes at the end of his epistle (v. 22) that compassion makes a difference to the presentation. How does this harmonize with the gospel being the power of God unto salvation? Is it better put, gospel and love are the power of God unto salvation? No, love itself is part of the message. Romans 1:16 stands. This fits with an adaption of the Marshall McLuhan statement, “the medium is the message.” The absence of love lessens the message, diminishes it. I believe accompanying truths buttress this.
Peter says that good works themselves, when beheld in a believer, have an effect of their “glorify[ing] God in their day of visitation” (1 Pet 2:11-12). The absence of the good works undermine the message. They are part of the message of the gospel. Paul speaks in Titus 2:10 of “adorn[ing] the doctrine of God our Saviour” with “all good fidelity.” “Fidelity” translates the word for “faith.” Several other passages provide further evidence for this point.
Good works alone, fidelity, compassion and other accompanying traits of the message do not act as “the gospel.” They are not “the gospel.” Paul extols the preaching of the gospel by those with a bad motive. He says in Philippians 1:15-16 that men preached “Christ even of envy and strife” and “of contention, not sincerely.” Paul rejoiced that they preached the gospel. He didn’t say their message should not have been preached at all.
People are often quick to judge the works and the motives of those who preach the gospel. They did that with Paul himself. I write to make this point though, that the gospel doesn’t need the accompanying aspects of a good motive, good works, and effective style to work. If it is the gospel, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.
Every professing Christian at times thinks of himself or feels he is not worthy to preach the gospel. He could not possibly represent it with his life. That is not to say he should not strive to live a life that matches or correlates with a true gospel that he preaches.
I’m saying that a weak confidence due to personal struggle with the flesh should not impede or stop gospel preaching. This is one reason why someone puts on the helmet of salvation before he picks up the sword of the Spirit in Ephesians 6. The helmet protects the head, the source of thoughts that debilitate spiritual warfare, using the Word of God.
More to Come
35th Anniversary of the Church I Planted in California, pt. 4
Bridget and I arrived in San Francisco in late August, joining Calvary Baptist Church there. We found our first apartment in the Marlesta apartments in Pinole. She succeeded at finding a job as a teller at Mechanics Bank. I found one at the Big Five sporting goods. We rented the multipurpose room at Ohlone Elementary School in Hercules. We printed brochures and hired someone to paint two street signs. Our first service we set for Sunday, October 18, 1987. We copied flyers as an invitation for that date.
My wife and I moved into our first apartment. Both of us started working about thirty hours a week. Our missions support would cover only part of the immediate expenses of the new church. I knocked on the first door next to Ohlone School and started covering the town of Hercules with the gospel. For the first month and a half, I invited everyone to our first service.
After arrival, I heard people use the terminology, North Bay. I thought Hercules was North Bay. Early I wanted a name that included a larger geography, so I chose “North Bay Baptist Church.” No one told me, “Hercules isn’t North Bay.” It wasn’t. Hercules is East Bay. Despite that, we still used that name for the first year and a half of our church. We designed a logo with the name.
At least 100 people promised to come for our first service. I was too ignorant not to know how unlikely that was. I expected it. Bridget’s uncle and aunt, who lived down in Santa Cruz, would drive up. We had one family from the sending church who lived in Hercules. They would come. Until that first service on October 18, Bridget and I attended all the services at Calvary Baptist Church in San Francisco.
Every late Saturday night, I set out two wooden portable handmade signs in front of the Ohlone school. I also did this for the very first service. One was larger that sat near the street pointing toward the parking lot. The other sat closer to the multipurpose room, visible from the parking lot, pointing toward the multipurpose room. It was a sandwich board style with the same image on both sides, hinged and propped up against each other.
My wife and I were paying for the multipurpose room in a public elementary school by the hour on Sunday. We rented it for five hours in the morning and two hours at night. This time allowed for us to set up and take down every week. The school had a piano and a podium. We brought a table in front of the podium.
I hung a banner behind the podium that said, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth,” which was the scriptural theme from the beginning of our church. In the back we had a table with literature and offering plates. All the tables had table cloths. The front table had some kind of flower arrangement on it. This was a ritual every Sunday.
The philosophy I held for the building was that God built the church through His Word. Such a building, good or average, would not stop someone with a true motive from visiting or coming. Even though 100 people promised to come the first Sunday, 7 came.
As you read this, having 7 new people come to church might sound good today. I really did think they would all come. One family of four, the one that lived in Hercules from the sending church, came the first Sunday. We had several others, family and people traveling from other churches, but only the seven invited who said they would come our first Sunday.
What would happen next? I folllowed up on the seven and the 93 or so others who said they would come, but didn’t. From that point, I could start telling the story of those who came, those who stayed a little while, and those who were with us for years. Some from that first year are still in the church. No one from that first Sunday stayed. A couple kept coming off and on that first year, then they were done. The work had begun though.
That first Sunday I started preaching through John and my first sermon was in John 1:1. I continued that series on Sunday mornings until I was done. Every sermon was typed with a manual typewriter on regular typing paper.
I believed preaching was most important to the founding, strength, and continuation of our church. Long term, I believed it was most important in every way. Jesus told Peter, Feed my sheep. I didn’t have many sheep yet, but I knew this church would grow from evangelism, yes, but also from exposition of scripture.
People had personal computers in 1987. I knew one person with a computer at that time. It wasn’t until later that first year that I bought a used IBM Selectric with a removeable ball. The first half of that first year I typed a bulletin every week on a manual typewriter. All my flyers were literally cut and paste. That’s where the terminology, cut and paste, came from. Each letter was cut from a sheet of stylish letters and then pasted. We really have it good today when it comes to laying out printed materials.
My wife and I were working, so we had regular work hours at the bank and the sporting goods store. We lived in an second floor single bedroom apartment in Pinole. We bought a used bed, used mattress, used sofa, used kitchen table, used chairs, and a used lamp. I think all our furniture cost us two or three hundred dollars total. When I wasn’t at work, I jumped into the Dodge Omni and went door to door. Sometimes my wife came with me. We started covering every house and apartment in Hercules, moving out concentrically from the building where we met.
During the first year, up the street from Ohlone School I rang a doorbell with my wife and preached the entire gospel to a man, I remember, named Brian. I know his last name too, even though this was the last time I ever talked to him. Why? He prayed a prayer. He made a profession of faith. My wife was with me and afterwards, I asked her, “Do you think he really got saved?” She said, “No.” We argued a little bit, but the reason I still remember it is because Brian didn’t really receive Christ.
I had evangelized for years, since I was a teenager. I preached to hundreds of people. Nothing compared to what I was doing in the San Francisco Bay Area. I felt like I knew little to nothing about what I needed to do. I began studying evangelism, reading my Bible, studying books, and listening to recordings. How would a church start without anyone hearing the gospel and receiving Christ? That was why we came to California.
To Be Continued
Yes and Then No, the Bible with Mark Ward (Part One)
My last post of last week, the shell game with Bible words, if you followed the links, referred to a session Mark Ward did at Bob Jones Seminary, where he did refer to Thomas Ross and myself. Someone sent that to me, and in my path to watching it, I became curious in another of his videos. I’ll deal with both here. One I essentially agreed with, and the other, no.
******************
Chronologically, Mark Ward first made a podcast from his greenhouse about attending an IFB meeting close to where he lived. An IFB pastor invited him because R. B. Ouellette was going to preach on the King James issue. He didn’t say which church this was. It was surely revivalist in the Hyles/Sword realm. Ward started out ready to deal with KJVOnlyism, but it turned into something else. Here’s the podcast.
Ward traveled to a special meeting at a revivalist IFB church to interact with KJVO. Based upon a heads-up from its pastor, he expected something promoting KJVO. Ward reported much he liked about the service all the way up to the Ouellette sermon. Ouellette opened to Job 31:35-36 to defend KJVO. A plain reading of Job 31 does not appear to do that.
Ward and Ouellette both graduated from Bob Jones University. In his criticism, Ward distinguished between using the Bible for what a man wants to say and preaching what the Bible does say. By his account, Ouellette did the former. He was not a herald, who delivers the Word of the King. Ward titled his podcast, “The Biggest Step the IFB Needs to Take.” He treats IFB with generosity, more than what I would. Instead of the KJVO issue, he found a “preaching” one instead.
YES
Bad Preaching
I wrote, “Yes,” in this title. I agree with the criticism of this typical, popular IFB preaching. If IFB apparently cares for the perfection of its Bible, then preach the Bible. Its leaders very often preach like Ward described. He reported loud “Amens” shouted all around, which supported a message that twisted the Word of God. Ward exposed a reason for someone to separate from IFB churches and men. I say “Yes” to Ward. I agree with him.
What causes a man to preach like Ouellette? It’s not that he is unable to preach the Bible. Why would he settle for something entirely not what the passage says? Underlying doctrinal problems exist especially regarding the Holy Spirit. Keswick theology, second blessing theology, or revivalism, all similar error but with a nuance of difference, affect preaching.
Many IFB believe the preacher becomes a vessel for a message from the Holy Spirit. They believe that through the Holy Spirit God gives the preacher something others can’t even see in a text. This is called “preaching.” God uses “preaching,” but by that they don’t mean the Bible. The Bible is used, but the preaching is something unique. They trust the man of God has been given something they haven’t ever seen and can’t see.
However, I dispute preaching as the biggest step for IFB. It isn’t the “I” (independent) or the “B” (Baptist) in IFB that’s the problem. “F” for Fundamentalism is at the root of the problem. Actual preaching of the Bible isn’t a fundamental of fundamentalism. In general, IFB does not confront bad preaching. It allows it and even encourages it. If someone spiritualizes or allegorizes a passage and reads something into a text, it doesn’t bring condemnation. However, the biggest step for fundamentalism isn’t its preaching.
False Gospel
Fundamentalism is rife with a corrupted gospel. Ward commended the evangelism of IFB. What is the evangelism of IFB? Look all over the internet at the gospel presentations. Most IFB removes biblical repentance and the Lordship of Christ. Let’s say Ouellette rejected KJVO and started using the ESV, or even just the NKJV. Would he become acceptable to Ward, reaching his primary goal? Ouellette argues against repentance as necessary for salvation (I write here, here, and here). When you read doctrinal statements and the plans of salvation of those churches most associated with Ouellette, they’re the same.
A few years ago, James White participated in an interview with Steven Anderson. In White’s many criticisms of Anderson, he never mentions his false gospel. Anderson hosts an anti-repentance website. Anderson is worse than Ouellette, but both fall short of a biblical gospel. As White ignores Anderson’s gospel, Ward does Ouellette’s. This diverges from the often stated emphasis of evangelicals, the gospel of first importance. The version issue stokes greater heat than the gospel does.
Some IFB churches preach a true gospel even as some preach biblical sermons. Yet, a false gospel subverts IFB unrelated to the version of the Bible it uses. Years ago IFB allowed and even promoted the introduction and then acceptance of a false doctrine of salvation. I am happy Ward noticed the bad preaching of Ouellette, but his focus harms his ability to see the biggest IFB problem. Ward doesn’t mention the wrong gospel.
Sermons on the Sabbath & Lord’s Day: Old and New Testament Evidence, and Seventh-Day Adventism Examined
I have had the privilege of preaching a series on the Sabbath and its relationship to the Lord’s Day. Topics covered include the Sabbath as Israel’s sign of creation and redemption; the way the Sabbath points forward to redemptive rest in the Lord Jesus Christ; Seventh-Day Adventist, Lutheran, Puritan, and dispensational Baptist views of the Sabbath; the question of whether churches in the New Testament era need to meet for worship on the Sabbath or on the Lord’s Day; and a careful study of the heresies, not just on the Sabbath, but on the doctrines of Scripture, God, Trinitarianism, Christ, salvation, last things, and many other areas of Seventh-Day Adventism, as explained in “Bible Truths for Seventh-Day Adventist Friends.”
To listen to the sermons and/or watch the preaching, please:
Click here to watch the series on the Sabbath
and feel free to add a comment, “like” the videos, and/or subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube channel if you have not already do so.
There is probably one more message on the Sabbath coming, so feel free to check back. You can’t end a series with six messages instead of seven anyway, can you?
–TDR
The Church of Christ: Preach the Word of God, Preach Politics, or Preach Conspiracies?
Preach the Word or Politics?
In 2 Timothy 4:2, the Bible commands: “Preach the Word,” referring to the “all Scripture” of 3:16 with the Greek anaphoric article on the “the” of 2 Timothy 4:2. God commands His Word to be preached, and nothing else, in the church of Jesus Christ. Does this exclude preaching on political topics?
Sometimes preaching the Word means preaching what the Word says about politics. For example, the Bible condemns abortion and sodomy, teaches free market economics and a limited government instead of socialism or communism and an intrusive government, and favors republican government over monarchy or dictatorship. It is entirely appropriate to preach what Scripture teaches on these and related issues and to make appropriate contemporary application, whether through following what 2 Timothy 3:15-4:2 implies–expositional preaching through entire books of the Bible–or through topical messages on Biblical issues.
Do we see preaching on contemporary politics taking place in the New Testament? Matthew 14:1-4 reads:
1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus, 2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. 3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias’ sake, his brother Philip’s wife. 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.
The first Baptist preacher made the clearly true, unquestionably verifiable statement that Herod should not have taken his brother’s wife. We have no other political statements at all from him, and it does not even appear that the Baptist declared the unlawful incest of Herod in a sermon–rather, John “said unto [Herod]” directly what the ruler had unlawfully done, also reproving Herod for all the evils he had done (Luke 3:19). So John made a clear Biblical application of a political matter in a personal way to the ruler in question.
What about the Lord Jesus? Christ called Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:32). This also was not in a sermon but in response to a question the Lord was asked. In every recorded sermon the Lord preached, and in all His teaching in the NT, there was nothing about the terrible political things going on in His day—which He could have used His omniscience to describe and warn about with perfect accuracy—but Christ did warn a great deal about false religion, the worst thing that was taking place in first century Palestine (and the worst thing happening in our day).
The sermons in Acts contain nothing about the dirty power plays in the Roman empire or other political events. The closest one gets is Paul proving that he was not a lawbreaker in court settings. Paul also used his rights as a Roman citizen (Acts 16:37; Acts 22), so Christians should use the voting rights they have in free nations.
So we have one statement from John the Baptist, made directly to Herod and not in a sermon, one word, “fox,” from Christ on politics, here again not in a sermon, and nothing in the apostolic preaching in Acts. Paul used the political right he had to protect his life and advance the gospel (Acts 22), and also used his citizenship to protect the Philippian jailer and his household from their heroic, selfless, and extremely dangerous act of taking Paul out of prison into the jailer’s home (Acts 16:37).
What about the New Testament epistles? In the epistles, there are no warnings about current politics at all.
So is it lawful to make application to current political events in sermons? Based on what Christ and the first Baptist practiced, it is certainly lawful. However, it is also certainly not the emphasis of the New Testament. The balance found in the NT epistles is to spend 99% of the time on giving people God’s unsearchable truth; when naming evil men and evil deeds to focus on religious corruption; and occasionally as a legitimate application of Scripture to point out the evil in the secular political world. Indeed, God’s infallible truth, powerfully preached, will do far more long-term good, even politically, than changing God’s pulpit into a place of political commentary.
A congregation where people did not know that the Democrat party overwhelmingly opposes religious liberty and promotes abortion and sodomy would be poorly informed. Application of the Sixth Commandment would properly inform people of the indisputable facts right in the Democrat party platform. However, a congregation that does not know what the books of Zechariah or Ephesians are about (for example), but hears all sorts of things about contemporary politics from the pulpit, is also not following the New Testament balance. They should hear far more in the Lord’s house about the Joseph of Genesis than about Joe Biden.
It is true that the Old Testament prophets spoke more about the misdeeds of their rulers and of other nations than one finds in the New Testament. This fact should encourage us to be gracious rather than judging harshly that contemporary politics are alluded to too often by other pastors or other preachers. However, we should also keep in mind that Israel was a theocratic nation-state–a political nation among other political nations. The king was not just a ruler, but one with a religious position over God’s people. The surrounding nations were not just people groups, but idolatrous enemies trying to destroy the kingdom of God on earth and stop the coming of the Messiah and the consummation of God’s redemptive program by wiping out Israel. It may therefore be a better comparison if we consider Jeremiah warning the king to submit to Babylon as comparable to the harsh and specific NT warnings against false religion rather than the equivalent of someone preaching about the misdeeds of secular political rulers.
Furthermore, speech about political rulers must follow Romans 13:
Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Romans 13:7)
John the Baptist said nothing disrespectful to Herod. Even Michael the Archangel did not rail harshly against Satan, who indubitably deserved it (Jude 9). Even if a secular political ruler is very evil–as most of them are–and very hostile to Christianity–as many of them are–we must show them fear and honor in the same way that we must give them tribute or pay taxes–God requires it.
So preaching legitimate applications of Scripture on politics is right, but making politics central to the church is not, nor should the church follow politically conservative heathen in their reviling of those with liberal political views. Respect is required for all men, and especially for all rulers, even if they personally do not deserve it in the least. Remember that you don’t deserve respect in and of yourself, either. You deserve hell fire, but God gave you grace despite your unworthiness. He calls you to show respect in the same way to unworthy political leaders who He has ordained (Romans 13) for His own ultimate glory and wise purposes.
Preach the Word or Conspiratorial Politics?
What about political conspiracy theories? I have already addressed this to an extent in my posts “Satanic Conspiracy, COVID-19, and the Church’s Response.” (My thoughts on the COVID vaccine specifically are here, with some broader comments on medicine here.)
Notice that what John the Baptist said about Herod was 100% true, credible, and unquestionably verifiable. Herod had taken his brother’s wife and was openly living with her. The same holds true for the Old Testament prophets. The Moabites had certainly burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime (Amos 2:1). (Since the New Testament epistles do not deal with any political controversies, they contain no examples here at all, but their silence does still teach us something about proportion, as already noted.)
Contrast that with, say, the dangerous semi-religious cult, the QAnon conspiracy, which believes various political leaders in the USA are engaged in pedophilia and Trump was going to expose them and send them to Guantanamo Bay, and made many other false predictions coupled with unfalsifiable affirmations. Is there a deep state cabal of pedophiles, or whatever other conspiratorial affirmation? Before someone believes something of this sort on a personal level, he needs to make sure that he has carefully weighed the evidence, not just for such a conspiracy, but against it (Proverbs 18:17) lest he answer a matter before hearing the evidence properly, which is folly and shame (Proverbs 18:13). If, for example, QAnon is really a movement of Satanic slander, as many born-again Christians affirm, then affirming its truth would be displeasing to the Lord. Consider the principles in the post “Shame, Folly, and Conspiracy Theories.” Do my affirmations in favor of the conspiracy meet Biblical standards of evidence? Certainly conspiracies should not be promoted in the pulpit in Christ’s churches unless they really have extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary assertions. It was easy to verify that Herod had an unlawful spouse. He did not deny who his consort was. It is much harder to prove that a particular person engaged in abominable acts with minors when nobody allegedly involved says it happened, there is no forensic evidence, etc., and nobody seems to care about it except some extremely fringe social media people who have very dubious evidence to back up their expansive claims.
Let us imagine that someone at one’s workplace told a lie one time out of every twenty statements that he made. We would consider such a person to have a severe lying problem. While conspiracy theories actually have a truth value that is far closer to 0% than to 95%, let’s imagine that a preacher starts preaching political conspiracy theories and is actually correct 95% of the time. He would still be breaking the Ten Commandments 5% of the time—a grave lying problem. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” does not have any exception for discussions of politics. It does not have a 5% exception. Slander is a grave sin, even if one is slandering a political leader with a terribly anti-Biblical worldview. Slander is still a grave sin, even if one is slandering someone as verifiably crooked as Hillary Clinton. If she is crooked in one way you are not lying to say it, but if you accuse her of something she did not do it is slander. Yep, it is still a sin to slander even her.
Preacher, let’s be much harsher on ourselves than on others as we evaluate these things, and make sure our own sermons are 100% accurate, respectful, and non-slanderous. Nevertheless, whoever makes an inaccurate statement, even if he is convinced it is true by slick-sounding misinformation and is sincerely beguiled by enticing words (Colossians 2:4), is still breaking the Ninth Commandment. We are not to engage in such behavior ourselves, because the devil is the father of lies (John 8:44). We are not to tolerate it in our houses, because “he that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight” (Psalm 101:7). We must not bring it into Christ’s church, because that is the place to preach the infallible truth of the Word (2 Timothy 4:2) as the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), not the place to preach what is either verifiably false, or even only possibly true but uncertain, or even what is true but is not exposition and application of the Bible.
So preach the Word—not politics. Follow the pattern of the New Testament in how much politics is talked about in church. It is not 0%, but not that far away. It is very far from the emphasis. Following the New Testament pattern both honors Christ, the One who told the church what to preach, and also promotes liberty in the long-term in a far more effective way than an unbiblical lack of balance that turns the Lord’s church into a Super PAC.
So preach the Word—not conspiratorial politics, because preaching a conspiracy, unless it is absolute truth, risks committing the grave sin of slander in the place where only what has an infallible “thus saith the Lord” should be proclaimed, for that alone gives glory to Jesus Christ, the great Head of His church.
–TDR
Recent Comments