Why Denominational Barriers?

I do not normally read the SBC blog. However, this evening I stopped by to check it out. This particular post, Baptists? Methodists? Presbyterians? Charismatics?, caught my eye. The article opens with this.

Something that I’ve been observing for quite some time now, and especially here lately, is that a lot of people, who belong to Baptist Churches, could join a Church of another denomination and couldn’t tell any difference. I can’t tell you of the people that I have heard say things like…"Well, there’s not that much difference between us Baptists and the Methodists, right?” (I can't legally post this image so click here)

Now I do not know the theology of David Worley in particluar. I find it interesting amidst the anything goes to get professions and baptisms SBC that someone would care about such things. I mean really. Recently, Ergun Caner said that Dr. White's debates with Muslims are like a Jerry Springer show while ignoring the fact that he has been tazered in chapel to get the youth excited. So when methodologies and revivalistic methods within SBC churches mimics that of a methodist church or a pentecostal church, should people within an SBC church know that there are denominational differences?

Worley goes on to explain the things that he sees to differentiate baptists from other denominations.

How can you not believe that things like eternal security, autonomy of the local Church, Believer’s baptism by immersion, priesthood of all believers, salvation by grace through faith, and all the other doctrines that we hold dear–as God’s Word spells it out for us–are not worth holding onto?

I remember several years ago, while sitting in a Baptist church, watching a former methodist candidate for a pastoral position. Only one older woman, who was probably seen as annoying, asked the obvious question, "Don't you have to be a Baptist to be able to be a Baptist Pastor?"

The response was interesting, but typical. One couple looked at me and said the very thing Worley decries in the first quote, "Why does it matter. We are all just Christians."

Although Worley offers some important points such as salvation by grace through faith and priesthood of all believers, don't Methodists and Presbyterians believe that as well? He offers two significant differences with other denominations, Credo-Baptism and Eternal Security. Yet again, on a fundamental level, why are these really different? I do not know Worley's theology, but if the SBC as a whole is going to shun the Reformed/Calvnistic branch within her midst, if the SBC as a whole is going to continue in their understanding of some kind of autonomous freewill of man and an understanding of grace that sides with the doctrine of Prevenient Grace (just as the Methodists do), then on a fundamental level there is simply no basis for eternal security. I would also submit that the typical SBC view also denies the very basis for a consistent Credo-Baptism position (eg: if we may dispense with the Regulative Principle of Worship and allow "altar calls" then why is it wrong for Presbyterians to baptize children?).

The fact is, if one takes the time to read the statements of faith in almost any church, there really is no difference among denominations. For people who constantly decry that we should all just get along, why decry the differences?

Denominational differences are important. That is why I am standing in the Reformed Baptist camp. Theology does matter. He states toward the end,

BFM2000 is what we believe the Bible clearly teaches

I wonder if he realizes that the BFM was written by Calvinistic/Covenantal Baptists. Is he even concerned that most SBC churches have departed from the Creeds of the past such as the Philadelphia Confession?

In conclusion, I agree with Worley that there is a problem among SBC members and pastors as to their ignorance on this issue. I would submit, however, that this stems from a poor theological understanding of man and the all sufficient grace of God. Once salvation becomes centered upon man's autonomous free will, then the other issues simply flow from out of this view.

Interview With M. Night Shyamalan

A couple of years ago, my older son received The Last Air Bender, Book II, for Christmas. This evening, while my older son was out, my 3-year-old asked if he could watch one of the videos from this Book II collection of DVDs. So I get the set down off the shelf and open it up.

"Which one would you like to watch?", I ask.

Of course, as providence would have it, he asks for the last disc in the set. It is the disc with special stuff on it. So I place it in the player and up comes the menu. One of the choices is an interview with the makers and M. Night Shyamalan. So I clicked on it, and here was the interview.



I find it strange that my son had this the whole time, and we totally missed it. If it were not for the advertisement during the Superbowl, I'd probably still be clueless.

Anyway, as a parent, I have had the pleasure of watching this excellent cartoon series. Having kids sure pays off in different ways. I am definitely looking forward to the Trilogy. If you're not a parent, would like to watch this series but feel embarrassed, just go to the store and pretend you are buying this for you nephews and nieces or even your neighbor's kids. You won't be disappointed.

Jacob Sings John Williams Medley

My 3-year-old wanted to watch some of the vacation videos. I had forgotten about these two. Apparently, he had been watching this video and decided to sing it while leaving the Mount Rushmore site.



Here is Jacob's version.

Conservatives see the world in black and white, and it isn't.

Well, ignorant ol' me decided to finally finish a movie I had never even heard of before, Tears of the Sun, with Bruce Willis. What I find ironic is that the movie asks the exact same questions I had asked during Scott Roeder's murder trial of abortionist, George Tiller.

You may read a summary of the movie here. The main character, A.K. Waters, played by Bruce Willis must decide whether or not he is going to engage the bad guys, kill rebel soldiers, place his military crew in harm's way, and ultimately saving the lives of the innocent.

Throughout the movie, it is clear that A.K. Waters (Bruce Willis) hears from both sides from the "black and white" perspective. His commander tells him he is wrong and is to only accomplish the mission he was sent in for. His doctor friend tells him he was right for having defended the refugees and killing the bad guys. The only person that seems to understand that this is not "black and white" is Waters, and it is very clear that he struggles with his decision even after saving many lives.

Although one might get the impression Waters didn't want to get involved or that Waters may have felt it was wrong to kill the bad guys, I do not think that was the case at all. My interpretation is simple. Waters knows he is playing God and fears he has crossed the line. Was he appointed by God to defend the villagers and refugees? The answer was obviously "no". But should he defend innocent people from being savagely brutalized at some level? If he does, will his work actually make things worse in the long run on a national scene?

In what appears to be an unrelated real life situation as reported at Slate.com, Scott Roeder's trial should have been "black and white".

A trial that should have been a straightforward reinforcement that murder is the deliberate taking of human life instead will be remembered in part as the forum for justifying why a person's life can be sacrificed to save a fetus.

Although this sounds just so easy, it is simply not accurate. Roeder was not sacrificing George Tiller for a fetus, and the judge saw that all too clearly. Roeder's testimony throughout his entire trial had been nothing of the sort. The parallels between Bruce Willis' character and Roeder's real life experience should not be overlooked. As the summary starts,

Navy SEAL Lieutenant A.K. Waters and his elite squadron of tactical specialists are forced to choose between their duty and their humanity, between following orders by ignoring the conflict that surrounds them, or finding the courage to follow their conscience and protect a group of innocent refugees.

So while I get labeled the mean guy that doesn't bother to think or research, I find it interesting that I asked the exact questions Director, Antoine Fuqua, asked throughout the movie. I would even suggest that a Kansas Judge saw the same thing. But political correctness made certain these questions would not see the light of day. Meanwhile, Scott Roeder, right or wrong, will sit in prison for the rest of his life for exactly what this movie seeks to explore.

My disclaimer. I think Scott Roeder was wrong, but not for the overly simple "black and white" reasons often stated for News Media. Although there are many parallels, there are also several key differences, which have been discussed here in the past. So I am in no way endorsing Scott Roeder's actions. Nor am I saying his breaking of the law should go unpunished.

Buchanan: Justification in the Romish Church After the Reformation

If you didn't know better, James Buchanan's fifth lecture, History of the Doctrine in the Romish Church After the Reformation, could easily be mistaken for a rebuttal to the modern Ecumenical movement between Protestants and Roman Catholics of the last couple of decades. Buchanan ably demonstrates that the initial argument between Rome and the Protestants is very clear. He states on page 142,

This is the radical error; for the whole question between the Popish and Protestant Churches lies here: Are we justified by our own righteousness, or by the righteousness of Christ? by a righteousness infused and inherent, or by a righteousness imputed, which is not in us, but in Him?

But then something changed. The Protestant movement was becoming too big to handle. On page 135, Buchanan refers to Luther,

Luther, marking this sudden change, could hardly restrain his indignant sarcasm, and exclaimed, 'Popish writers pretend that they have always taught, what we now teach, concerning faith and good works, and that they are unjustly accused of the contrary: thus the wolf puts on the sheep's skin till he gains admission into the fold.'

Just as in the modern Ecumenical movement of the 1990s-2000s, the desire to reconcile overrides reality and language becomes the weapon. From page 136 Buchanan reminds us of the Diet of Ratisbon.

We learn another lesson from what occurred at the Diet of Ratisbon. It shows the possibility of appearing to concede almost everything, while one point is reserved, or wrapped up in ambiguous language, which is found afterwards sufficient to neutralize every concession, and to leave the parties as much at variance as before.

On page 138 Buchanan writes,

The double policy of the Romish Church, so strikingly exhibited at Ratisbon,--in first rejecting the Protestant doctrine of Justification as an unauthorized and dangerous 'novelty,' and afterwards claiming it, in their own sense, as a truth which they had always held and taught,--was pursued in several successive diets of the Empire.

Of course we know from history that the Council of Trent was convened for over almost two decades to respond to the Reformers. It is often interesting to see many in the Modern Ecumenical movement to be surprised at Trent's language and it's promotion of Grace through faith. However, this is the beauty of ambiguous language. On page 139 Buchanan notes,

Their deliberations on this subject were held in their sixth session, 1547, and resulted in sixteen decrees, setting forth the doctrine of the church, and thirty-three canons, denouncing the errors which are opposed to it.

Even though the supposed errors of the Reformers were denounced at Trent, Buchanan goes on to note on page 143 what he explains as Old verses New Popery,

But it is a still more instructive fact, that even in Protestant countries, the priesthood have made use of two distinct sets of books,--the one containing Old Popery undiluted, and consisting of catechisms and books of devotion,--such as 'The Sacred Heart of Jesus,' or 'The Angelical Exercise,' designed for the edification of the ruder part of their flocks;--the other intended for the better educated class of their own communion, but still more, perhaps, for their Protestant neighbors, in which all the grosser features of Popery are concealed, or softened down, or colored over, and all its distinctive doctrines kept in the background, or explained away.

I have personally experienced this last paragraph time and time again. Ask a recent convert to Roman Catholicism if he has prayed to Mary or paid for indulgences to escape purgatory. You may find the response a bit squeamish. What is worse, you will find the Gospel to be lost in ambiguous terminology as he notes on page 149,

It is true that the church of Rome has always held some important doctrines of Scripture, and that these, applied by the Spirit of God, may have produced in some within her pale saving conversion to God; but it is equally true, that the whole subject of the method and ground of a sinner's justification has been so obscured and corrupted by her teaching, that in proportion as men became thoroughly imbued with her peculiar lessons, they were just so much the less likely to have recourse to Christ alone for salvation.

Many times I have been asked if I believe all Roman Catholics are going to hell. I agree with Buchanan on the same page.

Do we then deny the possibility of pardon and acceptance with God within the church of Rome? God forbid! What we deny is, that any sinner was ever justified, there or elsewhere, by his own righteousness; and we reject the Romish doctrine of Justification, as having a tendency to lead men to rely on their own works, rather than on the finished work of Christ.

Buchanan concludes with a citation of Luther.

If no flesh be justified by the works of the law of God, much less shall nay be justified by the rule of Benedict, Francis, or Augustine, in the which there is not one jot of true faith in Christ.... But some there were whom God called by the text of the Gospel and by baptism. These walked in simplicity, and humbleness of heart, thinking the monks and friars, and such only as were anointed of the bishops, to be religious and holy, and themselves to be profane and secular, and not worthy to be compared to them. Wherefore, they finding in themselves no good works, to set against the wrath and judgment of God, did fly to the death and passion of Christ, and were saved in this simplicity.

In conclusion, this chapter demonstrates that history repeats itself. Modern Evangelicals would do well to know that Christianity did not start with their parents or the day they were born or even with Billy Graham. We would also do well to set aside our passions to save the culture as a first priority. Thereby escaping the error of teaming up with those of opposing faiths and purposely obscuring the Gospel as the defining glue which defines and binds the church of Jesus Christ.

Elton John: Jesus Was Gay

This kind of stuff is so sad that if you didn't laugh, you'd cry. According to The Sun Uk, Elton John believes Jesus was gay.

Elton, 62, declares as he pours out his heart to a magazine: "I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems."

He adds: "Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East - you're as good as dead."

Now I have to wonder if people really believe this kind of thing. I mean if we are going to say the New Testament record is not accurate and is full of myths, then anything we say about Jesus is pure speculation. Based upon this radical skepticism about the text, if Elton John were consistent, he can no more say Jesus was gay as opposed to what he laments about "gay women". Perhaps Jesus was a cruel gay women hater.

In other words, if we are going to accuse politically conservative Christians as using Jesus to promote their politics and cry foul when they do, then this is simply using the political Jesus figure in reverse and is equally wrong. Of course, both sides have been doing this for a long time. This is nothing new.

Alito vs Obama

Here is yet another example of the Media using polls to advance a story that they made up. In this Yahoo News story we are told that Americans are against the recent Supreme Court's decision.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for foreign and domestic corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

Now I have read the main introduction to the decision. Either I have missed the fact that this recent decision actually allows foreign corporations to influence our political campaigns, or the poll misrepresents the decision by asking certain questions in such a way as to make the polled think that the recent court's decision does allow this. In my experience, the answer is obvious.

News reports from President Obama's State of the Union address say that Justice Alito mouthed "not true" when President Obama made this exact charge. So again, assuming Alito did this, then either Obama is wrong or Alito is wrong.

I'll put it this way. If I had to bet my pay check on this, I would put every penny on Alito. Perhaps someone could show me where in this decision that allows foreign corporations to influence our campaigns? Polls are nothing but a trick to advance one's agenda. And the Mainstream Media is nothing but an extension of the Democratic party.

But the story goes on to cite Conservatism's favorite Republican, Senator McCain.

McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there would be a "backlash" once awareness grew about "the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns."

Oh, save us McCain. Save us from money being in politics. What a joke. The McCain/Feingold Act should have been called the "Keep the incumbents Act". It is ridiculous to think a law will keep money out of politics. The Act simply created a method of controlling how money gets in the process. Now follow the money friend. If you are an elected official, are you really going to pass a law that assists your opponents during a campaign?

McCain stood against term limits because he said it got rid of good people too. What's the difference with campaign finance reform? Did it not restrict good money too? Ahhhh, but term limits would have limited McCain. Better not vote for that!

The Swell Seaon: Low Rising

Kuddos to Pastor Paul for linking this video.

Buchanan On Church Fathers

In the third lecture/chapter, Of the Fathers and Scholastic Divines, Buchanan deals with the common Roman Catholic charge that "Justification by grace through faith" was a novelty of the Reformers.

However, Buchanan makes clear what the question is not.

The question, therefore, is not,--Whether all the Fathers taught the doctrine of Justification in its original purity, nor even whether any one of the Fathers was entirely exempt from the corruptions which were gradually growing up in the church; but simply, whether the doctrine of Justification by grace, through faith in the merits of Christ, may not be traced in the writings of some witnesses for the truth, along the whole line of the church's history...[page 78]

He asserts on page 80

It is simply to prove a matter of fact, in opposition to an erroneous assertion,--the fact, namely, that the Protestant doctrine of Justification was not a 'novelty' introduced for the first time by Luther and Calvin,--that it was held and taught, more or less explicitly, by some writers in every successive age...

On page 90, Buchanan deals with the term "merits" and the misunderstanding that grew over the centuries. He offers a definition of how it was used in Augustine's day.

In the general sense, as denoting the obtaining or procuring of something, it was said that we might merit Christ, or merit the Spirit, or merit eternal life; not that we could deserve any one of these inestimable gifts, or that they could ever become due to us in justice,--for this is inconceivable,--but simply that they might thus be procured and enjoyed.

On the next page, 91, Buchanan then deals with Augustine's use of Justification as "wrought both on the state and character of a sinner". It is true that the church has always taught that God both imputes righteousness and infuses righteousness, but the question is not that God does both but how they are related to one another. As Buchanan rightly argues, one is based upon the other. Sanctification flows out from Justification, and not the reverse.

Although there are several pages of citations from several church Fathers, I will end with Buchanan's citation of St. Athanasius.

"Not by these," i.e. by works, says Athanasius, "but by faith, a man is justified as was Abraham."..."In no other manner can there be redemption and grace to Israel and to the Gentiles, except the original sin, which through Adam passed unto all, be loosed. But this, says he (the Apostle) , can be blotted out through no other than through the Son of God."..."It is necessary, therefore, to believe the Holy Scriptures,--to confess Him who is the First-Fruit of us,...to be struck with wonder at the great dispensation,--to fear not the curse which is from the Law, for 'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law.' Hence the full accomplishment of the Law, which was made through the First-Fruit, is imputed to the whole mass." [page 94]

The Doctrine of Justification by James Buchanan

For the last few years, I have been avoiding a book that I sense I really wanted to read but just figured it would be a major project that would require more time than I could devote. The book is slightly over 400 pages with a lengthy appendix. The book is also a compilation of lectures given in 1866. As we all know, people that lived that long ago certainly would not be able to speak the same English that we speak today. Yet just moments ago, I finished the third "lecture", which ended at page 100.

The book, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church and of Its Exposition From Scripture by James Buchanan, is a far easier read than I had anticipated. Now on the one hand if a layman is totally unfamiliar with the doctrine of Justification and the Roman Catholic accusation that the Protestant understanding of it is a "novelty" unknown for 1400 years, then perhaps this may not be the best book to start one's study. Yet for the average layman who enjoys studying or reading about these issues, this book is a must.

The first chapter/lecture is a survey of the doctrine of Justification starting from Genesis chapter 1 and Adam's pre-fall state, all the way to the time of the end of the Hebrew Scriptures. The strength of this chapter is that it avoids the Dispensational error of seeing salvation as being radically different in every age based upon man's response to God. Instead it shows the unity of the covenants and the promises of God in every age/dispensation. In a way, the first chapter is a good approach in teaching Covenant Theology without having to even mention the term.

For instance, when discussing the Mosaic Law on page 37, he states,

The next great era in the History of Justification under the Old Testament was that of Moses, and the proclamation of the Law at Sinai. A new economy was now introduced, which differed in many respects from the Patriarchal system, and yet was designed and fitted, in various ways, to develop God's purpose of mercy, and to carry it on to its accomplishment in the fullness of times. That economy cannot be understood, as it is described and commented on in various parts of Scripture, unless it be contemplated in two distinct aspects: first, as a system of religion and government, designed for the immediate use of the Jews during its continuance; and secondly, as a scheme of preparation for another and better economy, by which it was to be superseded when its temporary purpose had been fulfilled.

This form of argument is needed to be demonstrated since the Apostles in the New Testament heavily rely upon upon the consistent doctrine throughout the Old Testament era. For example, the Apostle Paul's argument that Father Abraham was saved by justification through faith alone in Romans 4 would simply make no sense outside of Covenant Theology.

As time allows, I would like to offer some quotations from the book, especially from the third lecture which deals specifically with the argument that Justification through faith alone and the doctrine of Substitutionary atonement and the doctrine of imputation is merely a Protestant novelty.

To get the book, you may click on the image and purchase it from Monergism.com.