Theology Central

Theology Central exists as a place of conversation and information for faculty and friends of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Posts include seminary news, information, and opinion pieces about ministry, theology, and scholarship.
Freedom of the Will?

Freedom of the Will?

[This essay was originally published on February 23, 2018.]

Imagine a man who has, somewhere deep within his cranium, a pair of dice. Every time he has to make a decision, a spasm in his brain casts these dice. How the dice roll is what determines the choice. In other words, every decision is pure, random chance.

Would it make sense to say that such a person was free?

Let’s put a label on those dice. Let’s call them his will. This man’s will is completely contingent. It is free from all interference from anything outside itself. Nothing can determine the will. The will is free, but the man is a slave. He is imprisoned by the caprice of arbitrary, random accident. His choices reflect nothing rational and nothing sensible, for however much rationality and sensibility may influence his will, neither is allowed to determine it. In fact, we probably shouldn’t even talk about the will being influenced; that word is virtually meaningless as long as the will is fully free.

Under these circumstances, we cannot rightly speak of the man making a choice. The choice is being made for him, because his naked will is not him. The choosing will is itself nothing more than a random throw of the dice. The decision is made by this contingent will, unshaped and unsupported by either his thought or his feeling. Consequently, only the will is free. The man himself is just along for the ride.

It does not help to object that the decision must be his because the dice are his dice, i.e., the will is his will. By its very contingency the will has been cut off from everything that makes him him. His rationality—what he knows or thinks he knows—must be factored out of the equation. His sensibilities—what he loves and hates—must also be factored out of the equation. If his will is truly free, that is, if his will is genuinely contingent, then neither his knowledge nor his loves can ever be sufficient to determine the will. When everything else has been factored away, only the naked will remains, like dice being cast, choosing randomly for the man.

Nor does it help to object that the will is generating its own choices. These words, “generating its own choices,” are merely a more verbose way of saying “throwing the dice”—and the dice are still thrown by a mere spasm, unreasoning and unfeeling. If there were more than this to the will generating its own choices, then the will would have to possess some reason or sensibility of its own, separately from the reason and sensibility of the person for whom it is choosing. In other words, the will would become a little, choosing person within the person for whom it chooses. It would become a daemon. Then we would discover that this daemon was making its choices when a spasm in its brain cast the dice.

The suggestion that the will somehow generates its own choices does not free the enslaved person. If the will is a daemon, choosing arbitrarily for the person whom it inhabits, then the person has no freedom. We would rightly consider such a person to be mad. If I were such a person, I would insist upon being locked up in an asylum for the protection of those whom I loved. After all, I could never know when my will might randomly determine that I was to commit some horror, some heinous act, contrary to all that I believed and treasured. I would be better off imprisoned externally as long as my daemonically free will already holds me prisoner internally.

There is no escaping an important conclusion. Whenever the will is truly free (that is, ultimately free to choose contrary to all knowledge and love), then the person is a slave. The will itself is utterly undetermined, but it utterly determines the actions of the person. Otherwise we end up with the contradiction of a man who chooses against his will; in other words, he chooses what he does not choose.

Whenever the will is truly free, then the person is a slave. On the other hand, for the person to be truly free, then the will itself must be subject to determination. Genuinely free persons choose (i.e., will) on the basis of some combination of what they know or think they know and what they love or hate. In other words, for free persons, some combination of rationality and sensibility must always determine the will—and if the will is determined, then it is not free.

Furthermore, only if the will is determined can we say that the person is making the choice. Persons are more than their wills. Personhood includes both rationality and sensibility. When wills make decisions contingently (without determination by rationality and sensibility), then they are choosing for persons. When rationality and sensibility determine wills, then the persons themselves are making the choices. In this case, the will is not a separate thing from the deciding persons; rather, the will is simply whatever choice the deciding persons make.

I do not intend here to trace the balance of rationality and sensibility in genuinely free choices. Rather, I simply wish to note that a person who chooses on the basis of rationality and sensibility is truly free, even though that person’s will is determined. A person whose will is truly free (contingent or self-determining) is always enslaved.

In sum, freedom can be viewed in two ways: either as freedom of the will, or else as freedom of the person. Whichever definition of freedom you think is best, you are going to end up with some form of determinism. The freedom of the will results in the slavery of the person. The freedom of the person demands the determination of the will.

Finally, I wish to observe that there are accepted labels for each of these visions or theories of the will. On the one hand, the notion that wills choose contingently and that they generate their own choices is called libertarianism. As we have seen, if libertarian freedom is true, then the will is free but the person is a slave. On the other hand, the notion that persons choose on the basis of some combination of what they know or think they know and what they love or hate is called compatibilism. If compatibilism is true, then the genuine freedom of persons is fully compatible with determination of the will—indeed, for persons to be fully free, wills must be determined.

Each of us must choose one of these theories. The question is, how will we choose? Will we choose on the basis of what seems reasonable and sensible? Or will we insist that rationality and sensibility be factored out of the equation so that our wills are left naked to choose contingently for themselves?

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


What Strange Perplexities Arise

Samuel Davies (1723–1761)

What strange perplexities arise?
What anxious fears and jealousies?
What crowds in doubtful light appear?
How few, alas, approv’d and clear?

And what am I?—My soul, awake,
And an impartial survey take;
Does no dark sign, no ground of fear,
In practice or in heart appear?

What image does my spirit bear?
Is Jesus form’d and living there?
Say, do his lineaments divine
In thought, and word, and action shine?

Searcher of hearts, O search me still;
The secrets of my soul reveal;
My fears remove; let me appear
To God, and my own conscience clear.

Scatter the clouds, that o’er my head
Thick glooms of dubious terrors spread;
Lead me into celestial day,
And, to myself, myself display.

May I at that bless’d world arrive,
Where Christ thro’ all my soul shall live,
And give full proof that he is there,
Without one gloomy doubt or fear.

Freedom of the Will?

Spirit, Soul, and Body, Part Six: Origins

The first human being was the direct creation of God (Gen 1:26–28). When making the first man, God shaped him from the dust of the ground and then breathed into him the breath of life (Gen 2:7). At that point, the man became a living soul.

The second human being was the first woman. God did not shape her from the dust of the ground. He fashioned her from a rib of the man (Gen 2:21–22). Scripture records no second inbreathing. While her life came ultimately from God, it transmitted directly from the man. He recognized the likeness and kinship between them. He expressed this recognition by calling her bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. Since she was taken out of a male (Hebrew ’ish), the man named her ’ishah (the feminine form of the same word, Gen 2:23).

Since the creation of these first humans, all people have been procreated. In one case (the virgin birth of Christ), this was a miraculous event that involved a human mother but no human father. All other humans come from both a mother and a father.

The question is how much of the person is procreated. Another way of phrasing this question is to ask where the soul comes from. This question has been answered in three main ways.

Some have claimed that souls already exist. For example, Plato believed that souls are eternal. They migrate from one body to another after death. Mormons assert that God created souls first, and that these souls agreed to be joined later to human bodies. Neither of these theories is compatible with biblical teaching. The Bible never even hints at preëxistent souls. Also, preëxistence violates the integrity of the person. In Scripture we are not only our souls, we are also our bodies.

Another theory is that God creates each soul at conception, birth, or somewhere between. On this view, each soul is a unique creation of God. The theory is called creationism. This label can be confusing. It does not address whether or how God made the world. It is about the origin of each human soul.

Some good theologians have taught creationism. Charles Hodge is an example. A common proof text for this view is Ecclesiastes 12:7. This verse describes human death. It says, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it” (KJV). The argument is that bodies come from earth and souls come from God. Ergo, God must have made each soul (spirit) individually.

This is hardly a clear proof text. It concludes a metaphorical description of aging and death. It does not intend to address the question of where the soul comes from, but of where it goes. It states that the spirit comes from God, but it never specifies how that happens.

The creationist view runs into significant difficulties. One problem is that God finished His work of creation on the sixth day (Gen 2:1–2). But if creationism is true, then God continues to create. He must create a soul whenever a man and woman procreate. At the moment, that would be upwards of 364,000 unique acts of creation out of nothing every day.

Creationism also violates the biblical teaching that the body is the person. If creationism is correct, then the soul is the real human being. The body is merely its warehouse. On this view, why do humans even need bodies?

Worse, creationism fails to explain the actual sinfulness of every human soul. David asserted that he was a sinner from the moment of conception (Psalm 51:5). How? Did God create a sinful soul? Or did God create a pure soul and knowingly join it to a sinful body that would surely corrupt it? If that is the answer, then how can we avoid the Gnostic teaching that evil resides in the body? A satisfying answer to this question has not yet appeared.

The better theory is that humans procreate soul and body together. This theory is called traducianism. The word traduce means to transfer or hand down. On this view, humans procreate other humans and not merely bodies. Like the body, the soul comes from the natural union of male and female.

In other words, God does not have to breathe the breath of life into each successive human being. At first, Eve’s soul must have come from Adam. Since then, each soul comes from Adam and Eve by natural descent. Thus, Paul said that God made all the nations of humanity from one (Acts 17:26). If creationism were true, then God would create the souls of all the nations one by one. They would be from Him, even if their bodies were from Adam.

Traducianism offers the best explanation for the unity of the human person. Body and soul—inner person and outer person—go together. Individual personhood comprises both together. The separation of body and soul damages full personhood. The disembodied person is “found naked” (2 Cor 5:3–4). But creationism has body and soul coming from widely different sources. Creationism leaves no basis for the intimate bond between material and immaterial.

In short, traducianism is the best explanation for the origin of the soul. It avoids making God the author of sin. It best explains the reality of depravity for newly-conceived souls. It locates depravity in the whole person, not in just the body or soul. It best supports the unity of the human race. It best vindicates the unity of the human person.

This conclusion does not mean that the soul originates in some sequence of DNA in the human genome. Our genetics have to do with the procreation of our outer persons, our bodies. We do not know what mechanism God employs for the procreation of our inner persons. We do not know how the soul is begotten or conceived.

But we can be confident that it is. Your mother and father did not just give you your body. They became parents of the whole you. In the same way, your children are genuinely yours, both body and soul. Our spirit comes ultimately from God, who breathed into our first father the breath of life. Between him and us, though, it is traduced through the natural process of procreation.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


People of the Living God

James Montgomery (1771–1854)

People of the living God,
I have sought the world around,
Paths of sin and sorrow trod,
Peace and comfort nowhere found.
Now to you my spirit turns,
Turns, a fugitive unbless’d;
Brethren, where your altar burns,
O receive me into rest!

Lonely I no longer roam,
Like the cloud, the wind, the wave;
Where you dwell shall be my home,
Where you die shall be my grave;
Mine the God whom you adore,
Your Redeemer shall be mine;
Earth can fill my heart no more,
Every idol I resign.

Tell me not of gain or loss,
Ease, enjoyment, pomp, and power,
Welcome poverty and cross,
Shame, reproach, affliction’s hour:
“Follow me!”—I know the voice;
Jesus, Lord, Thy steps I see;
Now I take Thy yoke by choice,
Light Thy burden now to me.

Freedom of the Will?

Spirit, Soul, and Body, Part 5: Implications

Scripture is clear that humans are not simply souls that inhabit bodies. Still less are they souls without bodies. The Bible teaches that the body is as much the person as the soul is. Body and soul are the inner and outer person. So important is the body to personal identity that God will raise it from the dead.

This biblical teaching raises certain questions. One is about the relationship of body to soul. According to the biblical vision, we must treat people as unities. Under normal circumstances, neither the outer nor inner person acts apart from the other. Soul affects body and body affects soul.

Hard monism reduces all inner activity to the fluctuations of matter. The Bible contradicts this theory. Christians insist that the mind is more than the cells of the brain. The Bible depicts the human spirit as the center of cognition. Yet the spirit—the inner person—is affected by the body. The mind does not usually operate detached from the brain. Fatigue and hunger can affect both thinking and feeling. When Elijah ran from Jezebel, God gave him food and rest before giving him answers or instruction (1 Kings 19).

What happens at death? Do we receive an intermediate body? Does God give us a temporary body between death and the resurrection? Some have argued from 2 Corinthians 5:1–8 that He does. But both body and soul are essential to human identity. Hence, the existence of an intermediate body is unlikely. 2 Corinthians 5 contrasts our present body with our resurrection body. It says nothing about an in-between, temporary body. If we are our body, we could hardly be ourselves while inhabiting some other body. We would not be us. The text promises resurrection after a temporary, disembodied existence. As disembodied souls, we are “found naked” and “unclothed” until the resurrection. Without our bodies, we lack an element of our identity. God will restore this element when He raises us.

Because humans are bodies as well as souls, we must never treat human bodies with contempt. Those who kill the body kill the image of God (Gen 9:6). Even after death, our bodies are still us. We must treat bodies with respect. Deliberate mutilation of a corpse is desecration. Moab burned the bones of the king of Edom into lime (Amos 2:1). God pronounced judgment upon Moab for this desecration. Moab intended to show extreme contempt for an enemy. The contemptuous nature of the act elicited God’s condemnation.

Does this text also forbid cremation? Here we must distinguish the act from the attitude that leads us to do it. Moab burned the king of Edom as an act of contempt. Yet not all burning of bodies is necessarily contemptuous. We find an analogy in the treatment of living bodies, which we must also treat with respect. To sever a healthy body part is mutilation, but to sever a gangrenous member is surgery. Mutilations are desecration, but surgeries are attempts at healing.

God intends the deceased to return to dust (Gen 3:19). Buried bodies usually return to dust rather slowly. Burned bodies also return to dust, but more rapidly. Incineration only speeds up the process. The resurrection will restore bodies that have decayed in the earth. It will also restore those consumed by fire. Otherwise, martyrs burned at the stake would have no hope. We bury some bodies in earth. We entomb some in mausolea. We submerge some in the sea. We incinerate some in flames. If the attitude is respectful, then the method of interment is indifferent.

We must also treat living bodies with respect. Our bodies are us. Whoever treats our bodies contemptuously desecrates them. Unnecessary removal of healthy organs is mutilation. People who cut themselves in self-loathing are desecrating their bodies.

Interestingly, Scripture does not view piercings as mutilations. Earrings and probably nose rings were prominent in the Old Testament. Both sexes wore these ornaments (Gen 24:22, 30, 47; Exod 32:2–3; 35:22; Prov 25:12; Ezek 16:12). Whether one should get a piercing depends on other considerations.

The fall has affected our bodies, sometimes disfiguring them. Infants are born with cleft palates and lips. Victims of fire or other mishaps may endure severe scars. Scoliosis twists the spine and hunches the shoulders. Repairing disfigurements to the body is right and good.

But we must never see our bodies as disfigurements in themselves. If our bodies are us, then we must accept them as gifts from God. Some bodies are short and others tall. Some are female and others male. Some are dark and others fair. Some are delicately framed and others are big boned. These are all givens in our lives (Matt 6:27). They are part of who we are. These realities must shape our inner sense of identity because they are our identity.

Sex is an aspect of embodiment. In sexed beings, gender connects directly to sex. Your sex identifies both you and your gender. It is part of who you are, and it is unchangeable. You can modify your body to resemble the opposite sex, but you cannot change your sex. Such alterations are always mutilations. If your sense of who you are does not align with your body, you do not need chemical or surgical treatment. You need counsel.

Your body is not an illusion. It is a reality. It is your identity. It is you. You must treat it with respect, and you must insist that others do the same.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


Jehovah Hear Thee in Thy Grief (Psalm 20)

The Psalter, 1912

Jehovah hear thee in thy grief,
our fathers’ God defend thee still,
send from His holy place relief,
and strengthen thee from Zion’s hill.

Thy sacrifice may He regard,
and all thine off’rings bear in mind;
thy heart’s desire to thee accord,
fulfilling all thou hast designed.

In thy salvation we rejoice,
and in God’s name our banners raise;
Jehovah hearken to thy voice,
fulfill thy prayers through all thy days.

Salvation will the LORD command,
and His anointed will defend;
yea, with the strength of His right hand
from heav’n He will an answer send.

How vain their every confidence
who on mere human help rely;
but we remember for defense
the name of God, the LORD Most High.

Now we arise and upright stand,
while they, subdued and helpless fall;
Jehovah, save us by Thy hand,
the King give answer when we call.

2025 Commencement Exercises

2025 Commencement Exercises

Central Baptist Theological Seminary is pleased to announce that Dr. Bruce Compton will be the featured speaker at our 2025 Commencement Exercises. The ceremony will be held on Friday, May 16, at 7:00 PM in the auditorium of Fourth Baptist Church. Degrees will be conferred for the Master of Arts in Biblical Counseling, Master of Arts in Theology (Biblical Studies), and Master of Divinity.

Dr. Compton has served as a Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary since 1984. A respected theologian and committed churchman, he has devoted over four decades to teaching the original languages of Scripture and training students for faithful gospel ministry. He earned his AB in Political Science from UCLA, his MDiv and ThM from Denver Baptist Theological Seminary, and his ThD in Greek and New Testament with a minor in Hebrew and Old Testament from Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana.

In addition to his teaching ministry in Detroit, Dr. Compton has served as an assistant professor at Denver Baptist Theological Seminary and lectured at Central Seminary, Maranatha Baptist University, and Grace Baptist Theological Seminary (Coimbatore, India). He has been a featured speaker at events such as the Mid-American Conference on Preaching and the Bob Jones University Bible Conference. Dr. Compton also served as a military chaplain in the Air National Guard until his retirement in 2002, following earlier service as an active-duty pilot in the U. S. Air Force from 1968 to 1974. He was ordained by Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, Michigan, where he continues to serve in various teaching and preaching roles.

He and his wife Mari have two married sons.

Recently, Dr. Compton co-edited “Dispensationalism Revisited: A Twenty-First Century Restatement” with Dr. Kevin Bauder, published by Central Seminary Press.

We look forward to welcoming Dr. Compton as we celebrate God’s faithfulness in the lives of our graduates and commission them to serve Christ and His church around the world.

Further details about commencement will be posted at centralseminary.edu in the coming weeks.

Freedom of the Will?

Body, Soul, and Spirit, Part 4: The Body

God planned to create the human race in His own image (Gen 1:26). He accomplished His plan in two steps. First, He fashioned the first human from the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7). Second, He breathed the breath of life into that first man. This inbreathing resulted in the man becoming a living soul.

The text does not say that God fashioned the man’s body from the dust of the ground. According to Genesis, what God formed was not merely a body, but a man—a human being. The man did not become a human when God breathed into him. He was already a human being before God’s breath made him a living soul.

In other words, human identity is tied to the body. We should not say that the body is human, as if humanity were merely a quality or property that the body possesses. The body is not just human; rather, each body is a human, a human being, a human person. Human identity and human nature are tied directly to the body.

This biblical understanding of the body directly contradicts the ancient Greek vision of human nature. The Greeks thought that the soul is the real person, immaterial and immortal. The soul only lives temporarily in the body. When the body dies, the soul is freed for its immortal existence.

One form of this Greek vision, Gnosticism, was particularly vicious. In the gnostic vision, spirit is good and matter is evil. Specifically, the human body is evil. Most versions of Gnosticism teach contempt for the body. They emphasize that bodily appetites are corrupt and must be resisted. People who suppress bodily desires may eventually free their real selves (their spirits) from the body.

The Bible rejects these theories. According to the Bible, your body is as much you as your soul or spirit is. Your soul or spirit is your inner person. Your body is your outer person. Both are you, and you are not fully you without both.

To be sure, the outer person can be separated from the inner person. When that happens, the outer person dies (James 2:26). Even when your body dies, however, it is still you. When God instituted the curse of human death, He made this clear. God did not say that Adam’s body would die. He told Adam that he would return to the ground, “since you were taken from it. For you are dust, and you will return to dust” (Gen 3:19, CSB). These words could not be spoken about a soul. They are statements about a person, but the body is clearly in view. Only the body is made of dust and returns to dust. The necessary conclusion is that the body is the person.

Personal identity remains tied to the body even after the body has been entombed and has decayed. Peter remarks about David that, “He is dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day” (Acts 2:29, CSB). According to Peter, when the body of David was buried, David himself was buried.

The Bible uses this language regularly. Abraham buried Sarah (Gen 23:19). Isaac and Ishmael buried Abraham (Gen 25:9). Rachel was buried on the way to Ephrath (Gen 35:19). Esau and Jacob buried Isaac (Gen 35:29). Jacob’s sons buried him (Gen 50:13). Miriam was buried at Kadesh (Num 20:1). Aaron was buried at Mosera (Deut 10:6).

This list could be extended, but one more instance is particularly striking. After Jesus died on the cross, Joseph of Arimathea approached Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body (John 19:38). With Pilate’s permission, he took the body of Jesus away. He and Nicodemus oversaw the embalming of the body with spices and linen cloth (19:39–40). All these verses talk about the body of Jesus. When the text narrates the burial in the tomb, however, it says that, “There they laid Jesus” (19:42). They did not just bury Jesus’ body. They buried Him.

The bodies of the dead are still bound to their identity. A deceased body is still the same person it was when alive. That is the reason we must not treat dead bodies with contempt. Human embodiment is part of being created in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27). To treat a corpse brutally is an act of desecration.

Of course, the inner person survives the death of the outer person. When Jesus was laid in the tomb, His inner person was in paradise (Luke 23:43). When believers die, their inner person is absent from the body but present with the Lord (2 Cor 5:8). Even so, something is missing in this kind of disembodied existence. We are at home in the body (2 Cor 5:6). When we are out of the body, we are naked and unclothed (5:3–4). Even though we are present with the Lord, we are literally not all there. A vital element of our personhood, a significant aspect of our identity, is missing.

This missing element is restored only in the resurrection. The resurrection of the body is not a footnote to the Christian faith. It is the heart of biblical hope. We long to be clothed in the resurrection body (2 Cor 5:2, 4). It will have gloriously different qualities from our present body, but it will be numerically identical to the body we now are (1 Cor 15:35–44). When our bodies are redeemed by the resurrection, we shall be revealed as the sons of God (Rom 8:19). This will be the moment when our adoption as God’s sons becomes complete (8:23).

The body is not incidental. It is not an afterthought. It is not a temporary home for the real us. It is as much the real us as our soul or spirit. It is our outer person, corresponding to an immaterial inner person. It is inseparable from our identity and selfhood. Our body is us.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


And Must This Body Die?

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

And must this body die,
This well-wrought frame decay?
And must these active limbs of mine
Lie mould’ring in the clay?

Corruption, earth, and worms
Shall but refine this flesh,
‘Till my triumphant spirit comes
To put it on afresh.

God my Redeemer lives,
And often from the skies
Looks down, and watches all my dust,
Till he shall bid it rise.

Array’d in glorious grace
Shall these vile bodies shine,
And ev’ry shape, and ev’ry face
Be heavenly and divine.

These lively hopes we owe,
Lord, to thy dying love;
O may we bless thy grace below,
And sing thy grace above.

Saviour, accept the praise
Of these our humble songs,
Till tunes of nobler sounds we raise
With our immortal tongues.

Freedom of the Will?

Providence

On the one hand, a driver runs a red light and speeds toward you; he misses you at the last instant. You know you are unable to pay a bill, but an unexpected check arrives in the mail. A long-standing affliction is suddenly healed and you experience relief. A distant friend calls you during a difficult time with words of encouragement.

On the other hand, you experience a sudden illness and endure an unexpected surgery. An unforeseen complication arises as you are preparing to file your taxes. Your car develops serious problems, but the dealership claims that it is “in spec” and doesn’t qualify for warranty coverage. A loved one nears life’s end.

All the situations in the two previous paragraphs are true to life. You have experienced them or something like them. They represent the unanticipated blessings and calamities that fall upon God’s children.

They all occur under God’s Providence. When these circumstances favor us, as they do in the first paragraph, we recognize the hand of God and thank Him. But what if they do not favor us? What if they are like the second paragraph? Do these events somehow reflect less of God’s care in our lives? Are they no longer providential?

No, Providence is at work in everything that happens to us. Whether good or bad, God oversees all the events of our lives. Nothing, no matter how small, is outside the scope of His attention and direction.

That includes the events that we never even notice. We walk beside a tall building and no piano falls on us. We eat a dinner without choking to death. We put our key in the ignition and the car starts; we drive it without reflection. These ordinary events are governed by Providence, too.

What is Providence? It is God’s work in the world through secondary causes. When God operates directly in the world, we call it a miracle. No natural explanations are possible for miracles. Bread and fishes never multiply naturally. Stormy seas never go suddenly calm naturally. Dead people do not return to life naturally. When Jesus did these things, they were demonstrations of His kingdom power working directly upon the world. They were supernatural events. They were miracles, not providential occurrences.

On the other hand, providential events always have naturalistic explanations, even if those explanations are somewhat unlikely. Think of the farmer with a parched field. He prays, and a sudden thundershower saves the crop. The farmer rightly thanks God for the rain. But the meteorologist has another explanation, having tracked the storm front for a week.

Who is right, the farmer or the meteorologist? Was the rain a gift from God or was it a natural event? The doctrine of Providence says that both explanations are true. God was working through the storm to achieve His purpose for the farmer.

At the same time, God was using that storm front to achieve other purposes. God is infinitely wise. He is immeasurably powerful. He is capable of planning natural events to accomplish many ends at once. The same event may be greeted by some as a blessing and lamented by others as a burden. The storm that saved the crop also cancelled the ball game. The rain slowed traffic on the highway, where reduced visibility led to a crash. The runoff helped to fill the city’s reservoir. All these results were planned and intended by a sovereign God.

Here is the marvel of Providence. None of these effects lies outside God’s awareness. None of them is merely accidental or coincidental. God intends them all. Providence encompasses each one, and many more besides.

We experience many events as evils. Some of them really are. But if we are God’s children, then we should know that God intends them all for our good. Providence may seem to frown, but it is never hostile to us.

Joseph experienced his brothers’ betrayal as an evil, and the evil was real. When he eventually confronted his brothers, however, he offered a different perspective. What they intended for evil, God intended for good (Gen 50:20). Thus it is for all God’s children at all times and in all places. The worst things that happen to us are still moving us toward the best possible results.

We naturally welcome Providence when it results in obvious and immediate blessing. We rejoice and thank God. We are right to do so. These events are certainly displays of God’s benevolence and care.

But so are events that bring calamity. God is no less at work in the evils of our lives than He is in the blessings. And those evils, no less than the blessings, He intends for our good. While we may not thank Him for the evil itself, we can and should thank Him for the good that He will bring out of it.

These things are easy to say and write. They are much harder to remember when evil befalls. We are stunned when things turn sour. We lament when we are stricken with pestilence. We grieve when we stand beside the grave of a loved one. We feel torn when a relationship ruptures. But even then, we should remain steadfast in our trust of the God who governs through Providence.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


High in the Heavens, Eternal God

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

High in the heavens, eternal God,
Thy goodness in full glory shines;
Thy truth shall break thro’ ev’ry cloud
Which veils and darkens thy designs.

Forever firm thy justice stands,
As mountains their foundations keep;
Wise are the wonders of thy hands,
Thy judgments are a mighty deep!

Thy mercy makes the earth thy care,
Thy providence is kind and large;
Angels and men thy bounty share,
The whole creation is thy charge.

Since of thy goodness all partake,
With what assurance may the just
Thy shelt’ring wings their refuge make,
And saints to thy protection trust.

Such guest shall to thy courts be led,
And there enjoy a rich repast;
There drink, as from a fountain head,
Of joys which shall forever last.

With thee the springs of life remain,
Thy presence is eternal day;
O let thy saints thy favour gain,
To upright hearts thy truth display.

Equipped for Ministry

Equipped for Ministry

Senior Doctrinal Defense 2025

Theological training isn’t just about acquiring knowledge—it’s about preparing for a lifetime of faithful ministry. For Master of Divinity students at Central Seminary, one of the final steps in that preparation is the Senior Doctrinal Defense, where they articulate and defend their theological convictions before the faculty.

The Senior Seminar course prepares the student for their oral doctrinal defense. This week, three seniors—Brandon Carmichael, Justin Gilbert, and Brent Marshall—successfully completed this rigorous process. Each of these men is serving faithfully in their local church and have the opportunity to apply their studies every week.

A Training Ground for Faithful Shepherds

At Central Seminary, the Master of Divinity program provides the biblical and theological foundation necessary for effective ministry. Through intensive study of Greek and Hebrew, systematic and historical theology, biblical counseling, and pastoral leadership, students are equipped to handle God’s Word with precision and shepherd with wisdom and grace.

Are you ready to dive deeper into Scripture and prepare for a lifetime of ministry? Explore the Master of Divinity at Central Seminary.

Freedom of the Will?

Spirit. Soul, and Body, Part 3: The Human Spirit

The Bible describes the human spirit much as it describes the soul. Still, some differences do appear. Comparing these descriptions will help us grasp the relationship between the two.

The Hebrew term for spirit is ruach. This word is also used for breath and wind. The same is true of the Greek term, which is pneuma. These terms also designate the Holy Spirit. For example, John 3:8 uses pneuma for both the wind and the Holy Spirit. Then again, 1 Corinthians 2:11 uses pneuma for both the human spirit and the Holy Spirit. Most of the time, the context indicates how the words are being used.

The first thing to know about the human spirit is that it gives life to the body. The body dies without the spirit. According to James 2:26, the body without the spirit is dead. When Jesus raised Jairus’s daughter from the dead, her spirit entered into her. That is when she returned to life (Luke 8:54–55). When the Bible depicts the death of Jesus, it says that He dismissed (Matt 27:50) or handed over (John 8:30) His spirit.

The New Testament also hints that the spirit does not need to be in a body to be alive. Hebrews 12:23 speaks of the spirits of the righteous who have been made perfect. These appear to be dead saints whose spirits are now living in the heavenly Jerusalem. This is the same place where Jesus is now (12:24). Their bodies are dead and buried, but their spirits are living and perfected.

Used figuratively, the word spirit can become a metonymy for the whole person. Paul writes about three men: Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17). He says that they “have refreshed my spirit and yours.” He later writes that the Corinthians refreshed Titus’s spirit (2 Cor 7:13). Speaking to the Galatians, Paul wishes that the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ might be “with your spirit” (Gal 6:18). In a parallel wish to the Philippians, Paul wishes that the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ might be “with you all” (Phil 4:23). “You all” and “your spirit” function as equivalent expressions. In all these cases, the spirit is simply the person.

Other times, the word spirit designates the immaterial part of human nature. It contrasts with the material part, the body. Paul urges his readers to cleanse themselves from all defilement of the flesh and spirit (2 Cor 7:1). While flesh does not always mean body, it probably does here. In another place, Paul contrasts married and unmarried women. The unmarried can devote themselves to holiness in both body and spirit. Marital obligations can hinder the freedom of this devotion (1 Cor 7:34). Neither of these passages suggest any contrast between soul and spirit. Both contrast the spirit with the body.

The spirit can experience affections. Jesus “sighed deeply” in His spirit (Mark 8:12). This expression denotes emotional distress. Mary’s spirit rejoiced in God her Savior (Luke 1:47). At the grave of Lazarus, Jesus was “deeply moved” in His spirit (John 11:33). When, in the upper room, Jesus announced His betrayer, He became disturbed or unsettled in His spirit (John 13:23).

The spirit also forms volitions. According to Jesus, the spirit is willing or ready (the word means eager) to do certain things (Matt 26:41; Mark 14:38). Leaving Ephesus, Paul purposed or resolved in his spirit to go to Jerusalem (Acts 19:21). Both desires and determinations take shape in the spirit.

The spirit also has a special connection with the mind. In Ephesians 4:23, the apostle Paul instructs believers to be renewed in “the spirit of your mind.” At minimum, this phrase links the mind with the spirit. Specific mental operations are attributed to the spirit. For example, Jesus perceived in His spirit (Mark 2:8). The human spirit is also the faculty of self-awareness. It corresponds to the Holy Spirit’s awareness of God (1 Cor 2:11).

A special problem arises with Romans 8:16. The text says that the [Holy] Spirit testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. This verse is notorious for interpretive difficulties. Does the Holy Spirit testify to our spirit? Or do the Holy Spirit and the human spirit testify together as greater and lesser witnesses? Is the conclusion (that we are children of God) inferential? Or is it intuitive? However one interprets the verse, the human spirit must be the locus of some form of inner perception.

Both soul and spirit experience desires. Both experience feelings. But only the spirit is said to reason and to perceive. Therefore, I am reluctant to identify the soul completely with the spirit. The descriptions of soul and spirit show slight but real functional differences.

Nevertheless, soul and spirit overlap in many ways. Both are used of the life principle or of life itself. Both can stand as figures of speech of the whole individual. Both can feel and want. Under most circumstances the two are difficult or impossible to distinguish. The line between them is a dotted line, not a solid one. Only the razor-sharp Word of God can differentiate them. Normally, they function together as a single thing. Scripture gives no reason to claim that they differ in substance.

Scripture draws a functional distinction between soul and spirit. Yet it emphasizes their similarity and even unity. Some have suggested that the soul is the center of self-consciousness. They claim that the spirit is the center of God-consciousness. Scripture does not support this theory very well. The passages we have studied show the spirit as a center of self-consciousness. They also indicate that God is the one who shepherds the soul.

What about the body? Clearly, the body is a distinct substance from the soul and spirit. It is material, while they are immaterial. Can we say more about the relationship between body and soul? That must be the subject of a future discussion.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


Awake, My Soul!

Anne Steele (1717–1778)

Awake, my soul! Awake, my tongue!
My God demands the grateful song;
Let all my inmost pow’rs record
The wond’rous goodness of the Lord!

Divinely free his mercy flows,
Forgives my sins, allays my woes;
And bids approaching death remove,
And crowns me with a Father’s love.

My youth, decay’d, his pow’r repairs;
His hand sustains my growing years;
He satisfies my mouth with food,
And feeds my soul with heav’nly good.

His mercy with unchanging rays
Forever shines, while time decays;
And children’s children shall record
The truth and goodness of the Lord.

While all his works his praise proclaim,
And men and angels bless his name,
O let my heart, my life, my tongue,
Attend, and join the sacred song!

Freedom of the Will?

Spirit, Soul, and Body, Part Two: What Is The Soul

What is the soul? The Hebrew word is nephesh; the Greek term is psuchē. The Hebrew word is first used for animals. In Genesis 1:21-22, God creates every living creature (nephesh hayah) that moves or swarms in the sea. In 1:24 the cattle bring forth living creatures (nephesh hayah) according to their kind. In 1:30 the land animals, the birds, and the moving things are said to have nephesh hayah—the soul of life—in them. In all these uses, nephesh appears to mean life itself. For animals to have nephesh hayah means simply that they have life in them. They are living beings. For animals, soul is not a part of their being. It is simply their life.

God created the animals already alive, but he made the first human in two stages. First, He fashioned the man’s body from the dust of the ground. Then He breathed life into that body. At that point, the man became nephesh hayah (Gen 2:7). The animals experienced no inbreathing. Their life is not separable from their bodies. For humans, life (soul) and body are distinct. Still, the main point is that humans became living beings.

The words for soul often refer to the animating principle. In this sense, the soul (life) is in the blood (Deu 12:23). The connection between life and blood may be why Scripture views animal death differently than plant death. While plants grow and reproduce, and thus possess a kind of life, they have no blood and hence no “soul.” God told the sons of Israel not to eat blood because the nephesh was in the blood. This means that when an animal loses enough blood, it dies.

Probably this usage of soul is behind the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 16:10. Peter quotes this verse about Christ in Acts 2:27. The verse says that God would not abandon Messiah’s soul in sheol or hades (the realm of the dead). God also would not permit Christ’s flesh to experience corruption. Peter applies this verse at the resurrection (2:31) when God raised Christ alive from the dead. The fact that the psuche of Christ entered hades provides evidence that the soul is distinct from the body.

Sometimes the connection between soul and life is so pronounced that life is the better translation. Examples abound. Herod, wishing to kill the Christ child, was seeking His psuche (Matt 2:29). The Son of Man came to give His psuche a ransom for many (Matt 20:28). The good shepherd gives His psuche for the sheep (John 10:11). Epaphroditus risked his psuche and was near death (Phil 2:30).

Numbers 11:6 contains an interesting metaphorical use. The Israelites in the wilderness grew tired of eating manna. They found God’s provision tiresome. They complained, “Now our soul (nephesh) has dried away.” Here, soul functions in the sense of whatever makes life worth living. Their diet was tedious, so their lives felt intolerable.

Jesus uses psuche in this sense in Matthew 16:25. He challenges His followers that they must not try to keep their psuche. This means that they must not cling to whatever they think makes life worth living. If they try to, they will lose it. But if they lose their psuche for Jesus’ sake, then they will find it. In other words, by giving one’s self up for Christ, one finds what truly makes life worth living.

In both testaments, the soul experiences desires and emotions. In the prelude to the fiery serpents, the children of Israel declared that their nephesh loathed or detested the manna (Num 21:5). Job’s nephesh grieved for the poor (Job 30:25). The rich fool told his psuche to eat, drink, and be merry (Luke 12:19). The psuche of fallen Babylon craved fruits (Rev 18:14).

Perhaps in these instances the word soul is simply being used to designate the self. The term is even used of God in this sense. God promises that His nephesh will not abhor His obedient people (Lev 26:11). On the other hand, if anyone draws back, God’s psuche will have no pleasure in him (Heb 10:38).

An important truth is that the soul can be saved or lost. Peter writes that the goal of faith is “the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet 1:9). This salvation is not directly connected to the fate of the body. One can kill the body without harming the soul (Matt 10:28). But in Gehenna God destroys soul and body together.

The soul can be tempted and led astray. Peter warns against fleshly lusts that war against the soul (1 Pet 2:11). He says that believers were once like wandering sheep. Now they have returned to the shepherd and overseer of their souls (1 Pet. 2:25). Also, apostate teachers lure or entice unstable souls (2 Pet 2:14).

The good news is that even a polluted soul can be purified. Peter addressed those who have purified their souls (1 Pet 1:21). This purification takes the form of “obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren.”

James contrasts good wisdom, which is from God, with a kind of bad wisdom. This bad wisdom leads to jealousy and selfish ambition. According to James, this wisdom is earthly, “soulish,” and demonic (James 3:15). To say that it is soulish is to suggest that it appeals most strongly to the soul.

Why would that be? Perhaps because the soulish person does not welcome the things of the Spirit of God. The things of God are spiritually discerned. Hence, the soulish person sees them as foolishness (1 Cor 2:14).

The words for soul are common in both testaments. Certainly, this summary has not examined every use. Even so, a picture of the soul is beginning to emerge.

The soul is the life principle. All animate creatures, including humans, either are or have souls. In the case of humans, the soul is integrally tied to personal identity. Indeed, soul and self are nearly indistinguishable. The soul is distinct from the body and survives its destruction. It can be tempted. It can wander and return. It can be saved or lost. Evidently, it is also a center of human desire and feeling.

Soulish people do not welcome truth that is spiritually discerned. This suggests a possible distinction between soul and spirit. Does the Bible provide other reasons for distinguishing soul from spirit? We can only answer that question when we examine the biblical uses of the term spirit. That task comes next.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


Father, Whate’er of Earthly Bliss

Anne Steele (1717–1778)

Father, whate’er of earthly bliss
Thy sov’reign will denies,
Accepted at thy throne of grace,
Let this petition rise:

“Give me a calm, a thankful heart,
From ev’ry murmur free:
The blessings of thy grace impart,
And make me live to thee.

Let the sweet hope that I am thine,
My life and death attend;
Thy presence thro’ my journey shine,
And crown my journey’s end.”

Freedom of the Will?

Spirit, Soul, and Body, Part One: Assessing the Problem

Doctrinal controversies go in and out of style. Students of the Bible may debate an issue at one time but find it boring at some later point. Sometimes disputes cool off for a while. They flare up again when someone works out a new potential implication of the argument.

One of these recurring controversies concerns our basic nature. What are we, and what makes us human? Is our material being our real self? Or is the immaterial the real us? Do our true selves live in our bodies, or do our bodies somehow define self-hood? If we are immaterial, how many immaterial parts do we have? Are soul and spirit distinguishable, or are they identical? What about other features such as the heart? How are all these questions related to our creation in God’s image?

Much of this debate went out of style a generation or two ago. Recent perspectives are bringing it to the front again. For example, transgenderism forces us to ask how our bodies relate to our identities. Christian counselors are disputing how souls influence bodies and vice versa. Some theories of sanctification assume that spirit and soul are different. Other theories insist they are the same.

Two views used to be popular. We usually called one dichotomy and the other trichotomy. Sometimes we called them the dipartite and tripartite theories. Trichotomists argue that humans consist of three substances (body, soul, and spirit). Dichotomists see only two elements (body and soul/spirit).

Trichotomists advanced several scriptural evidences to support their position. One text, 1 Thessalonians 5:23, names spirit, soul, and body in parallel. Trichotomists view this parallelism as proof for three equal parts of human nature. They also point to Hebrews 4:12, which says that the Word of God can separate soul and spirit. Then they turn to Mary’s Magnificat. Mary states that her soul magnifies the Lord and that her spirit has rejoiced in God her savior (Luke 1:46–47). Trichotomists see this as another proof that soul is not the same as spirit. They admit that soul and spirit are both immaterial. Yet they insist that soul and spirit are separate aspects of human being.

Dichotomists respond to such arguments point by point. They note that the Magnificat follows Hebrew poetical forms. It employs synonymous parallelism, implying that soul and spirit are identical. Hebrews 4:12 also implies that soul and spirit cannot normally be separated. They note that 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is not the only text to employ a parallelism of human parts. Deuteronomy 4:29 lists heart and soul. Ezekiel 36:26 includes heart and spirit. 1 Corinthians 7:34 points to body and spirit. Matthew 22:37 includes heart, soul, and mind. Mark 12:30 lists four elements: heart, soul, mind, and strength.

It is worth noting that one passage (1 Cor 2:14–3:3) does contrast the soulish or natural human with one who is spiritual. But in this case the reference is to the Holy Spirit, not to a separate part of human nature. The passage also includes references to a “fleshly” or carnal person. The word flesh here refers to the sin nature, not the body. Hence, this passage contributes little to the debate.

Some take all the parallelisms equally. They reason that human nature consists of many elements. These include spirit, soul, body, heart, mind, and others. The problem with this view is that parallelism can mean many things. Sometimes it distinguishes things. Sometimes it makes them the same. Sometimes it indicates other sorts of relationships. The evidence for this view is weak at best.

Others move in the opposite direction. They emphasize the unity of human nature. They see a close connection between the soul and the body. Some even deny that the soul can survive when the body dies. They talk about “soul sleep.” What they really mean is that nothing remains of us after death. We cease to exist, at least for a while. Some even deny the existence of a soul.

Advocates of these views look for biblical evidence. They also introduce philosophical categories. They talk about the difference between substance, accident, and function. This discussion can become complicated. These categories do not always help people think more clearly. The problem is not that the categories are bad. It lies in deciding how to apply them to this discussion.

I would like to take a more fruitful approach. I wish to discover how each individual term is used throughout Scripture. The terms spirit, soul, and body will be most important. The Bible often uses words in a variety of related senses. Perhaps these words will be like that. Once we discover the pool of uses for each term, we will understand how those uses overlap—and where they do not. We can look especially for ways in which the terms relate to each other. Thus, we can gain an inductive impression of what human nature looks like and how it functions.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


Stand Up, My Soul

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Stand up, my soul; shake off your fears,
and gird the gospel armor on;
march to the gates of endless joy,
where your great Captain Savior’s gone.

Hell and your sins resist your course;
but hell and sin are vanquished foes:
your Jesus nailed them to the cross,
and sang the triumph when he rose.

Then let my soul march boldly on,
press forward to the heav’nly gate;
there peace and joy eternal reign,
and glitt’ring robes for conqu’rors wait.

There shall I wear a starry crown,
and triumph in almighty grace;
while all the armies of the skies
join in my glorious Leader’s praise.

Freedom of the Will?

Not How It Used to Be

The first two days of March were mild, with temperatures into the 50s Fahrenheit but strong winds. The next day brought changes, and then on Tuesday the snow began to fall. Snow was still coming down Wednesday morning, and the winds had picked up to blizzard velocity. The total snowfall was not great, but it drifted enough to make travel difficult. When the time came for me to go to work, the streets around my home were still impassible.

In the old days, this kind of weather would have closed the seminary or at least made us start late. Knowing about it would have kept some potential students from even considering Central Seminary as an option. Who would want to endure ice and snow when they could have the sunny beaches of Virginia or the Carolinas?

But things have changed. Virtually everything we do, we now do virtually. All our classes meet on Zoom, though local students are still welcome to sit in classrooms. Even our chapel service meets on Zoom (again, faculty and some students attend the physical chapel in Minnesota).

For me, our online presence was great news today. All semester I’ve been scheduled to preach in chapel. I’ve been looking forward to it. And the snow today didn’t slow me down one bit.

I have a little studio in my basement. I use it for teaching online. Today, I used it for preaching the chapel service. I believe that this is the first time I’ve preached a sermon over Zoom. It felt a little odd, and the pacing was difficult, but I was able to complete the sermon.

Usually, I’m sitting in the physical chapel with the faculty. The distance education students are not visible to me. I only see the other professors and a couple of students who are present in the room. It always feels a bit empty.

Today, I preached to a screen full of faces. In fact, I’m pretty sure that all the faces didn’t fit on my screen. What I could see, though, represented a crowd. There was a student in Michigan. There was another in New England. Then several from African nations. At least one from South America—maybe more. And some from Asia. For the first time, I found myself ministering the Word of God by preaching to an audience that spanned the globe.

This is the glory of the brave new world in which we find ourselves. As recently as ten years ago, some of these students would have opted to attend a seminary in a warmer place. Many of them could not have enrolled at any credible seminary because none was available locally. Now the temperature doesn’t matter. God has opened our doors and enlarged our borders in amazing ways.

Twenty years ago, Central Seminary operated a campus in Arad, Romania. We spent years there, eventually training about twenty percent of all the Baptist pastors in that country. We also trained a generation of Romanian professors. That ministry cost us much in terms of time, labor, and treasure. When we had to leave Romania, the experience was wrenching. For me, it was like abandoning a cherished friend.

Now our span goes far beyond one nation. We reach into Zambia, Kenya, and the Congo. We are in South Africa, Brazil, India, and Peru. We visit those places without leaving our own campus and homes. More importantly, our students gain an education without leaving their ministries or countries of residence.

Of course, we do give up some things. Our relationships with our students tend to be less close than they once were. Our ability to respond to hallway conversations or lunch-table questions has shrunk dramatically. These things are a genuine loss. We cannot disciple students in the way we once did.

Yet, our students also gain something. They stay in their home churches, where they are already being nourished and fostered spiritually. If they are pastors, they have an ongoing laboratory in which to implement their classroom learnings. If they are not pastors, then their discipleship comes from the shepherds of their flocks. This is something to rejoice in, because the local church is the center and focus of God’s program on earth.

As a seminary, we have always said that we exist to help local churches. Never has that kind of local-church centered ministry been more important to us than it is now. We happily grant that making disciples is the business of the church, and we rejoice in the subordinate role that God permits us to play.

God has given us around 150 students to equip at different levels. Some are preparing for academic ministry. Some aim to do biblical counseling. Some just want to be better church members, deacons, and Sunday School teachers. But the heart of what we do is still training Christian leaders. We rejoice that God is still sending us pastors and missionaries who are doing His work. We are doing our best to assist their churches in equipping spiritual leaders for Christ-exalting, biblical ministry. We wish—we hope—to keep doing that until Jesus returns.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


O All Ye Nations, Praise the Lord

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

O all ye nations, praise the Lord,
Each with a diff’rent tongue:
In ev’ry language learn his word,
And let his name be sung.

His mercy reigns thro’ ev’ry land;
Proclaim his grace abroad;
For ever firm his truth shall stand,
Praise ye the faithful God.

Freedom of the Will?

White House Faith Office

On February 7, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order creating a White House Faith Office. The purpose of the office is to empower “faith-based entities, community organizations, and houses of worship to serve families and communities.” This service includes “protecting women and children; strengthening marriage and family; lifting up individuals through work and self-sufficiency, defending religious liberty; combatting anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and additional forms of anti-religious bias; promoting foster care and adoption programs in partnership with faith-based entities; providing wholesome and effective education; preventing and reducing crime and facilitating prisoner reentry; promoting recovery from substance use disorder; and fostering flourishing minds.” The office is also supposed to advise the President on matters related to these faith-based organizations.

The president means well. The order is a gesture of support toward people of faith. The Biden administration wanted to force us to violate our biblical commitments. This is better. We welcome the attempt to protect religious people from state interference.

But the order also poses problems. One problem is the notion that the government has any business “empowering” faith-based efforts. As a Baptist, I do not look for empowerment to any government at any level. The church’s authority to make disciples comes directly from Jesus Christ. He has received all authority (Matt 28:19–20). He promises that His followers will receive power from His Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8). Churches have all the power they need to fulfill their mission. No government has the right to restrict or oppose them as they pursue it. Any government that tries to will answer to Christ (2 Thess 1:4–10).

We do not ask the government to empower us. We simply ask that it get out of our way. We do not deny that we are subject to every rightful law. We insist, however, that no just law can oppose or restrict our obedience to Christ. If we violate rightful laws, then we accept the penalty. Otherwise, we demand in the name of God that the state recognize our liberty to do His work (Acts 27:13). President Trump’s job is to stop the government from interfering with us.

Furthermore, we fear that accepting state support risks government interference. What the government pays for, even if indirectly, it tries to control. Government largess always comes with strings attached. We perceive any offer of state assistance as a poisoned chalice.

We deny, however, that tax exemptions constitute state support. Religious organizations should not pay taxes, except where they work for profit. A rightly ordered church gets its support from the freewill gifts of God’s people. Their resources have already been taxed. Furthermore, taxation is an exertion of authority. It is a form of control. Chief Justice John Marshall noted that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Churches ought to be exempt from taxation because they are exempt from the power of the state to control and destroy.

When the state empowers faith-based organizations, it must make choices between them. President Trump’s executive order certainly does. It says that it will empower faith-based efforts to combat anti-Semitism. But some forms of anti-Semitism are based in faith. In other words, President Trump intends to empower one faith at the expense of another. This is contrary to the role of governments under the New Testament. Far better that our president should echo Gallio: “If it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters” (Acts 18:15). When faiths are wrong, they should be opposed by sound argument and not by state coercion. Governments should only interfere when people use faith as an excuse to transgress just laws that protect all people. This side of the Millennium, governments cannot rightly enforce one religion over another.

The president must appoint someone to lead the White House Faith Office. That choice necessarily divides. It inevitably gives one faith greater access than another to the president. And President Trump has made a bad choice. He has appointed a Seven-Mountain-Mandate charismatic. She is a leader in the New Apostolic Reformation. She advocates the Prosperity Gospel. She considers herself an apostle. She makes her religion up as she goes. She believes that she has God’s approval for what she makes up. One shudders to think what counsel she might offer the president.

The problem is not just with the president’s selection. He could not select any person to lead this office who would be acceptable. The only acceptable person is one who would refuse the office. The state should keep out of religion. If the state is going to poke its nose into religion, then crazies and hucksters should not be in charge.

If the president wants to create a religious office, it should be an office of religious liberty. That office should hunt down every instance of governmental religious discrimination. It should ensure both non-establishment and free exercise. Such an office would be welcome.

The White House Faith Office is superfluous. It is more likely to become an avenue of state interference than it is to be a help. The best help that the government can give people of faith is to take its hands off all questions of religion. It should protect all its citizens from religious force or coercion. Otherwise, it should get out of the way.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


Absurd and Vain Attempt

Thomas Scott (1705–1775)

Absurd and vain attempt! to bind
With iron chains the free-born mind,
To force conviction, and reclaim
The wand’ring by destructive flame.

Bold arrogance! to snatch from heaven
Dominion not to mortals given;
O’er conscience to usurp the throne,
Accountable to God alone.

Jesus! thy gentle law of love
Does no such cruelties approve;
Mild as thy self, thy doctrine wields
No arms but what persuasion yields.

By proofs divine, and reason strong,
It draws the willing soul along;
And conquests to thy church acquires
By eloquence which heaven inspires.

O happy, who are thus compell’d
To the rich feast, by Jesus held!
May we this blessing know, and prize
The light which liberty supplies.

Freedom of the Will?

The Normal Christian Life

Recently, I wrote about a pivotal moment that changed my Christian journey. One of the responses that I received asked this question: “I was just wondering if you’d call your ‘change’ a surrendering to Christ’s Lordship over your whole life and letting Him live through you?” This question implies more than it overtly asks, and I’d like to respond to it.

Let me preface my remarks with an admission. I have no coherent theory of the Christian life. I’ve studied several, including the Reformed, Wesleyan, Keswick, Free-Grace, and Old Dallas views. Each has strengths, but none of them satisfies the biblical requirements. Each gets something right, but each also gets something wrong.

Let’s start with this question: what does it mean to trust Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? I reject the suggestion that we can trust Jesus as Savior without trusting Him as Lord (Rom 10:10–13). We have no right to trust a Jesus who is not Lord. He has no right to save us unless He has earned that authority. And He does have authority to save us. He earned it through His obedient life, substitutionary death, and bodily resurrection. So when I trusted Christ to save me, I was relying upon His authority to save.

If Christ has authority to save, then what other authority does He hold? Part of the answer is that our bodies no longer belong to us. We have been bought with a price, and we belong to Christ (1 Cor 6:19–20). Implicit in every act of saving faith is the reality that Christ now owns us.

Yet what is implicit may not always be explicitly recognized. Had the Corinthians recognized their change of ownership, then Paul would not have explained it to them. They were not acting like people whom Christ owned. They were not behaving like temples of the Holy Spirit. In fact, they were carnal—dominated by the flesh (1 Cor 3:1–4). They needed to recognize and act upon the reality of Christ’s ownership.

That does not happen all at once. It is not done by a simple decision, though some decisions certainly move it forward. I trusted Christ as Savior when I was seven years old. I consciously placed my whole life at His disposal when I was eleven. That was my point of conscious yieldedness, of deliberate submission to the will of God in every area of my life. That is when I let go and let God.

Except I didn’t. Nobody does. Ever. We can, so to speak, sign over the title to our lives. We can consciously recognize that Christ has a right to us and to dispose our lives. Whether we do that at our conversion or at some later point, though, it is never complete in practice. We keep our hands on the steering wheel—and we ought to. Christ’s purpose (again, so to speak) is not to drive our car for us. His purpose is for us to become skilled drivers who steer our lives where He wants them to go.

This is the paradox of the Christian life. We are the ones who must work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Yet we can do that only because God is the one who works in us both the willing and the doing of His good pleasure. We dare not detract from either side of that paradox.

In practice, our submission to Christ is always less than complete. We meet new challenges, or we meet old ones again, in which His ownership must be worked out. That is a constant struggle, and it is one in which we often fail. Because of our failures, we need to keep on confessing our sins. When we do, we receive relational forgiveness and cleansing. If we claim that we have not sinned in ways that need ongoing confession, then we call Christ a liar and His word is not in us. (1 John 1:9–10).

This is the process that leads to increasing sanctification. Through it all, Christ is living out His life in us. The Christ-life does not begin with deliberate yieldedness. The Christ-life begins when we trust Him as Savior. It begins when His Spirit baptizes us and comes to live in us (Rom 8:9; 1 Cor 12:13). The indwelling Spirit mediates the indwelling life of Christ from the moment of our conversion (Rom 8:10). The baptizing Spirit joins us to Christ so that our members become His (1 Cor 6:15–16). The indwelling life of Christ is not a separate or special experience or enablement. If we are believers, then Christ is living out His life through us all the time.

Some theories of the Christian life make me suspicious. One is the theory that God has to scare His children into perseverance. He frightens them by threatening them with loss of salvation. Of course, He can’t actually deny them salvation if they have trusted Christ. He doesn’t really mean it. He just wants to shake their confidence enough that they shape up.

Another is the Keswick theory that leads people to profess sinlessness in this life. No version of Keswick erects adequate safeguards against this danger. The theory scares me because I’ve seen how it leads people to deceive themselves. I’ll give an example.

A few years ago I was cycling with a Keswick friend who claimed that, because he was resting in Christ, he no longer sinned. As we pedaled down the trail, a cyclist was veering from side to side toward us. Since I was riding in front, I crowded as far to the right as the trail would allow. Then the approaching cyclist veered to our left and passed. I pulled over and stopped. I commented, “I never know what to do when I see something like that coming at me.”

“Oh,” he pronounced in other-worldly tones, “I don’t even notice when women dress that way anymore.”

I had to back up mentally and replay the episode in my own mind. I eventually recalled two things. First, the approaching cyclist had been female. Second, she was wearing a revealing jersey. That made sense of my friend’s remarks. Then I realized the implications.

First, my friend assumed that I was commenting on the woman’s clothing. Second, by denying that he noticed her revealing clothing, he was admitting that he had noticed it. Third, he was implying that if my sanctification were as advanced as his, then I wouldn’t have noticed, either. So his reply tacitly admitted that he had looked, then lied about it, then accused me of having done what he had actually done. That’s an interesting way to live the deeper life.

I do not claim that my understanding of the Christian life is fully coherent. But it is at least as coherent as the other views I’ve encountered. I don’t know of a systematic theory of the Christian life that doesn’t give up something the Bible teaches. I’m just glad that God sanctifies us in spite of our theories.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


O for a Closer Walk with God

William Cowper (1730–1800)

O for a closer walk with God,
a calm and heav’nly frame,
a light to shine upon the road
that leads me to the Lamb!

Where is the blessedness I knew
when first I sought the Lord?
Where is the soul refreshing view
of Jesus and His Word?

What peaceful hours I then enjoyed!
How sweet their mem’ry still!
But they have left an aching void
the world can never fill.

Return, O holy Dove, return,
sweet messenger of rest;
I hate the sins that made Thee mourn,
and drove Thee from my breast.

The dearest idol I have known,
whate’er that idol be,
help me to tear it from Thy throne
and worship only Thee.

So shall my walk be close with God,
calm and serene my frame;
so purer light shall mark the road
that leads me to the Lamb.

Freedom of the Will?

Turning Point

One of the most important turning points in my life came fifty years ago this month. I had professed faith as a child. I had tried, off and on, to live for the Lord during young adolescence. During my later teen years, however, I ceased to be interested in His will for my life. My heart drew far from Him, and it was still far away when I enrolled in Bible college at 17.

After a semester of living at home, I moved into the dorms. Odd as it may seem, one can find plenty of worldly influences even in an institution dedicated to teaching the Scriptures. I embraced those influences, making a series of bad choices. Oh, I wasn’t doing stuff that would have seemed scandalous, but I was selfish, angry, and proud.

The beginning of my sophomore year was even worse. It was like I’d dropped off a spiritual ledge. I missed required events. My grades plummeted. Life seemed black. I was surly and defiant. A mandatory visit to the dean’s office resulted in a threat of suspension, which only increased my resentment.

Then a residence adviser took me aside and pointed to specific instances where my behavior was affecting other people. For the first time, it struck me that my ideas and conduct had consequences for others. This was not a game. It was a spiritual battle.

Once my eyes were opened, I began to see other damage that I was doing. It was the first time I had examined myself from God’s point of view, and I didn’t much care for what I saw. I knew that something had to change.

By February of 1975, I had come to a point of decision. I understood that living my life selfishly would end badly. I would bring misery upon myself, pain into the lives of others, and reproach upon the name of the Lord. If I did not change, things would only get worse.

The only alternative was to begin living my life for God. In a night of prayer, I told Him that I wanted to do that, but I didn’t know how. He was going to have to show me what it meant to live for Him.

One idea occurred to me immediately. I knew that I had to stop defying those who held authority in my life. Consequently, I told God that I would submit to the institutional rules of my college, even where they seemed inane. After all, who was I to judge what was a worthwhile discipline? I also determined that I would respond instantly and obediently whenever I was rebuked or even counseled by an authority figure. How strange that commitment seemed.

The next day in chapel, an announcement went out that the school’s traveling theater troupe needed an actor to pick up a part. I’d done plenty of theater in high school, so it felt like this was a way I could serve the Lord. The opportunity seemed like my first answer to prayer.

I volunteered for the play, and I was given the part immediately. Within a couple of weeks, I found myself touring around the Midwest, and then eventually the Rocky Mountain West. One challenge that I hadn’t expected was that our faculty director seemed determined to test my resolve. I was sincerely trying to keep all the rules I knew about, but it seemed like he would make up new rules on the spot, and they would apply only to me. To my own surprise as much as to his, I didn’t argue or balk. I just did whatever he said, whether I thought it was necessary or not.

What I discovered was that walking with God was neither helped nor hindered by the number of rules I kept, but it was tremendously influenced by my reasons for keeping them. I didn’t believe then, and I don’t believe now, that either playing or not playing a game like Rook brings one closer to God. But when the faculty director told me to “put those cards away and don’t let me see them again,” I obeyed meekly, for the sake of the commitment I’d made. For the first time, I felt like I was making a choice motivated purely by love for God.

There was a young woman traveling with the crew for the play. She would iron costumes and act as a prompter (I thought that having a prompter was insufferably amateurish, but I never told the director). We had met before, but now we saw each other almost daily. I enjoyed our banter, and I began to look forward to our conversations.

Then, after one performance, a fellow actor asked me, “What do you think of Debbie Wright?”

“She’s a really nice girl,” I said.

Melvin replied, “I think she likes you.”

Those five words redefined my life. I realized that I liked her, too. Really, really liked her.

Debbie and I were too busy to do any dating, but we didn’t have to. Our work in the play brought us together almost every day. As we traveled and worked and talked, my feelings for her warmed. By late April, I knew that this was the woman I wanted to marry.

I started to ask the Lord to let me marry her. I prayed this prayer every day, multiple times a day. As the season ended and we no longer traveled, I found ways to keep seeing her.

Our first date was to our college’s spring banquet. She wore a formal. I wore a tux, cape, and opera hat. The haberdasher forgot to include dress shoes with the tux, so I borrowed a pair from the guy across the hall. I wore size 13. He wore size 10. My feet will never forget that first date.

Debbie graduated that spring. She went home for the summer to her parents’ farm. I made that drive nearly every weekend so that I could keep seeing her. Eventually she landed a job at the college and moved back. That August I asked her to marry me, and she agreed. I still can’t believe it.

People give her credit for straightening me out. She deserves lots of that credit. But the truth is that God was working in my heart before Debbie and I became serious about each other. The Lord had used chastening to get my attention. Now He was showing me how gracious He could be.

Fifty years have passed since that turning point in February of 1975. Debbie and I wed in December of that year, and we have walked together through life’s challenges ever since. She is still really nice. More than that, she is still the principal, human instrument of God’s grace in my life.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


Happy the Man Who Feareth God

Martin Luther (1483–1546); tr. Richard Massie (1800–1887)

Happy the man who feareth God,
Whose feet His holy ways have trod;
Thine own good hand shall nourish thee,
And well and happy shalt thou be.

Thy wife shall, like a fruitful vine,
Fill all thy house with clusters fine;
Thy children all be fresh and sound,
Like olive-plants thy table round.

Lo! to the man these blessings cleave
Who in God’s holy fear doth live;
From him the ancient curse hath fled
By Adam’s race inherited.

Out of Mount Zion God shall send,
And crown with joy thy latter end;
That thou Jerusalem mayst see,
In favor and prosperity.

He shall be with thee in thy ways,
And give thee health and length of days;
Yea, thou shalt children’s children see,
And peace on Israel shall be.

Freedom of the Will?

Justice, Wrath, and Propitiation

[This essay was originally published on August 2, 2013.]

The gospel reveals many aspects of God’s character. It certainly reveals His love, mercy, grace, goodness, and kindness. If we want to know whether the true and living God is a God of love, all we have to do is to look at the cross. Yet the gospel reveals more than God’s love: it also reveals God’s justice (Rom. 1:17).

Many English translators use the word righteousness for the Greek term dikaiosunēs. Unfortunately, the contemporary word righteous, like the word sin, has lost much of its denotation and most of its connotation. The alternative term justice, however, strikes exactly the right note. Even people who claim to reject moral absolutes still retain a sense of justice. If you want to see their sense of justice at work, just step in front of them in the queue at the supermarket. Everybody believes in justice. Everybody wants justice, at least for themselves.

Paul says that the gospel (Rom. 1:16) reveals God’s justice (Rom. 1:17). He then draws a direct line from this revelation of justice to the revelation of God’s wrath (Rom. 1:18). He states that God’s wrath is revealed against all the impiety and injustice of humans who suppress the truth in injustice. In other words, the rejection of God’s standard of justice brings with it a moral opprobrium that demands retribution. As a just judge, God must visit retribution upon all injustice (so Paul says) without exception.

The condition of having committed injustice and consequently of meriting retribution is what Scripture calls guilt. In the Bible, guilt is not a feeling but a condition. Guilt is the moral opprobrium that attaches to injustice and demands retribution. When God visits retribution upon the guilty, He is exhibiting what Scripture calls wrath. In other words, divine wrath is not irritability or peevishness. God is not One to pitch a fit like a petulant teenager. God’s wrath is simply His justice directed against guilt in retribution.

God’s justice is at stake in every sinful deed, as we should recognize intuitively. We despise even human judges who knowingly clear the guilty, but at least when human judges become corrupt we can retain some hope that a final judgment is pending. If, however, the final judge, the judge of all flesh and the moral arbiter of the universe, were to clear the guilty—if He were to leave injustices unavenged—then Justice itself would fail. That would be a condition even worse than hell.

But God does not overlook sin. Instead, He reveals His wrath (His determination to visit retribution) upon all human injustice. He reveals His wrath against the injustices of the pagans (Rom. 1:19-32), the injustices of the seemingly (at least to themselves) moral (Rom. 2:1-16), and the injustices of the religious—even when their religion is of God’s own revelation (Rom. 2:17-3:8).

There is no justice without retribution. Retribution means that God will repay each of us according to our individual deeds (Rom. 2:6). More specifically, retribution means that to those who obey injustice, God will repay wrath, anger, affliction, and distress (Rom. 2:8-9). This is exactly what God owes to all humans, for absolutely all humans are “under sin,” which means that all humans bear guilt and merit retribution (Rom. 3:9). Without exception, no one is just (Rom. 3:10).

The fundamental barrier between God and humans is guilt. No matter how much God might love people (and let us grant that He does), He cannot overlook their guilt. He must visit retribution upon them. He must recompense their injustice with wrath.

This is the point at which the cross really matters. To be sure, the cross is an example. It is a moral influence. It is a paid-up ransom. It is the occasion of Jesus’ victory over principalities and powers. It is an illustration of the gravity with which God views infractions of His moral government. It is all these things, but if it were only these things, it could not save us. None of these effects of the cross manages to address the fundamental problem, and that problem is our guilt. Somehow at Calvary God had to remove our guilt, or we would be forever condemned.

Salvation confronts us with a massive paradox. On the one hand, we all sinned and have fallen short of God’s glorious standard, i.e., His justice (Rom. 3:23). On the other hand, God pronounces at least some sinners to be just (i.e., He justifies them), and He does this completely without cost to them (Rom. 3:24). Does not such a declaration of justice constitute a moral contradiction? Does it not implicate God in the unspeakable injustice of clearing the guilty (Ex. 34:7)?

It would, except for the cross. By His cross-work and through His blood, Jesus presented Himself as a propitiatory sacrifice, i.e., a sacrifice that made satisfaction (Rom. 3:25). What did His death satisfy? The entire context gives the answer to this question. By dying on the cross, the Lord Jesus Christ satisfied justice, which is to say that He satisfied God’s wrath. The only way to satisfy justice is through retribution. Guilt must be visited with anger, wrath, affliction, and distress. This retribution was visited upon Jesus Christ, not because He Himself was in any way displeasing to God, but because we were. Our guilt was charged against Him, and He bore God’s wrath as He occupied our place.

God never overlooks guilt. If He could overlook guilt, He would no longer be God because He would no longer be just. True forgiveness does not merely ignore or wink at transgressions. God can forgive sin because He has actually already judged the guilt of every sin at the cross of Christ. Our guilt has received its just retribution in the person of Christ, who has suffered for us the equivalent penalty of wrath, anger, affliction, and distress. God caused our iniquity to fall upon Him (Isa. 53:6).

That is why it is not wrong for God to say that we are just, provided only that we have trusted in the provision of Jesus and that it has accordingly been applied to us. God can pronounce us just because that is how He now sees us. God can remove (expiate) our sins because justice has been satisfied (propitiated). In the cross, God shows Himself to be both just and the justifier of each one who believes on Jesus (Rom. 3:26).

The glory of the cross is that it gives full play to God’s justice (Rom. 3:26) while also giving full play to His mercy and grace. That means that the gospel is not only a revelation of God’s love, but also a revelation of God’s justice. If we want to see the love of God clearly demonstrated, all we have to do is to look at the cross. But that is not all. If we want to see the wrath of God fully demonstrated, we must also look at the cross. The gospel shines the dazzling light of God’s glory upon both.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


How Long Wilt Thou Conceal Thy Face

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

How long wilt thou conceal thy face?
My God, how long delay?
When shall I feel those heavenly rays
That chase my fears away?

See how the Prince of darkness tries
All his malicious arts;
He spreads a mist around my eyes,
And throws his fiery darts.

Be thou my sun, and thou my shield,
My soul in safety keep;
Make haste before mine eyes are seal’d
In death’s eternal sleep.

How would the tempter boast aloud,
Should I become his prey!
Behold the sons of hell grow proud
To see thy long delay.

But they shall fly at thy rebuke,
And Satan hide his head;
He knows the terrors of thy look,
And hears thy voice with dread.

Thou wilt display that sovereign grace,
Whence all my comforts spring;
I shall employ my lips in praise,
And thy salvation sing.

Freedom of the Will?

Age Brings Choices

Late this summer I will turn 70 years old. I’ve always said that I wanted to work at least until I was 70. Now I’m knocking on that door, but I’m not ready to retire yet. In fact, I want to work harder than ever. Granted, I’m slower at some things, and neither my memory nor my vision is what it used to be. Writing longhand has become difficult. But experience counts for something, and I feel like I can still do a decent job.

It is a bit challenging to try to teach at the seminary while pastoring a church. In theory, my pastorate is part-time, but anyone who has tried knows that part-time pastoring is a myth. From the beginning, however, I determined not to pastor at the expense of my seminary students. So far, I love pouring myself into both responsibilities.

The distance between the seminary and the church poses the biggest challenge. To spend more time at the church, I purchased a second, much smaller home, near its vicinity. The second home has not worked out as well as I hoped. Much of the extra time that I have gained goes into maintenance. Still, I now have a presence in the community, if a small one.

My prayer is that the Lord will grow the church enough to call a full-time pastor. I would love to turn this work over to a qualified, gifted man. Barring a full-time pastor, someone with an outside source of income could be an option.

When that happens, my wife and I expect to remain in the community, though we plan not to attend the church. I want the new pastor to be able to lead without having to compete with me for the hearts of the people. The area is large enough for us to live there without a new pastor tripping over us. At some point we’ll sell our current home and move completely.

When we do, we’ll have to downsize. Our church home is much smaller than our seminary home. We’ve lived in our present home for over a quarter of a century. During that time, we’ve accumulated a lot of stuff. Now we’re selling it, giving it away, or hauling it to the thrift store. In a few cases, we’re tossing it. Nobody wanted my old instruments for adjusting the points in a car’s ignition.

My library presents a problem. I started buying theological books in about 1973. By the 2010s I had accumulated around ten thousand print volumes. Then my students introduced me to two electronic library formats: Logos and Kindle. Since then, I have purchased electronic books whenever I could. I have also given away my print copies when I had the same book in digital format. I tried taking some duplicates to Half Price Books, but what they paid didn’t cover the cost of my gasoline.

I still have five or six thousand print books. If I surrender my study at the seminary, I will have too many books to move. I must make choices about what I will keep and what I will give away.

Losing these books will be a disappointment. Every book I purchase represents an aspiration. I only buy books that I want to read. When I give away a book without reading it, that aspiration has failed. But at some point, realism sets in. I will never get to read that ornate three-volume collection of Van Gogh’s complete letters. I can see it on the shelf as I write. If you want it, you can stop by my study and pick it up.

Not all books are written to be read. Some of them are reference tools. For several years I have been replacing my reference tools with Kindle or Logos editions. These include grammars and lexica for the biblical languages. Greek and Hebrew tools were among the most expensive books I had to buy. Their electronic replacements are a fraction of the cost. The old books are almost impossible to dispose of now. Used bookstores just don’t want them. Most pastors already have electronic copies.

The internet has made some reference tools obsolete. Obviously, printed encyclopedias are a thing of the past. I still have a couple dictionaries of quotations that I never use. Rhyming dictionaries have been replaced by online equivalents. I hate to throw books away, but who would want tools like these?

For that matter, most older books are available as PDF files. I download them regularly from Internet Archive and Google Books. I have tens of thousands of volumes in PDF format, including (e.g.) the whole Migne Patrologiae. These books take up no physical space. I don’t have to worry about disposing of them. Anybody who wants them can get them from the same sources I did.

I know that I must downsize. Still, I would like to take as many real books into retirement with me as I can. But which ones? Age brings choices.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


God of My Childhood, and My Youth

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

God of my childhood, and my youth,
The Guide of all my days,
I have declar’d Thy heav’nly truth,
And told Thy wond’rous ways.

Wilt Thou forsake my hoary hairs,
And leave my fainting heart?
Who shall sustain my sinking years,
If God my Strength depart?

Let me Thy pow’r and truth proclaim
To the rising age,
And leave a savour of Thy name
When I shall quit the stage.

By long experience I have known
Thy sov’reign pow’r to save;
At Thy command I venture down
Securely to the grave.

When I lie buried deep in dust,
My flesh shall be Thy care;
These wither’d limbs with Thee I trust
To raise them strong and fair.

Freedom of the Will?

A Letter to Donald Trump

Mr. President, congratulations upon becoming the 47th president of the United States. As a minister of the gospel, I don’t typically comment on political matters. But listening to your inaugural address was like opening presents on Christmas morning. Each one got better and better. I want to cheer you on as you begin to work on your goals. I rejoice that you’ve begun to keep your promises.

On January 21, you attended a “prayer” service at Washington National Cathedral. The Rev. Mariann Budde aimed several implicit criticisms at you during her remarks. She pled with you for “gay, lesbian and transgender children” who “fear for their lives.” She advocated on behalf of immigrants who do not “have the proper documentation.” She meant immigrants who have broken laws to enter the United States. She also mentioned those who are “fleeing war zones and persecution,” or refugees. The Rev. Budde offered these rebukes “in the name of God” and under the roof of a church that claims to be Christian.

Before I respond to Rev. Budde’s remarks, I have a broader observation. The United States Constitution denies Congress the right to establish a religion. We must not call any church a “national” cathedral. I am a Baptist. Baptists insist upon the separation of church and state. The First Amendment is our amendment. The Rev. Budde’s congregation is the “Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in the City and Diocese of Washington.” Calling it the National Cathedral is false, pretentious, and rude. No president or vice president should endorse this affectation by attending events there.

This church’s religion no longer preaches the gospel. What is the gospel? It is the declaration that “Christ died for our sins” and that he “rose from the dead” (1 Cor 15:1–4). The death of Jesus on the cross and His bodily resurrection from the dead are historical events. To deny the historicity of either event is to deny the gospel itself. The phrase “for our sins” explains the meaning of Christ’s death. Jesus died as a substitute for sinners. He took their guilt upon Himself and suffered God’s wrath in their place (1 Pet 2:24). He satisfied the demands of God’s justice. When God raised Jesus, He gave Him exclusive authority to forgive sins. He forgives us when we trust Him as Savior (Acts 16:31). The gospel is not about moral improvement or social reformation. It is about personal forgiveness. This is the only biblical gospel. God saves people only through trust in Jesus (Acts 4:12). The Rev. Budde substitutes a bad moral philosophy for the good message of the gospel. Such preaching is no longer Christian. Her religion has become a different religion. It even belongs to a different class of religions from Christianity.

What about Rev. Budde’s specific claims? She says that gay, lesbian, and transgender children fear for their lives. They have no good reason to fear. Americans are not trying to kill them (though Muslim countries might). If Rev. Budde wants them to be less afraid, then she should stop scaring them with stories of danger. Mr. President, we crave modesty and safety for our women and children. Please protect them from predators who hide behind trans identity.

The Rev. Budde asks you to “have mercy” upon these people. True mercy never affirms people in a delusion. You have rightly said that there are only two genders. Some people are not comfortable in their gender. Some want to pretend to be the other gender. Some want to make up a gender that doesn’t exist. Some of them, even children, want to alter their bodies to resemble a gender that is not theirs. Often, they want to force the rest of us to pretend along with them. Good counsel can help these people to become comfortable in their natural gender. True mercy means getting them the counsel that they need. Genuine compassion means protecting children from mutilation. Just law never forces citizens to pretend that a delusion is true.

The Rev. Budde also wishes you to “have mercy” upon people who break the law to enter our country. She pretends compassion for immigrants, but all true Americans welcome immigrants. We only ask that they obey the laws when they enter our country and that we have enough time to assimilate them. Your job, as you know, is to enforce immigration laws. May God bless you for doing it.

The Rev. Budde appeals to biblical teaching to be “merciful to the stranger.” The Bible does teach compassion for aliens (Lev 19:34; 24:22). The Bible also requires resident aliens to keep the laws of their host country (Lev 18:26). We must not cite one principle without recognizing the other.

When the Rev. Budde pleads for refugees, I agree. The United States has often sheltered people fleeing political and religious persecution. America should still welcome its share of genuine refugees. Every civilized nation should. But we should make sure that they are genuine refugees. And we are not obligated to shelter all the refugees in the world.

Mr. President, I would be presumptuous to invite you to attend the church I pastor. I doubt that we could even seat your security detail in our auditorium. But I make you a promise. If you ever visit, you will hear the true gospel. You will hear the Word of God. And you will not hear woke moralizing.

You do not have to travel to Minnesota to hear our message. Capitol Hill Baptist Church is in your own back yard. Its pastor is a man of God. He can offer you sound spiritual counsel. He can help you to understand the Bible. He can also help you to navigate some of those church-state difficulties.

People like the Rev. Budde are the exact reason that some of us voted for you. Their message is wrong, and it has devastated our country. We need a dose of reality, and you are administering it now. Please, Mr. President, stay strong.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


O God of Bethel

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)

O God of Bethel, by Whose hand
Thy people still are fed,
Who through this weary pilgrimage
hast all our fathers led;

Our vows, our prayers, we now present
before Thy throne of grace;
God of our fathers, be the God
of their succeeding race.

Through each perplexing path of life
our wandering footsteps guide;
give us each day our daily bread,
and raiment fit provide.

O spread Thy covering wings around
till all our wanderings cease,
and at our Father’s loved abode
our souls arrive in peace.

Such blessings from Thy gracious hand
Our humble prayers implore;
And Thou shalt be our chosen God,
Our portion evermore.

Freedom of the Will?

Most Interesting Reading of 2024: Part Two

Last week I gave you the first part of my listing of the “most interesting books” that I read during 2024. Again, I emphasize that my selection is subjective: what was interesting to me may not be interesting to you. Nevertheless, here is the rest of my list.

Heller, Anne C. Hannah Arendt: A Life in Dark Times. New York: Open Road, 2015. 148pp.

Hannah Arendt was a German Jew who fled to France and then America during the Second World War. She had been a student and mistress of Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger. After the war, she and Heidegger renewed a friendship, and Arendt went on to become an important philosophical critic of totalitarianism. Heller’s book not only tells Arendt’s story but also focuses on the interplay of philosophical ideas between the two thinkers.

Kilpatrick, James J. The Writer’s Art. Kansas City: Andrews McNeel, 1984. 262pp.

Every year I try to read at least one book on the craft of writing. This year I chose Kilpatrick, since his work came with a recommendation from William F. Buckley. It turned out to be more than just a book. It was as if Kilpatrick put his arm around my shoulders and said, “Son, let me show you how to do this.” I only wish that I could learn the lesson as well as he taught it.

Kim, Swee Hong and Lester Ruth. Lovin’ on Jesus: A Concise History of Contemporary Worship. Nashville: Abingdon, 2017. 192pp.

What is contemporary worship and where does it come from? The authors of this book try to answer that question, defining contemporary worship much more broadly than the current “worship wars.” They trace its beginnings to the effort to update worship language, including updating the translation of Scripture. They identify various strands within contemporary worship and outline the philosophy and theology of each. I found the work illuminating.

McGrath, Alistair. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 6th ed. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2017. 528pp.

This volume presents itself as an introduction to theology, but it might better be described as a survey. While it does deal with introductory matters (the prolegomena of theology), it devotes most of its space to surveying the various approaches to the main questions within each discipline of systematic theology. It seems to be written more as a textbook for university students than as a study for seminarians or pastors. The discussion is not advanced, but the survey is useful.

Morgan, Christopher and Robert A. Peterson. Christian Theology: The Biblical Story and Our Faith. Nashville: B&H, 2020. 620pp.

This theology is written from a conservative, more-or-less Baptistic approach, but it aims to present a range of options for many theological questions. It is less detailed than I would prefer in a seminary textbook, but it is charitable in tone and fairly comprehensive. It would make a useful refresher for pastors.

Nickson, Elizabeth. Eco-Fascists: How Radical Conservationists Are Destroying Our Natural Heritage. New York: Broadside, 2012. 384pp.

Broadside Books is supposed to be a conservative imprint under Harper Publishing, but Nickson is not noticeably conservative. She is a liberal environmentalist and journalist who is upset at the way the environmental movement has been highjacked. Some of her claims are difficult to verify (e.g., that the government is importing “cadaver wolves”). Overall, however, she makes a convincing case that contemporary environmentalism and governments are using each other as vehicles for radical social engineering.

Sacco, Jack. Where the Birds Never Sing: The True Story of the 92nd Signal Battalion and the Liberation of Dachau. New York: ReganBooks, 2003. 336pp.

Warning: this volume is written about military service from the perspective of a soldier. It contains offensive language. And it isn’t quite a first-person narrative. While written in the soldier’s voice, it was authored by his son. Qualifications aside, the book is a gripping story of one GI who served under Patton and who participated in the liberation of Dachau. Given the increasing penchant for Holocaust denial, direct accounts such as this one are needed.

Shenvi, Neil and Pat Sawyer. Critical Dilemma: The Rise of Critical Theories and Social Justice Ideology—Implications for the Church and Society. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2023. 528pp.

This work does a better job of describing the origins and ideas of critical theory than any other book I’ve read. It deals with difficult ideas in an understandable way. If you are a pastor who wants to understand critical theory and social justice, I can’t think of a better work to recommend.

Shippey, Tom. J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. 384pp.

Too much is being published about the Inklings for a non-specialist like me to keep up with it all. Still, I try to read a few books each year about Lewis, Tolkien, Barfield, or Williams. This book by Shippey is just a nice rehearsal of Tolkien’s importance. It includes responses to many of Tolkien’s critics.

Sowell, Thomas. Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? New York: William Morrow, 1984. 168pp.

Thomas Sowell is another author who deserves his own shelf in your library. I’ve never read anything by him that wasn’t worthwhile. This is one of his earlier works. He argues that many of the putative successes of the Civil Rights Movement would have happened anyway, while the movement itself has hindered civil rights in important ways. He also responds to the accusation that his personal rise is due to the very things that he critiques.

Spink, Kenneth, ed. First Timothy: Church Charter. Cleveland: Hebron Association, 2024. 200pp.

The pastors of the Hebron Baptist Association near Cleveland have produced this little commentary. Of course, some chapters are more detailed, and others are more devotional, but I love the idea of pastors cooperating to study, understand, and comment on a book of Scripture. May they produce more in years to come.

Van Drunen, David. Natural Law: A Short Companion. Essentials in Christian Ethics. Brentwood, TN: B&H, 2024. 160pp.

According to this author, Reformed theology and some version of natural law are compatible perspectives. The book is a brief introduction to the kind of natural law that just might work in a Reformed context. The author is not unmindful of the noetic effects of the fall, and his discussion includes several important qualifications. This is a helpful book.

Witherington, Ben III. What Have They Done with Jesus? Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History—Why We Can Trust the Bible. New York: HarperCollins, 2006. 352pp.

Bad theorizing abounds about the Jesus of History, the composition of the Gospels, and the early development of Christianity. In this book, Witherington attempts to distill and simplify the arguments for popular consumption. He defends a responsible, understandable, conservative defense of the biblical record.

So those are the books that I enjoyed most in 2024. Lord willing, I’ll be back in a twelvemonth with a list of the books I enjoyed most during 2025. Until then, happy reading.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


from Dear Christians, One and All, Rejoice

Martin Luther (1483–1546); tr. Richard Massie (1800–1887)

My good works could avail me naught,
For they with sin were stained;
Free-will against God’s judgment fought,
And dead to good remained;
Grief drove me to despair, and I
Had nothing left me but to die,
To hell I fast was sinking.

Then God beheld my wretched state
With deep commiseration;
He thought upon His mercy great,
And willed my soul’s salvation;
He turned to me a Father’s heart—
Not small the cost!—to heal my smart,
He gave His best and dearest.

The Son His Father did obey,
And, born of virgin-mother,
He came a while on earth to stay,
That He might be my brother.
His mighty power He hidden bore,
A servant’s form like mine He wore,
To lead the Devil captive.

He spake to me: “Hold fast by me,
I am thy Rock and Castle;
I wholly give myself for thee,
For thee I strive and wrestle;
For I am thine, and thou art mine,
Henceforth my place is also thine;
The Foe shall never part us.

“The Foe shall shed my precious blood,
Me of my life bereaving;
All this I suffer for thy good;
Be steadfast and believing.
Life shall from death the victory win,
Mine innocence shall bear thy sin,
So art thou blest forever.”

Freedom of the Will?

Most Interesting Reading of 2024: Part One

It’s that time of year again. Other authors issue bibliographies of “best books” they’ve read. I put out a listing of reading that I personally found most interesting. This year, it happens that “interesting” also broadly corresponds to “good,” though in some years, books can be interesting exactly because they are bad. But I promise, all the following are good, though in different ways. You may or may not find them interesting, but I did, and that’s why they’re here.

Adler, Mortimer J. Six Great Ideas. New York: Touchstone, 1981. 256pp.

The six ideas are divided into two sets. Truth, goodness, and beauty are ideas we judge by. Liberty, equality, and justice are ideas we act on. Adler compares and contrasts approaches to these ideas, helping his readers understand the issues surrounding them. Adler invariably stimulates his readers’ thinking. He is one of those authors who deserves his own shelf in your library.

Anderson, Ryan T. Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom. Washington: Regnery, 2015. 256pp.

Famous for authoring a conservative work that was banned by Amazon, Anderson is one of the most articulate conservative voices addressing gender issues today. In Truth Overruled he argues from natural law that the definition of marriage cannot be stretched to include two people of the same sex. The argument is both sound and accessible to readers with, say, a high-school education.

Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. 3rd ed. Nashville: B&H, 2022. 720pp.

As Blomberg’s subtitle implies, this work has two goals. One is to survey the contents of the four gospels, but the more important is to deal with introductory issues. These include the various issues related to the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith. Blomberg provides a good, accessible overview of the questions, combined with a competent, conservative response. Parts of the work are idiosyncratic, but this is overall a very helpful book.

Butterfield, Rosaria. The Gospel Comes with a House Key: Practicing Radically Ordinary Hospitality in Our Post-Christian World. Wheaton: Crossway, 2018. 240pp.

Any book by Butterfield is worth reading. Her early books present a biblical perspective on homosexuality and lesbianism. This book deals more specifically with hospitality as a Christian duty. Butterfield talks about the what, the how, and the why. The result is that she sets a standard for hospitality that many readers will despair of ever being able to meet. Even so, the challenge is good and necessary.

Dubal, David. The Essential Canon of Classical Music. New York: North Point, 2003. 800pp.

I loved classical music from the first time I heard Tchaikovsky’s Overture Solonnelle, but only during seminary did I become a serious listener. I found that the field is so large as to bewilder an outsider. Eventually you start to find out what you like, and you look for more of it. Dubal’s work is useful for middle-level listeners who have got their feet on the ground but who wonder where to go next. Dubal surveys the entire field by period and composer. He also includes a recommended discography.

Flew, Antony. There Is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne, 2009. 258pp.

When I was being educated, the New Atheists had not yet captured public interest. During those years, Antony Flew was recognized as the ablest academic proponent of atheism. In this book, Flew tells how he became an atheist and why he eventually abandoned atheism for theism. The book includes Flew’s criticism of the New Atheism. It also includes a dialogue about Jesus with N. T. Wright. One could wish that it included a clear profession of faith in Christ.

Frahm, Eckhart. Assyria: The Rise and Fall of the World’s First Empire. New York: Basic, 2023. 528pp.

The Assyrian Empire intersects the history of divided Israel and Judah in dramatic ways. Ultimately, the Assyrians were responsible for the dismantling and captivity of the northern kingdom. Frahm, an Assyriologist who teaches at Yale, offers in this work an overview of Assyrian history. While he is sometimes critical of the biblical chronology, Frahm does much to explain the pressures that the kings of Israel and Judah (not to mention other nations) faced from Assyrian expansionism. He has good theories about how Assyria rose to power and why it fell.

Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Naziism, and the Politics of Identity. New York: NYU, 2003. 271pp.

One of my study projects involves a version of white supremacy known as Identity Christianity. Eventually, I hope to do some writing on the subject. Identity Christianity is a quasi-Christian movement, generally cultish (though some versions of it are Trinitarian), with its own theology. Not many people will find this kind of reading interesting, but it helped me fit together some of the players and ideas in the Identity Christian movement.

Grossman, Miriam. Lost in Trans Nation: A Child Psychiatrist’s Guide Out of the Madness. New York: Skyhorse, 2018. 360pp.

This book is a deep dive into the influence that the Trans movement has exerted over the mental health profession. Grossman writes as an insider, a child psychiatrist who has dealt with gender issues for years. She is clearly outraged, however, by the current Trans ideology, which she believes is deeply harmful to children. She includes an account of how that movement uses professional and legal pressures to get doctors and parents to conform, and she also provides helpful strategies for dealing with authorities and children when those children announce that they are Trans. The discussion is long, and sometimes it is tedious, but every pastor should read this book.

This list is only the beginning. I’m working alphabetically and we are only through the letter G. Yes, there’s more to come! Next week I’ll be back with more of my “most interesting reading” of 2024.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


Let Those Who Doubt the Heavenly Source

John Bowring (1792–1872)*

Let those who doubt the heavenly source
Of revelation’s page divine,
Use as their weapons fraud and force—
No such unhallowed arms are mine.
I only wield its holy word—
Reason its shield, and truth its sword.

I doubt not—my religion stands
A beacon on the eternal rock—
Let malice throw her fiery brands;
Its sacred fane has stood the shock
Of ages—and shall tower sublime
Above the waves and winds of time.

Infinite wisdom formed the plan;
Infinite power supports the pile;
Infinite goodness poured on man
Its radiant light—its cheering smile.
Need they thy aid? Poor worm! Thy aid?
O mad presumption—vain parade!

Thou wilt not trust th’Almighty One
With His own thunders—thou wouldst throw
The bolts of Heaven! O senseless son
Of dust and darkness! Spider! Go,
And with thy cobweb bind the tide,
And the swift, dazzling comet guide.

Yes! Force has conquering reasons given,
And chains and tortures argue well—
And thou hast proved thy faith from Heaven,
By weapons thou hast brought from hell.
Yes! Thou hast made thy title good,
For thou hast signed the deed with blood.

Daring impostor! Sure that God
Whose advocate thou feign’st to be,
Will smite thee with that awful rod
Which thou wouldst seize—and pour on thee
The vial of that wrath, which thou
Wouldst empty on thy brother’s brow.

* [Editor’s note: This poem is a striking condemnation of the use of force as a means of spiritual persuasion, which Baptists also disdain. The author, though, is a Unitarian. His best-known text, still sung in many Trinitarian churches, is In the Cross of Christ I Glory.]

Freedom of the Will?

Most Important News of 2024

[This essay was originally published on January 3, 2013. The editor has taken the liberty of updating the year; the essay is otherwise unaltered.]

Many periodicals make a New Year’s tradition of summarizing the most important stories of the past year. That tradition has never been followed by In the Nick of Time, but I thought this year might be a good time to begin. Since I’d never done this before, I perused several lists that others had put together. What struck me is that they universally missed the most important stories. So, in no particular order, here are my picks for the top stories of 2024.

Jesus Did Not Return

Few if any news outlets have reported that the Rapture did not occur during 2024. We believers are still on earth. We were unexpectedly granted an entire extra year to prepare ourselves. We were given a whole twelve months for devotion to our Lord. We had fifty-two whole weeks to apportion our time, energy, and money in such a way that as many people as possible (including ourselves) would be ready for His coming. The non-Rapture of the church during 2024 is clear evidence that the Lord is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Eager as we are to be with Him in heaven, we can rejoice that He intends to show mercy to yet more sinners.

Few Were Disappointed

Almost as remarkable as the non-Rapture is the non-disappointment of the saints. Those who obeyed Scripture were looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. For such people, every year in which they have not yet glimpsed His face leaves them both heartsick for Him and homesick for a better country, that is: an heavenly. They yearn for the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. They exhort one another, and so much the more, as they see the day approaching. The absence of this eagerness for the coming and presence of Jesus is certainly news.

Many Were At Ease

People who seek a better country are willing to dwell in tabernacles. They confess that they are strangers and pilgrims on the earth. On the other hand, those who are mindful of that country from whence they came out might have opportunity to return. For the former, God is not ashamed to be called their God. For the latter—well, they are newsworthy. It is as if, when they look up the word world in their thesaurus, they find the synonym friend. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. That is news.

The Government Martyred No One

Nowhere in the United States did any level of government—local, state, or federal—kill any Christian believers because of their testimonies. We have not yet resisted unto blood. On the contrary, we have been granted an opportunity to lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; and to make straight paths for our feet. We have been given another chance to follow that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. If that’s not news, what is?

Christians Stood Up for Their Rights

It is no great thing that Christians, like Paul and Silas in Philippi, would challenge governments that fail to keep within their proper boundaries. What is newsworthy is that Christians should decide that the life of faith requires them to insist upon their rights instead of approving what is excellent. Only through the latter may a believer be sincere and without offense until the day of Jesus Christ. Here is the news: Christians have forgotten that one who strives for the mastery is temperate in all things. They are unaware that we become all things to all men, not by imitating them and seeking their approval, but by denying ourselves whatever rights and privileges would block us from serving them. That Christians should spend their efforts defending their rights would certainly be news to Paul: “But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.”

God Was Denied Glory

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of those who bear God’s image spent the year exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. They also spent the year bearing the consequences of uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. Here is some news: God will not give His glory unto another. People are condemned first and foremost, not because they have broken God’s law, but because they have dishonored Him by preferring idols.

God Unleashed His Power

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. The gospel is not like a yapping Chihuahua that needs to be kept on a leash to protect it from the big dogs. The gospel is like a lion that pulls down its prey and subdues it. The gospel has the power to penetrate the hardest heart, humble the most arrogant mind, and bring the vilest sinner to repentance. News flash: the gospel never needs to be protected. It needs to be set loose. It did its work during 2024. The salvation of a single soul (and many were saved, all over the world) is a magnificent display of the infinite power of God.

Billions Are Still Lost

As 2024 closed, billions and billions of human beings, made in God’s image, were still lost and on their way to hell. Of these, the majority had never even heard the good news of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Billions had never even heard the name of Jesus or seen a Bible. After two millennia, Christians have still not completed the task of going into all the world and preaching the gospel to every creature. They see a world wholly given to idolatry, and the news is that their spirit is not stirred in them. They do not dispute in the market daily with them that meet them. From these billions of unrepentant sinners, God is not receiving the glory and worship that He deserves—and He commands all men every where to repent. He has appointed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He has ordained. The news is that we still have a job to do.

* * *

The biggest news of 2024, and the biggest news of every year, is the gospel itself. The gospel is not a religious philosophy. It is not a collection of moral precepts. It is not a guide to self-improvement. It is not a stimulus for spiritual inspiration. It is news—news about events that occurred when God entered space and time, assumed a human nature, died to bear the penalty of human sin, and arose bodily from the dead. Not only is the gospel news, it is good news. It is the best news that sinful humans could ever hear.

Spread the news.

divider

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.


 


The Day Is Past and Gone

John Leland (1754–1841)

The day is past and gone,
The evening shades appear.
O may we all remember well
The night of death draws near.

We lay our garments by,
Upon our beds to rest;
So death will soon disrobe us all
Of what we here possess.

Lord, keep us safe this night,
Secure from all our fears;
May angels guard us while we sleep,
Till morning light appears.

And when we early rise,
And view th’unwearied sun,
May we set out to win the prize,
And after glory run.

And when our days are past,
And we from time remove,
O may we in Thy bosom rest,
The bosom of Thy love.