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.
Was Patrick a Catholic?

Was Patrick a Catholic?

I spent part of my childhood in a heavily Roman Catholic area near Bay City, Michigan. These Catholics were ethnic Poles, but they had no hesitation about celebrating March 17 as Saint Patrick’s Day. For that day, at least, my classmates would be festooned with shamrocks and green. To them, Patrick was a Roman Catholic.

Certain non-Catholics in our community would explain that Patrick was not really a Catholic. He represented a strain of evangelical Christianity that remained suppressed until the Protestant Reformation. Later on, I heard this assertion repeated during my preparation for ministry.

A few summers ago, I happened to be conversing with a PhD from the Center for Medieval Studies who specialized in Patrick. She insisted that Patrick was certainly Roman Catholic. She pointed out that Patrick endorsed the doctrines that were being advanced by the bishop of Rome at that time.

The key expression is at that time. What time was that? According to the best accounts, Patrick was born sometime around 390 and died around 461. Those dates place him among the church fathers. Gregory of Nazianzus died the year before Patrick was born, and Gregory of Nyssa died when Patrick was five years old. The heretic Apollinaris died in the year of Patrick’s birth. Patrick’s life overlapped with luminaries like Ambrose, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and Cyril of Alexandria. The heretic Eutyches was about ten years older than Patrick, and Patrick died in the same year as Leo the Great. He was in his sixties at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.

When Patrick was alive, the Roman Empire, though divided and weakened, had not yet fallen. Neither the Monophysite nor the Monothelite controversies had broken out. The first of the Medieval Popes, Gregory I, would not ascend to the papal chair for a century and a third. Eastern and Western Christianity would not divide for more than five hundred years. The Council of Trent would not finally define Roman Catholicism for more than a millennium.

These names and dates are significant for a reason. During the lifetime of Patrick, neither the term Catholic nor the word Roman meant what it means today. Catholic was a Greek term, καθ’ ὅλος (kath-holos), meaning according to the whole or universal. A Catholic at that time was simply someone who agreed with the orthodox consensus represented by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381).

These councils had articulated a biblical understanding of the relationship of Christ to God the Father. They responded to the Arian heresy, which taught that Christ was a created being, not fully God, and that there was a time when Christ did not exist. These councils insisted that Christ was truly God, fully equal to and eternal with the Father, and of one substance with Him. Because these perspectives were advanced by councils comprising Christians from everywhere that churches existed, they were called Ecumenical, and their consensus was considered Catholic or universal Christian teaching. In this sense of the term, all Bible-believing Christians are still Catholic.

During Patrick’s lifetime other disputes arose. The most serious was the Eutychian controversy. Eutychians taught that Christ’s human nature was so overwhelmed by His divine nature that it became inconsequential. It was like a drop of wine in an ocean of water. The result was a near-denial of Christ’s real humanity. The Eutychian controversy is what led to the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where church leaders wrestled to articulate a biblical understanding of the relationship of the divine to the human within Christ. They taught that Christ was one person in two natures. He was fully human and fully divine. The person, they said, must not be divided, while the natures must not be mixed or confused.

Chalcedon did not invent these teachings. Rather, the council systematized the mainstream understanding of Christians in view of biblical teaching. For this reason, the teachings of Chalcedon have also been recognized as part of genuinely Catholic teaching, and in this sense all Bible-believing Christians today are genuinely Catholic.

Patrick was certainly Catholic in this sense. Was he also Roman? One major defender of the teachings of Nicea and Constantinople was Leo the Great, who became bishop of Rome during Patrick’s lifetime. Leo was also active in calling the Council of Chalcedon. In the western Roman empire, he was a major opponent of Eutychianism. To take the Catholic view was necessarily to take the Roman view, and in this sense, Patrick clearly sympathized with Rome.

Nevertheless, Patrick was born in Scotland, west and a bit north of present-day Glasgow. His town was on (and maybe beyond) the very fringes of the Roman Imperial influence. Patrick’s father was a minor Roman official, and his grandfather was a pastor (certainly not what would be considered Roman Catholic today). Christianity in Patrick’s corner of the world was not much influenced by the concerns of the church at Rome, at least not directly.

At this point in history, the bishop of Rome did not exercise authority over most other churches. Leo tried to increase the prestige of the Roman bishop by presenting himself as an older statesman and wise counselor to younger pastors. Even so, other pastors were known to tell him to mind his own business.

Patrick was never sent out as a missionary by Rome. He did not receive church office from Rome. To this day, the Roman Catholic Church has never canonized him as a saint.

Was Patrick a Roman Catholic? The question is anachronistic. He was Catholic in the sense that he fully embraced the Catholic doctrinal consensus about Jesus Christ. He could be called Roman only in the sense that he must have felt some degree of solidarity with Leo in the doctrinal controversies of his day. He definitely was not a Roman Catholic in any modern sense—but neither was anybody else, including Leo. On the other hand, he was hardly a crypto-Protestant either. The five solas, including justification through faith alone, were not to be articulated for another millennium. Such beliefs, while present in the ancient church, remained undeveloped for centuries.

By his own testimony, Patrick was a rebellious youth who had been reared under Christian teaching. Brought low in slavery, he seems genuinely to have turned to Christ. After his escape he matured in the faith and eventually returned to his home, only to feel a burden to reach the very people who had enslaved him. He returned to Ireland and preached Christ among the pagans, many of whom responded to his preaching. For that we can thank God, and we can nourish a hope that we may likely meet Patrick among God’s people someday. He was broadly Catholic, perhaps marginally Roman, but almost certainly a saint.

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 The Shield of St. Patrick

Patrick (c. 390–461)

I bind to myself to-day,
The strong power of the invocation of the Trinity:
The faith of the Trinity in the Unity
The Creator of the elements.

Christ, protect me today
Against poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against wound,
That I may receive abundant reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me,
Christ behind me, Christ within me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ at my right, Christ at my left,
Christ where I lie down,
Christ where I sit,
Christ where I stand.

Missions Week

Missions Week

Every March, Fourth Baptist Church hosts its annual Missions Conference, giving our students, faculty, and staff a neat opportunity to hear of the work of the gospel around the world.

This year’s missionaries were:

Dr. Andy & Jo Ellen Counterman (Latin America), Dan & Jeanne Ann Herman (Ireland), and Aaron & Rachel Houtz (Alaska).


  • The Countermans serve with BEME-LA, where Andy is the Senior Director of Baptist Evangelistic Ministry Endeavors – Latin America. Dr. Counterman’s ministry includes traveling to churches to share their mission of supporting national pastors in planting churches throughout Latin America.
  • The Hermans are raising support as long-term missionaries to Ireland. The Hermans served at Northland and in the pastorate before being called to foreign missions.
  • The Houtz family is raising support to serve as aviation missionaries to the remote villages of the Alaskan Bush.

It was a blessing to hear of their burden for their mission fields, and the specific ways God has directed in calling them to their field.

In chapel this week, our students got to hear a challenge on James 1:22 “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only” from Pastor Counterman. Andy started seminary at Central and completed his degree at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, CA.

Our faculty and staff also got to share lunch with the missionaries and learn more about their fields of service.

Central Seminary has always had a heart for missions. Through our Global Outreach program, God has used Central Seminary to start seminary campuses and help with training nationals all around the world! We require every M.Div. student to take our “Introduction to Personal and World Evangelism” course, and we also offer several electives on topics like the theology of missions and cross-cultural ministry. In addition, many of our students are currently serving on the mission field as they continue their education with Central Seminary. We are thankful for how God has used Central Seminary and created a “global campus” of students from all around the world!

To learn more about the missionaries listed above, visit the links in each of their bios.

To download a copy of Fourth Baptist’s Missions Brochure, click here.

Are you thinking about serving in foreign missions? To learn more about Central preparing students for the mission field, visit our programs page.

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 13: The Final Chapter

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 13: The Final Chapter

Over the process of a dozen essays, I have been interacting with Gavin Ortlund’s book, Finding the Right Hills to Die On. Of course, much more can and should be said, but to say it all would take a book as long as Ortlund’s. Indeed, it would take a longer book, because that book would have to address important matters that Ortlund leaves out of consideration (I’ll say more about one of those later).

For now, I’ll respond to Ortlund’s conclusion. He ends the book with final appeals to humility and to unity. I’ll address these one at a time.

First, as to humility, Ortlund rightly observes that sometimes we don’t know what we don’t know. We have blind spots to our blind spots. This realization should “make a noticeable difference in your actual interactions with people” [147]. Even in disagreement we should be willing to learn and open to new perspectives. We should always be open to adjusting our views. Still, a humble person can also be bold, as Luther was at Worms.

I find nothing in Ortlund’s exhortation that I would disagree with. The problem lies in recognizing whether we are exercising appropriate humility because we realize our limitations or whether we are merely timid because we fear the consequences of our beliefs. We must not become so uncertain of ourselves that we render God incapable of communicating truth to us understandably and authoritatively. And we must never forget that Luther’s opponents almost universally charged him with arrogance.

Ortlund is right that the way we hold our doctrines affects our fellowship as much as the doctrines that we hold. In the calculus of doctrine and fellowship, the importance of the doctrines that we believe is one consideration. The level of fellowship is another. Questions of attitude form an unavoidable third consideration. In some times and places, we should limit our message. In others, our message cannot be limited, and so our fellowship must be.

Now we come to the question of unity. A concern for unity is both appropriate and important (Eph 4:1–6). If that concern is genuine rather than sentimental, however, we must remember that unity is a function of that which unites, and that fellowship is a function of what is held in common. For any given level of fellowship, we can enjoy unity only when we share whatever produces unity at that level. Any other claim to unity is hypocritical, as is any denial of unity and fellowship when we do share those things.

We never develop legitimate unity by aiming for unity. We must aim for what unites. At the lowest level, what unites us is the gospel. At the highest level, what unites us is the whole counsel of God.

Some biblical and theological questions should rarely or never interfere with fellowship. Who are the sons of God in Genesis 6? Are the locusts of Revelation 9 symbolic or literal? Does regeneration cause faith, or is it the other way around?

Some questions should limit fellowship at some levels but not others. I have argued that differences over cessationism, millennialism, and creationism are among these. Each of these issues will affect fellowship at different levels and to a different extent.

Some questions should limit fellowship at every level because wrong answers result in denials of the gospel. The doctrines that Christians must not deny are the fundamentals. Fundamentals (whether of belief, conduct, or affection) form the boundary of Christian fellowship. No level of Christian unity or fellowship is possible with someone who denies a fundamental.

And that brings me to what I believe is Ortlund’s greatest omission. If the fundamentals are the boundary of Christian fellowship—if no level of Christian fellowship is possible with someone who denies a fundamental—then what should we do with gospel believers who pretend that they can enjoy Christian fellowship with gospel deniers? This is the key question that has distinguished fundamentalists from other conservative evangelicals.

From early on, some evangelicals (gospel believers) thought that they could commit to some level of Christian fellowship with some gospel deniers. This position was defended by Charles Erdman and J. Ross Stevenson at Princeton Theological Seminary. It was upheld by Harold Ockenga and Edward John Carnell at Fuller Theological Seminary (the school that granted Gavin Ortlund his PhD). It was embodied in the ecumenical evangelism of Billy Graham. These individuals were willing to reach across the gospel boundary and to accept gospel deniers into Christian fellowship. What to do about them?

Scripture seems clear enough on this subject. In 2 John a parallel example occurs: false teachers who appear at the door with the intention of propagating anti-gospel doctrine (7, 10). John’s answer? Don’t let them in and don’t even give them a civil greeting (10). Why? Because whoever extends even this minimal level of aid and comfort to enemies of the gospel gets a share or stake in the evil they do (11). The result will be loss of reward (8).

In fairness, these verses do not outline a specific program for dealing with liberal theologians in our denominations or seminaries. They do, however, provide a clear template. At minimum, if some Christian leaders attempt to extend Christian fellowship to gospel deniers, we should recognize that they are guilty of a serious error, and that they are tainted by the evil that those apostates accomplish. While these leaders do not deny the gospel, they do compromise its rightful place as the boundary of Christian fellowship. That is both a serious error and a scandalous one. At minimum, we should never point to such individuals as exemplary or insightful Christians. We should never place ourselves as followers under their leadership. In other words, their failure to separate from apostates who are outside the gospel boundary ought to limit their fellowship severely within the gospel boundary.

Ortlund seems to perceive J. Gresham Machen as an example worth following, and Machen’s example is relevant here. He left his beloved Princeton and founded Westminster Seminary, not because Princeton brought gospel deniers onto its faculty, but because it kept evangelicals like Stevenson and Erdman. These men were willing to compromise the gospel by extending Christian fellowship to gospel deniers. A generation later at Fuller Seminary, Carnell understood what was at stake when he denounced Machen’s actions as “cultic” (The Case for Orthodox Theology, 114–117, 120–121).

Finding the Right Hills to Die On makes many splendid points. As a fundamentalist, I welcome an evangelical into a conversation that evangelicals have neglected for far too long, and that fundamentalists have sometimes done badly. The kind of work that Ortlund has offered needs to be done and redone in every generation. On balance, I believe that his book offers insight and is worth interacting with.

As to differences, even though Ortlund and I are arguing for similar things, I would prefer a more nuanced calculus of doctrinal importance and levels of fellowship. I also consider most doctrinal differences more serious than he does. Most of all, I wish that he would address the problem that J. Gresham Machen called “Indifferentism.”

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.


 


Thou God of Truth and Love

Charles Wesley (1707–1788)

Thou God of truth and love,
We seek thy perfect way,
Ready thy choice t’ approve,
Thy providence t’ obey,
Enter into thy wise design,
And sweetly lose our will in thine.

Why hast thou cast our lot
In the same age and place?
And why together brought
To see each other’s face;
To join with softest sympathy,
And mix our friendly souls in thee?

Didst thou not make us one,
That we might one remain,
Together travel on,
And bear each other’s pain,
Till all thy utmost goodness prove,
And rise renew’d in perfect love?

Surely thou didst unite
Our kindred spirits here,
That all hereafter might
Before thy throne appear;
Meet at the marriage of the Lamb,
And all thy glorious love proclaim.

Then let us ever bear
The blessed end in view,
And join with mutual care,
To fight our passage through;
And kindly help each other on,
Till all receive thy starry crown.

O may thy Spirit seal
Our souls unto that day!
With all thy fulness fill,
And then transport away!
Away to our eternal rest,
Away to our Redeemer’s breast!

Preparing the Congregation for Worship — Ep 48 with Steve Brower & Joel Albright

Preparing the Congregation for Worship — Ep 48 with Steve Brower & Joel Albright

In today’s episode, we consider the process of preparing the congregation for worship with Pastors Steve Brower & Joel Albright from First Baptist Church of St. Francis. We discuss the process of planning a worship service in selecting hymns, scripture readings, and prayers.

To view the worship guide discussed on this week’s episode, visit https://www.fbcsaintfrancis.com/s/Worship-Guide-March-3-2024.pdf

Chapters
06:09 Preparing the Congregation for Worship at First Baptist Church of St. Francis
07:32 The Process of Planning the Sunday Service
10:18 Introducing New Songs and Closing the Service
12:43 Resources for Planning the Service
21:27 Encouraging and Discipling Musicians
24:16 Other Elements of the Service
27:57 Encouragement for Pastors
29:48 Encouragement for Families
31:44 Testimonies of God’s Work

Full Transcript: Ep. 48: Preparing the Congregation for Worship

Welcome to the Central Seminary Podcast today. We’re glad you have joined us. We’ve got a special episode for you this week. We’re coming to you from the road. We’re recording today from First Baptist Church in St. Francis. We’ve got two pastors that are my pastors, Pastor Steve Brower and Pastor Joel Albright. So Steve, Joel, welcome to the podcast. Thank you. Great to have you.

Our topic today is preparing the congregation for worship.

As congregations gather for worship each week, we can see the final result of many hours of input from the pastoral staff, from musicians, so many others that prepare the service order, the bulletin, all of those elements. And as we have preaching the Word, what is and ought to be central to the gathering of the body, it’s rightly given its place. What we’d like to highlight this week is how all of those pieces come together.

And I think that could be an encouragement even for those in the congregation to say, how does this come? We think through a pastor studying and taking that time for the service, but also there’s a great intentionality in the songs that we sing, the scripture readings, and even over time, how that can have a great impact on the congregation. And so we’re going to think through that together today on this podcast, how the hymns, the scripture readings, the times of prayer, how can that all align with a purpose over time for the service?

And so we’ll cover the questions of:

  • How can pastors and church members prepare for worship each week?
  • What are some ways, even as a family, that we can prepare a family for that?
  • And what are some tools that you’ve found in helpful in preparing the congregation for worship?

So we’ll dive into those questions over the next few moments. But first we like to ask a question of our guests. What’s a book that you have been reading that you’d like to share with our listeners? Steve, I’ll start with you and could you just share a little bit of your background and the pastoring here at First Baptist Church of Saint Francis,  Steve.

Pastor Steve Brower

Yeah, thanks Micah. Thanks also for just doing this. This is a joy. I am a listener and so it’s a joy to be a part of this as well. So thanks for the opportunity. So I grew up in Minnesota and then went off to Bible college over at Maranatha in Wisconsin, and then came back to be an assistant pastor at Grace Baptist Church in Owatonna, my home church. And during that time, then worked on my master divinity through Central. And so I appreciate Central very much. I’m an alumnus of Central (MDiv ’08). After graduating from there, I came here in 2008 to First Baptist. And so that’s the abbreviated history of it. Yeah, excellent.

Book Suggestions: Steve 

So as far as a book goes, you know what? What I would probably, what I’ve been reading, like there’s always an opportunity to go back to books that have been read, especially as you know, you do messages and that type of thing. And so I just finished a section on Philippians that focused on a kind of a primer of wealth and thinking through that. And so I’m revisiting it again, Randy Alcorn’s book, Money, Possessions and Eternity. Randy has a lot of really great books that are out and some really good resources in regards to thinking through wealth. And so we have smaller books and larger books. This one is a bit of a larger one, but is really helpful, even as a resource to go back.

And then currently I’m reading Rembrandt is in the Wind. And so this is just a really, really nice book. Obviously I’m not finished with it, so I can’t give a full report. It was actually recommended to me by one of the members of the congregation.

And it is written by a pastor and it is taking a good look at art through the eyes of faith. And he goes through and identifies, you know, different artists and then looks at it theologically. And so for me as a pastor that has very little art training, but a lot of theological training, it’s really great to see it kind of meld the two and help me to, you know, think through that from that perspective.

M: Yeah, thank you. Joel, what’s a little bit of your background and a book that’s been encouragement to you?

Joel Albright

Yeah, so I grew up in a pastor’s home and Lord led me into ministry. I did my undergrad at Maranatha Baptist Bible College from 99 to 03. I graduated with a Bible degree there. Then I traveled out on the road for six years with the Steve Pettit Evangelistic Team. And that was just a tremendous experience in my life, very practically speaking.And then, so then six years later, I did my master’s degree at Northland. And then in 2011, came here to St. Francis and our family’s been here ever since 2011. So that brings us today.

Book Suggestions: Joel Albright

As far as a book goes, I’m gonna just throw out one that I’ve been working through, actually connects with this, The Theology That Sticks, Life-Changing Power of Exceptional Hymns. That’s by Chris Anderson. It’s just been a tremendous book to work through on a practical level, even with what we’re gonna talk about today.

 

Micah: Yeah. Excellent. To give you a little context to our listeners too, I got to be on staff on the pastoral team here at St. Francis back in my time going through Central Seminary, 2009 to 2014. I got to be with you guys, staff meetings and things. So it was sweet opportunity. I got to jump in on those when I didn’t have classes, jumped in on some of the times when you guys would be preparing for worship. But now as we’re back here as members getting to receive that blessing is a really neat thing.

So we wanted to talk about that topic and maybe you have a way that your congregation prepares for worship. Maybe that’s a bulletin that you get when you come on Sunday and to see that. Maybe there’s a way that as a church, you know what book that you’re going through. We’ve been in the book of Philippians. So here, finishing up Philippians and we’ll reference a little bit about just the last service on Sunday, how that comes together. But, there’s some neat ways for a family to be preparing your family for worship. Maybe you talk about it on the way to church. What’s pastor going to be talking about? What’s the pastor we’re going to be? So those are a little bit of the direction that we’re going for. And we have a particular practice at First Baptist Church of St. Francis. And again, this isn’t saying that everybody has to do exactly this. And what we wanted to do through this time is just think through the elements of preparing the congregation for worship and maybe what’s an idea or what’s a helpful tool that we’ve found. So.

Preparing for Worship at First Baptist Church: Weekly Worship Guide

Micah: As a member at First Baptist Church of St. Francis, we get an email each Friday with a worship guide for the coming Sunday. It lists the scriptures, the other scripture readings, and I appreciate you guys put the full scripture. You copy and paste it, you put it in there so you can read that, the listing, the songs, and even just some of the context for that. There’s specifically even a letter from the pastors giving a little context to what’s coming up. I have so appreciated that as a way to look forward to what’s coming on Sunday. So Steve, how did that come about? That’s something that you guys have done more recently.

How did you guys come to think through the process of beginning that?

Steve: Yeah, well, I appreciate that. You know, like most pastors, that’s been something that’s been a part of what we do is you sit down and you work through, you know, what the service is going to look like. Obviously we care deeply about all the elements of the service so that it isn’t something that we are just putting together haphazardly because we want there to be a specific direction, something to genuinely minister so that when somebody comes and they sit down and they’re going to participate in that, they’re able to follow along and head in a particular direction that then will actually augment and emphasize the word of God. And so it ties together that way. So when did that start for us? This particular, you know, iteration of that really kind of grew out of the whole COVID process that as we, you know, Joel and I would get together actually in my house and start doing this type of thing. And then as we moved forward from that, that became more and more, you know, something that we just began to pour that time into.

So that was really a bit of a transition time because then as we began to do it, it’s like, well, we should get this out to others. And I think Joel is really the key factor there that he has taken that bull by the horn and really wrestle it to the ground. And so he’s been the primary mover to push this forward. So I’d probably bounce that over to him to hear his thoughts about that as well.

Joel: Yeah, I think it was sort of a developing thing where you mentioned COVID and with a desire pastorally to prepare the service intentionally, there’s a little bit of a good accountability of a Sunday deadline for us or even before Sunday. And then with coming out of COVID when some people were meeting physically, some people weren’t quite yet. It was like, what’s a way that we can physically get content to the congregation who may not be present. So it kind of started that, where like, let’s get the whole service in a document and then minister to the congregation that way. And then that just helped with some good checks and balances to be more detailed about like, which stanzas are we going to sing and why are we singing those stanzas? What scripture? So like, it’s actually served as a good accountability, but also a way to minister.

Planning Ahead

Micah: How far in advance? So thinking through just some logistics of this, how, what does that look like for preparing that service? How, how do you begin planning for the Sunday service? And I’ll ask maybe one level up. So we’re in Philippians and looking at that, how many do you think you have left in Philippians? Finish it up this week? Will you grab some other topics maybe at the end of that?

Steve: Yeah. So this week we will hit one more, uh, sermon that is a little bit of a wrap -up sermon and then we’ll do one more of those. So we’ll really focus on, you know, two kind of wrap -up sermons and then we’ll be heading into Easter, you know, at that point. So from just that kind of flow, that’s what we’re looking at. And that probably gives a little insight into how far in advance is it’s like, hey, let’s look at this series and any messages in between this series and the next series. We aren’t like building the worship guide all the way out for those. We at have a direction that we’re going. And then week by week when we sit down, we begin to put that together.

Weekly Planning Process

Micah: Yeah. So what does that look like in a week? What begins, what’s the first step in beginning this document in preparation for Sunday?

Joel: So the regular thing is we’ll meet on Tuesday morning and what the context before that is, let’s just say that we’re at the beginning of the book of Philippians. We kind of have mapped out,the general flow of what’s going to be coming and a guess of what weeks will be covered, what passage. So I’ll come into that, like knowing what’s kind of long -term where we’re going to go and that helps make decisions for the immediate. And so there’s a little bit of thought, what’s a couple of weeks out, what’s next week, but then the primary urgency is shoring up what is coming up this Sunday. So, you know, so then we’ll work through, we’ll take time and just discuss what is the passage. What do we want to emphasize? And the whole time we’re thinking, okay, so then how does that connect with appropriate songs that we want to implement? What scriptures? How do the elements of prayer lead into that? So those are all kind of swirling around that then what we’ll do is just discuss it and then have brainstorms. And then that process will end on that day. And then what we’ll do is I’ll take that and over the next couple of days, kind of let it marinate a little bit. And then work towards by Friday having service pretty well completed where we can review it, talk through it, and then before we’re ready to send it out to the church.

(Download the Worship Guide

Micah: I’m gonna just look back to last to Sunday’s service,   just some of those scripture references that you had in there. One that you referenced, there were two songs to be in, Come, thou fount of every blessing, behold our God, and then you transitioned into giving because of God’s grace.

What was some of the thought processes even through those scripture references? You went back to the Old Testament and to the Gospel of Mark. How did those come about, choosing those scripture references?

 

Joel: Yeah, great. That’s a great example of the process of talking through it because Steve was preaching in the end of Philippians 4 verses 15 through 20, which so we knew it was going to have the emphasis of like a theology of giving related to missions. And so what would complement that? Well, so we were thinking through:

  • What would be an appropriate reading of Scripture to kind of make the point?
  • What should motivate our giving?
  • How does God view our giving?

So we just talked through a bunch of ideas and what came up in the conversation was, you know, David’s offering in the Old Testament was substantial. And then we think about like the widow’s offering, as Jesus talked about that, who was comparatively very small, but God was pleased because of the heart behind it. So we thought that’d be a good compliment to just ask the bigger question. And then bring it back to Philippians. So that was just a great and then part of the service to kind of just think through bigger picture. And then like you mentioned, the songs. We settled on the kind of major general theme of the grace of God is what should motivate our giving. And so to sing, “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing” elevates the grace of God. We sing “Behold Our God” which talks about Christ’s sacrifice for us in His grace for us. So those were just great songs to start off with and then kind of went through right from there.

Introducing New Songs to the Congregation

Micah: Before the sermon, you guys also introduced a newer song to the congregation. You had sung this before, Show Us Christ. How do you strike that balance in even maybe introducing a new song, evenness that you placed it there before the sermon? What are some other helpful things that you found in maybe introducing a new song to the congregation?

Joel: Yeah, that’s a great question. I think it’s a balance we try to get a good feel for, for over the course of say like 12 months. How many new songs do we want to be teaching the congregation? And it’s, we haven’t found a magic formula, but we want to always be at least in some way having the congregation learn some new song. It doesn’t mean every single week. And so we felt like it was probably time to emphasize that. And so that could be any kind of a song. It could be a song that’s more emphasizing the, you know, the character of God or emphasizing the work of Christ or maybe a more testimonial song. And so this song was one that we kind of had on the docket that we wanted to emphasize for the church. And that brings out more of the prayer of the heart to have the Spirit of God illumine the heart through the Word of God. So it seemed like that would be a great one to put right before the message. So it just worked out that way. We had the instruments play through it and everybody had a handout with the sheet music so they could look at it. And then we sang the stanzas and it went really well, a great song. So we’ll probably sing that over the next couple of weeks. So that the congregation kind of have us in the repertoire and then we can pull it out any time.

The Congregations Response to the Preaching

Micah: Steve, I want to ask you one on the sort of the closing of the service, the response, the congregational response. There’s different ways that you have outlined that through the week. This week we had an opportunity to have just a time of quiet reflection during as the instruments played. Maybe what’s some variety of that and how do you come about thinking through some of the closing, the congregational response for the service?

Steve: Yeah, I appreciate that. I think there is a need to let people respond. So philosophically, we want to give that opportunity. I think there’s a danger of that becoming so habitual or rote that it fails its purpose. And so to have different ways for that to occur, I think help keeps it, keeps the purpose at the forefront of people’s minds. And so we try to communicate some of that. Hey, let’s take this time to, like you said, on Sunday, we just said, let’s hear some questions up on the screen. And as the piano plays through this song, you do business with God. But of course, then other times there, we might sing a song as a response, right? So it’s like, here is, we’re telling you, here is a good response to the Lord. You know, unite your hearts together in this response. You know, there’s a variety of different ways. And yeah, we certainly don’t have, we don’t have all the answers there, but philosophically, we want to try to give people an opportunity as well as not put it in the kind of context where it becomes maybe a negative liturgy, where it’s just like, this is just what we do. Why do we do that? I don’t have any ideas. It’s just what we always do.

“So that’s our goal. That’s our effort. And honestly, it’s good for our own souls to think through that, to say, what is a good response now? It helps drive that opportunity for the congregation.”

At least that’s what we tell ourselves, is that that’s what’s actually happening. And so we trust that that’s what the spirit of God does with it.

Resources in Planning the Worship Service

Micah: Yeah. Joel, I saw that you had a stack of books here that somewhat you’ve utilized. What are some tools that you guys have found useful, whether that’s a book or something that gives just a little context that could help a pastor who’s thinking through, hey, I really want to be intentional with how I outline the service and give some discipleship opportunities for my congregation. What are some resources you found helpful?

Joel: Yeah, a list of a few. Probably a big one is Christ-Centered Worship by Brian Chappell. Very foundational, super helpful. Another one is more on the practical end. There’s a book by R. Kent Hughes called The Pastor’s Book (Read Chapter 1 – PDF), and it has a lot of sections of just examples of service orders and just how to think through Easter, how to think through Christmas, all those types of things. So that’s something I’ll go back to just to kind of like cross -reference. And then one thing that I found helpful, because like with trying to think what songs are going to sing, why are we going to sing them, what category are they coming from in the context of what our church needs to be fed by. I’ll try to do at least some reading on the background of the hymn, and there’s a three-set volume called 40 Favorite Hymns by Leland Reichen, and each volume has 40 hymns, and it just has a nice, well-written background of the hymn and maybe some devotional thought with it, and it just kind of helps get the mind into the hymn to just do a little bit of not that that has to be brought out in the service, but it helps direct some decisions. Or sometimes I’ll look at that and go, maybe we shouldn’t sing the song. Maybe the title was tricky or misleading. Like, actually the content of the song is actually something different. And so that’s a helpful resource. And then I had mentioned the one by Chris Anderson that that’s been really, really helpful. And then one final one, Corporate Worship by Matt Merker, just a nice little book that Nine Marks puts out, just a concise, well -written kind of theology of corporate worship.

Micah: What has been some of the congregation’s feedback from this receiving that? I love to see my father-in-law, he’s got his iPad there on Sunday. He’s getting ready for it. He’s got it prepared there. How has the congregation received this process?

Steve: Yeah, I don’t know that we’ve actually like done any kind of formal feedback. And so that probably would be actually good for us to do is to reach out and just hear from the congregation in some sort of like systematic way would probably be really helpful and instructive for us. But just from, you know, anecdotes and things like that, I think that people have received it well and have really enjoyed it. We’ve hear, you hear about people that are using the worship guide and that gives you a great joy because sometimes you wonder who are we doing this for? Is this just going out and nobody is paying attention to it? But we hear people referencing it, talking about it. And so we know that there are people that are really benefiting from it. And so all of those anecdotes that really bolsters up a pastor’s heart to say, okay, they’re catching it, right? Getting the vision, they’re embracing it. And that’s super encouraging. Yeah. Joel, I wanted to ask you a question with your musical background and working with the musicians.

Engaging Musicians in the Worship Preparation

Micah: What is some encouragement for pastors just as they’re bringing along the musicians behind how to keep them engaged either with ideas maybe they have, or then just on a week to week basis, keep them encouraged in the essential part of it that we appreciate the preaching of the word and the other elements that we’re so thankful for the musicians, the piano players that are faithful week in week out to support the worship in these elements. How can a pastor be encouraging of those that are involved in this process?

Joel: Yeah, great question. I think that, There’s a heart that, you know, as a pastor to help even disciple those who are involved, and it’s not necessarily like a major thing of bringing them through the details of everything, but just little things in the communication with them in the musical preparation. Things like, here’s the number of stanzas that we’re singing, and here’s kind of why. The tempo, the key changes, those at least in theory should be a part of the consideration of the why. We don’t just do it because it sounds cool or doesn’t sound cool, but all even, you know, the way in which we want to do a song. And so in the communication to them, I think is a good discipleship opportunity of the heart behind it of why we’re doing, we’re not doing it for a show. We’re not doing it because we want people to draw attention to, Oh, look who’s doing the music today. And so then what we’ll try to do is have a time of almost like a practice ahead of time in the morning on a Sunday morning and some of that’s before that would be good communication to them. But we’ll, we’ll go over just kind of the transitions with them. I’ll go over some of that, or if it’s just a piano that day, I’ll get with the piano player and go over like tempos and just that we’re on the same page and hopefully it’s a bigger picture than just musical things.

Discipleship 

Micah: Yeah. You mentioned discipleship there in, in the discipleship, even of the musicians, but there’s another level of discipleship that I see on Sunday. You’ve got even your son that’s playing this, how do you bring along some of those young musicians and bring them in? What kind of discipleship is happening just in that process?

Joel: Yeah, that’s great. And obviously when you’re dealing with kids, you want to be sensitive to what God’s doing in their life and not just emphasize the externals because it’s easy to be performance driven. And so I think it’s just little touches along the way with, you know, how and why are we doing this? What’s your motive? And just being really aware of that.

Organizing the Elements of Worship

Micah: What are some of the other elements through the service? We just referenced a couple from just Sunday. What are some other elements that you have appreciated thinking through or even with this process you guys have over letting it marinate process? What are some of those other elements that you have appreciated that you’ve been able to incorporate into the service? Steve, what you’ve got different pastoral prayers, different times of that. What are some other things that you appreciate about getting to insert into the service?

Steve: You know, sometimes you have a series that is focused very tightly in the New Testament or the Old Testament from that standpoint. So being able to add in a different genre of Scripture to highlight the same point, I think is very helpful. It’s not that we necessarily draw attention to it. It’s like, hey, we’re in a letter and now we’re using a narrative from the Old Testament. But yet, thinking through that and adding those things in, I think is really helpful because it gives the breadth of Scripture as well as it gives, it recognizes, I shouldn’t say it gives, it recognizes how God uses those different genres to bring forward his truth. So those are good elements to think through. Like you had mentioned, it’s a great time to lead in well -thought out, biblically based pastoral prayer. I think that can help set the culture for the church of like, hey, these are the things that we are concerned about and that we want to pray about. There are other elements that can be added in and that we have taken advantage of. We have, since COVID, we have stopped taking an offering. And so this is another opportunity to say, hey, let’s just pause. And whereas in years past, we would have, you know, an offertory and we’d pass the plate. It’s like, let’s just remind ourselves how giving is an act of worship and maybe we have a passage, maybe we have someone from leadership or from the congregation to pray specifically for that, a singular point to bring out about it. But it just gives us that opportunity in the midst of a worship flow to intentionally highlight. It’s like, hey, this is important to us and this is how we ought to think about it. And that I think is super helpful for the congregation as well, both young and old reminders, but also training for those that are watching and learning. And it’s like, oh yeah, giving. My parents do that now online, yet it still needs to be an act of worship. And hopefully that then gives parents opportunities to reinforce those truths at home. So those are some examples.

And hopefully that then gives parents opportunities to reinforce those truths at home.

Micah: Joel, what are some elements that you’ve appreciated as a pastor and also as a musician, those elements of the service?

Joel: Yeah, I think to… The big picture categories that are always floating in our minds. This is obviously not original, but the idea of read the word, preach the word, pray the word, those kind of, and singing the word, obviously. And so not every service is going to bring out each one of those equally all the time, but to view it as a stewardship of like, we need to not neglect anyone unintentionally. So the way that we would in each one of those has a lot of things. So if you’re just talking about praying the word, there’s all different types of prayers that we should be stewarding throughout the course of several months in the worship service, whether it’s confession, whether it’s gratitude, whether it’s a pastoral prayer, and so all of those things. And then obviously singing, there’s so many different subcategories to that that we want to both be sensitive to what is the passage helping us to bring out, but then also what should we also be singing big picture as a church. So it’s kind of like a puzzle and a process to come up with those different elements that you mentioned.

Closing Encouragements to Pastors and Families 

Micah: I get to appreciate it as a member come alongside the intentionality of that and just giving encouragements. What are just some closing encouragements you’d have for a pastor that’s thinking about maybe that pastor’s like, man, you guys got a team that are doing this. You’ve got all this thinking through what encouragement read you have maybe for the pastor that’s thinking through this or even the congregant who is saying, Hey, how can I be intentional about preparing my family so that. Steve, for the pastor that’s thinking through that, what’s just some takeaways that he can think through as he’s preparing for Sunday, Sunday’s coming, it’s that regular timeline, what final encouragement do you have?

Steve: I appreciate the fact that you are recognizing the team element. I do think that that is a really good thing for pastors to maximize. So the pastor is like pouring into the word and it’s like his focus is on the sermon and appropriately so but as Joel said, not to neglect those other elements. And it’s like, okay, well, how much bandwidth do I have? You know, how can I do all of that? And that’s where I’m seeking to bring in other people to help in those other processes, I think is essential. And that can happen, you know, for a pastor with, you know, a team like I have, I’m blessed to have that. But that can also happen for a pastor who says, hey, I need this help from the congregation and through a prayer and just putting it out there looking for it, there can be some teamwork that is put together. And yeah, it might look a little bit differently, but yet having somebody who is focused on bringing out those other elements and that adds creativity, that adds experience. Sometimes it’s like I’m so focused on the passage that it’s like, I need help thinking of the other elements. But sometimes that also can kind of lubricate that process. I’m so focused on the passage, these other elements are just yelling out and putting that together with another, you know, another person or persons can be really helpful. So I would encourage pastors to say, hey, let’s not neglect it. And then let’s see who God has brought providentially into our ministry that can help in this process. And I think that accomplishes then so many purposes, you know, along those lines.

So I would encourage pastors to say, hey, let’s not neglect it. And then let’s see who God has brought providentially into our ministry that can help in this process. And I think that accomplishes then so many purposes along those lines.

Micah:. Joel, for family that is week to week committed to worshiping with the congregation. What are some ways that a family as a father, maybe you could speak to it, that you can prepare the hearts of your family for worship for Sunday?

Joel: Yeah, I think in one sense it can be very simple. It doesn’t have to be complicated. It’s, I think, an awareness of what is going to be preached on that Sunday with the family. So one thing could be is let’s just read the passage that’s going to be preached. And just by the simply doing that, whether it’s part of a nightly devotions with the kids or go to bed, let’s just mention this, or maybe it’s around dinner table. But just by bringing that to the forefront, it doesn’t even require understanding a lot. Like let’s read the passage and that puts in the minds of the kids, this is important. And then also, and then a step further, an awareness of maybe what songs we’re going to sing. And so maybe it’s singing them with the kids sometime throughout the week, or maybe it’s just reading it. And that again puts it to the forefront. So I think even with family elements, I think there’s a tendency to just be too complicated with it or like, I can’t lead family worship. But in some ways it’s, let’s read the Word, let’s sing the Word and let’s pray. And if you can do those three things, then the Word is central and you don’t have to be a trained theologian to be able to do that. So I say simple and awareness, and that leads to the priority of making Sunday first place that it ought to be. Excellent.

But in some ways it’s, “Let’s read the Word, Let’s sing the Word, and Let’s pray.” And if you can do those three things, then the Word is central and you don’t have to be a trained theologian to be able to do that. So I say simple and awareness, and that leads to the priority of making Sunday first place that it ought to be.

Testifying of God at Work

Micah: Thank you both for being on the podcast. One question that we love to ask our guests is a way that God is working personally in your life. One way, one way to testify of the goodness of God, that God is good and he’s gracious to us in personal, also corporate ways. We’ve gotten to think through some really sweet ways that the body comes around and supports the preaching and the worship. But Joel, what’s the way that, that God is working in your personal life, your family that you’d just like to testify? Yes. As you mentioned that one, one thing kind of an unexpected kind of little blessing. It was connected with this this last Sunday to just see God work in the life of one of our congregates who is going through a recent cancer diagnosis, and we have implemented the online to be able people can watch our services online, and that can be a great ministry to folks who can’t be here physically. And there is this one member of our church who, you know, we’re all into the details of the service and how did it go and all this, and then we get this text, the pastors get this text of this member of our church who watched and was just blessed by the Word of God. And to say that this ministered to my soul in a specific way, to me it was like, it was a super encouraging thing and almost like a little bit of a rebuke of like, God is doing with His Word such things that are way out of what we could even try to manipulate. And then was just, it was just really encouraging and humbling to say, yes, this is such, God’s word does its work and might minister in ways that we don’t know. So that was just a kind of a cool little blessing that I was praising God for this past week.

Micah: Steve, what’s the work of God to testify?

Steve: Yeah, I appreciate the question. I love this question and I love the opportunity to just be able to publicly testify about God. You know, as a pastor, there are many times that you get involved in people’s lives and it’s hard to know when to bring out those things and talk about it publicly. You’re not looking to put somebody in an odd spotlight that would embarrass them. But I would take this opportunity. There is a gal who has been going through a very difficult work situation and over the course of, I mean, well over a year, but in the last year, it’s been very difficult for her and she would talk, we would pray about it together. And as a pastor, you want to, you want to be the Messiah, even though you’re not the Messiah, you want to try to fix it. You want to try and, and it’s like, you keep bringing it before the Lord and encourage and point towards scripture. But it’s like, God has to do something if something’s going to change. And so they, this gal took some steps and put her in a position where, you know, it’s like, okay, now God, what are you going to do? And there’s just this tension of like, okay, God has to do something or, and what’s that gonna look like? And like two weeks ago, we were talking after the service and I was asking her about it again and she just poured out her heart and wept and just praised God because in the midst of a very dark valley, the Lord opened up a door and she is out of that valley. That’s not to say everything is different. And it’s the type of thing where you look at and go, that was nothing but God. It was just God at work.

And not everybody gets to see that, but I get the joy of as a pastor being in people’s lives and being able to see that on such a regular basis. And it’s like, wow, our God is awesome.

Micah: Amen. I appreciate that opportunity to testify of God’s grace. And I thank you men for being with us on the podcast. For all our listeners, I hope that you are encouraged by the faithful preparation of your pastor and all that are involved with it. And we’re so thankful for the ways that we get to come alongside a central seminary to encourage and strengthen, to assist the New Testament churches. And this is just one of those ways. So we hope you have a wonderful week. Thanks for listening.

For all our listeners, I hope that you are encouraged by the faithful preparation of your pastor and all that are involved with it.

Thanks for listening to the Central Seminary Podcast. Our mission at Central Seminary is to assist New Testament churches in equipping spiritual leaders for Christ-exalting biblical ministry.

Since its founding in 1956, Central Seminary has sought to provide serious students of God’s Word with robust theological education as they prepare for ministry. We have graduates around the world who are serving in countless ways to spread the gospel and proclaim the name of Jesus Christ. Find out more at our website, centralseminary.edu.

 

 

 About the First Baptist Church of St. Francis

The mission of First Baptist Church is to lead people to Jesus Christ and grow together as faithful disciples.

 

 

If you have an idea or suggestion for future podcasts, send us a note at communications@centralseminary.edu

Alumni Highlights: Spring 2024

Alumni Highlights: Spring 2024

Highlights from our alumni serving in Christ-exalting biblical ministry worldwide. 

On Monday, March 4, Pastor Seth Brickley (MDiv ’16) and Eureka Baptist Church (St. Croix Falls, WI) hosted their 3rd Annual Pastors Gathering. Pastor Seth has served as pastor at Eureka since 2017.

Pastor Matt Morrell (MDiv ’02) led discussions on the topic of preaching with conversations on:

    • The Priority of Preaching
    • The Preparation for Preaching
    • Pitfalls & Problems in Preaching

Other alumni taking part in the Pastors Gathering were Pastor Dave Stertz (MDiv ’14) from Sunrise Bible Church (North Branch, MN), Pastors Rory Martin (MDiv ’17) and Nate Wagner (MDiv ’22) from Liberty Baptist Church (Eden Prairie, MN), and Micah Tanis (MDiv ’13), Director of Communications at Central.

 

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.”

Dr. Jeff Rich (MDiv ’12), has served as Pastor of Grace Community Bible Church (Richfield, MN) since its founding in 2009. Last week Pastor Rich spoke in chapel on “Four Aspects of the Light of the Gospel” from Luke 11:14-28.

 

Dr. Dan Miller (MDiv ’90, ThM ’98), lead pastor of Eden Baptist Church (Burnsville, MN) spoke in chapel yesterday on “The Demonstration of God’s Sovereignty” from 1 Kings 20.

Read Pastor Miller’s recent article on Preaching Lessons from John Chrysostom at DesiringGod.

 

Pastor Matthew Pilch (MDiv ’14), serves as pastor of Grace Fellowship Baptist Church in Port St. Lucie, FL.

 

Matthew is in his 17th year with the 204th Army Reserve Band at Ft. Snelling (after 4 years on active duty with the 76th Army Band and 10th Mountain Division Band) as a trombonist, pianist, Emcee, and drum major. You might also catch Matthew on WCTS Radio reading the daily Bible verse.

 

Luke Tanis (MDiv ’18) serves as a missionary in Malta. In February Luke hosted a young adults fellowship with almost 40 in attendance.

Luke, Anna, and their three children (Theo, Layla, Arlo) will be returning to the States for a summer furlough to visit family and supporting churches. (Read Luke & Anna’s Winter 2024 Prayer Letter)

 

Pastor Steve Brower (MDiv ’08) has served as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of St. Francis, MN, since graduating from Central. Steve is our guest this week on The Central Seminary Podcast (Ep. 48 Preparing the Congregation for Worship).

 

Pastor Jared Page (MDiv ’21) serves at Fourth Baptist Church of Plymouth as Pastor for Students and Seniors. Jared shared some great insights on Ministry to Seniors on The Central Seminary Podcast (Ep. 47).

 

Pat Passig (MABS ’99) stopped by the Central booth while attending the CoRE Conference at Bob Jones University on “The Return of Hope: Depression in the Local Church.” Pat continues to take classes and serve in women’s counseling in Greenville, SC. Pat served in the Central library for 37 years.

 

For our Central alumni, if you’d like to share an update from your area of ministry, visit the Update Alumni Contact Form. 

 

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Gavin Ortlund’s book, Finding the Right Hills to Die On, explores how different doctrines affect different levels of Christian fellowship. Top-rank doctrines are essential for Christian fellowship, second-rank doctrines affect some levels of fellowship, and third-rank doctrines should not be permitted to hinder Christian fellowship at any level. One doctrine that Ortlund selects to illustrate the third rank is young-versus-old-earth creationism.

Full disclosure: Ortlund has critiqued me on this topic in the past. A decade ago I questioned the Gospel Coalition for embracing “progressive creationists” among its leadership while claiming to defend biblical authority. Ortlund responded with a refutation of more than twice the length of my original essay while still leaving some of my main contentions untouched. I did not rejoin then and would not now if Ortlund had not chosen creationism as an example doctrine over which Christians should not divide.

In Finding the Right Hills to Die On, Ortlund offers one short and one long reason for seeing the age of the earth as a third-rank doctrine. The short reason is that this question does not practically affect the “organization of a local church.” My short reply is that if the purpose of a church includes equipping its members against secular myths such as evolution, then getting a biblically correct answer certainly is important.

Ortlund’s longer answer consists of an extended appeal to church history. He cites theologians from the Church Fathers through recent evangelicals who have held to some version of old-earth cosmogeny. I concede Ortlund’s factual data, but I don’t think it means what he claims.

Doctrines are developed at specific defining points in church history. Before those defining points, we can find articulations that are vague and even mistaken. Theologians do not usually take the trouble to work through a doctrine until its significance has been clarified by some challenge. Then they do the hard work of study and definition, after which the imprecision of earlier articulations is no longer permissible.

In the case of creationism, the defining point was triggered when Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859. The timing was not propitious for doctrinal definition, however, for two reasons. First, the Christian world was still stinging from (mainly false) accusations that biblical literalism had resulted in the Galileo fiasco. Nobody wanted a repeat of that episode, so many were prepared to make exegetical concessions to a putatively scientific theory. The second reason is that almost simultaneously, religious liberalism began to take over the mainline denominations. Conservative Christians had to defend other fundamentals of the faith. Such individuals were in a poor position to pursue new doctrinal exploration. They were only able to turn seriously to that task during the 1950s and 1960s.

But the Galileo problem is a red herring. Evolution has never been a scientific theory, nor could it ever be. No theory of origins can qualify as science. Scientific method builds upon empirical observation and quantification, leading to the development of cause-and-effect explanatory hypotheses, the verification or falsification of which is subject to repeatable experimentation. No theory of origins can ever be developed in this way. Evolution is naturalistic philosophy or theology masquerading as science.

Imagine Adam coming to full consciousness immediately after creation. The world around him is filled with processes that are already functioning. Fruit hangs on trees, suggesting that arboreal reproduction has been going on for some time. The trees themselves are mature. Indeed, adult instances of every form of life abound. The world is full of empirical evidence that it has a long history. Then God comes to Adam and tells him that this is only day six. What should Adam trust: his senses or God’s word?

The situation in which we find ourselves is no different. Our awareness of the processes has expanded, as has our ability to measure the time those processes take, but our inability to penetrate the veil of beginnings remains intact. If we want to know where we came from, then we have no choice but to take God’s word for it.

God has not expressed Himself ambiguously. While the prose of the creation accounts is elevated, it hardly exceeds ordinary human ken. The language does not contain jargon, technical terms, or complicated structures. Even a child can grasp what the text says; only a skilled exegete can muddy it up.

Some exegetes do just that. They argue that Genesis 2 is out of sequence with Genesis 1, that day six must have involved too much activity for Adam (or God!) to accomplish, and that Genesis 2:4 uses the word day in the generic sense. All such matters are easily explicable, as a quick trip to any decent young-earth creationist web site will show.

What is not explicable is how God could pronounce His creation very good (Gen 1:31) if it included agony, terror, and death, which any old-earth view requires. How could death have entered the world through one man’s sin (Rom 5:12) if it had been going on for millions of years beforehand? There is no good old-earth answer to this question.

The truth is that nobody ever denied young-earth creationism just by reading the Bible (including those Church Fathers whom Ortlund cites). No, the fundamental problem is one of embarrassment. Those Fathers were embarrassed by accusations made by their opponents, so they backtracked from a plain reading of the text. Nowadays, in an age when evolution has been mistaken for science, and science has been mistaken for Truth, some evangelicals are just as embarrassed to hold a young-earth cosmogeny. I would personally be more embarrassed to appear at the Bema and have to explain why I ignored the plain words in which God chose to communicate.

Ten years ago, Ortlund criticized me for not being willing to “advance the conversation.” The truth is that I don’t see a conversation to advance—not a serious one. Evangelicals who reject young-earth creationism spend massive amounts of energy and creativity to try to explain why Scripture cannot mean what it plainly says.

But young-earth creationism is important. Too much hangs on it to relegate it to third rank. Through creation we understand who we are, what our nature is, what place we occupy, what we are made for, and what went wrong. We understand why we sin, why we suffer, and why we die. We understand what Christ had to do to make right what was wrong, and we glimpse what a restored creation must look like. To some extent, any old-earth view is going to skew the answers to these questions.

Not all old-earth views are equally obnoxious. Not all of them need to hinder Christian fellowship at every level (though some—for example, the denial of a historical Adam—should). To suggest, however, as Ortlund does, that “we should not divide, at any level” [126] over these issues is simply astonishing.

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.


 


When Adam Fell

Lazarus Spengler (1479–1534); tr. Johann Christian Jacobi (1670–1750)

When Adam fell, the Frame entire
Of Nature was infected,
The Source, whence came the Poison dire,
Was not to be corrected,
But by God’s Grace, which saves our Race
From its entire Destruction.
The fatal Lust, indulged at first,
Of Death was the Production.

Since Eve by Satan was enticed
T’indulge her Deviation
From God’s Command (which she despised)
And ruin the Creation;
What should be done? but God the Son
Must in our very Nature
Retrieve our Loss by Blood and Cross,
And save the Rebel-Creature.

By one Man’s Guilt we are enslaved
To Sin, Death, Hell and Devil;
But by another’s Grace was saved
Mankind from all this Evil:
And as we all, by Adam’s Fall
Were sentenced to Damnation;
So the Man-God has by his Blood
Regained our lost Salvation.

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 11: Premillennialism

In his book Finding the Right Hills to Die On, Gavin Ortlund lists two specific teachings as third-rank doctrines over which Christians should not divide. The first is the timing and nature of the millennium. Under this heading he also introduces the various views on the timing of the rapture. The second teaching includes the recency of God creating the world and the nature of the days of creation. I propose to devote one essay each to interacting with Ortlund about these topics.

Why does Ortlund believe that the millennium ought to be treated as relatively unimportant? First, he argues that the millennium is only taught in one passage of the Bible (Rev 20), and that passage is difficult to interpret. Second, he suggests that differences over the millennium have fewer practical consequences than differences such as modes of baptism or whether to speak in tongues. Third, he notes that while the Christian church has reached no consensus on the millennium, premillennialism has historically been the minority view, while dispensational premillennialism is a relatively recent development. These reasons, he suggests, should “at least, discourage us from elevating [premillennialism] as a litmus test of orthodoxy” [134].

This last statement simply means that Ortlund doesn’t see premillennialism as a fundamental of the faith—but few if any theologians do. I can agree that premillennialism is not a fundamental, but that does not mean (as Ortlund states) that “we should not divide, at any level” over this issue [126]. While premillennialism is not essential to the gospel, it should and does matter to some levels of Christian cooperation. Differences over the millennium might well lead us to limit our fellowship at some levels rather than limiting our message about it.

The reason is straightforward. Premillennialism is not an isolated doctrine. It exerts considerable influence over other doctrines within the system of faith. It carries significant practical implications. Its denial opens the door to serious error, and Christians have regularly gone through that door with disastrous results. Furthermore, premillennialism is directly related to our understanding of the faithfulness of God.

Ortlund is wrong when he says that premillennialism is taught in only one text of Scripture. Granted, only one text mentions a thousand years, but the duration of the millennium is not the critical point. The crucial question is whether God will have a kingdom on earth that is ruled mediatorially by the Lord Jesus Christ and in which the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants will be exhaustively fulfilled. Thus, one’s view of the millennium will largely determine one’s view of the present and future status of Israel as a people of God. It will influence one’s understanding of which biblical promises and blessings can be claimed by the church. It will affect one’s perspective on the integration of Mosaic Law into Christian living. It is both cause and effect of the hermeneutic that one uses when interpreting unfulfilled prophecies—or even in deciding which prophecies are still unfulfilled. It ties directly to one’s understanding of concepts like the kingdom of God, the throne of David, the people of God, and the present status of the New Covenant.

The practical effects of premillennialism (or its denial) are just as far-reaching. Premillennialists have regularly been blamed for escapism and a lack of social ethics. They in turn have sometimes charged their opponents with a lack of urgency for missions and evangelism. While both accusations are overblown, it is beyond clear that views of the millennium affect philosophy of ministry. If you doubt this, try to imagine John Hagee and Doug Wilson getting along as pastors in the same church.

Most seriously, the non-premillennial views have regularly opened the door to the heresy of antisemitism. This is not to say that all amillennialists or postmillennialists are antisemites or that no premillennialists are. Nevertheless, replacement theologies (which undergird most non-premillennial eschatologies) have regularly been used to justify the most wickedly anti-Jewish sentiments and actions, while premillennialism resists being turned in that direction. Amillennialism in particular has a long history of legitimating the persecution of Jewish people.

The shape of the millennium does at certain levels even impinge upon the gospel because it affects how we can claim the faithfulness of God. In Romans 8, the apostle Paul gives Christians a wonderful description of the commitments God has made to believers through Christ. The chapter begins with no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, and it ends with no separation from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. These glorious promises, however, raise a serious question. Hasn’t God made promises before, namely to Israel? And hasn’t God failed to keep those promises? Why, then, should we trust God to keep His promises to us?

This question clearly touches the gospel itself. If God can take promises made to Israel and transfer them to the church, then He can just as well take the salvation that He has promised to church saints and transfer it to someone else. Paul’s answer, contained in Romans 9–11, is that God will certainly fulfill His promises to Israel. The only eschatology that satisfactorily answers the question with which Paul grapples in this passage is premillennialism.

In brief, even though premillennialism is not a fundamental of the faith, it cannot be demoted to a third-rank doctrine. It exerts too much influence throughout the system of faith, it affects too many practical areas, its denial opens the door to a grave error that many Christians have actually committed, and it provides the most coherent answer to the question of whether God can be trusted to keep His commitments.

Differences over the millennium do not have to affect every level of Christian fellowship. Even fundamentalists do not claim that they should. Nevertheless, to insist that they should have no effect upon any level of fellowship is astonishing. In fact, churches that value the kingdom of God ought to expect significant cohesion among their members in their understanding of the nature and timing of His kingdom. If those churches require a particular millennial view, then they are acting well within their purview as the pillar and ground of the truth.

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.


 


Hark, the Song of Jubilee

James Montgomery (1771–1854)

Hark, the song of jubilee
loud as mighty thunders roar,
or the fullness of the sea
when it breaks upon the shore;
Alleluia! for the Lord
God omnipotent shall reign!
Alleluia! let the word
sound from city, hill, and plain.

Alleluia! hark, the sound
from the depths unto the skies,
wakes above, beneath, around
all creation’s harmonies;
see the Victor’s banner furled;
sheathed his sword, he speaks— “Tis done!”—
and the kingdoms of this world
are the kingdom of his Son.

He shall reign from pole to pole
with illimitable sway;
he shall reign when, like a scroll,
yonder heav’ns have passed away;
then the end: beneath his rod
his last enemy shall fall;
Alleuia! Christ in God,
God in Christ, is all in all.

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

The Man Who Loved Both Doc And Cedar

Not many people could say that they had a close personal relationship with and were mentored by R. V. Clearwaters and B. Myron Cedarholm, but Gerry Carlson could.

Gerald Bruce Carlson was born August 17, 1941 to Dr. George and Evelyn Carlson in Chicago where his father pastored Tabernacle Baptist Church, the very church where the Conservative Baptist Movement held its organizing meeting in 1943. When Gerry was five years old, his family moved to Minneapolis so that his father could assume the pastorate at Lake Harriet Baptist Church and also teach part-time at Northwestern Theological Seminary alongside the seminary dean, R. V. Clearwaters. George Carlson and R. V. Clearwaters were close allies in the first decade of the fledgling Conservative Baptist movement as they served together on various local and national boards and committees. George served as the president of the Minnesota Baptist Convention and as Vice-President of the Conservative Baptist Association.

Gerry loved living in beautiful southwest Minneapolis, and it was quite a jolt to the serenity he enjoyed there when his father accepted a call to the Marquette Manor Baptist Church on the southwest side of Chicago in 1954. But an even greater shock to Gerry, his mother, and his three sisters came three years later in 1957 when his dad was killed in a plane crash as he was headed to Canada on a hunting trip. A man Gerry affectionally called “Uncle Myron” broke the tragic news to Gerry in the living room of his family’s parsonage.

Myron Cedarholm would also preach at George Carlson’s funeral in what Gerry refers to as “the greatest gospel service I have ever known” (unpublished paper, “Doc and Cedar,” 7, March 2017). Gerry’s relationship with the Cedarholms began early in his life as his family would stay with them every summer at their cabin on Lake Nebagamon in northwest Wisconsin, and “Cedar” (as Gerry would refer to him in his adult years) became “somewhat of a surrogate father” to Gerry in the years following his dad’s untimely death.

After Gerry graduated from high school in Chicago, he attended Pillsbury Baptist Bible College where he earned a bachelor’s degree in Bible and Pastorology in 1963. During his college years he served as a youth leader at Fourth Baptist Church in Minneapolis, and it was here that Gerry met his future wife, Connie. They were married in 1965, and their wedding ceremony was conducted by their pastor, Doc Clearwaters. The Lord would bless Gerry and Connie with three children and four grandchildren during their 58 years together.

Upon graduation from Pillsbury, Gerry and many of the other future pastors who had commenced with him traveled north 65 miles to attend Central Seminary. After receiving his M.Div. degree from Central Seminary in 1967, Gerry accepted a call to serve as youth pastor at Calvary Baptist Church in Normal, Illinois, where his friend, Bud Weniger, was pastor.

Gerry’s time in Normal was anything but normal in the wider world of northern Baptist fundamentalism as the Conservative Baptist movement splintered and as different views of educational leadership strategy affected schools like Pillsbury College. Gerry was on the Pillsbury campus for College Days with his youth group in May 1968, just three days after Myron Cedarholm had resigned, and he stayed in the Cedarholm’s Presidential House (where Cedar had been confined by the board in “house arrest,” as some referred to it). Four weeks later, Myron Cedarholm participated in Gerry’s ordination service in Normal, and Cedarholm took the occasion to make the first public announcement that Maranatha Baptist Bible College would be starting up that fall (personal email to author, July 17, 2009).

Gerry would minister in Normal for three years before returning to Minnesota in 1970 to take the pastorate at the newly planted Faith Baptist Church of St. Paul. He spent eight years there and then moved on to work for the American Association of Christian Schools from 1978–1988. He served as both Field Director and Executive Director. Two items of note occurred during these years: 1) Gerry received the honorary Doctor of Divinity from Maranatha in 1983, and 2) Gerry was invited to speak at Central chapel in 1986 with Doc Clearwaters in attendance from whom he received a warm welcome. Commenting on this last point, Gerry later wrote that “time can heal wounds and I was glad for that” (“Doc and Cedar,” 17).

God’s next appointment for Gerry was the position of Vice President at Maranatha Baptist Bible College, where he served from 1988–1994. It is likely due to his 16 years of educational experience with AACS and Maranatha that led the board of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College to appoint Gerry as the sixth president of the institution in 1994. But his tenure at his alma mater would last only one year.

In a short book Gerry wrote about his stint at Pillsbury (What Happened at Pillsbury? [Nystrom, 1996]), he explained why he experienced great frustration with the faculty who did not want to head in the same philosophical direction that he (and the board) felt the school should go. In an email to me, Gerry described his one-year presidency as “my suicide mission” (email to author, July 1, 2009). I think it is fair to say the knot of difficulties Carlson experienced in that one-year stint were many years in the making and far too complex for anyone to untie in the short amount of time the board and faculty desired.

Leaving Minnesota for good, Gerry joined the staff at Positive Action for Christ in Rocky Mount, North Carolina. He would work with this ministry longer than any other in his life while serving as Director of Marketing and Development from 1996–2014.

In 2014 the Carlsons moved to Maranatha Village in Sebring, Florida, where Gerry helped with marketing and development for the retirement community up until the Lord took him home on January 30, 2024.

The Lord used Gerry Carlson in pastoral ministry (13 years) and Christian education (35 years). His labors in Christian education included serving on the administrations of two Bible colleges, providing assistance to Christian schools and colleges in his work for AACS, and promoting the publication and distribution of Bible curriculum for churches and Christian schools. His mentors included significant figures in the Conservative Baptist movement. These men included his father, George, his father’s ally and friend, Doc Clearwaters, and his “surrogate father,” Uncle Myron. I believe all three men would be greatly encouraged by who their mentee became: a faithful and kind friend to many, a loving husband and father to his family, and a fruitful and diligent servant in the Lord’s harvest field.

divider

This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament 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.


 


May the Grace of Christ Our Savior

John Newton (1725–1807)

May the grace of Christ our Savior
and the Father’s boundless love,
with the Holy Spirit’s favor,
rest upon us from above.
Thus may we abide in union
with each other and the Lord,
and possess in sweet communion
joys which earth cannot afford.

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Larry Pettegrew (1943–2024): A Life Lived to the Glory of God

One of the favorite books in my library is a festschrift written in honor of Larry Pettegrew (published by Shepherds Press in 2022). I value it so highly not because of its content (though the 14 essays are certainly noteworthy) but because of the personal note of thanks Larry wrote to me on the title page. One sentence stood out to me: “We’ve been friends for a long time, and your faithful ministry has been a blessing and encouragement to me.” This sort of Barnabas-like behavior was so typical of Larry; he had the knack of saying the very things to you that you wished you would have said to him first.

Larry Pettegrew was born and raised in Danville, Illinois. His home church was First Baptist Church, where he met his wife Linda in junior high. They were married in 1966, the year after he graduated from Bob Jones University with a Bachelor of Arts degree. God blessed their union with three children and eight grandchildren, and 2023 marked 57 years together.

After college Larry moved to Minnesota so he could attend Central Seminary, where he earned the M.R.E., M.Div., and Th.M. degrees. In 1968 Larry began his teaching ministry, which would span more than 50 years. He would serve on the faculty at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College until 1980 as the head of the Christian Education and Bible departments. During his time at Pillsbury, Larry earned the Th.D. degree in Historical Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1976. His dissertation on the Niagara Bible Conference is still considered the best resource available on the significant contribution that annual gathering provided for dispensational theology.

From 1980–1995 (with the exception of one year) Larry served in several capacities at Central Seminary: professor of systematic and historical theology, registrar, and academic dean. After his first year at Central, Larry moved to Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, where he would teach for only one year (1981–1982) before coming back to Central. It seems the main impetus behind Larry’s return to Central was the encouragement of his friend, Doug McLachlan, who was the newly installed pastor of Fourth Baptist Church and who wanted Larry to assume dean responsibilities at the seminary.

In 1995 the Pettegrews moved to Sun Valley, California where Larry worked as a professor of theology at The Master’s Seminary, a position he would hold for 12 years. At the age of 64, when many might have considered retirement, Larry believed the opportunity to serve as Dean and Executive Vice President for the fledgling Shepherds Theological Seminary in Raleigh, North Carolina, was a challenge too exciting to pass up. So in 2007 Larry’s final professorial position began, and he served there until his death on January 30, 2024. Shepherds’ president and founder Stephen Davey described Larry’s work this way: “[He] set out to graciously and wisely construct the structure of our school. He added trusted faculty members and worked hard with our seminary board as we pursued accreditation.”

Consider with me four aspects of Larry’s ministry that demonstrate his good stewardship of the manifold grace of God evidenced in his life: church ministry, writing, teaching, and mentoring.

Although Larry never held a paid position on a pastoral staff, he certainly loved the church and faithfully served in a local church at every one of his teaching posts. Whether he was teaching adult Sunday School, helping other local churches as interim pastor, or serving as a deacon, Larry left an indelible Christ-shaped impression on his brothers and sisters in the local church.

Besides his dissertation on the Niagara Bible Conference (which appeared in 5 parts in the Central Bible Quarterly [19.4–20.4]), Larry published The History of Pillsbury Baptist Bible College (1981) and The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit (2013). He also edited and was the main contributor to Forsaking Israel: How It Happened and Why It Matters (2020). Additionally, he wrote numerous journal articles and book essays. His writing was always clear, well-researched, and immensely helpful.

Larry’s teaching ministry was where he shined most brightly. His students would agree that his classroom instruction was marked by his humble demeanor, clear and careful scholarship, and compassionate concern for students. I was one of the students greatly affected by Larry’s willingness to use his God-given gift for instruction and writing. He taught me church history, systematic theology, apologetics, and pedagogy. In acknowledging this I know that thousands of others in ministry today can say the same thing, whether they had Larry as a professor at Pillsbury, Central, Detroit, Master’s, or Shepherds.

One feature of Larry’s ministry that was not as well-known as his other more public activities was his role as a mentor to so many of us. In my case he functioned as a model in many ways. First, he showed me what being a wonderful friend and teaching colleague should look like by the way he interacted with my dad when they worked together on the faculty at Pillsbury. Second, he taught me how to be a seminary professor and Bible teacher by how he exemplified love for God, excellence in the teaching craft, thorough knowledge of his subject, and humble concern for every student. Another discipline Larry demonstrated was prayer for his students. Many years after I had graduated from seminary Larry remarked to me in passing, “I pray for you every Thursday.” While I suspect that he could not have prayed for all of his former students in this way, it buoyed my own spirit significantly that I was on his prayer list, and I have been so affected by Larry’s example that I, too, pray for a long list of former students on a weekly basis. Third, Larry exhibited for me how to be an effective seminary dean. While I caught only glimpses of this as a seminary student, I learned much more in the years after I became the dean at Central in 2010. We attended a dean’s conference together, and even there, I saw him actively taking notes and pursuing ways he could improve in this calling.

Central’s chancellor Doug McLachlan described Larry in an email he sent to him in July 2022: “I believe you, Larry, have fleshed out this [paradigm of the simultaneous expression of holiness and love] admirably in the world of Christian scholarship, both in your proclamation and defense of the truth of God’s Word. Countless students and servants of the Lord have been helped by your commitment to this Christlike paradigm of doing ministry and mission as a theologian…. Larry, it is this virtue especially that has characterized your ministry for a lifetime—approved; no need to be ashamed; a good steward of Holy Scripture; rightly handling the word of truth. We express our gratitude to you for this ‘long obedience in the same direction.’”

I praise the Lord for finding Larry faithful and putting him into the ministry, and I also praise Him for His kind providence in allowing me to study with, learn from, and enjoy the friendship of a man of God like Larry Pettegrew.

divider

This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament 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 Faith That Will Not Shrink

William Hiley Bathurst (1796–1877)

O for a faith that will not shrink,
Though pressed by every foe,
That will not tremble on the brink
Of any earthly woe.

That will not murmur nor complain
Beneath the chastening rod,
But, in the hour of grief or pain,
Will lean upon its God;

A faith that shines more bright and clear
When tempests rage without:
That when in danger knows no fear,
In darkness feels no doubt;

That bears, unmoved, the world’s dread frown,
Nor heeds the scornful smile;
That seas of trouble cannot drown,
Nor Satan’s arts beguile;

A faith that keeps the narrow way
Till life’s last hour is fled,
And with a pure and heavenly ray
Illumes a dying bed:

Lord, give us such a faith as this;
And then, what e’er may come,
I’ll taste, e’en now, the hallowed bliss
Of an eternal home.

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Most Interesting Reading of 2023, Part Three

I must have encountered more interesting books than usual during the past year. At any rate, I’ve never had to take more than two weeks’ worth of In the Nick of Time to list them, but this year I do. As ever, I warn you that just because I found these books interesting does not mean that you will.

Kruger, Michael. Bully Pulpit: Confronting the Problem of Spiritual Abuse in the Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2022.

In my experience, the typical book on spiritual abuse boils down to, “My friends and I wanted to live really carnal lives, but a pastor told us it was wrong, so we’re mad.” While spiritual abuse is less common than some pretend, it does happen, and it should never be tolerated. What we need is a responsible approach to diagnosing and treating it by someone who understands that pastoral duty sometimes involves wounding as well as healing. Kruger provides that approach. He is a seminary president with a pastor’s heart who knows and understands the Scriptures, and who can apply them well. This may be the best book on spiritual abuse that I’ve ever read.

McIntire, Carl. Author of Liberty. Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon, 1946.

________. Rise of the Tyrant. Collingswood, NJ: Christian Beacon, 1945.

When he published these two volumes, Carl McIntire was the most publicly recognizable fundamentalist in the world. Both books wrestle with the problems of political economy, seeking to provide a biblical and theological underpinning for a Christian response to the problem of free markets versus managed economies. While it is more biblically grounded, McIntire’s approach comes close to that of the Austrian economists which, however, would not be widely known for another decade or so. Ironically, both these books appeared before Carl F. H. Henry’s Uneasy Conscience, where he lambasted fundamentalists for their lack of social and political engagement. Henry certainly knew about McIntire’s work. Perhaps he was simply unwilling to admit that a despised fundamentalist had beaten him to the punch.

Pivek, Holly and R. Douglas Geivett. Counterfeit Kingdom: The Dangers of New Revelation, New Prophets, and New Age Practices in the Church. Nashville: B&H, 2022.

A couple of years back, a friend gave me three books on the New Apostolic Reformation, and I finally got around to reading them this year. While I disagree with Charismatic theology in all its forms, I’ve never gone out of my way to study its variations. Turns out that the NAR is one of the most obnoxious forms, seeking to reintroduce the offices of both prophet and apostle. If Pivek and Geivett are anywhere close to right (and I know Geivett, at least, to be a careful scholar), then the practices that these new prophets and apostles have brought with them are nothing short of bizarre. For an example, run an internet search for “grave sucking.”

Poythress, Vern S. The Mystery of the Trinity: A Trinitarian Approach to the Attributes of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2020.

Everything that Vern Poythress writes is a treat. His style is as clear as polished diamond, and he brings a truly charitable bearing to all his work. In The Mystery of the Trinity he asks whether the traditional doctrine of the Trinity is fully scriptural, or whether it might rely upon some extrabiblical philosophical categories that orthodox theologians have smuggled into their systems. His approach is not to debunk, but to examine. As one might guess, he relies heavily upon Van Tilian philosophical categories into his own perspective—but he knows he is doing it, and he sees it as biblically justified. This is a Big Book, but Poythress handles his topic well.

Ramaswamy, Vivek. Woke: Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam. Nashville: Center Street, 2021.

Since I read this book, the author has entered and left the race for the American presidency. Because I had read it, I believed that his campaign made sense. Ramaswamy comes from the corporate world. He is a Person of Indian Origin and a Person of Color. He is a Hindu. None of this exactly positions him within the supposed White Christian Supremacism of the Republican Party. But he also has a keen sense of how unjust social justice can be. He is particularly concerned with the economic results that arise when businesses are more concerned with scoring points for their social consciences than they are with serving their customers. Ramaswamy has left the presidential race, but his book is still well worth a read.

Stroud, Nick. The Vickers Viscount: The World’s First Turboprop Airliner. Barnsley, UK: Frontline, 2018.

I grew up flying on propliners. One of my earliest memories is of leaving the ground while sitting in the window seat of a Douglas DC-3. Over the years I flew on the Douglas DC-4 and DC-6, the Lockheed Constellation, and the Convair 340. Then the jets took over. Much of my childhood flying was on the Vickers Viscount. This was a British design powered by four Rolls Royce turboprop engines. It was quieter and smoother than the piston-driven airliners, and it had big, round windows that allowed a magnificent view. Nobody else will care about this book, but for me it provided a mental journey to a time when flying was comfortable and airlines treated passengers like people instead of cattle.

Trueman, Carl R. Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022.

In 2020, Carl Trueman published The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, a Great Big Book of intellectual history and social criticism. It is a good book, but far too dense for the ordinary person to understand. Two years later he followed it up with the present volume, which covers much of the same territory but does it in a shorter and more simplified format. I’ll put it bluntly: this is one of those books that every pastor and Christian teacher simply must read.

Yuan, Christopher. Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by God’s Grand Story. New York: Multnomah, 2018.

Christopher Yuan’s background was in drugs, gangs, and homosexuality. He came to Christ in prison, went on to seminary, and eventually became a professor at Moody Bible Institute. In this volume he sets discussions of marriage, singleness, homosexuality, and transgenderism within the context of a biblical theology of sex and gender. I now require this book for my course on Creation, Sex, and Gender. It’s another of those books that every pastor should read.

And that’s my book report for this year. Some of these books you’ll like. Some of them, not so much. But if there are any other Viscount fans out there, drop me a note. We can reminisce together.

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 the Wisdom from Above

James Montgomery (1771–1854)

O for the wisdom from above,
Pure, gentle, peaceable, and mild,
The innocency of the dove,
The meekness of a little child.
Wise may we be to know the truth,
Reveal’d in every Scripture page;
Wise to salvation from our youth,
And wiser grow from stage to stage.

Then if to riper years, we rise,
And well the work of grace be wrought
Within ourselves,—we shall be wise
To teach in turn what we were taught.
Yet still be learning, day by day,
More of God’s Word, God’s way, God’s will;
His law, rejoicing to obey,
Pleas’d His whole pleasure to fulfill,

Wise to win souls, if thus we’re led,
How blest will be our lot below,
Blessings to share, and blessings shed
On all with whom to heaven we go.
So may we reach that home at length,
And, clad in righteousness divine,
Even as the sun, when in his strength,
And as the stars, forever, shine.

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Most Interesting Reading of 2023, Part Two

Other people issue lists of the best books they’ve read or of the books that they want to recommend. I compile a list of the books I found most interesting. They are interesting for a variety of reasons, and one of those reasons may be that they are conspicuously bad. Hey, I’m not suggesting you read these books. For whatever reason they held my attention, but they may not hold yours. Or they just might.

Gagnon, Robert. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdon, 2010.

I previously noted that I teach a course on creation, sex, and gender. In that course I deal with the 2SLGBTQIA+ conglomeration (yes, you read that correctly, and I’ll betcha didn’t know about the latest additions to that text string, eh?). Robert Gagnon’s book on The Bible and Homosexual Practice is presently the most comprehensive response to those who insist that Scripture can be read in an accepting and affirming way. I re-read this work periodically, and it was one of the interesting books I read this year.

Ginna, Peter. What Editors Do: The Art, Craft, & Business of Book Editing. Chicago Guides to Writing, Editing, and Publishing. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2017.

Having never received formal instruction in writing, I try to make books about writing a staple of my reading diet. The University of Chicago publishes a whole series of related guides for writers, and Ginna’s book is one of that series. The book discusses the many levels and varieties of editing. He describes the road that a book must travel to reach publication, and he explains what editors do at each stage of that journey. He also discusses the advantages and challenges of freelance editing and of self-publishing.

Greyland, Moira. The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon. Kouvola, Finland: Castalia House, 2017.

I hesitate even to mention this book. It is in many respects a good book, but it is a book that deals with a very bad thing, and it pulls no verbal punches in exposing the thing that it deals with. Moira Greyland was the daughter of celebrated author Marion Zimmer Bradley and famed numismatist Walter Breen, both of whom were leaders within gay paganism. The book describes what it was like growing up in their household with all its perversions and abuses. The message of the book is that pedophilia and abuse are hardwired into sexual perversion, including homosexuality. I do NOT recommend this book for most people, but it provides a bracing slap for anyone who thinks that the LGBTQIA+ agenda is harmless. As a counter to the prevailing narrative of acceptance and affirmation, I found Greyland’s story riveting.

Grunenberg, Antonia. Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger: History of a Love. Studies in Continental Thought. Translated by Peg Birmingham et al. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2017.

Martin Heidegger was probably the most influential philosopher of the 20th Century. He was also a Nazi. One of his students—and his lovers—was Hannah Arendt, who was born into a Prussian Jewish family. Arendt would later go on to write whole books condemning the kind of totalitarianism that she witnessed in National Socialism. Yet after the war, somehow Heidegger and Arendt were able to rebuild their friendship, in spite of the fact that she had been forced to flee Hitler’s Germany. Grunenberg explores their mutual intellectual influence and the recovery of their friendship. File this book under Philosophy.

Herriot, James. All Creatures Great and Small. New York: Saint Martin’s, 1972.

All Creatures is the first in a series of more-or-less autobiographical books from an English veterinarian who practiced during the mid-20th Century. I’ve known of the work since it was first published in the 1970s, but I never got around to reading any of it until this year. It is bucolic, gentle, good-humored, and homey. Spending time with this book was just fun. It left me wanting to read the rest of the series.

Hummel, Daniel G. The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle Over End Times Shaped a Nation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2023.

The Central Seminary faculty read this book together, then discussed it during our annual in-service meeting. While we could quibble with some details, we give full credit to Hummel for his masterful knowledge of the history and varieties of dispensationalism. We particularly appreciate his discussion of the differences between scholarly and popular dispensationalism, as well as his noting the difficulties that scholars encounter in trying to articulate a responsible dispensationalism while the popularizers are making so much noise. Hummel has given us a valuable contribution to the discipline.

Koestler, Arthur. The Thirteenth Tribe. San Pedro, CA: GSG & Associates, 1976.

The thesis of Koestler’s book is that modern Jews—especially Ashkenazi or Eastern European Jews—are not descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Instead, they are the offspring of a Japethic kingdom, the Khazars, who flourished in Asia during the Middle Ages. Koestler posits that the entire tribe of Khazars converted to Judaism as a religion, but that their bloodline remains non-Semitic. Notably, Koestler’s work has become popular in certain Anglo-Israelite and White Supremacist circles. These types find in Koestler a basis for denying the Abrahamic blessing to modern Jewish people. Of course, Koestler wrote before DNA sequencing was a thing. DNA analysis has provided no convincing support for his theory.

A thing is about to occur that has never happened before. My list of “most interesting books” is going to have to spill over into a third week. I express my apologies if this isn’t your cup of tea. On the other hand, if your tastes are odd in the same ways that mine are, you may find that the remaining list will be useful.

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.


 


Blest Are the Pure in Heart

John Keble (1792–1866)

Blest are the pure in heart,
for they shall see our God;
the secret of the Lord is theirs,
their soul is Christ’s abode.

The Lord, who left the heavens
our life and peace to bring,
to dwell in lowliness with men,
their pattern and their King;

Still to the lowly soul
he doth himself impart,
and for his dwelling and his throne
chooseth the pure in heart.

Lord, we thy presence seek;
may ours this blessing be;
give us a pure and lowly heart,
a temple meet for thee.

Central Travels

Central Travels

Throughout the year, you may see us at a conference or seminar in your area. This offers a chance to connect with prospective students and our alumni. We’d love to have you stop by. Bring a friend by our booth to learn more about Central Seminary or grab a pen and remember us in prayer.

A couple upcoming conferences and events we’ll be attending are:

54th Annual Evangelical Seminary Deans’ Council

Phoenix, AZ

Feb 8-10

Dr. Jon Pratt & Dr. Brett Williams

-and- 

2024 Bible Conference at Bob Jones University

Greenville, SC

Tue-Fri, February 13-16

Dr. Matt Morrell, President

 

 

If you’re in the area of one of these events, drop us a note at info@centralseminary.edu

Thanks for sharing the word about Central Seminary!

 

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Most Interesting Reading of 2023, Part One

Every year at about this time I issue disclaimers. The disclaimers attach to a listing of the most interesting reading that I have completed over the preceding year. What the disclaimers state is that (1) interesting isn’t necessarily the same thing as valuable, and (2) what interests me may not interest anybody else. In short, the following titles may indicate nothing more than my own idiosyncrasies. Still, of all the books I read this year, these stand out as the ones that most captured and held my attention.

Beeke, Joel R. (ed). The Beauty and Glory of the Christian Worldview: Puritan Reformed Conference. Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage, 2017.

Once upon a time, when evangelicals held large conferences, they used to collect and publish the addresses in book form. The custom has now been largely abandoned, but that is exactly what Joel Beeke and Puritan Reformed Seminary have done in this volume. It contains the addresses delivered at the seminary’s conference on Christian worldview in August of 2016. I enjoyed this book as a hybrid of theology, biblical studies and devotional writing. It was good for my soul. Special mention should be made of Michael Barrett’s beautiful exposition of Ecclesiastes and of the two essays by Charles Barrett.

Bennett, Jeffrey. What Is Relativity? An Intuitive Introduction to Einstein’s Ideas and Why They Matter. New York: Columbia University Press, 2014.

My area of expertise—systematic theology—is not exactly one of the STEM disciplines. In the interest of broadening my understanding of the world, however, I try to do a certain amount of reading in the sciences. I picked up Bennett’s book on a whim and found it a delightful explanation of Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity. Bennett has the gift of making difficult ideas understandable for the non-technical mind. While his writing does not make the results of Einstein’s ideas seem any less strange, it does make the ideas themselves more comprehensible, and Bennett helps his readers to understand why those ideas follow from basic assumptions.

Bock, Darrell L. and Daniel B. Wallace. Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010.

C. S. Lewis set up the famous trilemma that Jesus must be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. Against Lewis, modern criticism insists that Jesus was none of these. Instead, He was (is) essentially a legend, a mythic character who cannot be known historically. Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace are both professors of New Testament, specializing respectively in Jesus studies and textual criticism. In this book they offer a thoughtful, well-researched, but highly readable response to the “Jesus is just a legend” position that sees the New Testament as hopelessly corrupt and Christianity as the product of later developments. This is a book that an ordinary Christian can read and enjoy.

Callahan, Patti. Becoming Mrs. Lewis. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2018.

Reading this book was a mistake—literally. I misunderstood its genre, assuming that it was biography, when in fact it is historical fiction. Its value is that the fictional aspects are structured around and faithful to what is known about Joy Davidman, the woman who eventually married C. S. Lewis. If I had realized that it was historical fiction, I would not have read it. But I would have missed an enchanting retelling of the Lewis–Davidman story.

Cleaver, Thomas McKelvey. The Frozen Chosen: The 1st Marine Division and the Battle for the Chosin Reservoir. Oxford, UK: Osprey, 2016.

When I was growing up, my best friend’s dad was a sergeant at Wurtsmith Air Force Base. Only later did I learn that he had been in the Marines during the Korean Conflict—the man never talked about that part of his life. Later still I discovered that he was one of the Frozen Chosen who were trapped behind the Chinese lines in bitter, subzero temperatures. This book retells that story from a political and military perspective. It explains the division between the Koreas, the involvement of the Chinese, and the failures of American policy that led to the conflict. It also narrates the near-defeat of American Marines (and some Army) during the battle of the Chosin Reservoir. I don’t read much military history, but this work helped me to understand a conflict that has not been resolved yet.

Cook, Becket. A Change of Affection: A Gay Man’s Incredible Story of Redemption. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2019.

I teach a doctoral course on creation, sex, and gender, which means that I have to do a fair bit of reading in and about LGBTQIA+ topics. I always find it refreshing to come across personal written testimonies from people who have been in that world but who have been reached for Christ. Becket Cook offers such a testimony in this book. His story begins with his success as a set designer in the fashion industry and ends up with him completing a seminary degree and becoming a pastor. Cook’s is a story of genuine conversion by the grace of God.

Doyle, Andrew. The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World. London, UK: Constable, 2022.

Be warned: the very first line of this book contains a double obscenity. The author is not a Christian and not even very conservative. He is liberal and secular—and therein lies the strength of his appeal. He has become convinced that the current social justice ideology is a new religion and that its adherents are zealous to enforce it throughout their civilization, by extirpating all heretics and unbelievers if necessary. Doyle’s claims seem extreme when he first makes them, but he backs them up with persuasive arguments, evidence, and narratives. I think that this is one of those books that will help conservatives and Christians to understand what the Left is really after.

Dreher, Rod. Live Not By Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents. New York: Sentinel, 2020.

The author is, of course, a well-known conservative. Like Andrew Doyle, he argues that progressivism in its current forms is (false) religion. Unlike Doyle, he sees the best antidote in countervailing, true religion. In this book, Dreher takes his cues from professing Christians and others who survived the totalitarianism of Soviet communism. While there are points worth quibbling, this book provides part of the helpful preparation in which Christians must engage if they are to face a future of tyranny.

Next week I shall continue with my list of “Most Interesting Reading of 2023.” Remember, I’m not necessarily recommending any book that I list here. I’m not saying it’s a good book, or that everything in it is true. It only appears here because I found it interesting.

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.


 


That Man Is Blest

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

That man is blest who, fearing God,
from sin restrains his feet,
who will not stand with wicked men,
who shuns the scorners’ seat.

Yea, blest is he who makes God’s law
his portion and delight,
and meditates upon that law
with gladness day and night.

That man is nourished like a tree
set by the river’s side;
its leaf is green, its fruit is sure,
and thus his works abide.

The wicked, like the driven chaff,
are swept from off the land;
they shall not gather with the just,
nor in the judgment stand.

The LORD will guard the righteous well,
their way to Him is known;
the way of sinners, far from God,
shall surely be o’erthrown.

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part Ten: Complementarianism As a Secondary Doctrine

Gavin Ortlund explains his theory of doctrinal triage in the book Finding the Right Hills to Die On. His system involves three levels of doctrinal importance. Primary doctrines are essential to the gospel and to Christian fellowship. Secondary doctrines, while not essential to the gospel, do affect some levels of Chrisitan fellowship. Tertiary doctrines should not define Christian fellowship.

To illustrate second-rank doctrines, Ortlund deals with three specific areas of disagreement. The first is baptism. The second is miraculous gifts. The third is gender roles as understood in the debate between complementarians (who believe that God assigns specific leadership roles to men but not women) and egalitarians (who believe that true equality between the sexes requires opening all leadership roles to women).

Ortlund recognizes that both the complementarian and egalitarian labels apply to a range of positions and that not everyone under each label can be treated the same. Nevertheless, he notes that the differences between the two positions are so practical that the issue cannot be avoided and that no truly mediating position will be possible. A church either will or will not ordain women to the pastorate, for example. It will or will not disciple married couples to recognize male headship within the home (117). The necessity of these choices leads Ortlund to insist that the dispute between complementarianism and egalitarianism cannot be treated as a third-rank difference.

Furthermore, Ortlund sets this debate in a larger social context. The West in general, and America in particular, is backing away from any notion of natural and determinative masculinity and femininity. These and related categories, such as marriage, are hotly contested, and this secular debate adds urgency to the dispute between complementarians and egalitarians (117–118).

Then Ortlund notes that the debate over gender roles is often a debate over how one interprets and appropriates Scripture. This is where he might have said more, for egalitarians follow at least three hermeneutical roads in arriving at their conclusions. How they draw their conclusion is sometimes as important as the conclusion itself.

The first road recognizes full biblical authority but sees Paul’s teachings about the role of women as a particular local application of generalized principles. A parallel could be drawn with the way many complementarians view Paul’s teaching about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Many or most see head coverings as a temporary and culturally-bound application rather than as a timeless requirement. Many who have traditionally defended women preachers have done so by following this road, including some fundamentalists (W. B. Riley and Oliver W. Van Osdel are examples).

The second road to egalitarianism utilizes some form of either trajectory (I. Howard Marshall) or redemptive-movement (William Webb) hermeneutic. These hermeneutical techniques pay lip service to biblical authority, but they insist that God’s final word must be discovered by following a line that goes beyond Scripture itself. This final position may even nullify or contradict specific biblical statements.

The third road to egalitarianism seeks to discredit some biblical teachings in favor of others. For example, Paul King Jewett in Man as Male and Female argued that Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2 reflected his chauvinism as a rabbi while Galatians 3:28 defined the true relationship between the sexes. This approach to the text severely undermines or flatly denies biblical inerrancy and integrity.

These three roads to egalitarianism require very different responses. While Ortlund chooses not to recognize it as such (119), biblical inerrancy is a fundamental of the faith. To arrive at egalitarianism by the third road places one on the far side of the watershed that divides orthodoxy from heterodoxy. Biblical inerrancy is a first-level issue, and defenses of egalitarianism that attack the inerrancy and integrity of the Bible are genuinely heretical. They exclude Christian fellowship at every level.

Defenses of egalitarianism that take the second road are also seriously flawed. While the trajectory and redemptive-movement hermeneutics claim to take a high view of the Bible, they nevertheless treat the biblical text like a wax nose. Advocates of these approaches have not succeeded in erecting methodological barriers and limitations that can successfully correct abuses of their hermeneutical techniques. While the use of either trajectory or redemptive-movement hermeneutics may not place their advocates outside the faith, it should certainly limit the possible circles of fellowship inside the faith. Using Ortlund’s classifications, I see this as an upper-second-level matter.

The first road to egalitarianism does not wreak nearly the damage to biblical authority that the other two roads do. Complementarians and egalitarians can meaningfully debate the question of applicability without calling into question either the clarity or authority of the Bible. Some level of Christian fellowship does exist and some level of Christian commonality should be demonstrated between the two groups.

Nevertheless, as Ortlund adequately shows, the difference remains both important and unavoidable. For that reason, fellowship between complementarians and egalitarians is necessarily limited and even impossible at some levels. As with other important differences within the faith, believers who do not agree must either limit their message or limit their fellowship if they are to get along.

I once heard a prominent professor from Dallas Seminary explaining to a student that he was complementarian, but his church was egalitarian—and he was determined that the church would not know his position. That is an example of limiting one’s message. He might better have found a church where he could live and teach his full convictions. That would be limiting one’s fellowship.

The degree to which either one’s message or one’s fellowship must be limited depends on the seriousness of the disagreement. The gravity of the egalitarian error hinges partly on one’s reasons for holding the egalitarian position. These reasons may constitute a fundamental error that places one outside the faith; they may constitute a severe error within the faith that bars most levels of fellowship; they may constitute a serious but not deadly error that allows some levels of fellowship while restricting others.

Perhaps it would be useful to weigh Ortlund’s three test cases against each other. The milder forms of the egalitarian error are less serious than the Charismatic error in almost any form. They are probably more serious than an error over the subject or mode of baptism—as long as the gospel is not at stake. See my previous essays on those topics to be reminded of my reasons for weighing them as I do.

It is worth noting that some complementarians also hold errors that may be as serious as some egalitarian errors. When complementarianism is used to defend a brutalizing, dominating, and dehumanizing attitude toward women, it is egregiously wrong. No biblical teaching held in a biblical way will ever justify abusive behavior. Sometimes we need to learn to limit our fellowship to both sides.

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.


 


Faith! ’Tis a Precious Grace

Benjamin Beddome (1717–1795)

Faith! ’tis a precious grace,
Where’er it is bestowed;
It boasts of a celestial birth,
And is the gift of God.

Jesus it owns a King,
An all-atoning Priest;
It claims no merits of its own,
But looks for all in Christ.

To him it leads the soul,
When filled with deep distress;
Flies to the fountain of his blood,
And trusts his righteousness.

Since ’tis thy work alone,
And that divinely free,
Come, Holy Spirit, and make known
The power of faith in me.

Episode 44: The Mind/Body Connection with Mark-Stuckey & Brett-Williams, Part 1

Link to Episode 44

In today’s episode, we discuss the mind/body connection with Dr. Mark Stuckey, M.D. and Dr. Brett Williams. We talk about how Scripture teaches us to answer the question of “Who are We?”

“It was really from that perspective that I first began to wrestle with these ideas as to how is God made us and are there limitations on what we should do and what are the principles in Scripture that guide how we treat people and how we deal with people? And again, back to that core issue of who am I?” – Dr. Mark Stuckey

 

 


Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Dr. Richard Redding, Colleague

Central Seminary opened a ministry in Romania shortly after the collapse of communism. Early on, we assumed that all the people of Romania were Romanians. Consequenlty, we tried to establish a campus in an ethnic Hungarian community. We soon learned that Romanians were reluctant to attend what they perceived as a Hungarian school. Thanks to the welcoming spirit and hard labors of Pastor Beniamin Costea, we were able to relocate to Arad in western Romania. In that location we could draw both majority Romanians and minority Hungarians.

We also drew one student who was neither. Richard Redding was an American missionary working in Romania under the Baptist Bible Fellowship. He began attending our classes, and he graduated with our first class in 1994, receiving his MABS. Two years later he graduated again with his MDiv. When I arrived at Central Seminary in January of 1998, the seminary was flying four men from Romania to Minneapolis to work on their DMin degrees. The goal was for these men to become the future backbone of a Romanian seminary. Richard was one of them, and he eventually graduated with his doctorate.

Richard and his wife Linda had been sent to Romania as part of the first wave of missionary activity after communism. They were already veteran missionaries from Colombia, and their skill in Spanish made it easier to learn Romanian. When they arrived in Romania, they found already-existing Baptist churches in nearly every major center. These were churches that had weathered the assaults of communist atheism and dictatorship. The churches were deep in piety but shallow in their understanding of the Bible and of Christian doctrine. As far as I know, Richard and Linda did not try to establish new Baptist churches. Instead, they gave themselves to strengthening the biblical understanding of existing Baptist pastors and to helping train up a new generation of ministry.

That is how Richard became the ideal go-between to help coordinate our Romanian and American administrations. He himself held a relatively minor post in the Romanian administration (I believe that he was the registrar). His true value lay in helping Americans and Romanians to understand each other’s mindsets and expectations. He and Linda also regularly hosted American professors when they came to teach in Romania.

In between class sessions, Richard also acted as an associate pastor to Beni Costea. This work included labors in two principal churches and several minor ones. Some American missionaries neither understood nor appreciated this arrangement—to them, it wasn’t really missions unless the Americans were the bosses. By working alongside Romanian pastors in their own churches, however, Richard managed to achieve a level of influence that far exceeded that of most American missionaries. He was able to play a significant role in bringing an entire contingent of Romanian pastors and churches to greater theological maturity.

Under communism, Romanian Baptists were very Arminian. They had little idea of how the Bible fit together or how the plan of God could be seen progressing across the biblical story line. They lacked skills in the biblical languages, and their understanding of Baptist distinctives had not been cultivated in decades. Central Seminary taught its students Greek and Hebrew. It introduced them to dispensationalism, and it got them thinking in terms of New Testament patterns for church order and cooperation.

Communism offered few benefits for biblical churches. One unintentional benefit was that, by blocking Western ideas, the communist government actually prevented liberal theologies from infecting Baptist churches. These theologies were only beginning to develop in Romania during the 1990s and early 2000s. The result was that the Baptist churches found themselves in the position that American churches had been in during the 1920s and 1930s.

Central Seminary tried to provide our students principles for dealing with this situation, and we saw some evidence of success. For example, at one point the government offered to begin paying Baptist pastors generously from state funds. To do this, however, Baptists would have to submit to a more centralized and controlled structure. Faced with this temptation, our graduates understood what was at stake. They opposed the offer and led Baptists to reject what would surely have become a poisoned chalice.

During those years, Richard Redding kept up quiet leadership from behind the scenes. As far as I can tell, he and Linda never attracted much attention to themselves, but their influence was evident. Romanian Baptists in their orbit were eventually able to plant churches in Austria, Italy, France, England, and even in the United States. Central Seminary graduates from those years have served churches in all those countries.

Richard and Linda left Romania for Mexico around 2010—maybe a bit earlier. By the time they moved, Richard had helped Central Seminary to educate nearly twenty percent of all the Baptist pastors in Romania. In about 2012 or 2013, financial considerations led Central Seminary to cease operations in Romania. By that time, however, Romanian pastors such as Gelu Pacurar and Marius Birgean had earned research doctorates. They had the knowledge and credentials to provide leadership so that seminary education could continue among Romanian Baptists.

In Mexico, Richard continued in educational ministry. He also found time to publish five science-fiction novels (the “Light-Plus” series) that can be found on Amazon. Incidentally, Richard claimed at least indirect responsibility for the fact that the Antichrist is depicted as Romanian in the Left Behind series.

After he began to develop physical difficulties, Richard and Linda retired from the mission field, eventually settling near Chattanooga, Tennessee. Then came a period of illness and decline. Finally, Richard was taken home to glory on New Years Eve.

Dr. Richard Redding was one of the best men I knew. He was a man of devotion, integrity, intelligence, warmth, hospitality, and humility. During the time that I saw him in action, he never occupied the driver’s seat. Yet he took responsibility for the smooth running of the vehicle, and his quiet influence helped to decide the direction it went. His work was never widely and publicly celebrated, but it deserves to be, and it will be someday. For now, we at Central Seminary acknowledge both our indebtedness and affection toward him.

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.


 


Ye Faithful Souls, Who Jesus Know

Charles Wesley (1707–1788)

Ye faithful souls, who Jesus know,
If risen indeed with Him ye are,
Superior to the joys below,
His resurrection’s power declare.

Your faith by holy tempers prove,
By actions show your sins forgiven,
And seek the glorious things above,
And follow Christ your Head to Heaven.

There your exalted Savior see
Seated at God’s right hand again,
In all His Father’s majesty,
In everlasting pomp to reign:

Your real life, with Christ concealed,
Deep in the Father’s bosom lies;
And, glorious as your Head revealed,
Ye soon shall meet Him in the skies.

To Him continually aspire,
Contending for your native place,
And emulate the angel choir,
And only live to love and praise.

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Word of the Father, Now in Flesh Appearing

[This essay was originally published on December 21, 2007.]

If Jesus Christ were not truly and perfectly God, He could not be our mediator. If Jesus Christ were not truly and perfectly human, He could not be our mediator. This much, Scripture makes clear.

Our problem is that we have absolutely no experience with divine‐human beings other than Jesus Christ. He is absolutely unique, the only one of His kind. For that reason, Christians have struggled to find words to express just who Jesus is.

With the Athanasian Creed we affirm that, as to their deity, the Father and Son are equally glorious, eternal, uncreated, incomprehensible, and almighty. Yet they are not two Gods, but one. So we confess.

Nevertheless, we also confess that we do not comprehend what we affirm. While the relationship of the Father to the Son involves no logical contradiction, it is inexplicable and impenetrable to the human mind. It rises above reason. We do not understand how such a thing can be.

Already bewildered, we then encounter the full humanity of the Son. Here we discover a person who, as to His deity, is coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial with God the Father, but who, without ceasing to be fully God, also becomes fully human. We are asked to believe that a person who is equal with God is also one of us.

Not everyone agrees. Often, people reject what they cannot explain. Worse yet, they modify the truth to fit some human explanation. So they have done with the person of Christ.

Some have denied His full deity. Ebionites saw Jesus as a good man, a teacher and prophet who kept the law. Arians explained Jesus as God’s first creation, so highly exalted above others that He could be called “a god,” but who was still not properly “God.” Adoptionists (Dynamic Monarchians) understood Jesus as a human who was elevated to divine status by some act of God.

Some have denied the distinction of the Son from the Father. The Sabellians (Modalistic Monarchians) affirmed that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were simply three modes in which God presented Himself and not actual personal distinctions. As the same man might appear as husband to his wife, as teacher to his students, and as peer to his fellows, God presented Himself at one time as Father, at another as Son, and at another as Holy Spirit. Ultimately, however, the Trinity is a mask, and God is one and only one person.

Others have denied Jesus’ complete humanity. Docetists believed that the human body of Jesus was a mere phantom projected by the divine Christ. Apollinarians taught that Jesus possessed a human body and soul, but that the place of the rational, human spirit was taken by the divine Logos (in other words, Christ was 3/3 divine but only 2/3 human). Eutychians affirmed complete divine and human natures but saw the human nature as so recessive as to be almost completely overwhelmed by the divine—rather like a drop of honey in an ocean of water.

Still others have rejected the integrity of the person of Jesus Christ. Cerinthians believed that the divine Christ descended upon the human Jesus, only to abandon Him before the cross. Nestorians affirmed the full deity and full humanity of Christ but divided these two natures into two distinct persons, joined rather like Siamese twins.

The equal and opposite reaction was for others to affirm the unity of the person by denying the distinctiveness of the natures. Monophysites collapsed the divinity and humanity of Christ into a single nature. In principle this nature was supposed to be both divine and human, but in practice the divine so overwhelmed the human that Monophysitism became a reaffirmation of Eutychianism. A more subtle form of denying the distinction between the natures is Monothelitism, which denies that Jesus had a human will. De facto, this is a denial of the completeness of the human nature of Jesus.

These are not merely ancient heresies. They have had a tendency to reappear throughout church history. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are unreconstructed Arians. Mormonism applies Adoptionist principles not only to Christ but to all humanity. Many liberals have regarded Jesus simply as a human teacher or prophet, and contemporary biblical scholarship is witnessing a resurgence of interest in Gnostic understandings of Christ. Modalistic Monarchianism shows up in the teachings both of Witness Lee and of the so‐called “Jesus Only Movement,” represented by the United Pentecostal Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church still defends Monophysitism and condemns the Council of Chalcedon as “divisive.”

Our understanding of the person of Christ has been hammered out in opposition to these heresies. Each new heretical theory forced Christians to return to the Scriptures in order to test the theory against the text. At each new controversy, Christians erected a new barrier against heresy. They were forced to say, “Scripture teaches this but not that. We may say it this way but not that way.” This process resulted in the adoption of several public summary statements, each of which was more specific than the one that preceded it.

At the end of the day, here is what we must affirm. If Jesus Christ were not true God, He could not be our savior. If Jesus Christ were not true human, He could not be our savior. If Jesus Christ were not one person, He could not be our savior. If the person of Christ were divided, then He could not be our savior. If the natures were combined or transmuted, then He could not be our savior. All of this is summarized and elaborated in the formula of Chalcedon.

Nothing is more important to Christianity than the incarnation of Jesus Christ. A false step here can lead us to deny the gospel and plunge us into apostasy. We learn about the old heresies so that we may confront the new ones. We confront the new ones so that we may keep the gospel pure. We aim for precision in our understanding of Jesus Christ so that we may trust Him and worship Him as He is, rather than worshipping a false Jesus whom we have manufactured in our own idolatrous hearts.

In one sense, we are indebted to the heretics. Everything that we need to know about Jesus Christ is in the text of Scripture. If we had not been challenged by the heretics, however, we never would have studied the Scriptures as they deserved to be studied. We never would have noticed the depth and texture and richness of the biblical teaching concerning the incarnation. The heretics have forced us to discover exactly what Scripture says and what it forbids us to say.

We cannot explain the incarnation. We cannot fully comprehend the notion of a theanthropic person. But we can learn to be precise in saying who He is and who He is not. We can know Him. We can trust Him. We can love Him. We can worship Him. Word of the Father, now in flesh appearing: O come, let us adore Him, Christ the Lord.

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.


 


Hark! A Thrilling Voice Is Sounding

Edward Caswall (1814–1878)

Hark! a thrilling voice is sounding:
“Christ is nigh,” it seems to say:
“Cast away the works of darkness,
O ye children of the day!”

Startled at the solemn warning,
Let the earth-bound soul arise;
Christ, our Sun, all sloth dispelling,
Shines upon the morning skies.

Lo, the Lamb, so long expected,
Comes with pardon down from heaven;
Let us haste, with tears of sorrow,
One and all, to be forgiven.

So, when next He comes in glory,
And the world is wrapped in fear,
May He then as our Defender
On the clouds of heaven appear.

Honor, glory, might and blessing
To the Father and the Son,
With the Ever-living Spirit
One in Three, and Three in One.

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part Nine: Continuationism As a Secondary Doctrine

The book Finding the Right Hills to Die On is Gavin Ortlund’s theory of doctrinal triage. According to his theory, primary doctrines are essential to the gospel and to Christian fellowship. Secondary doctrines are not essential to the gospel, but they are necessary to some levels of Christian fellowship. Differences over tertiary doctrines should not inhibit Christian fellowship.

Ortlund illustrates his category of second-rank doctrines by applying it to three specific controversies. His second controversy is the one over the continuation of what he labels “spiritual gifts.” He does not address spiritual gifts in general, however, but specifically miraculous and revelatory gifts.

At the outset, Ortlund identifies himself as a continuationist “in both practice and conviction” (108). He also tries to limit his discussion to Reformed attitudes toward continuationism. Given the widespread influence of charismatics across the contemporary theological spectrum (including not only gospel-believing groups like Reformed or Wesleyan evangelicals but also ecumenical liberals, Romanists, and even Mormons), he has defined his discussion too narrowly. Since gospel deniers regularly practice charismatic gifts, supposed appearances of those gifts cannot possibly be taken as self-authenticating evidence for God’s activity or approval.

Admittedly, a comparatively mild version of continuationism is voiced within certain evangelical circles. It is represented by figures such as Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and Sam Storms. I assume that Ortlund holds this version of the theory. These figures and their followers, however, represent only a small fraction of charismatic continuationism. Adherents to the prosperity gospel far outnumber them (especially worldwide), as do devotees of the New Apostolic Reformation. The Grudem-Piper-Storms (and Ortlund?) version of continuationism barely amounts to a pebble in the mountain range of these larger movements.

The prosperity gospel is not the biblical gospel. It is a gospel of a different kind, and it falls under the anathema of Galatians 1:6–8. Furthermore, anyone claiming to be an apostle today is necessarily a false apostle (Acts 1:21–22; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8), and Paul denounced false apostles as ministers of Satan (2 Cor 11:13–15). In other words, at least some of the time continuationism is a first-level, fundamental error. I acknowledge no Christian commonality with (for example) a Benny Hinn or a Kenneth Copeland. If Ortlund thinks that he can, then worse and worse.

If, on the other hand, Ortlund is willing to acknowledge how serious the errors of a Hinn or a Copeland are, then he needs to bring considerably more nuance into his discussion of Reformed continuationism. But he does not. He rests his argument fundamentally upon the fact that he can find Reformed progenitors who acknowledged some element of continuation for miraculous or perhaps even revelatory gifts. He relies especially heavily upon figures of the Reformation and the Puritan movement.

The problem with this appeal is that both the Reformation and the Puritans came prior to the defining point for the doctrine of miraculous gifts. One can find loose expressions of Christology among orthodox Christians before Nicea. One can find loose expressions of soteriology by evangelical Christians before the Reformation. But what Arius was to Christology, and what Johann Tetzel was to soteriology, early Pentecostalism was to miraculous gifts. It was Pentecostalism (and its forebears Edward Irving and John Dowie) that forced the issue on miraculous and revelatory gifts. These influences brought Christian thought to a defining point over these doctrines. We presently find ourselves standing at much the point that Athanasius stood with respect to Arius or that Luther stood with respect to Leo X. We cessationists are no more deterred than Athanasius was when he was informed that the whole world was against him.

I am not suggesting that continuationism is always a fundamental error, but beyond question it sometimes is. Even when it is not, the implications of charismatic theology reach far beyond a simple misunderstanding about the role of the Holy Spirit. For example, older Pentecostals and charismatics grounded their doctrine of present-day divine healing in the atonement, seriously distorting the biblical doctrine of the atonement and badly misreading Scripture. Third-wave charismatics presently ground their doctrine of healing in an over-inaugurated understanding of the kingdom leading to “power encounters.” (Incidentally, most cessationists affirm that God is able to heal miraculously; what they deny is that He has given the gifts of healing to individuals to exercise with the kind of discretion that Christians witnessed during the apostolic age.)

Similarly, the doctrine of revelation must be taken seriously. In the Old Testament, a prophet was to be tested partly by his ability to produce miraculous signs that were unmistakable and verifiable. A single false prophecy earned him the death penalty (Deut 18:18–22). Grudem has tried to soften this understanding of prophecy for the New Testament, but two responses must be noted. First, even most Third-wave charismatics disagree with him, insisting that church prophecy today is just as authoritative as Scripture for those to whom it is delivered (see, for example, the Fuller Seminary doctoral dissertation on this topic by Stephen Oldham). Furthermore, contra Grudem, 1 Corinthians 14:29 and 1 Thessalonians 5:19–21 do not show New Testament prophecy being sifted and weighed, 1 Corinthians 14:30–31 does not show prophecy being ignored, Acts 21:4 does not show prophecy being disobeyed—indeed, it does not relate a prophecy at all—and Acts 21:10–11 does not show prophecy being mistaken.

It is impossible in a short space to review every argument, but it should be clear that the charismatic error does not just involve misinterpreting a verse or two. In all its forms it represents a gigantic shift that rearranges much of the biblical system of faith and practice. It also relocates the methodological basis of evangelical theology from sola scriptura to ambo scriptura et experientia.

Ortlund wants to place continuationism in between the second-level and third-level on the scale of doctrinal importance. I insist that various charismatic errors are often first-level, fundamental errors, and they are never less than upper-second-level (using his taxonomy). I do not deny that some level of Christian fellowship remains possible with the more balanced Pentecostals and charismatics, but I do believe that whatever levels of fellowship are possible will be those that require a bare minimum degree of doctrinal agreement.

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.


 


As With Gladness Men of Old

William Dix (1837–1898)

As with gladness men of old
did the guiding star behold;
as with joy they hailed its light,
leading onward, beaming bright;
so, most gracious God, may we
evermore be led to Thee.

As with joyful steps they sped
to that lowly cradle-bed,
there to bend the knee before
Him whom heav’n and earth adore;
so may we with willing feet
ever seek Thy mercy-seat.

As they offered gifts most rare
at that cradle rude and bare;
so may we with holy joy,
pure, and free from sin’s alloy,
all our costliest treasures bring,
Christ, to Thee, our heav’nly King.

Holy Jesus, every day
keep us in the narrow way;
and, when earthly things are past,
bring our ransomed lives at last
where they need no star to guide,
where no clouds Thy glory hide.

In that heav’nly country bright
need they no created light;
Thou its Light, its Joy, its Crown,
Thou its Sun which goes not down;
there for ever may we sing
alleluias to our King.

Professors’ Pancake Palace

Professors’ Pancake Palace

As we near the finish line of our fall semester, we host our annual Professors’ Pancake Palace (pictures above from today’s festivities). This beloved tradition dates back to the days of Dr. Larry Pettegrew and his Aunt Hazel’s Secret Pancake Recipe. We have had countless wonderful moments sharing flapjacks and fellowship over the years. We’re already making plans again for next year. We hope you’ll join us! Apply today!

More pictures over on our Facebook page. 

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part 12: Young Earth Creationism

Erecting the Right Fences in the Right Places, Part Eight: Baptism as a Secondary Doctrine

In Finding the Right Hills to Die On, Gavin Ortlund develops a theory of doctrinal triage. In this theory, second-rank doctrines are not fundamental to the gospel, but they are important to some level of Christian fellowship. To illustrate how second-rank doctrines work, Ortlund addresses three areas of doctrinal controversy. The first one is baptism, a topic over which Christians widely disagree.

His discussion contains much that is helpful. Ortlund rightly notes that differences over baptism cannot be reduced to one simple issue. Instead, baptism involves a bundle of questions that get addressed differently by various Christians. Different answers to these questions result in whole varieties of positions on baptism.

Ortlund also argues that, in spite of these differences, baptism is important, and the questions cannot be avoided. He is right. Either churches will baptize or they won’t. If they do, they will either baptize infants or they won’t. They will either restrict baptism to immersion or they won’t. Believers who have committed themselves to definite views on baptism cannot usually settle contentedly in churches that deny those views.

According to Ortlund, baptism is obligatory for Christians. To use his language, being baptized is a matter of obedience to Christ. It plays an important role in the church’s life as a people of God. Baptism is a sign and seal of the gospel itself (103–104). Depending upon what Ortlund means by baptism being a “seal,” I find myself agreeing with most of what he says here (though I disagree with his remark that baptism symbolizes the washing away of sins). Baptism is sufficiently important that it does affect some levels of Christian fellowship. Specifically, it must not be ignored for church membership.

I also partially agree with Ortlund that baptism is not a doctrine on which the gospel is won or lost (104). He is right insofar as salvation does not depend upon getting baptized. As in the case of Cornelius (Acts 10–11), the New Testament clearly presents salvation coming before baptism.

And yet, sometimes the gospel can be and is lost over the matter of baptism. Ortlund notes in passing that some groups, claiming to be Christian, make baptism a necessary or even sufficient condition of salvation. Still, he never draws out the implications of this observation, preferring to limit his discussion mainly to Reformed understandings of baptism.

Nevertheless, the matter cannot be overlooked. In Roman Catholicism, baptism works ex opera operato (we might say automatically) to wash away the guilt of original and personal sins, to confer the grace of justification, and to place an indelible mark upon the soul. This form of baptismal regeneration constitutes a clear denial that justification is applied through faith alone. Thus, the Catholic understanding of baptism denies the gospel.

In Stone-Campbell (Church of Christ) soteriology, salvation is not applied until an individual is baptized. A professor in a Stone-Campbell college once explained to me that if someone trusted Christ for salvation but died in a car crash on the way to baptism, then that person would go straight to hell. While some Campbellites may have softened this view, it remains near the heart of Stone-Campbell preaching. It, too, constitutes a denial of the gospel.

In other words, sometimes errors about baptism are first-level, fundamental errors. They place the people who hold them outside the circle of gospel fellowship. Bible believers should not extend any level of Christian fellowship to advocates of Roman Catholic or Stone-Campbell soteriology.

Ortlund also lists Lutherans among those who affirm baptismal regeneration, but he fails to note that their situation is different. Conservative Lutherans (such as Missouri Synod Lutherans) believe that salvation is applied through faith alone, but they also affirm that baptized infants are justified. How can they have it both ways? The answer is that they see infants as capable of faith. This faith is dormant in that the infant is not aware of it (like our faith while we are asleep), but it is nonetheless real. This dormant faith can be created in the infant through baptism.

In other words, the Lutheran view does not teach that baptism is either a necessary or a sufficient means of salvation. Granted, it is an odd view. Menno Simons is supposed to have wryly asked a Lutheran how many people the apostles baptized in their sleep. Furthermore, the Lutheran view sometimes communicates false assurance to those who were baptized as infants. In spite of these problems, this view does not deny that justification is applied through faith alone. While I judge that this Lutheran view is badly in error, it is consistent with the bare message of the gospel. Consequently, some level of Christian fellowship is possible with such Lutherans. I personally cherish the warmth of Christian friendship with professors at the Free Lutheran seminary across Medicine Lake from the Baptist seminary where I teach.

In the Reformed view, baptism identifies an individual with the believing community. It is administered to the infant children of church members, not because they are thought to be saved but because they are seen as part of the community. While this view confuses Old Testament Israel with the New Testament Church, it is miles away from denying anything that is essential to the gospel. I could not join a church with members who held this view, but I am willing joyfully to extend multiple other levels of fellowship to them.

In sum, the crucial issue with baptism is not so much its subjects or mode (though those questions do matter) as its meaning. Baptism can be understood in some ways that deny the gospel. These denials elevate some errors about baptism to the level of fundamental, first-rank errors. They break all Christian fellowship.

Other errors are of a lesser nature, limiting Christian fellowship at some levels but not others. As with all differences over non-fundamental doctrines, the question here is not whether Christian fellowship is possible. The question is which levels of fellowship are affected by the differences. Where the gospel is not at stake, doctrinal disagreement rarely makes fellowship an all-or-nothing proposition.

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 Lord Is Come

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

The Lord is come; the Heav’ns proclaim
His birth; the nations learn His Name;
An unknown star directs the road
Of eastern sages to their God.

All ye bright Armies of the Skies,
Go, worship where the Saviour lies;
Angels and Kings before Him bow,
Those gods on high, and gods below.

Let idols totter to the ground,
And their own worshippers confound;
But Judah shout, but Zion sing,
And Earth confess her sov’reign King.