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.

A Response to Criticisms: Conclusion

by Kevin Bauder | Aug 13, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

[Because we experienced technical challenges publishing this essay, we are publishing it again this week to ensure that all of our subscribers receive it.]

In 2013, the American Council of Christian Churches published a “whitepaper” on The Bible Doctrine of Separation. Among other things, this paper critiqued my defense of fundamentalism. The core of the critique was contained in the following paragraphs:

Some have emphasized the gospel as the touchstone of orthodoxy. One author used this emphasis in a recent defense of fundamentalism, “The thing that is held in common by all Christians—the thing that constitutes the church as one church—is the gospel itself” [I am footnoted here]. None would deny the importance of the gospel to this question [ecclesiastical separation from false teachers], but the gospel is only one-third of the concerns raised by the apostle Paul in Corinth: “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, who we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11:4).

So where many fundamentalists today are focused on a single category of theology, soteriology, the apostle Paul was focused on at least three: Christology, revelation, and soteriology. Consequently, the gospel-centric approach to ecclesiastical separation is an inadequate summary of the Bible doctrine.

The authors of this document appear to have believed that they disagreed with me. They claimed that the substance of this disagreement focuses on 2 Corinthians 11:4 which, as they understood it, specified three grounds of separation (soteriology, Christology, and revelation) rather than the one (the gospel) that I had advocated. Having spent several weeks examining 2 Corinthians 11:4, I now wish to loop back to the ACCC white paper and to summarize where, in my opinion, the ACCC and I both agree and disagree.

On the disagreement side of the ledger, we are obviously reading 2 Corinthians 11:4 somewhat differently. This text is, after all, the hub of the ACCC argument against me. I believe, however, that this disagreement is more superficial than substantial. In fact, I think that it is really nothing but a quibble. The difference lies in the weight we put on the term gospel.

Evidently, the authors of the white paper understood my reference to the gospel to be restricted to soteriology. Otherwise, their argument simply makes no sense. I can only surmise that they equate the gospel with something like the plan of salvation—or at least they assumed that I did.

As I have explained at length, however, I see the gospel in broader terms. The gospel focuses on events, supported by evidences, elucidated by correct explanations, and resting upon implicit doctrinal assumptions. These assumptions are so inextricably tied to the gospel that they are essential to it. To deny one of the assumptions is to deny the gospel itself. These assumptions reach not only into soteriology but also into bibliology, theology proper, Christology, pneumatology, anthropology, hamartiology, and eschatology. At least some doctrines in each of these disciplines are essential to the gospel, and at least some doctrines within the discipline of soteriology are not.

My reading of 2 Corinthians 11:4 sees Paul specifying three areas that are all important because of their relationship to the gospel. One is the gospel itself. Another concerns the person of Christ, which is obviously essential to the gospel The third involves the Holy Spirit. While Paul does not specify which aspect of the Spirit’s work he has in view, a survey of the New Testament discloses several ministries of the Spirit that occur in connection with faith in the gospel. In other words, I do not believe that the white paper’s citation of 2 Corinthians 11:4 counts against my thesis.

The point to note, however, is that the authors of the white paper and I do not disagree over the substance of separation. If the gospel is defined strictly in terms of the plan of salvation, then I am more than prepared to admit that Christians have other grounds of fellowship and ought to recognize other grounds of separation. In other words, I am prepared to concede the ACCC’s point, given the white paper’s implicit definition of the gospel. I would hope that the authors of the white paper would also be prepared to concede my point, given my more inclusive definition of the gospel.

I should also add that I have never argued that the gospel is the only ground for limiting fellowship. Even gospel believers sometimes disagree about aspects of the faith (the whole counsel of God). Even if those differences are over issues that are less essential than the gospel, they may still be important to varying degrees. Such differences may well place limitations upon fellowship and may even require separate organization at some levels. These limitations and separate organizations can rightly be called separation.

A good example of limited fellowship can be found in the membership of the ACCC itself. The membership of the ACCC includes Christians who are convinced that baptizing anyone other than professing believers is a sin. The ACCC also includes Christians who believe that denying baptism to the infant children of church members is a sin. Christians who hold these opposite positions cannot both maintain clear consciences and live peacefully as covenant members of the same churches. Their difference demands separation at the levels of church leadership and membership. Nevertheless, they can and do maintain fellowship at the level of ACCC membership. The reason is that the purpose and function of the ACCC differs from the purpose and function of local church leadership and membership.

The position that I have sketched here (among other places) is known as secondary separation. The ACCC wishes to defend secondary separation as thoroughly biblical. I agree with that commitment. While not every application of secondary separation by every fundamentalist has necessarily been faithful to scripture, the idea of secondary separation is part and parcel of a biblical understanding of Christian fellowship.

To be fair, in my chapter and replies in Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, I did not develop a detailed theory of secondary separation. I articulated only enough of it to illustrate the difference between fundamentalists and conservative (the book says confessional) evangelicals. There simply wasn’t space to go into greater detail. Perhaps the authors of the white paper took this omission as a denial—I don’t really know.

What I do know is that I am about as happy with the ACCC as I am with any Christian organization. I don’t know of any other organization that tries to do what the American Council does, while simultaneously remaining as close to a biblical view of fellowship and separation. If the authors of the white paper wish to pursue this discussion any further, I would be happy to engage them in a cordial and fraternal manner. In the meanwhile, I see no reason to back away from my fellowship with the American Council of Christian Churches.

This essay is by Kevin T. Bauder, Research Professor of 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.

This Is Not My Place of Resting

Horatius Bonar (1808–1889)

This is not my place of resting,
Mine’s a city yet to come;
Onward to it I am hasting,
On to my eternal home.

In it all is light and glory,
O’er it all a nightless day;
Every trace of sin’s sad story,
All the curse hath passed away.

There the Lamb, our Shepherd, leads us,
By the streams of life along,—
In the freshest pasture feeds us,
Turns our sighing into song.

Soon we pass this desert dreary,
Soon we bid farewell to pain;
Never more are sad and weary,
Never, never sin again.

Honor to Whom Honor Is Due

by Kevin Bauder | Jul 23, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

As you receive In the Nick of Time this week, I will be traveling in Colorado, but I won’t be on vacation. I will be visiting the old Briargate Post Office in Colorado Springs. Why travel to Colorado just to visit a post office? Well, this post office is special. It is being renamed in honor of Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz.

Dale was both a student and a friend. I met him when I came to teach at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. He had graduated from Maranatha Baptist Bible College. He and his wife Christy had moved to Minnesota for seminary. They were attending Southview Baptist Church, and Dale was working at Lyndale Hardware in Richfield.

In the fall of 1998 I had just bought a HUD home that needed considerable repair. Dale volunteered to ask his employer if I could have some of their “mis-tint” paint for my home renovation. A few days later he told me, “There’s good news and there’s bad news. The good news is that you can have the paint. The bad news is that you have to take all of it.” Thanks to Dale we came away with over twenty gallons of various tints, shades, and textures of paint and stain. By judiciously combining them we were eventually able to use them all.

Dale had been in the Air Force before experiencing his call to ministry. With his military background, I asked him to think about military chaplaincy. That avenue of ministry did not seem appealing to him at the time, but he kept it in the back of his mind, and we discussed it occasionally.

After he graduated from Central Seminary, Dale took the pastorate of First Baptist Church in White, South Dakota. He stayed in White for about three years, and it was during those years that his interest in chaplaincy really began to grow. In 2004 he joined the chaplain corps of the United States Army. Over the next six years he deployed to Okinawa, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He served as the chaplain for the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, with the 4th Infantry Division of Fort Carson, Colorado.

Dale and Christy had three sons over the years. Landon was born in Minneapolis after Dale’s graduation. Caleb was born in White, South Dakota. Joel was born in Okinawa, about a year before Dale deployed to Afghanistan. While Dale was in Afghanistan, his family settled in Colorado Springs. On August 29, 2010, they were received into membership at High Country Baptist Church, pastored by Jason Parker.

Dale had a reputation as a soldier’s chaplain. The story is that the troops called him the “chaplain with dirty boots” because of the time he spent in active ministry. His goal was to lead three hundred soldiers to Christ and to see ten of them go into ministry. Dale also longed to see Muslims saved. He regularly prayed for them (he even prayed for the salvation of Osama Bin Laden), and he shared the gospel with insurgents.

On August 30, 2010 (the day after Dale’s family joined High Country Baptist Church), Dale was outside the wire near the Arghandab River valley in Kandahar. He had been in Afghanistan only a month, and he was on his way to minister to soldiers. The HUM-V that he was riding in detonated a roadside bomb. He and four soldiers who were with him died in the blast. Dale became the first American chaplain to die in combat since Viet Nam.

Dale’s memorial service was held in Colorado Springs. I had the privilege of attending it. The service was packed with high-ranking officers and public dignitaries, including Colorado’s governor. In Minnesota, Governor Mark Dayton issued a proclamation recognizing Dale’s sacrifice and ordering flags within the state to be flown at half-mast.

More than ten years later, Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn decided that Dale should have a more permanent memorial. He introduced a bill into Congress to rename the old Briargate Post Office the “Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Building.” The bill passed both houses with bipartisan support. The honor is fitting for someone who served as Dale did.

Since I was president of Central Seminary at the time of Dale’s death, I was asked to represent the seminary at the dedication of this building. Since I am a chaplain in the Air Force Auxiliary (the Civil Air Patrol) I was also asked to represent the CAP Chaplain Corps and Chaplain (Col.) John Murdoch, Chief of Chaplains. It was my privilege today to fulfill both of those roles.

Dale’s funeral was a sorrowful occasion. The dedication of this post office is a joyful one, because it involves public recognition of Dale’s contributions as a military chaplain. Recognition is cause for rejoicing. Much more joyful will be Dale’s recognition at the judgment seat of Christ. That will be a ceremony worth attending.

Now May the God of Peace and Love

Thomas Gibbons (1720–1785)

Now may the God of peace and love,
Who from th’ imprisoning grave
Restored the Shepherd of the sheep,
Omnipotent to save;

Through the rich merits of that blood,
Which He on Calvary spilt,
To make the eternal covenant sure,
On which our hopes are built;

Perfect our souls in every grace,
To accomplish all His will;
And all that’s pleasing in His sight,
Inspire us to fulfil.

For the great Mediator’s sake
We every blessing pray;
With glory let His name be crown’d,
Through heaven’s eternal day.

A Response to Criticisms: Another Spirit

by Kevin Bauder | Jul 16, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

As we have seen, 2 Corinthians 11:4 refers to “another Jesus, whom we have not preached” and “another gospel, which ye have not accepted.” I have argued that Paul is not referring to two different things. The identity of Christ is bound up in the truth of the gospel. The Jesus of Arius cannot save. The Jesus of Apollinaris cannot save. The Jesus of Joseph Smith cannot save. To preach one of those men’s Jesus is effectively to accept a false gospel.

Paul also refers to “another spirit, which ye have not received.” What spirit is he talking about? Does this other spirit also entail the rejection of the gospel? If so, how?

This is one of the most controversial questions about 2 Corinthians 11:4. Some commentators believe that Paul is referring to a demonic spirit. Others believe that he is referring to an attitude that is incompatible with true Christianity. Still others believe that Paul is talking about false views of the Holy Spirit, views that were part of the heresy invading the Corinthian church.

Each of these three alternatives would affect the gospel message. Clearly, receiving a demonic spirit would be incompatible with faith in the gospel. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians, Paul makes it clear that certain attitudes such as greed, argumentativeness, and abusiveness are incompatible with a profession of the gospel (1 Cor 5:9–11). If the “other spirit” of 2 Corinthians 11:4 is either a demonic spirit or a destructive attitude, it would constitute a practical denial of the gospel.

What if the “spirit” of 2 Corinthians 11:4 is the Holy Spirit? In that case, this text would mean that the Corinthian church was in danger of redefining or rejecting some ministry of the Holy Spirit that is essential to the gospel. This is not surprising, since the New Testament associates several ministries of the Spirit with salvation.

According to Romans 8:9, all present-day believers are permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit. This indwelling is strongly connected to our salvation. Paul makes it clear that a person who is not indwelt by the Spirit does not even belong to Christ. Consequently, to deny that the Spirit indwells all believers at salvation is to commit a fairly serious error. It is to deny one of the effects of the gospel.

Another ministry that the Holy Spirit performs at salvation is baptizing. He baptizes or immerses all believers into the one body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13 cf Eph 2:16–18; 4:3–6). This baptizing work of the Spirit produces the fundamental unity of the Church. Since this ministry applies to all believers and to only believers, it must take place at the instant of salvation. To deny the Spirit’s role in baptizing believers into the body of Christ is a rather important error and it denies one of the effects of the gospel.

Still another ministry that the Spirit performs at salvation is His sealing (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13–14; 4:30). Properly speaking, the Holy Spirit is Himself the seal, applied by God, to certify our safe delivery to God’s purpose. Along with being our seal, the Spirit is also our earnest or down-payment, a guarantee of our full inheritance to come. Denying that the Spirit is our seal and down-payment is another serious theological error. It too entails a denial of one of the effects of the gospel.

Yet another work that the Spirit performs at the moment of salvation is regeneration. Indeed, the Spirit is Himself the agent of regeneration who creates new life and births us into the family of God (John 1:12–13; 3:7–8). We may quibble about the juxtaposition of faith and regeneration in the ordo salutis, but we must recognize that we do not regenerate ourselves. Any attempt to tie regeneration to a human work (such as baptismal regeneration) is a fundamental error that denies the gospel itself.

Paul could be thinking of any of the above when he cautions the Corinthians against receiving “another Spirit.” None of them, however, appears in the context of Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians. In 2 Corinthians 3, however, Paul describes another ministry of the Spirit by contrasting it with the ministry of commandments “written and engraven in stone,” a clear reference to the Decalogue.

In this passage Paul is clearly responding to an attempt to make sanctification the effect of law-keeping. In his response, Paul never denigrates the Law. In fact, he makes the point that the Law (specifically the Ten Commandments) was glorious. It came as a brilliant disclosure of the moral nature of God.

The problem was that the Law had no power to enable obedience. It was a glorious revelation, but no sinner could live up to its glory. Consequently, all the Law could do for sinners was to condemn them. While glorious, it was a ministry of death.

Paul’s point is that the Holy Spirit is better than the Law. The Law was tied to the Old (Sinai) Covenant, but the Spirit has a New Covenant kind of ministry (v. 6). The Law kills, but the Spirit gives life (v. 6). The Law was glorious, but the Spirit’s glory is so much greater that the Law seems like darkness in comparison (vv. 7–8, 10). The Law had a ministry that produced condemnation, but the Holy Spirit has a ministry that produces righteousness (v. 9). The ministry of the Law was always meant to be temporary, but the ministry of the Spirit is permanent (v. 11).

Paul’s punchline comes in 2 Corinthians 3:17. He claims that “the Lord is that Spirit,” drawing attention to the Spirit’s status as a person of the Triune Jehovah. Then he adds, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” If this is true, then the attempt to substitute Law-keeping for the inner work of the Spirit in sanctification constitutes an implicit denial of the gospel. The gospel not only delivers us from the penalty of sin but also delivers us from sin’s power in our lives. The Spirit is the one who changes our hearts so that we truly seek to please God. He changes us in a way that external regulation never could. Anyone who teaches that we please God and become holy merely by keeping external rules and regulations is effectively denying the gospel.

Apparently the false teachers in Corinth were trying to lead believers to attain sanctification by legal means. By substituting law-keeping for the internal change made by the Spirit, these teachers were effectively redefining the Spirit and making Him into something other than the true Spirit of God. They were introducing “another spirit” of the sort that Paul references in 2 Corinthians 11:4.

In other words, Paul’s references to Jesus, the gospel, and the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 11:4 are not references to three segregated topics. Instead, these references interweave as aspects of a single discussion of the gospel. The gospel was under attack in Corinth, perhaps in multiple ways. In this text Paul is defending the gospel, not simply as the plan of salvation but as a network of theological truths that depend upon one another. This network includes truths about the Spirit of God upon which the gospel depends.

Holy Spirit, From on High

William Hiley Bathurst (1796–1877)

Holy Spirit, from on high,
Bend o’er us with pitying eye;
Animate the drooping heart;
Bid the power of sin depart.

Light up every dark recess
Of our heart’s ungodliness;
Show us every devious way
Where our steps have gone astray.

Teach us, with repentant grief,
Humbly to implore relief;
Then the Savior’s blood reveal,
And our broken spirits heal.

Other groundwork should we lay,
Sweep those empty hopes away;
Make us feel that Christ alone
Can for human guilt atone.

May we daily grow in grace,
And pursue the heavenly race,
Trained in wisdom, led by love,
Till we reach our rest above.

A Response to Criticisms: Implications of the Gospel

by Kevin Bauder | Jul 9, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

The gospel is events. The gospel rests upon evidences. The gospel relies upon interpretations. All these elements are necessary to the gospel, rightly understood. Nevertheless, they do not exhaust a right understanding of the gospel. The gospel also rests upon a theological foundation that is implicit in the explanations.

Consider the gospel proposition, “Christ died for our sins.” This statement is freighted with meaning. For example, it implies something about us. In this statement, Paul assumes that we are sinners. He further assumes that our sins must bring dire consequences—otherwise, why should Christ die for them? He also assumes that we can do nothing to ameliorate the consequences of our own sins. Christ would not have to die for consequences that we ourselves could correct.

The statement, “Christ died for our sins,” also assumes something about the work of Christ. It is “for” our sins. Other texts define that word for. 1 Peter 2:24 says that Jesus “himself bare our sins in his own body on the tree.” In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul states that God has “made him [Jesus] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” These and similar texts echo Isaiah’s teaching that “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6). Both testaments clearly teach that the death of Jesus was substitutionary. Christ took the place of sinners. God imputed or charged the guilt of our sins to Christ, and Christ suffered the penalty in our place. Without the doctrine of a substitutionary atonement, the gospel becomes meaningless or, worse still, takes on the wrong meaning.

If the death of Jesus was “for our sins,” then He became our sin-bearer. That truth leads to another question: what sort of person is qualified to bear our sins? Obviously, a sin bearer must be personally guiltless: sinners must pay for their own sins and cannot pay for the sins of others. Sinlessness, however, is not the only qualification. There are many sinless beings. Michael is sinless. Gabriel is sinless. The cherubim and seraphim are sinless. Yet they did not and could not die for our sins.

These holy spirit beings, while sinless, are still finite persons. This finiteness matters because the guilt of our sins is infinite. The measure of guilt is the value of the being against whom a sin is committed. All sins are committed against God, and God is an infinite being of infinite value. Therefore, all sin causes infinite offense, and we bear infinite guilt. Since we bear infinite guilt, the only person who can pay for our sins must be an infinite person.

Only three infinite persons exist: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For God’s justice to be satisfied, one of those three had to pay for our sins. The one who did was the Son. Because He is an infinite person, He could bear the infinite penalty for our guilt. The penalty was death, so Christ died for our sins. Christ’s true deity is essential to the gospel.

To be able to die, God the Son had to become mortal. To be mortal, He had to have a body. More specifically, to save humans from their sins He had to become a human Himself (Heb 2:10–14). Consequently, He added a full and complete human nature to His eternal, divine person. He now subsists as one person in two natures, fully divine and fully human, such that His person is never divided, and His natures are never confounded. All of this is essential to the gospel.

If someone asks how we know any of these things, Paul provides an answer. Our knowledge is “according to the scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3–4). Without God’s inspired Word, we would not have the divine revelation that we need to interpret the events of the gospel. The inspiration and authority of the Bible is essential to the gospel—and that includes the Bible’s inerrancy. If we cannot trust the Bible in areas of science or history that we can test and observe, then how can we trust the Bible for doctrinal explanations that we cannot observe?

One more thing. The events and explanations of the gospel do not save anyone automatically. The gospel needs to be applied to sinners, and Paul states clearly how it is applied. He says that the gospel is “received” (1 Cor 15:1) and “believed” (1 Cor 15:2). These are themes that the New Testament expands greatly elsewhere, teaching that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works (Eph 2:8–9, et al). The doctrine of justification sola fide is essential to the gospel.

As we have seen, the gospel is much, much bigger than the plan of salvation. Of course, it deals with soteriology. It also deals with topics in bibliology, anthropology, hamartiology, eschatology, theology proper, and Christology, at minimum. Consequently, when Paul, in 2 Corinthians, talks about someone who preaches another Jesus and another gospel, he is not talking about two different things. Another Jesus implies another gospel. The one is bound to the other. To say that Paul is dealing with two distinct topics, Christology and soteriology, is to commit (at minimum) an embarrassing interpretive faux pas.

But Paul also includes “another S/spirit” in this complex. Is he dealing with a separate area, pneumatology? Or is he making an oblique reference to bibliology, introducing the topic of revelation by using a circumlocution? Or is he doing something else entirely? This is the question that we will answer in the next essay.

Vain Are the Hopes

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Vain are the hopes the sons of men
On their own works have built;
Their hearts by nature all unclean,
And all their actions guilt.

Let Jew and Gentile stop their mouths
Without a murm’ring word,
And the whole race of Adam stand
Guilty before the Lord.

In vain we ask God’s righteous law
To justify us now;
Since to convince and to condemn
Is all the law can do.

Jesus, how glorious is thy grace!
When in thy name we trust,
Our faith receives a righteousness
That makes the sinner just.

A Response to Criticisms: The Gospel

by Kevin Bauder | Jul 2, 2021 | In the Nick of Time, Uncategorized | 0 Comments

What is the gospel? It is more than simply the plan of salvation, but what more? This question deserves both a negative and a positive answer.

Negatively, the gospel is not the whole Christian faith. To say that all the teachings and practices of Christianity are related to the gospel is not to say that they are the gospel. Furthermore, the gospel does not consist in attempting to reproduce the conditions of the kingdom of God during the present age. Some people have mistaken “kingdom activity” such as educating the unlearned, feeding the hungry, and healing the sick for the gospel. Admirable as these activities may be, though, they are not the gospel.

Ultimately, only the Bible has the right to define the gospel. If we intend to ask the Bible what the gospel is, then we are responsible to look for an answer in the right place. What is the right place? It must be a text (or more than one) that clearly intends to define the gospel. Such a text is available in 1 Corinthians 15.

Paul opens this passage by stating that he intends to make known (the term is gnorizo) the gospel. In other words, he intends to tell his readers what the gospel is. 1 Corinthians 15 is an exercise in extended definition. What makes this exercise particularly interesting is that Paul’s readers already know and believe the plan of salvation—Paul says as much. In spite of this knowledge, however, they are on the verge of accepting a teaching that will implicitly deny the gospel. To thwart this possibility, Paul attempts to make the content of the gospel clear.

Paul’s definition of the gospel focuses first upon events. The gospel is “good news,” and news is always about something that has happened. Philosophical and theological systems do not offer news. Theories of morality or personal improvement do not offer news. Only events are news. The gospel centers upon happenings that occurred in space and time.

These events are two in number: Christ died, and Christ arose from the dead. Paul uses words like died and rose in their normal significance. When Christ died, His bodily functions ceased to operate, just as in all human deaths. His body became a corpse. When Christ arose, that same body received life again. On the Bible’s terms, neither ongoing memories about the deceased nor the ongoing life of the soul constitute a resurrection. Jesus came out of the tomb in the same body that was laid to rest there. He was dead, and now He was alive.

In case someone is inclined to question whether these events really occurred, Paul offers evidences. These evidences are the second element of the gospel. The evidence for the death of Christ is the burial—a term that encompasses more than simple interment, including all the efforts to certify the death of Jesus and to prepare His body for burial. The evidence for the resurrection consists of eyewitnesses, over five hundred of them, drawn from various times and places.

So the gospel consists, first, of events, and second, of evidences. By themselves, however, the events are entirely without value. The evidences can establish that the events occurred, but what of it? Why should anyone care?

Consider the death of Christ. That He really died is beyond question. It is also trivial. People have been dying since the first humans, Adam and Eve. Thus far, only two individuals (Enoch and Elijah) have escaped death. Millions of people died before Christ ever became incarnate. Billions of people have died since then. What does it matter that Christ died?

Paul, however, does not simply say that Christ died. He asserts that Christ died for our sins, and those extra words provide all the necessary significance. They tell us why the death of Christ mattered, and why it matters still. These words provide an explanation of the death of Christ that sets it apart from all other deaths. No one else has ever died like Christ died. He alone died for our sins.

Likewise, Paul provides an explanation of the resurrection of Jesus. Without this explanation, the resurrection would be a scientifically remarkable event, but its significance might be misconstrued (as it has been, for example, by Pinchas Lapide in The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective). Paul heads off misunderstanding by offering an extended discussion of the resurrection throughout the remainder of 1 Corinthians 15.

Like the events and the evidences, the explanations are essential to the gospel. To deny the events is to deny the gospel. To dispute the evidences is to dispute the gospel. To reject the explanations is to reject the gospel.

To be sure, the plan of salvation is bound up with these events, evidences, and explanations, but it is not identical with them. For example, a presentation of the plan of salvation might not include all of the evidences that are essential to the gospel. It might not include a full exposition of Paul’s explanation of the resurrection. A sinner could hear such a presentation, believe it, and be saved, all while remaining ignorant of some gospel content.

Furthermore, even the events, evidences, and explanations do not exhaust the gospel. For the explanations to work, the gospel has to rest upon a foundation of doctrinal assumptions. Without these assumptions it would crumble. In other words, the gospel implies more than it overtly states, and these implications are part of the gospel as well. It is to these implications that we shall turn in the next In the Nick of Time.

All That I Was

Horatius Bonar (1808–1889)

All that I was, my sin, my guilt,
My death, was all my own;
All that I am, I owe to Thee,
My gracious God, alone.

The evil of my former state
Was mine, and only mine;
The good in which I now rejoice
Is Thine, and only Thine.

The darkness of my former state,
The bondage, all was mine;
The light of life, in which I walk,
The liberty, is Thine.

Thy grace first made me feel my sin,
It taught me to believe;
Then, in believing, peace I found,
And now I live, I live.

All that I am, even here on earth,
All that I hope to be
When Jesus comes and glory dawns,
I owe it, Lord, to Thee.

A Response to Criticisms: 2 Corinthians 11:4

by Kevin Bauder | Jun 25, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

Fundamentalists have not often appealed to 2 Corinthians 11:4 as a key text for their understanding of ecclesiastical separation. Even a cursory examination of the verse indicates that their reluctance has been well founded. It fairly bristles with interpretive problems, making it the sort of text that provides a hazardous foundation for a doctrinal proof.

The overall thrust of the verse is clear enough. False teachers had come to the Corinthian church, some of whose members received them with enthusiasm. The result was that many Corinthian believers were rejecting Paul’s leadership, even though he had reached them for Christ and taught them their basic doctrine. What Paul intends to do in the first part of 2 Corinthians 11 is to contrast the Corinthians’ tolerance of the false teachers with their rejection of him. In verses 5–11 Paul singles out one of the accusations leveled against him by church members at Corinth. He reminds them that his apostleship was fully on display among them (5–6). His only possible offense lay in not taking their money, instead of which he accepted help from other churches so that he could minister to them free of charge (7–9). Rather than being ashamed of this conduct, Paul was willing to boast in it, for it was motivated by love for the Corinthians (10–11). When he should have received gratitude for his personal sacrifice and labor, however, Paul had to endure rejection—the Corinthians allowed themselves to be vexed even by this imagined slight.

Verse 4 provides the contrast, showing the Corinthian attitude toward the false teachers. Paul narrows his description to a single teacher (“he that cometh”), a description that probably focuses upon a leader of his opponents. Paul supposes that this teacher has come with a particular message, and that the Corinthians can sense the falseness of the message. Nevertheless, they “might well bear with” the false teacher. This tolerance contrasts to their treatment of Paul, whom they rejected over the slightest imagined offense.

What is the content of the false message? Paul describes it in the rest of verse 4. This message consists of three elements, but Paul’s description of those elements is ambiguous enough to provoke a series of questions. The structure of Paul’s description can be charted as follows.

Actor	Action	Qualifier	Object	Description
He that cometh	Preacheth	Another (allos)	Jesus	Whom we have not preached
You	Receive (lambano)	Another (heteros)	S/spirit (pneuma)	Which ye have not received (lambano)
Unspecified	Unspecified	Another (heteros)	Gospel	Which ye have not accepted (dechomai)

This text forces interpreters to respond to a whole list of issues. Why the shift from allos in the first element to heteros in the second and third? Why the shift in person between the first and second elements, and which person ought to be understood in the third element? In other words, was the false teacher preaching a different gospel, or were the Corinthians receiving a different gospel, or both? Should the pneuma in the second element be understood as the Holy Spirit, the human spirit, or some sort of attitude or disposition? Why the change from lambano (receive) in the second element to dechomai (welcome) in the third? These difficulties are not mere cavils: responsible commentators can be found defending each of the various options.

What is certain is that all three elements were coming from the false teacher. The Corinthians were not receiving a different S/spirit that they just thought up; they were receiving one that the false teacher suggested. They were not accepting a different gospel that they invented; they were accepting one that the false teacher proclaimed. While the Corinthian believers were responsible for their acceptance or rejection of the false message, all three elements were being proclaimed by the same false teacher.

Presumably all of these apostates were teaching the same message, but Paul focuses on one single individual. One person was teaching all three false elements. Therefore, setting these elements over against each other as if they belonged to different categories (such as Christology, revelation, and soteriology) is a serious interpretive mistake. They are not three separate teachings: they are three related dimensions of one single denial of the faith. For the Corinthians, to accept one of these false elements was implicitly to accept them all.

The interrelatedness of these elements should not surprise us. The system of Christian doctrine and practice is not simply a collection of isolated teachings. It is a web in which every single doctrine connects to every other doctrine. Consequently, every doctrine carries implications (whether directly or indirectly) for every other doctrine.

Sometimes our big theological labels stand for whole networks of doctrines. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity involves the junction between the biblical teaching of a single divine being with the Bible’s recognition of three divine persons. The deity of the Father is essential to the Trinity, but so is the full deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The recognition of three divine persons and one divine being forces us to ask how God is one and how He is three. It also leads us directly to the problem of the relationship of the deity of the Son to His humanity. When we say Trinity we are not merely talking about theology proper: we are also talking about pneumatology and Christology, and those will quickly lead us to consider anthropology.

The word gospel is one of those big theological labels. A rather uninstructed Christian might hear the word gospel and automatically think something like, plan of salvation. This simple equation, however, would be a mistake. To be sure, the plan of salvation is part of the gospel, but it is not the entire gospel. To understand how it is not, and to understand what the content of the gospel is, we must next turn to a discussion of the gospel itself.

Lord, Thou Hast Been Our Dwelling-Place

Thomas H. Gill (1819–1906)

Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place
In ev’ry generation;
Thy people still have known thy grace,
And blessed thy consolation:
Through ev’ry age thou heard’st our cry
Through ev’ry age we found thee nigh,
Our Strength and our Salvation.

Our cleaving sins we oft have wept,
And oft thy patience proved;
But still thy faith we fast have kept,
Thy Name we still have loved;
And thou hast kept and loved us well,
Hast granted us in thee to dwell,
Unshaken, unremoved.

No, nothing from those arms of love
Shall thine own people sever;
Our Helper never will remove,
Our God will fail us never.
Thy people, Lord, have dwelt in thee,
Our dwelling place thou still wilt be
For ever and for ever.

A Response to Criticisms: The Gospel

by Kevin Bauder | Jun 18, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

The American Council of Christian Churches published its whitepaper entitled The Biblical Doctrine of Separation in 2014. This work was motivated by a desire to restate the biblical principles behind ecclesiastical separation in view of a shift that was taking place within fundamentalism. Some younger fundamentalists were abandoning these ideals for involvement in conservative evangelical organizations such as The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel. Others were attempting to keep one foot in both camps. The ACCC rightly perceived a difference between itself and conservative evangelicalism, and it sought to articulate that difference.

This whitepaper is a helpful contribution that wrestles with the question of drawing boundaries in ecclesiastical fellowship and separation. It is not what opponents of fundamentalism might expect. It is not angry, it is not a diatribe, and it does not misrepresent its opponents. I would commend the publication to readers who wish to see an example of historic, mainstream, balanced fundamentalism.

This publication, however, singles me out by name for disagreement, and I believe that I ought to reply for several reasons. First, I don’t think there really is a disagreement, or, if there is, it is much smaller than the authors of the whitepaper appear to believe. Second, the assumption that we disagree is based at least partly on the authors’ misreading of my argument in Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, and I would like to correct that misreading. Third, whatever disagreement might actually exist can be traced to the ACCC authors’ too-glib usage of one biblical passage, and study of that passage may well eliminate all potential for difference. The heart of the argument in the whitepaper, and the nub of the authors’ supposed disagreement with me, is expressed in the following paragraph:

Some have emphasized the gospel as the touchstone of orthodoxy. One author used this emphasis in a recent defense of fundamentalism, “The thing that is held in common by all Christians—the thing that constitutes the church as one church—is the gospel itself.” None would deny the importance of the gospel to this question [ecclesiastical separation from false teachers], but the gospel is only one-third of the concerns raised by the apostle Paul in Corinth: “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, who we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11:4).

The citation in the middle of this paragraph is footnoted under my name to the volume Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism. I should note that the ACCC erroneously lists me as an editor for that volume. I was merely a contributor, and a kind of outside voice at that. The whitepaper continues,

So where many fundamentalists today are focused on a single category of theology, soteriology, the apostle Paul was focused on at least three: Christology, revelation, and soteriology. Consequently, the gospel-centric approach to ecclesiastical separation is an inadequate summary of the Bible doctrine.

As I say, I wish to respond to these statements. My response will consist of three parts. First, I describe the structure of 2 Corinthians 11:4, upon which the ACCC has based its case. Second, I will address the question of how the purported three issues (another Jesus, another spirit, and another gospel) are related. Third, I will deal with the significance specifically of Paul’s words, “another spirit,” in the structure of 2 Corinthians 11:4. The question on this last point is raised by the author of the whitepaper (the names of the author or authors never appear), who assumes that the mention of “another spirit” was meant to raise the issue of revelation. I want to consider whether that is the most likely assumption.

First, however, an introductory word is in order. Paul’s feelings are closer to the surface in 2 Corinthians than in any of his other writings. Perhaps that is because he was dealing with personal rejection to a greater degree than he encountered elsewhere. Not only was the church at Corinth profoundly carnal (as can be seen in 1 Corinthians), but a cadre of false teachers had come into the church. They were apparently good-looking men, well-schooled, and highly articulate. They presented letters of commendation from important individuals. In attacking Paul, they seem to have derided his personal appearance, his lack of rhetorical polish, his menial employment, his physical disability, and his frequent imprisonments. The danger was that some Corinthians would turn away from the truth because they were turning away from Paul. Consequently, the whole epistle becomes a double exercise for Paul: he wishes to defend the gospel while at the same time defending his own apostleship—all while trying not to appear arrogant or self-important.

One of Paul’s tools in offering this double-defense is a refined sense of irony. Paul comes closer to full-blown sarcasm more frequently in 2 Corinthians than in any of his other writings. He also engages in considerable self-deprecation, especially when defending his apostleship. His approach can be paraphrased as “Only fools talk about themselves, and I’m talking about myself, so I’m acting like a fool, but in my defense, you’re making me do it.” Both the irony and the self-deprecation are punctuated by protestations of Paul’s intense love for the members of the church at Corinth. He makes it clear that his hard words are not meant to be dismissive. Rather, he speaks as he does because he cares about them so deeply.

All of these features of Paul’s argument are on display in the opening verses of 2 Corinthians 11. He asks the readers to bear with him in his foolishness. He expresses his deep concern that they are being led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. Then in verse 4 he unleashes biting sarcasm: “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” It is to this verse that we shall turn in the next issue of In the Nick of Time.

Psalm 66

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Sing, all ye nations to the Lord,
Sing with a joyful noise;
With melody of sound record
His honors and your joys.

Say to the Pow’r that shakes the sky,
“How terrible art Thou!
Sinners before Thy presence fly,
Or at Thy feet they bow.”

O bless our God, and never cease,
Ye saints, fulfil His praise;
He keeps our life, maintains our peace,
And guides our doubtful ways.

Lord, thou hast prov’d our suff’ring souls
To make our graces shine;
So silver bears the burning coals,
The metal to refine.

Thro’ wat’ry deeps, and fiery ways
We march at Thy command;
Led to possess the promis’d place
By Thine unerring hand.

A Response to Criticisms: Preface

by Kevin Bauder | Jun 11, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

Ten years ago I authored a chapter and three responses for the book Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, edited by Andy Naselli and Collin Hansen. My job was both to help readers understand fundamentalism and to respond to the positions represented by other evangelical authors. My approach overall was to argue that fundamentalism is deeply interested in the unity of the Church, but that the Church’s unity is grounded in the gospel. Wherever the gospel is denied, the unity of the church is fractured: those who deny the gospel must not be reckoned as Christians or as within the Church. In other words, a genuine concern with unity compels the biblically obedient Christian to practice ecclesiastical separation.

I also made the case that ecclesiastical separation must extend further than only those who overtly deny the gospel. According to the apostle John, those who make common cause with gospel deniers incur a share in their evil deeds. That being so, at least some limitation of fellowship is necessary toward gospel believers who extend Christian fellowship to gospel deniers. This is a position that is sometimes called “secondary separation,” and in one of my responses I argued that the willingness to pursue secondary separation is what distinguishes fundamentalism from even the most conservative evangelical alternative.

When I published the chapter and responses I expected criticism, and I fully anticipated that the harshest criticism would come from self-proclaimed fundamentalists. I had two reasons for expecting this response. One is that fundamentalists have been wrangling over the meaning of their position since at least the 1970s. Pejoratives like neo-fundamentalist, pseudo-fundamentalist, and cultural fundamentalist have been hurled back and forth as some who wore the label attempted to deny its rightful use to others. Since I was unavoidably taking a position in this long-standing debate, I could hardly hope to be ignored (and I did not want to be—what author does?).

Second, while fundamentalists have often manifested the virtue of temperance when praising others, they have moderated their objections less frequently. Fortunately, some noteworthy and happy exceptions to this rule do exist. Nevertheless, one of the quickest ways to make a name within some branches of fundamentalism—especially hyper-fundamentalism—is by attacking some evil. Of course, the evil cannot be challenged in the abstract, but requires castigation of the persons who are perceived as advancing it. If an ambitious hyper-fundamentalist cannot find a genuine evil, then an invented evil just might do the trick.

It was well that I had anticipated such complaints, for they were not long in coming. Even before publishing my chapter and responses I had decided to ignore most of them. There is no use in providing a platform for attention seekers and truth twisters, and that is what I anticipated that most of the critics would be. They are like the comment stream on an Internet news story—no good ever comes from reading it, let alone interacting with it.

My determination to ignore the most unreasonable criticisms, however, does not mean that I wanted to ignore all disagreement. I will be the first to acknowledge that my work contains flaws, and I am eager to correct them. The best way of finding out what they are is to converse with those who express reasonable disagreement. That kind of disagreement can come from opponents, but it can also come from friends. Indeed, one of the marks of a true friend is the willingness to confront and disagree.

Unfortunately, the shrillness of the unreasonable disagreement tended to block the possibility of responding to the reasonable ones. As the rhetorical temperature began to rise, I found that my acquaintances imagined some obligation to express themselves as either “pro-Bauder” or “anti-Bauder.” For a while, it seemed as if no middle ground was possible within fundamentalism. Some fundamentalist organizations even began to pass resolutions either for me or against me.

In the midst of the uproar came a sharply critical resolution from the American Council of Christian Churches. That surprised me for three reasons. First, I was and am an individual member of the ACCC. Second, the ACCC is my endorsing agency for military chaplaincy. Third, the executive secretary of the ACCC, Ralph Colas, was a close personal friend.

I called Dr. Colas about the resolution and asked why the ACCC had found it necessary to speak so sharply about me. He told me that the resolution was driven by a few of the younger men while he was away from the meeting. Apparently, they had listened to some of my more extreme critics, then allowed their fears about what I might be saying to override their reading of what I actually did say. I assured Dr. Colas that my commitment to separatism had not changed. Soon, the ACCC retracted that resolution, issuing a revised resolution that expressed concern about certain trends, but without naming me.

Other than a brief clarification I chose not to pursue the episode. As I say, I am a member of the ACCC. I believe what it believes. I value what it does. I have no wish to hurt the organization and every desire to encourage it. The ACCC is certainly not one of those hyper-fundamentalist institutions to which I referred a moment ago.

Ralph Colas was already dying of cancer when that incident took place. After he stepped out of leadership, the ACCC published a “whitepaper” entitled The Bible Doctrine of Separation. Again I found myself singled out for disagreement, though it now took a much more reasonable and even charitable tone. As soon as I saw the “whitepaper,” I knew that I should respond. It advanced several ideas that are worthy of conversation. I hesitated, however, because I still did not wish to be perceived as opposing the ACCC.

About a year ago the ACCC decided to serialize the “whitepaper” on its web site. The organization’s leadership has a perfect right to do that. By and large I believe that the document is a helpful one. Nevertheless, it does involve a few misunderstandings that I believe could be balanced out or even corrected.

Beginning next week, that is my goal. I will be responding to some of the criticisms in The Bible Doctrine of Separation, and I will be engaging some of its principal ideas. From the outset I want it understood that I am not trying to provoke a quarrel, but to clarify some of the issues that the ACCC has seen fit to raise. I continue to hold the ACCC in high regard. I intend to support the organization. After the lapse of nearly a decade, however, I also think a reasonable conversation should be possible. My aim is to conduct such a conversation.

Hosanna, With a Cheerful Sound

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Hosanna, with a cheerful sound,
To God’s upholding hand;
Ten thousand snares attend us round,
And yet secure we stand.

That was a most amazing pow’r
Which raised us with a word,
And every day, and every hour,
We lean upon the Lord.

The evening rests our weary head,
And angels guard the room;
We wake, and we admire the bed,
That was not made our tomb.

The rising morning can’t assure,
That we shall end the day;
For death stands ready at the door
To take our lives away.

Our breath is forfeited by sin
To God’s avenging law;
We own thy grace, immortal King,
In every gasp we draw.

God is our sun, whose daily light,
Our joy and safety brings;
Our feeble flesh lies safe at night
Beneath his shady wings.

A Confession of Faith

by Kevin Bauder | Jun 4, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

One might think that creedalism was a thing of the past, but what’s old is new again. I recently encountered a confession of faith posted as a sign in someone’s lawn. If people take the trouble to post their beliefs on their lawn, then they must think that those beliefs are important—perhaps even fundamental. And indeed, the theses on that sign do represent a new kind of fundamentalism. The sign said:

WE BELIEVE
BLACK LIVES MATTER
NO HUMAN IS ILLEGAL
LOVE IS LOVE
WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS
SCIENCE IS REAL
WATER IS LIFE
INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE

Several observations are in order. First, this statement is a creed, a confession of faith. It is not a listing of empirical facts, but an assertion of what “we believe.” Its claims fall squarely within the orbit of prejudice.

Second, the creed offers no reasons for its prejudices. Of course, the function of creeds is to define dogmas, not to defend them. All creeds express opinions that the creeds themselves do not support. For a creed to be taken seriously, however, its adherents must provide supporting arguments and evidence. That task necessarily opens any creed to examination and criticism.

Third, the seven theses of this creed block debate by their blunt and dogmatic assertions. The document reads less like a creed and more like a manifesto. Understood functionally, it does not offer an invitation to examine evidence or to consider arguments, but it issues a call to action. For those who confess this creed, no question or hesitation will be welcomed.

Fourth, at the most facile level, every thesis in the creed is true. “Love is love” is simply tautologous. One can only deny that “women’s rights are human rights” by denying that women are humans. The creed asserts that “science is real,” but who ever claimed that science was imaginary? And what sane person is going to proclaim that “Black lives do not matter?” Every thesis is true—but trivial as stated.

Fifth, and this is where things go all 1984, none of these propositions says what it means. Each provides cover for a different prejudice that is much more controversial and damaging. The pious who confess this creed are attempting to smuggle a sensibility into the public consciousness while sparing themselves the trouble of defending it. Each thesis is a slogan, and the confession as a whole is an attempt to sloganeer a social revolution. This tactic becomes apparent when we examine the theses individually.

Black Lives Matter. Of course they do, and the percentage of murder victims who are Black is truly alarming. For the year 2018, nearly 45 percent of all murder victims in the United States were Black, even though Blacks account for only 13.4 percent of the population. Only about 8 percent of these murders were committed by whites; almost 89 percent were committed by other Blacks. While a few highly publicized police shootings are cause for genuine concern, someone who really believed that Black lives mattered would be devoting most of their attention to finding out why Blacks are killing other Blacks at such an alarming rate. The truth is that something matters more to those people than Black lives.

No Human Is Illegal. I take comfort in knowing that it is never illegal to be human. Wherever people pass laws, however, other people break them. People do illegal things, and it is not wrong to note that what they are doing is illegal. People who break laws by committing murder are illegal murderers. People who break laws by stealing are illegal thieves. People who break laws against selling drugs are illegal drug dealers. People who break laws when they immigrate are illegal immigrants. The real question is whether a nation can rightfully establish lawful procedures for immigration—yet the slogan carefully avoids that question.

Love Is Love. Yes, but is every love equally deserving of respect and celebration? A love for Italian cooking is usually innocuous, but it is hardly on a par with those loves that lead mothers to sacrifice for their children or patriots to die for their countries. To say that love is love is not to establish that all loves are equal or even respectable. Might some loves be despicable, such as when love of money turns into grasping greed, or sexual desire is perverted into pedophilia? This slogan really wishes us to deny that some loves are also perversions—but they are.

Women’s Rights Are Human Rights. True enough—but the question is, which rights are those? The expression “women’s rights” has become code for “the right to abort an unborn baby.” To defend abortion-on-demand as anybody’s right is simply to beg the question of whether such a right exists. For those who believe it does not, the attempt to smuggle abortion into this slogan is both absurd and obnoxious.

Science Is Real. Of course science is real, but what constitutes a science? Here is a hint: not every organized body of affirmations is science. The sciences employ a particular method: the observation and quantification of empirical phenomena, leading to the formulation of predictive hypotheses, the verification of which is subject to repeatable experimentation. Remarkably, current speculations about global warming and climate change do not fit that definition, but assertions about the humanity of unborn babies do.

Water Is Life. This is a metaphor: strictly speaking, water is water and life is life. Nevertheless, water is certainly necessary to life, which is what the slogan means. The smuggled message is that human access to potable water is being threatened. Perhaps that is true in places like the Sahara, the Gobi, and the Kalahari. Elsewhere, not so much. In fact, Western nations have made incredible progress over the past fifty years in cleaning up their water supplies. This slogan cannot be used ethically to imply that more Western governmental intrusion and regulation are necessary.

Injustice Anywhere Is a Threat to Justice Everywhere. The word threat is overly strong. If a petty thief in Delhi is permitted to escape, the rate of looting in Minneapolis is not likely to spike. Well, alright, it is likely to spike, but it would have done that anyway, whatever happens to the petty thief. The point is that there are greater and lesser injustices (as we try to teach our toddlers). Furthermore, some injustices cannot be corrected without perpetrating greater injustices. The real threat to justice everywhere is a niggling determination to pursue an unrealistic vision of justice in an imperfect world at any cost.

Humans cannot live without faith. The dogmas of this confession represent a new, secular, and in some circles, fundamentalist orthodoxy. Nevertheless, this new orthodoxy is grounded in a false vision, and when false visions are enforced by the coercive power of the state, they invariably become tyrannical. My response to this creed is, I believe what you say, but what you say is trivial. What you mean by what you say is not trivial, but it is false and profoundly dangerous.

Psalm 54

Henry Francis Lyte (1793–1847)

Save me by Thy glorious name;
Lord, that name is love,
Help from Thee I humbly claim,
Send it from above;
Hear, oh hear my suppliant voice!
Hear, and bid my heart rejoice.

Foes to Christ and every good
Fiercely throng on me;
Soon my soul must be subdued,
Without aid from Thee:
But with Thee to make me strong,
Lord, they shall not triumph long.

Lo, He comes, He takes my part,
All my struggles cease.
Rise in praise, my grateful heart,
Bless the Prince of Peace;
God Himself has set me free,
God my worship ever be!

A Primer on Spiritual Gifts

by Kevin Bauder | May 28, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

The New Testament mentions three sorts of gifts connected with the three persons of the Godhead. First, in general, every good and perfect gift comes down from the “Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning” (James 1:17). Second, the ascended Lord Jesus Christ gives certain individuals as gifts to humanity through His church—apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers (Eph 4:8–11). Third, the charismata or pneumatika are given by the Holy Spirit to individuals. These last are usually spoken of as “spiritual gifts,” and they are mentioned and even listed in multiple passages (Rom 12:6–8; 1 Cor 12: 4–11, 28–30; and possibly 1 Pet 4:9–11).

The remarkable thing about these lists is that, while they contain overlap, they also differ considerably. Leaving aside 1 Peter 4 (which does not really offer a list), each summary mentions at least one item that does not appear on any other list. In other words, none of these lists is intended to be an exhaustive inventory of spiritual gifts. Each provides only a sampling of the broader category of spiritual gifts.

Many Bible students have assumed that they could get an exhaustive list of spiritual gifts by simply collating the lists. The problem is that if each individual list is merely a sampling and not intended to be exhaustive, then there is no particular reason to suppose that a collated list would be exhaustive either. In other words, we can offer no real justification for claiming that the New Testament provides a comprehensive catalog of spiritual gifts. We cannot rule out the possibility that the Holy Spirit gives some gifts that the New Testament does not mention.

The common denominator shared by all spiritual gifts, whether or not they are mentioned in the New Testament, is that they are given by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:11). Yet the gifts appear to be given in different ways. Some of the gifts are clearly miraculous or revelatory (e.g. tongues, healing, prophecy, miracles). Other gifts resemble natural abilities shared even by unbelievers (e.g., helps, administrations, serving, teaching). Obviously the former involve some direct agency of the Spirit in bestowing supernatural ability. The latter are not so clearly supernatural, but may involve some indirect focusing and heightening of a natural ability by the Holy Spirit. People who are gifted administrators or teachers in Christian enterprises are likely to be able administrators or teachers in mundane contexts as well.

Consequently, no clear line of demarcation can be drawn between spiritual gifts and natural abilities. The differences are most clearly seen with the miraculous gifts, which by definition do not resemble anything natural. The non-miraculous gifts, however, seem to involve some conjunction of native ability with giftedness from the Holy Spirit.

Since the purpose of miraculous gifts was to authenticate the apostles during the period when God was shifting His work in the world away from Israel and toward the Church (Heb 2:4; 2 Cor 12:11–13), those gifts stopped when the apostles were gone. The rest of the gifts, however, seem to have been intended for serving rather than as signs. These gifts most likely function throughout the church age.

Evidently every Christian possesses at least one spiritual gift (1 Cor 2:11). Some Christian leaders have suggested that it is important for believers to identify their gifts so that they will know how to serve. Several have developed long inventories of gifts, complete with descriptions of how each gift functions, what sort of person is most likely to be given a particular gift, and which strengths and weaknesses typically accompany the various gifts. A few have even developed instruments, resembling psychological tests, that are supposed to tell believers what gifts they possess.

The New Testament itself, however, does not provide a detailed description for most gifts. Students of the Bible can only guess at what some of them might, or might have, involved. Furthermore, the New Testament offers no procedure for helping Christians to know which gifts they have received. It would seem that this matter was rather less important to the apostles than it is to some noteworthy modern Bible teachers.

The New Testament emphasizes serving more than it emphasizes giftedness. In moments of weakness and trial our gifts will not be sufficient for us. Only our Lord will. But then, our Lord is always sufficient. Sometimes we find ourselves challenged to serve in areas where we do not believe ourselves to be particularly gifted. If so, we should not shrink from the opportunities that the Lord gives us. Under normal circumstances about ninety percent of ministry is a matter of just showing up—whether we are gifted or not.

I do not mean to deny that we might know at least some of our giftedness. I believe that I know some of mine. But we discover our giftedness in the process of serving, not by completing evaluative instruments. We also learn about our gifts as we see where God uses us in real ministry and as we listen to the counsel of those who know us well.

Too much talk about giftedness smacks of the effort to grant each person her or his own bespoke ministry. Under these circumstances, spiritual giftedness becomes a kind of ministry boutique in which expressions of service can be customized. Faced with this problem, we must avoid encouraging people to think of spiritual giftedness in terms of their own self-assertion and personal gratification. Let us remember that the needs of the body come first, while expressions of giftedness follow after.

Great Was the Day

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Great was the day, the joy was great,
When the divine disciples met;
Whilst on their heads the Spirit came,
And sat like tongues of cloven flame.

What gifts, what miracles he gave!
And power to kill, and power to save!
Furnish’d their tongues with wondrous words,
Instead of shields, and spears, and swords.

Thus arm’d, He sent the champions forth,
From east to west, from south to north;
“Go, and assert your Savior’s cause;
Go, spread the mystery of His cross.”

These weapons of the holy war,
Of what almighty force they are,
To make our stubborn passions bow,
And lay the lowest rebel low!

Nations, the learned and the rude,
Were by these heav’nly arms subdu’d;
While Satan rages at his loss,
And hates the doctrine of the cross.

Great King of Grace, my heart subdue,
I would be led in triumph too,
A willing captive to my Lord,
And sing the victories of His word.

Another Year

by Kevin Bauder | May 21, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

Central Baptist Theological Seminary held its first commencement in 1957. Except for last year (2020) we have celebrated graduations every year since. As with other seminaries, last year’s ceremonies were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This year, however, we were able to award degrees to a dozen graduates in three programs.

None of this year’s graduates was under thirty years old, and their ages ranged upwards to past sixty. We used to get students right out of college, and they would push through seminary in three years. Now we tend to get students who are already in ministry, who are rearing families, and who want to take their time finishing school. Some of them have already enjoyed complete careers and hope to devote the rest of their lives to ministry. Some of them are taking advanced degrees. In most cases they have substantial experience behind them.

For example, we graduated four Doctors of Ministry this year. One is a veteran missionary church planter. One is a professor in a Bible college and seminary. Two are senior pastors, one in Colorado and one in Michigan. Of these four, two are in their sixties. All intend to continue in the same ministries that they have held for years (or, in some cases, decades).

At the opposite end of the academic spectrum are those individuals who are graduating with the Master of Arts degree. This is our least advanced and least demanding degree, but all three who received it have already been actively involved in pastoral ministry. One has pastored the same church for upwards of a decade. All are mature men.

Five Master of Divinity graduates crossed the platform this year. The oldest is at the age at which most people retire. The other four have all been pastors. Three of them will continue in their present ministries. The other had left a pastoral ministry in Michigan to move to Central Seminary, and he has already been called to a church in Alaska.

Rarely have I been more pleased with a graduating class. These are tested men, not novices. They have survived trials and choices. They have already shown that they will persevere in ministry. They have also demonstrated their ability to balance study, family, and work. To all appearances, they should have fruitful years of serving the Lord ahead of them.

What we do not have are recent college graduates who have completed seminary and who are eager to step into the pulpits of the many smaller, pastorless churches around the country. Hardly a week goes by without some congregation asking Central Seminary’s staff or faculty for help finding a pastor. Too often we must reply that we have no recent graduates to suggest, because our graduates are already active in ministries.

Here and there are many churches, most of them small, that seem to have difficulty finding a pastor. They can gather names quickly enough; indeed, many men seem quite prepared to recommend themselves to any pulpit committee that will listen. Finding someone who is qualified to hold the office of pastor-bishop-elder, however, turns out to be more of a challenge. If you are a member of a pulpit committee, you can expect to receive names of men who have disqualified themselves from ministry morally or financially—and you will have no way of knowing it until you do a thorough check of their backgrounds and references. You can expect to receive names of men who have neglected to gain adequate understanding of the Bible and doctrine. You can expect to receive names of men who interview well but who have proven their lack of ability to work with people. You can expect to receive names of men who imagine ministers to be social justice warriors, ecclesiastical entrepreneurs, or religious impresarios. You can expect to receive names of men who will see your church as a platform for advancing idiosyncrasies (whether doctrinal or practical) that will fundamentally alter the direction of its ministry. Only rarely will you receive names of men who really desire to do the work of a bishop, who have been tested, and who have improved their gifts so that they can fulfill their calling.

If it were up to me, I would wish that we were enrolling a hundred young men every year—a hundred men who had the desire and gifts to become pastors. Better still, I could wish that we were graduating a hundred men who, in addition to desire and gifts, had received the best preparation that we could give them in biblical languages and content, systematic and historical theology, and ministry practice. I would love to see a hundred men going out every year who were committed to proclaiming not only the gospel but also the whole counsel of God, men who would foster and nourish congregations in knowledge, love, and obedience toward Christ.

If it were up to me, that is what I would wish for. But it is not up to me. I cannot call men into ministry. Seminaries cannot call men into ministry. Only the Holy Spirit calls pastors, and He uses local churches as His nurseries for those whom He intends to call.

May the Lord of the harvest send forth laborers into His harvest. While He does, my co-laborers and I will continue to do the best job we can of preparing those men whom the Lord does send, whether they are younger or older. For the moment, I thank the Lord for this year’s dozen fine graduates.

Lord, Thy Church, Without a Pastor

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834–1892)

Lord, Thy church, without a pastor,
Cries to Thee in her distress;
Hear us, gracious Lord and Master,
And with heavenly guidance bless.

Walking midst Thy lamps all golden,
Thou preservest still the light;
Stars in Thy right hand are holden,
Stars to cheer Thy church’s night.

Find us, Lord, the man appointed
Pastor of this flock to be,
One with holy oil anointed,
Meet for us, and dear to Thee.

Send a man, O King in Zion,
Made according to Thine heart,
Meek as lamb, and bold as lion,
Wise to act a shepherd’s part.

Grant us now Thy heavenly leading,
Over every heart preside,
Now, in answer to our pleading,
All our consultations guide.

How To Think About Israel

by Kevin Bauder | May 14, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

[This essay was originally published on June 5, 2015.]

The state of Israel is in the news at least weekly, sometimes daily. The United States is still the greatest supporter of Israel, but public perception is that the Obama administration’s backing is less than enthusiastic. In spite of this assessment, the Obama administration was the first to sell bunker-buster bombs to Israel, and it vetoed down a UN resolution that would have declared Israeli settlements illegal on the West Bank.

Given all the controversy, Christians sometimes wonder how they should think about Israel. The problem is especially acute for dispensationalists, who believe that national Israel is still a chosen people of God and will someday be restored to God’s favor. Several observations might help Christian people to adopt a correct attitude toward Israel.

First, the modern state of Israel is not equivalent to the national Israel of the Bible. Most of the world’s Jewish population is still scattered in the Diaspora. In fact, about as many Jewish people live in the United States as live in the state of Israel (perhaps more—getting a count of the Jewish population in America has been controversial). Israel was not regathered to the land (in any prophetic sense) in 1948 or at any time since. Furthermore, about a quarter of the Israeli population is not Jewish.

Second, as a corollary of the foregoing, the modern state of Israel is not in a position to claim promises made to the biblical nation of Israel. It is not in any sense inheriting the “land” provisions of the Abrahamic covenant. In fact, no part of biblical, national Israel can claim those promises at this moment. The apostle Paul depicts biblical Israel as presently experiencing a dual relationship with God during the present age. Concerning the gospel, God has permitted national Israel to fall into a position of enmity for the sake of the church. Concerning their election, however, God still loves national Israel for the sake of the patriarchs (Rom. 11:28). While occupying the status of “beloved enemy,” biblical Israel is temporarily under the judgment and not the blessing of God. The modern state of Israel can certainly point to its territory as a historic homeland, but it has no right to claim the land by divine title.

Third, no aspect of biblical prophecy depends for its fulfillment upon the existence of the state of Israel. Specifically, the Rapture is not contingent upon Israel being in the land. If the Arabs were to succeed in pushing Israel into the Mediterranean, not one biblical prophecy would be altered. Those who believe in a pretribulational Rapture could still believe in a pretribulational Rapture, complete with a doctrine of imminency.

Fourth, while the modern state of Israel is not identical with the biblical nation of Israel, those Jews who are presently in the land do constitute a part of national Israel as it exists today. Furthermore, even though national Israel is presently and temporarily under God’s judgment (the Diaspora has not been revoked), God cares about His people while they are being judged. In the Old Testament, God used Gentile nations to judge Israel, but He held those nations accountable for what they did. As instruments of judgment, they had a choice about how they would treat Jewish people. God blessed those who treated Jewish people well, and He visited calamity upon those who persecuted Israel. In other words, Gentiles will always find it in their interest to treat Jewish people with respect and to provide protection when they come under attack. This respect and protection should have been extended to the Jewish population of Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. It should be extended to the Jewish population of the United States and other countries today. And it certainly could be extended to the state of Israel.

Fifth, the modern state of Israel was not imposed by the aggression of one nation against another. Rather, it was carved out of a decaying section of a disintegrating Ottoman Empire by powers that had defeated the Ottomans in just war. It was created to provide a home for a displaced and decimated people, only a fragment of whom survived Hitler’s death camps. Those who survived had endured the confiscation of their homes and their wealth. Many were interred in refugee camps. No wonder they flocked to Israel when the opportunity presented itself. The state of Israel has every right to exist and every right to survive.

Sixth, modern Israel is a sovereign state with the rights and privileges of any present-day nation. These rights and privileges include self-determination and self-protection. They also include the right to form alliances or treaties, and modern Israel has chosen to do just that with the United States. As a purely pragmatic matter, Israel is the only reliable ally that the United States has in the Middle East. The interest of America is served at multiple levels by helping to secure the peace and prosperity of Israel.

Seventh, Arabs, including those who consider themselves Palestinian, also have rights. Furthermore, God has a future for other Middle Eastern nations besides Israel. A day is coming when both Egypt and Iraq will stand beside Israel as peoples of God (Isa. 19:19ff). Christians must not allow their genuine respect for Jewish people or their loyalty to the state of Israel to blind them to the real rights of the surrounding nations—or of the Arab population within Israel.

Eighth, no nation is without fault, including the state of Israel. Neither Christians nor Americans are obligated to defend every choice and every action taken by the Israelis. The United States has sometimes been wrong in its own policies—so has Israel. The United States has sometimes blundered and committed evil deeds—so has Israel. Both Israelis and Americans ought to work to correct past wrongs and to prevent future ones. Deciding what those wrongs are, however, and determining how they are best corrected requires mature and responsible deliberation, not political grandstanding or visceral reactions. Such decisions cannot be made justly or effectively at gunpoint.

The Christian attitude toward modern Israel ought to be one of committed but tempered support. Under all circumstances, Christians ought to be found blessing the sons of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—never cursing them. Realism requires us to recognize that Israel will commit injustices, but occasional injustices should not lead us to abandon our closest ally in the Middle East.

How Shall I Sing That Majesty?

John Mason (1646?–1694)

How shall I sing that Majesty
which angels do admire?
Let dust in dust and silence lie;
sing, sing, ye heavenly choir.
Thousands of thousands stand around
thy throne, O God most high;
ten thousand times ten thousand sound
thy praise; but who am I?

Thy brightness unto them appears,
whilst I thy footsteps trace;
a sound of God comes to my ears;
but they behold thy face.
They sing because thou art their Sun:
Lord, send a beam on me;
for where heaven is but once begun,
there alleluias be.

How great a being Lord, is thine,
which doth all beings keep!
Thy knowledge is the only line
to sound so vast a deep.
Thou art a sea without a shore,
a sun without a sphere;
thy time is now and evermore,
thy place is everywhere.

Faithful Servants

by Kevin Bauder | May 7, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

One of the best periods in the history of Central Baptist Theological Seminary unfolded during the first two thirds of the 1960s. With Richard V. Clearwaters as president and Warren Vanhetloo as dean, the seminary assembled a cluster of amazingly bright young professors. These included men like Ernest Pickering, Robert Delnay, and Robert Myrant. While young themselves, these professors brought impeccable academic credentials to the classroom. They also brought a heart for ministry. Both Pickering and Myrant pastored churches while they taught for Central Seminary. Delnay’s teaching reflected his experience as a missionary in Haiti. These were teachers who loved God, loved truth, and loved to serve.

They left their mark on young men who studied under their instruction. When they graduated, these students left Central Seminary prepared to serve in small churches or obscure fields. They knew that they would never become men of reputation, yet they believed that Christ was doing a work and they wanted to be part of it. They threw themselves into ministry, leading souls to Christ, organizing churches, and building up little congregations. During its heyday, fundamentalism was erected upon the labors of men such as these.

Some of those men eventually did gain recognition from their peers. Others just labored on, content to wait until they were recognized by the Lord in His own time. They never became household names even within the small orbit of fundamentalists, but they did leave a legacy of souls who were converted to Christ and growing in the faith.

We at Central Seminary still want to produce graduates like that: men who through faithful labor serve their Lord lifelong, and men who do not constantly need to be propped up with human praise to convince them to remain in ministry. Most of all we want graduates who will be faithful to the end: we want men who will fulfill their ministries by finishing well.

We need such servants because the graduates of that now-distant decade are finishing their tasks. Their ministries are largely behind them, and they are being taken one by one into the presence of their Lord. The revelation of their true significance awaits the completion of the general assembly and church of the firstborn. Yet here and there we can guess at the degree to which the Lord has used them.

One such servant of the Lord and alumnus of Central Seminary passed away just this week. In the following paragraphs he is remembered by his friend, Dr. Fred Moritz. Incidentally, Dr. Moritz is another graduate of Central Baptist Theological Seminary from that same decade.

In Memory of a Friend
Fred Moritz
May 4 2021

We have just received word that evangelist David Baughan (1939-2021) has passed from this life to Heaven. We mourn his passing and extend our sympathy to his wife Bettye, his daughter Traci Baughan Mayes, and his son Torrey Baughan. Although earthly relationships are temporarily broken, we know he is in the presence of his savior, our Lord Jesus Christ. We take comfort in the assurance that when our Lord Jesus returns, we will “…ever be with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:17).

David was a West Virginia native, and grew up in the historic Old Kanawha Baptist Church. He graduated from Bob Jones University during the late 1950s. He then enrolled at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, earning the Th.B. degree in the spring of 1963. I enrolled at Central in the fall of 1963 and heard about his ministry.

I was privileged to have him preach on several occasions during my pastoral ministry. He was a gifted evangelist whose preaching was both expositional and expository. His ministry, grounded in the Word of God, was always positive and enduring in its impact on local churches where he ministered. He was a convicted Baptist, fundamentalist, and a separatist.

We also developed a friendship with the Baughan family when our daughters were young. Traci and Torrey are about the age of our girls.

When I began my teaching ministry at Maranatha Baptist University, providentially, I was assigned to be the office mate of his son-in-law, Dr. Preston Mayes. I fondly remember the positive interaction and Christian fellowship with Preston.

A friend has preceded us to Heaven. We thank God for his ministry and anticipate the day when we will see our Lord and renew our fellowship with brothers in Christ for all eternity. “We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ…and rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (Rom 5:1-2).

Blest Be the Tie That Binds

John Fawcett (1740–1817)

Blest be the tie that binds
our hearts in Christian love;
the fellowship of kindred minds
is like to that above.

Before our Father’s throne
we pour our ardent prayers;
our fears, our hopes, our aims are one,
our comforts and our cares.

We share our mutual woes,
our mutual burdens bear,
and often for each other flows
the sympathizing tear.

When we are called to part,
it gives us inward pain;
but we shall still be joined in heart,
and hope to meet again.

This glorious hope revives
our courage by the way;
while each in expectation lives
and waits to see the day.

From sorrow, toil, and pain,
and sin, we shall be free;
and perfect love and friendship reign
through all eternity.

Sharing the Glory

by Don Odens | Apr 30, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

The God of the Bible is infinitely glorious! His glory is beyond comprehension or adequate description. Scripture has far more to say about that glory than this brief essay can reflect, but one concept arrested my interest while reading in the New Testament: the truth that God planned in eternity to share His glory with men.

What is glory? The word group translated glory, glorious, or to glorify in the Old Testament has the basic concept of heaviness or weightiness. However, of the 376 times it occurs in the Old Testament it describes physical weight only twice (1 Sam 4:18; 2 Sam 14:26). Most of its uses are figurative, communicating the honor, magnitude, noteworthiness, or severity of an event, object, or person. When used to describe God, those terms speak of His excellence, His greatness in knowledge and power, the honor (weight) due to Him, His magnificence, and His splendor.

The manifestation of God’s glory is beyond human comprehension or expression. The best the prophet Ezekiel could manage when describing the images which manifested God’s Person and presence was to write that He was “like” a variety of more familiar items (79 times). Isaiah was awestruck when granted a vision of the glory of the pre-incarnate Christ (Isa 6:5).

Scripture reveals that God’s glory is His supreme objective. A. H. Strong wrote, “God’s supreme end in creation is nothing outside of Himself, but is his own glory…, the infinite perfection of his own being.” The OT describes Him as being jealous of His glory in twelve passages (cf. Exod 34:14). He refuses to share that glory with any other being or object of worship (Isa 42:8; 48:11).

Evidently, Adam and Eve observed God’s glory in their original state (Gen 2:15, 19, 22). Genesis 3:8 suggests that they engaged in intimate fellowship with this glorious God regularly. However, Adam and Eve forfeited their opportunity to experience God’s glory when they gave their personal desire greater weight than God. As a result, they were evicted from the Garden and God’s glorious presence. In the process, Scripture teaches that “all sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). “To fall short” means to lack, to fail to experience, to be deficient of something. This verse describes sinful man’s continuing state. As a result of our sin, mankind is impoverished when it comes to God’s glory and incapable of experiencing it. Sinful humans have no hope of experiencing God’s glory!

God revealed His presence in a variety of ways in history but men observed His glory in limited ways. The people of Israel saw it in the pillar of cloud and fire during the Exodus (Exod 13:21-22). God’s glory filled the most holy place in the Tabernacle following its construction (Exod 40:34-35). Later, the glory filled Solomon’s Temple, forcing the priests to evacuate (2 Chron 5:11-14). On Moses’ sixth climb to the summit of Mount Sinai, he asked God to reveal His full glory (Exod 33:18). God responded that it was not possible, “for no man can see Me and live!” (Exod 33:20). Moses would have died if exposed to such glory in its full intensity. Graciously, the Lord permitted him to see a reflection of His glory after His presence passed by. Peter, James, and John saw Jesus undergo a transformation in appearance which reflected His pre-incarnate glory, describable only in terms of the brightness of the sun and the whiteness of light (Matt 17:2). John wrote, “We saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father” (John 1:14). Few have had that experience.

Where does that leave us? Are we without hope of experiencing God’s glory? No! Paul indicated that God’s eternal plan provided opportunity for sinful man to share His glory. He described the gospel as “the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory” (1 Cor 2:7, emphasis added). Christ’s suffering was an essential part of “bringing many sons to glory” (Heb 2:10). The gospel is God’s invitation to sinners to share His glory (2 Thess 2:14). The apostle Peter affirmed that God invited believers to His eternal glory (1 Pet 5:10). That is no bargain basement version. It is “His own glory and excellence” (2 Pet 1:3). Jude assured his readers that God is fully capable of sharing His glory with believing sinners inasmuch as He is “able to keep you from stumbling, to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy” (Jude 24). The whole purpose of preaching the gospel is that those whom God has chosen “may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory” (2 Tim 2:10).

When and how might that occur? At one level, it is occurring right now in the process of sanctification as believers “are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory” (2 Cor 3:18). However, the process will be full and final only when believers are raptured at some future date. Though the body of a believer who dies before Christ’s return “is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory” (1 Cor 15:43). At that moment, Christ will “transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” (Phil 3:21). In fact, “When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory” (Col 3:4). The believer’s glorious state will be permanent from that point on. God has invited sinners to experience His “eternal glory” (1 Pet 5:10, emphasis added). Every believer “will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:17).

A final note: the anticipation of sharing God’s glory is not based on individual performance. Believers who have this hope should always be “abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor 15:58). However, the possibility of glory does not lie in personal effort. It is purely the result of the sinner’s union with Christ, for “the riches of the glory of this mystery…is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col 1:27, emphasis added). Glory!

This essay is by Don Odens, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Practical Theology at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

How Will My Heart Endure

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)

How will my heart endure
The terrors of that day,
When earth and heaven before His face
Astonish’d shrink away?

But ere the trumpet shakes
The mansions of the dead,
Hark! from the Gospel’s cheering sound
What joyful tidings spread.

Ye sinners, seek His grace,
Whose wrath ye cannot bear;
Fly to the shelter of His Cross,
And find salvation there.

So shall that curse remove,
By which the Saviour bled;
And the last awful day shall pour
His blessings on your head.

Civil Air Patrol

by Kevin Bauder | Apr 23, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) was founded less than a week before the invasion of Pearl Harbor. Its purpose was to use general aviation (light planes flown by civilian pilots) to supplement the domestic operations of the United States military. The CAP proved its worth by helping to patrol the borders and to spot submarines offshore. CAP planes actually sank a couple of subs and spotted many more.

After the war, the mission of the CAP shifted toward search and rescue, aerospace education, and cadet programs. Cadets are the junior members of CAP, aged from 12 to 21. They are taught military customs and courtesies, physical training, leadership, and character development. Cadets have been part of CAP’s mission since 1942.

During the mid-1990s I was planting a church northeast of Dallas, Texas, and I was looking for ways to involve myself in the community. That’s when I first became involved with CAP. The cadet program has always emphasized character development, which in those days was called moral leadership. This part of the program was normally taught by chaplains, but in those days a squadron commander could use community pastors as “visiting clergy.” I served as visiting clergy for over a year before joining CAP and then becoming the chaplain for Lakeshore Composite Squadron in Rockwall, Texas.

Because Civil Air Patrol is the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force, chaplains must meet the same Department of Defense requirements as all military chaplains. They must have the equivalent of a Master of Divinity degree; they must be ordained; they must be endorsed by a recognized ecclesiastical body. My endorser is the American Council of Christian Churches through its constituent member, the Independent Churches Affiliated.

Those early years of CAP ministry were fruitful. While the purpose of a CAP chaplain is not to proselytize, opportunities for ministry do arise. People who are accustomed to talking to the chaplain because of his “ministry of presence” will naturally turn to him in times of spiritual and emotional perplexity. I eventually had the privilege of baptizing my squadron commander and his wife, and then pastoring them as long as they remained in the area.

In those days chaplains were in much demand. All cadets had to take moral leadership (character development) in order to be promoted. This program belonged to the chaplaincy, but chaplains to teach it were in short supply. The curriculum itself was sparse—barely suggestions toward covering a topic. Chaplains could select a topic and develop it as they saw fit, tailoring their presentations to the needs of the cadets in their individual squadrons. Since chaplains were highly trained professionals, this degree of independence was considered appropriate.

That began to change some years ago when the CAP decided to supplement the chaplain corps by adding Moral Leadership Officers (now called Character Development Instructors). These CDIs are not ministers—in fact, they are not even necessarily religious people. They do not have to be as highly educated as chaplains. Consequently, they cannot perform most of the functions of a chaplain. For example, they are not allowed to offer counsel in a privileged, legally confidential relationship. What they can do is to teach character development.

Because CDIs tend not to be as highly educated, the character development curriculum has become much more directive. Topics are chosen for each monthly lesson at the national level. All cadets in all squadrons hear the same presentations each month. The lessons themselves are written with a minimum of flexibility. Almost anyone could teach the material.

The result is that CAP now has something like double the number of CDIs than it has chaplains. In fact, the growing attitude is that chaplains are wasted if their main occupation is teaching Character Development. They are not as needed for this task as they once were.

Other responsibilities have grown in importance, however. New emphasis is being placed upon the importance of chaplains as leaders of Chaplain Support Teams involved in CAP missions (these missions may involve search and rescue or disaster relief). Also, the relationship between the CAP and the Air Force is closer than ever—CAP is reckoned as part of the “Total Force” of the USAF (I even wear the ribbon for the Air Force’s Organization Excellence Award). This relationship has resulted in a growing emphasis upon preparing CAP chaplains to take over stateside responsibilities that would otherwise be performed by active duty, reserve, or national guard chaplains. Most recently, CAP chaplains are being trained to take responsibility for military funerals.

The reason I joined CAP was exactly to work in my community at the squadron level. I’ve had no desire to become involved in the larger work of search and rescue or disaster relief, much less to advance up the chaplain chain of command. Increasingly, however, it looks as if these other activities are the price I’ll have to pay if I want to continue to minister in my local squadron.

By the way, my local squadron really is local. I live across the street from the Crystal, Minnesota, airport (KMIC). North Hennepin Composite Squadron (the first squadron in the nation to include cadets) is less than a five-minute walk from my front door. Nobody lives closer than I do. Nobody could.

In my opinion, CAP still provides a useful opportunity to minister to real people. Gaining opportunities for ministry, however, takes plenty of personal involvement. Over the past several months I’ve taken training to renew my ratings as mission scanner and mission observer. I’m pursuing training over the next several weeks to become rated as a mission chaplain. Along the way, I must also complete plenty of other training, such as the Region Chaplain College (this week’s big activity).

It’s a heavy investment, but I really need to do something like this. As a seminary professor I could go for weeks on end and never have a conversation with an unsaved person. CAP is my way of meeting people in the real world, of serving them, and of developing relationships into which I can speak the gospel. It’s not always easy, but few worthwhile things are. This activity in particular has opened the door to much fruitful ministry.

Captain of Thine Enlisted Host

Christopher Batty (1715–1797)

Captain of Thine enlisted host,
Display Thy glorious banner high;
The summons send from coast to coast,
And call a numerous army nigh.

A solemn jubilee proclaim
Proclaim the great Sabbatic day;
Assert the glories of Thy name;
Spoil Satan of his wished-for prey.

Bid, bid Thy heralds publish loud
The peaceful blessings of Thy reign;
And when they speak of sprinkled blood,
The mystery to the heart explain.

Chase the usurper from his throne,
Oh! chase him to his destined hell;
Stout-hearted sinners overcome;
And glorious in Thy temple dwell.

Fight for Thyself, O Jesus, fight,
The travail of Thy soul regain;
To each blind soul make darkness light,
To all let crooked paths be plain.

Associationalism

by Kevin Bauder | Apr 16, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

This weekend I am traveling to Lake Benton, Minnesota, to address the southwestern fellowship of the Minnesota Baptist Association (MBA). The MBA is the current permutation of what used to be the Minnesota Baptist Convention. It is the organization that W. B. Riley and Richard Volley Clearwaters managed to separate from the old Northern Baptist Convention. Later on, Clearwaters led the state’s Baptist fundamentalists to prevent the convention from being captured by neo-evangelicalism. It continues to perpetuate a solidly separatist position to this day. In fact, before I will be permitted to speak, I will be required to sign a document expressing my agreement with the ideals of separatist fundamentalism.

The MBA is divided into several regional fellowships. I’m not sure that I can remember them all, but I know that there are distinct southwestern and southeastern fellowships, and I believe that highway US-169 is just about the dividing line. The Twin Cities has its own fellowship. There is also a fellowship, or maybe more than one, for the northern part of the state. Northern Minnesota is sparsely populated and the churches are pretty spread out.

All these fellowships, including the MBA itself, are organized along the associational principle. Baptists have found different ways to cooperate. In some cases, their cooperation is on a purely case-by-case basis. Sometimes pastors form preachers’ fellowships. Sometimes Baptists establish independent service organizations that are not subject to local church control. Occasionally, a larger church will invite smaller churches to help in accomplishing some great purpose. Historically, however, Baptists have usually chosen to organize in church associations. The characteristic of associations is that the decisions are made by messengers from the churches that fellowship with the association.

The rationale for associationalism centers on the priority of the local church in the New Testament. During this age, God is not primarily doing His work through independent preachers or through loose alliances of individuals. Rather, God has created the local church as the primary agency through which He is accomplishing His purpose. The local church is the temple of God (1 Cor 3:16) and it is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). Consequently, Baptists have usually concluded that when some aspect of God’s work is too large for a single congregation to accomplish, it is best pursued by churches working in cooperation.

Why do churches need to work together? One reason is education: few churches are able by themselves to train their next generation of leadership. Another reason is missions: raising support for missionaries, getting them to the field, and coordinating their activities requires specialized knowledge that few individual congregations possess. Pulpit exchange and transfer is another: associations provide a way of connecting pastorless churches with potential pastoral candidates. Furthermore, as governmental pressures are increasingly brought to bear against biblical Christianity, churches will experience a greater and greater need to encourage and support one another. An association provides a structure that formalizes such relationships. It provides for direct accountability to the fellowshipping churches while at the same time giving them a common voice.

Of course, associationalism is not the only way of meeting these needs. Nothing in scripture requires churches to form or fellowship with associations. Nevertheless, associations have often proven a useful tool in helping churches to accomplish those things that scripture does require them to do.

A good association also meets another need. Ministry is hard for both pastors and churches. We need to find ways to encourage one another. Associational meetings provide a venue for sharing ministry challenges, praying for each other, and finding mutual strength in the God of scripture. May I say that the southwestern fellowship does a good job in these areas.

Associations are organizations. With all organization a certain amount of planning and executing must take place. Otherwise, communication lapses, meetings don’t get planned, and nobody gets to fellowship. Many pastors are more expositors than they are administrators. Others are more gifted in relationships. Associations need at least some leaders who are gifted in planning and managing.

Of course, the danger is that planners and managers can take over the whole show. When that happens, the result is called conventionism, and it means that the planners and managers start to pry into the affairs of the churches themselves. The MBA and its regional fellowships have taken measures to guard against conventionism, resulting in fellowship meetings that have been conspicuously free of ecclesiastical politics.

I know nearly all the pastors in the southwestern fellowship. Many of them were my students. I also know many of the members of their churches. As I meet with them this weekend, my goal will be to give them scripture that will encourage them in the challenges that they face. Along the way we’ll talk informally about what our churches are going through and what our pastors are experiencing. We’ll discuss what we’ve been reading. We’ll enjoy table fellowship. We’ll probably laugh together, maybe weep together, and certainly pray together. By the time it’s all over, I’ll have received more encouragement than I’ve given. That is associationalism at its best.

Jesus, Lord, We Look to Thee

Charles Wesley (1707–1788)

Jesus, Lord, we look to thee;
Let us in thy name agree;
Show thyself the Prince of Peace;
Bid our jars forever cease.

By thy reconciling love,
Every stumbling-block remove:
Each to each unite, endear;
Come, and spread thy banner here.

Make us of one heart and mind—
Courteous, pitiful, and kind;
Lowly, meek, in thought and word—
Altogether like our Lord.

Let us for each other care;
Each the other’s burden bear;
To thy church the pattern give;
Show how true believers live.

Free from anger and from pride,
Let us thus in God abide;
All the depths of love express—
All the heights of holiness.

Let us then with joy remove
To the family above;
On the wings of angels fly:
Show how true believers die.

The Holy Spirit and Production of Scripture

by Kevin Bauder | Apr 9, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

According to 2 Timothy 3:16, all scripture is God-breathed or inspired. In other words, inspiration applies to the scriptures themselves, not to the process by which they were produced. The word inspired is a result word, not a process word. The writers were not inspired. The thoughts were not inspired. The various activities in which the biblical authors engaged while preparing to write were not inspired. Scripture itself was God-breathed, and that is what inspiration means.

Nevertheless, God did use a process that resulted in the inspired text. The Bible does not refer to this process as inspiration, but understanding the process helps to explain how the finished product (scripture) could be spoken of as God-breathed. This process is described in 2 Peter 1:20–21.

In the preceding context, Peter discusses the Mount of Transfiguration, where he and other apostles witnessed the splendor of the Lord Jesus and heard the heavenly voice (1:16–18). Having drawn attention to the magnificence of this incident with expressions like majesty, honor, glory, and excellent glory, Peter then pivots to the subject of scripture. His point is that the written scriptures constitute a firm and reliable word from God (1:19). This is the point that he will explain more fully in verses 20–21.

The thrust of Peter’s argument is that the written scripture (or, more specifically, every “prophecy of scripture”) constitutes a revelation from God. God truly spoke on the Mount of Transfiguration, but He speaks just as truly when He reveals Himself in the Bible. This is Peter’s whole point: the Bible is from God. The passage is about where scripture comes from. This emphasis is underlined by the leading verb in verse 20, which is the verb for becoming or coming into being. Peter means to explain how scripture came to be, i.e., how it originated, and he starts by stating how it did not come to be.

Most English translations take verse 20 to be saying that no scripture is of any “private interpretation” (KJV), “one’s own interpretation” (NASB), or “someone’s own interpretation” (ESV). Such a statement, however, makes little sense in a discussion of how scripture came to be. The noun that is translated interpretation (epilusis) can be used as a metaphor meaning to explain, which is how these translations take it. More literally the word means to release, as from prison or exile; to set free, as from fear; or to discharge, as from military service. In context, Peter is talking about how scripture originates, not about how it is to be understood. Consequently, the literal use of the term is far more germane to his point than the metaphorical use. Peter asserts that no scripture “came to be” of “its own unloosing.” To put his statement in a modern idiom, Peter is saying that the Bible didn’t write itself.

In the first half of verse 21, Peter makes this statement even more emphatic. Here he talks about how prophecies are produced, first by stating how they are not. Using a very strong negative, Peter denies that prophecies were ever produced (a past tense of phero) by human will. In other words, nobody ever simply decided to utter a prophecy or to write a passage of scripture. God spoke through human prophets and He produced scripture through human authors, but neither the decision to produce the message nor the content of the message itself was theirs.

Thus far, Peter has been speaking more about how scripture was not produced. It did not come to be of its own unloosing. It was never the result of any human decision. How, then, did scripture arrive? Peter offers his positive observations in the last half of verse 21.

He begins these observations with a strongly stated but, using this adversative to draw sharp contrast between how scripture did not originate and how it did. In contrast to scripture coming to be by its own unloosing, and in contrast to scripture ever being produced by an act of human will, people spoke from God.

The word for people (which most versions translate as men) is the generic word for humanity. As far as we know, all the authors of books of the Bible were males. Nevertheless, these documents contain within them multiple separate utterances that were originally produced by women (for example, the songs of Miriam, Deborah, and Mary). These, too, are now part of the “prophecy of scripture,” and their authors were among those through whom God spoke. Peter’s main point is that these people spoke from God. The message that they delivered was not merely their own; it was God’s message. The Bible is God’s Word.

How could this be? How could mere humans speak a message that was genuinely from God? Were they mere automatons, losing their individual identities as God used them as His mouthpieces? Not at all! Peter says that people spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The participle that is translated as they were moved is a form of the same verb (phero) that appears earlier in the verse. Here it has the sense of being borne or carried along.

The word is used in a similar way in Acts 27. There, Paul and his companions are passengers on a ship that is caught in a storm. The sailors are far from inactive, but the tempest is overpowering. Although they do what they can to sail the ship, they eventually allow it to be driven along by the wind (Acts 27:17). The expression driven along is a form of the same verb that Peter uses in 2 Peter 1:21.

In other words, the recipients of prophecy and the authors of scripture were carried along or borne along by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that they became mere recording devices for God. They were still the ones who did the actual speaking and writing. They retained their own personalities and even idiosyncrasies. Nevertheless, the decision to communicate God’s message was not theirs but His, and God’s Holy Spirit assured that what was written was exactly what God wanted.

In other words, every scripture has two authors: a human and a divine. God is fully and completely the author of every word of scripture, but so is each human author of the text. The true humanity of the authors is on full display as each exhibits unique interests and writes in a unique style. The divine authorship of scripture is also on full display, as every word comes with the full authority of God.

Blessèd Jesus, at Thy Word

Tobias Clausnitzer (1619–1684), tr. Catherine Winkworth (1827–1878)

Blessèd Jesus, at Thy Word
we are gathered all to hear Thee;
let our hearts and souls be stirred
now to seek and love and fear Thee;
by Thy teachings sweet and holy
drawn from earth to love Thee solely.

All our knowledge, sense, and sight
lie in deepest darkness shrouded,
till Thy Spirit breaks our night
with the beams of truth unclouded;
Thou alone to God canst win us;
Thou must work all good within us.

Glorious Lord, Thyself impart!
Light of Light from God proceeding,
open Thou our ears and heart,
help us by Thy Spirit’s pleading,
hear the cry Thy people raises,
hear and bless our pray’rs and praises.

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
praise to Thee and adoration!
Grant that we Thy Word may trust
and obtain true consolation
while we here below must wander,
till we sing Thy praises yonder.

Inspiration

by Kevin Bauder | Apr 2, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

When people think about the inspiration of the Bible, they tend to imagine it as a process. They think of inspiration as a way of stating how the Bible got to be what it is. Trying to answer the how question is one of the reasons that we are surrounded by so-called “theories of inspiration.” Some theories suggest that God gave ideas to the writers, which they then expressed in their own words. Others argue that God simply dictated every word of the finished text. Still others speak in terms of inspired writers rather than an inspired text. Some talk about documents other than the Bible being inspired to some degree, and some see the Bible as inspired to varying degrees. To clear up these misunderstandings, our doctrine of inspiration should rest firmly upon the Bible’s own use of that term.

The only biblical passage that speaks directly about the inspiration of the Bible is 2 Timothy 3:16. Unfortunately, the older translations tend to obscure the meaning of the text. Both the King James and the New King James versions read, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable….” In this translation the first verb is given, which does not even appear in the Greek text. Alternatively, the American Standard Version of 1901 reads, “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable….” This translation seems to imply that some scriptures are inspired while others are not, and that only the inspired scriptures are profitable.

This verse is critical for defining a biblical doctrine of inspiration. Given the variety of ways in which it has been interpreted, how should we understand it? The answer is that we will grasp its meaning correctly only if we pay close attention to its grammar and structure.

The first thing to notice about the verse is that the Greek text does not contain a verb. That is not an uncommon occurrence: Greek sentences have ways of implying verbs rather than stating them outright. In this case, the implied verb must be some form of the verb to be. The verse is stating that every (or all) scripture is something.

But what is it? The verse contains two adjectives: inspired and profitable. This is the point at which a problem arises. Are both adjectives to be understood as predicates of every scripture? Or is inspired a qualifier that narrows the scope of the scripture that is in view? In other words, should the verse be translated, “Every scripture is inspired and profitable,” or should it be translated, “Every inspired scripture is profitable”? The first usage is called the predicate usage; the second is the attributive usage.

As shown above, Bible translations have gone in both directions. How, then, is an interpreter to make a choice? The hard work has already been done. During the late 1970s Daniel Wallace wrote his Th.M. thesis for Dallas Seminary on this problem. He later published the results as, “The Relation of Adjective to Noun in Anarthrous Constructions in the New Testament,” Novum Testamentum 26 (1984) 128-167. Wallace decisively showed that in constructions like that of 2 Timothy 3:16, both adjectives must be taken as predicate adjectives.

In other words, the verse is predicating two properties that apply equally to every (or all) scripture. The first is that all scripture is inspired. The second is that all scripture is profitable. For the moment we can set aside the discussion of what the verse means when it says that all scripture is profitable. What we want to do is to explore the meaning of all scripture being inspired.

The Greek term translated inspired is a compound word that Paul appears to have coined just for this occasion. The word is theopneustos, which means something like God-breathed (see the New International Version for this exact translation). What the verse affirms is that every scripture possesses the quality or property of being God-breathed.

The meaning of the text is not that God has breathed something into scripture, as if scripture might stand on its own as a human product apart from being God-breathed. Instead, the verse is teaching that every scripture is itself breathed by God. A more interpretive but very legitimate way of translating this verse is to say that all scripture is “breathed out by God.” Indeed, the International Standard Version uses just that language.

Inspiration, then, does not answer a how question but a what question. It does not tell us how scripture came into existence but what scripture is. It is God-breathed. It is the product of God, something that proceeds from God Himself.

To state it differently, the subject of inspiration is the scripture itself. Scripture is inspired—all of it. The writers are not inspired. The ideas are not inspired. The scriptures (i.e., the writings) themselves are inspired.

Since inspiration applies to the writings, not the writers, then it must involve the words. One cannot have writings without words, sentences, grammar, and syntax. If the writings are inspired, then all these matters are included within the orbit of inspiration. This teaching is sometimes called verbal inspiration.

Furthermore, since inspiration applies to all scripture (the entire Bible), then there are no degrees of inspiration. Either a writing is inspired or it is not. Either it is breathed by God or it is not. Consequently, the whole of scripture—the entire Bible—is inspired. This teaching is sometimes called plenary inspiration.

Finally, if all scripture is God-breathed, i.e., it is the product of God and proceeds from God Himself, and if God is incapable of error, then scripture must include no error in anything that it affirms. Of course, the Bible might inerrantly record the errors that others have committed (and it does), but the Bible does not affirm those errors. A necessary consequent of verbal, plenary inspiration is the inerrancy of scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 provides a very strong statement of the divine origin of scripture. This statement does not contradict in any way the genuinely human authorship of the biblical text. Exploring that issue, however, would take us beyond the scope of our present discussion. Perhaps we can return to it at some future point.

‘Twas on That Dark, That Doleful Night

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

‘Twas on that dark, that doleful night
When pow’rs of earth and hell arose
Against the Son, our God’s delight,
And friends betrayed him to his foes.

Before the mournful scene began,
He took the bread and blessed and broke.
What love through all his actions ran!
What wondrous words of grace he spoke!

“This is my body, slain for sin;
Receive and eat the living food.”
Then took the cup and blessed the wine:
“‘Tis the new cov’nant in my blood.”

“Do this,” he said, “till time shall end,
In mem’ry of your dying friend;
Meet at my table and record
The love of your departed Lord.”

Jesus, your feast we celebrate;
We show your death; we sing your name
Till you return and we shall eat
The marriage supper of the Lamb.

Seek the Peace of the City

by Kevin Bauder | Mar 26, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

We all oppose something, but there’s opposition and then there’s opposition. I can think of at least three levels at which our opposition can be pursued. Which level we employ is not simply a tactical or even strategic decision. It is a moral choice.

Though the phrase seems antiquated now, we used to talk about the “loyal opposition.” The loyal opposition consisted of members of the party that was out of power. They opposed on principle certain goals, policies, and initiatives of the other party. Nevertheless, the loyal opposition recognized a large sphere of common interest. This common interest was grounded in both their common humanity and community. Within the sphere of this common interest they committed themselves to work constructively with, rather than against, their opponents. Loyal opponents could cooperate to solve problems and make advances, and both parties could legitimately claim credit for any progress. It was possible to oppose some principles and policies while still to have common interests.

Then someone figured out that more votes could be gained by pointing out an opponent’s failures than by pointing to one’s own successes. This tactic was particularly useful for candidates or members of parties that had few actual successes. From then on, opposition became less about principles and more about making one’s opponent look as bad as possible. This new level of opposition shifted the focus from opposing principles and programs to demonizing one’s opponents.

For the demonizer, all aspects of an opponent’s life are fair game: family activities, personal idiosyncrasies, social standing, even tangential acquaintances and loose affiliations. Failures of policy are particularly celebrated as evidence of an opponent’s incompetence or even ill will. Demonizers try to portray their opponents as flatly evil, and failing that, they will depict them in the most awkward and ridiculous ways possible. In the absence of a unique positive and constructive agenda of their own, demonizers hope for their opponents’ political and even personal failures.

One more level remains. Once people discover that they can flourish by demonizing their opponents, they begin to rejoice in those failures and even to anticipate them. Once they begin to hope for failures, they find that they can covertly sabotage their opponents’ initiatives. At this point they have become not simply demonizers, but destroyers.

Destroyers promote the failure of their opponents by as many means as possible. They quietly subvert even good and useful policies so that their opponents can be presented as incompetent or malicious. They consistently deride their opponents’ initiatives as pointless, wrongheaded, or even immoral, not because they necessarily are, but simply because they are advocated by their opponents.

The problem with destruction is that nobody can consistently subvert all of an opponent’s policies, programs, and initiatives without subverting the common good. By attacking the persons and subverting the programs of their opponents, destroyers attack order itself. Destroyers no longer operate as the loyal opposition—they are almost by definition disloyal. Their chosen avenue to power is to make everything worse for everyone, hoping that when things get bad enough their opponents will be blamed and repudiated.

In a two-party system, each party finds itself in power only some of the time. Consequently, each party must find ways to oppose the other. Ideally, the goal is to oppose the other party’s most obnoxious policies while remaining loyal to common principles and interests. In the past, demonizers and especially destroyers inhabited the extreme fringes of the parties. In recent years, however, and especially in America, the balance has shifted. Both parties have found that demonization and even destruction can disable their opponents, and so demonization and destruction have grown within the mainstream.

This situation presents an opportunity for Christians to display their commitments. When lies, half-truths, and innuendo become the medium of political exchange, Christians ought to model truth-telling. When cynicism dominates the political landscape, Christians need to model sincerity. When suspicion and vituperation are the ordinary mode of discourse, Christians must model charity; at minimum they must grant their opponents the benefit of the doubt. Most importantly, when subversion and sabotage have become powerful political weapons, Christians must model a commitment to the common good.

Joseph must have objected to elements within Pharaoh’s court, but he was able to work for the common good. Daniel certainly disapproved of some Babylonian and Medo-Persian policies and initiatives, but he was able to work for the common good. When the nation of Judah was sent into captivity, Jeremiah wrote to tell the exiles to build houses, plant gardens, marry, bear children, and most importantly, to seek the peace of the city where they were captive, for their peace was bound up with its peace (Jer 29:4–7). In other words, Jeremiah wanted them to stress the common good.

Christians in this world are no less aliens and exiles than the children of Israel were in Babylon. Like them, we live under regimes committed to some policies of which we must disapprove. Yet like them, we must also recognize that the order offered by those regimes is necessary for us to live quiet and peaceable lives (1 Tim 2:1–2). Consequently, we must pray for the success of the order in which we find ourselves. To the extent that we are able, we must work for its success—not in every policy, but with respect to the general welfare, the common good. It is permissible and even necessary for us to be loyal opponents, but we must never permit ourselves to become demonizers or destroyers.

To cite one example, my congressional representative is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from mine. She advocates many policies and initiatives that I cannot support and must oppose. I did not vote for her, nor shall I. Nevertheless, she is entitled to a level of human dignity in the way that I speak about her (1 Pet 2:17). Furthermore, she merits the respect that is due to her office (Rom 13:7). Most importantly, where her policies genuinely promote the common good (as they sometimes do), I have a duty to lend my support and to help her succeed.

Of course we can confront wrongdoing where it really occurs. Of course we ought to oppose policies that are genuinely wrong and harmful. By itself, however, opposition solves nothing and it builds nothing. Nothing permanent can be erected upon destruction, including our reputation. Let us be known, not for what we tear down, but for the good that we do (Matt 5:16).

And Shall We Still Be Slaves

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)

And shall we still be slaves,
And in our fetters lie,
When summon’d by a voice divine
T’assert our liberty?

Did Christ the Savior bleed,
Our freedom to obtain?
And shall we trample on his blood,
And glory in our chain?

Shall we go on to sin,
Because thy grace abounds;
Or crucify the Lord again,
And open all his wounds?

Forbid it, mighty God!
Nor let it e’er be said,
That those, for whom thy Son has died,
In vice are lost and dead.

The man that durst despise
The law that Moses brought,
Behold! how terriby he dies
For his presumptuous fault.

But sorer vengeance falls
On that rebellious race,
Who hate to hear when Jesus calls,
And dare resist his grace.

A Shift In Reading

by Kevin Bauder | Mar 19, 2021 | In the Nick of Time | 0 Comments

My friend Dave was ordained in the mid-1980s. The offering for his ordination was supposed to go toward his library. To make the most of it, he decided that he wanted to visit the Christian publishing houses and used bookstores in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He invited me to go along. We lived in Iowa, which placed Grand Rapids within a reasonable drive. It turned out to be a good trip from which both of us returned laden with books.

Dave brought along a new toy for the trip. Somebody had given him a Radio Shack TRS80 Model 100 computer. At about two inches thick, this model featured a small screen inset just above the keyboard. I’m pretty sure the computer would qualify as the very first affordable laptop and perhaps even as the first tablet. What fascinated me was that Dave could read electronic books off that small screen. I remember thinking, “Wouldn’t it be great if somebody could design a way to carry a library in a little computer like that?”

Fast forward three and a half decades. As I type, I am sitting in my study, where I am surrounded by between two and three thousand books. They occupy shelf space around all the walls of the room. I’ve even added a bank of bookshelves down the middle of the floor. They take lots of space. They’ve also cost lots of money. Over the years I have invested well into five figures to accumulate these volumes.

From a financial point of view, these books are now nearly worthless. A small handful may appeal to collectors, but I can hardly give most of them away to today’s seminarians. An entire shift has taken place in the way that we read.

Two study tools have propelled this shift. The first is Logos, an electronic library from Faithlife company. I received Logos 2 at a demonstration seminar for free many years ago. The price was right, but I hardly used it because the interface was opaque to me. With subsequent releases, however, the Logos design became much more intuitive. I began to employ it for my serious study, starting with its Greek and Hebrew tools. Its main competitor was BibleWorks, which was more powerful for working in the original languages. I had both programs, but I ended up using Logos for two reasons. First, it was just easier to navigate. Second, it offered many more auxiliary tools such as commentaries, dictionaries, and biblical and theological tools of all sorts.

Consequently, my Logos library began to grow. I bought commentary sets, scholarly journals, and systematic theologies. At one point Faithlife introduced a parallel line of publications for the humanities called Noet; I began to accumulate works of philosophy, literature, and history. While Faithlife eventually stopped producing Noet, some of the same volumes are still marketed under Faithlife Ebooks. Most of my “serious” library is now stored in Logos, and my collection is approaching 7,000 volumes.

The main problem with Logos ebooks is that they are often as expensive as, and sometimes more expensive than, their print equivalents. Even so, given a choice between a print book and a Logos book, I will choose Logos. For one thing, the book travels with me wherever I can take my computer. For another, I like the ability to cut and paste the text. Furthermore, every Logos book is tagged and cross-referenced with every other Logos book. To give Logos credit, they do give away free books every month, and they put even more on sale cheaply. Overall, I spend less using Logos than I would spend on print.

When I was in seminary, our dean once told us, “If you haven’t bought a typewriter yet, you haven’t prayed about it.” Now I would say the same thing about Logos. It is an indispensable tool for anyone who wishes to study, teach, and preach the Word of God and the system of faith. But it is not the only one.

Almost as useful is the second tool, Amazon’s Kindle. I was introduced to Kindle by one of our students about ten years ago. At first I was skeptical; software platforms come and go. Kindle, however, now dominates the ebook market, and it appears to be here to stay.

I don’t use an actual Kindle device, though I hear that they are quite good. I simply run the Kindle software on my personal computers. The program is free, as are many, many good books. In fact, one of the selling points for Kindle books has been that, in the past, they have been substantially less expensive than their print equivalents. That’s changing and prices are rising, but Kindle books are usually still a bit cheaper.

The software is not as versatile as Logos. For example, many books come with “Kindle locations” instead of real page numbers, which can be annoying. I find that sometimes I will read a book in Kindle, and then need to hunt for pages that I wish to cite from the print version. Nevertheless, Amazon offers books on Kindle that Logos does not, and the portability of an electronic library makes the inconveniences worthwhile. My Kindle library now numbers into five digits. Plenty of those are free books that are nothing but junk reading, but thousands of them are substantial volumes. Some are books that I could not access in any other way. Kindle is a useful tool for pastors, scholars, and students of the Bible.

While it isn’t a separate study tool, I should mention that I also use ebooks in one other format. Google Books and the Internet Archive have scanned some of the nation’s great libraries into PDF format. These PDF scans reproduce the pages of the original volumes. Sometimes one can even see marginalia left by earlier readers. The number of public domain texts available from these two sites is genuinely overwhelming. I am not sure how many books I have in my scanned PDF library, but they must number several thousand. A good PDF reader like the Adobe Acrobat program gives readers the ability to highlight and annotate these PDF books, and I take full advantage of that ability. PDF books are bulky files, so they live on a separate, detachable hard drive rather than my local drive.

Some people cannot read comfortably from a computer screen. That has never been my problem. As my eyes grow older and dimmer, I have come to appreciate the brightness of the computer. I’m now using a Microsoft Surface, and I love knowing that I have access to my library and study tools any time I wish. I can study at my desk, in the car, or even from a park bench. I can now carry tens of thousands of books with me as easily as I used to carry a single paperback. I could not have imagined in 1987 that I would be able to use tools like these on every single working day.

One There Is, Above All Others

John Newton (1725–1807)

One there is, above all others,
well deserves the name of Friend;
His is love beyond a brother’s,
costly, free, and knows no end;
they who once His kindness prove,
find it everlasting love!

Which of all our friends to save us,
could or would have shed their blood?
But our Jesus died to have us
reconciled in Him to God;
this was boundless love indeed!
Jesus is a Friend in need.

Men, when raised to lofty stations,
often know their friends no more;
slight and scorn their poor relations
though they valued them before.
But our Savior always owns
those whom He redeemed with groans.

When He lived on earth abased,
Friend of sinners was His name;
now, above all glory raised,
He rejoices in the same;
still He calls them brethren, friends,
and to all their wants attends.

Could we bear from one another
what He daily bears from us?
Yet this glorious Friend and Brother
loves us though we treat Him thus;
though for good we render ill,
He accounts us brethren still.

O for grace our hearts to soften!
Teach us, Lord, at length to love;
we, alas! forget too often
what a Friend we have above;
but when home our souls are brought,
we will love Thee as we ought.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

Theology Central

This Is Not My Place of Resting

Now May the God of Peace and Love

Holy Spirit, From on High

Vain Are the Hopes

All That I Was

Lord, Thou Hast Been Our Dwelling-Place

Psalm 66

Hosanna, With a Cheerful Sound

Psalm 54

Great Was the Day

Lord, Thy Church, Without a Pastor

How Shall I Sing That Majesty?

Blest Be the Tie That Binds

How Will My Heart Endure

Captain of Thine Enlisted Host

Jesus, Lord, We Look to Thee

Blessèd Jesus, at Thy Word

‘Twas on That Dark, That Doleful Night

And Shall We Still Be Slaves

One There Is, Above All Others

Recent Posts