Theology Central

Can we talk? There’s a problem that I’d like to share with you. It’s not one that I can fix, but maybe you can.

Since I’ve been at Central Seminary, the Lord has permitted me to occupy many pulpits. I’ve enjoyed visiting the churches, getting to know the people, and fellowshipping with new congregations. In some cases I’ve been invited to return to those churches many times, and the relationship has grown deeper each time.

The truth is that I would be willing to donate my time and efforts to help God’s people. My income from the seminary meets my expenses and even allows me a bit extra. I don’t need extra income from itinerant ministry to pay the bills. I would never turn a church down for meetings just because the congregation was unable to pay me.

In fact, there have been times when I have not been paid. Sometimes the pastor has explained that the church just can’t afford to give me anything—and that’s fine with me. Other times I’ve agreed that the church’s giving should go to some other project. There have also been occasions when the church has given me nothing but the pastor hasn’t told me anything about it. When that happens, I find myself faced with dilemma: should I say something to the pastor or shouldn’t I? On the one hand, I don’t want to sound mercenary. On the other hand, the lapse could be the result of an unfortunate oversight, an administrative bumble, or (just possibly) dishonesty. I’ve known of situations in which some crooked church fiduciary would skim the honoraria for guest speakers, counting on the speakers not to complain. Well, I wouldn’t complain—but if the pastor says nothing and no honorarium appears within a month or two, I will ask him what his intention was.

Churches vary widely in their handling of expenses and honoraria. Most churches will cover transportation expenses and provide at least a modest honorarium. Some churches receive a love offering in lieu of either covering expenses or providing an honorarium. A few churches provide an honorarium but do not cover expenses. Among the churches that provide honoraria, the smallest are about fifty dollars per service, while the most generous can run to several hundred dollars per service. Interestingly, the size of the honorarium is often not proportioned to the size of the church. Some of the most generous churches in which I’ve ministered are also among the smallest.

And here is where I want to bring up the problem that I hope you’ll help me solve. Many of those smaller honoraria are not adequate to cover even the speaker’s cost to travel to the church. A guest speaker actually loses money every time he fills one of those pulpits. He effectively pays for the privilege of preaching to those congregations.

For me, that’s not a problem. Central Seminary pays me enough that I can afford to take a financial loss on some engagements. And besides, my next engagement will usually make up the difference.

Not ever speaker has that flexibility. For example, seminary students are often tapped to fill pulpits. Their incomes are usually stretched already. They are supporting young, growing families. They are paying tuition for their schooling. Sometimes they are actually trusting God for their next meal, and they may see a speaking engagement as God’s provision. If, however, the church neglects to compensate them—or even delays compensation—this neglect may result in genuine financial hardship.

Scripture is clear on this count: the laborer is worthy of his reward (1 Tim 5:18). Paul quoted these words when he was teaching about paying those who “labor in the word and doctrine,” i.e., preaching and teaching. He elsewhere taught that God has ordained that people who “preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Cor 9:14). In other words, a local church has a duty to care financially for those who minister the Word in its midst.

So what should a church do? How should it fulfill its biblical obligation to care for the preachers who stand in its pulpit? I suggest the following.

First, every church should be sure to reimburse the expenses of the speaker. The church should cover all expenses for lodging and meals for the speaker and for his wife (if she comes).If a speaker flies to the engagement or rents a car, then the church should reimburse the exact amount of the expense. If he drives his own car, a fair way of calculating his expense is to approximate the per-mile figure that the IRS publishes (currently about $.57 per mile). For example, if a church reimburses at just $.50 per mile, a speaker who travels two hours (120 miles) away should receive a reimbursement of $120 for the round trip.

Second, a church should also remunerate the speaker fairly for the time he invests in his teaching and preaching. This includes not only the time actually spent in the pulpit but also the time spent in preparation and transportation. Suppose a speaker is traveling two hours to an engagement where he will teach Sunday school and preach for two Sunday services. For each lesson or sermon he will likely spend five to ten hours in preparation. Taking the minimum figure, he will have invested fifteen hours in preparation, four hours in transportation, and three hours in the public services, for a total of twenty-two hours on one day’s ministry. Minnesota has a minimum wage of ten dollars per hour. If the church pays this man a $200 honorarium, he will receive substantially less than minimum wage for his labors. That is one reason why, under ordinary circumstances, an honorarium of $100 per service should be viewed as minimal.

Third, some churches will choose to receive a love offering for the speaker. This custom provides a wonderful opportunity for individual church members to exhibit gratitude for the day’s ministry. It is entirely appropriate. Nevertheless, the church should also adopt a policy that the love offering will be supplemented from church funds if it does not reach a stated minimum amount. That amount should be adequate to cover expenses plus reasonable compensation for the speaker’s time and effort.

Most churches handle this situation magnificently. I am deeply grateful for churches that have ministered to me in a material way. On the other hand, I would never begrudge ministry to a church that cannot pay as well—or even at all. While I’m willing to absorb a loss, however, not every preacher is in the same position. Christ lays the obligation upon the church to care for these men who minister the Word.

How can you help? If you are a church member but not an officer, then show this article to your pastor. If you are a pastor, then reprint this article for your congregation. If you are a deacon, then bring this article to the next deacons’ meeting so you and your peers can review your church’s policies. That would be a first step toward fixing the problem.

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.

When God Inclines the Heart to Pray

Benjamin Beddome (1717–1795)

When God inclines the heart to pray,
He hath an ear to hear;
To Him there’s music in a groan,
And beauty in a tear.

The humble suppliant cannot fail,
To have his wants supplied,
Since He for sinners intercedes,
Who once for sinners died.

Few things have so universally affected the missionary movement like the current COVID-19 pandemic. As the world’s economy has ground to a halt, so too has the advance of the gospel been significantly curtailed. With “shelter-in-place” orders stretching from California to Canada, Romania to Rwanda, the world is facing the pandemic with vigorous efforts to halt its spread and mitigate its effects.

Americans are under orders to remain in our homes with limited movement. Restaurants are closed to sit-down dining; non-essential businesses are also shuttered and social distancing is the order of the day. Churches which would be preparing for Good Friday and the Easter weekend are now thinking of creative ways to make this year’s celebration unique and special.

There is a body of people affected in unusual ways by this global situation—our missionaries. My son and his family returned to the US for a four-month furlough in late February, just in time to have most of his prearranged meetings cancelled and his well-thought-out travel plans disrupted. Conferences he was to attend were suspended and long-overdue visits are on hold. Even his scheduled return to Zambia in early July is uncertain but hopeful. A consequence of the disrupted furlough is the inability to connect with churches in person to report on past activities and future plans. Many churches are using technology in the interim to maintain connections with the congregations that cannot meet in person. He spoke at his first scheduled mission conference to an empty auditorium and into a digital camera. He has Zoom meetings with churches and supporters, but helpful as this is, it is not the same as face-to-face meetings with pastors, church leaders, and congregations, meetings which normally include informal fellowship and prayer times. His churches are doing their best to help him in these days.

Recently, I was communicating with a mission leader who is dealing with the unique problems his missionaries are facing during these unprecedented days. I have already alluded to numerous problems state-side missionaries are facing, in addition to normal virus precautions: travel plans cancelled, churches not having regular services, some not having any services at all, concerns about getting to or returning from the field. Missionaries on full-time deputation are stuck and may not even qualify for unemployment benefits. For missionaries overseas, the problems compound. They have concerns about their families so far from home and their families back at home. How can they be close to older parents who may be imperiled by COVID-19?

Missionaries also face health concerns of their own. Those in the majority world struggles with medical care at the best of times. Missionaries who are in countries with substantial health care resources may be in the hot-zones. They have little to no way to leave these places even if they wished to do so. They will need to ride out the storm. Missionaries who leave should not be judged against those who stay. Circumstances make these choices unique and must be made in concert with the sending churches and mission agencies. The decision to stay put or go home can be very difficult. If a missionary chooses to leave, the family will need support. If a missionary chooses to stay, it may mean weeks of isolation with little or no “work” to do for which they were commissioned. Missionary work demands lots of face-to-face interaction, Bible studies, and evangelistic outreaches, which are likely curtailed. Novice missionaries, who may be in the midst of language school or who may be dealing with culture shock, are trapped in strange places. “Cabin fever,” a challenge in the best of circumstances, can be compounded in a time like this. Grocery stores in some two-thirds world countries have a hard time staying stocked in normal times; how difficult might it be in these times of chaos? Some may experience food shortages and security issues in their countries. Challenges abound.

Financially, the missionaries may also be threatened. With the stock market in a rollercoaster pattern and churches not meeting, supporting churches have an uncertain revenue stream, meaning that supported missionaries may find their monthly commitments diminishing because churches cannot give what they do not have. In some countries, the currency may be in freefall, helping to offset some of the potential lost support. Planned furloughs must be put on hold for those who need to return from the field. Some mission agencies have emergency evacuation plans for exceptional circumstances for overseas personnel, but a pandemic could drain emergency funds, making repatriation for some impossible. Airlines are flying limited routes and even official needs like visa applications and renewals may be impossible to obtain. I have a friend who needs to return to his country soon to renew his visa, but it is looking like this will not happen. If the visa lapses, will the country renew it? Another friend has a work permit, but his country is telling him that it will not be renewed as he does not offer an “essential service” in times like this.

Beyond the personal and financial challenges, our missionaries are facing the myriad of issues related to the discipleship work they are doing. People have life and death questions. Missionaries will seize the moments as they can using technology to alleviate some of the issues, but some missionaries serve in places where electricity and internet are spotty at the best of times. Nationals may not be connected. Pressures from a country in chaos may make things intolerable. Other missionaries have itinerant work, with travel a necessary component. Even if they wished to travel, they may be unable. Some may even be “stuck” in a place they traveled to but cannot get out from now that travel bans are in place. Or they may fear being caught if they do travel, so their options are limited.

Finally, there is the emotional toll that this is surely exacting on our missionaries. I know my family and I are stressed more than normal and our life is certainly less impacted than many overseas servants of the Lord. We have stable internet and pastoral support near at hand. Living in a strange land with few real friends, being cooped up in small apartments with little or no outside access so that children can run and get exercise, may be very taxing for some of our missionary families.

So what can we do from afar or near to help our missionaries during this exceptional time? First, we can be alert to the many kinds of issues they may now be facing that have not been reported in traditional missionary updates. “Pray for us as we enter into a sixth week of quarantine.” When is the last time you read a request like that? Prayer is the most important thing we can do for our missionaries. Beyond that, we need to do all we can to maintain their support lest they be left in a more difficult strait through want of finances. Send extra if we can to help our missionaries and to let them know they are loved and cared for. Third, drop them a note or FaceTime them to let them know you are praying for them and standing with them. There is one thing about days like this: we have a pretty good idea of where to find people—at home, hunkered down, waiting for things to improve! Reassure our missionaries that they are not forgotten and that we are praying for them to stay healthy and thrive with the Lord during these days. Finally, pray for their work. It’s the Lord’s work and it will go on, virus or no virus. Missionaries will have unique opportunities of ministry not afforded them at other times. Pray for them to use these to the glory of God.

God is in control of world events. He is building His church and not even the gates of hell can prevail against it. Our missionaries are in the vanguard of gospel advance. Let’s stand with them in these interesting days!

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical Theology and Missions at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

from The Sacrifice

George Herbert (1593–1633)

Then on my head a crown of thorns I wear:
For these are all the grapes Sion doth bear,
Though I my vine planted and watered there:
Was ever grief like mine?

So sits the earth’s great curse in Adam’s fall
Upon my head: so I remove it all
From th’ earth unto my brows, and bear the thrall:
Was ever grief like mine?

…

O all ye who pass by, behold and see;
Man stole the fruit, but I must climb the tree;
The tree of life to all, but only me:
Was ever grief like mine?                                   

Lo, here I hang, charg’d with a world of sin,
The greater world o’ th’ two; for that came in
By words, but this by sorrow I must win:
Was ever grief like mine?

Such sorrow as, if sinful man could feel,
Or feel his part, he would not cease to kneel.
Till all were melted, though he were all steel:
Was ever grief like mine?

But, O my God, my God! why leav’st thou me,
The son, in whom thou dost delight to be?
My God, my God————
Never was grief like mine.

We are living in unprecedented times, to be sure. On Friday, New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio suggested that all churches and synagogues who do not comply with the notice to suspend meetings could be forced to close…permanently. News has just come out that a prominent Florida pastor was arrested over the weekend for defying the order not to assemble. Who would have thought it would come to this in America? Seems like the First Amendment to the Constitution has already addressed this issue. These are uncertain times.

Even if your church has agreed to the voluntary closures (we have here at Fourth Baptist), the challenge of ministering to people and keeping churches “open” has presented a new set of problems. For example, churches are now offering online giving. In this digital age, churches have set up bill pay apps to receive donations. And why not? What’s wrong with an app that allows you to simply deduct your gift, weekly, monthly, or periodically from your bank account? For the record, I gave my church an offering today because, despite the shutdown, the needs of the church still go on. Still, I don’t like online giving to my local church because it seems to me that the Bible instructs us to think about what we will give (as each one purposes in his heart, so let him give, 2 Cor 9:7). Moreover, we are to bring our gifts as an act of worship. Online giving can be “thoughtless” but our giving should be purposeful. I understand that some will argue that online giving allows for regularity, anonymity, and ensures that the church work will continue. Agreed. But I will switch back to giving in the service as an act of worship rather than doing online giving once this crisis is over.

Giving is one thing. Doing church online is something else. Can we even do church online? Is this really possible? For the record, the pandemic has not been the start of online church meetings, and when the pandemic is over, they will not disappear. I imagine that the sheer convenience of these meetings will ensure they continue until the internet breaks or Jesus returns. I must confess, from time to time, my wife and I have enjoyed a service at Fourth Baptist remotely when we have been up on the North Shore. I occasionally listen to the preaching of my successor at Emmanuel Baptist in Windsor, Ontario, online. I am sure our seniors and shut-ins appreciate listening in when they cannot get out. What a great day in which to live.

Having access to good preaching from around the world from the comfort of your living room, what could be better? Assembling with the Lord’s people for fellowship and worship. The question of remote church is an important one. Can we have church as the Bible defines it digitally? If we really can, why not sell our buildings and use the money for missions! If we cannot do church digitally, are we doing wrong by having online services at all? Some churches are refusing to hold online meetings. Older pastors don’t have the technological skills while others think that online services are misguided, if not completely unbiblical.

Before I address these questions, let’s look at the Old Testament and the Temple. The Temple contained the central altar. It was only there on that altar that the sacrifices to God could be offered. The Jews, if they wanted to offer acceptable worship, had to journey to the central altar to worship. When divine judgment came and the central altar was razed, the Jews were left without a place where true worship could be performed. Moreover, the Jews were scattered in the Diaspora, making it nearly impossible to go to Jerusalem. So, they came up with the synagogue system. Jews met to carry out what they could do legitimately in the absence of the central altar. They could do some things at the synagogue but not others. The synagogues offered some opportunity but could not fully meet the need for Jewish worship. While the necessity of the synagogue may have been a consequence of Jewish intransigence and much of Jewish efforts were works of the flesh, neither Jesus nor the disciples had any problem using the synagogue system to promote the Christian message. They certainly didn’t boycott it. Was it the Temple? Clearly not. Could it be used to convey biblical truth, even to deliver biblical sermons? Apparently.

In the same way, digital meetings offer Christians opportunities to hear the Word preached, perhaps sing some songs together, hear announcements of the needs of the assembly, and pray “together,” etc. But you cannot have a digital assembly; church cannot be digital and still be church.

Part of what makes the church church is the “gathering of ourselves together,” which clearly cannot be done digitally. Without corporate gatherings we cannot worship God corporately as the church was intended to do. There is an aspect of worship that demands a gathered multitude. We cannot do this digitally. Nor can we partake of the Lord’s Supper digitally, despite creative attempts to the contrary. We share the communion meal together as an assembly. It is not a private ceremony; it is a corporate act that we should do regularly. We gather together to celebrate the Lord’s death until He comes. How often we do this is a matter of Christian discretion—weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly, occasionally. Personally, I think more is better. If I would hazard a guess, I think among Baptists, monthly is likely the most frequent pattern. But communion is rightly done when the church gathers. I’ve seen communion given to newly-weds. That’s not biblical communion. We don’t have communion with our students. Communion is a gathered local church activity.

As Baptists, we hold to a symbolic and non-salvific meaning to communion. It doesn’t do anything for us. We are no better for the partaking or no worse for not partaking. It won’t save us. But it has spiritual benefit which comes from a gathered celebration. We unite around the Table in common koinonia (fellowship). Attempts to have communion digitally are efforts in futility. These attempts won’t accomplish what is intended to be accomplished at the Table; they are unbiblical.

What about drive-in church? Some churches have been having people gather in their cars in the church parking lot while the meeting is broadcast over an FM channel. It’s creative. But I’m not sure how it differs from digital attempts. There is no mutual edification, especially if we maintain social distancing. Moreover, I am not sure what more is accomplished with drive-in over digital. Both fall short of New Testament ekklesia.

So, should we stop online efforts? Why? They do provide teaching and encouragement. Our pastor preached a fine message from Psalm 23 last Sunday. These online labors offer some attempt at togetherness, even if it’s not church. But, while we wait on the Lord to turn the virus to naught, and while we watch or participate in these online activities, we need to long for the day when we can gather again and do church as the Bible prescribes it. By all means, minister to the shut-ins with a digital feed. But don’t think that this is church. It isn’t, and I for one look forward to the end of all of this when we can again assemble together to worship our Great God!

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical Theology and Missions 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.

Psalm 133

Scottish Psalter and Paraphrases, 1650

Behold, how good a thing it is,
and how becoming well,
Together such as brethren are
in unity to dwell!

Like precious ointment on the head,
that down the beard did flow,
Ev’n Aaron’s beard, and to the skirts,*
did of his garments go.

As Hermon’s dew, the dew that doth
on Sion’ hills descend:
For there the blessing God commands,
life that shall never end.

The ministry of the Word is the primary duty of the pastor. Both Paul’s exhortation to Timothy in 1 Timothy 4 and his personal example (e.g. Acts 17:23) make that abundantly clear. Preaching the Word is a high and holy calling. Ministers have often talked about standing behind the “sacred desk.” The desk itself is not sacred but the duty performed there is. To preach from the Word and speak on behalf of God is a duty not to be discharged lightly. Preaching the Bible week in and week out is a heavy and holy calling as one guides the Lord’s people toward their heavenly rest. In this week’s Nick, I wish to speak to the ministry of the Word, especially at times of great calamity.

I have long been a believer in expository preaching—opening the Scripture and laying out its divine meaning before a congregation. Included is systematic preaching through the Bible, generally one book at a time. Not that we should start in Genesis and preach through to the book of the Revelation without interruption. We could do that, but I wonder if that’s the best way to do the work. Expository preaching is where the ministry of the Word begins—with a commitment to faithfully expound the Scriptures so that they will do the work which God intends them to do: “so then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God” (Rom 10:17).

So, given a commitment to expositional preaching, what’s next? Where do we begin this sacred task? In part, the answer to the question depends on several things. Where am I in my ministry? Am I just starting out? Am I a seasoned preacher with some experience? I would still like to think I have a few good years of preaching left. I’m not sure tackling Isaiah verse by verse is what a novice minister should do. Another question to ask is, where am I at in this (my current church) ministry? What does the church really need? I think preaching should aim at something. If we aim at nothing in our preaching, we will hit it every time! Our preaching should be aimed at producing something in the hearts of our hearers—conviction, encouragement, instruction, admonition, something!

As a minister who does not fill a regular pulpit, my preaching doesn’t follow a traditional approach of preaching through books of the Bible. I am called upon to fill area church pulpits for a week or two, generally when the settled pastor is away from his pulpit. Occasionally, I get to do a conference where I preach a series of messages of a specified topic, e.g. missions. My preaching is occasional and limited.

However, for more than half my ministry, things were different. On four separate occasions throughout my forty years of ministry, I had the joy of preaching in an assembly as its pastor or interim. Preaching week by week to the same people over an extended period of time is a great joy. Systematic teaching is possible and should be carefully thought through. Starting out in a ministry one might ask where one goes with the Word in the new situation, especially as your familiarity with the congregation is limited. For my part, I preached two different books in the early days of my pastoral ministries. First, I focused on the Gospel of John. What a great book to do evangelistic preaching! I had no idea where individuals in the assembly stood with regard to their understanding of the gospel. Preaching systematically through John allowed for regular gospel preaching designed to exhort the unbeliever to find mercy in Jesus Christ and instruction to the saints on the nature of true Christianity. I love John’s Gospel for that reason. Also, I preached through the book of Philippians. The epistle is a good basic New Testament book that allows the minister to deal with the Christian’s sanctification (work out your own salvation, Php 2:12), the threats of doctrinal error (beware of dogs, Php 3:2), and interpersonal challenges within the assembly (Euodia and Syntyche, Php 4:2). It is full of encouraging instruction.

The routine of preaching two to three times per week needs thoughtful attention to content (what does the assembly need?) and variety (how can we address a broad spectrum of life issues: marriage, sound theology, personal evangelism, global missions, effective parenting, conquering besetting sin, depression, etc.?). A preacher will settle into a routine of preaching that may become too routine. The next sermon is invariably the next pericope. This may work well on most occasions; however, there may be occasions when something interrupts the routine.

Calamity is just such an occasion. Life happens. When it does, the minister may need to deviate from the planned series to address some compelling life issue. It was my regular practice to address the things that were on the minds of my congregation at times of special challenge. I was doing doctoral work when 9/11 happened so I didn’t get the opportunity to address that from the pulpit, but I would have had I been preaching then. When the tsunami of 2004 happened, I was to preach in a church in Washington state. I chose as my topic for that occasion “Spiritual Lessons from Sudden Destruction.” Some estimates suggest that upwards of 225,000 people lost their lives in Indonesia and thirteen other countries. It was just not possible not to address that global calamity. In the same way, the recent fears of a global pandemic have also directed my pulpit work. With the world’s attention turned toward an expanding health crisis, how could this not affect my preaching? Earlier this month, I had two pulpit supplies as the pandemic was on the rise in the minds of the public. I chose on those occasions Psalm 90, “so teach us to number our days that we might learn wisdom.” Now I cannot say why God permitted this pandemic, but would this not be an occasion to “number our days”?

Had I been preaching in a settled pulpit, would I have changed long-term sermon plans to address the crisis? Absolutely. National calamity warrants a dedicated sermon to my congregation. But a couple of caveats are in order. First, deviating from a series needs careful thought. If we deviate too often, we run the risk of “crying wolf” to the congregation. Only significant events should be addressed. Second, caution should be exercised that we do not speak for God when we have no information—"God caused this event or that event because….” During the 9/11 aftermath, well-known preachers suggested that God was judging America for its sin. Perhaps He was, but on what authority did we have to say so? Unless we believe we have some form of direct contact with God and He tells us this is why He did something, we better be careful not to charge Him with a reason for the event. I am not saying we refuse to recognize the hand of God. We just cannot say with authority why God does what He does when He has not spoken. Finally, when we address calamity, we need to temper words of judgement with words of encouragement. We may think God is reigning down misery on humanity, and we may believe that He will one day soon bring judgement, but we also need to offer comfort to the Lord’s people that He has everything under control. This is His world and He protects His own (Psalm 121). We may wish to offer comfort, but should we not also offer warning, if appropriate?

By all means preach to the today if it warrants a message from God. Speak His truth with all the authority which He delegates to us through the Word. But remember to speak of both wrath and grace. Both are found in abundance in the written Word of God. We give out the Word and let it do its work. “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb 4:12).

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical Theology and Missions 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.

Often the Clouds of Deepest Woe

Caroline Fry (1787–1846)

Often the clouds of deepest woe
So sweet a message bear,
Dark though they seem, ‘twere hard to find
A frown of anger there.

It needs our hearts be wean’d from earth,
It needs that we be driven,
By less of every earthly stay,
To seek our joys in heaven.

For we must follow in the path
Our Lord and Savior run;
We must not find a resting-place
Where He we love had none.

It came as no surprise last Friday when late in the day word came that the seminary’s Friends and Family Banquet, scheduled for March 30, was cancelled. Fourth Baptist Church had already determined to suspend public congregational worship for two Sundays in response to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s request that gatherings of more than 250 people not be held. Churches across the country advised parents with small children and their elderly congregants to stay home and listen to a livestream, where available. I spoke to an assembly on Sunday that fell well below the 250 maximum, but even there it appeared that many stayed home.

This year will be the “9/11” for the current generation. My generation remembers where we were when news of the airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers was reported. I was driving to a class early in my doctoral studies. My wife called my cell phone to ask if I was listening to the radio. I turned it on in time to hear Peter Jennings describe the collapse of the South Tower. When I reached campus, classes had been suspended and students were huddled around every television on campus. Shock and awe prevailed.

The events of 2020 will likely be designated “The Year We Lost.” Universities have sent its resident students home, either ending their spring terms early or moving to online classes only. It is too soon to predict what may become of graduation ceremonies scheduled for early May. Apple has closed its stores around the world for two weeks, malls are closing, people are practicing social distancing, and the Stock Market is volatile, plunging and rising as the Federal Reserve tries to stabilize things. Governor Walz has now ordered restaurants in Minnesota to close their in-store dining rooms, permitting take-out and delivery only. Who knows where all this will end?

God does! He did not wake up one morning in mid-December to the outbreak of COVID-19 and mutter to Himself, “I didn’t see that coming!” “I wish I had known so I could have warned humanity to get ready!” Open theists of a few years ago argued that some things are just beyond God’s control. Living in an open universe is the price we pay for “free will.” If God were to know ahead of time what would happen, then the things that do happen, happen necessarily. These would include the free responses of human beings. So, if God knows things ahead of time, including bad things, and bad things happen, it is either because God doesn’t care if bad things happen to us or that God cannot keep bad things from happening. He doesn’t control the world. Things just happen.

Both of these prospects are both alarming and, thankfully, unbiblical. God knows, He cares, and He controls. I am glad that open theism is unbiblical. We live in a universe controlled by a God who works everything according to the counsel of His own will (Eph 1:19). So why the bad things? Why does God allow, permit, or even cause bad things to happen to us?

God is at work in his world drawing humans to Himself. Hardship and calamity will either draw humans to Christ or it will push them away from Him. Christians can bear witness to God and His works in His world at such a time as this. Who will tell of His power and might if we don’t! What an opportunity for the believer.

It is such a blessing being a Christian at a time like this. While the world hoards toilet paper and hand sanitizer, the Christian stands poised to be a light in the darkness, a city set on a hill, shining the truth of God before benighted souls stumbling along in the darkness. Christian, take heart! All the coronavirus can do is kill us! To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Who among us doesn’t long for Canaan’s fair and happy land where our possessions lie? We face a certain future in uncertain times. We may not know what the future holds, but we know who holds the future!

The Scriptures are replete with admonitions to believers to “redeem the times” and to “number our days.” We are mortal. Death is our expected lot unless the Lord returns to take us into the Father’s presence. We look for the upper taker, not the undertaker! But in doing so, we walk circumspectly in this world with an eye to the sky waiting for the Blessed Hope and Glorious Return of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We have a duty to discharge to the Father to speak of His Son. Now more than ever we need to look for opportunities to speak on behalf of the Lord.
The coronavirus should not be a reign of terror in our hearts but a reminder that time is short and life is fleeting. Christians are to live in this world in a way that demonstrates our trust in God. What better time to do so than in the midst of a pandemic. Paranoia should not control us. We should be able to demonstrate supreme confidence on the God who neither slumbers nor sleeps. Neighbors, friends, family, co-workers all need to see Jesus in the way we conduct ourselves in the days of chaos. This is our opportunity to point people to Christ.

Will this be a long season of uncertainty? Perhaps. Will this be costly to us personally? Undoubtedly. However, in all this God, God sees, God plans, and God controls. Where can we go from His presence? How then should we respond in this time of uncertainty?

Let us pray! When all else fails, we turn to God in prayer. Maybe we should turn to prayer soon. Perhaps we cannot have public prayer meeting because of social distancing, but we can pray—for God’s will to done, for us to embrace and welcome His will, for God’s grace in the calamity, despite what may happen, and for the world that those without Christ will turn to God rather than away from Him in anger and despair.

Let’s be ready to tell to all who ask the reason for the hope that lies within us (1 Pet 3:15). It has been said that “the bell that is struck the hardest sounds the clearest.” Lord, teach us through this time of uncertainty “to number our days” (Ps 90:12) that we may seek Thy wisdom and bear witness to the certainty of Jesus Christ who to know is life everlasting! Maranatha! Come, Lord Jesus!

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical Theology and Missions at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

And Art Thou With Us

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)

And art Thou with us, gracious Lord,
To dissipate our fear?
Dost Thou proclaim Thyself our God,
Our God for ever near?

Doth Thy right hand, which formed the earth,
And bears up all the skies,
Stretch from on high its friendly aid,
When dangers round us rise?

And wilt Thou lead our weary souls
To that delightful scene,
Where rivers of salvation flow
Through pastures ever green?

On Thy support our souls shall lean,
And banish every care;
The gloomy vale of death shall smile,
If God be with us there.

Last week I published the first half of my “Most Interesting Reading of 2019” list. These books aren’t necessarily the best that I read. They’re not even necessarily the most commendable. Instead, they were the books that I found most interesting, for a variety of reasons. In some cases, the reason may have been sheer astonishment and incredulity. Consequently, if you read one of these books and just hate it, don’t blame me. You already know I’m odd.

Casillas, Ken. The Law and the Christian. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2007.

This book provides proof that Bob Jones University is continuing to mature theologically and exegetically. Casillas wants to find a biblical way to walk the tightrope between legalism and license. His discussion is thoughtful and careful. The book is a delight to read.

Hayek, Friedrich A. The Road to Serfdom. 15th Anniversary Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

This was a re-reading of a book that I discovered in seminary. It is one of the three foundational texts of modern American conservatism (the others being Richard Weaver’s Ideas Have Consequences and Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind). Hayek deals most explicitly with the economic side of conservatism, which he connects directly to political and social freedom. If you have never read this book, you absolutely must. That goes for Weaver and Kirk, too.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

This was another re-read. I began to come across references to Kuhn’s work during the mid-1980s. Eventually I decided I needed to read it for myself. This is the book in which Kuhn coined the phrase paradigm shift. He was explaining how science often advances, not by discovering new evidence, but by interpreting old evidence in new ways. How and why this re-interpretation happens is the subject of the book. Some books bear re-reading. This is one.

Kyle, Chris. American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U. S. Military History. New York: HarperCollins, 2013.

The first thing that you need to know is that this book is about the military. It includes descriptions and language that one encounters in a military environment. Still, if you want to know what a man has to do to become a Navy SEAL and a top-notch sniper, it will show you. It will also give you a boots-on-the-ground glimpse at America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan—but only if you have the stomach for this kind of reading.

Marshall, Walter. The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: James Taylor, 1692.

During the early part of the year I did some binge-reading in Keswick theology. I discovered that a few present-day Keswick writers hark to Marshall as a kind of spiritual and theological progenitor, so I decided to read the source. On my view, while Marshall used some language that was similar to language that Keswick would later use, he is really a representative of the better sort of Puritan. He was a godly man who still calls us to godliness.

Peters, Ellis. The Virgin In the Ice. New York: William Morrow, 1983.

It’s a guilty pleasure: I like murder mysteries. The problem is that many murder mysteries have become a platform for their protagonists to engage in all sorts of deplorable conduct. Ellis Peters’s Cadfael series, however, is just good, clean fun, and not a bad introduction to Twelfth Century society and religion. Brother Cadfael is a former soldier and sailor who has become a Benedictine monk, but in his calling he finds plenty of chances to solve crimes. The Cadfael series comprises about twenty books; The Virgin In the Ice just happens to be one that I read this year.

Peterson, Robert A. Our Secure Salvation. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2009.

I read Peterson’s book on assurance almost immediately after reading Canaday and Schreiner’s The Race Set Before Us. The difference was pronounced. Both share a Reformed perspective on this life of faith, but I would never think of handing The Race Set Before Us to ordinary Christians‑‑except, perhaps, to confuse and scare them. In Our Secure Salvation, however, Peterson offers a gentle, warm, and encouraging summation of the Reformed view of assurance. I’m genuinely grateful for this book.

Renihan, James M. Edification and Beauty: The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705. Studies in Baptist History and Thought. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock/Paternoster, 2008.

Renihan’s book is expensive. It isn’t available on Kindle. It’s a bit hard to read, what with all the early Baptist quotations. But it is a good book. It points out how close the Particular Baptists were to the Presbyterians of the Westminster Confession and the Congregationalists of the Savoy Declaration (these documents were adapted by Baptists as the Second London Confession). It also focuses on the ways in which Baptists differed from the two foregoing groups. In so doing it provides a very useful glimpse into early Baptist life and faith.

Riddlebarger, Kim. A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.

You don’t have to agree with a book to enjoy it. I rather strongly disagree with Riddlebarger’s thesis that the Bible teaches amillennialism, but I enjoyed the book because he makes the argument about as well as it can be made. Its main deficiency is that Riddlebarger seems to equate Dispensationalism with a kind of populist theory from Dallas. I’ll certainly be responding to Riddlebarger’s arguments in my classes. I appreciate the work that he has done to sharpen me.

Sowell, Thomas. Black Rednecks and White Liberals. New York: Encounter Books, 2005.

I can think of no one who writes more ably on the topic of race and culture than Thomas Sowell. In this particular volume he argues that certain aspects of American Black culture and certain aspects of poor White culture share common roots in an older “redneck” or “cracker” culture. The argument is interesting and Sowell presents it well. I like the book, not because I agree or disagree, but because it was well argued and presented. It’s too bad that this man isn’t writing any more.

Tuchan, Barbara W. The Guns of August. New York: Macmillan, 1962; repr. Random House, 2009.

For me, the complexities of World War I have made the conflict something of a blur. I understand the horrors of that war. I can perceive its social and cultural effects. But I had not understood the causes and events that led to the conflict before reading Tuchan’s work. She tells a tale of secret treaties that left nations distrustful of each other, of Russian ambition, of British bumbling, of German militarism embodied in the Schlieffen Plan, of the French Plan XVII which left that nation trusting to the élan of its soldiery. And she ties it together well.

When I publish these lists, I’m always afraid that I’m displaying too many of my own quirks. But as I said above, you already know I’m odd. This list only confirms it. Some of these are good books. Some aren’t. But I enjoyed them all.

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.

Psalm 62

When dangers press and fears invade,
Oh let us not rely
On man, who, in the balance weigh’d,
Is light as vanity!

Riches have wings and fly away;
Health’s blooming cheek grows pale;
Vigour and strength must soon decay,
And worldly wisdom fail.

But God, our God, is still the same,
As at that solemn hour
When thunders spake his awful name,
His majesty and power.

And still sweet mercy’s voice is heard,
Proclaiming from above
That good and gracious is the Lord,
And all His works are love.

Then trust in God, and God alone,
On Him in faith rely;
For man, and all his works, are known
To be but vanity.

Every year I try to publish a list of the books that I found most interesting during the preceding twelve months. Usually these are books that I have just read for the first time. Occasionally they are books that I’ve found either so important or so interesting as to merit a second (or third) read.

This year my list is late. Partly that’s because I had more important things to write about. Partly it’s because other professors wanted to write for In the Nick of Time. Now that I’m getting around to compiling my list, I find that it’s too long for a single article. So here’s the first half. I’ll publish the rest of the list next week.

Anderson, Ryan T. When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment. New York: Encounter Books, 2018.

The sexual revolution has now shifted toward transgenderism. Anderson’s book is perhaps the best short introduction to both the history of this controversy and the issues it raises. The first chapters were quite discouraging, but Anderson addressed the questions in a calm and reasonable fashion. This is a book that will help you to understand the problem and the politics.

Berenson, Alex. Tell Your Children the Truth About Marijuana. New York: Free Press, 2019.

Over the past few years state after state has decriminalized or legalized cannabis. The same argument is made everywhere, i.e., that marijuana is a harmless drug that actually helps its users. Berenson, a journalist who once accepted this argument, challenges it sharply. He sets his facts in order and builds a formidable case that legalized cannabis introduces significant hazards. If you can only read one book about marijuana, read this one.

Cain, Susan. Quiet: The Power of Introverts. New York: Crown, 2012.

The world seems to be led by noisy and outgoing people. Susan Cain, however, argues that quiet people—introverts—bring unique virtues that must not be neglected. I’m glad to hear it.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. by John T. McNeill; tr. by Ford Lewis Battles. Louisville, KY: WJKP, 1960.

Obviously the Institutes is a monumental work of theology. Until 2019 I had never read straight through the Battles translation. Compared to the Beveridge translation it’s a breeze. For me, this kind of reading is not primarily about agreement or disagreement. It’s about watching a first-rate theological mind at work.

Campbell, James. The Ghost Mountain Boys. New York: Crown/Random House, 2007.

During WWII my wife’s father fought in New Guinea with the Red Arrow Division. He would never talk about his service, but his brothers told stories about his trek over the Owen Stanley Mountains and his participation in the Battle of Buna. This book tells the tale that we always wondered about, and it’s a great (but not pretty) one. I wish that he were still here to thank—though after reading this account any thanks seems shallow by comparison.

Chesterton, Gilbert Keith. All Things Considered. New York: John Lane, 1909.

G. K. Chesterton is one of those authors who deserves his own directory on your hard drive. All Things Considered is a collection of occasional essays, written for newspaper publication, addressing issues of Chesterton’s day. He did not consider these to be his best work, but his thought and wit are nevertheless fully on display. One should never allow a year to pass without reading at least one of Chesterton’s books.

Eaton, Michael. No Condemnation: A Theology of Assurance of Salvation. 2nd rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997.

The author was an associate of R. T. Kendall, and both of those men are at least mildly popular with the “Free Grace” crowd. I really wanted to like this book. It started well, with the author posing a question peculiar to Calvinism: if believers are unconditionally elected, and if the reprobate can experience false faith, then how can professing believers have any confidence that their faith is genuine and they are among the elect? His answer begins plausibly but grows progressively worse as it develops. Eaton ends up suggesting that some believers may have to do a stint in Gehenna. Wow. But sometimes weird is interesting.

Edsel, Robert M. The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History. Nashville: Center Street, 2009.

I’d heard about the movie, which always impressed me as being something like Hogan’s Heroes. The book, however, is serious history. It tells the story of a small cadre of Allied soldiers who raced against the Nazis to save the great cultural treasures of Europe. It’s a fascinating story that includes episodes of genuine heroism.

Ellis, Joseph J. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Vintage Books, 1998.

Thomas Jefferson was an enigma in many ways. Ellis’s book explores a variety of those ways, examining Jefferson’s attitude toward France, his relationship with his family, his on-and-off-and-on friendship with John Adams, his activity in politics and government, and his slave-owner’s objections to slavery. This is an illuminating volume that grants a glimpse into the complexities of Jefferson’s character.

Finney, Jack. Time and Again. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970.

Time-travel romances are a dime a dozen, and that’s about what most of them are worth. Finney’s Time and Again is an exception. It combines a plausible premise with an interesting plot, fairly well-developed characters, a satisfying denouement, and most of all an atmosphere. I came away from this reading with the impression that I had experienced a bit of the ambience of New York during the Gilded Age.

That’s the first half of my list, alphabetized by author. For the rest of the list, check next week’s In the Nick of Time.

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.

Psalm 77

Tate and Brady’s Psalter (1696)

Will God for ever cast us off;
His love return no more?
His promise, will it never give
Its comfort as before?

Can His abundant love forget
Its wonted aid to bring?
Has He in wrath shut up and seal’d
His mercy’s healing spring?

I’ll call to mind His works of old,
The wonders of His might;
On them my heart shall meditate,
Them shall my tongue recite.

Thy people, Lord, long since have Thee
A God of wonders found:
Long since hast Thou Thy chosen seed
With strong deliverance crown’d.

As interesting as this may sound, a second conservative resurgence may be afoot in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). For the record, my roots are in the SBC. Before college, I was a member of an SBC church. I was baptized in one, married in another one, and earned a PhD from an SBC school. Much of my family is there now. I have many friends in this world, good orthodox men who love God and wish to stand faithfully for His Word. I have lived with and studied the SBC since the mid-1970s. I left the SBC in the 70s, like many others, when things looked bleak. However, beginning in 1979, a conservative movement in the SBC abandoned, pushed out, or otherwise removed the old theological liberalism that had come to dominate their movement. By 2000, the seminaries had returned to orthodoxy in general and inerrancy in particular. The convention presidency was firmly in the hands of the conservatives as were the six seminaries. The SBC looked as though things were recovering. By 2000, it was no longer accurate to call the SBC “liberal.” Sure, there were “mopping up” operations in state conventions to rescue state schools, but at the national level the SBC was not liberal.

Nearly two decades later, a new group of SBC pastors and laymen are calling for a second conservative resurgence. The Conservative Baptist Network, this new group, has identified Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Social Justice as the crucial issues in this second conservative resurgence.

Critical Race Theory: Last summer, much to the consternation of conservatives in the SBC, the SBC passed Resolution #9 affirming CRT as an “analytical tool.” The conservative men, under the leadership of Tom Ascol, tried to torpedo the resolution to no avail. Concerned that this embrace of CRT was evidence of theological and cultural drift in the SBC, the Founders sponsored a documentary to address the future of the convention. Their blog has tried to alert Southern Baptists of the dangers of CRT. (See Tom Nettles 3-part series: part one, part two, part three.) Ascol and company have been laying the groundwork to attempt to repeal Resolution #9 at the annual SBC meeting in Orlando in 2020. Members of the 2019 resolutions committee have doubled down in their support of the original resolution. This dustup alone will make for a very interesting convention in Orlando. For another discussion of CRT from a prominent SBC professor, see Owen Strachan’s four part series: (part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4).

Social Justice: A second issue raised by the Conservative Baptist Network is the emphasis on social justice within the SBC. This is a complex issue which has been developing over the past several years. Among the disputed actions was the hiring of Karen Swallow Prior by Southeastern Seminary’s president Danny Akin. Prior was embroiled in the Revoice controversy over the category of Christian (celibate) homosexuals. Southern Baptist pastors are concerned over her influence in Southern Baptist life. Many pastors think this is another sign of SBC drift.

Beth Moore: A third issue raised in the cinedoc is the challenge of Beth Moore, a Southern Baptist women’s Bible teacher and a popular speaker in SBC churches—sometimes from the pulpit and to congregations that include men. She preached the Mother’s Day sermon in her son-in-law’s church last year. This unleashed an internet firestorm with opponents and supporters speaking out on whether women should ever be preaching in SBC churches. This subject was debated (see the debate here) before a Founders meeting held in conjunction with the annual 2019 SBC meeting. Compounding the problem, Moore, herself a victim of childhood sexual abuse, charged the convention with overemphasizing complementarianism (see the cinedoc at 10:40), thus contributing to the MeToo Movement hitting the SBC (especially this Houston Chronicle exposé of serious sexual sin among SBC churches). Just last week, the SBC Credentials committee disfellowshipped a church whose pastor is on a sexual predator watch list. The pressure from MeToo is raising the stakes in the debate over SBC complementarianism. R. Albert Mohler, president of Southern and expected to be elected president of the SBC this summer, has also written and spoken against women in pulpit ministry. The debate shows no sign of letting up with recent back and forth just last week. Also see this.

The Pastors Conference: Another reason for the recent repartee in the convention over its direction is the announcement a couple of weeks ago of the speaker lineup for the annual SBC Pastors Conference 2020. Pastor David Uth, pastor of First Baptist Church, Orlando, and president of this year’s Pastors Conference, announced an unusual speaker lineup including two Pentecostal-types, a woman who is listed as a pastor at her Los Angeles church doing a spoken word performance, and an SBC pastor who uses extreme tactics to draw a crowd (Victorious Secrets! Seriously?). When the internet controversy broke, Uth was unmoved. Last week the SBC Executive Committee (EC), a group of agency representatives who meet between the annual meetings to conduct the convention affairs when it is not in session, voted that without a change in the lineup there would be no official SBC support for this year’s conference. Some Southern Baptists think this is EC overreach. Initially, Uth informed the SBC that his church would pay all the expenses rather than change the lineup. An ultimatum was given by the EC—make changes by February 24, or else—but the pastor deflected, insisting that God told him to fast and pray for 40 days before he could announce an answer. The SBC EC acquiesced, so things are at a standstill pending the 40 days.

The ERLC: Also raised during last week’s EC meeting was the direction of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) led by Russell Moore. The EC created a task force to study the ERLC to determine if it is fulfilling SBC needs or causing the SBC Cooperative Program (the SBC consolidated funding agency) to lose donations. Ultimately, this is about leadership. Moore has been under fire over alleged drift and his anti-Trump rhetoric which has offended prominent SBC pastors. The SBC is divided over Moore’s leadership. Prominent churches have threatened to withhold funds to the CP over the ERLC. The board of the ERLC has objected to the oversight in the strongest possible terms as an intrusion into their work. Rumors have also circulated concerning Moore’s connection to George Soros, a Democratic financier. The Conservative Baptist Network came out in support of the recent decisions of the EC.

As of today, I cannot predict where and when all this might end. I heard from an SBC friend that CP giving has indeed been affected significantly. Churches (also here) have recently left the SBC. Will more follow? It is too soon to tell. Will the existing problems rupture the largest Baptist body in the world? God only knows. Will the SBC circle the wagons at any cost? Ronnie Floyd, EC president, recently issued a call for evangelism at Vision 2025. It’s a worthy call and pressing need. But can the SBC simply lay aside these tumultuous issues to do evangelism if they remain unaddressed? Can an otherwise divided body unite for evangelism?

The fight within the Northern Baptist Convention was initially a fight to reclaim the convention. When that did not happen, churches left. Are we watching a déjà vu moment? We need to pray for the SBC. We need to exercise caution in how we describe what is happening. We need to be charitable and ask God for mercy on their behalf. We need to be ready to welcome among us any church that might come our way. We need to be wary as our adversary the Devil, as a roaring lion, walks about seeking those to devour! We could be next.

Fundamentalism, or what’s left of it, has its own set of issues. We who live in glass houses need to be careful about throwing stones. Every generation is responsible to fight its own battles. Victories of yesterday are insufficient to ensure faithfulness today. God calls upon each of us to know His Word and stand upon His truth. I cannot fix what happened yesterday. I cannot foresee what will happen tomorrow, but I can determine to be faithful today. May God grant us His grace to stand on His Word and encourage others who do so.

This essay is by Jeff Straub, Professor of Historical Theology and Missions at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Awake, My Soul, Stetch Ev’ry Nerve

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)

Awake, my soul, stretch ev’ry nerve,
and press with vigor on;
a heav’nly race demands thy zeal,
and an immortal crown.

A cloud of witnesses around
hold thee in full survey;
forget the steps already trod
and onward urge your way.

’Tis God’s all-animating voice
that calls thee from on high;
’tis his own hand presents the prize
to thine aspiring eye;

That prize, with peerless glories bright
which shall new lustre boast,
when victors’ wreaths and monarch’s gems
shall blend in common dust.

Blest Saviour, introduced by thee
have I my race begun,
and crowned with vict’ry, at thy feet
I’ll lay my honors down.

Trials long and sharp for me,
Pain, or sorrow, care or shame,—
Father! glorify Thy name.

Let me neither faint nor fear,
Feeling still that Thou art near;
In the course my Saviour trod,
Tending home to Thee, my God.

In Kevin Bauder’s excellent series on Christian suffering, he made an exegetical case for the salvation of those incapable of believing, especially infants. While I agree with Kevin on the hope for infant redemption, I do not find his explanation for that hope rooted in Romans 5 convincing.

Kevin argues that there is a universal application of Christ’s atonement so that Adamic guilt is not the basis for anyone’s condemnation before God. He writes, “In other words, by His ‘righteous act’ (His death and resurrection), Christ has secured not only the provision, but also the application of justification for all humans with respect to Adamic guilt.” It would follow that if Christ’s work nullifies Adamic guilt for all, then those without willful, personal sin (including infants) are accepted by God as righteous.

Our disagreement is highlighted by the universal language of Romans 5:18: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” What does all mean here? Kevin writes,

Plenty of interpreters have tried to explain away the words “all” and “the many” that are applied to Christ’s work. Some have understood these words to mean “all of the elect,” or “all who are in Christ.” Others have understood the justification to be merely potential and not actual. Limiting the effects of Christ’s righteous act, however, works no better than limiting the consequences of Adam’s sin.

Kevin takes the position that all means all. The very same group of people who are condemned by Adam’s sin are also justified by Christ’s righteous act. However, Kevin is no universalist. To take the position that Christ’s work justifies all people, he must take justification to refer to something other than what we ordinarily take it to mean—indeed, something other than Paul’s otherwise consistent use of the term justification.

That is my first objection: I cannot agree that the context of Romans allows us two distinct definitions of justification. I see nothing that suggests that Paul is changing his topic from justification in the fullest sense—an unchangeable declaration of righteous standing before God through Christ, received by faith, rewarded with eternal life—to this interim justification that exonerates a person from Adamic condemnation and restores him to a pre-Fallen judicial condition (but with a post-Fall nature).

Romans 5:12–21 is undoubtedly a distinct unit of thought, but it is part of Paul’s broader defense of justification by faith alone—an argument which depends on a consistent definition of justification. The epistle’s opening argument culminates in humanity’s universal condemnation: “by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight” (Rom 3:20). This is the prelude for Paul’s announcement of the gospel: “but now” we “are justified by his grace as a gift…to be received by faith” (Rom 3:21, 24).

Romans 4 sustains the argument: justification by faith is no novelty; it has always been thus for the people of God. The same justification that Abraham received by faith is for “us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom 4:24-25).

The very next verse opens chapter 5: “Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God.” Paul continues to elaborate on this theme of justification through the rest of chapter 5 (vv. 9, 16, 18). And having rested his case that we are justified by grace through faith, he begins Romans 6 by addressing an anticipated objection: that if justification is by grace through faith, personal obedience is of no significance.

The suggestion that in the midst of this one coherent discussion Paul has (without warning) substantially changed the meaning of one of his most central terms is implausible. While Paul has unwaveringly insisted that justification is by faith, this new kind of “justification” is obtained entirely apart from faith, as it must be if it is to apply to infant redemption. Paul’s justification is one that grants us “peace with God” and assurance of salvation. The new “justification” might release us from Adamic guilt, but one’s own personal sin places the “justified” person back under the curse of sin. Not only can this “justified” person be lost, he can then be justified again in the second (and more ordinary) sense.

Further, within 5:12–21, the benefits obtained through justification cannot be limited to the removal of condemnation of Adamic guilt. In particular:

• 17: “those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ”
• 18: “so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men”
• 19: “so also through the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous”
• 21: “grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord”

For my part, I see no way to restrict these Pauline phrases to mean merely “provisionally no longer condemned for Adam’s sin.” They are strong and full promises of eternal life that come to all/the many. They speak of justification in the normal Pauline way.

My second objection is rooted in Paul’s explanation of why “death reigned from Adam to Moses” (v. 14). Paul claims that all people everywhere have come under condemnation because of Adam’s sin, not because of their own personal sin. To cement this point, he focuses on the time between Adam and Moses, in which there is no externally promulgated law from God. He declares that God does not count sin where there is no law to transgress.

To be sure, sin exists during these years (“for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given,” v. 13), yet God is not counting that sin. There is then in the judgment of God no personal sin that leads to condemnation during these years. And yet all people in this era fall under the penalty of sin: all (except Enoch) die. Paul’s explanation of this is that death reigned because they are held guilty of Adam’s sin.

I have difficulty seeing how Kevin’s reading of this passage accounts for Paul’s argument here. Assuming his view that Christ’s death has universally rescued humanity from being condemned by Adamic guilt, and if God doesn’t count sin where there is no law, then why should those from Adam to Moses have died at all? Otherwise, what does Paul mean when he says that God does not count sin where there is no law?

While Kevin’s position does allow for all to have a consistent meaning throughout Romans 5, I find it quite in accord with Paul’s broader theology to understand him as referring to a condemnation that comes to “all in Adam” (which state we are all in by birth) and a full justification that is the possession of “all in Christ” (into which we only come by faith). Indeed, we see this kind of all earlier in Romans: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and [implied all] are justified by his grace as a gift…to be received by faith” (Rom 3:23-25).

To be sure, in holding to hope of infant salvation, I would rejoice to find a passage that explains the way in which God justifies infants. I fully understand that this is no mere abstract theoretical concern. Even so, it is a theological and exegetical concern, and I remain unconvinced by the exegesis of my brother, mentor, and friend.

This essay is by Michael P. Riley, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church of Wakefield, Michigan. Since 2011, he has served Central Seminary as managing editor of In the Nick of Time. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Let Zion in Her Songs Record

John Kent (1766–1843)

Let Zion in her songs record
The honors of her dying Lord,
Triumphant over sin;
How sweet the song there’s none can say,
But those who sins are wash’d away
Who feel the same within.

We claim no merit of our own,
But, self-condemn’d before Thy throne,
Our hopes on Jesus place;
Though once in heart and life depraved,
We now can sing as sinners saved,
And praise redeeming grace.

We’ll sing the same while life shall last,
And when, at the archangel’s blast,
Our sleeping dust shall rise,
Then in a song for ever new,
The glorious theme we’ll still pursue
Throughout the azure skies.

Prepared of old, at God’s right hand
Bright everlasting mansions stand
For all the blood-bought race;
And tell we reach those seats of bliss,
We’ll sing no other song but this—
Salvation all of grace.

The book of Job makes sense to us readers because we know what happened outside the story. We know that Job was a righteous man. We know that Satan slandered Job before God, and we know that God granted Satan permission to test Job. We know that Job’s sufferings were part of a larger cosmic drama. We also know how the story turned out.

If we place ourselves in the world of the story, however, it makes considerably less sense. Job is a righteous man upon whom God’s blessing rests. Suddenly God’s blessing is removed, only to be replaced by something that appears to be God’s judgment. Inside the story Job’s friends draw all the wrong conclusions. Job himself is confused. He feels betrayed. He balks at the treatment that he is receiving.

Too often we assume that Job eventually came around to God’s point of view because he was given the explanation for his trials. After all, we know the explanation, so why shouldn’t Job? This assumption, however, overlooks an important consideration. Nowhere in the book does God tell Job what is happening. Job never receives an explanation—yet in the end he submits to God in worship and awe.

Rather than offering an explanation, God confronted Job with His own power, care, and wisdom. Job saw God as bigger, and himself as smaller, than he had ever imagined. Job also realized that God was deeply involved in the daily nurture of His creatures. God showed Job that He was providing food even for wild beasts, overseeing their birth and growth, giving them homes, and matching their natures to their habitat (Job 38:39‑39:30). Had these matters been left to Job, creation would have come undone.

When Job understood the wisdom, power, and care of God, he no longer required any explanation of his circumstances. Quite the opposite: Job realized that he had tried to criticize God in ignorance, and now he repented in dust and ashes (Job 42:1‑6). Job did not need to understand his circumstances. He needed to know God, for God is worthy of trust.

Trust is the fundamental issue. Whenever we begin to complain about the trauma that God allows in our lives, we are implicitly calling into question His wisdom, His power, or His care. We suspect that God does not know what He is doing, or that He is not paying attention to our circumstance, or that He is not able to secure the best for us, or that He simply does not care. Rarely would we state our objections in just those words, but they really do summarize what we feel.

God permits pain in the lives of every one of His children. The world is filled with natural suffering, which results from the Fall. God cancels none of that suffering for His people. In addition, believers endure suffering that is meant to accomplish a whole series of spiritual goods in their lives. Normally, believers experience more distress and affliction than the unsaved. Sometimes we are able to discern the reasons why God permits a particular affliction. Often we are not.

God does not owe us any explanations. Very often (as with Job) He does not offer us any. He simply shows us Himself as He has made His character plain through His Word. Then He invites us to trust Him.

We will face times when we stare into the abyss of suffering and yearn for it to be removed. To us the affliction may seem like an unending and senseless obstruction that even thwarts our good intentions toward God. We sometimes beg God to take it away—perhaps repeatedly. In response to our prayers God may, in His good pleasure, remove the sorrow. Alternatively, He may help us to understand exactly why we are facing it. Much of the time, however, He simply says to us, as He did to Paul, “My grace is sufficient for thee” (2 Cor 12:9). We often receive no other explanation this side of heaven.

God knows what He is doing. We do not need to. We may be completely clueless about our circumstances, but we know who God is. His wisdom and power are evident in His creation. His love for us is clearly revealed on the cross (Rom 5:8). We do not have to know what He is doing. We simply have to trust the One who “hath done all things well” (Mark 7:37).

We need not accept quietist views of the Christian life to recognize that we can and should rest in God. When the north winds of affliction howl into our lives and we risk being buried under deep drifts of sorrow, we can find our rest and peace in God. There is a kind of repose that comes through faith when we trust Him because we know who and what He is. We do not always need an explanation. We do always need Him.

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.

We Praise Thee, O God

Julia C. Cory (1882–1963)

We praise Thee, O God, our Redeemer, Creator;
in grateful devotion our tribute we bring;
we lay it before Thee, we kneel and adore Thee,
we bless Thy holy Name, glad praises we sing.

We worship Thee, God of our fathers, we bless Thee;
through life’s storm and tempest our Guide hast Thou been;
when perils o’ertake us, escape Thou wilt make us,
and with Thy help, O Lord, our battles we win.

With voices united our praises we offer,
to Thee, great Jehovah, glad anthems we raise;
Thy strong arm will guide us, our God is beside us,
to Thee, our great Redeemer, forever be praise.

Gabe was an old man. He had spent years on a mission field where his ministry had produced marked results. Now retired, his will to serve was strong, but his body was feeble. He deeply wanted to do something for God, but it seemed as if he could no longer do anything useful.

Joe was a young man who loved God, but who landed in prison on a trumped-up assault charge. To all indications his testimony was ruined. It seemed as if every opportunity to serve God would be denied to him.

Ben was suffering the first stages of Alzheimer’s. He knew that his mind was going, and he dreaded what this meant for the future. He could see no way that he would ever again be useful to God.

John still had one of the brightest minds of his civilization, and he was known for his skills as a translator and author. John, however, was going blind. Pondering his loss, he wondered aloud why God would remove the one real talent that he had to offer.

Some of the names have been changed, but none of these situations is fictional. In fact, they are common. Many believers face a future that looks like one of these situations.

Most react almost instinctively with dread. No one looks forward to body and mind decaying. Nobody wishes for a falsely-ruined reputation. No believer wants to be useless to God. Some have even preferred to take their own lives rather than to submit to what they viewed as a futile existence.

All of which raises an important question: is it even possible for a believer to become involuntarily useless to God? Can circumstances or even slander hurt us so badly that God can do nothing further with us? The question here is not whether believers’ sins can damage their usefulness to God. That question is worth discussing, but here the question is about circumstances that affect Christians through no fault of their own.

To answer this question in the affirmative, it would be necessary to affirm one of two propositions. First, some circumstances that believers face are truly outside of God’s control and can damage their usefulness to Him without His permission. Second, even though God has control of all circumstances, He genuinely wishes to reduce some of His children to uselessness.

The first proposition is manifestly false. The uniform message of Scripture is that God exercises meticulous, Providential control over every circumstance. When Joseph spoke of his brothers’ past sins against him, he told them, “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (Gen 50:20). Joseph used the same verb in both halves of the verse. He was saying that his calamities had resulted from a double intention: his brothers’ and his God’s. In the long run, God’s intention overcame the brothers’ evil plan. No circumstance ever occurs in any believer’s life without God’s permission and oversight.

So might God sometimes wish to reduce some of His children to uselessness? The only acceptable reply is that God is perfectly capable of using us even when we do not perceive our own usefulness. Indeed, God may be using us greatly in exactly those moments when we feel that our existence is most futile.

Years ago I was in a doctoral course when the professor began to unburden himself about his father’s situation. His father had been a widely-known exegete and theologian, master of many languages, and author of many publications. We all knew his name and had read his books. But now, in his old age, the father’s mind had deteriorated to the point that he was barely aware of his surroundings. My professor and his brother had been tasked with the old man’s care. They hated to place him in an institution, but they felt themselves incapable of providing the kind of round-the-clock care that he would require in their homes. My professor was perplexed, and he was actually looking to his students for prayer and counsel.

As we prayed and talked through the situation, it occurred to me that my professor (himself a brilliant academic) was being stretched and deepened spiritually by this situation. God was using his father’s senility to accomplish profound spiritual results in his life. In fact, no one else could have been used in quite the same way. Yet the father had little or no awareness of his usefulness to God in this situation.

Our perception of our usefulness does not reflect our true usefulness to God. Instead, God delights to use us when we are weakest—that is to say, when we are most useless in ourselves. After all, it is not as if God needs us. He uses us for our benefit, not His. He is pleased to allow us to be His instruments.

When God wanted to use Joseph (the Joe above), He prepared him by allowing a woman’s false accusation to put him in prison. When God wanted to use John Milton (the John above), He took away his eyesight. The Milton who wrote Paradise Lost, Paradise Regained, and Samson Agonistes was a blind man. In the meanwhile, Milton also authored a sonnet in which he wrestled with the question of his usefulness to God. This poem has ministered to thousands of God’s people, and its conclusion ought to be engraved on every Christian heart.

When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodg’d with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide;
“Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?”
I fondly ask. But Patience to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: “God doth not need
Either man’s work or his own gifts; who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly. Thousands at his bidding speed
And post o’er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait.”

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.

Now From the Altar of My Heart

John Mason (1646–1694)

Now from the altar of my heart
Let incense flames arise;
Assist me, Lord, to offer up
Mine evening sacrifice.

This day God was my Sun and Shield,
My Keeper and my Guide;
His care was on my frailty shown,
His mercies multiplied.

Minutes and mercies multiplied
Have made up all this day:
Minutes came quick, but mercies were
More fleet and free than they.

Lord of my time, whose hand hath set
New time upon my score,
Then shall I praise for all my time,
When time shall be no more.

Paul and Silas arrived in Thessalonica with their backs still torn from their whipping in Philippi. In spite of their pain they made themselves bold to preach the gospel (1 Thess 2:2), so that some Jews and many Gentiles believed (Acts 17:1-4). Quickly, however, opponents of the gospel organized persecution (Acts 17:5-9). The new believers at Thessalonica smuggled Paul and Silas out of town at night, sending them on to Berea (Acts 17:10). The departure of these evangelists did not halt the opposition, though (1 Thess 2:14-15). Finally, Paul sent Timothy back to Thessalonica to find out how the young believers were holding up under persecution (1 Thess 3:1-5). Timothy delivered a glowing report (1 Thess 3:6-7), prompting Paul to send a letter of encouragement and instruction back to the church. Still the persecution and affliction endured (2 Thess 1:4), so Paul wrote a part of a second letter to help explain the sufferings of these faithful children of God (2 Thess 1:5-9).

This text is a little gem. It may be the most extended discourse in the Bible about why God allows faithful believers to suffer persecution. It implies that God permits persecution for three reasons.

The first reason is that faithfulness in persecution proves how genuine one’s faith is (2 Thess 1:5). Perseverance is a manifestation of true saving faith and of loyalty to the kingdom for whose cause believers are persecuted. The point is not that persecution somehow merits salvation. Instead, sufferings illustrate that God’s judgment of worthiness—which will be pronounced upon all believers at the Bema—is fully justified. God is not wrong to save people when, as a consequence of saving faith, He is able to turn them into such persevering saints. Indeed, the fact that God entrusts them with suffering is already evidence that He rightly judges them to be worthy (for Christ’s sake) of spending eternity with Him.

The second reason that God permits persecution is to arouse a longing for “rest” or relief (2 Thess 1:7)—a longing which He fully intends to satisfy. One grows weary of being mocked, abused, harried, and tormented. When persecution ends, the relief can be intense. This relief is what believers will experience at the rapture, when they are forever freed from opposition.

Paul does not simply focus to the rapture, however. He also points to Jesus’ glorious descent to earth (2 Thess 1:7-8). Something happens at Jesus’ coming to earth that does not happen at the rapture. While saints experience relief from persecution at the rapture, they must wait to receive vindication at the second coming. At His coming Jesus will judge those who have persecuted His people. He will deal out retribution to those who have rejected Him and harmed His saints. In that hour, the roles will be reversed, and those who have experienced persecution will exult in the destruction of their tormentors.

This is the third reason that God permits persecution. When He deals out retribution He will place His justice on full display. Those who have groaned under the machinations of the wicked will be satisfied that God never overlooked any of the evil that was done to them. Evildoers will be banished forever from the presence of Christ’s glory as they are sent into everlasting destruction (2 Thess 1:8-9).

In these verses, Paul is clearly not trying to establish an eschatological timeline. He is viewing the coming of Christ and all its judgments as a single, complex event. He does not distinguish the rapture, the glorious coming of Christ to earth, or the final judgment at the great white throne. He wants to encourage persecuted believers, and the entire unfolding complex of Jesus rescuing His people and judging the wicked provides that encouragement.

Paul links events that will be fulfilled at different times. Church saints are liberated from persecution at the rapture. They are vindicated at the glorious second coming, which follows the rapture by seven years. God judges the wicked with eternal separation from His glory at the great white throne, which follows the second coming by a thousand years. Paul joins all of these together under the description, “When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day” (2 Thess 1:10). The expression “in that day” encompasses at least one thousand seven years.

One must not try to turn this passage into a proof text about the timing of eschatological events. That is neither its purpose nor its nature. Paul is offering encouragement, not prophetic chronology. Consequently, he offers a single eschatological snapshot taken with a wide-angle lens. That snapshot reveals that God has a purpose in allowing the persecution of His children. In fact, He has multiple purposes.

When we are persecuted, we need to remember that God has counted us worthy of a great honor. He is entrusting us with an opportunity to put His transforming grace on display. When we remain faithful under persecution, our perseverance matches up with the high position to which God has called us. Furthermore, God intends eventually to grant us both relief from persecution and vindication in the presence of our tormentors. Indeed, He will use the everlasting condemnation of our persecutors as an object lesson to illustrate and exonerate His own justice. When we experience persecution, we are entering into a cosmic drama in which God wins—and we win with Him.

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.

Day of Judgment! Day of Wonders!

John Newton (1725–1807)

Day of judgment! Day of wonders!
Hark! the trumpet’s awful sound,
louder than a thousand thunders,
shakes the vast creation round.
How the summons
will the sinner’s heart confound!

See the Judge, our nature wearing,
clothed in majesty divine;
you who long for his appearing
then shall say, “This God is mine!”
Gracious Savior,
own me in that day as thine.

At his call the dead awaken,
rise to life from earth and sea;
all the pow’rs of nature, shaken
by his looks, prepare to flee.
Careless sinner,
what will then become of thee?

But to those who have confessed,
loved and served the Lord below,
he will say, “Come near, ye blessed,
see the kingdom I bestow;
you forever
shall my love and glory know.”

Recent days and years have seen an increased interest in the idea of theological retrieval. While the interest in this idea has grown lately, the practice has been around for some time. This is nowhere near an exhaustive list, but all of the following projects fall within the broad brush of theological retrieval: Roman Catholic ressourcement, la nouvelle théologie, paleo-orthodoxy, ancient-future Christianity, evangelical Catholicism, Radical Orthodoxy, theological interpretation of Scripture, Evangelical ressourcement, and the New Studies in Dogmatics book series. Even if you are not familiar with any of these names, a short glance around evangelical theology today along with its recent publications would reveal that there is not only an increased interest in theological retrieval but also a growing call for its necessity.

So what is theological retrieval and is it any different than what we think of as church history or historical theology? The short answer is that retrieval is a particular way of doing historical theology, largely in its insistence on a certain posture toward the Christian past. In my view, I see retrieval as helpful, precisely because of this posture, despite my dissatisfaction with many instantiations of it.

To understand the posture, it helps to understand its foil. As the opening paragraph implicitly shows, the assorted incarnations of theological retrieval have major differences. But perhaps the most important general agreement is their pushback against at least two complementary problems: (1) the enlightenment and modern epistemological posture that prioritizes independence and progress along with (2) modern theology’s neglect of the terms, content, and resources of classical Christianity. This modern posture is rather obviously problematic to traditional Christianity as theologians have always been interested in passing on a deposit from the past to the future. These problems are not completely foreign to traditional Christianity, though. I would argue that much of our contemporary Christian culture could be described by individualism, relativism, and a thin understanding of history at best. Retrieval wants to help remedy this.

At this point it may still sound like theological retrieval simply wants to do church history as it has always been done. But more than just wanting to inform about the past, retrieval wants to cultivate a disposition. John Webster points toward the difference when he says that retrieval is an “attitude of mind” toward the Christian past that believes it to be uniquely valuable and necessary for the church in the present.

This call for more historical engagement suggests an understanding of history itself and how history should be done (historiography). There are competing views of historiography that are at play which will determine both if someone will participate and how they will participate in theological retrieval. Not everyone sees or does church history the same way.

This points to an important quandary. On the one hand, should the history of the church be understood essentially as a fall (or irreversible decline) that needs to be recovered from? Or on the other hand, should the history of the church be understood essentially as a consistently rich source that is best approached with deference and expectation? Once you answer this question, more questions follow, but this is the fundamental dichotomy against which theological retrieval is responding.

Present-day proponents of theological retrieval would clearly advocate for the second option. They argue that church history is a lush deposit, an embarrassment of riches that we must let serve as our guide and teacher. Further, to listen well to the past one must recognize that the past did things differently and we must adjust to their way of thinking.

But what does this look like? I only have space for a brief explanation. At its core, this is an attitude toward history and the church that sees continuity with past Christians, as well as obvious discontinuities. As a Protestant, in this thinking, I may consider patristic and medieval church history not as a low point with little to no value, but as my history. Though Protestants will have significant disagreements with their Christian ancestors, the point is that they will not out-of-hand consider them fundamentally tainted, certainly not to the point of dereliction. That would be a posture of plundering a conquered foe, where one would only pick and choose pieces that appear useful. From the perspective of theological retrieval, a Protestant could (perhaps even needs to) sincerely sit at the feet of the patristics and medievals and learn. This is the posture of benefitting from a companion, where one will be challenged while also challenging. And this will be undertaken as a matter of obligation toward the church universal. In other words, to claim such a heritage ought to mean knowing something of that heritage.

As I said above, more questions need to be addressed within this discussion. How we answer these could put us all over the spectrum of Christendom and it will cause various forms of retrieval to be more or less beneficial. Our ecclesiology, particularly how we understand union with Christ, the body of Christ, and God’s preservation of his church through time, is important. Our relationship to tradition, traditions, and the Great Tradition and the question of where the locus of theological authority lies is likewise an essential discussion. Retrieval surely does not mean that we ignore our disagreements with our ancestors.

Not overlooking these qualifications, proponents of retrieval generally maintain that this use of history better handles our own limitations (sinfulness and finitude) and our responsibilities to the communion of saints. Further, as Fred Sanders contends in his book, The Deep Things of God, much that is “latent” in our own Protestant, evangelical, and conservative theology (Sanders looks specifically at Trinitarianism) received initial and extensive explanation in the earlier eras of the church. To retrieve these explanations is not just to be reminded of what we have forgotten or overlooked, but to enrich what we have tacitly accepted (such as Chalcedonian Christology or the classic explanations of the divine attributes). Oliver Crisp is correct that we have “a far poorer grasp” of the glorious realities that we already accept in our theologies than do our “dead friends.” Indeed, the rewards for having a more robust understanding of Trinitarianism, atonement theology, and worship (to name a few more loci) are great and ultimately lead to more and better doxology.

One of the clearest portrayals of what retrieval is all about was given by Robert Louis Wilken in a 1991 First Things essay: “Without tradition, learning is arduous at best, impossible at worst. In most things in life—learning to speak, making cabinets, playing the violin—the only way to learn is by imitation, by letting someone else guide our movements until we learn to do the thing on our own.” The temptation to neglect the past, dismiss the past, or casually accept the past are strong. Our history has wisdom that we should not and ought not neglect. Theological retrieval is not simply a call to understand the past better, but to let that understanding influence our theology and ministry in the present.

Not all attempts at retrieval are pleasing or equally helpful. But, in its general posture toward the past, its desire to learn and grow, and its desire to enrich the doctrine and practice that we already claim, it is most welcome.

This essay is by Matt Shrader, Director of Recruitment and Retention and Assistant Professor of Church History 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.

Partners of a Glorious Hope

Charles Wesley (1707–1788)

Partners of a glorious hope,
Lift your hearts and voices up;
Jointly let us rise and sing
Christ our Prophet, Priest, and King.
Monuments of Jesus’ grace,
Speak we by our lives his praise.
Walk in Him we have received;
Show we not in vain believed.

While we walk with God in light,
God our hearts doth still unite;
Dearest fellowship we prove,
Fellowship in Jesus’ love:
Sweetly each, with each combined,
In the bonds of duty join’d,
Feels the cleansing blood applied,
Daily feels that Christ hath died.

Still, O Lord, our faith increase;
Cleanse from all unrighteousness:
Thee the unholy cannot see:
Make, oh make us meet for Thee!
Every vile affection kill;
Root out every seed of ill;
Utterly abolish sin;
Write Thy law of love within.

Hence may all our actions flow;
Love the proof that Christ we know:
Mutual love the token be,
Lord, that we belong to Thee:
Love, Thine image, love impart!
Stamp it on our face and heart!
Only love to us be given;
Lord, we ask no other heaven.

Here at Central Seminary we are fast approaching our annual MacDonald Lecture Series. Readers of the Nick of Time will be greatly encouraged by joining us on February 11 for this year’s set of talks on the writings of Andrew Fuller, the pre-eminent British Baptist pastor of the late eighteenth century. My good friend and warm-hearted scholar, Dr. David Saxon, will deliver these lectures. David serves as professor of church history at Maranatha Baptist University. I can assure you, both from personal experience and from the testimony of hundreds of Dr. Saxon’s students, that you will not be disappointed or bored by a dull, monotone discourse but rather you will be challenged to know God more deeply and to love God more fervently.

As we anticipate this upcoming event, I would like to look back to our 2019 MacDonald series during which I had the privilege of speaking about sanctification. (These lectures are available on our seminary website at https://vimeo.com/channels/macdonaldlectures2019.) First, I want to provide further information about another group of antinomian writers which could easily have comprised a fifth lecture in last year’s meeting. Second, I want to give an update regarding some recent occurrences among one of the groups I discussed.

Before giving updates and additions, I need to give a short overview of the four lectures on sanctification given last February. Lecture #1 sought to answer the question, “How do we grow in our Christian walk?” I considered five models proposed by sanctification teachers in evangelicalism—Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Keswick, Chaferian, and Reformed—and suggested that the Reformed view best fits the teaching of the Bible.

Lecture #2, “The Meaning and Means of Perseverance,” showed how the Scriptures teach the necessity of perseverance in the believer’s life, i.e. believers will continue in faith, love, and holiness because God freely saves them once for all. I provided an overwhelming number of biblical texts demonstrating this truth. Following this, I listed four means God uses to help His children to persevere in faith and good works: suffering, commands, conditional promises and warnings, and fellowship in the local church.

In the third and fourth lectures I discussed two groups in evangelicalism who have tended to downplay the importance of good works and holy effort in the believer’s sanctification. Lecture #3 talked about the Free Grace movement which stemmed from dispensational theology, and Lecture #4 focused on the antinomian tendency flowing out of some elements of Reformed theology.

Following these lectures, I learned of a third stream of antinomian theology in evangelicalism, the hyper-grace movement. Amazingly, while Free Grace teaching came from dispensational circles, and the source of what I called “antinomianism” in Lecture #4 came from Reformed circles, hyper-grace teaching comes from Pentecostal/Charismatic circles.

Allow me to share a short history of the hyper-grace movement which will include the names of its major proponents. Then I will provide a delineation of the basic teachings of this group.
Hyper-grace teachers have undoubtedly expressed their beliefs for many years through preaching and teaching in their local churches and their church-based training institutions. However, it appears that they did not begin to articulate their ideas through the writing media until about 2005. Around that time and continuing steadily since, many books (the majority of which are self-published) and many blogs have been published.

The most prolific writer among hyper-grace teachers is Singapore pastor Joseph Prince. A few of his books on this subject include Destined to Reign (2007), Unmerited Favor (2009), and Grace Revolution (2015). Pastor Clark Whitten, who pastored three mega-churches before founding Grace Church of Longwood, Florida, in 2005, wrote Pure Grace: The Life Changing Power of Uncontaminated Grace (2012). Other writers include D. R. Silva, Hyper-Grace: The Dangerous Doctrine of a Happy God; Paul Ellis, The Hyper Grace Gospel; Eddie Snipes, Abounding Grace; Andre Van der Merwe, GRACE, the Forbidden Gospel; Rob Rufus, Living in the Grace of God; Chuck Crisco, Extraordinary Gospel; and Andrew Farley, The Naked Gospel. Simon Yap and Ryan Rufus are two hyper-grace bloggers among many others.

Several Pentecostals have stepped forward to blow the whistle on these hyper-grace teachers. Chief among them are Michael Brown, Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message (Charisma House, 2014), and a book edited by charismatic historian Vinson Synan, The Truth about Grace: Spirit-Empowered Perspectives (Charisma House, 2018), which includes contributions from eighteen writers.

Brown lays out the main tenets of hyper-grace theology, and I am drawing from his book in this listing. First, God has already forgiven all our sins—past, present, and future. Hyper-grace teachers believe that this truth has several effects that are consistent themes in their writing: God never sees the sins we commit as Christians; there is no need to confess our sins to God; the Holy Spirit does not convict believers of sin since He has already forgiven and forgotten them; and repentance is only a change of mind. A second major aspect of hyper-grace theology is a denial or severe downplaying of progressive sanctification and the responsibility of the believer to participate in the pursuit of holiness. A third feature flows out of the second: God always sees us as perfect in His sight so there is nothing that believers can or should do to try to please God. Fourth, spirituality is an effortless experience in the life of the believer. Such things as witnessing, praying, and being obedient take place without any labor; all believers must do is rest in the finished work of Christ. Fifth, there is a tendency to ignore and devalue the Old Testament which also includes an undermining of the moral value of the law for believers today.

Space does not allow a refutation of each of these areas of incorrect teaching, but the reader can see many ideas similar to those propounded by the other two groups I discussed in last year’s lectures.

I would like to shift gears now and talk about what is happening in the antinomian Reformed world. In September 2019, Tullian Tchividjian, grandson of Billy Graham, former pastor, author of two important books (One Way Love and Jesus + Nothing = Everything), and leader of the Liberate conference from 2012-2015, stepped back into pastoral ministry following several adulterous affairs, a divorce, and a defrocking from the PCA. The 47-year-old has now remarried and is pastor of a nondenominational church, The Sanctuary, in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Many questions arise from this development, and perhaps another essay can address them.

Some changes have also taken place with The Boys, a group of four Reformed pastors from the Nashville area. The leader of the group, Byron Yawn, has had to step away from ministry, and two others (Jeremy Litts and Ryan Haskins) are concentrating on pastoral ministry. The website started by the Boys, Theocast, is currently overseen by the last member of the group (Jon Moffitt), who still pastors in the Nashville area. He has now been joined by Pastor Justin Perdue from Ashville, North Carolina, and Pastor Jimmy Buehler from Willmar, Minnesota. These three have published another book on finding rest in God, entitled Faith vs Faithfulness: A Primer on Rest (2019). Sadly, I have much to say about these developments, but too little space to do so.

In regard to sanctification generally I encourage each one to rely upon the Spirit, who helps us to obey the imperatives while resting in the indicatives of our salvation.

This essay is by Jon Pratt, Vice President of Academics and Professor of New Testament at Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Not every one of the professors, students, or alumni of Central Seminary necessarily agrees with every opinion that it expresses.

Teach Me, O Lord, the Perfect Way

The Scottish Psalter, 1880

Teach me, O LORD, the perfect way
of Thy precepts divine,
and to observe it to the end
I shall my heart incline.

Give understanding unto me,
that I Thy law obey;
with my whole heart shall I observe
Thy statutes night and day.

In Thy law’s path make me to go;
delight therein I find.
Unto Thy truth, and not to greed,
let my heart be inclined.

Turn Thou away my sight and eyes
from viewing vanity;
and in Thy good and holy way
be pleased to quicken me.

Confirm to me Thy gracious Word,
which I did gladly hear,
to me Thy servant, LORD, who am
devoted to Thy fear.

Turn Thou away my feared reproach;
for good Thy judgments be.
Lo, for Thy precepts I have longed;
in Thy truth quicken me.

In 1947, the French Nobel Laureate Albert Camus wrote the novel The Plague. The fictional story is set in the city of Oran in French Algeria. Oran, as actually happened many times in its history, experienced a terrible plague and the town was eventually quarantined and sealed off. The occupants, some residents and others simply passing through, suddenly find themselves trapped in the town with no escape and the prospect of death encroaching. The allegorical narrative centers around several main characters, each of whom represent a specific worldview. The cast includes an atheistic physician who, through his medicinal knowledge, seeks to find a cure; a suicidal and delusional introvert whose mood ebbs and flows with changing news; an educated civil employee who overcomes personal disappointment to organize volunteers in the community during the long period of tragedy; a visiting Parisian journalist who desperately misses his wife; and a respected Jesuit priest whose indomitable spirit is supported by his fidelity and devotion to God and others.

Each character tries, in his own way, to overcome the horrors of the plague, only to find suffering unavoidable. The physician spends the entirety of the novel attempting to alleviate pain and suffering but realizes that he is fighting a losing battle. When the plague worsens, the eccentric introvert attempts suicide, then tries to become friendly, then ends up reverting back to his delusions and finally begins randomly shooting at people to hasten death. The stoic civil servant, though trustworthy and intelligent, eventually contracts the dreaded disease. The journalist plans a foolhardy escape over the barricades to return to his wife but ultimately decides to remain in the city as he develops a sense of cultural connection. The priest believes that the disease is the result of divine judgment. Though he personally cares for the infirmed and encourages the other characters to trust in God, in the end the priest succumbs to the plague and dies. Death comes sporadically as each finally accepts the futility and randomness of life. 

Camus, an early postmodern, uses these characters to promote the idea of the absurdity of existence. Each character represents some form of modernity, either attempting to find meaning through science, self-improvement, human ingenuity, or cultural systems. Even the priest, representing religion and faith, is at first praised for offering hope, but ultimately cannot reconcile a transcendent, omnipotent God with human suffering. God cannot understand pain and death because God cannot suffer and die. In the end, the only success is that of the civil servant, who, by embracing the human spirit, experiences some small semblance of happiness. According to Camus, humanity must stop looking for outside help through theism, science, or political theory. It must find its own way. Camus’ critique of finding joy and meaning within a structure is correct. Every attempted human explanation fails to ultimately address the true problem—inescapable death.

Scripture knows something about suffering and death. Many biblical characters, like the trapped residents of Oran, were faced with death while questioning God’s actions. “Some were tortured…others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword” (Hebrews 11:35­–37). Throughout its pages, humans (like Job’s friends) seek to explain the human problem by positing worldviews, but ultimately fail to adequately understand the human experience. Scripture shares Camus’ critique of finding ultimate answers in methods, explanations, or even theism.

The gospel, however, is unique, not because it offers a better explanation or varying system but because it offers something entirely different—a story. A story about the Divine embracing the authentic human experience, not merely existing in some aloof transcendence. A story about the Divine suffering and knowing real temptation, not callously watching from afar. A story about accepting death, not attempting to escape it. A story about overcoming the plague of sin, not by human accomplishment or ingenuity, but by humble faith. A story of victory through pain, not the avoidance of it. A story of life because of one Man’s death, not life despite death. A story of the triumph of the human spirit through the Holy Spirit. The gospel is a message from God, written through humans to humans.

Camus’ critique is correct, though incomplete. He recognizes the futility of salvation through systems. Every human explanation is utterly insufficient. Hope must come from outside of the world, outside of ourselves. Simultaneously, any answer to the human experience of pain and death must also be just that: human. The answer lies both outside and inside of humanity. Only the gospel accomplishes both. The gospel offers a story that is transcendent yet immanent, fully divine yet fully human.  

“Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Philippians 2:6–8).

This essay is by Brett Williams, Provost and Executive Vice President 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.

Jesus, Commission’d From Above

Ambrose Serle (1742–1812)

Jesus, commission’d from above,
Descends to men below,
And shows from whence the springs of love
In endless currents flow.

He, whom the boundless heaven adores,
Whom angels long to see,
Quitted with joy those blissful shores,
Ambassador to me!

To me, a worm, a sinful clod,
A rebel all forlorn:
A foe, a traitor, to my God,
And of a traitor born.

To me, who never sought His grace,
Who mock’d His sacred word:
Who never knew or loved His face,
But all His will abhorr’d.

To me, who could not ever praise
When His kind heart I knew,
But sought a thousand devious ways
Rather than find the true:

Yet this redeeming Angel came
So vile a worm to bless;
He took with gladness all my blame,
And gave His righteousness.

Oh that my languid heart might glow
With ardour all divine!
And, for more love than seraphs know,
Like burning seraphs shine!

I am in Kansas City this week at the first of what may become a new biennial conference aimed at encouraging young people to consider foreign missions. In the tradition of the Student Volunteer Movement, Urbana, and Student Global Initiative (SGI), a group of concerned pastors and others began meeting and praying about starting a conference for college- and seminary-aged individuals to focus on the continuing need of world evangelism and church planting. Dave Doran and the Intercity Baptist Church hosted SGI for about fourteen years in the early years of the new century. SGI’s last conference was a few years ago. Tim Barr (a Central grad who has been teaching periodically in a restricted access country) and several others organized Advance the Gospel this week in Kansas City. The conference has brought together about two dozen speakers from North America and Africa. We are meeting in the facilities of the Tri-City Baptist Church of Blue Springs, MO, where Tim recently became pastor after a number of years in Adrian, MN.

On Thursday, Dave Doran started the conference off with a message on “God Centered Missions” from 2 Corinthians 4:15. He emphasized that missions is first and foremost about the glory of God. God is advancing his glory among the nations and believers are called to join God in promoting his glory. On Thursday night, Ken Mbugua, pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Church of Nairobi, Kenya, spoke from Romans 1:1-6 on the Preeminence of Christ in Missions.

The evening ended with a round table discussion on training nationals with three individuals who have been heavily involved in this ministry. It stressed the importance of life-on-life mentoring as a starting point for theological education. (Due to concerns about security and the fact that several participants are working in restricted access places, I cannot use their names or places of ministry in this report.) Training nationals is an important part of the church planting process. Nationals need to assume the leadership of churches newly planted and they need training.

Mission agencies, seminaries, and ministries of helps are also represented at the conference in the display area. It has been good to catch up with ministry friends scattered far and wide in the Lord’s work and to hear of the progress of the gospel around the world. In addition to general sessions focused mainly on preaching the Word, the conference includes a number of workshops by practitioners who are bringing years of expertise to the conversation about gospel advance.

On Friday, I am to give a workshop on the global presence of Pentecostalism and its impact on missions. As this conference meets, a memorial service is to be held in Orlando, FL, for Reinhard Bonnke, a German-born Pentecostal evangelist who died in early December. Throughout Bonnke’s career, he promoted Pentecostal and prosperity teaching across the African continent and around the world. Some have referred to him as “the greatest evangelist since the Apostle Paul,” claiming he was responsible for 79 million conversions worldwide. This highlights the prominence and presence of global Pentecostalism. Africa has about one billion people on the continent, about half of which are professing Christians—with about half of those claiming some form of Pentecostalism. In 1970, there were an estimated 60 million Pentecostals worldwide. This number is projected to be 1100% greater in 2020: about 770 million Pentecostals globally. Under the Pentecostal umbrella, one finds traditional Pentecostals like the Assemblies of God, Charismatics, new Pentecostals, prosperity gospelers, and Africa Initiated Churches. While there is not a clear set of Pentecostal tenets to which all of these groups adhere, there are common themes that they hold. Chief among these is the prominence of the Holy Spirit’s power for life and ministry. Additional emphases include tongues, the continuing gift of prophecy, faith healing, and the like. The problem is that many Pentecostals are promoting a false version of Christianity, especially with the emphasis on the prosperity gospel. Africa, as a generally poor 2/3 world area, is highly susceptible to this pernicious error. My workshop will try to show how global Pentecostalism is impacting the modern mission/church planting efforts.

Other workshops include a session on business as missions, the role of single women in the mission field, working with ethnic groups who have moved among us to the USA, and working with Muslims. While many of these workshops are not directly related to church planting, they contribute to the work of missions and should be aimed at facilitating church planting movements in countries where the missionaries minister.

A number of students from colleges and seminaries, including some from the Twin Cities and Central, are at the conference. There is good excitement for the meetings and real interest among those in attendance. I met a high school senior tonight who is from the area and is considering enrolling in Bob Jones next year, eventually planning to go to Cambodia as a missionary. I am glad to see that kind of missions interest. While the conference is modest in size, there is a good representation of interested young people. I am reminded of the importance of reaching the right person at the right time. Remember the story of Edward Kimball, the Chicago shoe salesman who influenced Dwight L Moody with the gospel? Who knows whether the next great missionary evangelist is among us this week.

We need to continue to challenge our churches to promote missions among our youth and to support missions heavily in our church’s budgets. We simply cannot give too much to missions, either by way of personnel or funds. Churches who make missions going and giving a top priority tend to be stronger, more vibrant churches.

I was encouraged to think about global missions while a student and God used my student years to ultimately direct me toward a lifetime of Christian service. When I entered Bible school, I had no clear direction, but Mission Prayer Band and a couple of summer mission teams helped open my eyes to the needs of the world. While I am not a career missionary as such (God having providentially redirected my life through a family medical need), I still have the privilege of being involved in missions through overseas teaching, teaching missions at Central, and encouraging my students to consider global missions.

I trust the Lord will use AtG this week in the lives of a number of young people (and maybe some older people) to place their futures at the Lord’s disposal to bear the goodness around the world. Thank you Tim Barr and the rest of the AtG team for this conference, and thanks to the good people of Tri-City for hosting this meeting. SDG!

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

Great God! The Nations of the Earth

Thomas Gibbons (1720–1785)

Great God! the nations of the earth
Are by creation thine;
And in thy works, by all beheld,
Thy radiant glories shine.

But, Lord! thy greater love has sent
Thy gospel to mankind,
Unveiling what rich stores of grace
Are treasured in thy mind.

Lord! when shall these glad tidings spread
The spacious earth around,
Till every tribe and every soul
Shall hear the joyful sound?

Smile, Lord, on each divine attempt
To spread the gospel’s rays,
And build on sin’s demolished throne
The temples of thy grace.

The conception of Jesus Christ and His birth in the manger were events that occurred in history, but they pertained to a person whose life came from outside history. The events represent the point at which an eternal person became Jesus. He already was, but in the conception and birth He began His human residence upon earth. This is the great mystery of Christmas.

From all eternity Christ Jesus existed in the form of God (Phil 2:6). This form (morphe) was an outer appearance that corresponded to an inner reality. Jesus Christ really was God, and because He was God His existence displayed all the splendor of the divine glory. For example, Isaiah saw Adonai sitting on a throne high and lifted up (Isa 6:1). The prophet was astonished at the divine splendor and declared that he had seen Yahweh with his own eyes (Isa 6:5). John states in his gospel that on this occasion Isaiah was looking at the pre-incarnate glory of Jesus (John 12:41).

In eternity past, Jesus was visibly and obviously equal with God (Phil 2:6). Nevertheless, He did not consider this visible equality as a thing to be selfishly grasped. In His incarnation and humiliation He could not and did not stop being God, but He did have to lay aside His robes of splendor. He would later call upon His followers to exercise self-denial (Matt 16:24). He earned the right to make this demand by modeling His own version of self-denial, a version that required Him to make a greater sacrifice than He will ever ask of anyone else.

So profound was this divestment of glory that Paul says He “emptied Himself” (Phil 2:7). Theologians have notoriously quibbled over what this self-emptying entailed, but Paul spares his readers from speculation. The apostle explains Jesus’ “kenosis” or emptying in two ways.

First, he states that Jesus received the form of a slave. In other words, during His humiliation Christ voluntarily placed Himself under obedience to His Father. The author of Hebrews has Christ saying, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God” (Heb 10:7). In the incarnation He would learn obedience as a Son (Heb 5:8). Accomplishing His Father’s will was Christ’s whole purpose in the incarnation. He placed Himself entirely at His Father’s disposal.

Second, Paul says that Jesus “came to be” in human likeness (Phil 2:7). Here Paul uses the verb for becoming, but he does not say that the person of Jesus came to be. Rather, without ceasing to be God, this eternal person added to His deity a complete and sinless human nature. Though He already was, he now became a human being, genuinely and fully.

So the self-emptying of Jesus consists, first, in His willingness to subject Himself as a slave to His father, and second, in His assuming the same nature as those to whom He was sent. Consequently, His outward appearance was strictly human (Phil 5:8). Simply looking at Him, no one would have guessed that He was anything more than a human being. He looked like any other guy. His identification with the human race was complete.

When Jesus entered the human race He became subject to all of its natural weaknesses and liabilities, including mortality. His liability to death was essential to His mission. By fear of death, humans were slaves of the devil, who held the power of death (Heb 2:14-15). For the relatively brief period of His humiliation, Christ was made lower than the angels and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Heb 2:9, Phil 2:8). By suffering death He wrenched the power of death away from the devil and made propitiation for the sins of the people (Heb 2:14-17).

That Christ should experience death is astonishing; that He should endure the death of the cross is appalling. Death by crucifixion was violence rendered in the name of justice. It made examples of the worst sort of renegades and criminals. Crucifixion was so agonizing that the word excruciating is still used to describe the severest pain imaginable. Crucifixion was so degrading that the word for cross was an obscenity in the Roman world. To endure the cross was to be shamed and vilified. Christ suffered this humiliation, not for any fault of His own, but for our sins.

Christ could not die for our sins if He could not die. He could not die unless He became mortal. He could not be mortal if He were not human. He could only become human by virtue of His incarnation. In His incarnation He not only became subject to death, but to all human weakness and testing (apart from sin). His suffering equips Him to understand our experience because He, too, has experienced it. He merits our reverence, our gratitude, and, most importantly, our trust.

Of course Christ’s death was not the end of His life. God raised Him up, highly exalted Him, and gave Him a name which is above every name. Someday every knee will bow before Him. Someday every tongue will confess that He is Lord (Phil 2:9-10). To His eternal, divine splendor Christ has added the glory of a sinless, obedient, and perfected humanity. His exaltation, however, came after His humiliation. To gain the joy of glory He first had to endure the cross and to despise its shame (Heb 12:2).

Christmas is a season for remembering the incarnation of Christ. The incarnation was first and foremost a self-humbling, a self-emptying, and a self-denying. The Lord Jesus embraced this demonstration of God’s love, not for the sake of good or righteous people, but for us while we were yet sinners (Rom 5:6‑8). Before He redeemed us, we had already rejected Him.

Here is the true spirit of Christmas. Paul tells us that we are to think like Jesus thought. We are to adopt His mindset (Phil 2:5). If so, then Christmas is about denying ourselves, refusing to insist upon the privileges to which we may have a right. Christmas is about emptying ourselves, submitting to God, and identifying with those who need Him. Christmas is about humbling ourselves and sacrificing in behalf of those who still reject what is good and true and beautiful. Christmas is about doing all of this because sin has twisted and distorted people who must someday stand before God, and the gospel has the power to cleanse them and to transform them into the very image of Christ Himself.

We live in a world filled with greed, arrogance, and ambition. Christmas reminds us that we who have trusted Christ need to be different because He was different, and He wants to make a difference through us. Christmas is about refusing to capitulate to the attitudes of our age, but instead identifying with Christ by putting His mind on display. That is the Christmas that we need to live both during this season and throughout the entire year.

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

Hark, the Glad Sound! The Savior Comes

Phillip Doddridge (1702–1751)

Hark, the glad sound! The Savior comes, 
the Savior promised long! 
Let ev’ry heart prepare a throne, 
and ev’ry voice a song.

He comes the pris’ners to release, 
in Satan’s bondage held; 
the gates of brass before Him burst, 
the iron fetters yield.

He comes the broken heart to bind, 
the bleeding soul to cure, 
and with the treasures of His grace 
t’enrich the humbled poor.

Our glad Hosannas, Prince of Peace, 
Thy welcome shall proclaim;
and heav’n’s eternal arches ring 
with Thy beloved Name.

Last week we explored the concept of Jesus Christ as the God-man. We learned that He is one person in two natures. Each nature is complete, possessing all the essential properties of that nature. The properties of each nature communicate to the person but not to the other nature. Consequently, paradoxical statements may be applied to the person in view of the two natures. The babe in the manger was omnipotent according to His divine nature but weak according to His human nature. He was omniscient according to His divine nature but able to learn according to His human nature. He was omnipresent according to His divine nature but spatially localized according to His human nature.

Most puzzling of all, we saw that the person can be designated by the names of one nature while acting according to the properties of the other. Hebrews 13:8 states that Jesus (His human name) is immutable (a divine property). Matthew 1:23 names Him Immanuel (God with us, a divine name) while speaking of His gestation and birth (human processes). In Acts 20:28, Paul, referring to Christ, says that God (a divine name) purchased the church with His own blood (a human property).

If pressed, we will want to limit and qualify these descriptions. We are eager to avoid misunderstandings, such as the conclusion that the divine nature could be tempted or that the human nature is eternal. We know that if we go an inch too far in our affirmations, we shall precipitate ourselves into heresy. The problem is that if we stop an inch short we shall also plunge into heresy. What we affirm with clarifications and qualifications we must never deny.

Beginning with His incarnation, the acts of Jesus Christ were all done by the one person. Neither His divine nature nor His human nature ever acted separately from His person. Everything He did must be ascribed to His person, which is both divine and human. Whatever was done according to the human nature was nevertheless done by the divine person, and vice versa.

This joining of two natures in one person is called the hypostatic union. On the scale of doctrinal importance, the hypostatic union stands right at the top. It is essential to the gospel and to the Christian faith. To deny it is to deny Christianity itself. It is a fundamental of the faith.

Like other fundamentals, the hypostatic union can function as a theological paradigm. In other words, we can use it to discern what answers we should give when asked unanticipated questions. In this case, two examples will illustrate the kind of applications we might make.

The first involves a controversy over an ancient heresy called Nestorianism. The Nestorians became concerned about a cute devotional phrase that was coming into vogue. People were beginning to refer to Mary as Mother of God. The Nestorians objected that Mary was the mother only of the human nature of Christ, suggesting that the divine nature simply passed through her. The result of this move, however, was to divide the person of Christ and to view each nature as a distinct person. Jesus Christ was no longer one person but a divine person and a distinct human person.

The correct perspective is that Mary was the mother, not simply of the human nature but of the person of Jesus according to His human nature. Yet the person is also a divine person who can be designated by divine names. To say that Mary was the mother of the person is to say that Mary was indeed the mother of God. In fact, Matthew 1:23 comes close to saying just that when it affirms that the Son, conceived and born of the virgin, would be named God with us.

Can the assertion that Mary is the mother of God be misunderstood? Certainly! Does it mean that Mary herself is somehow divine? Of course not! Should we clarify and qualify this affirmation? Absolutely! What we must not do, however, is to deny it.

We must take a similar tack with the question, “Who suffered for our sins? Was it God or was it a human?” To frame the question in that way creates a false dichotomy—one that runs contrary to everything we have seen about the one person and two natures of Christ.

A nature did not suffer for our sins. A nature did not die on the cross. A person did. The Lord Jesus Christ did.

Granted, the Lord Jesus suffered and died according to His human nature. Deity cannot suffer. Deity cannot die. Nevertheless, the person who suffered and died was the God-man. Even though He suffered and died according to His human nature, He did not divest His person of deity while suffering and dying.

As we have seen, the epithets of one nature can be applied to the person, even while the person is acting according to the other nature. The Jesus who suffered and died according to His human nature is the same Jesus who is God. Consequently, it is correct to say that God suffered for our sins and died on the cross.

Can that assertion be misunderstood? Certainly! Does it mean that Christ’s divine nature experienced mortality? Of course not! Should we clarify and qualify this affirmation? Absolutely! What we must not do, however, is to deny it. No amount of clarification can redeem a denial.

In this case, the fact that God suffered for our sins and died on the cross is very important. The divine person of Christ (not the divine nature) has experienced suffering and death. This experience could take place because of the hypostatic union. But the hypostatic union has never been dissolved, and it never will be. The Christ who is presently seated on His Father’s right hand is the same divine-human person who “learned…obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb 5:8). Only in this way could He become the “author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey Him” (Heb 5:9).

Furthermore, the fact that Christ has experienced weakness and suffering is critical to His high priesthood. Like the Old Testament high priests, He can have compassion on the ignorant and wayward because He Himself has worn weakness (Heb 5:2). While He never sinned, He understands how and why we do, and He understands this because He had to offer up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears (Heb 5:7). He did these things according to His human nature, but He did them as the God-man.

A divine person understands our hurts because He has borne hurt. A divine person understands our temptations because He has endured temptation. The hypostatic union gives us a merciful and faithful high priest who is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He invites us to come boldly to the throne of grace, and He promises mercy and grace to help in our time of need (Heb 4:14-16).

How is the hypostatic union possible? That is what the incarnation is for. That is what Christmas is about. God became one of us, pain and all.

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

O Thou Thro’ Suffering Perfect Made

William Walsham How (1823–1897)

O Thou thro’ suffering perfect made,
On Whom the bitter cross was laid;
In hours of sickness, grief, and pain,
No sufferer turns to Thee in vain.

The halt, the maimed, the sick, the blind,
Sought not in vain Thy tendance kind;
Now in Thy poor Thyself we see,
And minister through them to Thee.

O loving Saviour, Thou canst cure
The pains and woes Thou didst endure;
For all who need, Physician great,
Thy healing balm we supplicate.

But, oh, far more, let each keen pain
And hour of woe be heavenly gain,
Each stroke of Thy chastising rod
Bring back the wanderer nearer God.

Oh, heal the bruisèd heart within!
Oh, save our souls all sick with sin!
Give life and health in bounteous store,
That we may praise Thee evermore!