Theology Central

Theology Central exists as a place of conversation and information for faculty and friends of Central Baptist Theological Seminary. Posts include seminary news, information, and opinion pieces about ministry, theology, and scholarship.
Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

God knows exactly those choices that will bring the greatest good into your life. Perhaps those are not the choices that will result in the greatest apparent good, especially in the short term—I’ll have more to say about that in a future essay. But God knows who He wants you to be, and He knows which choices will bring you to that goal.

To deny that God is able to lead you in making those choices would be pointless. God promises that if we trust in the Lord and acknowledge Him, He will direct our paths (Prov. 3:6). In the Bible, He often directed His people through special revelation. Of course, He still directs us through the revelation that is recorded in Scripture, but there is no particular reason to think that He cannot direct us in other ways as well.

One of the ways in which God leads us to the right choices is through godly counsel. What Proverbs 11:14 posits of nations is also true of individuals: without guidance one is in danger, but deliverance is found in the abundance of counselors. While we may not always seek counsel for ordinary, mundane choices—whether we should wear the blue socks or the black ones—God wishes us to ask for counsel about the important ones.

Of course, if we want to get any help from counsel, we need to seek wise and careful counselors. Bad counsel can lead us seriously astray, as it did with Rehoboam (1 Ki. 12:1-23). Confronted by the people with his excesses, he accepted the counsel of foolish young men rather than wise older ones. That counsel brought disaster into his life. We should not expect to receive good counsel from people who are only going to tell us what we want to hear.

In some churches, people are told never to make a major decision without asking their pastor for counsel. When they go to their pastor for counsel, he listens to them describe their choices. He then pronounces God’s will for their lives. A very high percentage of the time, God’s will turns out to be the decision that is best for his ministry or even for him personally.

Still, the principle is a sound one. If a pastor knows his people, his God, and his Bible, he ought to be in a position to offer sound counsel. Pastoral counsel, however, rarely involves telling people what they ought to do. The only appropriate time for that is when a clear biblical requirement is at stake. Otherwise, a pastor’s main responsibility is to help people think through the decisions that they must make. He will guide them through the various considerations (including biblical principles) that ought to inform their decision. He will point out any circumstances that should affect their choice. He will help people to understand any personal giftedness, abilities, and proclivities that might shape the decision. In short, he will play a supporting role, assisting people to exercise wisely their prerogatives as believer-priests before the Lord.

What is true of pastoral counsel should be true of other counsel as well. Counsel does not usually consist in telling other people what to do. Only very immature people need or want to have decisions handed to them. Mature people should choose for themselves, and they should exercise sound judgment in their choices. Offering counsel is a matter of helping them to be sure that they have weighed every necessary consideration before making their choice.

For married people, husbands or wives are often best equipped to offer this kind of counsel. Our spouses know us like no one else does. Usually, they also understand our choices in greater detail than any other. Here I can speak from experience: my wife is my wisest counselor. Her insights have spared me from trouble on many occasions. I would not dream of making a major decision without discussing it with her first. Furthermore, I would not make a decision that she was convinced was wrong. When it comes to the home-shaping choices of our household, I take the responsibility for the final choice, but the process of making that decision is shared.

For a wife to share in making household decisions is no violation of marital submission (Eph. 5:22-24, 33). Rather, it is the implementation of that love which husbands owe to their wives (Eph. 5:25-33). Even a very deferential wife needs to be involved in the decisions that affect her future, and a loving husband will see to it that she is. A husband who fails to solicit his wife’s counsel, or who neglects or ignores it when it is offered, is simply a fool.

Besides spouses, parents are often among the best counselors. Even unbelieving parents can sometimes offer surprising insight into the decisions that their grown children must make. Parents who know the Lord and the Bible are some of the best counselors in the world. In any event, seeking parental counsel is part of honoring one’s father and mother (Eph. 6:2-3). At more than sixty years of age, I still seek parental counsel before making most major decisions. My parents are wise people, and I want to take advantage of their insight as long as I can.

True friends also make wonderful counselors. A true friend is one who will be willing to wound you when necessary (Prov. 27:5). Like pastors, spouses, and parents, friends cannot counsel by making decisions for you. What they can do is to make sure you’ve examined every legitimate factor that ought to affect your decision. They can point out any considerations that you may have neglected. They can talk with you, pray for you, and help you to weigh the various elements that affect your decision.

On rare occasions we may be confronted with decisions that must be made in isolation. Under normal circumstances, however, we ought to surround ourselves with as many wise counselors as we can. We should talk to them freely, hear them fully, and weigh their counsel carefully. Our counselors cannot take responsibility for our decisions, but they can help us to find God’s leading.


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.

Shall I, For Fear of Feeble Man

Johann Joseph Winkler (1670–1722); tr. John Wesley (1703–1791)

Shall I, for fear of feeble man,
The Spirit’s course in me restrain?
Or undismayed in deed and word,
Be a true witness for the Lord?

Awed by a mortal’s frown, shall I
Conceal the Word of God Most High?
How then before Thee shall I dare
To stand, or how Thy anger bear?

Shall I, to soothe th’unholy throng,
Soften Thy truths and smooth my tongue?
To gain earth’s gilded toys, or flee
The cross endured, my God, by Thee?

The love of Christ doth me constrain
To seek the wandering souls of men;
With cries, entreaties, tears, to save,
To snatch them from the fiery wave.

My life, my blood, I here present,
If for Thy truth they may be spent:
Fulfill Thy sovereign counsel, Lord!
Thy will be done, Thy name adored!

Give of Thy strength, O God of pow’r!
Then let winds blow, or thunders roar,
Thy faithful witness will I be:
‘Tis fixed! I can do all through Thee!

I Thy Dream – C.S. Lewis on Prayer

“Master, they say that when I seem

To be in speech with you,

Since you make no replies, it’s all a dream

– One talker aping two.

They are half right, but not as they

Imagine; rather, I

Seek in myself the things I meant to say,

And lo! the wells are dry.

Then, seeing me empty, you forsake

The Listener’s role, and through

My dead lips breathe and into utterance wake

The thoughts I never knew.

And thus you neither need reply

Nor can; thus, while we seem

Two talking, thou art One forever, and I

No dreamer, but thy dream.

– C.S. Lewis, 1964

2018 Fall Central Seminary Update

Increased Student Enrollment– Due to a variety of issues, many seminaries (across the denominational spectrum) are facing declining enrollment. This fall, our graduate student body increased by 30%compared to last year and the number of course hours attempted increased byover 20%. We praise the Lord for this growth and recognize our sober responsibility of training Christian leaders to minister in local churches.

Distance Education– A big part of our increase in student enrollment is our distance education platform. This technology allows students from not only around the country but also around the world to interact with professors and other students in real time. Many of our new distance students are pastors who desire to further their theological training but cannot leave their current ministries.

Fall Conference– We are honored to have Dr. Jim Tillotson as our featured speaker for this year’s Fall Conference. Jim is the president of Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary in Ankeny, IA, and will be speaking on burnout and perseverance in the ministry and Christian walk. This is a timely message and all are invited to attend. The conference is Tuesday, October 2, 8:00am–2:30pm. Find out more and register at https://centralseminary.edu/about-central/fall-conference/.

 

2018 Golf Scramble– 100 golfers showed up for the annual Golf Scramble on August 20. It was a great time of fun and fellowship as players won prizes and raised money for Central. We thank all who sponsored, volunteered, and golfed with us.

Thank you for your continued prayer and support as we enter a new academic year.

CBTS faculty and staff

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

Knowing God’s Will: Part Five

A few months ago I received a phone call from a colleague, a former student who went on to serve in pastoral ministry for a decade. He told me that he was trying to decide whether to remain with his current pastorate or whether to go back to school. He thought that he might like to teach in a Bible college or seminary someday. He asked for my counsel as he weighed his choices.

His request reflects a number of important considerations in seeking God’s will. First, he was choosing deliberately, refusing to allow momentary emotions to determine his direction. Second, he was seeking counsel—a matter I’ll have more to say about in a future essay. Third, and perhaps most importantly, he was looking for information. He wanted to know what he could expect if he were to pursue an academic doctorate, and he wanted to know about teaching opportunities once he had the degree.

I’m afraid that I wasn’t overly encouraging. I explained that few people can anticipate the kind of labor and sacrifice that goes into earning a Ph.D. or Th.D. Fewer still understand that the pressures must be borne by both the students and their families. Yet this price must be paid: an earned doctorate is the union card for teaching in higher education. I said all of this because I wanted my friend to know what demands and pressures he would face if he left his pastorate for further education.

That wasn’t the end of the bad news. Doctors of Philosophy now saturate the academy. Even large universities are shifting toward using adjunct rather than full-time teachers. Within mainstream fundamentalism this situation is exacerbated by the fact that nearly half our schools have closed over the past decade or two, and most of those that remain are only half the size they once were. Every man who leaves the pastorate for doctoral study needs to think seriously about what he will do for a living once he has earned the degree. He could go back into the pastorate, of course, but no one needs a Ph.D. to pastor effectively.

What is the right decision for my colleague? I really don’t know. In any event, he did not want to know what my will might be, but what God’s leading was. For discerning God’s leading, he was doing the right thing by gaining as much information as he could.

The Bible is full of both examples and principles that merge God’s will with adequate informed judgment. God’s will was for Joshua to conquer the land, but Joshua still sent investigators to gather information from Jericho (Josh. 2). Those who hope to pass wise judgments are obligated to gain information from multiple witnesses (Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1). Acting without knowledge is not good (Prov. 19:2). A person who makes a pronouncement without listening to the facts is a fool (Prov. 18:13).

Ignorance is not a virtue in discovering God’s direction. To be sure, circumstances sometimes force us to make decisions about which we are poorly informed. Furthermore, we often wish that we had more information than we do. We can never become omniscient, and something that we don’t know might be the one thing that would have changed our minds. That is no excuse, however, for not learning all we can.

Informing one’s self and seeking God’s will are not mutually exclusive categories. God does not usually lead in a vacuum. He uses several factors to create in us an impression of what His direction might be. The more attention we pay to these factors, the more likely we are to understand what God wishes us to do. One of the most important factors is information. By learning all we can about our decision, we are giving God something to work with as He leads.

Consider a man who is offered a promotion that will require him to move his family to a distant city. He ought to know exactly what his responsibilities will entail and who he will be working with. He ought to learn all he can about the city, both its opportunities and its problems. He ought to search in advance for churches in that city, and, if possible, he ought to visit some of them and talk to their pastors.

He should also inform himself about the subjective responses of the people who will be affected by his decision. How will his new co-workers perceive him? How does his wife feel about the move? How do his children feel about it? On the other hand, how will his employers respond if he declines? While these matters are outside his control, he still needs to take them into account. How people feel is part of the information that should go into his decision.

Every kind of decision requires different information. No single rule can specify exactly what kind of information is necessary in every circumstance. The only rule is to gain as much relevant information as possible before the choice has to be made. Informing one’s self is necessary if one is to exercise due diligence when making decisions.

I have heard Christian leaders dismiss the exercise of due diligence by denouncing it as “human wisdom.” They are half right. It is wisdom—but it is not merely human. It is the care that God expects His people to exercise before committing themselves to a course of action. Even Jesus thought that a man who was going to build a tower should know how much it would cost before he began (Lk. 14:28). Too many Christian leaders have wrecked ministries—and people’s lives—because they did not bother to inform themselves before announcing some course of action and proclaiming it to be “God’s will.”

Ignorance is not faith. Ignorance does not foster faith. Ignorance is not a substitute for faith. Ignorance is never a virtue. Instead, information is a tool that the faithful employ whenever possible while seeking God’s direction. David trusted God to deliver him from Saul; he also trusted the information that Jonathan brought him (1 Sam. 20).

God places us in positions in which we have to make choices. In those choices He certainly knows what direction is best for us, but He also uses those decisions as opportunities to grow us in maturity and wisdom. Maturity and wisdom revolve around the capacity for sound judgment. For that reason, seeking God’s leading entails the exercise of sound judgment. The simple truth is that informed judgments are usually sounder than uninformed ones.

Do you want God’s will? If you are already yielded to Him, obeying Him, and fulfilling your duties to the best of your ability, then the next thing you need to do is to inform yourself. The information you gain may be exactly the instrument that God uses to disclose His direction for your life.


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.

Almighty God, In Humble Prayer

James Montgomery (1771–1854)

Almighty God, in humble prayer,
To Thee our souls we lift,
Do Thou our waiting minds prepare
For Thy most needful gift.

We ask not golden streams of wealth,
Along our path to flow,
We ask not undecaying health,
Nor length of years below.

We ask not honours which an hour
May bring or take away;
We ask not pleasure, pomp, or power,
Lest we should go astray.

We ask for wisdom:—Lord, impart
The knowledge how to live;
A wise and understanding heart
To all before Thee give.

For we, like children, born in sin
Know not till Thou hast taught,
How to go out, or how come in,
By word, or deed, or thought.

The young remember Thee in youth,
Before the evil days;
The old be guided by Thy truth
In Wisdom’s pleasant ways.

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

Knowing God’s Will: Part Four

Throughout this discussion I have assumed that God has an individual will for each Christian and that His will can be discerned. To this point, I have described criteria for determining God’s will that are straightforward and objective. God’s leading never contradicts Scripture rightly understood. The person who wishes to know God’s will must be willing to do God’s will, and this willingness is characterized by actual obedience to as much of God’s will as is already known. God’s will is always for Christians to fulfill their duties.

The remaining criteria are less straightforward and more subjective, though they may be as important as the objective criteria. Employing these criteria requires wisdom and a sense of balance. Consequently, those who wish to seek God’s leading need to fulfill at least one prerequisite.

That prerequisite is prayer. To receive wisdom from God we have to ask for it, but if we ask, we receive it generously (Jas. 1:5). Since wisdom is necessary to discern God’s will, the process of seeking God’s direction must be bathed in prayer.

You may wonder why I have waited until this point to mention prayer. If it is so important, then does it not take priority over all other considerations? Should it not have been discussed first?

Remember, however, that the first considerations are objective. We know them because God has spoken. God reveals a good bit of His will in the Bible. God’s leading never contradicts what God has revealed. When we seek God’s will, we begin by obeying His revealed will. Even our duties are plain because they are revealed in Scripture.

In other words, we do not have to ask God what His will is in any of those matters. His will is already settled, stated for us in black and white. We determine God’s revealed will, not by praying about it, but by reading the Bible. We do not have to ask God whether His will for us is to embezzle from our employer. We do not have to pray about the decision to abandon a spouse. We have no need to seek God’s face about using methamphetamine for amusement. We need not question whether we ought to covenant with a local church, to testify of God’s grace, or to give money toward God’s work. In all of these matters, God has already told us what His will is, either in so many words or by good and necessary consequence.

For us to pray about these matters is to confess that we have not been paying attention to what God has already said. If we had paid attention, we would already have our answers. These are not matters that require discernment. Deciding whether to view pornography (for example) requires no special spiritual insight. It just requires obedience. We don’t need to pray about God’s will, we just need to obey it. If we pray about things like this, we reduce piety to a game and Christianity to a show. In effect, we are mocking God—and God is not mocked (Gal. 6:7).

The time to pray for God’s direction is when Scripture by itself does not give us clear guidance. That is when we must come to our Father and humbly ask Him for wisdom that we do not possess in ourselves. It is the time to ask Him to make clear to us the best way forward.

Of course, we do not pray specifically for the small, every-day choices. We do not pause at the medicine cabinet to seek divine guidance concerning Crest versus Colgate. We do not prayerfully ponder whether we ought to eat the green beans or the Brussels sprouts (or both). Each day we ask God to direct our paths, and we prayerfully commit the keeping of our ways to Him. As the normal decisions of life come our way, we roll along with them and simply make the choice that seems best at the moment, trusting God to oversee our determinations.

Sometimes, however, we are confronted with choices that obviously carry serious consequences. We do not wish to make a bad decision. Instead, we want to make the best choice possible, and it may not be obvious to us. Those are the times when we need real wisdom; those are the times when we absolutely must seek God’s guidance. In fact, we really ought to seek wisdom and guidance even when the choice does seem obvious to us. God just might know something that we do not.

We might spend days or even weeks in prayer over a serious decision. If it is a decision that affects our families, then we might very well ask our spouses and perhaps other family members to pray with us. We might solicit the prayers of our Christian brothers and sisters. We might even commit ourselves to fasting so as to give ourselves more fully to prayer. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working (Jas. 5:16, ESV).

Nevertheless, prayer is not a magic formula to secure a personal revelation. We should not expect the answer to be written in the sky or to become audible to the ears of the soul. We should expect no signs and we should trust no sudden overwhelming convictions. Such things are too easily counterfeited. The prayer for guidance will be answered through the exercise of wisdom, judgment, and discretion.

That is where the subjective criteria come in. Exercising wisdom requires us to appeal to several sources and to weigh several considerations. Just what these sources are will be the subject of future essays.


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.

Lord, I Cannot Let Thee Go

John Newton (1725–1807)

Lord, I cannot let thee go,
‘Till a blessing thou bestow;
Do not turn away thy face,
Mine’s an urgent, pressing case.

Dost thou ask me who I am?
Ah, my Lord, thou know’st my name!
Yet a question gives a plea,
To support my suit with thee.

Thou didst once a wretch behold,
In rebellion blindly bold,
Scorn thy grace, thy power defy,
That poor rebel, Lord was I.

Once a sinner near despair,
Sought thy mercy seat by pray’r;
Mercy heard and set him free,
Lord, that mercy came to me.

Many days have passed since then,
Many changes I have seen;
Yet have been upheld till now,
Who could hold me up but thou?

Thou hast helped in every need,
This emboldens me to plead;
After so much mercy past,
Can’st thou let me sink at last?

No—I must maintain my hold;
‘Tis thy goodness makes me bold,
I can no denial take,
When I plead for Jesus’ sake.

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

Knowing God’s Will: Part Three

John Buck is a manager for a national corporation where he has been advancing through the ranks. One day his boss stops by to offer John a new position as manager of a plant in a distant part of the country. The job comes with a pay increase of $15,000 per year. John has one week to give his boss an answer.

Both John and his wife, Anne, believe that he is ready to take on the responsibility. If he rejects the promotion he might not be given another chance. They are concerned, however, about their three teenage children, all of whom would be pulled out of their schools in the middle of the year. Their concerns increase when, after investigating the city where they would be living, they cannot find a rightly-ordered New Testament church with a pastor who actually preaches the Bible.

Their present church is small, but its members are committed to the Lord and its pastor expounds the Scriptures accurately, applies them well, and is deeply interested in the congregation’s lives. John has served this church as a deacon for ten years. Anne is the church’s only accompanist. Many of the other members are retirees. They support the church, but the Bucks’ giving makes a significant difference.

John and Anne believe that God has a specific direction for them in this choice. They genuinely want to follow the Lord’s leading. They are already trying to obey as much of the Bible’s teaching as they understand. What considerations will help them to determine how God might direct in their present circumstances?

One question they might ask is this: “What are my duties?” Every duty is an obligation, a responsibility that people owe to themselves or others. All people have duties. They owe responsibilities to God, nation, family, church, and calling. Some duties are intrinsic and inescapable. Others are freely assumed but binding once accepted. For example, vows are not normally obligatory, but once sworn become compulsory (Num. 30).

What duties do the Bucks owe? How should those duties affect John’s choice about the new job?

Clearly John and Anne owe a duty to their three teenage children. As parents they are responsible to rear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). While the text of Scripture does not specify every method by which that is done, John and Anne can easily foresee the disruption that will follow if they pull their children away from their school and established home in the middle of the school year.

Furthermore, the responsibility to make disciples does not belong to parents alone (Mt. 28:19-20). Making disciples is the business of local churches, and without a good church discipleship almost always suffers. If John and Anne cannot find (or plant) a good church, then they and their children will lose an important center of spiritual nourishment, encouragement, warning, instruction, shared labor, and corporate worship. This deficiency will certainly affect the entire family.

The Bucks also owe something to their present congregation. Joining a church is not like joining a club. One becomes a member of a New Testament church by covenant. A covenant is an oath or vow that the members swear to one another. It affirms their intention together to be a church and defines what their relationship as members will look like. While a church covenant is not a lifelong obligation, it is not a casual obligation and it should not be easily abandoned. If John and Anne move away, they will leave a void that cannot be easily filled.

On the other hand, John does not have a duty to make more money or to advance in the company. Of course, he does owe some level of loyalty and cooperation to his employers. Unless he is bound in some way (such as a contract), this obligation is lesser and more relative than the others. Sometimes, however, a duty to an employer may become completely inflexible, such as when the National Guard deploys its soldiers. Those circumstances eliminate the dilemma because they eliminate the choice. As the quip goes, “No choice, no problem.”

Sometimes circumstances simply do away with all choices. When that happens, believers can be sure that God is providentially directing their lives, even if the circumstances are terrible. Now they are no longer seeking God’s direction, but seeking ways to glorify Him under the circumstances into which He has directed them. They must do the best they can with a bad situation for as long as they have to, but when they are once again free to choose for themselves they should make the choice that enables them to fulfill the greatest number of duties in the best way possible.

Occasionally the difficult circumstances may be the result of previous bad choices. For example, a seminarian who goes into debt will be less free to follow the Lord’s leading into a small pastorate or onto the mission field. Borrowers are enslaved to lenders (Prov. 22:7). A person who owes money will be working for the creditor until the debt is paid. God’s will for an indebted person is to repay all that is owed as quickly as possible. Until that step has been taken, debtors lack freedom to choose. Their duty is to pay what they owe.

Any effort to discern God’s leading for particular choices should begin with the question, “What are my duties?” God does not lead His people to neglect their duties, and duties are manifold. Christians cannot rightly plead God’s will as an excuse to escape from the obligations that they owe.

Everyone has duties. Finding God’s direction must begin by acknowledging those duties and seeking to fulfill them. Christians who develop a keen sense of duty and a determination to fulfill all duties often find that many seemingly-difficult choices are simply eliminated. Discovering God’s leading will become a much simpler process.


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.

On Christ Salvation Rests Secure

Samuel Medley (1738–1799)

On Christ salvation rests secure;
the Rock of Ages must endure;
nor can that faith be overthrown
which rests upon the “Living Stone.”

No other hope shall intervene;
to Him we look, on Him we lean;
other foundations we disown
and build on Christ the “Living Stone.”

In Him, it is ordained to raise
a temple to Jehovah’s praise
composed of all the saints, who own
no Savior but the “Living Stone.”

View the vast building, see it rise;
the work how great! the plan how wise!
O wondrous fabric, pow’r unknown
that rests it on the “Living Stone.”

But most adore His precious name;
His glory and His grace proclaim;
for us, condemned, despised, undone,
He gave Himself, the “Living Stone.”

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

Knowing God’s Will: Part Two

If God is not giving further revelation, then how can believers know His will for their lives? Some theologians have denied that God has an individual will for each believer, but their objections are not convincing. More often than not, their case against an individual will of God is really an objection to ongoing revelation. They overlook the possibility that God might have an individual will for each believer and that His will can be known (at least approximately) without sacrificing either the finality or the sufficiency of Scripture.

I have already given reasons for believing this to be the case. Along with those reasons comes a responsibility to explain just how believers can discern God’s will for their lives. I have said that several components are involved in this process. The first component is that God’s will always accords with Scripture rightly understood. God never leads any of His children contrary to what the Bible teaches.

The second element in discerning God’s will is closely related. It is simply that believers who want to know God’s will must be committed to doing God’s will. Submission precedes knowledge.

This principle should surprise no one. It follows the pattern established in the book of Proverbs. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (1:7). God refuses to answer those who call upon Him without first seeking Him; the fact that they do not fear the Lord shows that they really hate knowledge (1:28-29). The one who understands the fear of the Lord is the one who finds knowledge (2:5). This fear of the Lord involves hating pride, arrogance, and the evil way (8:13). It is the beginning of wisdom (9:10), and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. The fear of the Lord gives His people strong confidence and is a fountain of life (14:26-27). This fear precedes instruction in wisdom, just as humility precedes true honor (15:33). It leads people to depart from evil (16:6). It tends toward life, results in settled satisfaction, and spares one from calamity (19:23).

These and similar verses imply that God’s will is not known in the abstract. We do not have the privilege of placing God’s will under scrutiny or of sitting in judgment over it. We are not permitted to find out what God’s will is so that we can subsequently make up our minds about doing it. God has no reason to help anyone discover His will who has no real interest in doing His will. God leads those who are willing to obey.

Who is willing to obey? Certainly not everyone who professes to be willing. While it may not be quite apposite, Jesus’ parable of the two sons (Matt. 21:28-32) certainly teaches that not everyone who professes willingness really is willing. It also implies that not everyone who resists obedience is ultimately unwilling.

So how do we know whether we are really willing to obey God’s will? The answer is clear in the parable. The one who is willing is not the one who professes obedience, but the one who actually obeys. Our willingness to do God’s will becomes evident only by our actual obedience. We are willing to do God’s will if and only if we are obeying God’s will.

How can we obey God’s will before He makes it known? The answer to this question is painfully simple. God has already disclosed His will, or most of it, in a clear and objective manner. The text of Scripture is written to make God’s will known. At minimum, the teachings of the epistles apply directly to Church saints. While we may niggle at some points of interpretation and application, God has certainly made His will clear enough for any believer to follow.

Of course, the Bible does not give us direct, personal guidance for every possible decision. Still, professing that we want God’s leading for unique circumstances while avoiding His revealed will in Scripture is merely pretending. If we are knowingly disobeying God’s revealed will, then agonizing over His individual leading is flat hypocrisy.

Believe me, professing Christians play this game. When I was a pastor I once had a woman come to my study to ask whether God could lead her to marry a divorced man. I told her that Christians take different views of divorce and remarriage, and I tried to give her the categories for making a wise and biblical choice. She was quite upset with even the most relaxed understanding of the biblical text; she saw it as impossibly narrow. Later on I learned that she was already sleeping with someone else’s husband, laying plans to destroy his marriage so that she could capture the man for herself. She never had any interest in doing God’s will, even though she initially pretended to.

Granted, that is an extreme example—but it clarifies the point. God is only interested in leading those who want to do His will. We demonstrate our intention to do God’s will by obeying that part of His will that we already know. The part that we know is revealed in the text of Scripture. If we refuse to obey what we know the Bible teaches, then all talk of doing God’s will rings false.

On the other hand, habitual obedience actually clears up an amazing number of perplexities in the believer’s life. If we are committed to doing God’s will, and if we are actually obeying that part of His will that we already know (because it is revealed in Scripture), we do not worry about what we ought to do under most circumstances. We simply entrust our paths to the God who providentially oversees our lives. We do not agonize in prayer, for instance, before deciding whether to breakfast on Kellogg’s Corn Flakes or Post Toasties.

The principle here is really rather simple. If you want to know God’s will, then you must begin by doing God’s will. Your obedience to what you already know is the outward exhibition of a heart that genuinely wishes to follow God’s leading.


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.

Jesus, Still Lead Ond

Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700–1760); tr. Jane Borthwick (1813–1897)

Jesus, still lead on till our rest be won.
And, although the way be cheerless,
We will follow, calm and fearless;
Guide us by Your hand to our Fatherland.

If the way be drear, if the foe be near,
Let not faithless fears o’ertake us,
Let not faith and hope forsake us;
For, through many a woe, to our home we go.

When we seek relief from a long-felt grief—
When oppressed by new temptations,
Lord, increase and perfect patience.
Show us that bright shore where we weep no more.

Jesus, still lead on till our rest be won;
Heav’nly Leader, still direct us,
Still support, console, protect us,
Till we safely stand in our Fatherland.

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

Knowing God’s Will: Part One

Does God have an individual will for each believer? To suggest otherwise is effectively to deny either the infinity of God’s wisdom and knowledge, thereby verging upon Open Theism, or else to question God’s love for and personal interest in His children. God certainly knows what will be best for each of His people. He certainly wishes the best for each one. For God to wish the best for each believer while simultaneously knowing just what is best is exactly to have an individual will for each believer.

Ought individual believers to seek God’s will for their lives? Some have suggested otherwise, opining that by seeking God’s will a Christian is de facto asking for additional revelation and consequently denying the sufficiency of Scripture. These people insist that the Bible provides every principle necessary to make a wise choice under every circumstance. They reason that God’s will extends no further than the exercise of wisdom; any choice made with biblical wisdom is within God’s will.

This response wears a patina of biblical faithfulness, but when believers face genuinely hard choices that patina wears thin. When the stakes are very high and all choices seem bad, many believers yearn to know that they are free to ask God to help them find a way forward. They recognize the fragility of their own wisdom, even when it is informed by the Scriptures. They yearn for some level of guidance and direction. Nevertheless, the Bible has a back cover and God is no longer granting new revelations. Could God somehow provide guidance for His children without endangering the finality and sufficiency of Scripture?

I believe the answer to that question is yes. If God knows and desires what is best for each believer, then He will not turn away when His people cry out to Him for help. He has provided a way in which each of His children can make choices with confidence that He is directing their paths (Prov. 3:5-6).

Nevertheless, Christians must beware of seeking God’s will in the wrong ways and places. Three of these are particularly common. One is seeking God’s will through signs and “fleeces” (a reference to Gideon’s setting out a fleece to gain assurance from God). In this method, a seeker challenges God to reveal His will through some uncommon event or through some apparently-chance occurrence such as the flip of a coin or the casting of a lot. God did speak in some of these ways in the past, but He has given no indication that He intends to do so now. To look for signs, to set out fleeces, or to cast lots now is to engage in superstition.

Another false method of discerning God’s will is by expecting Him to speak directly to the issue, whether through an audible voice, a dream, or an inner voice. To pursue such experiences is exactly to seek additional revelation. Not surprisingly, people who think that God just tells them what to do often make pretty bad decisions. The reason is simple: whatever voice they think they hear is not the voice of God.

A third false method of discovering God’s will is called bibliomancy. It is the practice of opening the Bible and reading a verse at random. That verse is thought to reveal the will of God in answer to the seeker’s question. This method is grounded in the belief that God speaks through Scripture—which, of course, He does. Scripture is God’s Word, inspired and inerrant. Its meaning and applicability, however, are determined by both near and remote context. Every part gains its significance from its place within the overall argument of the whole. To tear a text out of the whole so as to seek answers foreign to the biblical context is worse than superstition. It is an occult practice, no different than seeking God’s will by reading tea leaves or sheep entrails.

So how should Christians seek to discern God’s will for their lives? The answer to that question has several components. Those will be explained in future publications of In the Nick of Time. For the moment, however, one point is worth emphasizing.

It is this: God’s will always accords with Scripture rightly understood. Whatever other tools or techniques one uses to discern God’s direction, the Bible always has the final word. God will never lead contrary to His revealed will in the Bible.

Of course, the Bible contains different expressions of God’s will for different individuals at different times and in different places. God’s will for Israel (e.g.) is not necessarily God’s will for the Church. The two will share points of similarity and even identity, but they will also manifest points of sharp contrast. Knowing God’s revealed will requires careful reading of the Bible and skillful interpretation.

At the end of the day, however, certain aspects of God’s will are pretty clear. God’s will is never for a believer to rob a gas station, murder an enemy, or abandon a spouse. God’s will never includes envy, greed, bitterness, deceit, pride, or malice. God never wills His children to neglect their duties. God’s will always entails holiness, justice, faith, hope, and love. No people whose conduct contradicts the teaching of Scripture can ever plead that they are doing God’s will.

I believe that God has a specific will for each individual. I also affirm that knowing God’s will is not a matter of additional revelation. On the other hand, it is not complicated or mysterious, either. In the next publication of In the Nick of Time I plan to talk about how God’s leading can be discerned.


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 Christ, What Burdens Bowed Thy Head

Anne R. Cousin (1824–1906)

O Christ, what burdens bowed Thy head!
Our load was laid on Thee;
Thou stoodest in the sinner’s stead,
Didst bear all ill for me.
A Victim led, Thy blood was shed;
Now there’s no load for me.

Death and the curse were in our cup:
O Christ, ’twas full for Thee;
But Thou hast drained the last dark drop,
’Tis empty now for me.
That bitter cup, love drank it up;
Now blessing’s draught for me.

Jehovah lifted up His rod;
O Christ, it fell on Thee!
Thou wast sore stricken of Thy God;
There’s not one stroke for me.
Thy tears, Thy blood, beneath it flowed;
Thy bruising healeth me.

Jehovah bade His sword awake;
O Christ, it woke ’gainst Thee!
Thy blood the flaming blade must slake;
Thine heart its sheath must be;
All for my sake, my peace to make;
Now sleeps that sword for me.

For me, Lord Jesus, Thou hast died,
And I have died in Thee!
Thou’rt ris’n—my hands are all untied,
And now Thou liv’st in me.
When purified, made white and tried,
Thy glory then for me!

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

On Living the Liberal Life

Contemporary education emphasizes specialization. The more education you get, the more specialized it becomes. This trend produces scholars whose grasp of a tiny sliver of knowledge is exhaustive, but whose capacity to integrate that knowledge into the overall system of reality (i.e., the universe) is marginal. Their ability to integrate factual and theoretical knowledge with practical wisdom is often even worse.

The alternative to this kind of specialization has always been liberal education. Liberal education is liberal, not in the sense that it favors liberalism or progressivism, but in the sense that it is grounded in the liberal arts, and particularly the Trivium. The disciplines of the Trivium—grammar, rhetoric, and logic—are not “subjects” in the traditional sense of the term, but intellectual skills that constitute the tools of thought. These tools are applicable to all of life because a person who thinks well is one who knows how to think through unfamiliar challenges.

One of the faults of the older Bible schools and of some Bible colleges is that they took the specialist approach to preparation for ministry. They aimed to teach a core of biblical knowledge (often by rote) and ministry techniques that would equip the ordinary individual to function as a Christian worker. This preparation produced an entire generation of devout workers but yielded few leaders who knew how to think well about the unfamiliar challenges with which their changing situation confronted them.

To some degree this deficiency has righted itself: the Bible schools became colleges, then they produced seminaries, and finally the quest for accreditation forced them to confront key deficiencies. The better colleges have typically increased their emphasis upon broad learning, though they still do not fully equip their graduates to address the perennial questions. The better seminaries are preparing their students to think skillfully about the text of Scripture rather than to repeat rote answers. Their graduates can employ the biblical languages and exhibit a fair degree of hermeneutical and exegetical sophistication.

The best of the seminaries have realized that they cannot fully prepare future ministers on their own. Ministry involves people and congregations; consequently, certain skills are learned only in relationship and churches. The best seminaries have either joined themselves to churches or found ways to partner with them so that one side of seminary education takes place under the supervision of pastors in New Testament congregations.

All of this is good, but something is still missing. Besides all of the above, pastors (and professors) should have the same life skills that people in every walk ought to acquire. A pastor ought to know how to balance a checkbook (or the online equivalent), prepare a budget, and live by it. He ought to know how to change the oil, the spark plugs, or a tire on his car. He ought to know how to frame a wall, run a circuit, plumb a sink, and hang a sheet of drywall. He ought to know how to cook a meal, pitch a tent, build a fire, carry a gun safely, shoot it accurately, bait a hook, and harvest and clean his own fish and game. He ought to know how to iron his own shirt, shine his own shoes, do his own dishes, and sew on his own button. He ought to know how to do these things, not because he is a pastor but because he is a man.

A pastor (or a professor) does not always need to do all these jobs himself. Some responsibilities are shared between spouses. He may sometimes hire some of them done, because often money is cheaper than time. Still, these are all basic tasks that are part of a man’s life. He should be able to perform them when needed, and not only for himself.

It is not beneath a pastor’s dignity to cook the men’s prayer breakfast and to wash up afterward. It does not degrade his office to swing a hammer or paint a wall at a church work day. People will not think less of him if he changes the oil in a widow’s car or helps her install a new hot water heater in her basement. A pastor’s life does not consist in these activities, but it must include them.

A pastor’s primary responsibility is the teaching and preaching of the Word of God, but that responsibility is coupled with the care of souls. He cannot preach competently without hours spent in study; he cannot minister competently without hours spent among his people. While it is true that the material care of the congregation and the physical maintenance of the property belong to the deacons, a pastor must take an interest in those matters. Sharing the labors and burdens of his people is one way in which he enters their lives. Taking responsibility for his own life tasks is part of how he sets an example.

God calls some men to be pastors. Before He does that, however, He calls them to be men. One part of a man’s calling is preparedness to live a fully liberal life—that is, a life of broad practical skill and wise application. A pastor (or professor) who simply shuts himself up in a study is only living half a life and he will only enjoy half a ministry.


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.

Teach me, O Lord, the Perfect Way

Psalm 119:33–37, Scottish Psalter

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.

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

In Praise of Ordinary Men, Part Nine: Bill Bevis

About twenty-five years ago I was planting a church in Garland, Texas. Our little congregation was meeting in what had been a bank building. Our nursery was in the vault. One Sunday night after church one of our men commented that he had inherited an old military rifle from an uncle. He wished that he knew what it was and whether it was safe to shoot. I told him that he ought to bring it to church next Sunday so we could take a look at it. It turned out to be a No. 4 Enfield with a good bore.

I suggested that we could take the rifle to a local gun show to look for somebody with headspace gauges. We did, and a quick exchange of bolt heads made the rifle fully functional. After that, gun shows became a regular activity for the men of Faith Baptist Church. Sometimes a group of us would go, and sometimes only two or three.

One Saturday our church’s music minister and I were at a gun show, became separated, and I ended up walking through the show alone. As I was ambling along, I spotted a man selling jugs of gun powder. He was wearing a blue and white ball cap that said PILLSBURY BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE. I walked up to him and asked, “Do you know somebody who attends Pillsbury Baptist Bible College?”

He answered with a bit of a Texas twang, “Well, no. But my son used to teach at Pillsbury Baptist Bible College.”

“Really,” I replied. “He used to teach there? Where is he now?”

“Oh, he teaches at a little school in Iowa that you never heard of.”

I asked, “You don’t mean Faith Baptist Bible College in Ankeny, Iowa, do you?”

That’s when he took a second look at me, and asked, “You know about Faith Baptist Bible College?”

“I went to school there,” I said.

The man’s name was Bill Bevis, and his son Darrell was indeed a music professor at Faith. Bill himself was a gunsmith. He invited me to come visit him in his shop, which I did the following week. He showed me the largest personal gun collection I’d ever seen, and for the next two hours we went back and forth talking about guns and then the Bible.

A couple of weeks later our church was hosting a fish fry. One of the men told me about an old friend he had invited whom he wanted me to meet. When the two stepped out of their car, I immediately recognized Bill Bevis.

“It’s you!” I exclaimed.

“It’s you!” he responded. It turned out that Bill and his wife Celesse were between churches and looking for a church home. Within about two weeks they were members at Faith Baptist Church.

Bill Bevis was an amazing gunsmith. He built 1911 pistols so accurate that you could plink pop cans at a hundred yards. His work on rifles was phenomenal. I had an old, chopped up Mosin with a shot-out bore that I’d picked up for ten bucks somewhere. Bill found me a barrel and stepped me through the process of turning that junker into a nice sporting rifle. That fall I harvested a deer with it.

One day Bill asked what I was doing for retirement. I just laughed at him—there was no way I could think about retirement. He offered me a deal: if I could come with him to some gun shows, he would show me how to buy broken guns cheaply and to make them into something nice. Then he added, “But I don’t want you to just turn around and sell those guns. You keep them and enjoy them and set them aside. They won’t lose any value. Then when you retire you can start selling them as part of your retirement.” So to this day, I have part of my retirement in stocks.

Much as Bill loved firearms, they occupied a distant third place in his life. He was far more interested in his wife, his children, their spouses, and his grandchildren. Most of all, he loved the Lord Jesus Christ.

Bill wasn’t born into a Christian home. He didn’t grow up under the sound of the gospel. He was a truck driver who became a machinist. One day he heard the gospel and believed on Christ for salvation. That event changed the whole direction of his life. During the 1950s he sat under the ministry of Joe Boyd at Open Door Baptist Church, was involved with the Baptist Evangelistic School of Texas, and became one of the founders of the Southwide Baptist Fellowship. Later on he was a member at Miller Road Baptist Church (the Hyles church). Somewhere along the line he came under the influence of a Bible teacher whom he always just called “brother Oden,” and brother Oden convinced him of four out of the five points of Calvinism. That was pretty unusual among Texas fundamentalists.

When Bill became a member of Faith Baptist Church, he threw himself into the ministry. He was an encourager who loved to help other church members. I never saw the figures, but I know he was a giver. A few times we sort of made a mutual project of somebody we knew needed financial help. When we built our building he swung a hammer with the best of us. He and Celesse became surrogate grandparents to several of the church’s children.

I was Bill’s pastor for about five years. For the next fifteen he’d call regularly. I’d try to stop in when I was near Dallas. We’d talk guns for a while, then we’d talk family, then we’d talk about the Bible. I can still hear him quoting in his Texas twang, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us.”

About five years ago Bill started to grow weaker. His mind became cloudier. The last time I saw him was last September. We sat out in his shop and he tried to get me to choose one of his custom 1911s—guns that he sold for thousands of dollars. I didn’t want to tell him no, but I couldn’t say yes. Finally I said, “Bill, they’re both beautiful guns. Let me think until next time we see each other.”

In that moment, Bill’s mind was razor sharp. He looked at me sideways and said, “Next time, huh?” We both knew that we wouldn’t greet each other again this side of glory.

That was our last meaningful conversation. When I called him after that, he no longer remembered me. We’d talk about his family and then I’d start to quote Romans 8:18. He could still finish the verse.

Last weekend Bill slipped into glory. His suffering body was left behind, but his mind cleared immediately. We will certainly meet next time, but my guess is that when we see each other then, claiming a .45 will be the furthest thing from either of our minds.


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.

I Asked the Lord That I Might Grow

John Newton (1725–1807)

I asked the Lord that I might grow
In faith, and love, and every grace;
Might more of his salvation know,
And seek more earnestly his face.

‘Twas he who taught me thus to pray;
And he, I trust, has answered prayer:
But it has been in such a way
As almost drove me to despair.

I hoped that in some favored hour,
At once he’d grant me my request;
And, by his love’s constraining power,
Subdue my sins, and give me rest.

Instead of this, he made me feel
The hidden evils of my heart,
And let the angry powers of hell
Assault my soul in every part.

Yea more, with his own hand he seemed
Intent to aggravate my woe;
Crossed all the fair designs I schemed,
Blasted my gourds, and laid me low.

Lord, why is this? I trembling cried;
Wilt thou pursue thy worm to death?
‘Tis in this way, the Lord replied,
I answer prayer for grace and faith.

These inward trials I employ
From self and pride to set thee free,
To break thy schemes of worldly joy,
That thou mayst seek thy all in me.

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

Not My President?

In my first presidential election—that is, the first one I voted in—my guy lost. Since then, the people I voted for have lost presidential elections more often than they have won them. In the process I have gained decades of practice at living under presidents whom I did not choose.

The first one was Jimmy Carter. I’ve been told that Carter was one of the most intelligent men ever to occupy the White House. Certainly he was one of the nicest, and he was one of the more ethical. I didn’t agree with his Populist politics, but I could respect him as a man. I did not vote for him, but he was my president.

I could not extend the same level of personal respect to William Jefferson Clinton. Some believe that Clinton was even more intelligent than Jimmy Carter, but the ethics that he brought to his presidency disgraced the office and shamed the nation. He introduced policies from which America has yet to recover. But do you know what? Even though I didn’t vote for him, agree with him, or approve of him, Bill Clinton was my president.

What makes a person my president is not my vote, my agreement, or my approval. What makes a person my president is winning the election. Through the Electoral College the American people choose an individual to become president, not simply of a segment, a party, or an agenda, but of the nation. When that person swears the oath of office, she or he becomes president of the entire country. Because I am a citizen of the United States of America, any American president is by definition my president.

Because every president is my president, I owe him or her certain duties. The first is to display official respect. Official respect is different from personal respect. Official respect is deference paid to the office, not to the individual. Sometimes an unworthy individual may hold the office. When that happens, I may not be able to respect the person, but I must still respect the office. I may be tempted to weaken the office through disrespect, believing that this weakening will limit the ability of the officeholder to do evil. To the exact extent that I succeed in weakening the office, however, I also limit the ability of future officeholders to do good.

I owe respect to the office because both the office and the officeholder are ordained by God. Granted, when Paul wrote Romans 13, Nero was not yet incinerating Christians, but we have no reason to suppose that the apostle would have viewed any of the Roman emperors as particularly virtuous. After all, Caligula was a recent memory. Yet Paul clearly teaches that the authority exists by ordinance of God. Even bad rulers restrain chaos to some degree, so they are better than no rulers at all. Nothing is worse than anarchy. As a Christian, I owe tribute, custom, fear, and honor even to unworthy officeholders.

This level of respect will also stop me from slandering any public official, especially my president. Disagreement and debate are allowable. In a republic, opposition to wrongheaded proposals and policies is part of a citizen’s responsibility. Those are aspects of a healthy polity. Nevertheless, disagreement and even opposition are different from personal attacks, derision, innuendo, speculations, and the circulation of unconfirmed reports that may well turn out to be false. Slander is the work of Satan, and all who engage in slander are doing his work. There is a time and place to speak the truth about unworthy officials, but there is no place for insulting or abusive speech.

Furthermore, I owe it to my president to pray for him or her (1 Tim. 2:1-3). I cannot claim to be obeying God while I am refusing to offer these prayers. Even unsaved and wicked rulers may help to promote a quiet and tranquil life—the kind of life in which God’s people are spared many pressing moral dilemmas. We ought to want that kind of life, and consequently we ought to pray for the officials whose work is to establish it. Sometimes my prayers may be prayers that God will grant repentance, but they will be prayers for the wellbeing of my president.

In short, if the president is my president, then I ought to want him or her to succeed. Granted, success has to be measured against an accurate standard—an influential president who implements ungodly initiatives and policies is not a success. I may wish and work for the failure of a president’s policies and programs while simultaneously wishing for the success of the president. What I must never do is to reach a point at which I hope that the president makes such a botch of things that people just stop listening. I should look for ways to encourage a president in the things done well even while I oppose the things that would be wrong.

I did not vote for the current president of the United States. In fact, during the campaign I identified with the “NeverTrump” movement. But he was elected, lawfully, fair-and-square. Donald Trump is the president of the United States, which means that he is my president. He has done some things that I agree with, and some with which I disagree. That does not change the fact that he is my president. It seems to me that the people who are saying, “Not My President” hope to undermine, not just the man or even the office, but the very fabric of the republic. They want to make the fight as grimly personal as possible. They delight in reviling him, slandering him, mocking him, and undercutting him. They want him to fail as badly as possible, somehow believing that his failure will vindicate the poison that flows from their pens and tongues. I confess that I am afraid of some of the things that I see in my president, but I am far more afraid of the things that I see in his most vocal opponents.

Jimmy Carter was my president. Ronald Reagan was my president. George H. W. Bush was my president. Bill Clinton was my president. George W. Bush was my president. Barack Obama was my president. If Hillary Clinton had won the election, she would have been my president. She did not. Donald Trump was elected. He occupies the presidency by constitutional process and by order of Providence. Donald Trump is my president. He will be until the day he leaves office. As long as he is my president, I intend to fulfill every obligation toward him.


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.

Before Jehovah’s Awful Throne

Isaac Watts (1674–1748)

Before Jehovah’s awful throne,
Ye nations, bow with sacred joy;
Know that the Lord is God alone,
He can create, and He destroy.

His sovereign power, without our aid,
Made us of clay, and formed us men;
And when like wandering sheep we strayed,
He brought us to His fold again.

We are His people, we His care,
Our souls and all our mortal frame;
What lasting honors shall we rear,
Almighty Maker, to Thy Name?

We’ll crowd Thy gates with thankful songs,
High as the heavens our voices raise,
And earth, with her ten thousand tongues,
Shall fill Thy courts with sounding praise.

Wide as the world is Thy command,
Vast as eternity Thy love;
Firm as a rock Thy truth must stand,
When rolling years shall cease to move.

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

Food Pharisees?

There’s a lot of talk about gluttony out there. I mean a lot. Billy Graham wrote a Q&A about it. Joe McKeever rebukes it. John Piper tells people how to conquer it. Rachel Held Evans has compared it to homosexuality, and Kevin DeYoung has weighed in for the Gospel Coalition. Besides articles and blog posts like these, it seems that every evangelical who defends the use of alcohol feels called upon to take a swipe at gluttony (e.g., Joel McDurmon, What Would Jesus Drink? Tolle Lege Press, kinloc 1,201-1,238). These references are only the tip of the ice cream cone. People who are willing to extend Christian fellowship to apostates, people who reject biblical teachings about sexuality, and people who want to get more Christians to drink booze all try to gain credibility by pontificating against gluttony. It’s the popular sin to oppose. Gluttony has no defenders.

Simultaneously, there’s a lot of talk about how Christians don’t talk about gluttony. Rachel Held Evans complains about Christians who ignore “clobber verses” related to gluttony. McKeever names five reasons that pastors don’t preach on gluttony. In what could be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, McDurmon comments,

Considering the rotundity of some of the preachers I remember railing against raising a glass, perhaps preaching on alcohol helped distract them from the topic of their own addictive sin. There’s nothing like diverting attention from your sin by bellowing about someone else’s. For some of the guys I’ve seen in pulpits, “pass the plate” has meaning beyond just tithes and offerings. But unfortunately, both drunkenness and gluttony are equally bad and revolting sins.

Everybody complains that nobody talks about gluttony, while just about everybody talks about. The irony is so rich that you could cover it in whipped cream and swallow it for dessert.

But isn’t it true that gluttony is rarely addressed from the pulpit?  Perhaps. But then, what specific sins do contemporary pastors preach against? Hardly any at all. When is the last time you heard a sermon against, say, tax evasion, child molestation, or voter fraud? Isn’t it true that on those few occasions when American Christians do preach against particular sins, those sins are the ones that the culture in general is somehow trying to defend?

This is not to suggest that we should hear more preaching against gluttony. There is actually good reason to preach about other sins before we start harping about this one. For one thing, it is one of the least-mentioned sins in the Bible. It doesn’t even occur in the vice lists. For another, it is far less immediately devastating in its effects than other sins. Nobody ever crashed a car and killed innocent people because they were over the legal limit of Big Macs. Nobody ever contracted AIDS because they indulged in a sordid, one-night taco stand. Nobody ever aborted a baby that was conceived in an illicit binge of prime rib and potatoes.

Then there is the accusation that Americans don’t preach against gluttony because they’re guilty of it. The problem with that accusation is that the contemporary Christian understanding of gluttony appears to be shaped far more by current American visions of body image and diet consciousness than by careful biblical understanding. Contemporary Christians equate gluttony with one of two categories: either overeating or being overweight. Both of these categories are completely foreign to Scripture.

The Bible certainly does condemn gluttony. It is a sin, but it is not the sin that many seem to think. What, then, is the biblical meaning of gluttony?

First, some passages that are often cited in connection with gluttony need to be ruled out of bounds. Proverbs 23:2 is not about gluttony; it is a warning against ambition in the presence of manipulative hosts. Philippians 3:19 is not about gluttony; it is a warning about those who pursue inordinate affection, probably sexual but possibly legalistic. Either of these passages could imply principles for gluttons, as could many others, but neither of them is particularly definitive.

Second, the Hebrew terms translated glutton and gluttony have the idea of making light of something, and by implication squandering it. These words are not first and foremost about eating. For the Old Testament writers, gluttony was associated with bad companions, dissipation, rebellion, and especially drunkenness. The danger for the glutton was not growing too fat, but being left in poverty when all resources had been squandered.

The New Testament also associates gluttony with bad companions and drunkenness. This is the point of the charge that the Pharisees leveled against Jesus (Matt. 11:19). Their evidence was not that Jesus had been observed overeating, but that he kept company with publicans and sinners. Interestingly, the New Testament term for a glutton, phagos, simply means an eater, not necessarily an excessive one. Not the quantity, but the conditions of the eating are determinative. Other than Jesus, the only New Testament individuals to be accused of gluttony were the Cretans who, according to one of their own poets, were habitually “liars, vicious animals, lazy eaters” (Titus 1:12). The notion of an eater does not stand on its own, but in connection with a complex of behaviors.

In short, the biblical vision of gluttony is not one that revolves around overeating or being overweight. A biblical glutton is a wastrel, a spendthrift, and a sluggard whose friends are of the worst sort and who pits riotous, wanton living against God’s righteousness. In short, a biblical glutton is a lawless person whose life revolves around sensual pleasures, who substance is spent on those pleasures, who lacks the self-control to deny himself those pleasures, and who does not care what they cost.

Perhaps the clearest biblical example of this kind of person is provided by Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phineas. They refused the provision that God had made for them. They insisted—even to the extent of force—upon satisfying their appetites in forbidden ways. Their appetites included not only foods but other sensual pleasures. They rejected their father’s counsel and warnings. They were sons of Belial (1 Sam. 2:11-25). That is what gluttony looks like.

The culture of the New Testament era understood indulgence. The Greek symposium and the Roman convivium would feature gorging and drinking to the point of distention. Seneca commented that at such events, participants would “vomit so they may eat.” While his words may not have been meant literally, they certainly convey the debauchery and excess of these events. Varieties of entertainments would be provided, including dancers, musicians, and prostitutes. Sometimes boys were available for those who preferred them.

Given this background, the concern of the New Testament was not whether someone ate more food than was necesssary. Biblical gluttony is riot and revolt. It is lawless indulgence. It is slavery to passions and inordinate appetites. If you have to wonder whether the Bible views you as a glutton, you almost certainly are not. If you are, you almost certainly do not care.


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

O for a Closer Walk with God

William Cowper (1731–1800)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

Does Baptism Wash Away Sins?

The Texas morning was already warm and getting warmer. A friend had stopped by just to say hello, and I asked him how he intended to spend what promised to be a hot forenoon. He replied, “I’m going to go to the hardware and buy some ice cream.”

Looking at him quizzically I said, “I didn’t know you could buy ice cream at the hardware.”

He responded, “No. First I’m going to the hardware. Then I’m going to buy some ice cream. Two distinct activities.”

This conversation hinges upon a semantic ambiguity: does buying ice cream coordinate with going to the hardware, or is it subordinated to it? Grammar does not answer the question or the ambiguity would not exist. Either could be the case.

A slightly more complicated instance occurs in Acts 22:16. The passage occurs as part of Paul’s personal testimony. He relates how Ananias has been sent to him in Damascus. Ananias foretells the ministry that God has planned for Paul, and then says, “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (NKJV).

People who believe in baptismal regeneration, including those in the Stone-Campbell movement, appeal to this text as evidence that baptism washes away sins. Since the verbs “be baptized” and “wash away your sins” are joined by and, these people assume that the washing must be joined to the baptism. Part of this viewpoint is shared by Jack Cottrell, who posits that ‘The two main verbs in the sentence, which are imperatives, are “get yourself baptized AND [kai] wash away your sins.’ They are joined with kai into a single event.”

This reading of the text is possible, just as it was possible for me to understand my friend to be saying that he would be buying his ice cream at the hardware. Simply because it is possible, however, does not make the reading necessary. Being baptized and washing away sins may be distinct events.

Acts 22:16 contains two finite verbs, both of which are in the middle voice. English doesn’t have a middle voice, only an active (in which the subject is acting) and a passive (in which the subject is being acted upon). In the middle voice the subject is acting upon itself or in its own interest. These middle verbs are not easy to translate in Acts 22:16. Nevertheless, Ananias is not saying “be baptized” and “wash away your sins;” he is saying something more like “get yourself baptized” and “get your sins washed away.”

Each of the two verbs is joined to an aorist participle. The function of the aorist participle is to specify an action that is antecedent to the leading verb. The first participle is “having got up,” and the second is “having called upon the name of the Lord.” Each of these participles further defines the action of its main verb: “Having got up, get yourself baptized,” and, “get your sins washed away, having called upon the name of the Lord.”

What is the relationship between Paul getting baptized and getting his sins washed away? The two verbs are joined with the coordinating conjunction kai, which can be translated and or also. Normally this conjunction coordinates, but the semantic effect is sometimes subordination. In other words, the verse is ambiguous. It could be read in such a way that baptism produces or leads to washing away sins. It could also be read in such a way that baptism and washing away sins are distinct acts, both of which are equally commanded.

One consideration does tilt the balance, however, making the second reading more probable than the first. That consideration is the presence of the participles. The participles are already defining actions that are subordinated to each main verb. If Ananias’s intention had been to subordinate washing away sins to baptism, then he could very well have used a similar construction. The fact that he did not indicates that he most likely wanted to envision the baptizing and the washing as acts that were distinct rather than joined.

In other words, Cottrell is probably mistaken when he says that kai (and) joins these two verbs into a single event. He is certainly mistaken if he thinks that is the only thing that kai can be doing. It is possible, and I think probable, that kai is actually coordinating to distinct events. If that is so, then the verse would be translated something like this: “And why are you waiting? Having risen up, get yourself baptized; also, get your sins washed away, having called upon the name of the Lord.”

To be clear, Acts 22:16 is not a proof text against baptismal regeneration. It does not deny that baptism washes away sins. On the other hand, it does not clearly affirm that baptism washes away sins, either. It is semantically ambiguous. It is probably not addressing either the sequential order of baptism and forgiveness or their order of dependence. It is most likely juxtaposing them as two activities that Paul was responsible to complete in the immediate future.


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.

Come, Ye Who Bow to Sovereign Grace

St. 1–2, 4–5: Maria De Fleury (1773–1791); St. 3: Charles Spurgeon (1834–1892)

Come, ye who bow to sovereign grace,
Record Immanuel’s love;
Join in a song of noble praise
To him who reigns above.

Once in the gloomy grave he lay,
But, by his rising power,
He bore the gates of death away;
Hail, mighty Conqueror!

Buried with him beneath this flood,
We glory in his death:
We own our great incarnate God,
And rise with him by faith.

As saints of old confessed his Name
In Jordan’s flowing tide,
So we adore the stricken Lamb,
Renouncing all beside.

No trust in water do we place,
‘Tis but an outward sign;
The great reality is grace,
The fountain blood divine.

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

Further Thoughts on Building Community

[This essay was originally published on April 12, 2013.]

In order for a church to function as a community, its members must develop relationships that touch all of life. The development of these relationships requires Christians to share interests outside of the purely devotional and ecclesiastical. The question arises, however: will not the sharing of secular interests result in secularized Christians who have less interest in spiritual things? Specifically, do not secular interests constitute a distraction from God’s work?

The Greatest Commandment requires us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mk. 12:30). This description means that we must love God with every fiber of our being, so exhaustively that no love is left for anything else. Yet the Second Greatest Commandment requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mk. 12:31). The juxtaposition of these commands creates a paradox: if we must love God so exhaustively, how is it not a distraction to love our neighbor, our wives (Eph. 5:25, 28), our enemies (Lk. 6:27), or the lost?

The answer lies in the distinction between loving something as a means and loving it as an end. We must love God as an end, as He is in Himself, for no other reason than that (and what) He is. An ordinate love for God is absolute and unconditioned. If we love God as a means to an end—if we love Him for His gifts—we do not really love Him, but the gifts. We force God to serve our true loves, which is idolatry.

By contrast, we must never love any created thing as an end. Our love of finite goods must never be absolute and unconditioned. Yet we ought to love them, whenever and however God loves them. Part of loving God is learning to love what He loves. Thus, we must love our neighbors, our wives, our enemies, and any other love-worthy thing, not for their sakes, but for God’s. We love them in order to honor and glorify the God who loves them. The moment our love for them becomes detached from our love for God, they become idols.

For the Christian who loves God with heart, soul, mind, and strength, nothing is ever secular. Absolutely every department of life becomes an extension of love for God. Whatever cannot be loved for His sake should not be loved at all. Whatever cannot be done for His glory should not be done at all. For the true lover of God, all of life becomes worship. All of life is an offering to Him.

This does not mean, however, that all of life becomes a tract. It does not mean that every ordinary activity must attach a verse or have an explicitly devotional message. In fact, by attempting to spiritualize some things in these ways, we debase them.

God is most glorified when we use His gifts according to the purpose for which they were given. A surgeon in the operating room glorifies God best by operating skillfully, not by distracting the surgical team with religious platitudes (or, for that matter, skillful expositions). A mechanic glorifies God best by skillfully repairing cars, not by pasting religious stickers on their bumpers. A husband who is kissing his wife glorifies God best by focusing his attention upon his wife—and if he fails to kiss her often enough or lovingly enough, he not only fails in his love toward her, but in his love toward the God who made them male and female.

This insight applies to all non-ecclesiastical interests and activities. For example, a woman who pursues quilting as an end, who loves it for itself in detachment from God, is an idolater. On the other hand, for a skilled quilter who loves God with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength, quilting may well become an act of worship. In neither case is it a secular activity. It either glorifies God or it replaces Him.

A quilter who loves God and who wishes to glorify Him may decide to stitch some Bible verse or spiritual truth onto a quilt. But the quilt most truly glorifies God when it is a thing of beauty, when its seams hold tight without puckering, and when it keeps people warm at night. Better a well-made quilt that warms the sleeper than a shoddy quilt that tries to be a tract. The former can redound to the glory of God, but the latter is simply vulgar.

Of course, it is perfectly normal to use vocations or avocations as occasions for explicitly Christian witness. The point is that the activities do not need to be justified by some artificial attachment to spiritual truth. God made humans as embodied beings who live in the world, and He has constituted all of life in the world as our legitimate interest. To ignore the world (in the sense of the created order), or to treat it as somehow inferior, is to slight the God who made it and gave it to us.

There is, of course, another sense of world. Often Scripture presents the world, not as the created order or even as the human ordering of culture, but as the perspective of those who are depraved. Their perspective is antithetical to God’s, and sooner or later they work their contempt for God into everything that they do. This sense of world is constantly evil and is always condemned in Scripture. Understood in this ethical sense, the Christian must never love the world or even the things that are in the world. The friendship of the world is enmity with God.

These two senses of world sometimes overlap, but they are nevertheless distinct. The problem for Christians is knowing when we are using the world (the created order) as an instrument to bring glory to the God whom we love, and when we are naively adopting the perspectives of the world (the ethical system) in such a way as to subvert our message about God.

Christians face at least two problems as they work out their Christianity in life. The first is that they may allow ordinary activities to overwhelm their interest in God. This problem is corrected by loving God absolutely and loving other things only instrumentally. The second is that Christians may integrate false perspectives (the world, in the evil, ethical sense) into their pursuit of ordinary activities. This problem is corrected by understanding how God views each activity of life. Christians must help each other to address both of these problems—indeed, this mutual help is the very essence of fellowship. In order to pursue this fellowship, Christians must focus together upon their mutual interests (the ordinary pursuits of life) as well as upon their interest in God.

None of life is secular. Loving God has implications for everything else. Helping each other work out these implications is one of the most important things we can do. Everything that we do will serve the God whom we love, or else it will serve idols that we love in His place. Nothing is secular.


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.

Teach Me, My God and King

George Herbert (1593–1633)

Teach me, my God and King,
in all things Thee to see,
and what I do in anything,
to do it as for Thee.

To scorn the senses’ sway,
while still to Thee I tend;
in all I do be Thou the Way,
in all be Thou the End.

All may of Thee partake;
nothing so small can be,
but draws, when acted for Thy sake,
greatness and worth from Thee.

If done t’obey Thy laws,
e’en servile labors shine;
hallowed is toil, if this the cause,
the meanest work divine.

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

It’s Not a Cadillac! Part Five: A Personal Testimony

When I was thirteen, my father became convinced that the Lord was calling him to pastor. He moved our family across several states to attend Bible college. He took his first pastorate while he was still a student. That put me in a position to hear the week-by-week results of his classroom learning. I saw firsthand how preparation shapes ministry.

Dad graduated from college the same spring I graduated from high school. I then attended the same college, an invaluable help as the Lord led me into vocational ministry. During my junior year I wrote my first serious research paper. It was my first attempt to dig into the biblical text, deal with theological constructs, and put the ideas together. I loved the work.

After my professor read the paper, he suggested that I might want to think about seminary. I found myself drawn to the idea, but I didn’t want to wait to get into a real pastorate. That spring I met the president of a seminary in Colorado. He told me about his school’s one-year M.A. The program looked like it could satisfy my urge for further study without unduly delaying pastoral ministry. That summer I visited the seminary, then a year later moved to Denver to pursue the degree. I discovered that the level of instruction and mentorship was far beyond my college preparation. Within a week I knew that I wanted as much of it as I could get.

That fall I was called to a church as pastor of youth and music, a responsibility that I held through my M.Div. and Th.M. years. Then I taught briefly at the college affiliated with my seminary. My heart still leaned toward pastoral ministry, however, and after two years of teaching I took a full-time pastorate in Iowa.

This new ministry came with a greater weight of responsibility. I now had to answer for an entire church, establishing its direction and priorities. I discovered that one of a pastor’s greatest challenges is what his people think they know. Another is what they know they want. These two are connected. People who have been mistaught or untaught will want the wrong things, and they will expect their pastor to provide these things.

Some of my people had been mistaught. More than a few had accepted aberrant doctrines, or were living unruly lives, or were indulging disordered affections. What is more, this problem existed partly because the church’s previous leaders had either not seen fit to address it or because they had actually contributed to it. While trying to rectify these issues, I found myself asking, “How did we get here?” A large part of the answer was that some of the church’s leaders had been ineffective while others had been effective at the wrong things. In both instances, the core of the problem was a lack of adequate preparation.

I was not the only fundamentalist pastor in that community, but I am fairly sure that I was the only expository preacher. As I formed acquaintances with the other conservative pastors, I discovered that they didn’t think explaining scripture should be a significant pulpit activity. Most of them couldn’t do it anyway. One was a self-help guru. One was a feel-good motivational speaker. One was a screamer. But so far as I can remember, none helped their people to understand the Word of God. Furthermore, none seemed to have a clear idea of what the church was or what it was for. Most seemed convinced of two ideas: (1) the church’s duty was to attract the world, and (2) the way to do this was to be as much like the world as possible.

The same could be said of the preachers that my people were hearing on the radio or watching on television. These preachers were no help—they were part of the problem. So were the authors my people were reading. So was the larger evangelical network, including much of the fundamentalist network. All of these seemed to be conspiring to thwart New Testament Christianity. I didn’t want my people involved with this network. I wanted to protect them from it.

A few years later, while beginning doctoral studies in Dallas, I was treated to a year-long tour of Southern fundamentalism. My family and I visited church after church, hoping to find a congregation where whatever the pastor said for half-an-hour or forty-five minutes would have something to do with the text that he read before he began. We finally joined a church that almost met this minimal standard, only to discover that it was already disintegrating over issues of pastoral leadership.

When that church fell apart, we planted a new one. I found that the people who came to us (even the unbelievers) already had expectations about what a church ought to be, and these expectations were often unbiblical. We baptized a number of people during those years. Others came to us as refugees from other religious organizations that called themselves churches. Still others moved in from remote parts of the country. In every case, the ones who stayed were thirsty to hear the scriptures preached. Not much of that was going on around us.

I accepted my first pastoral charge in 1979. I did not become a seminary professor until 1998. Pastoral ministry convinced me that American Christianity has fallen on very hard times. The causes are multiple, but many of them come back to a common denominator. Most American pastors cannot understand the Bible for themselves. If they care at all, they rely on what others tell them it means. Their grasp of the system of faith is tenuous at best. Consequently, they cannot apply biblical principles to the challenges that arise in contemporary ministry. They cannot see how their theology ought to affect their philosophy of ministry, partly because they hardly have a theology to begin with. They are prey to every new trend and fad.

That is why I became convinced that preparation is the key. With rare exceptions pastors, even those with Bible college schooling, cannot learn what they need to know in less time than the traditional M.Div. offers. They need everything that the traditional curriculum includes—languages, hermeneutics, exegesis, biblical and systematic theology, counseling, preaching, and philosophy of ministry. They need to learn these disciplines from the right perspective. They need teachers who are skilled in their disciplines but who have spent years as pastors themselves. They need churches and seminaries working together to prepare them for the real challenges and choices of ministry.

I really would like to work myself out of a job. I love the idea of churches preparing their own future pastors. Nevertheless, I realize that most churches are years away from being able to offer everything that future pastors need. For now, the best alternative is a seminary under the oversight of a local church (or group of churches) that exists to assist local churches in equipping spiritual leaders for Christ-exalting biblical ministry. A young man who wishes to prepare for ministry should settle for no less.


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.

Round the Lord in Glory Seated

Richard Mant (1776–1848)

Round the Lord in glory seated, 
cherubim and seraphim
filled his temple, and repeated
each to each th’alternate hymn:
“Lord, Thy glory fills the heaven,
earth is with its fullness stored;
unto Thee be glory given,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord.”

Heav’n is still with glory ringing;
earth takes up the angels’ cry,
“Holy, holy, holy,” singing,
“Lord of hosts, the Lord Most High!”
“Lord, Thy glory fills the heaven,
earth is with its fullness stored;
unto Thee be glory given,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord.”

With His seraph-train before Him,
With His holy Church below,
thus conspire we to adore Him,
bid we thus our anthem flow: 
“Lord, Thy glory fills the heaven,
earth is with its fullness stored;
unto Thee be glory given,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord.”

Thus Thy glorious name confessing,
with Thine angel hosts we cry,
“Holy, holy, holy,” blessing
Thee, the Lord of Hosts Most High.
“Lord, Thy glory fills the heaven,
earth is with its fullness stored;
unto Thee be glory given,
Holy, holy, holy, Lord.”

Central Seminary Granted ATS Accreditation

On June 4–5, 2018, the Board of Commissioners of the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) voted to grant Central Seminary full accreditation. ATS is the premier accrediting body for seminaries in North America and will help Central Seminary to continue its vital mission of assisting New Testament churches in equipping spiritual leaders for Christ-exalting biblical ministry.

ATS membership provides a tested and proven standard which ensures that Central Seminary degrees and curricula remain academically rigorous and practically focused. Additionally, ATS approved Central’s synchronous, online distance education programs for graduate degrees which means that students can earn recognized, quality degrees without moving or changing ministries.

Find out more about our degrees and distance education program.

Memories of a Colleague

I met Doug Reiner in Brazil perhaps a decade ago. He was a second-generation missionary whose great desire was to see a truly indigenous Baptist movement in the country to which he ministered. In many ways I came to view him as the ideal of what an American missionary ought to be.

About year ago Doug died suddenly from cancer. One of the people most affected was his close friend and co-laborer, Mark Swedberg (Mark’s son, John, is a graduate of Central Seminary). I’m appending Mark’s reflections on ministry with Doug Reiner.

Doug Reiner — A Tribute
by Mark A. Swedberg

I’ve known Doug for most of our lives. We met for the first time in late 1972 or early 1973 at the Iguatu Camp. We were 8, going on 9, and that camp was the bee’s knees for junior-aged boys. I remember that Doug took my brother and me into a room where we saw bats sleeping upside down, hanging from the rafters. A day or two later, he took us on jegue ride. It was great fun and we quickly made friends.

Of course, that was not unusual for Doug. He was friends with everyone, and if he had an enemy, or even an adversary, I never heard tell of it.

We didn’t see a lot of each other growing up, what with him way up in the northeast and me down south, but when we did, I always enjoyed it and thought of him as one of my buddies. And then we were off to college, he to Pennsylvania, I to Colorado.

Doug and Renate made it back to Brazil before Anita and I, but when we finally reconnected, our friendship picked up right where it left off.

We saw each other more often than before because we both enjoyed going to the Mid-Brazil Field Council Meetings, and we would run into each other on other occasions, as well. And then something happened: what had been merely a good friendship became a close friendship, and I began to realize that, in Doug, I had soul-mate.

I first became aware of this when Doug invited me to fill in for him while he was on furlough. I wanted to do it so badly, but I just couldn’t see my way clear to going. A few years later, I invited him to come work close to me when another colleague was on furlough, but he couldn’t come either.

The Lord never allowed us to work in the same area, but He did the next best thing: He allowed us to work on several projects together. We served on two or three Executive Committees, and near the end of his ministry in Brazil, he helped me out at EBR, our publishing house in Brazil.

Doug was many things. Perhaps the thing that first attracted me to him was his sense of humor. He was hilariously funny, and boy did he have stories to tell. Once, when he was at the bank, he lay his cell phone down to fill out some paperwork. When he looked up, it was gone. He asked all around, but nobody had seen it. Right then it started ringing and he recognized it by its unique ringtone. So he turned to the guy that had it and said, “My phone is ringing in your pocket, and I need to answer it.” Uncle Rick McClain had saved the day.

One night, a few years ago, he was in rare form. He told my mom and me of the time that Tim finally dragged him onto an ultralight. Doug had been resistant because an ultralight had none of the things that he liked about flying. But Tim finally got him to go up with him in a two-seater. They were flying along when they had some sort of trouble and Tim landed it on the water. After fixing the problem they were ready to fly again, but the plane couldn’t take off from the water with two people in it, so Tim made Doug swim to shore. That ended any nascent love of the ultralight right then and there.

Doug was a hard and tireless worker. When he invited me up to work with him, he gave me a rundown of a typical week. I was exhausted before I got done reading it.

And he was the most logical problem-solver and astute observer of people I have known. As I mentioned, he and I served on several Executive Committees together. What most people didn’t realize is that he was the brains of the operation, although he never would accept the presidency.

The first time I was president was an executive committee for the ages: Doug was treasurer, I was president and Jim Leonard was secretary. Three MKs. The torch had been passed. Doug was in the States at the time, and Jim and I decided to pull a prank on him. We called him up and told him that all three of us had been elected, but that the body made a switch and elected him president. “No,” he said. “Nooo.”

That year was supposed to be a light one — at least that’s what Dad told me when he convinced me to stand for president. But before the month was out, we were slapped with an audit by the INSS, and that was only the first situation we faced in the most difficult year I’ve ever had as president. I soon learned to listen to Doug. God got us through, but Doug was one of His principal agents.

Doug was one of my favorite speakers. His biblical insights and ability to communicate them were so very edifying. He was our most sought-out workshop leader at the EBR Conferences.

But of all his qualities, the one that most stood out was his servant’s heart. I saw it in concern he constantly showed toward Renate. He was willing to let her study and take a backseat. I saw it in the fact that he never wanted to be president, but was willing to do a lot of the heavy lifting.

I saw it in a conversation we had with Kevin Bauder over lunch at an EBR conference. He was telling Kevin how missions in Brazil has changed. Before, we Americans were in the driver’s seat. We set the agenda. Now we needed to help Brazilians fulfill their vision of ministry. In fact, he asked his Brazilian coworker what his coworker’s dreams were because he was willing to do anything in his power to help him achieve them — to the point of driving him several hours each way to a preaching point every week. That put me under conviction more than any sermon I had ever heard preached.

He and Renate left a huge hole in Brazil when they were called to serve in the Home Office. And now that he’s gone, he leaves a huge hole in the Home Office. But the one that we are feeling most is the hole he leaves in our hearts.

Cancer is a ravenous evil. And it’s comforting to know that his struggle is over and he is in the glorious presence of our Lord. But I want to remind you and me that that’s not our blessed hope. Our blessed hope includes the resurrection of our bodies at the return of our Lord. The cancer that has taken Doug doesn’t get the last word. One day the puny little box he’s in will burst and Doug will come forth, radiant and whole, to be with our Lord, and us, forever and ever.

Jota, my friend, I’ll see you again in the flesh. And when I do, I want to hear more of your wonderful stories and, especially, of your wonderful Savior. Um abraço.

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

It’s Not a Cadillac! Part Four: Where Should We Learn?

What training do pastors need? It depends entirely upon the ministry that they intend to pursue. Becoming a social justice warrior takes one kind of training. Becoming an ecclesiastical impresario takes another. Learning to work a crowd for high-pressure evangelism takes yet another.

New Testament pastors must engage in a particular kind of ministry. They preach the Word. They teach all the counsel of God. They reprove, rebuke, and exhort. They shepherd the flock of God and protect Christ’s lambs. They labor in the Word and doctrine. They mature the saints to do the work of ministry so that the body of Christ is built up. If they do their work well, then their assemblies will be marked by the unity of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God. Their congregations will exhibit mature spiritual adulthood. The stature of their churches will be measured, not by the size of their crowds or even the number of conversions, but by the clarity with which the fullness of Christ can be seen in them.

That kind of ministry takes specific tools, and the men who are preparing for it must receive training that gives them those tools. Future pastors need to become at least moderately functional in the biblical languages. They need to possess sufficient hermeneutical skill to be competent interpreters of the Bible. They must have a good grasp of the contents of the Bible, book by book and section by section. They need to master at least the outline of biblical theology and the substance of systematic theology. They need to know the history of Christian ideas and institutions. They must be able to defend the faith, preach the Scriptures, apply doctrine to life, and administer the work of the church. Beyond all these things, they must be men of God who are committed to knowing and loving Him.

Where can a would-be pastor find this training? The first answer is found in 1 Timothy 3, where Paul discusses church offices. Having listed the qualifications for a bishop and deacons, he states that he is writing so that Timothy will know how to order the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. That last description—“pillar and ground of the truth”—means that the defense and propagation of biblical truth are ultimately the responsibility of local churches. If a man wishes to become a pastor, the place where he must seek training is first and most importantly his local church.

Every New Testament congregation must take seriously its responsibility to instruct future generations of leadership. The church is so important as a center of biblical and doctrinal nurture that it cannot be replaced. No other institution can take over this responsibility. None should try.

The problem, however, is that few churches have people who are qualified to teach biblical languages, hermeneutics, biblical and systematic theology, apologetics, or church history to future pastors. Here or there an assembly has a pastor who could teach one or perhaps two of these areas, but even those congregations are the rare exception. While pastors must be trained by local churches, the churches themselves need help. Where can they find it?

The only real alternative is for the churches to create institutions to answer this need. That is exactly what churches have done for hundreds of years. A large church may organize a school of pastoral instruction for smaller churches. Alternatively, several churches may cooperate in operating such a school. To be useful, the school must be seen as a service organization, created only to assist the churches. It must remain answerable to the churches, either directly or indirectly. Its teachers must be individuals who have mastered their disciplines (languages, theology, etc.). They must also be men with serious experience in the real world of pastoral ministry.

Such institutions are called seminaries. The better seminaries would never dream of doing what only churches can do. Rather, they see themselves as service organizations, supplementing and helping the work of local congregations. They insist that the ultimate responsibility for preparing pastors remains with those congregations. They maintain close relationships with local churches, where they expect their students to serve and to be mentored. They also hold themselves accountable to local churches through their governance.

The better seminaries employ professors with established credibility in their disciplines. They also insist that these professors be men who have proven their mettle in ministry. A man who has faced the challenges of real-world pastoring is one who begins to understand how exegesis and theology connect to life. He is one who can draw out those connections for his students in the classroom. His teaching has weight because he has been in the trenches and fought the battles of ministry. Without that kind of experience, his teaching, even though true, is likely to remain flaccid.

Furthermore, the program that a future pastor needs is reflected exactly in the curriculum of the traditional M.Div. degree. Not that the degree matters by itself. If a man is simply interested in putting letters after his name, he can buy them from a diploma mill (as too many ministers actually do). The point is not to be able to say, “I have a master’s degree.” Big deal. Pride of intellect is only marginally less contemptible than pride of ignorance.

The point is that nothing within the traditional M.Div. is really dispensable—not for genuinely New Testament pastoral ministry. The required learning simply cannot be put into fewer than the traditional ninety-odd semester hours. Any reduction of that number comes at the cost of future effectiveness in ministry—not because the hours matter, but because the necessary instruction cannot be offered in less time.

Some schools think that they can grant an M.Div. after around 72 hours. Some grant it with even less. One school even advertises that a student who attends both its college and seminary can receive both degrees—B.A. and M.Div.—in five years. I challenge those schools: state clearly and publicly which aspects of the traditional M.Div. you think are superfluous luxuries for future pastors. What do we get rid of? Biblical languages? Hermeneutics? Scriptural content? Biblical or systematic theology? Christian history? Apologetics? Practical theology? Exactly what part of the M.Div. is so over-the-top that you think pastors no longer need it?

The traditional M.Div. is not a luxury. In fact, it does not even provide everything that a future pastor needs. Some of his preparation must be gained in and through his local church. Rather, the traditional M.Div. is a barely adequate standard to provide minimal competence for New Testament ministry. Please do not compare it to the Army’s Ranger School or the Navy’s BUDS (SEALS training). Instead, think of it as Basic Training—just enough to keep you alive and to keep you from wrecking the ministry while you continue to practice your skills.


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.

Lamb of God, Thou Now Art Seated

James George Deck (1802–1884)

Lamb of God, Thou now art seated
high beside Thy Father’s throne;
all Thy gracious work completed,
all Thy mighty vict’ry won:
ev’ry knee in heav’n is bending
to the Lamb for sinners slain;
ev’ry voice and harp is swelling –
Worthy is the Lamb to reign!

Lord, in all Thy pow’r and glory,
still Thy thoughts and eyes are here;
watching o’er Thy ransomed people,
to Thy gracious heart so dear;
Thou for them art interceding;
everlasting is Thy love –
and a blessed rest preparing
in our Father’s house above.

Lamb of God, Thy faithful promise
says, “Behold, I quickly come;”
and our hearts, to Thine responsive,
cry, “Come, Lord, and take us home.”
Oh, the rapture that awaits us,
when we meet Thee in the air,
and with Thee ascend in triumph,
all Thy deepest joys to share.

Lamb of God, when Thou in glory
shalt to this sad earth return,
all Thy foes shall quake before Thee,
all who now despise Thee mourn;
then shall we at Thine appearing,
with Thee in Thy kingdom reign;
Thine the praise, and Thine the glory,
Lamb of God for sinners slain.

Knowing God’s Will: Part Six

It’s Not a Cadillac! Part Three: What Do We Need?

As General Motors’ top line, Cadillac has become a metaphor for the best and most luxurious of something. A Cadillac is never a necessity: a Chevy could get you from one place to another. The people who purchase Cadillacs are after class, prestige, and comfort. Consequently, when the Religious News Service recently referred to the M.Div. as the “Cadillac” degree for ministers, it was implying that the M.Div. is not a necessity, but a luxury for pastors who are interested in class and prestige.

Is the RNS right? The answer to that question depends upon the answer to two other questions. The first is, “What does biblical pastoral ministry look like?” The second is, “What preparation is necessary for that kind of ministry?”

Previously, I argued that the New Testament envisions pastors who feed the flock through their preaching and teaching, who manifest spiritual wisdom as mature men of faith, and who watch over the souls committed to their care. This ministry centers upon the proclamation of Scripture. A biblical pastor has no right to express his own opinion. He must declare the Word of God. The Scriptures are the heart and backbone of his preaching, teaching, counseling, and his care of souls. His business is to preach the Bible.

Therefore, a pastor has to know the Word of God for himself. He must interpret it with precision and skill without having to rely upon the interpretations of others. He has to be able to explain what God says, not what the commentaries say that God says.

This duty demands a certain kind of preparation. It requires him to know the biblical languages well enough that he can read (or at least translate) his texts from the original languages. That level of competence requires years of instruction and practice, first at the level of grammar, then at the level of syntax, then at the level of exegesis.

Furthermore, to handle the Scriptures rightly, a pastor must develop skill as an interpreter. To gain that skill he must study the art and science of hermeneutics, and he must also be guided through the process of handling the biblical text until the necessary skills become almost intuitive. While he should not neglect the commentators, he must be in a position to evaluate their work rather than simply taking their word.

As he develops an understanding of individual passages, books, and of the Bible as a whole, a pastor must also grasp how the biblical message fits together. He must understand how each section contributes to the integrity of the whole. The Bible is both an argument and a story; mastering these as they are presented from the perspective(s) of the biblical writers is the task of biblical theology. To be faithful, a pastor must be a competent biblical theologian.

Different parts of the Bible sometimes address the same topic, and a pastor who preaches the Word will want to understand their relationship—for example, how Paul’s understanding of regeneration connects to John’s. Furthermore, a pastor will have to face questions that arise in life, and he will want to know everything that Scripture might have to say about those questions. Learning to sift, weigh, and correlate the biblical data in this way is the task of systematic theology. The Bible presents an overall system of faith that encompasses both belief and practice; a faithful pastor must master at least its substance.

This system of biblical doctrine connects to life at a variety of points. Apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith. Homiletics is the proclamation of the Scriptures so that people grasp the demands that the faith makes upon their lives. Biblical counseling is the art of warning, encouraging, and helping those who struggle in applying Christian verities to their lives. A qualified pastor must possess measurable competence in all these areas.

As people grow in their knowledge of biblical doctrine, they begin to see its intricacy, interconnectedness, and relevance to life. At some point they realize that theirs is not the first generation to wrestle with theological issues. Consequently, a pastor must appreciate that the teachings he has received were hammered out in the rough-and-tumble of controversy, supplemented with a certain amount of trial and error. He can understand neither the ideas nor their relevance unless he also understands how and why those ideas were developed. In a word, he must have at least a general grasp of the history of Christianity.

Beyond all these, he must learn practical or pastoral theology, which involves the hands-on aspects of putting the biblical teaching to work. It is one thing to defend the doctrine of believer baptism, but a pastor must actually know how to baptize. He should be committed to the doctrine of congregational polity, but he should also be able to chair a business meeting. Pastors must not simply know what is true and why; they must also know how to do the things that rest upon those truths.

Some of my friends believe that as long as a man has the practical skills, he does not really need the biblical and doctrinal foundation to pastor effectively. I will grant that an ecclesiastical movement such as Baptist fundamentalism can survive if a few of its pastors lack full preparation. Within much of Baptist fundamentalism, more than a few leaders have substituted practical skill for biblical and theological preparation. They have become wildly successful at gathering crowds that valued the wrong things. This appearance of success has perpetuated itself until some corners of the movement have capitulated to full-on pragmatism. Unbiblical forms of ministry have become the norm in many circles.

At least part of the solution has to be a firm insistence upon the adequate preparation of future pastors. These would-be pastors need to commit themselves to a New Testament, Ephesians 4 vision of ministry. Then they need to secure the kind of preparation that will enable them to implement this vision. Rather than viewing preparation as an interruption before they can begin ministry, they must realize that (as R. V. Clearwaters used to say) a call to serve is a call to prepare.

For the kind of ministry that the New Testament describes, none of the above preparation is a luxury. It is not a “Cadillac.” It represents the basic, indispensable skill that a pastor must bring to his work. The remaining question is, Where can he find that sort of instruction? I intend to address that question next.


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.

Not What These Hands Have Done

Horatius Bonar (1808–1889)

Not what these hands have done
can save this guilty soul;
not what this toiling flesh has borne
can make my spirit whole.
Not what I feel or do
can give me peace with God;
not all my pray’rs and sighs and tears
can bear my awful load.

Thy work alone, O Christ,
can ease this weight of sin;
Thy blood alone, O Lamb of God,
can give me peace within.
Thy love to me, O God, not mine,
O Lord, to Thee,
can rid me of the dark unrest,
and set my spirit free.

Thy grace alone, O God, 
to me can pardon speak;
Thy pow’r alone, O Son of God, 
can this sore bondage break.
I bless the Christ of God;
I rest on love divine;
and with unfalt’ring lip and heart,
I call this Savior mine.