I copied this in the dim recesses of the past, only for my ever-faithful secretary to discover it. However, it reflects a sentiment I have long held and was recently reminded of at the passing of a dear friend. I offer it to you for consideration and possible use. Click to see the full-size image. Download and use as it suits you.
Some pastors and ministries major on soul-winning, which is good. Other pastors and ministries major on baptisms, which is not wrong in its place. Other pastors and ministries major on expositions and explanations, which also has its strengths. Important to remember, however, is the emphasis placed by the most well-known of the Great Commission passages, Matthew 28.18-20, on making disciples.
It is possible to reach people for Christ without making them disciples. It is possible to baptize a great many people without making them disciples. It is also plain to see that a ministry that is strong on exposition and explanation can still fall far short of bringing a significant portion of those in attendance along as disciples rather than mere spectators.
I have had the privilege of traveling to and preaching in countries in North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Throughout my 45+ years of ministry, I have not witnessed a disciple maker as well-developed, well-thought-out, and Biblical as Dr. Samuel Rai.
Now in his sixtieth year, his almost four decades of faithfulness to God's Word is demonstrable. I have preached for him numerous times since my first visit to Nepal in 2012 and three times in 2024. I say that to assure you of my recommendation of Samuel Rai as a man God has used to develop a profoundly fruitful evangelistic Church planting ministry that has seen great success in making disciples in every congregation.
I prayerfully invite you to attend his three-day, five-session introduction to discipleship ministry, which I have not seen elsewhere. Attend yourself, bring your wife, Church members, and young people. All are invited. Business casual attire will be the order of the day, and lunch will be served on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Many wear the cloak of the 21st-century clergy who form an opinion solely based on addressing a topic second hand, regardless of one’s view. That is sad but a commonly held practice throughout my faith observations for more than a half-century. One friend lost his pastor’s input into his life forever. How? He asked if they two could sit down and discuss the election issue. My experience was the refusal of my first pastor to answer any question I asked him.
Again and again, over my first year as a Christian and Church member, my pastor repeatedly responded to my questions with a pat formula: “That’s an excellent question, and the subject of my present inquiry. I will get back to you when I arrive at a well-thought-out position.” Only he never did. That was how he dealt with any Bible question a member had given him.
I recommend that Gospel ministers prepare to address challenging questions and curious inquiries and foster individual study of God’s Word. To that end, I resume my surveys of this informative book that you may or may not agree with but that will help you, nevertheless.
The chapter is divided into seven subheadings, just over sixteen pages.
History of the Debate – Five paragraphs address the three positions held by Reformed theologians. Augustine, Beza, Gottschalk, Calvin, Hoeksema, John Owen, Amyraut, and A. H. Strong are mentioned. The Canons of the Synod of Dort, the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, and the Heidelberg Catechism are touched on. At the end of the section, the author urges caution when studying the matter.
The Mainstream Position – Eight pages inform this section. Mentioned (with many quotations) are Ambrose, Luther, Ursinus, Zanchius, George Abbot, James Ussher, John Davenant, Richard Baxter, Edward Polhill, William Ames, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Robert Lewis Dabney, Charles and A. A. Hodge, William G. T. Shedd, William Cunningham, J. C. Ryle, W. H. Griffith Thomas, James Petigru Boyce, John Broadus, Louis Berkhof, Lorraine Boettner, D. A. Carson, Iain Murrey, John Murrey, R. C. Sproul, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, and R. B. Kuiper. New to me was the notion of “The Lombardian formula.” They include Lutherans, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists.
The Biblical Balance – Four paragraphs touch on numerous doctrines related to the topic of the atonement.
Substitutionary Atonement – Three paragraphs. The author’s treatment of this crucial but often ignored facet of Biblical truth is dealt with in three paragraphs, mentioning Anselm, Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, and the historic agreement Calvinists and Arminians on it (while faithfully pointing out where some disagree on this essential matter).
Infinite Value and Universal Sufficiency – Seven paragraphs. “Most Calvinists have accepted Peter Lombard’s formula: ‘Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently only for the elect.’” Also mentioned are Beza, Pescator, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Matthew Henry, Robert Murray M’Cheyne, Samuel Rutherford, and Charles Hodge, with several quotes including from the Scots Confession and the Canons of the Synod of Dort.
Universal Benefits – Five paragraphs. Hoeksema, Spurgeon, and Polhill are cited. This section includes comments on universal non-saving benefits, which it has not been my experience to see often addressed by pastors to their congregations.
The State of the Debate – “To recount, there are basically three Reformed positions. Christ died (1) only for the elect, (2) for all men but especially the elect, and (3) equally for all men. They all deny that all men will be saved in the end, for they all believe in the reformed doctrines of election and reprobation.” That begins the first of three paragraphs in this section, including brief comments about the errors of universal salvation. The author concludes the section with “The debate is not merely about the atonement’s universal aspects, infinite value, or universal sufficiency nor even primarily about the identity of those for whom Christ died. The real question is over the nature of the atonement as to the efficacy at the point at which it was made at Calvary. Did Christ merely provide for redemption, or did He guarantee it for the elect? Did he actually propitiate the Father, or did He merely provide a sacrifice that would allow the Father to grant salvation to whom He chooses? Those who believe in the strictly limited view and those who teach the both/and view differ with the ‘equally for all’view on this critical point. We hold that Christ did actually satisfy the Father’s wrath for the elect alone in such a way that guaranteed their salvation.”
Conclusion – “In the next chapter we will discuss the biblical
teaching on the particular aspect of the atonement for the elect alone. This is
a distinctive element of mainstream Calvinism that is not shared with any other
variety of evangelical theology.”
We have much to learn from J. C. Ryle about matters related to personal holiness and what properly styles a Christian. This excerpt is taken from his devotional classic, "Holiness."
Needs of the Times
"Men who had understanding of the times'' (l Chronicles
12:32)
These words were written about the tribe of Issachar, in the days when David first began to reign over Israel. It seems that after Saul's unhappy death, some of the tribes of Israel were undecided what to do. “Under which king?” was the question of the day in Palestine. Men doubted whether they should cling to the family of Saul, or accept David as their king. Some hung back, and would not commit themselves; others came forward boldly, and declared for David. Among these last were many of the children of Issachar; and the Holy Spirit gives them a special word of praise. He says, “They were men who had understanding of the times.”
I cannot doubt that this sentence, like every sentence in Scripture, was written for our learning. These men of Issachar are set before us as a pattern to be imitated, and an example to be followed; for it is a most important thing to understand the times in which we live, and to know what those times require. The wise men in the court of Ahasuerus knew the times (Est. 1:13). Our Lord Jesus Christ blames the Jews, because they “knew not the time of their visitation” (Luke 19:44) and did not “discern the signs of the times” (Matt. 16:3). Let us take heed lest we fall into the same sin. The man who is content to sit ignorantly by his own fireside, wrapped up in his own private affairs, and has no public eye for what is going on in the church and the world is a miserable citizen, and a poor style of Christian. Next to our Bibles and our own hearts, our Lord would have us study our own times.
This installment is titled “Smugness.”
What are we to do about Gospel ministers who do not think about thinking? What can we do about Gospel ministers who do not read about reading? What are we to do about Gospel ministers who do not study about studying?
I am serious about these questions in my seventy-fifth year, my fifty-first year in the faith, and my forty-seventh year in the pastorate. My concern at this time is with smugness.
Smugness, as I define it, is a somewhat subtle form of pride and cannot coexist with humility, which is one of the most Christ-like character traits. We see God’s attitude toward pride in James 4.6 and First Peter 5.5 and recognize how the Lord Jesus exemplified humility from Paul’s comments in First Corinthians 11.3 (where it is intimated the Second Person submits to the First Person throughout eternity) and Philippians 2.5-8 (where Paul’s use of the imperative shows the believer’s humility is not optional).
How is smugness revealed in the thoughts and conduct of a Gospel minister? I would suggest various ways, including the complete absence of curiosity, when a view, a concept, a doctrinal position, or a variant stance on an issue is brought to our attention. Many peers and almost peers embrace the notion that they already know everything there is to know, understand everything there is to understand, and that no further progress is to be entertained, much less implemented.
I remember a New Testament interpretation course at PCBBC. One day, a substitute filled in and was lecturing when one of my classmates raised his hand to ask him the source of the material he was teaching. The substitute teacher said, “These are my notes from BBC.” In other words, he had effectively learned nothing in the more than twenty years since he earned his ThG! Sad. I did not know at the time that I was appalled by his answer that so many in the ministry would not only not study the Bible (not really anyway) but would also never look at a systematic theology or missionary biography after leaving school.
When I asked him what had recently captured his interest, I once had a missionary tell me, “Brother John, I don’t read.” I almost choked. A few years ago, a discouraged friend who had retired with a 10,000-volume library (he is truly a scholar) told me that his new pastor once said, “I don’t read. I listen to podcasts!” Has it come to that?
I have a friend who no longer has a relationship with his pastor from childhood to his teen years after he asked him if they might spend some time discussing the doctrine of election. My friend had not formed an opinion or established a position, yet his pastor was so hostile to the word that their relationship was forever irreparably damaged. Seriously?
Open, close, and closed communion is a topic never revisited once a position is staked out. The doctrines of grace are effectively avoided (regardless of one’s position) once the positions of your friends are known. Also, the treatment of brothers and sisters in Christ will frequently and callously ignore the Savior’s imperative of John 15.17, sometimes treating other believers as non-believers.
I find such closed-mindedness offensive and reflects a gross misunderstanding of the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit, Who never teaches any of us everything and Who is always interested in revealing the truth to us as we exercise the correct use of means (reading, studying, praying, interacting with other faithful Bible students, etc.).
Not too long ago, I read an astonishing declaration from someone who ought to know better, in which he said (in essence) that it is wrong to read anything written by anyone ‘who is not one of us.’ Sadly, he has ruled out so much. Do not read “The Theocratic Kingdom” by George Peters? Do not read the sermons that Spurgeon preached in print? Do not read accounts of great revivals written by the men who were there but were not Baptists? Do not read the writings of Jonathan Edwards? Seriously?
It came to a head in my mind before I recently traveled to Nepal, where I had the opportunity to preach to several hundred Baptist pastors about holiness and the doctrine of the Bible. Several years ago, I was given a small book written by Charles L. Hunt. It is one of the most remarkable works I have ever read, bearing very heavily on the doctrine of the Church. Sadly, however, I have encountered the smugness I am writing about, with almost no one interested in a book that puts to rest once and for all the erroneous Protestant view of the Church.
Whether you are young or old, with an established ecclesiology or not, I urge you to seriously consider this book, which I will send you upon request. The book will either seriously bolster the position you already embrace or change your stance entirely. At worst, it is a book I am sure you will want to pass on to others to read.
JohnSWaldrip@ClassicalBaptist.Press
www.ClassicalBaptist.Press
I have been swamped the last few weeks, traveling to Nepal to preach and recovering from dear Church friends’ passing, so this post will be relatively brief.
I am currently reading two books while investigating the issue at hand, “From The Finger Of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law” by Philip S. Ross and “Identifying The Seed: An Examination and Evaluation of the Differences Between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology” by Robert McKenzie.
I have been a Baptist pastor long enough (46 years) to know that some in the Dispensationalist community will be suspicious of me for investigating the CT position. In contrast, some in the CT community will be suspicious of me for investigating the claims of Dispensationalism.
Some even advocate never reading anything written except by those who embrace your already embraced position. Seriously? What an indefensibly absurd notion.
How does one learn about the First Great Awakening or the Second Great Awakening in that way, since God did not use Baptists as leaders in either of those great revivals? The same is true of the 1905 revivals in Wales and Korea.
Take Independent fundamental Baptists. Holding that position would mean reading nothing written before 1920 and only IFB authors. What is the notable IFB leader who has ever advocated such absurdity? Not John R. Rice. Not Lee Roberson. There’s not anyone else I can think of.
Oh well.
Over the years, as you pastors know, Church members go away. Sometimes, they just stop attending and fade away, ignoring the impact of their actions on those who look up to them. Others demonstrate their testosterone deficiency by letting their wives speak for them (“My husband is not being fed”). Still others seek to cover their wives’ bossiness by claiming their reason for departing is “doctrinal differences.”
People who leave Churches rarely leave for appropriate reasons and, even more, seldom provide the real reasons for their departure. It is a risk I am willing to take.
My interest in these two positions arises from two considerations. First, I would love for our Church to be a comfortable place for someone with John Gill’s understanding of Scripture, Adoniram Judson’s understanding of Scripture, Isaac Backus’ understanding of Scripture, Charles Spurgeon’s understanding of Scripture, W. A. Criswell’s understanding of Scripture, and Peter Masters’ understanding of Scripture, etc.
Is that so wrong? Are not each of the men I have mentioned orthodox, Bible-believing men?
Second, I think my attitude should not be to defend a position held by friends and old classmates but to discover and apply the truth. Hence, a willingness to investigate positions held by good and godly men.
I covet your prayers as I read, study God’s Word, and seek to understand
that I might do the truth.
Several months ago, I uploaded “My Growing Problem With Covenant Theology, Part 1.” I promised to produce future Ministerial Musings on Covenant Theology in that blog. My schedule has been brutal, and my blog has suffered as a consequence. Recently, I received the final of a series of small books written by my prolific English friend, David H. J. Gay, New-Covenant Articles: Volume Fourteen, published last year by Brachus. I will have more to say about my growing problem with Covenant Theology in the future, but this present offering will bless you.
Though it is a book I heartily recommend, for David’s overall treatment of Covenant Theology-related issues and his insights related to the New Covenant, it is the last of his offerings that I want to set before you for consideration. He has written extensively on topics too few Baptists pay much attention to, sadly. This concise offering will whet your appetite.
I have a problem, a problem which only the Reformed can solve. I appeal to them to help me.
During years of engaging with the works of covenant theologians over the law, I have tried time and again to get them to think about Scripture unfettered by one or another of the Reformed Confessions.[1] But I always come up against the same brick wall. Whenever I read a work on the law - or some topic connected to the law - by a covenant theologian, I always meet the same three adjectives - moral, ceremonial and judicial, or their equivalents. It seems as though covenant theologians cannot think about, read or write the word ‘law’ without calling upon these three adjectives. Do they have a box of them to hand? It reminds me of somebody curling up on the settee on a Friday night, switching on the TV, and, from time to time, while their eyes are still glued to the screen, a skilful hand instinctively dips into a box of chocolates to select a favourite - Turkish Delight, Caramel, or Brazil Nut. When the programme gets exciting, threatening or whatever, pop another chocolate in the mouth and chew the faster.
But it isn’t funny! No, it is not!
Serious issues are involved; very serious. By imposing these three adjectives on Scripture, covenant theologians bolster their theological system, and so utterly fail to see the glorious biblical doctrine of the covenants. How ironical - the biggest mistake that covenant theologians make is their complete misunderstanding of the biblical doctrine of the covenants! And the consequences of this are far-reaching - far beyond the ivory tower of the minister’s study. Because of it, the man, woman and young person in the pew - and in many cases, at the font - are loaded with immense problems and hurts. Unbelievers can be led through years of torture as they are prepared for Christ, prepared by repeated doses of the law to produce what many Reformed think of as ‘a thorough law work’. Infants can - countless numbers do - grow up thinking that because a parent was ‘in the covenant’ and had them sprinkled as babies, they, too, are ‘in the covenant’, or somesuch jargon. Because of law teaching, believers can spend many anxious years in lack of assurance, smarting under heavy lashes with the (to use John Calvin’s word) whip of the law, being told again and again that the height of spirituality is to know and feel that you are ‘the wretched man of Romans 7:14-25’. These consequences, and others like them, are the heavy pastoral fall-out of covenant theology. l don’t engage with the Reformed over the law as some sort of a chess match, a battle of wits over texts. Think of it as the emergency ward of a hospital. Life and death issues - spiritual life and death issues - are at stake.
And, as I say, at the heart of this debate is this matter of the socalled threefold division of the law into moral, ceremonial and judicial. This invention is the lynchpin of covenant theology.
Now, as I have argued time and time again,[2] this so-called threefold division of the law is unscriptural. Probably dreamed up by Thomas Aquinas, set in concrete by John Calvin, it was adopted wholesale by the Puritans, and so dominated both the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 1689 Baptist Confession, and has exercised a widespread influence over evangelicals ever since, including men like C.H.Spurgeon and D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones.[3] For all that, I, along with many others, still assert that it is unscriptural.
Now... here’s my problem. This is where we reach the nub of it. It is always hard to prove a negative. It can be done, but proof of a negative is never - to my mind - quite as convincing as proof of the positive. In any case, the burden of proof in this case lies with the Reformed. They assert that the law is divided into three; I, as just one among many, say it is not. The ball is in their court - they make the assertion; they should prove it.
Let me illustrate my point. All illustrations fail, but at least let me try.
First from the field of Mathematics. Pythagorean Triples exist. Take the integers 3,4,5. We know that 32 + 42 = 52. The same goes for 5,12,13 and 7,24,25, and so on. But nobody has ever found three integers for the power three and above; that is, nobody has found three integers to satisfy a3 + b3 = c3, and so on. Until recently, however, it had to be admitted that just because nobody - so far - had come up with such a set of integers, it did not mean that somebody, tomorrow, might not find a set. A million, million failures does not prove that it is impossible. Proving - proving, I repeat - the negative can be very difficult.[4] How much easier for those who say three such integers exist! Just produce them!
Take the legal system. Margaret Fleming was reported missing in 2016. She had not been seen by any independent witness since 1999. Her two carers had continued to claim her benefits over those years. In 2019, the carers were convicted of Margaret’s murder. But the prosecution had a very difficult task: no body was found, no body could be produced. The defence could argue that though Margaret might have been missing for those years, she might walk in tomorrow. ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ is essential for a conviction. Who could be certain that Margaret was dead? If she was dead, where was the body, where was the D.N.A proof, where was the link to the carers? Make no mistake: if the prosecution could have produced the body, it would have done so - like a shot! If forensics could have linked the carers to the corpse, the prosecution would have produced the evidence in court. Produce the body! Give us the proof!
The upshot? I can argue ‘til the cows come home that Scripture never uses the threefold division, that Scripture never justifies such a division. But this still leaves the ball firmly in the Reformed court. Even so, it’s a doddle for them! Just produce the proof, the evidence! They’ve had hundreds of years to come up with it.
Let me be clear. No quotation from Aquinas, Calvin, a score of Puritans, any Confession, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones or Uncle Tom Coblcy is proof. Proof and justification must come from Scripture, and Scripture only.
So I appeal to the Reformed. You can put this issue beyond doubt once and for all. Produce the proof – that’s all you have to do. Otherwise, admit the truth of what you are doing - which everybody knows you are doing - that you are breaking your own Confessions and making the inventions of men - and not Scripture - the authority for what you teach. Or ... drop your use of the threefold division of the law.
By the way, Scripture does speak of a division in the matter - not the Reformed threefold division, of course, but a twofold division between law and grace. I restrict my extracts to where the contrast is explicit. Many more passages speak in similar terms, of course:
The
law
was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus
Christ (John 1:17).
For
by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since
through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God
has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and
the prophets bear witness to it - the righteousness of God through faith in
Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have
sinned and fall sh01i of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace
as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:20-24).
The
law
came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace
abounded all the more (Rom. 5:20).
Sin
will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace
(Rom. 6:14).
I do
not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then
Christ died for no purpose (Gal. 2:21).
You
are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away
from grace
(Gal. 5:4).
Now
let’s have a discussion on that basis, without any smokescreen of a so-called
threefold division of the law!
[1] Do they read Scripture
without the Confession in mind? I’ve given up trying to get them discuss Scripture unfettered. See my ‘Flogging
a Dead Horse’.
[2] See above all, my Christ Is All.
[3] Both men were contradictory
over the law. See my Spurgeon; ‘Lloyd Jones for Law Men’ in my New-Covenant Articles Volume Four.
[4] For those with a strong
constitution, that very difficult proof in this case, may be found in Andrew John
Wiles: ‘Modular elliptic curves and Fermat’s Last Theorem’, Annals of Mathematics, 141,1995.
