Monday, February 25, 2008

Ordination and the consistent life

by Robert Fraire

I was there at Bruce's ordination service last night. I enjoyed hearing Dr. Smith as well as Jack Jenkins bring us the Word. The two messages hit on passages central to the call of God on Bruce's life and I thought they were both well done. From where I was sitting I could see Bruce as he listened to the speakers. In both messages the men proclaimed Bruce's talents, his dedication and his loving service to the body at Lakeside. As I sat there listening I thought about a single aspect of Bruce's service that I want to expand on.

Time!
As I sat there listening I thought about how one of the truly hard things in life is to be consistent and devoted to ministry for a such a long time. The number of men who can deliver a great message from the word, or make wonderful, thoughtful decisions at a meeting are fairly large. But the number of men who can do those same things month after month, year after year dwindles dramatically.

To use a sports analogy. Every so often I hear about a new golfer on the PGA tour. The announcers will talk about his talents, his successes and his drive. This usually happens when the man wins a tournament and someone in the press will usually ask: "Can you challenge Tiger?" It is at those times that I laugh and think, let the guy win multiple tournaments over at least a couple of years before you ask him about Tiger! Tiger has demonstrated his skill at golf not only through individual tournaments, but more so by the consistency with which he plays.

My point is that the Bible tells us in 1 Timothy 3:6 when it is describing the qualities of an elder:

and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.

The main part of this quality is that the man must prove over time that he displays these character traits. In other words someone could claim to be as dedicated and loyal as Bruce, but Bruce has 20+ years of leadership that prove his mettle.

As a younger elder, with young kids and only a short time of service at Lakeside, I looked at Bruce sitting with his family, and I thought; I want to demonstrate that type of dedication, that type of consistency to the body at Lakeside, if the Lord wills, or wherever He sends me. Now wanting to do something is fine, but only time will tell if I can meet the high standard of service set by Bruce. And for anyone reading this, strive to live your life in a way that demonstrates your character and dedication wherever the Lord has placed you, AND continue to do so till He returns or you are taken to Him.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Ordination and Future Plans

Tonight I had the wonderful privilege of being ordained to the ministry of the Gospel. After going through a rigorous ordination council which challenged every part of my theological perspective and understanding, the ordination service was the official culmination of the process.

I cannot express how gracious everyone was with their thoughtful expressions of kindness and appreciation. The only disappointment of the evening was that my dear friend Steve Kreloff was unable to be present because he became quite sick with a high fever and flu-like symptoms. However, I fully understand that he was wise to stay home and rest in order to recover.

My good friends, Dr. Jim Smith and Jack Jenkins, were the two speakers who delivered the ordination messages. Jim was a long time classmate of mine at Dallas Seminary’s Tampa extension, and we continue to study biblical Greek together each month with a group of our fellow students and friends. Jack has been like a brother to me throughout the years, including many during which we labored together in ministry at Lakeside.

Many people have asked me whether or not my ordination means that I am leaving Lakeside to go into the ministry full-time at another church. Let me state categorically that I do not intend to change anything about my current ministry unless the Lord decides that He will do such. My only purpose in pursuing formal ordination was the measure of credibility that it gives me in certain circles.

The Lord has afforded me the opportunity to speak at Christian law enforcement conferences and prison chaplain conferences around the nation and invariably, I am asked by someone whether or not I have been ordained. It doesn’t seem to matter to them whether or not I have clearly taught God’s word; rather, it only matters that I have been formally recognized as being qualified to serve as a pastor. Therefore, formal ordination removes that barrier by giving me credibility in the eyes of those who see it as essential for those who teach the word at such conferences.

I know the day will come when I will officially retire from the law enforcement profession. As of this writing, I have a maximum of four years and eight months to go before I must retire. I plan to finish that entire period. During that time, I will keep on teaching and serving the Lord at Lakeside. But He may choose to change my plans through any of a number of unforeseen ways. I learned a long time ago that God may sovereignly choose to change my plans to accomplish that which He desires in my life. But even after I retire, my plans are to continue teaching God’s Word, wherever the Lord may direct me at that time.

I hope this answers those who have asked me what this ordination means for my immediate future in terms of ministry. Thanks again to everyone who came and to those who participated in planning and coordinating the details of the event.

Monday, February 18, 2008

The Difficult Doctrine of Reprobation

In my Sunday School class two Sundays ago, our discussion of 2 Peter 3:9 led off onto a “bunny trail” concerning the doctrine of reprobation. This diversion was such a significant discussion that I found it necessary to devote the entire class period yesterday to a discussion of this terrible and difficult doctrine. In order to help those who wish to mull over these issues further, I decided to revise and edit my material to fit into the format of this blog for everyone to read.

Now, let me warn you as we begin: If you attempt to reconcile all of these matters and wrap them up in a neat little theological package that’s all perfectly tied together, you will never succeed. You and I are not God and we can never understand His infinite wisdom and ways. So let me encourage you to learn to live with the theological tensions. If you could understand it all and resolve all of it, you would be God. But you are not, so just reconcile yourself to the fact that there is mystery in these things and yet somehow, they make perfect sense in the infinite mind of God. So stop trying to rescue God from His own theology.

Let me also give credit where credit is due. Much of what follows has been drawn from James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken’s outstanding book, The Doctrines of Grace, some of it almost word-for-word. There is simply no way that I could explain this doctrine more understandably than have they.

The doctrine of reprobation is one of the most difficult doctrines in the whole Bible. One writer has said that since Paul wrote about it more than any other New Testament writer, when Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:16 that some of the things Paul wrote about in his letters were “hard to understand,” he may well have been speaking about the doctrine of reprobation.

The doctrine of reprobation is the teaching that God rejects or repudiates some persons to eternal condemnation in a way that is parallel but opposite to His ordaining others to salvation.

Romans 9:13-23 is one of the primary texts that teaches this difficult doctrine. In this text, Paul is explaining that God has not rejected the nation of Israel, and beginning in verse 13, it says, 13Just as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” 14What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

It is clear from this passage that God clearly stakes claim to being the One who elects some and chooses not to elect others. In fact, it says that He even hardens whom He desires. So if we are to understand this doctrine, we must begin by accepting the fact of reprobation, regardless of any questions we may have. Many other texts also teach reprobation:

Proverbs 16:4
4
The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil.

John 12:39-40
39
For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40“He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.”

1 Peter 2:7-8
7
This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, “The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone,” 8and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.

Jude 4
4
For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Each of these verses (and others) teaches that God passes by some persons, destining them for destruction rather than to salvation. Clear enough. But here we need to make several important distinctions between election on the one hand and reprobation on the other.

First, we need to ask the question: Does God determine the destinies of elect individuals and reprobate individuals in exactly the same way, so that without any consideration of what they do (or might do), he assigns one to heaven and the other to hell?

We know He does that in the case of those who are being saved, because Scripture tells us that election has no basis in any good seen or foreseen in those who are elected. Paul’s chief point in Romans 9 is that salvation is due entirely to God’s mercy and not to any good that might be imagined to reside in us. The question is whether this can be said of the reprobate, too. Has God consigned them to hell apart from anything they have done, that is, apart from their deserving it?

There is an important distinction to be made here. The majority of Reformed thinkers were careful to make this distinction and that distinction has been embodied in many of the church’s creeds. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith, considered the sine qua non of all such creeds, includes two paragraphs concerning election and reprobation. Let me quote them for you.

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them (Chap. 3, Sec. 5).


The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice (Chap. 3, Sec. 7).


Those statements teach that in some ways election and reprobation are the same: both flow from the eternal counsel or will of God rather than the will of man, and both have as their ultimate purpose the revelation of God’s glory. But there are two important points of difference.

First, the Confession speaks of the reprobate being “passed by.” Some will argue that in its ultimate effect there is no difference between being passed by and being actively ordained to condemnation. But while that is true of the ultimate effect, there is nevertheless, a major difference in the cause.

The reason why some believe the gospel and are saved by it is that God intervenes in their lives to bring them to faith. He does it by the new birth or regeneration. But those who are lost—and this is the crucial point—are not caused by God to disbelieve. They do that all by themselves. To ordain their end, God needs only to withhold the special grace of redemption.

Second, the Confession speaks of God ordaining the lost “to dishonor and wrath for their sin.” That makes reprobation the opposite of an arbitrary action. The lost are not sent to hell because God consigns them to it arbitrarily, but as a judgment for their sins. The great Dutch reformer Abraham Kuyper wrote: “We dare not forget that while God, according to the secret of his counsel, elects those who are saved…this same omnipotent God has made us morally responsible, so that we are lost, not because we could not be save, but because we would not.”

Kuyper’s theology was based on The Canons of the Synod of Dort, which state: “Not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decrees” and these are punished “not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their other sins” (Chap. 1, Art. 15).

So then, election is active; reprobation is passive. In election God actively intervenes to rescue those who deserve destruction, whereas in reprobation God passively allows some to receive the just punishment they deserve for their sins.

But what about Romans 9:22-23, which seems to say that God actively ordains men to reprobation? Let’s take a look at it. It says, 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory.

The key to understanding these verses is found in the original language. I want to start in verse 23 and work backwards to verse 22. In verse 23, Paul says that God wanted to “make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory.” The verb which is translated “He prepared beforehand” is in the active voice in the Greek which means that God (the subject) actively acted upon those vessels (or men, who are the object of the verb’s action) to prepare them for glory. In other words, God was the one doing the action in preparing those vessels for honor and glory.

But in verse 22, where it says that God “endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” the verb “prepared” there is in the passive voice in the Greek, meaning that God (the subject) was not the one acting to prepare them for destruction, but rather that the vessels did the action to themselves.

So, rather than proving active reprobation, these verses are proof of passive reprobation; that is, that God actively elected some to salvation, but in passively passing by the others who justly deserved judgment for their sin, He thereby ordained them to reprobation.

So, you can probably see that there is a huge paradox with this doctrine. One the one hand, God eternally decreed that man would fall into sin. But He also eternally decreed to elect some and to pass by others, thereby effectively decreeing that they would eternally receive the just punishment for their sin. But if God hadn’t decreed that man would fall into sin, then it would not have been necessary to elect some and leave the others to eternal reprobation.

The whole issue gets more and more complicated the deeper you go into it, so my recommendation is stop trying to understand it and just accept it as biblical truth. Be like the pot, which does not challenge the potter’s right to do whatever He wishes with or to the pot.

Somehow, God’s decree that sin would invade His new universe and that some would be elected to eternal salvation while others would not, fits into His sovereign purpose to bring greater glory to His name. After all, in which situation would He receive greater glory—a world where no one ever sinned—or a world in which all mankind rejects and rebels against Him, yet He sends His Son to die for some and grants them eternal life? The answer is obvious.

As we begin to understand these things, we also understand that reprobation is a gospel doctrine, because reprobation highlights mercy and reduces those who hear and accept the doctrine to a position of utter submission to Him. As long as a person believes that he is in control of his own destiny, he will never submit to Christ. But when he understands that he is in the hands of a just and holy God, and that he is without any hope of salvation apart from His free and utterly sovereign intervention, then he will call for mercy, which is the only right response.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Contemporary Christian Music: Theological Pablum

I was listening to the radio in my car recently as the new release of a certain well-known Christian music group was being played. This new song sounded much like their previous releases, not in terms of its style but in terms of its lyrics. It focused on the greatness of God and His mighty power in creating all that exists. The words were sound theologically as they pertained to that issue, but as I listened, I was struck by the fact that much of Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) is very man-centered; that is, it talks about “what God has done for me” rather than talking about Him in His essential nature, character, and attributes, and what the implication of that is for my worship.

When it does focus on God, it targets His glory and power as seen in creation, but very little of the music ever focuses on Christ or His work on the cross. The glorious work of Christ in dying in the place of sinners and taking upon Himself the wrath of God that they justly deserved is the central point of Christianity. No believer has anything of greater importance for which to praise and thank God. Yet it is largely a neglected area of theology among CCM writers.

There are a few CCM writers/musicians whose music does include lyrics that specifically talk about Christ’s sacrificial, substitutionary death for sinners. Fortunately, some of them are very popular and their songs are often sung in our churches. However, there are many others which include virtually nothing that could be considered sound Christian theology in their songs. In many cases, the theology that is included in the songs is incorrect.

For example, CCM artist Clay Crosse recently released a song titled “I Believe” which was previously released by the country music duo Brooks and Dunn. It is very popular on the CCM radio stations. The song talks about an old man in the singer’s neighborhood whose wife died and he tells the singer that he will soon see his wife “on the other side.” When asked what he means, he responds with what turns out to be the chorus, repeated numerous times throughout the ballad-style song:

I raised my hands, bowed my head,
I'm finding more and more truth in the words written in red;
They tell me that there's more to life than just what I can see,
Oh I believe!

If that is the depths of the theology that we can get into a CCM song, we are in serious trouble as an evangelical community when it comes to the future of Christian music!

First of all, it equates salvation with raising one’s hands and bowing one’s head. There are scores of people in churches around our nation who do just those things every Sunday, but they are lost and on their way to hell. Second, it says that he is “finding more and more truth in the words written in red,” an obvious reference to the words of Christ in a red-letter Bible. That implies that people determine what is truth in what Christ said, as well as implying that it “becomes truth” as the reader understands it more fully. Nothing could be further from the truth! Every word in Scripture is truth, both black letter and red letter. In fact, my own personal pet peeve with red letter Bibles is the inherent implication that the words of Christ are somehow more inspired and important than the black letter words. But no person determines which things Christ said are truth. They are truth by virtue of who said them and the fact that they are contained in God’s Word. Also, the words of Scripture do not “become truth” as we become more and more illumined to its meaning. They are already truth—we are just readers who are gaining understanding.

Finally, it makes the profound statement that there is more to life than he can see, so he believes! Believes what??? There are dozens of philosophers from throughout world history who recognized that there was more to life than could be seen with the eye, but they are in hell today because they didn’t trust in Christ as their Lord and Savior. Belief must be founded in the truth of the Word as expressed in the Gospel to be meaningful.

I am afraid that most of CCM has reached the point described so eloquently and succinctly by Dove Award winner Steve Camp. He writes, “Music that once fearlessly sang about the gospel, now sings of a Christ-less, watered-down, pabulum-based, positive alternative, aura-fluff cream of wheat, mush-kind-of-syrupy God-as-my-girlfriend thing.”

Fortunately, as I said before, there are some CCM artists who are writing and singing songs which are accurate theologically and talk about deeper things of the Lord, including salvation, grace, and God’s righteousness imputed to sinners. There is nothing wrong with singing about God’s glorious creation or His creation power, but believers need to get past the basics that even the unbelievers can agree upon, and get to the truths of the gospel upon which our faith has its foundation. Groups such as Casting Crowns, and individual musicians such as Chris Tomlin and Bebo Norman have produced several wonderful songs which do just that and are worthy of our use as a part of our worship.

With all the theological drivel that is available in much of CCM, we must be careful to find and promote those artists and music which glorify our Lord and Savior and praise Him for who He is and for all He has done in redeeming our souls.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Doctrines of Grace in the Gospel of John - Part 3

The section of John that I would like to highlight in this post is Chapter 5. In this chapter Jesus heals the lame man at the pool at Bethesda. The religious leaders questioned the man who had been healed because he had obeyed Jesus and was carrying his pallet on the Sabbath. And according to the rules they had created it was unlawful for someone to carry a pallet on the Sabbath. So when the man told them that it was Jesus who had healed him, they turned their venom on him. So when they began persecuting Jesus he said to them: "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working." (John 5:17)

It is in this context that John informs us that this statement by Jesus, was well understood by the religious Jews, to be a claim of deity by Jesus. And Jesus' response to this persecution is the main point of this post. Jesus enhances and deepens his explanation of the relationship between the Father and the Son. The text of John continues...


19Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
20"For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.
21"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.

These are some incredible words of the relationship of Father and Son in the Godhead, and I want to focus on verse 21. Jesus states that He has the ability to give life to whom He wishes. Keep in mind that John's purpose is to demonstrate the deity of Jesus. What could be a more powerful demonstration of the true nature of Jesus than he has the ability to give life to whom He wishes! Now the question is what kind of life are we talking about? Physical life? Spiritual life? In fact Jesus did give physical life to Lazarus as well as Jairus' daughter, but the greater truth here is that Jesus gives spiritual life to whom He wishes!

This section of John 5 continues with the following verses...


24"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

In this verse we see a continuation of the words in verse 21. Now lets put these to verses (21 and 24) together. The correct way to do this is to keep the order of presentation of these truths. The primary truth stated in this section is that Jesus has the ability to give life and the basis of that life giving is the sovereign choice of the God-Man Jesus. Following this truth is the supporting truth of the means of obtaining this spiritual life has been determined by Jesus to be through faith.

In summary then, Jesus has the power to give life to whom He wishes, and the means Jesus prescribed to obtain this life He chose for us to have is through faith in the person and words of the Son, who is God.

What ability could be attributed to Jesus that would have been a stronger indication of who He is? He gives physical life, and more importantly spiritual life to whom He wishes! Praise the Lord!

Thank God for this wonderful truth.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Christians and the Presidential Election

Over the past several weeks, as the presidential election campaign has heated up, I have had several Christians say to me, “I am so disappointed with the quality of the candidates who are running this year, I may just sit out the election and not vote at all.” Just today, James Dobson publicly stated that he would not vote in the presidential race if John McCain is the Republican Party’s nominee. I began to think about how such thinking fits into a biblical perspective on the Christian’s relationship to government.

Romans 13:1-7 is the biblical passage which provides the most comprehensive instruction in the Scriptures regarding the believer’s relationship to government. In that passage we learn that every government is ordained by God and that Christians are to submit to the government, including paying taxes and demonstrating honor and respect for those who lead. The question is, then, is the believer also obligated by this passage to vote?

The answer to this question is found in understanding the comprehensive nature of the submission to which Christians are called in this passage. There is no question that the passage instructs us to pay our taxes, and there is no qualification on that requirement. In other words, we are not given the option to pay taxes provided we approve of the purpose for which those taxes will be used. Even though the government may use those taxes in support of such issues as abortion and homosexual rights, we are told that we must pay our taxes, thereby demonstrating our submission to the government and to our Lord.

I believe the same principle applies to our voting for a presidential candidate. Our government has given every citizen the right to vote for the candidate of his or her choice. Although the government does not require that its citizens vote, such an awesome responsibility is one which should not be ignored. Christians should demonstrate their submission to the government and their good citizenship by voting for the candidate they believe will best represent their values and interests—even if the choice between candidates is less than optimal.

It is rather naïve to think that a candidate must agree with one’s viewpoints on every issue in order to be worthy of one’s vote. There has never been a president—even those for whom I voted—with whom I agreed on every issue. But when given the choice of two options, I chose the candidate with whom my views most closely agreed and cast my ballot.

Another important biblical passage on this issue of the Christian’s relationship to government is 1 Peter 2:13-17. In it, Peter says that we are to “submit for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.” One of the human institutions which is a part of government is the Supervisor of Elections Office and the entire system of voter registration. If Christians are to demonstrate their submission to a watching world, they can best do so by registering to vote and then following through by actually voting.

Every day Christians in many nations around our world are imprisoned or martyred for their faith. They live in countries such as Sudan, Viet Nam, North Korea, China, and numerous Muslim nations where freedom and the right of citizens to vote does not exist. They would love to have the opportunity to vote for their leaders, simply so that their lives might be just a little bit less oppressive. But they have no such opportunity. We live in a nation where our government affords us the opportunity to freely vote for the individual who we believe—of the choices before us—would best represent us and the values we hold. We should neither expect nor demand that the secular government under which we live, nor the unregenerate men and women who run for political office in it, will agree with Christian values or biblical standards. But that does not eliminate the biblical obligation we have to submit to the government and demonstrate our good citizenship by participating in the election of our leaders.