Reformation Tuesday 2006

"Reformation Day? What's that?" I'm sure that many people, groomed and raised within the confines of modern day evangelicalism, have never even heard of Reformation day or even know what its all about. It's okay. 4 years ago, I had absolutely no knowledge of the Reformation at all, let alone "Reformation Day." What is Reformation Day and why do we celebrate it? 489 years ago today, Martin Luther, a young Roman Catholic who was beginning to see the corruption within the Roman Catholic Church, nailed a list of 95 theses on the door of a church in Wittenburg Germany. These 95 theses were primarily concerned with the practice of giving indulgences, Luther seeing it as wickedly sinful and motivated by greed. During this period of time, Pope Leo X and the Roman Catholic empire were on a campaign to raise money for the building of St. Peter's Basilica (a modern day testament to the wickedness and greed of Rome) and in doing so, devised a way to compel the poor peasants and laypeople to give their money to the empire, thus bringing in loads of money for the project. This church raised much of the money by this means: Inulgences! Indulgences were remissions of sin (and years off of purgatory) given to specific people and their dead family members on the condition of payment to the church of Rome. You can imagine how effective this tactic would have been! These poor people, with little to no money at all, would give all that they had in the hopeful expectation of granting a close family member relief from the sufferings of purgatory. Obviously, those with more money would get a greater reward (more forgiveness, less time in purgatory), while those with little money could still purchase certain salvific blessings. It was in this context that Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of Wittenburg Church. Many people fail to realize that Luther was still very Catholic when he posted his theses. In fact, his 95 theses were dedicated to Pope Leo X, with a confidence that Leo would support his reaction and understand his frustration. Luther was let down. On that day, October 31 1517, Luther unknowingly became one of the most famous religious figures in the history of the church, igniting a controversy between Rome and her adversaries for years to come even to the present day. Why is this day so precious to Protestants, and what questions does the remembrance of this day need to spark in our hearts and minds as we reflect upon the condition of the church today? Regardless of whether you're Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Charismatic, it behooves you to recognize the central importance of this day with respect to the birth and existence of your particular denomination. Basically every denomination, religious organization, and set of beliefs which could (even loosely) be called Protestant, owes a tremendous debt to Luther and his actions on this day 489 years ago. Yet this day is particularly important and precious to those churches who still consider themselves Reformed, and who actually teach the doctrines Luther taught. I myself am uncompromisingly Reformed and rejoice in the rich heritage handed down to us by Luther, Calvin, the Reformers and Puritans (hence the name of this website). Finding Reformed Christians in this dispensational wasteland of a nation where most "Protestants" either 1) don't know a lick about Reformation Theology or 2) have no respect for Luther and the Reformers , is a pretty daunting task. Most of the church has forgotten what Protestants have historically stood for and believed, preaching a different gospel from the one Luther preached, and uniting with those of whom Luther separated from and fought against. The Evangelicals and Catholics together movement which arose a few years ago is a sad testimony to the fact that Protestants have abandoned their Reformed heritage, disgracing Luther and those who died fighting against Rome. Respected men of God like J.I. Packer and Chuck Colson joined this ecumenical bandwagon, disapointing many Reformed Christians who simply thought that their theology and thought were above that. In the attempt to become "purpose driven", many evangelicals have abandoned the very gospel itself, substituting it for a "morality driven Christianity" with nothing more than self-esteem and felt needs serving as its foundation. Recently, the emerging church movement has completely abandoned any semblence to Reformational sympathy, calling for an ecumenical unity with Rome, Eastern Orthodox, and even pagan religions. This of course is an attempt to rid our churches of "theology" because "theology divides." What would Luther have said to these wolves in sheeps clothing (like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Tony Jones) who blame theology for all of our problems and call for a purely social gospel to be restored in our churches? I think he would have labeled this "gospel" a "false gospel", the kind of "false gospel" that Paul himself called anathema upon in Galatians 1. And what about dispensationalsim? I tread on eggshells because I personally know many solid dispensationalists who treasure the Reformation and its impact upon the church. Yet still, dispensationalism at its core is an ethnocentric system of doctrine, focusing (sometimes almost entirely) upon the nation of Israel and the events surrounding her return to prominence that it fails to even preach Christ crucified. You know you've got a problem when you can't stop talking about the "millenial kingdom" without ever once mentioning the King Himself! With no disrespect meant towards dispensationalists themselves, I am convinced that dispensationalism tends to strip the Christian faith of the 5 solas, substituting their own emphases instead. In my mind, Luther would have been appalled by many dispensationalists of our day, saying also that this system of doctrine can lead to a false gospel. When you look at it, the church of our day has pretty much completely abandoned the theology of the Reformation. This is a call for gospel action. There is a dire need for Reformation in our country and in our world. The false gospels of ecumenicism, pragmatism, Emergent Chruch, and "Ryrian" dispensationalism, must be overcome by a force much more powerful and much more beautiful than their ugly substitutes. What is this force? The gospel itself! Let us unite around those biblical truths which Luther taught in his day and preach repentance, not only to an unregenerate world who desperately needs Christ, but also to those within our own churches who are blindly swallowing these false gospels, completely ignorant of the true gospel and those precious Reformational truths which Luther taught and cherished. The church is in dire need of Reformation. The Lord will sovereingly reform His church in His timing using the sovereign grace of the Spirit working through the Word to change hearts and minds for His glory. Let us preach the gospel Luther preached, and cherish the gospel Luther cherished, for the good of our souls, and for the glory of our King!

Sola Scriptura

Solus Christus

Sola Gratia

Sola Fide

Soli Deo Gloria!

Reactionary Theology...

At times I've struggled with studying theology in a completely reactionary context. What do I mean? Here is an example: I attend Baptist Bible College in Clarks Summit, PA. It's a good school, with some really sharp profs, a zealous passion for ministry, and a dispensatonal zeal that sometimes out-does their zeal for other more important areas of doctrine. In light of the fact that I'm an amillenialist, disputes sometimes arise over my differences with the school. I've been labeled divisive and argumentative because I don't hesitate in sharing with other people how I differ with the school and because I sometimes see the need for professor/student interaction on controversial subjects that I would deem secondary. Besides, it is an institution right? A place of learning where the free exchange of ideas should be celebrated rather than scorned? I say all this because I've sometimes found myself so caught up with fighting against dispensational theology that I've completely missed the beauty of the gospel. Instead of looking at the gospel as a message of beauty and peace to a vile sinner such as I, I'll look at the gospel as something that always needs to be fought over, debated about, argued for. Don't get me wrong, please! I am by no means stating that we should'nt defend the gospel when error creeps into our church's and institutions. There is indeed a time and a place for everything. Luther's Bondage of the Will stands as one of the greatest theological treatises ever written and if you read it for yourself, you'll find that it is very re-actionary and rightly so! Yet even in light of the fact that Luther lived in constant controversy, daily defended the true gospel against the heresies of Rome, and bitingly wrote against the errors of Erasmus, the fact still remains...Luther loved Jesus and his theology and work wasn't always studied and presented within the context of re-action. I see a need for this: Christians to defend the gospel over and against the heresies of our day while still appreciating, loving, basking in, and finding joy in the gospel itself! I've been to so many websites and blogs who can't even devote one post to writing about the beauty of Christ and the gosepel. Every single post is devoted to bashing an opponent over the head with the metaphorical hammer, exposing their errors, and criticizing their thought. Again, don't get me wrong. There is a dire need for a strong defense of the faith in the midst of so many errors. But when our theology is only presented within the context of reaction, we often forget the reason why we are defending and the gospel is reduced to nothing more than a commodity to be argued over. I think this is a sad faith and I lament my struggle with this in the past. I want to love Jesus for who He is, what He's done, and what He's doing. I want to see and to savor the beauty of the gospel in the midst of so many errors, and heartily remember why I need to defend the faith. I'm kind of trying to work this out in my own life, finding the balance between positive exultation and reactionary defense. We definitely need both. I just think that sometimes we go to the one extreme and completely forget the other. We are sinners saved by grace and we need to remember that. Calvinists should be the most humble and gracious people of all and I think sometimes people view us as arrogant, proud, and extremely re-actionary. May God grant us the grace to see and savor the beauty of Jesus as we exult in Him and defend our faith.

Vintage Jesus

If there's one thing I've learned from listening to and reading Mark Driscoll (pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle), its that Jesus is as popular as ever right now! I can't tell you how many "Jesus is My Homeboy" t-shirts I have seen as I've walked through malls, stores, shopping areas, etc. One of my suitemates has a funny looking Jesus bobblehead doll with a big grin, cool beard, and a big ol' head which bobbles back and forth when you push it. With the release of The Passion of the Christ and the Da Vinci Code within the past few years, Jesus has been looked upon as an object of curiosity, question, and appeal. The question I'd like to raise is this: Who was Jesus? What was he like, what did he do, and why is he so damn popular all of a sudden? Obviously, I won't even attempt to answer all of these questions on this post, but I'd like to share a few things that I've been learning about Jesus myself. First of all, I think all Christians need to realize that things aren't so grim with respect to the context in which we evangelize. Yes, mankind is as depraved as they'll ever be, and yes the TBN t.v. network is still going strong with its pseudo alien looking producers with more wigs, make up, hollerin in the name of Jesus, and demon exorcisms than I can really stomach. I mention TBN because I find it both somewhat entertaining and horribly sad. Anyway, I think that the culture in which we find ourselves has some sort of strange interest in Jesus. The problem is this: depraved minds don't seek the truth! The Jesus of Scripture is not the Jesus of post-modern culture. The Jesus of Scripture is not the Jesus of the Bobbleheads and T-shirts. Yet let me say this...in an attempt to combat this intellectual error in the culture, extremist Christians have fallen into a similar, yet different, error. The Jesus of extremist Christianity is no more the Jesus of Scripture than the Jesus of post-modernity. What do I mean by "extremist Christians?" Perhaps "extremist" isn't a good word to use. Thoughtless, maybe? Mindless, anti-intellectual, bumper sticker Christians who think that the world can be succesfully evangelized through the "ever creative" slogans found on the back of their station wagons might fit better. Take a look at this picture and you'll know what I mean...

Ring any bells? This kind of sad Christianity is the result of mindless fundamentalism (I'm not using this word in its purest sense) which claims to embrace true doctrine and love the church while completely neglecting the culture in which we live, thinking that stupid catch phrases like these will win the world for Christ. Those beautiful gospel truths about Jesus Christ are replaced by trite catchphrases about the rapture. Instead of loving Jesus for who he was and for what he accomplished, they love Jesus because he's the way to escape the great tribulation and the wrath of the antichrist. The idea of computer chips implanted in heads with barcodes that read "666" is pretty much the sum and substance of what so many people these days actually believe. They don't give two damns about propitation, imputation, federal headship, high priestly intercession. Yet play a game of "eschatalogy trivia" and they'll win every time! Why am I going to such great lengths to say all of these things about the post-modern Jesus and the fundamentalist Jesus? Because neither of them are the true Jesus of Scripture! I see a need for Christians to lovingly engage with culture, confonting the false views about Jesus with the beautiful Savior of Scripture! Instead of running away from culture, we should instead engage with it, never compromising the message of orthodoxy yet always interacting, loving, teaching, and incarnating the mercy of the one who saved us from our sins. People are asking questions about Jesus Christ and he is as popular as ever. Why not take this opportunity to teach others who the real Jesus was and what the real Jesus did. Lets flee both the errors of "post-modern Christianity" and "fundamenalist Christianity", restoring the balance of love and truth, grace and orthodoxy, Christ and culture.

Soli Deo Gloria

This is an excellent article written by Kim Riddlebarger which I found very encouraging to my soul. I hope you enojoy...

http://www.modernreformation.org/kr06rom7.htm

Blaise Pascal and the Apologetic Task

I'm currently reading a book called Christianity for Modern Pagans, which is a selected compendium of Blaise Pascal's greatest Pensees along with Peter Kreeft's "festooning's" (as he says himself). After reading only a little, I felt as though I were entering a unfamiliar world of beauty, conveyed through Pascal's brilliant thoughts, and wonderfully explained by his disciple Peter Kreeft. What struck me immediately was this: so many Christians (including myself) are so deeply entrenched in the muddy waters of modernism that we don't even realize it until we are confronted with biblical truth, Christ centered beauty, and psychologically orthodox and deep defenses of the faith. What I'm learning, especially through reading Aquinas and Pascal, is that generations before us thought and reasoned metaphysically rather than pragmatically and methodically. The thought orientation of the modern mind is focused on pragmatism, utilitarianism, methodology and results. Instead of asking questions like, "What must God be like?" the modern mind asks questions like, "What can God do for me?" God no longer is the embodiment of beauty, truth, and infinite glory. Instead God becomes a "quick fix" that will get us through the day and fulfill our need for self satisfaction, self esteem, and carnal desires. Once you're confronted with the pre-modern mind (the biblical mind), your world is turned upside down and you begin to see the slavish chains that you have been bound to all your life. Indeed, reading Pascal, Aquinas, and others has opened my eyes to see the need for a reformation of thinking within the church. This specific Pensee was enligtening to me and reveals the absolute failure of modern apologetics to accomplish its goal.

Order. Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first [1] to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next [2] make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then [3] show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.

A few days ago, one of my friends was talking to a chapel speaker about a point he made in chapel. When faced with the logical inconsitency of his arguments, the speaker said this, "You're going to get yourself in trouble by using so much reason! Just because it doesn't logically make sense to you, doesn't mean its not true. God's ways are higher than ours, and using reason will only get us into trouble." Like every false statement, there are some truths embedded in this argument, which was really only an attempt to weisel the man out of the predicament he was in. Of course God's ways are higher than ours, and of course pure reason can be dangerous apart from a firm faith in those mysteries of God which we will never understand. Does that mean that the Bible is not logical? Does that mean that reason isn't a vital element to the practice of hermeneutics and the task of apologetics? I hope most Christians would reply with a resounding, "NO!" What Pascal asserts in this statement is that Christianity is not an illogical system of doctrine. Christianity is beautiful precisely because it is not contrary to reason. Christianity is "worthy of respect" precisely because it is the only system of belief which can succesfully understand the human condition and provide a remedy for it. Another thing worthy of note is this: not only is Christianity logical, but Christianity promises true good. Rather than understanding "goodness" and "happiness" as subjective feelings, Pascal understands goodness as being an objective state of goodness in the soul [like health to the body]. Pascal isn't being modern because he's understanding goodness as something entirely different from a modern interpretation of the word. After revealing these two essential aspects Christianity, we learn that Christianity is objectively true. We finally see that this particular system of belief is logically sound and intensley satisfying because of the fact that it is objectively ture. Kreeft comments on this particular Pensee by saying this: "Most apologetics tries to feed spinach to a reluctant baby who stubbornly closes his mouth. (Ever try it? Watch sometime.) What you have to do is make the baby hungry." This is exactly what Pascal and other pre-modern thinkers attempt to do. Explaining Christianity in terms of its logical consistency, Christocentric beauty, and objective truthfulness. This is very different from explaining Christianity in terms of its ability to provide for my felt needs, my self esteem, and my attempt at being "all that I can be." May God grant us grace as we beseech him to rescue our thinking from the pitfalls of pragmatism.
Soli Deo Gloria

Four Point Calvinism?

In my experience at a small Bible college in the mountains of Northeast Pennsylvania, there is a growing consensus among students that it doesn't matter whether you're a four or five point Calvinist. It's really just an argument over semantics and emphasis right? Both four and five pointers believe that the atonement was designed to save the elect yet could have saved the whole world if God had so intended. Hmm... a good look at what full embodied four point Calvinism really is reveals that this is not true and that it does indeed matter whether one is a four or five pointer. This isn't a secondary issue which is impractical and merely speculative, of no use to our faith. Where you stand on four or five point Calvinsim determines your stance on the atonement and if you've got the atonement wrong, you've got the gospel wrong. It is my strong and fervent conviction that a "four" point Calvinist is in truth a "no" point Calvinist. I have a burden for our generation that they would understand the nature and extent of the atonement and affectionately rejoice in the truth that Christ's death accomplished redemption rather than just "providing" redemption. First, I'd like to examine the two options that four point Calvinists can choose between. The first option is to say that Christ did indeed accomplish redemption. Christ was the propitiation for every single individual throughout history without exception. Those who call themselves four pointers would probably object in horror at this option seeing that it is nothing more than universalism. The other option that most four pointers will take is to say that Christ merely provided redemption, giving everyone an opportunity to be saved without really saving anyone. Some might even say that Christ died for every sin except for the sin of unbelief therefore unbelievers can be justly damned by God. This is historic four point Calvinism or Armianism whatever you'd like to call it. I'd like to show that you cannot believe in a vicarious and propitiatory sacrifice and still maintain that Christ died for every individual without exception. Sure someone can believe this utterly inconsistent and unscholarly nonsense if they so choose but remember I can believe that elephants fly or that monkeys talk if I so choose. Yet believing that elephants fly or that monkey's talk is inconsistent with my experience of actually seeing the nature of elephants and monkeys at the zoo! This view, that Christ's death is vicarious and substitutionary in nature yet is for the benefit of the entire world, is inconsistent. Why? Because if Christ bore the wrath of God for every individual without exception then it logically follows that every individual without exception will be saved. If God punishes unbelievers in an eternal hell yet sent his Son to be their wrath bearer, it follows that God is unjust. A word to all you four pointers out there...YOU CANNOT BELIEVE THAT CHRIST'S DEATH WAS EFFICACIOUS, PROPITATORY, AND SUBSTITUTIONARY AND BE LOGICALLY AND BIBLICALLY CONSISTENT! I'm not trying to tell four pointers what they can and cannot believe, I'm just saying that if you desire academic and theological respect, you will abandon your four point position. It's inconsistent and foolish.I'd also like to show that four point calvinism is in truth NO point calvinism. "But I believe in total depravity, unconditional election, irresisteble grace, and perseverance of the saints", you might say. What you might not know is that the five points of Calvinsim stand or fall together. You take away one, and they all crumble. This applies to any one of the points but since we are discussing the "L" limited atonement or even better "particular redemption", lets take a look at how believing in a hypothetical atonement leaves you with no other option than the heresy of Arminiansim. If you believe that Christ merely provided the opportunity for salvation and didn't accomplish salvation then it follows that man must then choose God in order for salvation to be accomplished. This pre-supposes that the will of man is unfettered and free, with the ability to choose or reject the offer of the gospel. Orthodox Calvinism states that Christ purchased everything neccessary for our salvation including faith itself. If Christ never accomplished redemption but merely provided the opportunity for salvation, then total depravity is thrown out the window. If man's salvation ultimately rests on whether is excercises his will to choose it, than there is no need whatsoever for unconditional election. Why would God sovereingly choose helpless sinners unto salvation if these sinners aren't helpless and are free to choose God of their own accord? A four point Calvinist is left to choose between some heretical form of election such as the corporate election view or the historic Arminian "conditional" election view. Irresisteble Grace? No need for it! Like I said before, five point Calvinism states that Christ purchased the sovereign and irresisteble grace of the Holy Spirit on behalf the elect. If Christ didn't purchase anything then man is free to choose God and irresisteble grace is thrown out the window. What about perseverance of the saints? Orthodox Calvinism teaches that the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is a gift purchased by Christ on the cross. If man isn't totally depraved, God isn't sovereign in salvation, and Christ's death merely provided the opportunity for salvation then man is left to work out his salvation in his own strength. Thus, four point Calvinism is NO point Calvinism and is in the end Arminianism.You might be asking, "why are you going to such great lengths to disprove four point Calvinism! You've called it inconsistent, unscholarly, and even heretical!" I reply that that your understanding of the atonement rests on whether your an Arminian (four point) or a Calvinist (5 point). An understanding of the atonement determines your understanding of the gospel and if you've got the gospel wrong, your in serious danger. Particular redemption is for our joy. It enables us to see and savor the sovereign work of God in our salvation and to bask in the particular love of Jesus for his church. What would you think if a married man said to his wife, "I love you honey, but I also love every other woman in the world and want to have a relationship with them too!""How outrageous!" you say. "That's not a fitting analogy!" Oh really? Ephesians 5 uses this very analogy in saying, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.." (Eph. 5:25) Christ is compared to a husband, the church is compared to His bride. Christ's love for the church is particular and this particular love was seen most clearly on the cross as he bore the the wrath of God on behalf of those whom God had given Him.I have tried my best to offer a few arguments in favor of five point calvinism and to show that "four" point calvinism is in the end arminianism. Let it be known that there is a major and profound difference between these two positions, the difference being between a false and true gospel.

Putting the "Baptist" back into BBC: A Plea to Return to Our Calvinistic Roots

I know that a post with such a title might create a number of different responses within the hearts of those who love BBC and enjoy attending the institution. I want people to know that I indeed love BBC, and that I write this post out of a genuine concern that Baptist Bible College is abandoning it's historic Calvinist roots and in doing so, ceasing to be Baptist in process (in the historic sense of the word.) The issue I'd like to raise is this: Was 5 point Calvinsim the hisotorically orthodox position of those group of people called "Baptist's?" Because if it was, and BBC claims to be a historically orthodox Baptist institution, there might be some questions raised as it is obvious that the school's position ON THE ATONEMENT is confused and unclear. It boggles my mind that we can be so dogmatically certain about the eschatalogial doctrines (which we hold so dear!) yet when it comes to a question about the Atonement, questions and ambiguity are embraced. We are absolutley sure about the 7 year tribulation, but not about the nature of Christ's Atonement! Completely sure that the millenium proceeds the second coming yet unsure about God's divne desgin in sending his Son into the world. I'm not trying to be divisive or mean-spirited. This is the line of thought held by many at BBC! What I want to get across is this: Historically Baptist's have existed in two categories: General Baptist's (historically known as Arminian Baptist's whose position was rejected by orthodox theologians as heresy) and Particular Baptist's (that group of Baptist's whose soteriology was Calvinistic and whose theological pre-supositions were viewed as orthodox and biblical.) My question is this... are the General Baptist's the spiritual ancestor's of Baptist Bible College and the GARBC? Let's take a quick look at the theology of the general Baptist's and then ask ourselves the question, "Is this position Biblical? Do we really want the General Baptist's to be our spiritual fore-fathers?" In 17th century England, in reaction to the Calvinistic tendencies of most orthodox theologians, a group of men with Baptistic ecclesiology and Arminian soteriology arose within the church. These theologians (commonly referred to as the General Baptist's) were Arminian in soteriology, holding to a general view of the atonement (thus the name) and other Arminian doctrines (such as the possibility of falling from grace). General Baptist theology slowly began to spread througout England and then into America, waning and pretty much declining in a matter of time. General Baptist theology arose out of an agreeement with the theology of Jacob Arminius and his followers. Does some of BBC's theology arise out of General Baptist Armianism which itself was born through the teachings of theologians historically labeled as heretics and heterox? I say some, because BBC is Calvinistic in most areas of soteriology except for the atonement. My contention is this: Do we hold to the Particular Baptist view of the atonement, or do we hold to an Arminian driven General Baptist view of the Atonement? Let it be known: THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. To claim some kind of middle ground is both historically and theologically inconsistent. I will talk more about this in my next post. I want people to think..."Where do we land historically and biblically? Where do we derive our theological roots? What view of the atonement do we hold?" It's a sad commentary on our institution, as was clear from chapel today, that our view of the atonement is confused and Arminian in nature. There are indeed a remnant of true Baptist's here, and I hope and pray that the biblical view of the atonement will return and flourish within our walls.

My Personal Letter to "Frank Vance"

About an hour ago, I got off the phone with my pastor who contacted John Duncan (an employee at Ligonier) and talked with him for a good bit about the whole situation regarding Frank Vance. First, Duncan and the rest of the employees at Ligonier are greatly stressed about the situation. This person or persons "Frank Vance" (which is a pseudonym by the way), has posted the personal information of Ligonier employees and certain members of the alliance for all the world to see. This has inevitably led to death threats coming at Ligonier left and right, stalkers taking pictures of the Sproul family home and threatening to break in, and constant, malcious, harassment. Duncan told my pastor that Frank Vance's theories were nothing but lies and that Kistler himself has said a number of times that none of what has been reported is true. Ligonier attempted to contact Vance and sit down with him so that he could express his concerns. Turns out Vance is impossible to find, his identity unverifiable and shrouded in mystery. This is an open letter written to this monster who calls himself Frank Vance. I pray for his repentance and earnestly beseech all readers of this blog to pray for the Sproul family and Ligonier during this time.


Dear Frank,

My name is Jordan and I write to you with a deep concern over what has been transpiring over the past few weeks. I'm going to get right to the point. This whole ordeal began because you claimed that Tim Dick conned Don Kistler by removing an important article of a contract which seriously benefitted Ligonier and hurt Kistler. The whole premise of your argument from the beginning was foundationless. You had no proof to back up your story, you offered no proof to back up your story, and you (very successfully) attempted to persuade people through your testimony alone. It boggles my mind to think that so many Christians have bought into this hoax, and I write to you hoping that you'll realize your error and stop the nonsense. I attend a Reformed Baptist Church in Northeast PA, and my pastor is very good friends with Don Kistler. My pastor has talked to Don many times since this whole ordeal began and Don repeatedly tells him that there is not even a hint of truth to any of your claims. Don and R.C. are the best of friends, Don and Ligonier have a great relationship, and Soli Deo Gloria now has the appropriate funds to actually become an even better publisher than they were before (keep in mind that Soli was nearly bankrupt when Ligonier and Kistler merged.) My pastor has contacted people who work at Ligonier and they have expressed a serious fear for what is going on. Family's are being threatened, death threats are being held out to specific employees of Ligonier, stalkers are harassing the Sproul and Dick families, and what makes this worse....Ligonier has no idea who in the world "Frank Vance" even is! According to Ligonier, you've secured your site so well that no one can even figure out who you are. You talk alot about Ligonier sinning by suing you. Can you blame them? After a month of harassment, threats (which you have spawned), and untrue, deceitful statements, they were left with no other choice. According to those involved in the situation, Ligonier tried to get you to sit down with them so that you could express your concerns. Let me tell you how upset I am that you would have the audacity to list the phone numbers and personal adresses of employees at Ligonier and members from the Alliance. No doubt, YOU are the reason that the harassment and the threats continue. You are fueling the fire, and if someone ends up hurt or dead ( you never know what a person on the internet with unrestricted access to certain persons' phone numbers and adresses might do) it will be your fault. I'm amazed that you even call yourself a Christian. Shame on you for your deceit. Shame on you for revealing the personal information of godly men and exposing it to the millions of undiscerning and dangerous people who surf the web. You need to repent for your actions. The Lord Jesus Christ will hold you accountable for your unjust deeds of darkness, if not in this life, then at the last judgement. Leave Ligonier alone and stop the lies.

Jordan D. H.

The Words of Don Kistler...

A little over a month ago, a blogger named "Frank Vance" came out with information about Ligonier Ministries, saying that Tim Dick (President of Ligonier and R.C. Sproul's son in law) had conned Don Kistler by removing an article in a contract that gave Dr. Kistler the right to maintain his managerial position at Soli Deo Gloria. Ever since, an outburst of controversy has erupted over this issue. Vance's website contains many posts throughout the past month in which he has slandered, mistreated, and (in a spirit of division and anger) attacked Ligonier and R.C. Sproul himself. In September, Ligonier filed a lawsuit against Vance and then weeks later, dropped the it. Yet still, Vance is eagerly looking for any opportunity to slander Ligonier and its employees while trying to recruit a band of followers to his cause. His self righteous defense of his sinful speech, his slanderous remarks directed towards R.C. Sproul and his family, and his ignorant and foundationless criticisms of Ligonier are still spewing forth even after Ligonier dropped the suit. I want people to remember why all this started. Frank Vance claimed that Don Kistler was conned into losing his company. Frank Vance claimed that Don Kistler suffered his heart attack because of the trickery and deceit of Ligonier causing him stress. Frank Vance claimed that R.C. Sproul wouldn't even talk to Dr. Kistler and refused him speaking opportunities. Let's hear whatDon Kistler has said for himself. This is a letter written by Dr. Kistler which explains the truth about this whole situation. I want the readers to remember that Frank Vance through his gossip and deceit is responsible for creating this sad division and will be held accountable for his actions. He's quick to point the finger at Ligonier, but he what he doesn't recognize is that HE himself is the one who started this whole controversy by claiming that an unreliable and shady piece of information (with no evidence whatsoever to back it up) was in fact the gospel truth about Tim Dick, Ligonier, and R.C. Sproul.

I have been reading several blogsites lately where things have been posted regarding Ligonier Ministries and its president and CEO, Tim Dick, and the acquisition of Soli Deo Gloria Ministries. I think that I am in a good position to correct some misconceptions and misrepresentations regarding that situation and subsequent allegations.
First, Soli Deo Gloria was not defrauded by Tim Dick or Ligonier. Our ministry was not stolen. We signed an agreement to become part of Ligonier Ministries. There was no switching of contracts, and there was no duplicity in their dealings with us. I have no idea where this came from, or who is making such statements-but they did not come from me.
Second, I am not being mistreated by R.C. Sproul. He is not treating me as a "persona non grata," nor is he failing to speak to me. Neither am I seeing any form of retaliation from Tim Dick, as has been erroneously reported. Those things have simply not happened.
Third, I can accept invitations to speak and/or preach as I am asked. Ligonier has been most accommodating in that respect.
Thanks to all of you who have prayed for me during my recent stroke due to a brain hemorrhage. I am recovering well, albeit slowly. This is why it has taken me until now to respond regarding this matter.
I hope this helps to clear up some of the allegations and accusations that have been made. I also hope it serves to restore people’s opinions regarding Tim Dick, Ligonier Ministries, and my dear friend R. C. Sproul. He remains the object of my highest respect and deepest affection, and I look forward to many years of serving the Lord as part of the Ligonier Ministries team.

Dr. Don Kistler

Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Part 2...

In the year 2003, over 45% of associate pastors within the PCUSA were woman, nearly 30% of active ministers were women, and nearly 20% of pastors/co-co-pastors were women. As the figure reveals, there has been a dramatic increase of women ministers within one denomination in the last 20 years, not counting the many other denominations that have ordained women. Why this sudden increase in women ministers? Egalitarians would assert that Christians are beginning to discover the true biblical teaching regarding female authority in churches. J. Lee Grady, an egalitarian himself, writes that, "through the centuries church leaders have distorted the Bible to deny women the right to preach, teach, pray publicly, pursue ordination, or serve as chairpersons of missions commitees." I pose the question, "Has the Bible really been distorted? Have we failed to realize that women do indeed possess the right to be ministers and teachers in the body of Christ? In order to answer these questions, it is essential that we look at some of the reasons egalitarians use to legitimate their claims.

One passage of Scripture used by J. Lee Grady is Luke 8:1-2 where it is noted that Jesus included women in His band of follwers: "The twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits." In an attempt to prove that women have the biblical authority to occupy the role of pastor, Grady mentions that women in the Old Testament were given roles of significant responsibility. Some of these women include Miriam, Esther, Deborah, Huldah, Phoebe, and others. He argues that women held positions of authority and leadership; therefore to conclude that women cannot hold positions of authority is to disagree with the Scriptures, which testify of female leaders. Is Grady's reasoning faulty? Complementarian Wayne Gruden would certainly think so. In discussing Luke 8:1, Grudem states that although women ministered with Jesus, "the specific ministry engaged in was not preaching the gospel but providing financial resources so that Jesus could carry on His ministry." In discussing the appearance of female leaders in the Old and New Testament, complementarian Thomas Schreiner writes that prophetesses and other female leaders did not excercise authority in the same way that men did. He notes that female leaders were to serve in such a way as to acknowledge male headship.

Both arguments seem plausible, but when we carefully look at egalitarian reasoning it becomes apparent that their position is at odds with the clear teaching of the Bible. First, the passage in Luke says nothing whatsoever about the authority of women in teaching. On the contrary, it merely recognizes that women were included in Jesus' band of followers. It can't be assumed that because women followed Jesus, they taught others also. Second, the recognition of Old and New Testament female leaders to prove the point that women should possess the authority to serve in the ministerial position is an argument that crumbles when one closely looks at it. Deborah was a judge, Esther a queen, Huldah a prophetess, and the women in the New Testament were not pastors.

I don't mean to oversimplify the egalitarian position by only using these specific passages. There are indeed other passages they will use to legitimate their claims, and I will try to adress them in my next posts. A biblically sound theology of manhood and womanhood is eminently practical. The fact that an egalitarian mindset is slowly creeping in among our churches is a sad commentary, and a fearful prospect. We must get this issue right because if we don't, we will soon reap the intellectually rotten fruit of this rotten and unbiblical theology of egalitarianism. A biblical understanding of manhood and womanhood is for our joy!

Jordan

Jordan

Biblical Manhood and Womanhood...

Thorughout the next few days, I will be posting some excerpts from a paper I wrote on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. I pray that it might be found useful...

Across the Spectrum of evangelical churches, many views are held regarding the differences between men and women. Both sides agree that there are indeed differences between them, but the debate concerns differences of role rather than other differences such as physical, emotional etc. Both sides disagree as to the specific roles that men and women should have in church leadership, marriage, parenting, and other areas as well. The egalitarian position and the complementarian position are the two views held among evangelicals. According to Alexander Strauch, "the complementarian view teaches that God created men and women as equals with different gender roles." Complementarians teach that men and women are both equal in dignity, possess the same benefits of salvation, and are both image bearers of God. What complementarianism denies is that both men and women have no distinct differences of role. Egalitarians, however, "teach that God created men and women equally to bear the divine image. Furthermore, they conclude that true equality requires equal ministry opportunities for both sexes. They believe that the submission of the women in marriage and womanly restrictions in Christian ministry are inconsistent witht true biblical equality." In the midst of so many differing views, many evangelicals have come confused and have even resorted to indifference about this particular issue. In this increasing climate of indifference among evangelicals, we must emphatically stand firm and be faithful to what the Bible testifies about manhood and womanhood. The Bible clearly teaches that there are major differences as to the roles men and women have although men and woman remain equal in dignity. The egalitarian positon may seem harmless, even charitable and loving, yet much harm will befall the church if embraced by evangelical leaders. Egalitarians have failed to properly understand the differences of role between men and women in the church and in marriage, resulting in widespread confusion among evangelicals, and problems of heresy in the church. John MacArthur writes that, "Evangelical churches are just as susceptible to the feminist onslaught, and once it gains a foothold, we could very well see similar trends develop within the evangelical community throughout the next twenty years." This is a sad truth, and because of this prospect, a clear understanding of biblical manhood and womanhood is essential to the heart and minid of a Christian.

Jordan