Providence Reformed Baptist Church

Reformed Baptist Church in Remlap, Alabama

By

Ideas have consequences

Someone once wrote an important axiom which we must never forget: “Ideas have consequences.” And in the history of the Church, the truth of this principle can be seen fleshed out in spades for either good or ill. One such example is with the theological system called “Hyper-Calvinism.” Musing on the consequences left in the wake of this theology for nearly a century in English Calvinistic Baptist history, one Baptist minister lamented in 1889: “They did not give up Calvinism [‘they’ being the Hyper-Calvinists], or, in other words, renounce the Confession of 1689, but they overlaid it with an encrustation of something which approached Antinomianism, and ate out the life of the churches, and of the gospel as preached by many ministers. Divine Sovereignty was maintained and taught, not only in exaggerated proportions, but to the practical exclusion of moral responsibility; the obligation of sinners to ‘repent and believe the gospel,’ was ignored, and even denied, and all gospel invitations and pleadings were restricted to those who were supposed to give evidence of a gracious state.”

To sum up this lamentation: the consequences of Hyper-Calvinism left the churches chilled with a dead orthodoxy because it gave more attention to doctrinal theory than holding a real concern for the salvation of sinners. This is not to say that a Christian should downplay or set aside the importance of being faithful to what the Bible teaches – and therefore sound and correct in their doctrine. Far from it! But while we “follow the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13), we must not neglect the application these words of truth teach.

It might be helpful though, at this point, to raise the question: How did Hyper-Calvinism become Hyper-Calvinism? When, where, and with whom did this dangerous theology originate? I call it “dangerous” because it eclipses the saving Gospel on the one hand; and on the other hand, it circumvents God’s commands for a believer to live a holy life in service to others. So then, where Arminianism (the polar-opposite of Hyper-Calvinism) always leads to legalism (and in some cases, liberalism); Hyper-Calvinism tends to trail off toward antinomianism. It is therefore a dangerous theology one must avoid.

But what is the history behind Hyper-Calvinism? The pioneer of Hyper-Calvinist doctrine was a Congregationalist minister named Joseph Hussey (1660-1726). In 1707, Hussey wrote and published a book entitled God’s Operations of Grace but No Offers of Grace. This book put in print for the first time what would become the hallmark of Hyper-Calvinism – that preachers should not give invitations for all to believe on Christ for salvation. Hussey argued that since God has already chosen who will be saved, then salvation should only be “offered” to the elect. In other words, the Gospel should be preached to only those sinners whom God has chosen to save, because it is to them alone that the redeeming grace of God is intended for anyway. To preach the Gospel then to all sinners without exception, Hussey reasoned, would be to deny and undermine the eternal purpose of God in saving His elect. Moreover, it called on the non-elect sinner to do what he was incapable of doing, namely, repent and believe on Christ.

Now to be fair to Joseph Hussey, we must appreciate the times in which he lived to have a better grasp as to why he came to his conclusions that spawned Hyper-Calvinism. For one thing, by the end of the 17th century, the crippling effect of rationalism was gaining much ground among Protestant churches in England. This took form in the belief called Deism. Furthermore, the man-centered theology of Arminianism was becoming more acceptable as well. Thus, for Hussey, his development of Hyper-Calvinism grew out of his own reaction to the pervasive doctrinal errors and heresies which he saw as destroying a faithful Christian witness. Yet, his reaction was a system of belief into which the spirit and temper of his rationalistic age entered. Taking as his starting point the biblical truth of God’s eternal decree, Hussey reasoned from human logic rather than the Divine revelation of Scripture. And the result of his own rationalization were erroneous deductions based on what could not be known in the secret purposes of God’s will (Rom. 11:33-36). But worse, Hussey’s theology did not remain in a quiet corner of his mind. His ideas took root among the Calvinistic Baptists in the early 18th century, nearly silencing a Gospel witness for a whole generation. Ideas therefore do indeed have consequences!

By

A Beautiful Palace without a Door

Arminianism, as a whole, sets aside the biblical teaching of God’s absolute sovereignty in salvation. Essentially, it presents man’s will as sovereign, and divides the credit for salvation between God and man. The Arminian therefore denies the clear and unmistakable testimony of Scripture that all men are equally condemned in sin but, for reasons unknown to us and to the praise of His grace, God does not deal equally with those who are equally undeserving. As the apostle Paul argued in Romans 9:11-18, God’s “purpose of election” does not depend “on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.” Therefore, when it comes to why anyone is saved, it is due to the sovereign will of God alone. For He “has mercy on whomever He wills, and He hardens whomever He wills” (italics mine).

But despite the errors of Arminianism, we must ask: If we deny Arminianism, does this mean that we deny God’s love for all men? Does it mean that we refuse to proclaim Christ as Savior, and the only one in whom all sinners should call upon for salvation? And since God’s grace in salvation is a “distinguishing grace” (choosing some to be saved rather than all), does this truth overturn and rule out the universal proclamation of the Gospel?

Sadly, there have been certain people in the Church who would answer “yes” to each of these questions. That while affirming strongly and rightly the sovereignty of God’s grace in saving sinners, their zeal for this biblical truth actually hinders and impedes the progress of evangelism. In fact, not only is the work of evangelism encumbered, but its obstruction is both justified and encouraged. “Since God is sovereign in salvation,” it is reasoned, “then to call upon all sinners without exception to receive Christ is to deny divine sovereignty. Indeed, no sinner should be publicly urged to trust in Christ since they may not be one of God’s elect.”

The historic and technical name for this belief is called “Hyper-Calvinism.” Like the error of Arminianism, which presses the biblical truth of man’s responsibility beyond the scope of Scripture, Hyper-Calvinism does the same thing with God’s sovereign grace. The Hyper-Calvinist therefore reads the Bible with one eye open. He sees nothing but God’s sovereignty on every page of Scripture without ever seeing that the sinner is accountable to God for what he does and how he responds to the Gospel. Hence, the Hyper-Calvinist ends up rationalizing evangelism out of God’s plan of redemption. So, with one eye open, all he can see is Romans 9, which clearly attests to God’s sovereign election in saving sinners – but with the other eye closed, he misses Romans 10, which declares that saving faith in Jesus Christ will only come by hearing and responding to the preaching of the Gospel (Rom. 10:13-17).

Hyper-Calvinism then, is what John Duncan (1796-1870) once called, “a beautiful palace without a door; the house is perfect, but there is no getting into it.” What Dr. Duncan meant by this memorable analogy was that while Hyper-Calvinism affirms the truth of God’s sovereignty in salvation (hence, it is a “beautiful palace”), yet tragically, it sees no need to take the Gospel to sinners and call them to the Savior (thus, “there is no getting into” this “beautiful palace”). This is why whenever Hyper-Calvinism has settled down in a local church, usefulness for God’s Kingdom and active compassion for the souls of men soon evaporates from the life of that believing body.

But, in the light of this, a crucial clarification must be made: Hyper-Calvinism is an aberration of true Calvinism. To say this another way: there is a real difference between a Calvinist and a Hyper-Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinism is false Calvinism. It is a deviation from what is true orthodox Calvinism. A true Calvinist sets forth the sovereignty of God in salvation without denying or detracting from man’s responsibility. He reads the Bible with both eyes open. He affirms with all his might that no one is saved unless God has chosen to save them apart from any foreseen merit in the sinner (Rom. 9:16; 2 Tim. 1:9); and yet, he also maintains with utmost clarity, that unless a sinner believes on Christ and repents he will not be saved (Acts 16:31; 17:30). Thus, he urges all sinners to lay hold of Christ and trust in Him alone for salvation. A Hyper-Calvinist however will not make such a Gospel appeal.

So then, to deny Arminianism, we must be careful that we do not react to the opposite extreme in the quagmire of Hyper-Calvinism.

By

Keeping the Sabbath: Is it morally binding?

Is the fourth commandment morally binding? When God commands His people in Exodus 20:8 to, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” – are Christians under the New Covenant morally obligated and bound to keep this command? On the surface, it would seem that there is no such obligation, if we were to survey the evangelical landscape at large.

Why with the strong influence of Dispensationalism to the modern-day revival of Antinomianism, both of which advocate the false premise that since a Christian is “under grace” he is no longer morally bound to keep God’s moral law – it is really no wonder that in the last hundred years, “keeping the Sabbath” as God commanded, has virtually disappeared from the thinking, not to mention the practice, of today’s evangelical Christian. To raise the question then, “Is the fourth commandment morally binding?”, is to invite either the strongest hostile aversion to the very idea, calling forth accusations like, “That’s legalism!”; or it is simply to receive a blank stare indicating that no one is home – because they have no clue as to what you even mean by the question. “What’s the fourth commandment?,” they would say.

But despite either reaction to this leading question, we must answer it because Scripture itself forces the issue. The first and most important point to be made, as to the moral obligation of Sabbath-keeping, is that this was a creation ordinance before it was inscribed into God’s moral law (Gen. 2:2-3). Like marriage and work, God instituted Sabbath-keeping for man in his innocence before the Fall. This fact alone establishes the moral obligation of the Sabbath, as well as, its perpetuity. Moreover, this fact also builds up what Jesus Himself declared in Mark 2:27, that, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” From Creation before the Fall, God made the Sabbath for man – to benefit him spiritually, morally, and physically.

Furthermore, the Sabbath was made for man in general, not the Jews in particular. This is a crucial point because many believe today that the Sabbath was purely a Jewish ordinance and ceremony, to be strictly kept as a sign of God’s covenant with the Jews. While it is true that there were “sabbaths” to be kept in connection with Israel’s ceremonial laws as a sign of the Mosaic economy (Exod. 31:16-17), which now have been fulfilled by Christ (Col. 2:16-17); yet, the Sabbath commandment in the moral law stands on the grounds of what God established in creation (cf. Exod. 20:11), which obviously predates and supersedes the Jews and any covenant God made with them.

But of course, the second important reason for the moral obligation of Sabbath-keeping, is simply that this commandment is a part of the moral law itself. If I were to ask any professing Christian: “Are you under obligation by God to have no other gods before Him, not to make any graven image and worship it, and not to take the Lord’s name in vain – how many believers do you suppose would honestly say, ‘Nope. Don’t have to keep that anymore?'” Or if I asked a fellow Christian: “Are you still under obligation to honor your parents (as well as all human authorities), not to murder, not to commit adultery, not to steal, not to slander, and not to covet anyone’s possessions – do you think he would honestly reply, ‘I think I can safely ignore all those commandments?’ ” To be fair, I really don’t believe any true Christian would deny their moral responsibility to keep those commandments.

Well then, why not the Sabbath? “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” is as much a part of the moral law as, “You shall not steal.” It’s a divine command with a moral obligation. To say that the Sabbath command is not morally binding, is to deny the moral law as a whole (cf. Jam. 2:9-11). The Ten Commandments stand and fall together, because they sum up what it means to love God and to love our neighbor. This is why they continue in the New Covenant, as God writes them on the minds and hearts of the new nature (Jer. 31:31-34; eg. Rom. 7:22); and why the Holy Spirit therefore enables every believer to fulfill them (Rom. 8:4). Hence, the fourth commandment, with the other nine, is morally binding for the New Covenant believer, demonstrating the fruit of saving grace.

 

By

The Whole Gospel

Amidst evangelicalism in our present culture, there’s been a revival of sorts with returning to and rediscovering the Gospel. Whether its seen in conferences, books, or on Internet websites and blogs – the Gospel of God’s grace is “all the buzz”, if you will. To see and hear more talk and teaching explaining how God saves sinners by His grace alone through Christ alone is both encouraging and necessary. We must be clear about the Gospel. We must know what it means and the way to unpack it for sinner and saint alike. All such discussion among Christians is an ear-mark of biblical spirituality.

Yet, while there’s so much to be celebrated in this gospel-revival – like most movements in church history – there’s always something lacking, with some error that actually minimizes the rediscovered truth. In the present case, the excitement over this great renewed interest in the Gospel, has in many circles, laid an exclusive weight on nothing but the Gospel indicatives. This refers only to what God has done to save sinners. Obviously this truth is at the heart of the Gospel and must be preached and understood – if we’re to be faithful to what the Bible bears witness to, as to why any sinner is rescued from their sin and reconciled to God (e.g., Rom. 3:21-5:11; Eph. 1:3-14; Col. 1:13-14).

However, if one places all their emphasis on what God has done to save us, then they will end up with only half of what makes the Gospel good news. And thus, unwittingly, they will wind up in serious error. In fact, where this accent is so strongly pressed on the indicatives of the Gospel, it has brought many professing Christians to embrace ideas about the Christian life that literally truncate all that Scripture reveals about God’s saving grace. And what’s cut off from their understanding are the imperatives which the Gospel calls every believer to live by.

To say it another way: many Christians in our day think that to be Gospel-centered is to only talk about what God has saved us from, without also confessing what God has saved us to. It’s reading only the first eleven chapters of Romans, while ignoring the last five chapters which tell us how Gospel-centered Christians live. The practical outworking of misreading the Gospel in this way, is that you have Christians claiming God’s forgiveness without God’s mandate to pursue holiness (cf. Heb. 12:14). In other words, obedience to God is optional since we’re “under grace and not under law.” This is the mind-set behind an indicative only-gospel.

But let’s be clear: this way of thinking is wrong because it’s reading only half of what the Gospel is about. Since God has saved us in Christ, then our lives should give proof of what the Lord has actually done. This is why, for instance, in Colossians 3:1-17, we begin by reading what God has done for us in salvation – by raising us up with Christ and enclosing our lives in Him. This is the indicative of the Gospel. However, the teaching doesn’t stop there. Since we’re united in Christ, with a new life in Him – there’s now a distinctive way this spiritual union is applied. Colossians 3:5 starts the application: “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire…” Here’s the rest of the Gospel. It’s in the imperatives. It’s God’s divine call for His people to flesh out what He has done for them, by living lives in obedience to Him.

And this obedience God commands from us is not impossible, because it’s carried out by God’s power (cf. Phil. 2:12-13). This is why the Lord’s imperatives are the other half of the Gospel – because the life God is calling us to live is the new life we have received due to His saving grace. Therefore the pursuit of holiness, godliness, and righteousness tell the rest of the Gospel story. It demonstrates the power of God’s salvation for all the world to see with both feet on the ground.

So then, in all our “gospel-talk”, let’s remember this: the biblical Gospel declares what God has done, while commanding us how to live. There’s no separation between the two: The Gospel is both indicatives and imperatives. “And by this we know that we have come to know [Christ], if we keep his commandments” (1 John 2:3).

By

Beware the Scoffer!

From my earliest days as a Christian, the Book of Proverbs has been an ever-constant companion. It is certainly the most studied book from the Old Testament I’ve invested in for my own personal sanctification. One central reason I have valued this portion of God’s Word so much is due to its primary purpose: to distill practical wisdom in how to live godly lives in an ungodly world. Hence, Proverbs is a divinely inspired “how-to” book. But it’s not “how-to” in a self-help way or merely a moralistic book of pithy sayings. Far from it! The Book of Proverbs is “breathed out by God” to profit the believer in Christ “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” so that he may be “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Thus Proverbs has a redemptive purpose which points us to God as our only source, hope, and confidence for living wisely – which is living righteously (Prov. 1:7; 3:5-12).

One of the greatest benefits we find in Proverbs is the way in which it gives us “a window on the world.” In short, Proverbs is truth in street clothes. A Christian is provided by the divine wisdom of this book the insight and understanding in how things work and how people behave. This is especially helpful in the way that Proverbs teaches us prudence in handling relationships. Whether it’s with friends (Prov. 25:17;27:14, 17), the bad-tempered (Prov. 26:17), the foolish (Prov. 23:9), the powerful (Prov. 23:1-3), the adulteress (Prov. 5:1-23), and even with our children (Prov. 29:15) – Proverbs provides us with godly wisdom as to how we must interface with all types of people we will cross paths with in this fallen world.

One such person we are warned about in Proverbs is the scoffer. In the last eight years, I have personally come to see more people who fall into this category of character (and many of them within the visible church!). The very first mention of the scoffer in Proverbs is in chapter one, where the wisdom of God is personified as saying to the scoffer, “How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing?” (1:22). By this one question we’re given a special insight into what this kind of sinner takes pleasure in: it is their scoffing. 

By definition, to scoff is to deride or to mock. The root meaning of this word in the original Hebrew meant to “make mouths at.” It is the picture of conceited cynics who hold with indignant contempt what is sacred, and make every effort to ridicule it. It’s your modern atheists, like Richard Dawkins; or your religious apostates, like Bishop Shelby Spong; or your political pundits, like Stephen Colbert. These are the proverbial scoffers who take delight in their scoffing.

At the heart of a scoffer is what Proverbs 21:24 calls, “arrogant pride.” In fact, this is how Proverbs describes the scoffer – as someone “who acts with arrogant pride.” He’s not just prideful, but his pride is combined with arrogance. He’s therefore full of conceit, whereby he looks down his nose at everyone around him; believing that he alone has all the answers. However, Proverbs 14:6 tells us that the scoffer seeks wisdom in vain. Despite the fact that he thinks he’s wiser than everyone else, yet true wisdom is totally out of his reach. Indeed, he betrays his inability to gain wisdom, by his inability to control his temper with those who disagree with him. This is not because he is stupid or ignorant, but rather, he’s not teachable. Thus, he is puffed up in his own knowledge rather than trusting God for His wisdom to lead, rule, and govern his life.

When confronted with a scoffer, how do you suppose we should handle them? How would God’s wisdom direct our steps in the face of a scoffer? First, we must not correct them. Proverbs 9:7-8 actually warns us against correcting a scoffer. In fact, if we do proceed to correct them, we’re told that the scoffer will both hate us and abuse us for the correction. This is what Jesus Himself was warning against in Matthew 7:6, when He said that we must not “cast [our] pearls before swine.” If we do so, the “swine” will trample our pearls and then turn and tear us into pieces! Simply put: with a scoffer, there’s nothing more offensive than to be corrected. It is wisdom then to just leave them alone (see Matt. 15:12-13).

Second, we must avoid them. Proverbs 22:10 calls us to “drive out the scoffer.” Why? Because in their absence, “strife will go out” and “quarreling and abuse will cease.” If we want peace in our relationships, then we must flee the scoffer. We should pray for them to be sure, but it’s unwise and unhealthy to pursue a relationship with such arrogant, irrational, obstinate sinners. For they cannot be reasoned with and all their deeds are divisive. So, Christian, be wise – and steer clear of the scoffer!