And Now Back To Our Regular Scheduled Program...

We now return to my two favorite topics- the Gospel of Christ and preaching. The two most definitely go together. There is nothing as satisfying to my soul than to hear or read a preacher herald the glorious Gospel. As I have been studying (hence all the posts about Lloyd-Jones) the life and sermons of Dr. Martyn Lloyd- Jones, I am always drawn to Christ through his preaching. What a joy it must have been to sit under his preaching. Not teaching but preaching. Imparting information is one thing but to herald the Word of God is quite another. Anyone can impart biblical information but not everyone is called and gifted by God to preach. All preachers are teachers but not all teachers are preachers.

What then is preaching? Well, the "Doctor" once gave a lecture on "What is Preaching." As usual, on this subject he starts with his own inadequacies and then deals with the negatives before the positives.

Well, to me preaching is a great mystery; it is one of the most mysterious things of all, and that is why I find it eludes any kind of analysis. I do not know what your experience is but, personally, I find that I never know what is going to happen when I enter a pulpit. I am constantly being surprised- sometimes in the sense of being disappointed, but at other times surprised at the amazing grace of God. Sometimes when I go into a pulpit, thinking I am going to preach in a wonderful way, it is disastrous. Other times, when I go with inadequate preparation because I have been travelling, am doing too much, and really feeling that I have no right to be in the pulpit at all, I find ease and facility and am aware of power. That is my difficulty. There is this mysterious element in preaching that makes it well nigh impossible for one to speak about it.*

I say that I have been wrestling with this subject for forty years and more and I have had two experiences which I shall never forget. I have a feeling that I have only really preached twice in my life, and on both occasions I was dreaming.*

...a man who does not know something about his unworthiness has no right to enter the pulpit at all.* 

Again there was a term used which I abominate, the term 'pulpiteer'. You had great pulpiteers, the Henry Ward Beechers and people like that, who did infinite harm to preaching. These were great masters of assembly, bombastic men who reigned mid and late Victorian era.*

What is the difference between preaching and delivering a lecture? I think this is most important. I think I have detected the tendency for people to imagine that giving a lecture from a pulpit it becomes preaching. But it does not...I say that is not preaching. There is a place for lecturing. Lecturing is essential and there must be teaching in the church. But all I am concerned to say is that is not preaching.*

Some people seem to think that preaching consists of a running commentary on a passage of Scripture. I am not saying this does not have its place and function. You take a paragraph and make a comment on every single verse as a kind of running commentary. That is not preaching.*

The preparation goes on inside one's mind and heart and spirit. I do not know how it happens at all...*

What is this point, then, about preaching? Well, it is the extraordinary situation in which something is happening  between the man who is speaking and the congregation that is listening... Here are spiritually minded people they have come prepared and they are under the influence of the Spirit, and so these two things are blended together. There is a unity between preacher and hearers and there is a transaction backwards and forwards. That, to me, is true preaching... When there is true preaching you cannot do that (put a book down), you are gripped, you are taken up, you are mastered. And I argue that is an essential and a vital part of preaching.*

If a man reads a manuscript in the pulpit it is destructive of true preaching. I query even the rightness of writing a sermon out in full and committing it to memory.*

A sermon which is perfect in form, its diction, and in everything else, is one that militates against preaching. You know the apostle Paul in his writings suddenly forgets, as it were, what he had set out to say. Sometimes he interrupts his own thought; he does not complete his own sentences and he never ends them. How do we explain these breaks, these anacolutha, as they call them? Well, this is the freedom of the Spirit. Paul is taken up; he mentions the name of the Lord and off he goes to some great apostrophe. Then he may never return.*

Now here is an example of his own preaching taken from one of his sermons preached in his first ministry at Aberavon:

The more I think about it, the less surprised I am at the apparent and increasing failure of organised Christianity to appeal to the masses in these days; for the plain and obvious fact is that we, who still continue to attend our places of worship, have more or less 'sold the pass' and have neglected or given that vital principle which ever was and always will be the true heritage of the church of Christ on earth. For it appears, on looking into it, that the church has always triumphed and had her greatest successes when she has preached the two-fold message of the depravity of human nature and the absolute necessity of the direct intervention of God for its final salvation, or, in the words of Peter, that 'there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.' A church which preaches that, either attracts or repels, you either join her or hate her and persecute her,- one thing is for certain, you cannot ignore her, for her message will not ignore you; it hurts, it upbraids, it condemns, it infuriates, or else it draws you. You are either right in, or definitely outside. If you feel you can save yourself, then this message annoys you, you resent the impertinence and the interference with your life; but if you are lost and helpless you run into her open arms for release and salvation.* 

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

* Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Knowing the Times (Edingburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), quotes taken from chapter titled "What is Preaching", p. 258-278

* Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Evangelistic Sermons at Aberavon ( Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983), pp. 1-2

   

On "Calvinist Worship"

Calvinism has always sought to remove distractions from the due worship belonging to the Triune God. In our day, churches strive on making worship culturally relevant. In the minds of many, the church must create a worship setting that resembles the world inorder to captivate the culture. They fail to realize that by structuring worship in direct likeness to the culture, worship is subject to change and left at the imagination of finite men. No longer is "..singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord "(Col 3:16) enough, no. The preacher must now rely on something other than what God has commanded as worship, inorder to keep his congregation satisfied. Here is renowned church historian Owen Chadwick on Calvinist Worship and the removal of distractions during the Reformation:


"The Swiss principle demanded Scriptural authority for all things in ecclesiastical polity and the worship of the Church. Simplicity was godly, all else was distraction. The medieval church seemed to the Reformed like an overfurnished clutter, a shop of antique junk, where the worshipper could not apprehend true holiness because his vision was screened by trinkets, side altars, statues, coloured windows, pomp, vestments, saints, and ceremonies, as though the listening ears of prayer were deafend by the clangour of ritual noise. Some simple folk, especially women, regretted the loss of colour, the departure of the statues and banners. Not so the true Calvinist. He felt as though he had been present at a cleansing of the Temple, elevated and purged in spirit, conscious of a wind of Hebraic purity rushing through the church, sweeping away squalor and superstition and the ornaments which anchored his soul to earth."


awretchsaved

*Chadiwck, Owen. The Reformation. London: Penguin, 1990. (Pg.184-185)

On A Final Note Regarding Israel

I find it appropriate to explain something things that Reformed folks believe concerning Israel. It is proper since many Dispensationalists and Christian Zionists don't understand what we believe. I also speak from experience.  Many assume they know what covenantalists believe because they have been taught by Dispensationalists on our position. Others get upset when people object to their view of Israel and assume they know what their opponents position is and simply react in ignorance. Concerning the latter group Stephen Sizer aptly says, "Dispensationalists like to think that they alone read the Bible literally and are more consistent than other Christians, who for example 'spiritualize' away the promises made to the Israelites. That is probably why they get upset when some conservative evangelicals beg to differ."* In any case they seem to not want to learn our Biblical position. And if they do wish to learn it may be because they wish to get ammo for their objections rather than to sincerely understand.

Since quite a few Dispensationalists have used the "I'v been studying the Bible for (insert number of years)" argument and I've only been studying a measly nine years. I will allow others that have been studying the Bible longer or just as long, as said Dispensationalists, to speak. Bear in mind that this is by no means an exhaustive affirmation of the covenantal view but to alleviate fears and to help clear up mass confusion.

John Stott:

Away then with anti-Semitism! It has been an appalling scandal in the history of Europe, and even the Christian Church has been implicated. Christians should be 'pro-Semitic', in the sense that we recognize how the people of Israel have been highly favoured by God. We Gentiles are their debtors, Paul wrote (Romans 15:27). We owe them a huge spiritual debt especially in their bequest to the world of both the Scriptures and the Christ.

Who, then, according to the New Testament perspective, is Israel today?  The answer will have enormously surprised most of its readers, and still surprises many today. It is that true Israel is neither Jews nor Israelis, but believers in the Messiah.*

Stephen Sizer:

It is not that the church has replaced Israel. Rather, in the new covenant church, God has fulfilled the promises originally made to the old covenant church. So, for example, when Jesus affirms Peter's declaration of faith and says, 'on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it' (Matthew 16:18), the Greek word translated by 'church' is ekklesia- the very word used in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to describe God's people.*

It is true that at various times in the past, churches and church leaders have toelrated or incited anti-Semitism and even attacks on Jewish people. Racism is a sin and without excuse. Anti-Semitism must be repudiated unequivocally. However, we must not confuse apples and oranges. Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, desite the attempts to broaden the definition. Criticizing a political system as racist is not racist. Judaism is a religious system. Israel is a sovereign nation. Zionism is a political system. these three are not synonymous. I respect Judaism, repudiate anti-Semitism, encourage interfaith dialogue and defend Israel's right to exist within borders recognized by the international community and agreed with her neighbours. But like many Jews, I disagree with a political system that gives preference to expatriate Jews born elsewhere in the world, while denying the same rights to the Arab Palestianians born in the country itself.* 

This is a favourite 'straw man' of Christian Zionists. They criticize their opponents for implying that that church has 'replaced' Israel. The implication is that the Jewish people cease to have any role within the purposes of God. This is clearly refuted in Romans 9-11.* 

The New Testament does not teach that the Gentiles have superseded the Jews. But neither does it teach that the Jewish people retain a position of superiority over the Gentiles or over the church. There is continuity between the believers under the old covenant who looked forward to the coming of Christ and believers under the new covenant who look forward to his return. When Jesus died he broke down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile.*

See, it really isn't as scary as many Dispensationalists say it is. A little honest learning can go a long way. Both sides must sincerely seek to understand the other's position. Or else you run the risk of objecting to a statement with ignorant gibberish.


"For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,.."(Eph 2:14–15). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Stephen Sizer, Zion's Christian Soldiers?, ( Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), p. 15

Ibid, p. 167

*Ibid, p. 15

*Ibid, p. 17

*Ibid, p. 16

*Ibid, p.55

The Real Definition Of 'Replacement Theology'

It is ironic that some Christian Zionists accuse their critics of holding to a 'replacement theology'- the idea that the church has replaced Israel- when many actually believe Israel will soon replace the church as God's people on earth. They have, as Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian observed, made 'Israel the bride and the Church the concubine.*

I have been arguing a similar point to that of Stephen Sizer (the source of the above quote) since I left Dispensationalism. People may be wondering why I am coming so strong on this topic. The answer is because I've seen all the confusion that has been caused by the Dispensational folly. To teach a future replacement of the Church with Israel has caused great harm and massive confusion to the Bride of Christ. People have approached me (innocently and some arrogantly), as I've preached on certain texts, with objections and questions like "but isn't that a promise for Israel?" (the new covenant).

Confusion and the arrogant and even silly statements such as this one by John Hagee:

For 25 almost 26 years now, I have been pounding the evangelical community over television. The Bible is a very pro-Israel book. If a Christian admits 'I believe the Bible,' I can make him pro-Israel supporter or they must denounce their faith. So I have the Christians over a barrel, you might say.*

Or this one from the International Christian Embassy, Jerusalem:

This promise (Gen. 12:3) was given to the Hebrew Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob- or Israel. So whoever blesses Israel will be blessed. But how can you bless Israel? The answer is easy: prayer; finances; come to Israel as a volunteer.*

In regards to Hagee's claim- it is quite laughable. It is the second one that is very alarming. Of all the ways Christians are supposed to "bless" Israel, not one of them is the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ Jesus! If any 'replacement theology' is going on it is the replacing the proclamation of Jesus Christ to Israel with volunteering!

Covenantalists are not liberal, anti-Semitic or into 'replacement' theology. That some dispensationalists believe Israel will replace the church is another matter...*

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise... And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God" (Ga  3:28-29,6:16).  Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Stephen Sizer, Zion's Christian Soldiers?, ( Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007), p. 43
* Ibid, p. 11
* Ibid, p. 43
*Ibid, p. 17

An Example Of Puritan Piety: John Bruen

I am always encouraged while reading on the examplary lives of past saints. One man who little is said of goes by the name of John Bruen. John was a laymen, (which is probably why little is said of him) but I was edified by reading small portions about his life in Owen Chadwick's work: " The Reformation".

"He rose at five a.m. in winter, between three and four a.m. in summer, and spent an hour or two in meditating upon the Bible, interceding for his family or writing out a sermon which he had lately heard,to such purpose that when he died he left many orderly volumes of manuscript devotions in his study. He observed the text 'seven times a day will I praise thee' at fixed points of the day. He woke his household by ringing a bell for family prayers, and though most of his prayers were extempore, he always began with a collect to convince the ignorant who thought a set form to be unlawful. He chose godly men from the neighbourhood to be his servents, catechized them, and held meetings with them to discuss cases of conscience; and after evening prayers the servants used to continue their devotions in the kitchen. He bought two large Bibles and put them on lecterns in his hall and parlour that the servants and visitors might consult them."

" His motto which he used to write on the title page of his books, was Hallelujah. He keenly observed the particular providences, and kept a journal of them, from which these extracts have survived:

1601. My servant going with his cart laden, fell down, and the wheels being iron bound went over his leg, yet hurt him not at all: Laus Deo, praised be God

1602. My son John going into the field, took up a scythe to see how he could mow, the scythe entered into his stocking to the shinbone, shaving his hair, and came out at the back side of his leg, and touched no flesh nor skin: Laus Deo, praised be God."

"To his tenants he was always charitable, not exacting high rents, encouraging their labour, making an annual allowance to buy winter clothes for the poor, visiting them when sick, sometimes giving them his good suits. In times of scarcity he fed many at his table. His hospitality was bountiful, and far from the coventional portrait of a puritan."

Owen Chadwick concludes:

"Such men were impregnated with Biblical texts; conscious of the imminent hand of God upon every act and moment; denying the possibility of chance; so teaching the utter depravity of man since the fall of Adam, and the glory of redeeming power......".

I hope you are blessed by this and encouraged to increase your devotion to the Lord.

In Christ, awretchsaved


*Chadiwck, Owen. The Reformation. London: Penguin, 1990. (Pg.180-182)

A Question(s) For Christian Zionists

A brief clarification- I do not use the term "Zionist" in a derogatory manner. It is the simplest way to identify Christians that believe certain land belongs to believing or unbelieving Jews.

My question is this: If there happens to be a Palestinian family (there really are many) in Palestine that are part of the bride of Christ- are they to support the unbelieving nation of Israel, as they force them into refugee camps and inflict pain and suffering on their family, because the Jewish people believe that land is divinely theirs? What are they to do? Would you have them join the very people that are causing them harm? What if the said family does not wish to leave their home, which allegedly belongs to "Israel?" What would you have them do?

A fair and honest question. Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

For Our Arab Brothers...

I just started reading a book- Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God's Prophetic Plan for Ishmael's Line by Tony Maalouf. I believe the name of the book says it all. I just thought I would share a short bit from it:

I do not remember the various details of the message, but I still recall that somehow the subject turned to Abraham and Hagar. "If Abraham was not so impatient," said the speaker, "we would have been spared much headache in the Middle East today." Implied was that Abraham's impatience before God-compared to our great patience, obviously-led to Ishmael's birth and sustained enmity and struggle between the line of Ishmael and the line of Isaac until today. Though it was not the first time I had heard similar claims about Abraham's role in the birth of Ishmael, it was the first time I stopped to ponder the reasons behind and the consequences of such criticism. What increased my interest in the subject was an earlier discovery of a veiled truth regarding Ishmael. Over the past few years, I have come to conclude that negative comments like that of the West Coast preacher betray three crucial facts related to the line of the slave woman. First, they show how narrow our view of God's sovereignty is. The same God who planned a redemptive role for the line of Isaac (Gen. 17:19) designed a major historical role for the line of Ishmael as well (16:10; 17:20). God planned to save thousands of those guilty of crucifying Christ through the same death they were culpable for (Acts 2-3).

Second, they reveal how much current events in the Middle East influence our interpretation of the biblical text. Finally, they disclose our ignorance of many details in biblical and secular history, for we assume that history supports our theology in the matter of Ishmael's enmity to Isaac, when it does not. Had Abraham not been so impatient, we might have been spared the headache of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East today. Yet replacing Arabs with another ethnic group might have only changed the name of the conflict and unfortunately kept the headache. On the other hand, removing Hagar's descendants from the picture would affect many details we tend to ignore in God's design of world history and human redemption. First, it removes large sections of secular history important to the fulfillment of God's purpose. Most important, it removes a multitude of names written in the book of life throughout salvation history. Finally, it removes several inspired portions of the biblical text related to this specific ethnic line. The West Coast preacher may not have intended his casual comment to cause such damage. It was most likely a passing remark, and not premeditated. It may also have been said as an irony in order to magnify human guilt and vindicate God in his ways. Yet, this passing statement is only one among many signals that betray a negative stereotype concerning the slave woman and her line, common in many Christian circles today. The confusion can only be overcome by an in-depth study of the Word of God and an objective pursuit of the truth. However, the negative image of Ishmael in Christian circles in the West may be related, among other things, to deeply rooted biases against Arabs in general in broader Western societies.* (Underlining mine).

We shall not forget our Arab brethren.

 "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation" (Ge 17:19–20). Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Tony Maalouf. Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God's Prophetic Plan for Ishmael's Line (p. 17-19). Kindle Edition.