I’ve been trying to emphasize the Gospel as the foundational content of the Christian life for many years. While I’ve worked at fresh articulations of the Gospel, there are a lot of familiar articulations of the Gospel that show up in my preaching and teaching with high school students and the adults in chapel and in my classes.

For example, these are four different Gospel articulations that I’ve used repeatedly in speaking and teaching. They are not definitions or creeds. They articulations that summarize and balance the content of the Gospel as I understand it. It’s language I want my hearers to hear frequently. Sometimes in phrases. Sometimes in whole sermons or lessons.

Announcement: The Gospel is the glad announcement that God himself, through Jesus, has done everything necessary to rescue his broken world and save its broken people from judgment and ruin. All persons are invited to believe this glad announcement, to be forgiven and to become a disciple of Jesus who is King and Lord. [Continue reading]

The apparent crisis in giving the Gospel its right and Biblically healthy place in evangelical Christian faith exists on several levels.

First, there is the level of scriptural definition. While I can answer the question “What is the Gospel?” it is the Biblical material that should form my definition. Before I give some simple Gospel articulations, what are the Biblical sources of Gospel definition?

Does the Bible give a definition of the Gospel? Or is the Gospel a theme that connects alll of scripture, yielding definitional material and language, but also context, meaning and significance for many other things? [Continue reading]

In a recent sermon, I said that I was deeply concerned about the understanding of the Gospel that I hear among adult Christians and especially preachers. I was not just making noise. With every passing year, I’m amazed that the level of Gospel understanding seems to be lower and lower among Christian adults. This isn’t just a failure to hear the Gospel in the terms and definitions I prefer. No, it is an ever lowering articulation of the Gospel, a replacement of the Gospel with other concerns and, perhaps most distressing of all, a replacement and confusion of the Gospel-centered mission itself.

I expect that this emphasis on my part will not endear me to some people, mostly on grounds that I am failing to see the significance of things like moral issues, behavior change and political causes. I’ve come to the point that I realize a discussion of the Gospel is going to have a predictable shape:

1) We all know the Gospel. It’s basic.
2) Once you’ve preached or taught the Gospel, then you need to deal with other things.
3) If you are constantly trying to bring the Gospel to the forefront as the main concern, you’re missing the importance of things like behavior change and obedience. [Continue reading]

REMINDER: Commenters should remember that the future interview segments will cover many topics.

A few days ago I asked Catholic blogger and philosopher Bryan Cross to do an interview here at IM on the subject of Christian Unity. Bryan blogs at Principium Unitatis. Bryan is a prolific writer and was gracious to do the interview. He’s given me enough content for several posts, so I am going to divide the interview into three parts. In part one, Bryan will talk about his journey from Pentecostal to Calvinist to Anglican to Catholic. Then I’ll post his answer to my first question on his personal passion for Christian unity.

Bryan is a patient teacher and apologist. Obviously, many IM readers will disagree with parts of his presentation while others will applaud. Having given articulate Lutherans and Anglicans space this year, I want to give Bryan time to talk about his personal mission of promoting church unity and reunion in the Catholic Church.

Some of you may want to read Bryan’s response to the “All the Romery People” piece at Mockingbird.

Thanks for coming to Internet Monk.com for this interview, Bryan. Take a couple of paragraphs and tell us your basic story, what you are doing now and about your family.

Thanks Michael for the invitation. I’ve enjoyed reading Internet Monk.com for the last couple years. I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to it in this way. [Continue reading]

A few Catholic oriented items here at IM, freely borrowing from other blogs.

I’m going to surprise a lot of you with an interview post with Catholic blogger Bryan Cross, writer at Principium Unitatis. I’ve often been a bit snarky to Bryan, but when it comes to the subject of Christian unity, he’s really an eloquent and optimistic Catholic voice. Read his blog bio and you’ll see he’s had a fascinating journey. I’ll be asking him questions about the recent Anglican arrangement and the overall issue of Christian unity.

Bryan’s blog was the original source for some excellent lectures by Ave Maria University professor Dr. Lawrence Feingold. His current collection are portraits of the Early Church Fathers. Dr. Feingold is an outstanding teacher, whether you agree with him or not. The entire series on The Church and Israel is outstanding Catholic teaching.

Fr. Walter Barron has a review of Alastair McGrath’s Christianity’s Dangerous Idea and a discussion of the issue of Church authority. [Continue reading]

UPDATE: Just banned a commenter. The admonition to “stop wasting my time” and “leave the SBC” was unacceptable. New commenters- read FAQ section 10 please.

For the past two years, I’ve been trying to get a single question answered:

What are the actual historical evidences, before Zwingli, for the Baptist view of the Lord’s Supper?

I’ve asked this question high, low, in-between and everywhere I could get a hearing.

Long story short: No answer. If there are evidences, then someone needs to write a book, asap. It’s long overdue.

Now let’s be clear what I am saying and not saying. My reading of the New Testament is deeply shaped by my Baptist upbringing, and it’s hard for me to read anything in any discussion of the Lord’s Supper that isn’t a version of the Zwinglian position. Baptists, at their best, such as in the Second London Baptist Confession, articulated a view quite similar to the language of John Calvin: in the Lord’s Supper, we feed on Christ by faith. As I have demonstrated in past posts here at IM (See the Baptists category), I believe there are many confessional resources in the history of Baptists to articulate a richer, deeper theology of the Lord’s Supper than what is commonly heard from Baptist pulpits: a deconstruction that virtually has taken the supper out of church life and the discipleship experience of most American Baptist Christians. [Continue reading]

Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

Jesus is the constant mediator. Jesus is the constant advocate.

Satan is the constant accuser.

The law of God also accuses our conscience. And the grace of God in the Gospel, Jesus himself, answers the law’s thunderings.

Satan has plenty to work with in the law, and in my life and yours. It is no wonder he accuses us “day and night” before God.

Have you thought what the devil would do if he took to the pulpit of a church? [Continue reading]

UPDATE: A great intro to Luther is “Luther for Armchair Theologians” written by Steven Paulson, a speaker at the recent Mockingbird Conference. Also, New Reformation Press has lots of Lutheran theology resources at 10% off right now.

Apparently, by the email count, I’ve said something right.

Earlier in the day, Blue Raja and I had a discussion at the Boar’s Head Tavern about an earlier post where I quoted a Semi-Pelagian IM commenter. It’s discouraging to read that the atonement “opened the door” for us to now live a life worthy of the Kingdom of God. As I usually do, I expressed my despair at these kinds of “living to please God” systems of salvation and the blatant dishonesty they encourage and despair they induce.

So here was one of my replies.

The Gospel was never good news for me until Luther helped me see that life could continue to be tragic. I never worry about abundant life doing more than the occasional appearance in the present. I’m content with Christ in the shadowlands if he guarantees to raise me from the dead and bring me home.

This keeps coming back to me from readers who say it’s hit home with them, and where can they find more.

Before I talk about finding more of that, let me assure you that I responded to the Lutheran altar call a very long time ago. [Continue reading]

NOTE: Despite the fact that this post is law, you should still read it

I want to talk about a specific problem in preaching and teaching: the problem of preferring law over Gospel.

I consider the primary problem with preaching and teaching in my Southern Baptist tradition these days to be an obsession with (or addiction to?) preaching the “law.” To put it mildly, it’s brutal out there. In many churches and ministries, you’re getting clubbed into putty with the law and hearing slightly less Gospel than what you’d get in fifteen minutes of country music, all courtesy of a preacher who has no excuse not to know better.

I’m using the simple Lutheran “law/Gospel” division here: all of scripture is either what God commands/demands under penalty or what he promises/provides freely by grace. This is law and Gospel. “Do” or “Done.” Moses or Jesus. God the accountant older brother or God the Father of the Prodigal. Advice or announcement. Sinai or the cross. Threat or comfort. Blessing or curse. You do it or else. God did and praise.

If you get this, Luther said, you are a theologian even without the degree. So if you don’t know this, learn it, and if ou learn it, use it. Go to New Reformation Press and get you some Rod Rosenbladt or, if you’re up for it, the book by Walther. (Lutherans can make suggestions for the rest of us on this.) [Continue reading]

6: 9 Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. -Paul the Apostle, First Letter to the Corinthians

I’ve always been encouraged that there is so much discussion of the Gospel in the Christian blogosphere, but I’ve been disappointed where most of that discussion has focused. I’m sure there’s a great need to clarify the differences between Piper and Wright on the nature of justification, but I doubt that the church on the corner has many people walking in the doors who particularly care. (Oh, I know that the theologians among us can tell us why they should care, but the theological class has never suffered from a lack of confidence in the significance of their particular areas of interest, yours truly included.) [Continue reading]

I’ve got a new hot button. I experienced it this week and I think it’s best to warn the general public that until I make some progress in sanctification, pushing this button could result in an ugly scene.

(Before I say this, I know there are a bunch of books on this subject and I’ve read some of them. I could just recommend a good book, but I need to get this off my chest.)

My new hot button is “You need to pray until you find God’s will.”

First of all, I believe in God, and I believe he has a will. I believe God sovereignly runs the universe pretty much like the Westminister/Second London Confessions say, though I have absolutely no idea what that means other than God is in control in a way I can’t understand and am not capable of understanding. (My brain is too small.) It’s an assertion, and as much as I know God only in Jesus, it’s a comfort. [Continue reading]

Riffs are commentary on other blog posts that Michael feels are particularly significant.

Read Tim Brister’s post, Where Extraordinary Grace and Celestial Joy Meet.

I’ve been around Tom Ascol on occasion for more than 20 years. If you know much about the (dreaded) Founder’s movement, then you know everything I am about to say here, and everything that Timmy says in this post on an incident of restoration at Grace Baptist, Cape Coral, Florida, last night.

If Tom Ascol were Michael Spencer, or just about anyone else, the Founder’s movement, and the good fruit that has come from it (and you have no idea, folks. Really) would have almost certainly never come about. Grace Church would be on pastor five and the big issue would be whether to turn the music up to 11.

Tom is smart and articulate and ten other things, but he’s a pretty average guy in a lot of others. With all due respect to Tom, he’s what we call where I work “a plodder.” He’s not slow, he’s just not in a hurry. He does what’s right today, and twenty years later he’s still doing what’s right. He’s not out to grab hold of the next new thing or be credited for jaw-dropping innovation. He’s content to do the faithful thing that others have given up on, to show you that it can be done. When you’ve given up, quit, burned out and otherwise become of little use, Tom is still there, doing what he was doing when you started, keeping his hand to the plow and not looking back. [Continue reading]

Read: The Merger of Calvinism With Worldliness by Peter Masters.

The current reformed and Calvinist revival loves Spurgeon, as well they should. It’s a regular feature of the most influential new-Calvinism web sites and ministries to quote Spurgeon for and against whatever the issue of the week happens to be. Spurgeon’s face is as much a brand logo of the new Calvinism as you will find.

Spurgeon’s church, The Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, is still in business, and that church has a prominent pastor, Dr. Peter Masters, who has a very influential voice for Calvinism across the pond. Dr. Masters isn’t a major voice in America, but many of the Calvinists you like, especially of the Macarthur variety, have been to the Tabernacle and preached at Dr. Master’s conferences.

His newsletter is still The Sword and Trowel, an obvious indicator that it remains the voice of Spurgeon’s kind of Christianity. It is not an exaggeration to say that Dr. Peter Masters sees himself as a successor to Spurgeon’s brand of particular Baptist Calvinism, and he writes and preaches with this responsibility frequently in view. Be careful. I am not saying Dr. Masters claims any of the authority of Spurgeon, but he does not run from representing his views on Biblical Calvinism as in line with the Calvinism and overall theology of Spurgeon.

So, if you will, please take a cold drink, follow the link to Dr. Master’s column on the current condition of American Calvinism, and when you’re done, return to this web site for a few observations. [Continue reading]

Hey Michael,

Love your podcasts…and your take on Christianity in general…so, in 3 sentences or less, what is your take on the Doctrine of Election?

Can’t wait to read what you have to say.

bobby

Scripture teaches it in the context of God’s overall redemptive purposes and in the Christian doctrine of assurance.
When it is abused, it is almost always in the context of evangelism, ecclesiology or Christian experience.
It’s a doctrine that is expressed in revelation, but is understood only as a mystery, so quit explaining it.

BeAttitude gives his reasons for Why He Walked Away From Christianity. Don’t skip this. Read it carefully and don’t start talking. Just listen.

1. I always want to commend anyone who moves to a position of authenticity for themselves. If you don’t believe the claims of your own Christian community, then by all means please move to a position where you are able to say “This is what I do believe.” What you don’t believe is a step along the way. We’ve got thousands of Christians who are actually unbelievers, agnostics and atheists. We’d all be better off to ring a bell and go to our real position. Even if it makes mom and dad cry, which it will.

2. The hand of the new atheists is heavily apparent here. If you don’t believe their assault on the Christian faith and religion in general are making an impact, you’re out to lunch. Their arguments may be weak and answerable, but they are persuasive to millions of ordinary people. Most Christians won’t be professional apologists and they aren’t coming to your seminar or class. For many people, a Chris Hitchens or a Sam Harris are devastatingly confident voices of self-proclaimed reason. Investigation may prove otherwise, but that’s hardly well-publicized or well communicated.

3. The hand of shallow evangelical thinking is just as apparent. Does this read like Bart Ehrman’s discovery that inerrancy wasn’t true? Yes, and I say where are the evangelicals with the courage- and that’s what it will take- to say that simplistic inerrancy isn’t the default Christian position? Where is the awareness that the vast majority of the Christian world isn’t playing by the rules of a minority segment of evangelicalism determined to make their ideas of inerrancy the definition of Christianity. Read the Catholic Catechism on the inspiration of scripture, for goodness sake. Find out why you don’t have to have your faith detonated like Ehrman did, by a bomb that was defused long, long ago. [Continue reading]