Trip to India and Update

In about nine hours I leave to India. I ask for your prayers for the time I'll spend with pastors there and for health. I'll be in India for about 9 days: August 2-10. Hermeneutics is one of the main agenda items.

In the Spring I'll return to South Korea to teach Philippians. If you remember this post after that trip, you'll understand why I'm feeling slightly nervous about traveling overseas.

In other news, I've completed the manuscript for Urban Legends of the New Testament: 40 Common Misconceptions. Originally I had planned 50 chapters, but:
1) 40 is a much more biblical number; and
2) in order to stay close to the word count requirement and communicate sufficiently in each chapter, I needed to have less chapters.
Lord willing, the book should be released next August.

My next project is to begin working on a book that will be several years in works before seeing the light of day. I'm writing the volume on Galatians for the Exegetical Guide for the Greek New Testament with Broadman and Holman. A few volumes are out already (Colossian Philemon-Harris; James-Vlachos; 1 Peter-Forbes). I believe the publication date is 2019.

Urban Legends Post on B&H Academic

It's been several months since my last post. I have been working hard on my next book: Urban Legends of the New Testament (to be published with Broadman & Holman). The manuscript is due in July, so my deadline is fast approaching.

The B&H Academic Blog began posting regularly a few months back and I was asked to write about something ... so I chose my Urban Legends project. You can access the post here. Check it out and let me know what you think!

I do have some major plans for blogging in the future, but right now I'm trying to stay totally focused on the book. Your prayers are appreciated!

Ortlund and Tithing: UPDATE

Dr. Ortlund responded to some of the comments on the thread. In the end, about 39 comments were made and then the comments section was CLOSED.

Ortlund wisely decided not to debate the issue of tithing in a comment thread. But he did make a few points that were helpful:
1. He wasn't saying anything about "storehouse" tithing.
2. He wasn't doing a biblical theology of giving.
3. He wasn't discussing the motivation for giving.
4. He WAS meditating on one verse.
5. "When Jesus says something, I take it that it applies to me - directly or indirectly, but it certainly applies to me somehow. The one thing the words of Jesus cannot be is inapplicable to me. But that's just how I read the Bible. If you read it differently, that's between you and him."

I agree with all five of those points. Now, the way #5 is carried out is a big part of the question. Here's the tension. 1) Every word Jesus said that is recorded in the Gospels was stated while under the Old Covenant. 2) Every word Jesus said that is recorded in the Gospels was penned by the author of the Gospel decades after the inaugurating of the New Covenant and was written to Christians.

So, yes, everything Jesus said applies ... but it's the "directly or indirectly" (as he put it) that's the rub. The story in Matthew 8:1-4 is an example of a passage that would apply more "indirectly." I prefer to communicate this through the concept that the underlying principles apply. So while I agree that "tithing applies," I would say that the underlying principles to each Old Testament law applies to Christians, but that is FAR different from saying that Christians should "tithe" or give 10%. So while I agree with his five points, I'm guessing we would apply them differently.

Jesus and Tithing-A reply to Ray Ortlund

Ray Ortlund has written a blog post on the Gospel Coalition website defending the practice of tithing from Jesus' teaching in Matthew 23:23. It's a very short post, but I think his presentation is pretty much what I've seen in using that passage to advocate tithing. The verse seems straight forward enough: Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their lack of justice, mercy, and faithfulness, but never abrogated the tithe. Instead, Jesus appears to commend the tithe. So how could it be possible that Jesus commended tithing yet Christians wouldn't be required to tithe?

First, those who come from the perspective that the shift from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant contains much continuity (much similarity) might read Matthew 23:23 and conclude that tithing continues. That makes a lot of sense from that perspective. Someone coming from the view of discontinuity (little similarity assumed) might point out that Jesus made this comment to those under the Old Covenant and therefore assuming it applies to Christians is naive. In my chapter in Perspectives on Tithing, I said: "This verse should not be used to argue for the continuation of tithing based on the clear fact that Jesus' statement about tithing was for the scribes and Pharisees who were still under the olod covenant" (page 74). Reggie Kidd responded to this thought when he said: "It is inadequate to observe that Jesus was addressing scribes and Pharisees rather than post-Easter Christians" (Perspectives on Tithing, page 110). I will take up Kidd's challenge below.

Second, most discussion on the text does not contain much careful, in-depth analysis. It seems clear on the surface so digging deeper doesn't seem necessary.

Third, I was challenged by Kidd (above) to dig a little deeper and I published these thoughts on Tithing After the Cross (chapter 3). Basically it seems that Jesus might be commenting on a hotly debated rabbinic question: is it necessary to tithe dill? The Mosaic Law never says you need to, so Matthew 23:23 doesn't fit well into the Mosaic Law's teaching on tithing. But it is very comfortable in the 1st century rabbinic debate. So it appears that Jesus is in agreement with Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (who post-dated Jesus). Since the parallel in Luke 11:42 says that "every kind of garden herb" was being referenced, and it is clear that the Old Testament does NOT command nor commend that, Jesus seems to be commending Jewish oral traditions, not Old Testament law.

Finally, a detailed study of the tithing laws in the Old Testament reveal that the Jews actually gave closer to 23%, not 10%, in tithes. So if Jesus was commending the Old Testament practice of tithing (and I just argued that he was not), then he was commending about 23%, not 10%. This is a serious issue that needs to be discussed when trying to apply Matthew 23:23 today.

I was very surprised by the comments below Ortlund's post. Of the 16 comments made, 13 were clearly in disagreement. The only "extended" defense said this: "Every single objection I have ever heard or seen to the practice of tithing has been an excuse to try and give less. You’re right, it isn’t matter of the law, it’s a matter of the heart." Attacking the person rather than dealing with arguments is easy to do. This is an unfair statement. While I have encountered this same thought among those who do not advocate tithing, I have also encountered very generous believer's who desire to see God glorified in their finances.

For two free online resources, see the following links to articles published by Dr. Andreas Kostenberger and I on tithing several years ago:
1-"Will a Man Rob God?" (Malachi 3:8): A Study of Tithing in the Old and New Testaments
2-Reconstructing a Biblical Model for Giving: A Discussion of Relevant Systematic Issues and New Testament Principles

A Word about "A word on translation theory": A response to Denny Burk

Bible translation debates can get very heated very quickly. Christians have their favorite version that they like to read. Having a conversation with someone who is informed about Bible translation philosophy is extremely rare. Enter Dave Brunn's book One Bible, Many Versions. Recently DennyBurk posted some thoughts about Brunn's book. I'm not confident that all of Burk's criticisms are fair.

Burk claims that Brunn at times is nuanced in his discussion of Formal Equivalence translation theory (or what some prefer: Essentially Literal) and at other times he is not. He does provide some examples, like Brunn saying that these translators believe that “increased literalness” always leads to “increased faithfulness and accuracy” (on pages 49 and 50). So I looked up pages 49 and 50.

On these pages, Brunn never says that Formal Equivalence translators are claiming that increased literalness leads to increased accuracy. It seems obvious to me that he is trying to correct the common misconception amongst Christians that the more literal a translation, the more accurate. I hear that very consistently in conversations with pastors, seminary students, Bible college students, and members of churches. This is an urban legend of Christianity. Brunn addresses it and doesn't say that the translators advocate it. His audience is not Bible translators of Formal Equivalent translations, but people in the pews. Burk might be “mirror reading” the wrong people into this dialogue.

Burk says, “Readers might be tempted to think that Brunn has uncovered a discrediting inconsistency with Formal Equivalence translation—that Formal Equivalence translations claim to be 'word for word' but that they don’t really carry it out consistently in practice (191).” My fear is that readers of this post might think that Brunn has naively characterized Formal Equivalent translations and then won't take the time to read his book and have informed thoughts on the issue. Not only does Brunn NOT appear to “tempt” readers in to thinking he has uncovered a “smoking gun,” he goes OUT OF HIS WAY to show this. Note this quote from page 68:

“The translators of literal versions such as the ESV and NASB are aware of the tension that exists between ideal and real translation, and they acknowledge that tension in their Bible introductions. For example, the introduction to the ESV includes the following statement: 'Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between 'formal equivalence' in expression and 'functional equivalence' in communication.” Brunn cites the introduction to the ESV so that what the Formal Equivalence translators are claiming is put right in front of the eyes of his readers. No smoking gun, nothing uncovered, no secrets revealed. Ironically, Burk thought that quoting from the ESV introduction would be the way to resolve any question about what the translators think so he quotes some of the exact same words that Brunn quoted. Seems like Brunn did a great job covering his bases.

Burk does provide an interesting response to some of Brunn's comments on page 191. I find myself kind of stuck between them on this issue. I've heard some “essentially literal” translation advocates say, with my own ears, that when a translation doesn't have an English word where a Greek word was, then the translators must not have a high view of the authority of Scripture.

For example, the Greek text of Matthew 28:18a says:

“And Jesus came up and said to them saying ...”

ESV: And Jesus came and said to them ...

HCSB: Then Jesus came near and said to them ...

NIV: Then Jesus came to them and said ...

All of these translations “drop” the (redundant) word “saying.” Does that mean that the translators have a low view of Scripture? No, of course not. I think Brunn may be responding to some of these extreme comments, comments that I have heard translators and lay people make. But Burk asks a good question: how much of that is acceptable in a reliable translation? That truly is where the crux of the debate is at, and I'm confident Brunn would agree with Burk that this is where a valuable discussion can take place.

Overall, I think the confusion here is that Brunn is writing to lay people who have a lot of confusion regarding Bible translations. I can't count how many times I've heard the concept that "literal is more accurate" in small groups. While scholars and translators may not be promoting this idea, lay people do believe this. That is who Dave Brunn is writing to ... not scholars and translators.

Who Can Baptize? Part 3

Kevin DeYoung's post on who is authorized to baptize had four arguments. I've discussed the first two already, the biblical and theological arguments.
The third argument is "exegetical": "an appeal to the priesthood of all believers does not support the administration of baptism by every church member. ... It does not suggest that now in the New Testament there are no rites which may be performed only by ordained officers."
My response is that he makes a great point that the argument from the priesthood of all believers, by itself, is not convincing. If that was the only argument for allowing non-pastor's to baptize, then it would be a fairly weak biblical case to make.
The fourth argument is pragmatic: "for baptism to be responsible there must be some church oversight. ... There must be a process of accountability and evaluation. Invariably, as Grudem points out, the pastor(s) of the church are likely involved in determining who can be baptized and who can baptize. If church officers superintend the process ... it stands to reason that they exercise their Christ-given authority in performed (sic) the baptism itself."
This argument, which, to be fair, he himself considers his weakest, is puzzling. Why can't "church officers" superintend the process and delegate the actual baptizing to a member in the church? Why can't "church officers" evaluate the candidates, but leave it up to other to perform the actual baptism? He starts by saying "there must be some church oversight," but concludes by implying that the church leadership must perform all of it. We can have church oversight while a lay person does the actual baptizing.
Granted, I do appreciate the concept of church oversight regarding baptism. I think it is very wise. I'm not sure it's required, but it's wise.
These are my thoughts on non-church leaders performing baptisms. I have no problem with it. I think Scripture never intentionally addresses the issue, with the closest being Acts 9:18 where Ananias baptizes Saul/Paul.

Who Can Baptize? Part 2

Kevin DeYoung's post on who is authorized to baptized was interesting enough that I wanted to respond to his main points. I've responded to his "Biblical" argument already. Now to his "Theological" argument, the one he finds most compelling.
Here he says that "we must take into account how Christ rules his church. ... As his under-shepherds, our Chief Shepherd rules in the church through the elders of the church. ... The sacraments (or ordinances) involve the administration of grace and exercise of church power which belong to the office bearers of the church."
First, I appreciate how DeYoung tried to stay away from the infant vs. believer's baptism issue throughout. That's not his purpose for this post and it could've muddled the discussion.
Second, I'm curious as to the picture he has in his mind about a non-elder baptism. Is he thinking about a father deciding to baptize his son at home in his bathtub? Or, is he thinking about a church baptism service that an elder is overseeing but the father is the one doing the baptism? Maybe both? I think these could/should be viewed very differently. Why? Because in the latter, the father would be functioning under the authority of the elder. This is basically "delegated authority". I wonder if that subverts his theological argument somewhat.
Third, the idea that baptism involves the administration of grace is part of a theological system that, as a baptist, is not part of my paradigm. It seems that in his last sentence, his ecclesiological system causes him to view the church's authority and baptism itself in such a way that aids his argument. But since I don't hold to his ecclesiological views, I find this argument not convincing in the least.
I'll pick up with arguments 3 and 4 soon.

Who Can Baptize?

Last Sunday the church I'm attending had a baptism service. In one of the baptisms, a father baptized his son. That got me thinking:
- is it biblically allowable for a non-church leader (e.g. pastor) to perform a baptism?
- should baptisms be connected to a local church?
- should baptism be preceded by a period of discipleship/testing/training or immediately after salvation?

Then I read Kevin DeYoung's post on the first question above. I greatly appreciate DeYoung's blog and the courage and insight he portrays on it. This is not a "gospel" issue, but a fun one to think about and discuss. So I thought I'd weigh in on his four arguments:

1) He says: "Biblically, we see that those who perform Christian baptism in the New Testament have been set apart by Christ for an office in the church (e.g., Peter, Paul, Phillip). Strictly speaking, the Great Commission, with its command to baptize, was given to the apostles, not to every believer indiscriminately. There is no evidence to show that private members baptized."

First, the most natural reading of Acts 9:18 is that Ananias baptized Paul. We have zero evidence that Ananias was an elder.
Second, Phillip was not an elder. Some may consider him a deacon, though that specific title is not used in Acts 6. In fact, the only two men from Acts 6 that are described after that passage are described as preaching the gospel: Stephen and Phillip. Philip seems to be more of an evangelist. He may have been a proto-deacon, but that is different from being an elder.
Third, the logic seems to be that every one explicitly described as baptizing in Scripture is a church leader, so only church leaders should baptize. If that's the case, would DeYoung use the same logic to say "since only adult believers are explicitly described in Scripture as being baptized, only adult believers should be baptized"? I'm doubting that ...
Fourth, while DeYoung has clarified his comments about the Great Commission being given "to the apostles," I still find his thoughts on this wanting. If we are following "good instincts" by "obeying" the Great Commission by sending missionaries throughout the world, then couldn't we also be involved in baptism more directly? Regardless, I do believe the Great Commission was initially intended for more than just the apostles. I believe every believer should be involved in going, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching. That doesn't mean that every believer will go into the jungle and start a church, but on some level they are to be involved in this process. Nothing in the Great Commission seems to limit the teaching or baptizing to only the apostles or the "church leadership".
Finally, D. A. Carson says the following regarding the Great Commission in his Matthew commentary (page 666): “The injunction is given at least to the Eleven, but to the Eleven in their own role as disciples (28:16). Therefore, they are paradigms for all disciples. Plausibly, the command is given to a larger gathering of disciples. … Either way, it is binding on all Jesus' disciples to make others what they themselves are—disciples of Jesus Christ.”

The Work of Ministry-2/18/2014

I was given the opportunity to speak in chapel at Columbia International University on Tuesday, February 18, 2014. Here is a link to the audio of my sermon.

The Passing of Bill Larkin

Dr. Bill Larkin passed away today. Please keep his family and friends in prayer. He began teaching at Columbia International University in 1975 and retired in 2013. He has published several books including a commentary on Acts of the Apostles, a handbook on the Greek text of Ephesians, and a book on culture and hermeneutics. 

I only had a few interactions with Dr. Larkin, but he was an extremely meek, humble, and kind man. He was always interested in others and demonstrated his love through consistently praying for us. He will be greatly missed.

Help Needed ... please

Here is what the video looks like.
Click here to go to it.

Can I have 30 seconds of your time? So, for every day over the next two weeks, you can help my wife and I win a Caribbean Cruise!!! Please go to this link, "like" the Idealshape Facebook page, and then vote for MY video. You can vote ONCE per day for TWO weeks.

That's it!! It should only take about 30 seconds per day. You can watch my video and leave comments below if you'd like ... 


Thanks for your support!
Dave

Paul R. Fink 1930–2013

Paul Fink (2/6/1930-9/7/2013) went to see our Lord this past Saturday, September 7, 2013. He was 83.

One of my first memories of Dr. Fink was a School of Religion business meeting at Liberty University. Dr. Fink was suffering from a very serious heart condition, such that he could die at any moment. The doctors couldn’t operate because of his diabetes, so they were trying to figure out a way to fix the condition. Dr. Towns asked him for an update and he said this: It’s an amazing feeling knowing that at any moment I might open my eyes and be in the arms of my Savior, Jesus Christ. They found a way to fix the problem and he taught for several more years. He retired in May.

At Columbia Bible College and Liberty University
Where he began his training and where he served the Lord for decades

Paul Fink received his B.A. from Columbia Bible College in the 1950s (now Columbia International University). He completed both his Th.M and Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, with an Adv. M.Ed. from the University of Southern California. He did some post-doctoral study at Purdue University.

Before getting his training as a minister of the gospel, Dr. Fink served in the United States Navy from 1948-1952. He taught for 55 years (see list below for details).

He was also the Founder and President/Instructor of Amherst County Bible Institute, Madison Heights, VA 1983-1989; 1996-2013. This ministry provided free education to mainly minorities in the Madison Heights area. Dr. Fink did this free of charge, just desperately trying to help these aspiring and active ministers to be more fully trained. One of his biggest concerns in the last few years of his life was finding someone to replace him in that ministry. The last I heard, no one was willing or able to fill his place. He was also an interim pastor of over 17 churches.

Dr. Fink threw his life into teaching, mentoring students, and his Bible Institute. But he did find some time for writing (see his list of publications below). Dr. Towns, the former Dean of the School of Religion at Liberty University, who attended Columbia Bible College with Dr. Fink in the 1950s, would travel around the world, find a Liberty University graduate, and ask them: “What was your favorite class while at Liberty?” He said that the consistent response was: “Inductive Bible Study Methods with Dr. Paul Fink.” Over and over again, that was what he heard.

Dr. Fink and I at his retirement party

I shared an office at Liberty University with Paul Fink in his last year of teaching. He moved to part-time and so he would use my office on Tuesday’s and Thursday’s. My name was on the door, but I took my name out and put his name in. He would then take his name out and put my name in. This went back and forth for over a month or two, until he found a way to put them BOTH on the door. He was a very humble, prayerful man. Heaven just received a true vessel created for honor (cf. Rom 9:21). He will be missed by his wife, Mary Lou (married for 62 years), his six children, and his twenty grandchildren. Please be in prayer for them.

I rejoice that Saturday, Dr. Fink opened his eyes and finally saw his Savior, the One he truly put his hope in, the One he served for over half of a century, the One he loved above all others, the One he sought to bring glory to every day of his life.

Teaching

Southern Bible Training School, Dallas, TX 1958-62

Professor of Homiletics and Pastoral Theology at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN 1963-79

Adjunct Faculty at BIOLA College, La Mirada, CA 1969-70

Professor of Biblical Studies and Pastoral Ministry, Liberty University 1979-2013

Publications

Contributor to the Liberty Bible Commentary: 12 Minor Prophets

Contributor to The Open Bible: wrote 35 articles.

Contributor to Wilmington’s Survey of the Old Testament: wrote over 90 articles.

Contributor to the Christian Life Bible: 2 Peter

Contributor to The Annotated Bible: Minor Prophets, Romans, Pastoral Epistles, and Petrine Epistles.

Contributor to The Teachers’ Bible

Beloit List

What stuck out to me in the Beloit List about the class of 2017 (college freshman this year):

Eminem and LL Cool J could show up at parents’ weekend.
GM means food that is Genetically Modified
As kids they may well have seen Chicken Run but probably never got chicken pox
They have known only two presidents
Courts have always been ordering computer network wiretaps
With GPS, they have never needed directions to get someplace, just an address
There has never been a national maximum speed on U.S. highways
Don Shula has always been a fine steak house
Their favorite feature films have always been largely, if not totally, computer generated
They have never really needed to go to their friend’s house so they could study together
Their parents’ car CD player is soooooo ancient and embarrassing

Free (or Cheap) Books on Kindle

Cheap (under $1):

The Confessions - of Aurelius Augustinus of Hippo

Profiting from the Word by A. W. Pink

The Sovereignty of God by A. W. Pink

The Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin

Free:

What Is Faith? by R. C. Sproul

HCSB: Navigating the Horizons in Bible Translations

Some Thoughts on Presenting the Gospel

I love sharing the gospel with unbelievers, both in large settings and individually. I've taken courses in seminary on evangelism, both at the M.Div. and Ph.D. level. But my suggestions here are really based upon my experiences in witnessing one-on-one.

First, you don't have to present the entire gospel in 2 minutes or less. I think Christians feel pressure to make their gospel presentation very short. When they do this, they sometimes (inadvertently) cut out some important truths. It's better to present well what you have time for than to short-change the entire presentation. For example, if I were using Gilbert's model (God, Man, Christ, Response), I would much rather do a thorough job with the first two points and then, if I'm running out of time or they have to go, make an appointment to complete the conversation.

Second, ask questions. I am familiar with many different methods for evangelism: Evangelism Explosion, The Four Spiritual Laws, The Bridge, Share Jesus Without Fear, and The Way of the Master. While I don't use any of them, I use all of them. What I mean is, I don't just stick to one model, but I have a conversation with the person I'm witnessing to. I ask them a lot of questions. I show a genuine interest in them, who they are, what they think. I'll ask them questions for as long as they want to answer. The questioning usually starts with where they are from and how they were raised, to the kinds of church experiences they've had, to their thoughts on the after-life. I try to continue asking questions (both theological and personal) until we hit a dead-end. Every time I've done this, at some point, the person will then say: tell me about you. Since I've shown a general interest in them, they now want to do the same. I just respond with: what do you want to know? And they usually will jump right to the end: what do you think about the after-life? I then usually repeat the question, making it clear that they really do want to hear my opinion. They nearly always repeat the question. So now I have an unbeliever almost begging for my testimony and the gospel. I have their ear, because I've earned it by showing an interest in them.

Third, rabbit trails are good and bad. I try to stay away from issues not central to the gospel (like speaking in tongues for example), but if they have a genuine interest in an area, again, I will show that my care is for them as an individual not just to get "my presentation" out. So if they really want to go down a rabbit trail, I'll follow them for a short time.

Fourth, ask if they understand. I try to be super-clear when presenting the gospel, so this question can be painful. Why painful? Because the person typically says either: 1) "Yes, I understand." But they really don't, or 2) "No, I don't understand ....". How do I know they really don't when they say they do?

Fifth, once they believe they understand the gospel, ask them to explain it to you. This is where you have to listen very closely for many reasons. You want to make sure that they have truly understand the central components of what you've told them. You want to look for a works-based salvation on the one hand and an easy-believism gospel on the other. Some people will describe back a gospel based on works, not because that's what you presented, but because lost people have a difficult time understanding God's grace. Others will describe an easy-believism gospel because that's all they've ever heard. Make sure you correct their misunderstanding.

This fifth point, I have found, is a missing key in most evangelism. People can answer "yes or no" questions easily. Give them a multiple choice test and they'll do fine. But ask them to explain the gospel and you'll quickly hear what they don't understand. Doing this helps them to really grasp what the gospel is AND helps us to understand what we might have said that was unclear. This part, while it can be painful to hear a mutilated gospel at time, can be so amazing as you hear an unbeliever explaining to you the gospel. 

What about a response? There are many ways you can lead people in a response to the gospel and I do it differently for different people. My favorite way is the following:

1) Ask them if they believe what they've just explained.

2) If they say yes, ask them if they believe in Jesus, who the Bible declares Him to be and that He paid for their sins. Ask if they have repented (make sure you define this term).

3) If they say yes, I ask if they think they are a Christian. This gives another opportunity to clarify the gospel. If they say "no," I can then ask why. If they say "yes," then ...

4) I ask them to "pray the gospel" back to God, praising Him for what He has done for them. I don't lead them in a prayer, but I lead them to the One who saves. So they pray to God and give Him honor and praise.

Sixth, keep Christ the focus of everything. Don't be sidetracked by the pitfalls I described in earlier posts. Stay focused on the glory, wonder, and love of Christ. Show how beautiful and glorious He is and let the Holy Spirit work in their hearts to convict them of their sin and lostness. Don't be manipulative, but be loving and Christ-centered.

Saved from Hell?

One more problematic presentation of the gospel I want to mention that occurred to me writing those recent posts is a particular manifestation of a manipulation of people when the "gospel" is preached: "You don't want to go to hell do you?" In the end, some evangelists will lean upon an appeal to fear, specifically the fear of going to hell. In the end, they communicate that the gospel is the power of God to save you from hell. That's the "salvation" part of the gospel, is that it gets you out of hell. However, scaring people into coming forward and repeating a prayer doesn't mean they are actually responding in repentance and faith. It just means ... well ... you scared them!

What does the gospel save us from? R. C. Sproul's book Saved From What? explains that the gospel saves us from the wrath of God being poured out upon us (1 Thess 1:10). That is basically a description of hell. But my concern is not that this is incorrect, but it can be like "reverse carrot stick" evangelism. Rather than attracting people to Christianity with things other than the glorious Jesus Himself, we scare people away from the alternative (by the way, I'm not suggesting Sproul did this in his book). While it is totally true that we are are saved from God's wrath, I don't believe that's the best motivation for coming to Christ, nor should it be the only motivation. We are saved "from God," that is, from God's wrath, but we are saved "for God," that is, to bring glory to God in our lives.

I still hold that the attraction should be Jesus Himself, honoring His life, death, and resurrection; that scaring people into a decision isn't a full gospel presentation; that we need to focus more on the content of the gospel and not just the responses to it (though those need to be defined carefully and correctly).

Confusing the Response with the Actual Gospel

An evangelist came to a church I was attending several years ago. He came preaching a message on Christian living. It was an okay sermon, very energetic. About 95% of it was directed toward those who were already Christians and how to live as a Christian. Then, right near then end, he "appended" an appeal to get saved. Said that without Christ we are lost and will never be able to have a relationship with God. Then he said that if they wanted to have a relationship with God they needed to "repeat this simple prayer." He had everyone close their eyes and those who wanted to become a Christian were to repeat his words in their heart and really mean it. Then he proclaimed that those who prayed that prayer were saved. What's wrong with this? Here is a non-exhaustive list:
1) He actually never mentioned faith/believing.
2) He quickly referenced "repent from your sins" during the prayer, with no definition or explanation given for what repentance was.
3) He was compelling people to respond ... but what were they supposedly responding to? The gospel? No, the appeal to be in a relationship with God. But what did that mean? He didn't say!

Is this the content or the response?

Many preachers confused the appropriate response to the gospel with the gospel itself. Repentance and faith are the appropriate responses to hearing the proclamation of the gospel. However, they are not the gospel itself. Note what Jesus says in Mark 1:15 (HCSB): "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe in the good news!" The saving response to the good news (the gospel) is repentance and belief. But if we are repenting and believing in the gospel, then they are not the gospel itself. They are the responses not the content. So the problem with this presentation of the gospel is that it confuses the appropriate responses with the actual content of the gospel. Therefore, when repentance and faith are presented as if they are the content, the gospel has not actually been presented. So what is the person who responds by prayer a pray actually responding to? They are responding to the general concept of becoming a Christian, but that is not a response of faith, it's a response to belong to a group, to be a part of a religion or an organization. This is a huge problem today. What is the content of the gospel?

Greg Gilbert (What is the Gospel?) and Trevin Wax (Counterfeit Gospels) do a great job simply explaining this, though in different ways (both books were mentioned in a previous post). Gilbert uses four words to summarize the gospel: God, Man, Christ, Response. Each word has several concepts connected to it (these are my summaries, not Gilbert's).
God - He is creator there we are accountable to Him

Man - Adam rebelled against his Creator and transgressed God's law. Therefore he was separated from God and all his descendants, which is all of humanity, are separated from God. All people are born enemies of God. We are in a desperate situation, declared guilty before God.
Christ - God initiated a relationship with mankind over and over again: the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant are two examples of God initiating a relationship to mankind. But His ultimate initiation was sending His Son, Jesus Christ, the God-man, to live a perfect life and die a perfect death. His sacrifice was for us. He died in our place. God himself paid the penalty that we could never pay in order to restore us in to a relationship with God. Christ's victory over death and sin, that He was who He said He was, was ultimately demonstrated by the resurrection.
Response - Now repentance (turning from sin) and faith (trusting in Christ Himself and His work on the cross as sufficient to pay for our sins) can be explained in a context as a response to the gospel.

Trevin Wax organizes it differently. He pictures the gospel as a stool with three legs. The first leg is the gospel story: creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. The second leg is the gospel announcement, which is very similar to the "God, Man, Christ, Response" explanation above. The third leg is the gospel community. He says "the gospel story is the context in which we make the gospel announcement" (Wax, 154). Without the gospel story, the gospel announcement can easily be understood, especially in a culture that is unfamiliar with the Bible. Then he says: "The gospel story and the gospel announcement lead to the formation of the gospel community" (Wax, 155). Here Wax explains that once someone has heard the gospel story and announcement, if the presentation of the gospel ends there, they might misunderstand that being incorporated into a local church body is not just an option but is essential. The church is birthed by the gospel and is the place where we are sanctified. The body of Christ is one of the tools that God uses to make us more like Christ (to sanctify us). American individualism gets in the way of this tool.

Is this more complicated then just saying: repent and believe! Yes, it is. Does it take more time? Yes, it does. Sometimes it might take several meetings for the unbeliever to understand. Sometimes they won't understand the first, or second, or tenth time you explain it. Make sure you do the true work of an evangelist and give the content to the gospel, not just the proper response when witnessing to unbelievers.

Robert C. McQuilkin

Robert C. McQuilkin (died 1952) preached a sermon called "Surrender and Faith." Here are two quotes that I particularly appreciated:

“But I want to remind you that saving faith is not just saying is not just saying with your lips that you believe that Christ is the Son of God. The devil, the demons, believe that and they tremble and they’re waiting they’re judgment. Well they know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. There is a believing even in the works of Christ that is not saving faith.”

“Saving faith is committing myself to the Lord. And when I say I believe in Christ as my Savior, I wish you young people would get this, you are taking Christ as your Lord. If you think you took Christ as your Savior and did not take Him as your Lord then you never were saved. Because, Jesus the Savior is Lord.”

Columbia International University

Many of you know that I have moved to Columbia, South Carolina to begin teaching in the Seminary and School of Ministry at Columbia International University. CIU has an orientation process for their new faculty that I've already appreciated greatly. It really helps new faculty (especially those who were never students here) to grasp well the ethos of the school and its history.

CIU has a broad evangelical statement of faith. This is in contrast to a denominational college or seminary that might be Presbyterian, Baptist, or Methodist. The only unique aspect to the statement of faith (or, doctrinal statement) that is more narrow than a broad evangelical stance is the statement on premillennialism.

CIU purpose statement is to "educate people from a biblical worldview to impact the nations with the message of Christ." We have five core values:
1) The authority of Scripture - Scripture governs everything CIU is about. It is inspired and inerrant.
2) Victorious Christian living - This has been explained in several different ways, but basically it is the expectation that a Christian will be growing in Christ-likeness and not stagnant in their faith.
3) World Evangelization - CIU is most known as a missions sending school (though it is much more than that). The emphasis upon reaching the lost throughout the world for Christ is felt throughout campus. When driving on to the main road leading to the campus (called International Blvd), flags of nations throughout the world are flying (see picture to the right).
4) Prayer & Faith - This is a community that relies upon God for everything and demonstrates that reliance in prayer. Several days throughout the school year classes are cancelled so a dedicated time in prayer can be spent.
5) Evangelical Unity - We are a diverse faculty coming from various perspectives: covenant and dispensational, paedo-baptist and credo-baptist, calvinistic and arminian. We avoid dogmatism on non-central doctrines and avoid compromise by holding to an strong evangelical, orthodox doctrinal statement.

As I blogged previously, I have had many connections to Columbia, SC and CIU over the years. I'm excited for classes to begin next week and to get back to teaching. This is a wonderful place with so many godly, humble, meek servants of our Lord Jesus Christ. It truly is an honor to be working here.

Carrot Stick Evangelism: A Distraction and Detraction

Edward and I were at a sub shop eating lunch. He was raised Jewish, but really didn't know much about Judaism, the Old Testament, not to mention Christianity. I had been meeting with him for a few weeks and he had started attending church. He had heard the gospel several times at this point and we had spent several hours going through the typical apologetics-type questions unbelievers ask. Then he said: "Many of my friends say that if I go to church and become a Christian that I'll have a better life: better friends, better finances, better health, a happier marriage, you know, those kind of things. Do you think that's true? Do you think that if I become a Christian that all those areas in my life would get better?" This, I think, is kind of a trick question coming from Edward.

A clear, faithful presentation of the gospel should be one of the main goals in evangelism, but some times we focus on other things, things that end up distracting and detracting. What is carrot stick evangelism?

The phrase comes from the idea of leading a donkey or horse by tying a carrot to the end of a stick and holding it in front of them to lead them in the direction you want them to go. You hold out a "reward" for the animal when it does what you want it to do. You try to "attract" them to go in a certain direction.

So carrot stick evangelism is when we hold out things other than Christ as the reward or attraction to the Christian faith. What are these "other things"? It could be deliverance from depression or some illness. It could be a happier marriage or friends that are trustworthy. It could be a non-prosperity gospel explanation that when you use your resources the way God intends, that your finances will be in a healthier place. It could be that God will relieve you of all your anxiety. We can be so tempted to hold these things out in our evangelism, tempted to attract people to less anxiety, more health, a better marriage, etc. But is that what we should be attracting people to in our presentation of the gospel?

My answer is an unqualified "no"! And I'm NOT just talking about prosperity gospel preaching. Don't place the carrot on the stick in front of unbelievers of a "better life". I do believe that following the principles laid out in Scripture will typically lead to a more joyful life, in marriage, friendships, finances, etc. But ... but what if God decides that suffering an illness will help make you more like Jesus and bring Him glory? What will that young convert think when he is diagnosed with cancer three months after "making a decision" for Jesus? He'll think what many have said after hearing the "carrot stick" evangelism method: Christianity doesn't work. Instead of attracting unbelievers with these superficial things, let's attract them by lifting up Christ, His life, His death, His glorious resurrection and ascension. When the glory of Christ is explained, when His love as expressed in His life and death is explained, that is what should be attracting unbelievers. And what's their reward? Not just the avoidance of hell (another "iffy" gospel presentation method), but they gain Christ. Christ is both the attraction and the reward! If someone "makes a decision for Jesus" because they want a better marriage, I ask this: is that a true conversion? Did they convert to Christianity or to a man-made religion that gets them whatever they want? So this method distracts from what is the only thing that can truly draw them to God, Christ; it detracts from the glory of Christ by presenting a "better life" as more praiseworthy, more glorious than Christ himself. So how did I answer Edward?

"Edward, I do believe that following the principles in Scripture typically leads to the things you've mentioned, but I do not want you to come to Christ so you can get those things. I want you to become a Christian because you fall in love with the God of the Bible who has already demonstrated His love for you in the life and death of His Son. I want you to be attracted to Christianity because Jesus is so glorious! I want you to see that the reward of becoming a Christian is knowing Christ! Not some temporal reward of better health or more money. So, let's talk about Jesus and what he's done for you."