by Richard Barcellos | Aug 21, 2010 | Uncategorized
Last night Dr. Nettles spoke on Spurgeon and Boyce on theological education. He will speak again today starting at 9:15am CT. You can listen live. For more info., go here.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Sam Waldron | Aug 18, 2010 | Uncategorized
After what is a very long interval by internet standards, I return to a subject which I thought I had finished several months ago. In the interim Lee Irons graciously responded to my posts critiquing his paper on Romans 2:13. In that paper he takes an empty-set or hypothetical view of the passage and claims that John Murray holds this view. I took exception to both these claims. I encourage anyone who would like to learn how to graciously respond to criticism to read the relevant blogs by Lee on his blog The Upper Register. He sets a fine example of gracious interaction with a critic like me.
There he makes clear that he actually is willing to say that in a certain sense he holds a future justification by works on the basis of many of the passages that I cited in my previous blogs. He also maintains that John Murray did hold his view of Romans 2:13. To my surprise and after checking the references he has quoted, I find myself forced to agree in a qualified way with him. What, I think, we have both discovered is that there are a number of exegetes who take a mediating position with regard to Romans 2:6-16. Though Murray clearly argues in his comments on verses 6-11 that the judgment in view is not hypothetical and that the works in view are evangelical works which vindicate one’s saving faith in the dya of judgment, yet to my surprise Murray also takes a hypothetical or empty-set view of Romans 2:13. What is particuarly convincing to me are Murray’s comments on Romans 3:20 and the footnote referencing Philippi on Romans 2:13.
Let me hasten to add that, though I respect John Murray a great deal and have sometimes named him as my patron saint (!), I find such a position somewhat contradictory and certainly unsatisfying.
Finally, let me address one claim that Irons makes in his argument which (after re-reading my posts) I find I did not address with a key argument. Irons claims that, since the overall thrust of Romans 1:18-3:20 is to show that “by the works of the flesh no man will be justified,” it is unlikely that Romans 2:13 is to be understood of evangelical works which vindicate saving faith.
Now leaving aside that John Murray and I agree that it is just such works that are in fact in view in Romans 2:6-11, Irons deduction from (what is undoubtedly) the overall thrust of the passage is contradicted by another patent feature of Romans 2. That feature is the lengthy description of evangelical good works in verses 25-29.
Romans 2:25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
By Irons’ reasoning we should not find all this stuff about the truly circumcised man who does good works and so proves that he is a true Jew in this context. And yet we do! I think this shows that it is perfectly possible that Paul also speaks of such works in Romans 2:13. Thus, we do not need to have recourse to the unlikely exegetical expedient which claims that the judgment of Romans 2:6-16 is hypothetical.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by CBTSeminary | Aug 11, 2010 | Book Reviews, Church Planting, Practical Theology
Today we continue our chapter-by-chapter blog discussion of the book Church Planting is For Wimps. For those of you who may have just been browsing so far, it is not too late to join in! Simply pick up a copy of the book and start reading. If you have missed the previous posts, please read my thoughts on chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3, chapter 4, and chapter 5.
Mike begins by suggesting that this chapter will be the most helpful one in the book. He is right, or at least it has been for me. Why is it so important? He explains upfront:
“I’ll cut to the chase: planting a church can be brutal on your marriage. It almost wrecked mine. No, scratch that. My sin almost wrecked our marriage. Church planting was simply the arena in which the whole thing played out” (85).
So, this chapter explains how his own serious marriage problems developed. Both he and Karen became extremely busy in keeping Guilford alive. Then the fights started—constantly, all the time for months.
Then it got worse. They had their third child, experiencing the additional stress of having three under the age of four. And as if this was not enough, his wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Their marriage troubles and fights continued to increase through these trials.
Mike doesn’t let himself off the hook. In fact, he diagnoses his sin: fear of man. He cared too much about success, leading to too much work for him and his wife. He also didn’t protect Karen from the expectations of the congregation (Preacher’s Wife perfectionism).
Nevertheless, God does not give up on us! Things began to change as Mike was reading James 4—he realized that he needed more grace. They began to open up their struggles and problems to others. Then they met a couple involved with Sovereign Grace Ministries who helped them tackle their marriage problems in light of the gospel. Mike and Karen began to forgive each other and change, praise God!
As you can tell, I was deeply convicted and challenged by this chapter. While I have not been involved in church planting, I too can see my susceptibility to the fear of man. As I read these words, I asked myself if I am prepared to serve in ministry:
“Fear of man is one of the worst forms of pride. And pastoring a tiny, fledgling church will give you unending opportunities to fear men…. Even though I knew better, I cared too much about the appearance of success. I didn’t just want the church to do well—I wanted it to do well in ways that were obvious to others…. As a result, I took too much onto my plate and put too much onto Karen’s…. I didn’t want the service to fail in the eyes of other people, but I didn’t care about failing at home” (89-90).
Now here is a man with all of his theological “ducks in a row.” He believes in the sovereignty of God and that only Christ can build his church. However, his practice did not line up with his beliefs. In the day-to-day life of the church, he depended on himself for the church’s success. Would I be any different? I do not want to answer too quickly. I pray that God will richly bless my marriage with his grace, regardless of whatever ministry he calls me to.
What did you think of this week’s reading? Have you been challenged?
John Divito
Member, Heritage Baptist Church
M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
by Richard Barcellos | Aug 6, 2010 | Systematic Theology
All men are in trouble with God due to a broken law which was revealed prior to the New Testament. This very day, those outside of Christ are condemned due to transgressions of a law revealed prior to the New Testament. When Jesus became a curse for elect Jew and Gentile in the first century, he did so based on law revealed prior to the New Testament. Trace this law (and its curse) back to its revelational origins and you end up in the Garden of Eden, not Sinai (that does not go back far enough). Sinai, in a sense, is a recapitulation of the Garden. That’s why our Confession says, “The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments…” (19:2; cf. 19:5, “…the moral law binds all men…”). When Paul deals with justification in Romans 5, he goes back to Adam as the disobedient federal head of the old race and Christ as the obedient federal head of the new race. Christ was obedient to the law (moral law, law written on heart via the creative/revelational finger of God) as revealed prior to his incarnation, first in the Garden of Eden but broken by Adam, then republished on stone tablets under the Old Covenant. The promise of the renovation of all souls in the New Covenant includes the promise of the same law written on all the hearts of all New Covenant members. Jeremiah 31:33 seems clear to me that the law to be written on the heart is the same law written previously on stone tablets. The commands of the New Testament, such as the one anothers, are positive laws (i.e., laws added to the moral law) suited to regulate the new covenant community. The Old Covenant also had moral law and positive law.
Denying moral law as a constant, non-dynamic principle ends up tinkering with the grounds of our justification. The ground of our justification is Christ’s obedience to the law all men have broken, which existed prior to the publication of the New Testament and prior to the promulgation of the Ten Commandments on Sinai.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by CBTSeminary | Aug 6, 2010 | Church Planting, Current Events, Practical Theology
Today we continue our chapter-by-chapter blog discussion of the book Church Planting is For Wimps. For those of you who may have just been browsing so far, it is not too late to join in! Simply pick up a copy of the book and start reading. If you have missed the previous posts, please read my thoughts on chapter 1, chapter 2, chapter 3, and chapter 4.
Before Mike was called as Pastor of Guilford Fellowship, the church asked a consultant to assess their situation and give recommendations. Given the changing demographics of those living around the church, one option was to disband and allow a Spanish-speaking church plant to have the church building. While they didn’t go in this direction, as Mike points out, God will always get his way. And his way at Guilford is to love and reach the Spanish-speaking community that surrounded them.
So how did it happen? Mike quickly saw the need for a Spanish ministry and began to pray. God answered by having a married couple who are native Spanish speakers join their church. This man became quite a gifted evangelist and teacher, and he began to lead more and more in an evangelistic Bible study. As the Lord continued to bless this group, Guilford recognized the need for them to have their own local congregation. God once again answered their prayers by providing an experienced pastor from El Salvador.
Not to say that this outreach has been easy for Mike and the church. Most of the Spanish community is nice and law-abiding. But there are also gangs, graffiti, and other challenges. Nevertheless, the church was willing to “step up to the plate” and begin preaching to gang members, illegal immigrants, prostitutes, and others. This has led to Mike’s insistence of reaching out to the poor and the destitute, to the outcasts and the downtrodden.
Their Spanish ministry has also allowed them to show the love of Christ to the community, which has become heavily alienated between their neighborhood’s English-speaking and Spanish-speaking populations. Guilford continues to support and maintain good relations with the Spanish church, striving to communicate and live out the power of the gospel.
As Mike concludes:
“We don’t need to make a ton of plans and strategies for how we are going to reach the world. God is more passionate about spreading his gospel than we are. We only need to be passionate about following his lead and trusting him for his provision” (84).
This truth is so simple, but so often overlooked. I have seen churches that plan, program, and strategize to death. But what we need most is to live our lives more and more in light of the gospel.
I was most challenged when Mike wrote:
“The Bible teaches that the gospel will find its warmest welcome among the poor and destitute, the outcasts and the downtrodden. The riches of the world powerfully tempt us to trust in them for our well-being…. So if you are planning on planting a church, consider swinging at the low-hanging fruit, as one of my seminary professors put it. Think about ways that your church can reach out to those whose station in life might make them more aware of their need for Christ. Consider making your housing choices accordingly, even if it means living in conditions that might not excite your mother-in-law” (80-81).
Am I willing to do this? Even when I have a family with several young children? May the Lord grant me the strength to do his will!
But now it is your turn. Thoughts?
John Divito
Member, Heritage Baptist Church
M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
CBTS Faculty fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession of Faith, hold an advanced
degree in their field of instruction, and possess significant pastoral experience.
