Category: Gospel Centered

Live at The Gospel Coalition Conference – 2

~ Bob Hayton

Here is a brief overview of each of the plenary sessions from yesterday’s conference. I’ll have more to say about books and the Band of Bloggers event I went to later.

The music was led by Keith and Kristyn Getty. It was more upbeat and lively than I expected, which was actually nice. The Irish flair was there with even a bagpipe solo. They are introducing a fairly new song of theirs, “By Faith” and also did an even newer one. Prior to session 2, the music at one point dropped out and the congregation was heard more clearly singing “O Church Arise”. The 5,000 or so voices singing that song together was powerful. Praise to Jesus for bringing together his people in places like this conference center (the massive McCormick Place in Chicago) and all around the world…

Session 1: Al Mohler – Studying the Scriptures and Finding Jesus (John 5)
–Download audio–

Mohler explains the problem of a Christless Old Testament, and explains how studying the Scriptures is supposed to result in finding Jesus. He shows how so many people are practical Marcionites, claiming the New Testament is the Christian book, the OT is Hebrew Scriptures. Basically, some would have us do synagogue lectures when we teach from the OT. Don’t get me wrong, his tone wasn’t combative at all. It was a very helpful and hope filled lecture on the importance of seeing Christ in the OT.

Session 2: Tim Keller – Getting Out (Exodus 14)
–Download audio–

Keller showed multiple links from the Exodus account to the New Testament. He explained that the story of the Israelites could be described as this: They were slaves in bondage with no hope and a sentence of death, finding redemption by hiding under the blood atonement, crossing over from death to life, then having a promise of going to a new country. They’re not there yet, but they’re on the way and God has given them his law and a worship system so they treasure and remember His work for them. Keller then says, that’s exactly how you would describe the people of God today, too. He goes on to discuss the layers of bondage and the redemption and how it was accomplished (all by Grace).

Session 3: Alistair Begg – From a Foreigner to King Jesus (Ruth)
–Download audio–

Begg gave us sketches of the beautiful story of Ruth. He showed how Boaz, particularly, was the goel, kinsman redeemer and foreshadows Christ. He also drew parallels from the locale of Ruth’s story and then David’s childhood tending sheep there in Bethlehem, to Christ and the Bethlehem shepherds coming at his birth in Bethlehem. Much to see Christ from in this book.

Session 4: Round-table discussion – Tim Keller, John Piper, Crawford Loritts, Don Carson, Bryan Chapell
–Download audio–

Highlights from that are really anything Keller or Carson said. Loritts emphasized the role of the preacher’s walk with Christ too, in preaching. Piper emphasized not ignoring the context of the OT text itself when preaching from it.

Keller explained his preaching as a fourfold trajectory often: 1) What you should do (as evidenced by this OT text); 2) You can’t do this (due to your sinfulness); 3) Christ has done it for you (i.e. the Gospel applied); 4) Until you rest in what He’s done, you can’t do it (living the gospel life).

Piper mentioned Graeme Goldsworthy’s book on Preaching the Whole Bible As Christian Scripture as containing a line that really got Piper thinking and has changed how he preaches. Goldsworthy said “If a Muslim liked your sermon, you didn’t preach a Christian sermon. If a Jewish person liked your sermon, you didn’t preach a Christian sermon.”

Carson brought out the Temple theme as one of many trajectories that are traced through Scripture and which really do point to Christ. He stressed everything doesn’t point to Christ the same way, but when you are in a text that addresses one of these types or trajectories that aligns to Christ, you have a warrant for going to Christ. Carson was also asked by Chapell, “Can you preach Proverbs without going to the New Testament?” Carson immediately responded, “Why would I want to? It wouldn’t even occur to me to do so.” He also pointed out that it’s the same with texts like Isaiah, too. Carson then went on to stress that the NT relates to the OT yes in terms of not only prophecy (OT) and fulfillment (NT), but also message hidden (OT) and message revealed (NT). Personally I find that very helpful, yes some things are plainly clear, but other things were hidden until Christ clearly revealed them.

At the end of the discussion, Chapell fired off a list of helpful resources for preaching Christ from the OT. I thought that list (plus Bryan Chapell’s own book, Christ-Centered Preaching) was excellent. You’ll have to listen to the audio though since he gave it out so quickly.

At the end of the roundtable discussion Tim Keller, John Piper, Dr. John Woodhouse and Lane Dennis (president of Crossway), presented a book written in Carson’s honor, commemorating his long service to the church and his 65th birthday.

The 2011 Gospel Coalition National Conference: See You There!

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

Over the years, I’ve blogged about quite a few conferences, from the sidelines. I eagerly downloaded the audio after the fact and helped spread the word about conferences such as Together for the Gospel Conference, The Gospel Coalition and others. This time, I get to go!

If you’ll be at The Gospel Coalition conference next week, I want to know. I’d love to arrange to meet you in person. The theme of this year’s conference is right up my alley: Preaching Christ in the Old Testament. Already, TGC is compiling a stellar listing of top-notch resources on this issue. You can learn more at their Preaching Christ in the Old Testament page.

I’ll try to bring some “live blog” updates if I have time. But I plan to be soaking up the ministry of the word at the conference. I’m also thrilled to be going with my fellow biblioblogger Shaun Tabatt, and we’ll both be attending the Band of Bloggers event Tuesday night.

Use the Contact page here, or message me on Twitter or Facebook to get in touch. Hope to see you there!

On another note, I’ll be meeting Phil Johnson in person the Sunday before TGC here at my church in St. Paul, Beacon of Hope. I’ve been following Phil’s blogging ministry off and on since his solo Pyromaniac days. He was a big help to me early on when I first started blogging about my journey out of extreme fundamentalism. Phil is in town for the Psalm 119 conference and will speak at our church in the services and for a special Q & A, dinner event following. If you live in the Twin Cities, contact me for more info.

Be Careful about Bearing False Witness: John Piper, Rick Warren and Over-the-top Reactions

~ Bob Hayton ~ 20 Comments

John Piper’s ministry, Desiring God, will be holding a regional conference at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California April 29-30. Pastor Piper will also be speaking, apparently, at Saddleback Church on Sunday May 1.

Now, Rick Warren’s ministry raises some question marks for sure. Should the church be focusing on poverty and world peace so closely as an extension of ministry? Do some of Warren’s teaching methods and outreach efforts really cater to the “felt-needs” of the unchurched too much, to the point where the gospel is obscured? Does having the Jonas Brothers performing in concert reveal a total lack of discernment?

I’m not sure I have all the answers here about Rick Warren, but I haven’t talked with him either. What bothers me, is that many people are quick to point to John Piper’s speaking at Saddleback, and Rick Warren’s speaking at the Desiring God Conference in Minneapolis last Fall, and conclude that John Piper has sold out on the Gospel, and has compromised the faith.

I recently came across remarks by Ingrid Schlueter, a well-known watch-blogger:

Despite the countless and detailed warnings that have gone out over the last decade about Rick Warren and his distortion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, John Piper prepares to deliver his followers to the platform at Saddleback Church in an act of ultimate spiritual betrayal on April 29 and 30, 2011.

John Piper, perhaps more than anyone else who has been seduced by Dr. Warren through the years, is without excuse. Could there be a teacher more aware of what the Gospel actually is according to Scripture? Someone with a more thorough knowledge of the whole Counsel of God? Someone with more access to the best commentaries, the best theological instruction, the most devout and rigorous Bible teaching colleagues in the land? Yet he falls, and with him, takes innumerable sheep who will trust him to their own destruction.

“Ultimate spiritual betrayal,” really??? Piper is taking us to our “own destruction”??

In a Facebook conversation recently, someone mentioned that Warren taught a works-based righteousness. Another said Piper speaking at Saddleback would be “counter-productive to the gospel effort”. I respect the people who said these things, but I think they are swept up in a frenzy of mis-information, and well-intentioned paranoia.

Rick Warren is not a false teacher or a denier of the Gospel. He may muddy the waters signficantly, but he isn’t a devil or antichrist. He is just the latest incarnation of American revivalism meets pragmatism. His message is not strange. It might not be as clear doctrinally as some would like (although we don’t get to see all the doctrinal teaching that goes on at Saddleback, up close and personal). His preaching may not always be verse-by-verse exposition. But He does revere the Bible and preach a plain Gospel.

It is hard to judge people solely on one-liners given in front of a hostile interviewer. I’m sure Warren’s failed sometimes in articulating the gospel message clearly. In this interview at Fox News, however, I think he did a good job in presenting that Jesus is the only way, and that salvation is a gift — while still not coming off as being extremely judgmental and mean-spirited. But we don’t have to go by just his public media appearances. Here is a 13 minute video where he presents the Gospel, answering the question “What does it mean to begin a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?” Now his gospel presentation there differs little from many given around the country every Sunday. It’s not as clearly Reformed as some would prefer, and it emphasizes a “sinner’s prayer”. But it is still clearly a grace-based, Biblical, Gospel presentation.

I’ve read some of Warren’s reflections about his incredibly popular book, The Purpose Driven Life, where he admits to being Calvinistic in his doctrine, even. I watched his message delivered to the Desiring God National Conference last Fall. I thought it was full of helpful information and really opened up a side of Rick Warren I hadn’t hear much of before. I heard John Piper’s explanations about why he invited Rick Warren: here and here. I’ve also posted about the controversy at length before. (And I’m not the only one who thinks the reactions against Piper and Warren are seriously over-the-top.)

But for my part, Piper speaking at Saddleback, and having a DG Conference at Rick Warren’s church is far less a problem than having Warren come speak at his conference. The Conference is going to be John Piper speaking in three sessions about the essence of “Desiring God”. It will be a standard Piper conference focusing on the 25th anniversary of Piper’s hugely influential (and thoroughly Biblical) book, Desiring God. I am thrilled that many of the people at Saddleback may get to hear that teaching and be shaped by Piper’s emphasis on God’s glory. And then, Piper speaks at Saddleback, and he can give his message and say what’s on his heart. I’ve heard many a well-known Baptist fundamentalist even claim they’d preach at the Vatican if given the chance to preach the gospel. Why should Piper preaching at Saddleback’s pulpit be necessarily a compromise of the Gospel?

This post is a bit of a vent, I’m sorry. It might not flow all that well. I’m just saddened to see so many derail Rick Warren as being an “antichrist”. I literally read someone wish that Piper had called Warren out as exactly that, an “antichrist”. Or just as sad, consider how a commenter at Justin Taylor’s blog described Rick Warren: a “Gospel-betraying, Bible-hating evildoer”! This kind of reaction is over-the-top, and I believe it also “bears false witness” in direct violation of the 9th commandment. The kind of ill-will and judgmentalism displayed toward Piper and Warren is as detrimental to the Gospel and more so, than some of Warren’s public statements which are less than clear about the Gospel.

Revisiting Baptism and Young Children

~ Bob Hayton ~ 28 Comments

I’ve considered this question before. As Baptists, when should we baptize our children? A few blog posts recently give reasons why we should or should not delay baptism until our children are more mature (apx. ages 10-12).

First, Trevin Wax gave 4 points on his position relating to this question (which is that we should delay baptizing children until they are around 10 years old or so).

John Starke at The Gospel Coalition Blog then gave 4 reasons why we should baptize small children.

On the heels of these posts, Mike Gilbart-Smith at 9 Marks Blog posted his own “9 reasons why we should not baptize young children“.

For my part, I have a hard time getting around the household baptism passages in Acts. Presbyterians point to household baptisms as evidence of the batpism of small children and infants. Baptists demur and say these passages are silent about the age of children, and often give evidence that all the members of the households evidenced faith. Now, however, when it comes to young children old enough to express faith, Baptists are free to let these children wait in some cases years before affirming their faith through baptism? The very same passages in Acts where all members of a household (presumably including children) believe and then are immediately baptized, now have nothing to say about children below the age of 12. It’s one thing to assume the passages don’t refer to infants, now we are supposed to believe they don’t refer to children under 12? Just who should we include as being in the households of the Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer and others?

As Starke points out, “the Bible doesn’t seem to give us any examples of an un-baptized Christian”. Furthermore, Justin Taylor in linking to Starke’s post above, added this insight:

There is an irony in the discussion””namely, that Jesus tells us to have faith like a child, and we often tell children that they first have to have demonstrate faith like an adult.

All things considered, at the risk of being considered a closet Presbyterian, I tend to think that the symbolism of Baptism is as much about the objective work of Christ for us (washing our hearts clean), as it is about the subjective experience of our testifying to our belief in the gospel (being buried with Christ in baptism). What happens in Baptism is an identifying with Christ and a celebration of what He has done, ultimately, not what we have done. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for young children who have demonstrated faith in Christ. And since baptism doesn’t save, I am not persuaded by arguments for delaying baptism. I may not agree fully with Vern Poythress’ thoughts about how even 2 and 3 year old children can have saving faith, but I also think he has a point.

I’m interested in what my readers think about this. I understand that some of us find ourselves in churches with an official policy of delaying baptism. I’m not advocating that you disregard your church’s teaching on this subject. Please don’t misunderstand me. But I think a more biblical position is to accept the little children that come to Jesus, and allow them after a period of evaluation, to be baptized.

The Old Testament: All about Christ, or Not?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 21 Comments

Fascinating debate recently about how to read the OT. The first two statements below are from Professor Mark Snoeberger of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.

First:

But since I’ve spent almost all my study time in the OT during the last two months, it’s almost as though I’ve left the Gospel Carnival behind. Kind of like going for a drive in the country, but better. It’s been very refreshing, but the funny thing is that, despite the fact that I have been spending considerably more time than normal in my Bible for the past two months, I’ve read virtually nothing about Christ, the Cross, or the Gospel.

Now some of you are probably shaking your heads right now and saying, “This guy doesn’t know how to read his Bible–it’s ALL about Christ if you know how to successfully navigate between the lines!” And I’m not blind to the redemptive thread that winds through the Bible. But the thing is, when I stop reading between the lines and just start reading the lines, Christ and the Gospel do not emerge as major OT themes. In fact, they’re not themes at all.

and then in the first comment under this post:

Revelation concerning the common or civic sphere, on the other hand, begins with the dominion mandate, takes peculiar shape with the Noahic Covenant and the second table of the Law, and dominates the theocratic period.

Dispensationalism, I think, can be demonstrated to be a variation of this latter model (some would say a perversion) that offers multiple adminstrations–not just two. The various purposes of God are inter-connected, but what is key is that they are not limited to redemptive concerns. What binds them together is not so much the Gospel as it is the manifold glory of God. It’s BIGGER than the Gospel.

Let’s take one example: the OT sacrificial system. There are diverse understandings within dispensationalism on the OT sacrifices, but one that I have felt comfortable embracing is John Whitcomb’s theocratic understanding of the sacrifices, viz., that the sacrifices were only incidentally connected with being redemptively right with God; instead they were concerned with being theocratically right with the (K)ing and with the covenant community. That these sacrifices became a pattern for the redemptive arrangement in the death of Christ is not accidental, of course. And God certainly arranged history so that there is a continuity of form. However, it seems to me that rather than seeing the OT sacrifices as anticipating Christ, it is better to say that God modeled Christ’s sacrifice retrospectively after the theocratic system.

If this is the case, then the the Mosaic system has its own meaning, known plainly by the OT saint, without reference to Christ. It was not intrinsically anticipatory.

Over and against this, Brian McCrorie in the comments here shared my basic view on this matter:

Ben I don’t think I fundamentally disagree with you. However, I would only add that we should not only interpret the OT on it’s own terms, but also interpret it canonically (ie, the Bible as one book)

If we simply isolate the OT from the NT, and interpret it “on it’s own terms”, and not canonically, would we ever come to the conclusion that Jonah could be a picture of Christ? Furthermore, I don’t need an OT text to explicitly tell me the rock in the wilderness was Christ when Paul tells me as much in 1 Cor.

If we isolate the testaments we may not even (like some comments above) see how Adam prefigured Christ. But it blows my mind that someone who has the NT would even question the correlation of the first Adam to the second, or King David to his greater Son whom he calls “Lord”.

The bigger question in all of this I think is how or if we can do what the NT writers do. For instance, we don’t have explicitly or implicity (that I know of)in the NT that Joseph was a type of Christ. But the correlations are almost as clear as day. I agree with James that Keller’s references to Esther and others are much more of a stretch. However, that doesn’t make his hermeneutic “special”, he’s just trying to follow the pattern of intertextual canonical interpretation. How confidently we do that today without divine inspiration is the sticking point (at least for me).

Lastly, I wanted to comment on something Keith said:
“How could God, ‘retrospectively’ do anything when he decreed it all outside of time?”

Marriage from the perspective of Eph 5 is a perfect example of this. We know now, this side of the cross and through later revelation, that marriage was instituted to be a picture of Christ and the church. In other words, the cross and the church preexisted (in the purpose of God, not strictly in time) the marriage of man and woman. Why then would we be surprised to find the events and words of the OT orchestrated and inspired to point to Christ? We’re not necessarilty reading Christ and the NT back into the OT. It’s almost as if we’re going back before the OT, now with the knowledge of God’s ultimate plan climaxing in Christ. We have now what angels and prophets once only dreamed of seeing. Please don’t make me go back to that day.

and then:

Here [is an] illustration supporting canonical reading (or reading the NT back into the OT):

Black box: Imagine a FAA flight inspection team reviewing data and clues from the site of a plane crash. All their information is leading them down a path of understanding the cause of the crash. But when they find the black box they have the pilot’s definitive word on how and why the plane went down. Wouldn’t they then go back and look at all the collected data and see how all along it pointed to that particular failure. But without the black box it wasn’t clear. The recording didn’t change the data (NT revelation doesn’t alter the OT), but shed new light on its proper and full interpretation. Furthermore, without the box, the collected data could never have been fully understood. Why would any inspector then go back and disregard the recording, or separate it from the data, and try to interpret the two separately? Instead, he would interpret the (less clear) clues with the definitive recording….

By isolating the OT and having a hermeneutic based on original authorial intent instead of a wider canonical interpretation based on divine Authorial intent, we are severely limiting our understanding of the text. We can better locate, appreciate, and interpret the signs and symbols pointing to Christ in the OT only as we see them through the lens of the NT. Lastly, we must be very careful to isolate the OT from the NT because, in my opinion, the function of OT revelation (as well as parables, for example) is not simply to reveal, but also to conceal. We weren’t meant to get all the information on God’s redemptive plan from the OT. Throughout the OT God gives us clues which only later can be identified for what they were. My guess is that originally God intentionally concealed the whole story (like any good writer) from all people, but particularly from rulers and authorities, and ultimately Satan himself. How else can we explain Satan killing the King of the Jews only to realize the salvation of the world and his own defeat?

I encourage you to read the comments where Brian made these statements above. There is an in-depth discussion of this question and all participants are quite irenic and charitable. Makes for great reading. The comments at Snoeberger’s blog will just puzzle you more than anything. If that is the result of dispensationalist thinking, I say beware.

Makes me excited that I’ll be going to the Gospel Coalition Conference this year where the theme is preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Maybe that’s why the Conservative Evangelicals have such an appeal to young fundamentalists, they get what the message of the Bible is all about.