Tag: Bible

Book Recommendation: “The Temple and the Church’s Mission” by G.K. Beale

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

A few years back, in a biblical theology Bible institute class, my instructor highly recommended this book by Gregory Beale: The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. In that book, Beale unpacks the central place that the Temple and Tabernacle play in the Biblical narrative.

In Genesis, Eden was the first Temple, complete with a sanctuary, cherubim and God’s presence. In fact the creation of the earth is actually described in temple-building terms. The building of the Tabernacle uses language only found in Genesis 1 for the description of the candlestick, and there are other parallerls. At the end of the Bible, Revelation 21 describes the New Jerusalem in terms of a garden temple, very much like Eden. Significantly, there is no need of a temple there, since God the Father and the Lamb dwell there.

Beale traces this theme of God’s presence throughout Scripture and he compares the Biblical idea of temples and God’s presence with its prevailing ancient near Eastern counterparts. Such a comparison proves quite instructive, and I trust the book will flesh out how all of this impacts our understanding and appreciation of the Bible.

I haven’t finished the book yet, but so far it has proven a technical and careful study opening new wonders at every turn. Beale’s mastery of exegesis, the Biblical languages and ANE literature is quite impressive. Even more so is his humble sincerity and the awe he displays before the Word of God. I highly recommend picking up this intriguing, and impactful work. You can see a preview of the book’s contents, here.

Now through at least Tuesday (June 21), Westminster Bookstore has a 40% off sale of this title, and all others in the New Studies in Biblical Theology series from IVP. If you purchase 5 titles from that excellent set, edited by D.A. Carson, you can get a 50% discount. I encourage you to pick up this book directly, or check out the listing of titles in this series (scroll down at this link), and take full advantage of this great offer.

“The Essence of Christian Doctrine: A Brief Study of the Apostles’ Creed and Basic Christian Doctrine” by Martin Murphy

~ Bob Hayton

What is the essence of Christian doctrine? If you had to summarize the Christian faith, how would you do it? What primer could you give a new convert to introduce him to the foundational truths of Scripture? For many centuries, creeds such as the Nicene or Apostle’s Creed functioned as a foundational catechism for the Church. Even today, many evangelical Protestant churches revere and from time to time quote these creeds. They were the first confessions of the Church and much care and thought was put into each and every phrase they contain.

Perhaps the most widely used creed is the Apostle’s Creed. In a new book by Martin Murphy, this creed is expounded as a summary of basic Christian doctrine. Murphy’s book is entitled The Essence of Christian Doctrine: A Brief Study of the Apostle’s Creed and Basic Christian Doctrine. A publishing company he has founded, Theocentric Publishing, has produced this title and I was asked to review it.

The book begins with the Apostle’s creed and goes line by line through it. Each chapter is brief and provides a high level overview of fundamental Christian doctrine. After the creed is finished, other general Bible truths are explored: the Bible, Creation, sin, salvation, sanctification and more. Then the 10 commandments and the law of God are covered, as is evangelism and “principles of reformation and revival”.

The author’s pastoral tone is evident throughout this brief work. When appropriate, historical details and finer theological points are shared, but for the most part, a basic survey of doctrine is achieved. The implications of doctrine and the problems of the church today are also explained. The work is Reformed in perspective and can be used as a discipleship tool. It would also serve well for use as educational materials for older children.

One example of Murphy’s direct and simple style comes from his discussion on “bearing one another’s burden”:

Christians burdened by sin have no trouble finding other Christians that are more than willing to criticize and find fault. Then others are calling for punishment rather than restoration of a fallen brother or sister. Of course there are plenty who simply ignore a fallen brother or sister. The biblical way to bear one another’s sin burden is to be restored by those who are spiritual (Galatians 6:1,2). (pg. 165)

For being a self-published work, there are not too many editorial flaws. Several times bullet points are not standard within one list, and that can be distracting (see pg. 66, 75, 113, and 152). My primary complaint with the book is that it doesn’t quote the Apostle’s Creed in full. Having been raised in churches that didn’t teach that creed, it made it hard to follow along at various places. [Note: I’ve been told these errors have been fixed, and the creed has been added in the most recent edition, available through Amazon.]

Make no mistake, this is no dry and boring book on doctrine. Murphy writes with vigor and love and with a pastor’s eye. This simple book will be a help to many and I recommend it. Books like this are needed in today’s church, and I hope it will find a wide audience.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by the author for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

You can pick up a copy of this book from any of these fine retailers: Christianbook.com, Amazon.com, or direct from Theocentric Publishing Group.

Greg Locke, Fundamentalism and the “Baptist” Label

~ Bob Hayton ~ 42 Comments

Recently, Pastor Greg Locke, a well known speaker among both Independent Fundamental Baptists and some Southern Baptist churches, announced that he is removing “Baptist” from the name of his church. Instead their initials GVBC will now stand for Global Vision Bible Church.

Removing the word “Baptist” from the church name is not an uncommon move. The argument is that removing the name makes the church more accessible to some who would shy away from the Baptist label.

In Locke’s case, it means more than dumping the baggage that the title Baptist holds. Instead, he views it as a departure from the IFB movement as a whole. I wonder how much of this is in part due to the recent 20/20 expose on the IFB movement? Perhaps other pastors and churches need to think through this issue themselves. Understandably, this has caused some shockwaves and Locke’s Facebook page was all abuzz with comments good and bad.

I wanted to share his reasoning for removing the name Baptist, and then ask others to chime in on your thoughts related to this. Personally, I’m a deacon at a Baptistic church, that doesn’t have the word Baptist in our name. Yet I’m not necessarily ashamed of it either. That being said, I do think that “being all things to all men” can definitely include modifying the church name (to some extent). And I’m a Christian more than a Baptist anyway.

Here’s the excerpt from Locke in a letter written for his church, explaining the change:

Here is a list of reasons that I feel this is a very important move:

1. Because of our geographic location (Nashville) 95% of any Baptist church is automatically associated with the SBC. While I have many friends in the Convention, we are not affiliated as a church. I preach in some of the greatest Southern Baptist churches in the country but I believe GV should remain Independent in our structure and governance.

2. The IFB “movement” as a whole is totally out of control and I do not personally wish to be identified with it any longer. Legally, our church will still be Global Vision Baptist Inc., Practically, I am worlds away from where I was even 5 years ago and I cannot in good conscience give my full support to a movement that has become nothing more than a mini controlling denomination. I understand that every “camp” of churches has it’s own issues, but I am unwilling to have GVBC submitted to the dictates of a legalistic mindset of man-made regulations. I preach in dozens of IFB churches, but we desire to be truly Independent, even in our identity.

3. The type of families/people we are reaching could care less about such an issue. I have come to realize that people’s lives are so much more important that the name a church has on the sign. We are the church and if we are not healthy as a body it doesn’t matter what the sign says. So many of our people are brand new Christians or are healing from an experience in the same type of church we are distancing ourselves from.

4. Because of our strong emphasis on Powerful Preaching, the term BIBLE would be much more in line with our DNA and overall vision. People say that to remove “Baptist” will take away our identity. Exactly! I want our identity to be nothing but the Word of God. We didn’t start a church so people “like us” would show up. I want a church that is solely built upon the radical principles of the Book. If people know that there is a place like that, they will flock to it. However, if they merely think we are the same kind of church they grew up in, then we won’t even get them in the door. I don’t want our church identity sabotaged by a loyalty to denomination, movement, camp or tradition. I want all my allegiance to God’s Word.

5. Personally, I’m a very hard guy to put in a box. I feel like I have not been true to who God made me to be and it has caused me much frustration. If I were to start the church over again tomorrow, this would be something I would do from the very beginning. God has done so much in my heart these last few years. But overall, I have allowed this constant “identity crises” to become such a focus that it has greatly affected my judgment and my family. I say “NO MORE”. How foolish I have been to seek so much of man’s approval. I am at a point in my life and ministry that if I can’t be who God made me at GVBC, then I must go somewhere that God can use me without the restraints of others that have nothing to do with our church. However, I know this is where God has placed me and I am positive that this is His leading. I’m not dying on the hill of being “Baptist”. But I will gladly lay down my life for the truth of the BIBLE.

We are going to remain as fundamentally sound as we have ever been. We are not changing Bibles or compromising truth. We will continue to keep a red-hot pulpit and build our congregation on expository preaching, soul-winning and world missions. I am grateful for my IFB heritage, but it will not be my future. If others interpret this as an attack on IFB churches, then they have clearly read between the lines. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”. This is not easy, but I know for us it is right. I love you all. Now, let’s change the sign and reach this town for Christ.

[SOURCE …link now not working…]

What do you think? I for one, commend a man who doesn’t walk a party line but is willing to follow God’s leading and stand on his own two feet. I also predict the reaction to this may just prove once and for all that the IFB movement is in fact, a de-facto denomination. Reactions such as this one by Pastor Gary Click, indicate that to remove the name and distance oneself from the IFB movement is taken (by the supposedly “non-movement”) as “separation”, with the result that the true IFBs will then respond in kind.

For more on Greg Locke, you can read an interview that Re:Fundamentals did with him back in 2009. Please, let me know what you think about this. For the record, I don’t necessarily endorse bailing from the IFB movement as the solution for everyone and every church. But it’s hard to argue that the label is falling on hard times.

Quotes to Note 29: John Bunyan on Studying the English Bible

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Today, there are many who encourage pastors to study Hebrew and Greek. Back in the day, the Puritan greats were masters of the Bible’s original languages. I’m not discounting this at all, although my proficiency in Hebrew and Greek is feeble at best. I just found it interesting to come across an anecdote passed down concerning John Bunyan and his being challenged on this very issue.

Bunyan was a tinker and not an educated scholar. But he had no qualms about picking up his English Bible and preaching boldly, however. I share the following anecdote about Bunyan and the English Bible below.

I might fear that some will now take this story and assume Bunyan was really a King James Only proponent. But I would just remind them that Bunyan used the Geneva Bible like all good dissenters of his day!

________________

Another story… concerns Bunyan’s encounter on the road near Cambridge with another university man, who asked him how he, not having the original Scriptures, dared to preach. Bunyan was nothing if not quick on his feet, and so he answered the scholar with a question: “Do you, sir, have the originals–the actual copies of the books written by the prophets and apostles?”

“No,” the scholar replied, “but I have what I know to be true copies of the originals.”

Perhaps there was the hint of a smile in Bunyan’s reply. “And I,” he said, “believe the English Bible to be a true copy also.” At a loss for words, the university man turned and went on his way.

________________
Excerpted from John Bunyan (Christian Encounters series),
by Kevin Belmonte (Nelson), pp. 79-80.

Harold Camping and a Replay of “The Great Disappointment”

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

On a special day, everyone felt on edge. An influential Bible teacher with numerous followers had prophesied that this very day would be the day Jesus returned. That day came and went leaving his followers severely disappointed.

Sound familiar? I’m not speaking of May 21, 2011 and Harold Camping, but October 22, 1844 and William Miller. The Millerite movement (no they weren’t known for beer drinking), were followers of William Miller’s Adventist teachings about Christ’s Second Advent (or arrival/coming). Using the most influential medium of his time, newspapers (similar to Camping’s use of radio today), the Millerites spread an “end-times” message far and wide. Their movement fractured eventually and spawned numerous other Churches and cults (or sects). The Seventh Day Adventist church directly rose from the Millerite movement, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ founder Charles Russell was influenced by Miller’s movement as well.

October 23, 1844 was known as “The Great Disappointment” because the predictions concerning October 22 didn’t happen. The dates had been shuffled and reshuffled around already prior to October 22, so they really couldn’t come up with a new date. Eventually, many of the Millerites simply changed their view of what was to happen from being a physical coming of Christ to being only a spiritual event.

Today, the Seventh Day Adventists continue to teach as an article of their faith that on October 22, 1844, Jesus entered the Holy of Holies in Heaven to begin the final phase of his work: the investigative judgement. Jesus is investigating every man’s work and accomplishing atonement for some and not for others. He’s reviewing the books, and wow, there must sure be an awful lot of books for the omnipotent Son of God to view since it’s been almost 170 years since he started! [See this link for more info on “the investigative judgement and the SDA church.”

Yesterday night, I listened as Harold Camping, today’s William Miller, explained away his failed prediction. The Judgement Day predicted did actually happen. It was a spiritual judgement, however. He did make a mistake. He took the prophecies too literally. Of course, October 21 will still be the physical end of the world, in Camping’s book. But this is no setback now. He reached for a card from the Seventh Day Adventist’s playbook. But I wonder if his followers will buy it? Will they continue to be greatly disappointed?

History repeats itself. End-times hysteria has been running rampant in America for more than 250 years now. It’s allowed cults like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses to flourish. Other groups with seriously defective teaching have emerged, like the Seventh Day Adventists. Doctrinal systems have also arisen which have not helped the church. Disputes over extreme variations of dispensationalism or hyper-preterism have an end-times factor behind them.

What exactly is it that contributes to the end-times mania? And why can’t we see past it? I hope to explore some of these issues in a series of posts spread out over the next couple weeks. But feel free to share your thoughts here in the comments.

The chart above was taken from the Wikipedia article on “The Great Disappointment”.