Tag: Religion

Free eBooks from R.C. Sproul

~ Bob Hayton

Crucial Questions eBooks from R.C. Sproul - now free
R.C. Sproul has authored a series of short books answering important questions that almost everyone has asked at one time or another. Now Ligonier Ministries, has made these books available for free as ebook downloads (Kindle or iTunes formats).

I just wanted to pass along this news to my readers who may be looking for helpful resources for new Christians, and anyone longing to grow in grace. Here’s the list of books available. Go to Ligonier.org for more information.

  • Can I Be Sure I’m Saved?
  • Can I Have Joy in My Life?
  • Can I Know God’s Will?
  • Can I Trust the Bible?
  • Does God Control Everything?
  • Does Prayer Change Things?
  • How Should I Live in this World?
  • What Can I Do with My Guilt?
  • What Does It Mean to be Born Again?
  • What Is Baptism?
  • What Is Faith?
  • What Is the Trinity?
  • Who Is Jesus?
  • Who Is the Holy Spirit?

Thinking Biblically about Tragedy

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

How can one process utter tragedy, such as the loss of dozens of lives in Moore, Oklahoma from yesterday’s monster tornado? How can we respond with grace and not despair? How can we still believe in an awesome God who is love, and see evidence of such apparent random carnage coming down from the sky? Where was God? Where is He?

Some will blame God, and others will say He couldn’t have stopped this and hurts as much as any of us over this loss. Either response is unbiblical, and doesn’t correctly assess the true nature of our great God. I shared the following thoughts in a post that I put up following the tragic massacre of children in Newtown, Connecticut last year.

Scripture’s teaching on evil and suffering is that God permits it, and works behind it, to accomplish His purposes. For those who love God and believe in Him (the elect), God works everything together for their good (Rom. 8:28). And ultimately, God “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11). God “does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’” (Dan. 4:35). He “has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Prov. 16:4). And Amos 3:6 declares soberingly, “Does disaster come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?”

If God is truly sovereign, then, why did He choose to allow such sin and suffering in this world?

I go on to quote Jonathan Edwards on the problem of evil in that post, and I encourage you to read the whole post.

But such manifestly biblical teaching can sometimes seem chilling and unfeeling in light of tragedies such as the tornado in Moore, Oklahoma. How are we comforted in knowing that God was not surprised by what happened in Moore? And how should Christians respond and think about such natural evil as terrible twisters that leave carnage and destruction in their wake?

Sam Storms, a pastor and writer in Oklahoma, has a response which I commend to my readers. His post is titled “Tornadoes, Tsunamis, and the Mystery of Suffering and Sovereignty.” It’s worth a quick read on a day like today. May you read it and contemplate how to respond biblically to tragedy.

Marriage, Meaning and Minnesota: How to React to the News that Gay Marriage is Now Legal

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

We came back from family wedding this past weekend to realize that Minnesota (our state) passed legislation legalizing gay marriage. Gov. Dayton signed it into law last night, to be put into effect on August 1! My how times change. This new legal reality is coming to a state or municipality near you – and soon.

How is a Christian to respond? There are obviously a lot of Christian pastors and leaders with great things to say, so I’m just chiming in from my own angle – I don’t claim this is advice that will rock the world, just what might be a few helpful thoughts.

1) Don’t freak out. God is not surprised. He’s still on the throne.

The worldly state (think “city of man”) has long embraced what God has forbidden. In Paul’s day, the vice that was legal in places like Corinth and Rome would make your skin crawl. Open sex in temples full of paid prostitute-priestesses (and priests) – all in the name of mystery religion. The slave trade, women captured in war with the victor using them as he wishes. Roman senators with love-boys and lewd public banquets. Oh and Christians were the ones rescuing unwanted infants left “exposed” to die on street corners. They were also the ones who couldn’t participate openly in commerce since that required obligatory offerings to the pagan gods. Christians were the ones who accepted people of all socioeconomic statuses and lived as brothers and sisters. They took care of one another – even when huddled together in the arena facing lions or death by any number of other more gruesome means. So don’t be surprised when the world hates us. Read John 15:18-21 along with Matt. 5:10-12.

2) Remember the State has never defined marriage, God created it and He defines it.

Now worldly cultures and states have developed different traditions and laws governing marriage. In many African tribes, polygamy is normal with either the women or the men in a position of dominance. In ancient times the king could sleep with the bride on her wedding night by right. Whole religions still maintain a priestly class that is forbidden to marry but who nevertheless engages in illicit sex. The world’s structures are broken and always have been. It wasn’t too long ago when Christians were denouncing the government for allowing divorce for unbiblical reasons. Now just about anything goes. The state will let a man marry seven times to seven different women. So if the same state lets a man marry a man, why should we be alarmed? Christians should be defending marriage of one woman and one man for life – the biblical ideal. The exceptions allowing divorce should be rare and not jumped to at any possible opportunity by those who name Christ’s name. See my post pleading against frivolous divorce here.

3) Take heart in the true meaning of marriage.

Marriage is more than a ticket to government benefits. If that is all marriage is — and in our culture of long-standing, live-in relationships, this seems more and more what marriage is — then no wonder everyone should have the same “right.” But this isn’t about tax benefits — it is about what marriage means. Marriage is a picture of God’s covenant relationship with us. And it is for this reason that divorce should be rare among Christians. Our marriages should be pictures of the ultimate marriage of Christ and the Church. See Eph. 5:25-32 for more on this. I would also encourage you to seek out a copy of Tim Keller’s masterful book on the subject: The Meaning of Marriage. Ultimately, marriage isn’t about us, it’s about God. And God can defend it in our culture better than we can. Rather than being devastated by the abuse of marriage in the public arena let us be busy living out our lives as the “salt of the earth” letting our marriages shine before the watching world so they can see the true purpose of marriage and glory in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (see Matt. 5:13-16).

4) Be careful in our reaction to this news.

As most Christians undoubtedly will express dismay at this turn of events, we must be especially careful as to how we react publicly. We must be careful as to how our words and actions will be perceived too, because we care about giving a faithful and clear witness to a watching world. Too often, we have allowed our opposition to the homosexual agenda, to come across as a mean-spirit against homosexual people. And while we are right to be concerned at loose definitions of homophobia and the desire of some to classify orthodox Christian teaching as hate speech, there nonetheless has been homophobia and hate speech in some sectors of Christianity. Furthermore, our strong opposition to homosexual marriage can be misunderstood to convey that the Church really is all about controlling others and seeking to gain and keep onto political power in its desire to impose morality on others. Rather than evincing compassion and understanding toward those struggling with homosexual desires, our actions and sometimes our attitudes say that we are better than them. We are normal, they are not. And if they just quit misbehaving they could be like the rest of us decent heterosexual beings. But isn’t this the opposite of the gospel’s fundamental truth that you can’t save yourself, and that only by God’s grace can we overcome our innate desires (present in everyone’s fallen heart) toward evil? Christianity is not about external morality and do-it-yourself reform; it begins and ends with Christ on the cross and a gospel of grace. As we interact with those in the workplace and our communities who consider themselves homosexuals, let us ponder anew how we can call them to a life of self-denial that is ultimately worth it because of the glory of our Savior and the glorious gospel of His grace for sinners. For more posts on homosexuality from a biblical perspective, see these earlier posts. I would also highly recommend Wesley Hill’s book, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality.

Book Endorsement: “The Doctrine of Scripture” by Jason Harris

~ Bob Hayton

The Doctrine of Scripture by Jason HarrisToday’s book review post is special for two reasons. First, this marks the 150th book review I’ve posted here at Fundamentally Reformed. Second, this review includes the foreword I was privileged to write for this book.

The Doctrine of Scripture: As It Relates to the Transmission and Preservation of the Text by Jason Harris is published by InFocus Ministries in Australia. I’m excited to recommend this new book to my readers here in the United States as I believe this book can go a long way toward helping those confused or entangled by King James Onlyism.

My Foreword

Another book on the King James Only debate? Much ink has been spilled and many passions expended in what may be the ugliest intramural debate plaguing conservative, Bible-believing churches today. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, Baptists and Presbyterians, Reformed and charismatic — all have been affected to a greater or lesser extent by those arguing for or against the King James or New King James Versions of the Bible. With each new book it seems the debate becomes more and more caustic, each group castigating the other in ever more forceful terminology.

Jason Harris enters the fray with the right blend of humility and tenacity, and turns the attention of all to the true center of the debate: the doctrine of Scripture. What makes this debate so passionate is that it centers on the very nature of Scripture. Rather than focus on technical facts and ancient manuscript copying practices, Harris takes us back to what Scripture says about itself: its inspiration, preservation and accessibility. In doing so, he demonstrates how those upholding the King James Bible and the Textus Receptus behind it, base their position not on sound exegesis of the Scripture, but on tenuous assumptions read into the text.

Harris’s pen is lucid and his grasp of the King James Only debate as a whole is masterful. He focuses his work on TR-only position which represents the very best of King James Only reasoning. He interacts with the exegesis of key TR-only proponents and marshals compelling evidence demonstrating their failure to measure up to Scripture’s own teaching about itself. And after explicating the doctrine of Scripture, Harris draws important conclusions which should protect the reader from making simplistic assumptions in a quest for textual certainty that goes beyond what Scripture teaches we should expect.

Harris wants us to be confident that we do have the inspired Scripture translated accurately in our English Bibles. He wants such confidence to be rooted to a Scriptural understanding of the Doctrine of Scripture rather than in the “supernatural-guidance” of a group of sixteenth-Century translators. Assuming that such a group of men made no mistakes is to expect something Scripture doesn’t teach, and ignore what it does. Harris is to be commended for such a clear, lucid defense of the historic doctrine of Scripture. I hope his book is received well and helps laymen and pastors everywhere to begin to rethink the basis for why they think as they do when it comes to the King James Only debate.

Bob Hayton
FundamentallyReformed.com
KJVODebate.Wordpress.com

[pp. 9-10]

Additional Thoughts

After re-reading this book and seeing the published version, I am more optimistic than ever about its promise to provide clarity to the King James Only debate. Jason Harris’s book has a few characteristics which together make it a unique contribution to this debate.

First, his book focuses on the alleged doctrine of the verbal, plenary accessibility of Scripture. This is where the root of the KJV and TR preference lies for many people. The argument is not so much based on texts and manuscripts as it is on what allegedly the Bible teaches – that the very words of Scripture (all of them down to the letters) would be generally accessible to believers down through the ages. Harris spends most of his time marshaling a Scriptural rebuttal to these claims and also demonstrates the difficulties such a position has when it comes to the history of the text as we know it.

Second, this volume carefully builds a theology of the transmission and preservation of Scripture. Such a careful, exegetically-based explication of the doctrine of Scripture has been lacking in this debate. And such a gap has often been used by KJV-only proponents to their advantage. It is KJV-only books which start with a Scriptural position and then look at the evidence, with the “anti-KJV” books starting with history and evidence and then moving to the Scriptural arguments. This book is different and starts where the debate starts for most of the sincere believers who get swept up into it — it starts on Scripture’s teaching about the very nature and preservation of Scripture.

Finally, Harris keeps a very irenic tone throughout. He is careful not to overstate his case and exaggerate the claims of his opponents. This is especially difficult to do when it comes to this heated debate, but Jason pulls this off well. Additionally, he backs up his book with the inclusion of a vast array of footnotes documenting the claims he is arguing against. I appreciate how he does not direct his argument toward the Riplingers and Ruckmans of this debate. He focuses on the TR-only position and the more careful wing of KJV-onlyism, men like David Cloud, D.A. Waite, Charles Surret, and the like. Harris has read widely in the KJV only literature, and his treatment avoids broadbrushing and generalizations that tend to give KJV-only proponents an easy out. It’s easy to dismiss a book as not being directed to their particular position, or to claim the author makes egregious errors and lumps their position in with that of heretical views. Harris’s book is not open to such charges. He directs his case against the very best arguments of KJV-onlyism.

Had I been exposed to such a book I would have been inoculated to the pull of the KJV-only persuasion. As it happened, I was swept up in a TR-only view that made it seem like we had the corner on truth and everyone else was compromising. By God’s grace I came to understand that Scripture does not support such a view of the transmission of the text.

Jason Harris is to be thanked for giving us a tool to recommend to those thinking through this issue from within, and to help the ones who are being pressured to join the KJV-only position. I highly recommend The Doctrine of Scripture and hope it makes its way into the hands of anyone struggling with this issue who will yet be open-minded enough to study out the issue from both sides.

You can pick up a copy of The Doctrine of Scripture at Amazon.com.

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

Clarifying My Thoughts on Music

~ Bob Hayton

My most recent post on music has a provocative title: “Superior Affections Yet a Christ-less Conception of Worship.” And someone over at Sharper Iron sought clarification (in the comment thread here) as to whether I was really implying that a traditional stance on music is inherently legalistic.

I wanted to share my clarification here for my readers’ benefit.

Clarification

I quoted Bixby for the “Christ-less” remark in my post. I do think discussing the music issue and having ordinate affections and all, would be healthy for evangelicalism as a whole. The criticism is valid that often there is not much thought given to where we are with music and worship.

That being said, there is a danger to have such an emphasis on form that it obscures the gospel. I do think that is a danger as well.

Berating people and badgering people into having a certain music style is not healthy. Bixby was saying as much. Is RAM doing that, or some RAM type people? I am not sure. But that is not healthy if/when it occurs.

Additionally, having pride in our worship or thinking we are superior because of it would be a gospel problem. Legalism is in the heart so this is a danger that can exist. Maligning others and impugning them with ill motives, which is how the public statements often sound from RAM / traditional music emphasizing fundamentalists when they speak of those who use the other music. It goes back to Chuck Phelps’ letter and the anonymous hit piece on NIU that RAM posted. Those are examples of judging motives and assuming the worst of those who utilize contemporary styled music in worship.

To quote from my post which was referring to Bixby’s:

If you have preferred traditional music, his post will help you examine your own heart. It will also show how this stance toward the worship wars can so easily turn into a pharisaicalism that looks down on others and in turn, becomes an empty shell of externally focused religion.

The point is that one can have what is considered “superior affections” and yet have a Christ-less conception of worship – a legalistic attitude. I am not claiming that RAM has this. I think Bixby brings out some good points and may overstate his case some, but in my experience it is usually the followers who take what someone says and run with it to an extreme. So I bet there are real examples behind the excesses Bixby chronicles and denounces in his post.

Hopefully that explains things. Discussing the role of affections and the role of music can be a healthy thing for the evangelical church. Often people just assume and do, rather than carefully consider. The careful considering I have done on the issue has made me a better worshiper and I think a greater influence in evangelicalism by fundamentalists in general – on lots of things, would be a good thing.

Then some follow up questions were asked and I thought I’d share my response to those here as well. I don’t want to be misunderstood and this is an important conversation – even if it is difficult not to talk past one another and be misunderstood in our zeal for our particular musical position.

Are you saying that if you have a “standard” for worship action (never mind whose for a minute), you are maintaining a “legalistic” and “Christ-less” concept of worship? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but it seems like that’s where you are going.

I am not saying a “standard” makes one legalistic. A standard can be so exalted and gloried in that we rejoice that we aren’t like the publican who doesn’t adopt our standard. That is when it becomes legalistic. How one lifts up and rallies around and promotes the said standard can go a long way to promoting or encouraging the legalistic response to it. But just having a standard or drawing a line at some point, doesn’t mean that legalism will be the inevitable result.

However, wouldn’t you have to say, whether you have thought through it or not, that you have some “standard” of worship, even among those who are trying to have Christian worship; where in your conscience you say “this can be used to bring honor to God”, or “this doesn’t honor the Lord”, or “it doesn’t do anything for me” or however you want to say it.

Yes there is a standard, I would think, at our church. The line isn’t extremely clear but pastoral direction would be given and has been given in shaping the musical philosophy at our church and others I’ve been to in the past.

How do you think a less conservative standard of worship affects the unsaved? Those who have been saved out of a background of extreme love of the world and sin?

Our worship isn’t about the unsaved. I hope they would encounter a reverence and exultation in Jesus when they see our worship however. As for those saved out of a background of “extreme” love of the world and sin? Our worship is so different from what they are used to when it comes to sensual lyrics, sensual musical performance, stage lights, etc., that I don’t think there is a strong enough correlation in their mind.

Today, if you go to the dentist, go to a shopping mall, eat at Wendys, attend a ball game, go to a bowling alley, pop music and a syncopated beat is everywhere. It is the air we breathe. And for that reason, I contend, that it has become just a normal part of the culture. Heavily sensual beat, gyrating dance, intense and very loud music – that is part of the club scene and has characteristics quite different from what you hear in the doctor’s waiting room.

All of that means is that the average Joe who comes to hear our syncopated worship songs, won’t think anything inherently strange or sinful is happening. It is the music expression he is used to – his language. The lyrics and God-ward direction from the worship leader(s) will be what is new, and powerful, and attractive. And he’ll also encounter older hymns, and choral pieces that are different to his average experience that also communicate the depth of church history and the grandeur of worshiping a holy God.

What if someone in your worship team wants to perform secular music in secular venues as well?

Certain kinds of secular music don’t necessarily have to be seen as immoral. But it would depend on the type, the context, etc. It hasn’t come up in churches I’m aware of, or a part of. But consideration would be given for sure. Do we have to have a rule book which says you can’t do X, Y and Z outside of Sunday’s serivce and Saturday’s practice times, in order to be a faithful church? How about we disciple people and respond in biblical wisdom to situations as they arise?

Feel free to jump into the conversation in the comments below, or over at Sharper Iron.