Archive

Author Archive

My Grandmother is…Praying for Me by Kathryn March, Pamela Ferriss and Susan Kelton

March 12th, 2012 No comments

March, Kathryn, Pamel Ferriss, and Susan Kelton.  My Grandmother…is Praying for Me: Daily Prayers and Proverbs for Character Development in Grandchildren.  Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2011.  386 pp.  $17.99.  Purchase at Westminster for less.

Introduction

Kathryn March, Pamela Ferriss, and Susan Kelton are all wives, mothers, and grandmothers.  Kathryn has a Masters in counseling and works as an educational and career advisor to students and young adults.  Pamela holds a Juris Doctor degree and currently teaches the Scriptures in a ministry to mothers with young children.  Susan received a degree in psychology and enjoys helping others through life transitions as a realtor.  All three live near Nashville, Tn.

Summary

This is a devotional book so there is not much to summarize other than it is a year long devotional rooted in the Proverbs.  These three ladies share their hearts and reasons behind this work in this video:

Review

With each day being only a page long, even the busiest of grandmothers will be able to effectively and intentionally pray for their grandchildren with My Grandmother is…  Each month brings a new specific topic to pray for your grandchildren.  Topics range from faithfulness to wisdom to humility.  Each day begins with a verse or two from the Proverbs, a written prayer, and an application.  Some of the applications are a bit more involved than others, but all are worthwhile.

While this work is designed to be a year long devotional following a daily calendar, it can also be used topically if a grandchild is struggling with something specific.  Furthermore, do not let the title deceive you, this work can also be used by mothers (after all, you cannot be a grandma without being a mom) as well as grandfathers and fathers.

Recommendation

Though I caution all readers of devotions to never let the devotional replace Scripture reading, I do recommend this resource to any believing grandmother without any reservation.  Parents and grandpa’s may want to give a look as well.  Many do not think there is anything they can do for their grandchildren because they live far away or are not involved in  the lives of their children for other reason.  What can be done is prayer.  Allow My Grandmother is Praying for Me to help guide your prayers.

Share

Glory Veiled and Unveiled by Gerald M. Bilkes

March 9th, 2012 No comments

Bilkes, Gerald M.  Glory Veiled and Unveiled: A Hear-Searching Look at Christ’s Parables.  Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012.  180 pp.  $12.00.  Purchase at Westminster for less.

Introduction

Gerald Bilkes is Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids.  I also discovered a sermon he preached entitled Lifting High the Cross.

Summary

When you read the following on the first page of the introduction, you know you are in for a soul-searching read,

Many today are content to read the Bible in a way in which the Word of God is subject to them, rather than reading so they are subject to the Word.  They study the Bible – so they think – but the Bible does not study them.

Bilkes organizes his book into four sections for each parable considered.  The first section looks at how Christ uses the scenery of the parable to peel back the layers of the heart.  This section is the scenery.  In the second section, the Substance, Gerald offers the main message of the parable.

The third section, the Savior, looks at what is being revealed about Christ.  The final section to each parable discussed is the Searchlight where we see how the parable searches the hearts and lives of the reader exposing the sin in order that the believer may grow in knowledge of Christ. There are a twenty-two parables considered.

Review

While it took a few times reading the introduction to really ingest what Dr. Bilkes was saying about experiential reading of Scripture, I quickly  discovered that this is something I have been doing all along.  In essence, the argument has gone, since higher criticism, that we should approach the Bible as though we dictate what it is teaching to us.  Instead, since it is the inspired Word of God, we ought to allow it to perform the necessary surgeries on our hearts and minds.

While not all readers will completely agree with the author’s assessments of the various parables, they will certainly have some food for thought.  After reading what amounts to twenty-two sermonettes, the reader will scarcely approach the Scriptures the same.  Instead of “telling” the Bible what you want it to say, you will see how the Bible is meant to aid you in your sanctification.

Recommendation

I really enjoyed this work and found it to be of great benefit to my soul.  It is so easy to read the Parables of Christ and move on quickly as though they were good moral stories or even camp fire tales.  With the publication of Glory Veiled and Unveiled, I believe that that will no longer be the case.  Read and enjoy.

Share

How the Doctrine of Election Affects my Pastoral Ministry by Pastor Walter Chantry

February 29th, 2012 No comments

You can read Pastor Chantry's first message, How I Embrace the Doctrine of Election, Romans 8-9.

I would like to read Mt. 24:14, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world to all the nations and then the end will come."  The missionary movement will be successful in all the nations and then the end will come.

The missionary movement wasn't really begun in the NT.  We all love the story of Jonah in the OT.  The main story of this book was Jonah's being sent to Nineveh, the capital city of Assyrian Empire to preach the message of salvation.

We know that Nebuchadnezzar eventually defeated the Assyrian Empire and then led the Israelites into captivity.  In Daniel we see four young men who are witnesses to Nebuchadnezzar.  In Daniel 4, we read an official document from Nebuchadnezzar declaring the signs and wonders of the most high God.  Nebuchadnezzar was letting the people know what happened to him for a time when he seemed to disappear.  From what happened to him, he learned to bless the Most High.

Reading Dan 4, it is difficult not to believe that this man was not converted.  But notice that one who once was a tyrant in the world, how he handled the matter of God.  He stated that God does according to His will.  If there is a proud man on this earth, God is able to make him humble.  It is God's prerogative to do so.

As we read of this, we have testimony before us of God's work in the heart of man in the OT.  We begin with Nimrod after the Flood and reach Nebuchadnezzar who was told that the Roman Empire would be destroyed by One Rock.  His nation (Christ's) would be everlasting and fill the whole earth.

What would you think if you got a call from God to go as a missionary to the Taliban...like Jonah was asked to go to Assyria.  But, it has to be every nation to hear the gospel preached.

Turn now to Romans 9.  The argument with God that takes place in this chapter is more about the attitude than the argument.  Paul addresses the attitude rather than the argument.  Remember that Nebuchadnezzar was cut down in the Bible.  We are told over and over that God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

The attitude with which we question God is often inappropriate.  Paul answers the challenge to God's election with, "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" God has decided what He has chosen to reveal to you in His book and it is ours to study.  But who are you to reply to God with arrogance?  Paul answers with the doctrine of creation.

God is the creator and it is his world.  You are a part of it.  Who do you think you are to question what God has said to you.  We need to understand this.  If we don't talk to our parents the way we talk to our friends on the street, surely we should talk to God with a proper attitude.

It is not just the theological arguments it is the attitude.  God must be approached with humility.  Be careful of what questions you ask of the Bible.  You cannot argue with Him nor can you demand of Him.

 

 

Share

How the Doctrine of Election Affects my Pastoral Ministry by Dr. Curt Daniel

February 29th, 2012 1 comment

Read Curt’s first message, How I Embrace the Doctrine of Election.

Some practical and pastoral insights in teaching this doctrine.

If we believe in election, let’s teach it.  Don’t shy away from it.  Teach the whole of Scripture.  Skipping over it will rob your people.  Do, however, keep it in simple terms.  They do not need to know the theological language.  Give people time to understand and think over what has been taught.  Be patient with them.  Use the Bible in approaching others with this doctrine.  Someone is probably is going to say is this in any of our Baptist Confessions?  Yes!  But again, go right to the Scriptures – that is the best approach.

This doctrine should be God centered and end in worship.  If not, the problem is in us not in God.  We should show that election is a wonderful blessing and privilege.   Some will say that election is very “ivory towerish” and want to know how this doctrine is relevant.  How does it help me in life here and now.  The beauty is that it is very practical.  Sadly, there are some that it only stays in the head and does not filter down into the heart.  Fortunately, there is a movement of experimental Calvinism where it brings joy to the believer.

Next, it should humble us.  If we believe in the doctrines of Grace, we should show them the grace.  No one wants to be beaten by tulips.  This also helps us in the area of assurance.  It also is an encouragement for those in great affliction.

As we share with others, election also brings a new luster to love.  It shows us the depths of God’s love.  These are just a few general comments about how we can practically put this into practice.

Answering Major Questions to Election

1) The Doctrine of Election Kills Missions and Evangelism

Some say evangelism is our number one priority.  I would say worship is and that evangelism is a major priority.  Let’s look at Calvinism and missions in history.  The great missionary movement of the SBC was started by 5-point Calvinists.

But, I know Calvinists that don’t evangelize.  But, we all know believers who do not evangelize.  This is an irrelevant argument.  The question is basically that election and missions/evangelism cannot be harmonized.  This assumes a false choice or dichotomy.

We believe in both evangelism and election because both are taught in the Bible.  You can’t have evangelism without election.  Look at Mt. 22:14, “For many are called, but few are chosen.”  You see both election and evangelism.  Election should move you to evangelism.  Just because a few are chosen doesn’t mean a few are called.

Aren’t these ideas of election and evangelism contradictory?  Here is the instance of the revealed will of God and the hidden (secret) will of God.  Both are taught in Scripture and both must be accepted.  If you deny either one, you end in heresy.

If we believe in election, why evangelize?  God uses evangelism and has commanded evangelism.  It is in His providence.  Election is an incentive to evangelize.  If no one has been chosen, then why bother?  But God has chosen!

2) Election, if true, would mean that God turns some people away.  The picture is of someone who wants to believe but is not allowed while someone else who doesn’t want to believe is elect.  I don’t want that picture, either!  This is a common misconception.  Look at John 6:37, “All that the Father who gives to me will come to me and all that comes to me I will in no way cast out.”

The truth is only the elect will come to Christ.  This is a hypothetical impossibility.

3) Doesn’t the Bible say “God is no respecter of persons”?  If He chooses some and not the others, doesn’t that make him a respecter of persons?  Look at Acts 10:34 (Cornelius a Gentile being exhorted with the gospel by Peter a Jew).  God does not elect a person based on racial identity.  Anything in us is totally irrelevant to our election.

If you say that God loves everyone equally in the same way, you have just become a universalist.  Respecter of persons just means that God judges in a right and impartial way.

4)  God leaves the choice to us (man).  This is the wonder of God’s love they say.  He leaves the choice to us.  The problem with this is that it is not biblical.  Sometimes, though they get a bit more theological.  He lets us have the choice that will choose Him – He simply ratifies it.  But we have seen that we choose because we were chosen.  John 15, “You did not choose me, but I chose you.”  John Calvin said election is the mother of faith not the daughter.

But, doesn’t the Bible say that whosoever may come will come?  We say yes, there is a free offer of the gospel.  So, yes, the only people who will come are the ones who have been willed by God to come…the elect.

5) Election of some implies the non-election of others.  But, God does not not choose.  i.e., if I have to believe election then I have to believe non-election (reprobation or double-predestination).  Our answer is that election is taught in the Bible but so is non-election.  Romans 9:13, “Jacob I have loved but Esau I hated.”  This is both election and non-election.  Later in chapter nine he compares Pharaoh and Noah and the clay and the potter.

This is the logical necessity that is taught in the Bible.  If one is chosen from two that means that the other was not chosen.  Some don’t like this and have come up with alternative views.  The theory of single predestination is akin to zen buddhists ideal of one hand clapping.

Some say election is by God and non-election is by us.  The election happened in eternity and are therefore set in stone so to speak.  God being the potter owns the clay.  The truth is God did choose some and not the others.  No one can complain because we all deserve to be reprobate.

6)  But Jesus Christ is the only Elected One.  (popularized by Karl Barth)  It misunderstands Eph 1:4 where we are told we were elected in Christ.  First, it tells us Christ is the elected God and that is true enough.  But then it also says that Christ was the elect man.  There is a sense in which this is very much true.  Christ is the chosen one in His humanity (it gets deep here so I won’t spend much time).  This was a unique election.  Jesus wasn’t chosen to be saved.  He was chosen to be the Savior.  If, however, taken too far, and one says that everyone has been elected in Christ, they fall into universalism.

7) The doctrine of election just isn’t fair.  This is usually behind all objections.  Matters of salvation is not a democracy it is a monarchy.  Who is this unfair to?  The elect?  They don’t say it is unfair.  The non-elect? Who is going to argue this at judgement day?  All men, elect and non-elect, deserve judgment.

No one is given injustice.  God owes us nothing.

 

I am persuaded that all these objections can be answered by a careful study of the Bible.

 

Share

How the Doctrine of Election Affected John Broadus’s Pastoral Ministry by Dr. Roger Duke

February 29th, 2012 No comments

Dr. Duke has been gracious to give me the paper he prepared for this session.  What follows is Dr. Duke’s paper presented at the Founders’ Conference Midwest 2012.  (note: This is copyright and should not be duplicated without consent from Dr. Roger Duke.)

He has also informed me that he is open to speaking at more conferences.  He speaks on Philippians as well biographical sketches.  As a reviewer of his past works and a listener of him at this conference, I would highly recommend him for his knowledge is vast on the subjects on which he speaks.

“How the Doctrine of Election Affected the Pastoral Ministry of John A. Broadus”

By

Dr. Roger D. Duke

Assistant Professor of Religion & Communication

Baptist College of Health Science

Memphis, TN

A Lecture (or Sermon)

Delivered at the Annual Founders Conference Mid-West

Given February 27 & 28, 2012

In St. Louis, Missouri

At the Invitation of Dr. Curtis McClain

Of the Missouri Baptist University

Introduction

There is a vast amount of difference that exists between “the dreamer of dreams” and the “builder of dreams.” [1] My colleague Craig Christina observes that “John Albert Broadus was much more than a dreamer; he was a man who gave his life for the edification of the church, the Southern Baptist denomination, and her founding seminary. Yet it was the establishment and continuance of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary that became his all-consuming passion later in life, and it is in the building of the Seminary that one finds the heartbeat of this dream builder.” [2]

“The seminary,” to which Broadus would give the major energies of his life, “opened its doors in Greenville, South Carolina, on October 1, 1859.” [3] In its beginnings it had an enrollment of 26 students. “The largest number of students in each of the first three sessions was from Virginia, in large part because of the efforts and influence of Broadus.” [4] But, “a disruption . . . waited on the horizon; one which would preclude all studies and threatened the [very] existence of the seminary itself” [5] and with it, Broadus’s dream. This “disruption” of course was the Civil War. This disruption will act as a case-study to consider how “the doctrine of election affected Broadus’s pastoral ministry.”

A Call for Chaplains

In an article that ran in the Religious Herald by Rev. J. Wm. Jones, Chaplain to the Thirteenth [13th] Virginia Infantry, there went out a call for military Chaplains. With poignancy, urgency, and passion—Jones begs for Southern preachers to see their duty:

“Send us the names of good men;” and I here repeat, we want none others—our object [is] not merely to fill up the regiments with nominal Chaplains, but to fill the vacancies with efficient, working men. We want effective Gospel preachers, whose burden shall be Christ and him crucified. . . . We want men who will stick to their posts. . . . The great business of the Chaplain is to preach Christ publicly, and from tent to tent, and the temporal welfare of the soldiers should be made subordinate to this. We want men physically able as well as willing to endure hardships and privations. If a Chaplain would live up to the full measure of his usefulness, he must be with his regiment on the weary march (frequently resigning his horse to some foot-sore soldier), lie with them around the bivouac-fire after evening prayers are over; be drenched on the outposts, or face the pelting snowstorm; divide with some hungry soldier his last hard cracker, and in a word, share with his regiment whatever hardships they may be called to endure. Now if a brother is physically unable to endure these hardships, he had best not enter the work, but there is no question that many a delicate brother would have his health permanently improved, if he would thus learn to “endure hardness as a good soldier.” [6]

 

Whether or not Broadus read or heard this from the Religious Herald is unknown. Nevertheless, Broadus felt compelled to answer the call!

Broadus’s Response to the Call for Chaplains

For Broadus to respond to “The Call” and service as Chaplain was a natural thing for him as a Gospel minister. He had, since his conversion, always been “involved in seeking to bring other[s] to Christian belief.” [7] “This practice had begun a few months after his conversion and continued throughout his lifetime.” [8] His son-in-law, A.T. Robertson, relates an early experience that seems to set a pattern for Broadus being a life-long personal worker and “soul winner”:

In a meeting a few months after John’s conversion, the preacher urged all Christians at the close of the service to move about and talk to the unconverted. John looked anxiously around to see if there was anybody present he could talk to about his soul’s salvation. He had never done anything of the kind before. Finally he saw a man . . . named Sandy. He thought he might venture to speak to him . . . and Sandy was converted. [9]

 

Even after Broadus would go away to school and come home, “Sandy . . . would run across the street to meet him and say: ‘Howdy, John! thankee, John. Howdy, John, thankee, John.’” [10] Broadus would later retell the story and adds: “And if I ever reach the heavenly home and walk the golden streets, I know the first person to meet me will be Sandy, coming and saying again: ‘Howdy, John! thankee, John.’” [11]

Dr. Broadus possessed a true love and zeal for lost souls. This is clearly seen in his tract written for the soldiers in the field—“We Pray for You at Home.” Please consider an excerpt:

We pray for your soul. Ah! What shall it comfort us, and what shall it profit you, if you gain the noblest earthly triumphs, the most abiding earthly fame, yea, every good that earth can give, and lose your soul! If we continually beseech the Lord that your mortal life may be preserved and made happy, with what absorbing, agonizing earnestness must we pray for your immortal soul, that it may be delivered from eternal degradation and wretchedness which are the wages of sin, and be brought to know the sweetness of God’s service here, the rapture of his presence hereafter. We know it must be hard for you, amid the distractions of camp life, the alternative excitement and ennui [12] [boredom], the absences of home influences and the associations of the sanctuary, to fix mind and heart on things above. . . . We pray that you may be inclined and enabled to commit your soul to the divine Saviour, who died to redeem us, and ever lives to intercede for us, and who with yearning love is ever saying, “Come unto me.” We pray that the Holy Spirit may thoroughly change your heart, bringing you truly to hate sin, and love holiness, and may graciously strengthen you to withstand temptation, and give you more and more the mastery over yourself, and the victory over every enemy of your soul. Whether it be appointed [for] you to fall soon in battle, or years hence to die at home, may God in mercy forbid that you should live in impenitence and die in your sins. Whether we are to sit with you again around our own fireside, and “take sweet counsel together as we walk to the house of God in company,” or are to meet you no more on earth, oh, may God in his mercy save us from eternal separation [emphasis added]! [13]

 

This entire tract sounds like an “Invitation” without an “Altar Call” to me!

 

Dr. Jones wrote to Broadus on March 30, 1863 from Camp Thirteenth [13th] Virginia Infantry located at Hamilton’s Crossing to inquire;

By the way—what think you of the proposition I made in my last [letter] that you spend the summer as an army missionary? Or, if you would like it, I could get you a commission as Chaplain to labor in A. P. Hill’s Division, where you would be very comfortably quartered with brethren Ned Hill and Jim Field, or in a good artillery regiment. I am very sure you would find it a wide field of usefulness and it may be that your health would be materially improved by it. Think about it and if you should decide to take the Chaplaincy write me to that effect at once. [14]

 

Later in the war a special invitation was extended to Broadus: “Stonewall Jackson urged Doctor Broadus” through their mutual friend—J. William Jones saying; “Write to him by all means and beg him to come. Tell him that he never had a better opportunity of preaching the Gospel than he would have right now in these camps.” [15]

Jones related Broadus’s response of the personal invitation from Gen. Jackson:

[Broadus] . . . promptly replied that he would be glad to come; that he had seriously and prayerfully considered the question; and that he had only been prevented from entering the army before by a doubt as to whether his feeble health could stand the exposure of camp life; but that he would at least try it as soon as he could make his arrangements. When . . . [Jones] met General Jackson a few days after the reception of Doctor Broadus’s letter, and told him that he would come the great soldier said in his characteristic phrase: “That is good; very good, I am so glad of that. And when Doctor Broadus comes you must bring him to see me. I want him to preach at my headquarters, and I wish to help him in his work all I can.” [16]

 

This was just a few days before the Battle of Chancellorsville that would prove providentially untimely for General Jackson and the South. Before the great soldier could meet the great preacher he had already “crossed over the river to rest under the shade of the trees.” [17]

“July and August and half of September [1863] were spent in daily preaching to Lee’s Army, now in the churches at Winchester, now at the convalescent camp, now to Corse’s Brigade, [and at] the hospital at Charlottesville” [18] and to sundry of the Army of Northern Virginia’s foot soldiers, Calvary, and artillery battalions. Broadus reflected that, “For three months of that summer I preached as a missionary in General Lee’s army. It was the most interesting and thoroughly delightful preaching I was ever engaged in.” [19] And “Besides the preaching Doctor Broadus was [also a] war correspondent for the Charleston News and Courier.” [20]

Low Moments in Broadus’s Reflections

There were, however, some very low moments emotionally for Broadus. At one point he confessed, “What can I do preaching? I fear not much.” [21] At the time he was assigned an out-of-the-way place where only twenty men were stationed, with “picket and provost” [22] duty. In a letter he seems to yearn to be “Five miles off, at Jordan’s Springs . . . [at] a hospital of a thousand sick and wounded” [23] who needed the Gospel.

One particularly poignant scene of Broadus is given us by Robertson. “I am to preach to-morrow morning at the Presbyterian church, and in the afternoon or evening at some other, and then to try an afternoon service next week and see if we can do anything.” [24] This was Saturday July 4th. As he reflected on the opportunity to preach in the Presbyterian Church and at the Lutheran Church on Ephesians 3:14 and Proverbs 3:17 respectively; he confesses to his wife Charlotte;

You perceive that I am taking my old sermons. It is very difficult here to think up an unfamiliar discourse. I haven’t got used to the tent, and am constantly making acquaintances. A good many soldiers [were] in attendance both times yesterday. The sermons are not particularly good or particularly bad. God grant that they may do some good. Oh, it is so hard to preach as one ought to do! I long for the opportunity, yet do not rise to meet it with the whole-souled earnestness and living faith, and afterwards I feel sad and ashamed. [25]

 

This is one moving insight into Broadus’s heart just after the Battle of Gettysburg—before all the awful results were known.

He continued to his dear Charlotte: “But I fear nothing can be done, as the whole community, citizens and soldiers, is astir about the late battle near Gettysburg, of which we have very conflicting and very exciting accounts, and there will probably be wounded men here to-day or tomorrow, requiring attention.” [26] In the aftermath of the battle Broadus was unable to evacuate the area because all the conveyances were employed for the wounded. He told Charlotte, “So I mean to wait, and meantime to do all I can in the hospitals.” He felt it his call and duty to stay. “I am very well satisfied, because it is so clear that I must remain” [27] and serve those wounded and dying. Closing his letter he confides; “The late battles were at first a success, and afterwards a reverse, nothing to boast of on either side, and dreadful losses on both.” [28]

Around July 24 Broadus tells us that he “worked awhile with [Rev.] Taylor this morning distributing newspapers and tracts in the hospitals, and afterwards rode to see the graveyard, where the graves of twelve hundred soldiers lie in long rows and squares, and ten or a dozen are regularly dug beforehand and kept waiting.” [29] This sight causes a deep groan in his spirit—“Oh, this dreadful war!” [30]

Glimpses of Broadus’s Personal Work

Jones again testifies concerning Broadus’s work; “We were exceedingly fortunate in having as preachers in our meetings and workers among the soldiers at Winchester, besides our Chaplains, such men as . . . J.A. Broadus.” [31] This was a wonderful time in Broadus’s mind because “He had never enjoyed the sense of God’s presence in preaching as here.” [32] Many were requesting prayer for their soul’s needs. He had been led to believe that the need for the Gospel was not so great. His retort was, “[I] had been deceived as to the preaching among the soldiers; for not half had been told to him. He had no idea of the state of religious feeling here, though he had had more opportunities that many out of the army to know the truth of the matter.” [33] He rejoiced that “He had never enjoyed preaching so much”! [34] One main reason he rejoiced in it so—“They come because they choose to come.” [35] During this time “Many were converted” [36] and the preachers, Chaplains, missionaries, and colporteurs were “never met with a repulse in presenting Christ.” [37]

“A few days after . . .  [Broadus’s] arrival in Winchester [Virginia, he] . . . wrote to Superintendent Dickinson” [38] saying:

I am very glad I came to Virginia and came to Winchester. Though there are not such opportunities for preaching as there were some months ago at Fredericksburg, yet I meet a hearty welcome and rejoice in the work. My heart warms towards the soldiers. How they do listen to preaching. The Lord be thanked for the privilege of telling them about Jesus; the Lord prosper all who labor to save them. [39]

 

But his opportunity to minister would soon change—providentially!

 

Jones relates a testimonial of Broadus’s personal work. He queried one soldier in a field hospital about his soul’s need.

In response to my inquiry, he said he was not a Christian, but wished he was. . . . I sought to explain to him the way of salvation, and he listened earnestly. . . . I gave him my hand to take leave. But he held my hand hard, and said: ‘Stop a little, Pray for me won’t you? I want to be a Christian. . . . I’m very wicked, and deserve God’s wrath. You seem to care something for me—now pray for me, won’t you?’ . . . And when I arose, [after praying] he took my hand himself, and said, ‘Now you have prayed for me once—won’t you remember me and pray for me still?’ [40]

 

Later he would reflect on his opportunity to minister: “The . . . [soldier] mentioned I simply happened . . . to pass by and notice. . . . There had been nothing remarkable in this man’s appearance; he was a hale, hearty looking soldier; and I walked away thinking how many there doubtless are of these poor fellows whom one sees everywhere by hundreds, that would in like manner reveal to an enquirer an anxious concern for their salvation.” The deep pathos of Broadus’s heart is evident when he says that; “There is no mistake about it that a large portion of these soldiers are deeply interested in religion. Any experienced preacher would see it, from the way they listen to preaching; and in private, not only are all respectful, but many cordially welcome religious conversation, and avow, without the slightest hesitation, their desire to be Christians.” [41]

Another time Broadus related to the superintendent one particular preaching appointment. There was “A camp, for convalescent soldiers on their way to the army . . . established near . . . [us] last week, and I went out to preach on Tuesday morning.”  “Some 200 men assembled under the trees in what was . . . [Senator] Mason’s yard, and it was moving to see with what fixed attention . . . [the soldiers] listened.” There were “Men . . . there from almost every State of the Confederacy, but we had common interest in God’s worship and word.”  “At the close of the sermon, some twenty or twenty-five readily knelt for special prayer.” [42]

Please give me leave again to relate how Broadus was also employed, much like Whitefield, as an open air preacher. Jones observed: “On fast day of that autumn . . . Dr. . . . Broadus . . . preach[ed] four times, at different points; and while all of the services were of deep interest, I particularly recall the service at sundown, held at General Gordon’s head-quarters.” Before Broadus arrived “The general had conducted a prayer meeting himself in the morning, and made a stirring address to his brigade, had sent out the notices and exerted himself to have a congregation, and a large crowd, especially of officers, attend. . . .”  I recall [Dr. Broadus’s] text—‘Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace’— . . . At times there was scarcely a dry eye in the vast throng, and the tears of generals, colonels and captains mingled freely with those of the rank and file, I never heard Dr. Broadus preach with more power, and I do not believe that he ever did.” [43]

My assignment has been in this second address to demonstrate, “How the Doctrine of Election Affected the Pastoral Ministry of John A. Broadus”? But frankly, as I pondered my research and considered all the material, I could find no direct tie to the doctrine of election and Broadus’s pastoral ministry. There is no “smoking gun” if you will—demonstrating this? This endeavor has been like many other research projects: It started off in one direction with an assumption and ended up in a completely different place where the facts lead. When he left the pastoral ministry of the Baptist Church at Charlottesville, Chaplain to the University of Virginia, work as a local evangelist, and a myriad of other pastoral ministries—he left the pastoral ministry proper. Upon arrival at this new vocation as seminary professor he poured his sweat, soul, money, energy—yea his very life blood into this endeavor. There would be no long term pastoral ministry again—at least not like in Charlottesville! But we can draw some closing observations from instances of his work as a chaplain, preacher, and minster at-large during the War:

First, early on in his ministry, just after his conversion, he became involved in personal work. It would be safe to call him a “soul winner.” Take the incident with “Sandee” that he left for us to consider. He always had an interest in the destination of the eternal souls of those under his charge. This no doubt was one of the primary motivating factors that drove him all his life and ministry.

Secondly, in his writing we have left for us the “We Pray for You at Home” Gospel tract mentioned earlier. This captures the quintessential ethos of Broadus to be useful in the Master’s Kingdom work. Although during the War he was not leading a particular congregation nor did he know what the state of Southern Seminary might be after the war, he was “always about his Father’s business.”

Third, many requested prayer for their “soul’s need.” The ordinary soldier was acutely aware that each day death stared him in the face and it could possibly be their last day on this earth. Time and again throughout the War there would be impromptu “prayer meetings,”  “special prayer,” Gospel sermons at night, and Gospel sermons in the open air by the preachers, missionaries, pastors, and colporteurs.  Regrettably the next day some of these dear souls would surely stand before their God. And Broadus never missed an opportunity to preach a Gospel sermon. It may have been what he considered to be “warmed over,” but he was up to the task.

Fourth, Broadus sensed a real urgency in the men who came to the open air Gospel preaching or prayer meetings. They came because they wanted to come. They did not come because of anyone was pressuring them. Because of this we can assume that it was a real movement of Revival sent by the Holy Spirit of our Lord Christ. J. William Jones reported in his Christ in the Camp that “Up to January, 1865, it was estimated that nearly one hundred and fifty thousand solders had been converted during the progress of the war, and it was believed that fully one-third of all the soldiers in the field were praying men, and members of some branch of the Christian church.” [44]

Fifth, we have another example of personal work done by Broadus. The soldier who took his hand and asked him to tarry for a while seemed to move Broadus. He stopped, prayed for him, and talked to him of the way of salvation. Then he recalled how so many were in spiritual need and that the need was so very, very great.

Contemporary Implications and Applications for Us as Ministers of the Gospel

First, Broadus was a “life-long learner.” He was a scholar par excel lance. Even during the hard times of bivouac in the field he found time to work on his magnum opus Commentary on Matthew.

Secondly, Broadus was a “soul-winner!” He loved souls. He worked with individuals one-on-one to witness and explain the Gospel. He would “tarry a while” with an inquirer. He made it his business to “be about the Master’s business” of preaching and teaching from “tent to tent” and in the open air.

Third, Broadus went to work—wherever he found himself, whatever the work was. It is easily seen by his lifestyle that he believed the Scriptural admonition, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might” (Ecc 9:10) His focus, his drive, his energy, his compassion were all traits that moved him. But at the heart and motivation of all that Broadus did—HE WORKED!!

Fourth, to quote and old Baptist aphorism—HE BLOOMED WHERE HE WAS PLANTED! He did not wait for the war to come to him, but longed to be where he could do the most good preaching the Gospel to the most number of men. He even positioned himself to be used as much as possible. And this focus was not for the laud of men but for the souls of men.

Last, and in no way least, Broadus preached whether he felt up to it or not. In the different documents it can be seen that his health was not the best, his accommodations in the field were not the most comfortable, it was not the easiest place to study or prepare new sermons; but he always was up to the task. It even burdened him a great deal that he had to use sermons more than once.

Broadus at the End of His Life

It was stated earlier that there was no connection found in this inquiry as to Broadus’s pastoral ministry and election. But I did find an account where Broadus was doctrinally at the end of his life. As has been stated, he began the study of the “Doctrines of Grace” on his own and became a Stereological Calvinist by his personal conviction even to the point of signing The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Abstract of Principles. His son-in-law A.T. Robertson rehearses an account of Broadus’s trip to Europe with a focus on Geneva. There he related how he had “singularly fine weather” for traveling and “giving the most varied and complete views of Mont Blanc.” [45] He used this vision of Mont Blanc as metaphor to make an application concerning the Doctrines of Grace and observed:

The people who sneer at what is called Calvinism might as well sneer at Mont Blanc. We are not in the least bound to defend all of Calvin’s opinions or actions, but I do not see how any one (sic) who really understands the Greek of the Apostle Paul or the Latin of Calvin and Turretin can fail to see that these latter did but interpret and formulate substantially what the former teachers . . . . Whatever the inspired writers meant to teach is authoritative, the truth of God. [46]

A lifelong motto and fitting epitaph for our founding brother of The Southern Baptist Seminary could be heard in a personal and resounding rhetorical question to us [47]: “What is life for, but to fear God and work hard?” [48]

 


[1] Craig C. Christian, “Broadus and the Establishment of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,” in David S. Dockery and Roger D. Duke, eds., John A. Broadus: A Living Legacy (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2008), 122.

[2] Ibid., 122.

 

[3] Ibid., 136.

 

[4] See Barron, “The Contributions,” 63 as quoted in Craig C. Christian, “Broadus and the Establishment of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,” in David S. Dockery and Roger D. Duke, eds., John A. Broadus: A Living Legacy (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2008), 136.

 

[5] Ibid., 136.

 

[6] J. William Jones, Christ in the Camp; or Religion in the Confederate Army (B. F. Johnson & Co., 1887; reprint Harrisburg, PA.; Sprinkle Publications, 1986), 229-230 (page citations are to the reprint edition). For an additional discussion see: Charles F. Pitts, Chaplains in Gray (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1957; reprint Concord, VA.: R. M. J. C. Publications, 2003), 46-47 (page citations are to the reprint edition).

 

[7] David S. Dockery, “The Broadus-Robertson Tradition,” Timothy George and David S. Dockery, eds., Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001) 93.

 

[8] Ibid.

 

[9] A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1901), x; as quoted in David S. Dockery, “The Broadus-Robertson Tradition,” Timothy George and David S. Dockery, eds., Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001) 93.

 

[10] Dockery, 93.

 

[11] A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1901), x; as quoted in David S. Dockery, “The Broadus-Robertson Tradition,” Timothy George and David S. Dockery, eds., Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001) 93.

 

[12] Ennui, a feeling of weariness, boredom, or dissatisfaction.

 

[13] A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, 190-191.

 

[14] Ibid., 196-197.

 

[15] Ibid., 197.

 

[16] J.W. Jones, (The Southern Baptist Theological) Seminary Magazine, April, 1895; quoted in A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, 197-198.

 

[17] A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, 198.

 

[18] Ibid.

 

[19] Ibid.

 

[20] Ibid.

 

[21] A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, 200.

 

[22] Ibid.

 

[23] Ibid., 200.

 

[24] Ibid.

 

[25] Ibid.

 

[26] Ibid.

 

[27] A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, 201.

 

[28] Ibid.

 

[29] A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, 203.

 

[30] Ibid.

 

[31] J. William Jones, Christ in the Camp; or Religion in the Confederate Army (B. F. Johnson & Co., 1887; reprint Harrisburg, PA.; Sprinkle Publications, 1986), 312 (page citations are to the reprint edition).

 

[32] Ibid., 326.

 

[33] J. William Jones, Christ in the Camp; or Religion in the Confederate Army (B. F. Johnson & Co., 1887; reprint Harrisburg, PA.; Sprinkle Publications, 1986), 326 (page citations are to the reprint edition).

 

[34] Ibid.

 

[35] Ibid.

 

[36] Ibid.

 

[37] Ibid.

 

[38] Jones, Christ in the Camp, 313.

 

[39] Ibid.

 

[40] Jones, Christ in the Camp, 314.

 

[41] Ibid., 314-315.

 

[42] Ibid., 315.

 

[43] Jones, Christ in the Camp, 247-248.

[44] Jones, Christ in the Camp, 390

[45] A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus, 396.

 

[46] Ibid., 397.

 

[48] Ibid., 396.

Share

Foreknowledge in the NT: Simple Omniscience or Divine Decree by Pastor Bruce Walker

February 29th, 2012 No comments

Pastor Walker is a pastor at Bethesda Baptist Church in nearby St. Charles, Mo.

Introduction

God’s foreknowledge plays an important role in the subject of election.  To properly discuss election, we must discuss foreknowledge.  We will be in Romans 11.

I want to share two great truths I have learned in my years of walking with the Lord.  The first great truth is “I am not God.”  I learned this in seminary early on.  I learned that the Scriptures had to control my theology.  From there I went on to become a theological snob whereby you were a heretic if you taught differently than I.  Praise the Lord that He has worked on me and humbled me.  Brothers and sisters, I am not God…and neither are you.

The second great truth I have learned from studying Scripture is difficult for me given my back ground.  I am a mathematician by education.  This second great truth is that I am not God.  Sound familiar?  We have tried to make God’s X and Y be equal when they are clearly not.  Think about, if God’s word says there is only one God and the Bible speaks of three divine persons, we do not discard one truth at the expense of the other – even if we do not fully comprehend and understand the truth being related.

I can honestly grasp the doctrine of the Trinity better than I can the person of Christ.  He is fully God and fully man.  In my mathematical mind, that means He is 200% person.  I can’t reconcile this truth and won’t even attempt to do so.  Make certain that you understand that what sometimes appears to be contradictions in Scripture are not contradictions.  We simply do not have the ability to understand the infinite God who revealed it to us.

Message

Paul has already explained in Romans 8 and 9 that God will have mercy on whomever He will and now spends time responding to arguments against God’s fairness in doing so.  In chapter 10, Paul reminds his readers of the availability of this righteousness.  Paul then reminds his readers of their responsibility to call on the Lord.  Paul is essentially saying to Israel that they do not possess the faith they thought.

In chapter 11, Paul deals with what has happened with Israel.  God chose them and worked in them and through them to reveal His glory.  Israel, however has rejected God.  Paul is emphatic that God has not rejected Israel in vs. 1-7.  He offers five facts as to why:

  1. God has not rejected His people for He has not rejected Paul (vs. 1)
  2. God has not rejected His people for He foreknows them (vs. 2)
  3. God has not rejected His people for He has kept (a completed act in the past) them (vs. 3-4)
  4. God has not rejected His people for He has chosen them by grace not works (vs. 5-6)
  5. God has not rejected His people for they have obtained what Israel was seeking (vs. 7)

We now return to number two above.  We must begin with a basic understanding of the word foreknowledge.  It is from the Greek word for prognosis.  We are more interested in the NT use of the word, however.  Prognosis means foreknowledge…helpful, huh?

There is a related noun…prognostase…a word that does not occur in the NT.  There is a corresponding verb….proginosko which means to know before hand.  Let us now consider knowledge before.  What is “before” to God?  Have you thought about that?

Theologically, then we use this term for our benefit.  If we want to be correct then, foreknowledge simply means omniscience since God is eternal.  Now, we will look at the NT usage of these words.  The noun appears twice (Acts 2:23 and 1 Pet 1:2).  The verb occurs five times (Acts 26:4, Romans 8:29, 11:2, 1 Pet 1:20, and 2 Pet 3:17).

First in Acts 2:23, we see “the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.”  Whether they refer to the same thing or not, no one can deny that Peter is teaching that there is a close connection or a relationship of the two.  From this passage, I see (concerning foreknowledge) – it is an attribute of God, it is the definite counsel of God, and the sinful acts of man are part of the plan and foreknowledge of God.  Nevertheless, those who committed the act of delivering Jesus up to be crucified according to God’s plan are still held responsible.  This does not mesh with my mathematical mind.  How can that be?  I do not know, but that is what God’s word says.

The second text is 1 Pet 1:20.  A couple observations are God’s foreknowledge includes the Messiah and existed in eternity past.

Third, Romans 8:29 – God foreknew specific people.  This foreknowledge involves a certain subset of humanity. Foreknowledge is a foundation for salvation.

Then we have our text this morning in Romans 11:2.  This text confirms what other Scriptures have to say on God’s foreknowledge.  It is a completed event of God for a specific people.  Without the use of foreknowledge implies a stricter sense of the word that means God knows some people in ways that He does not know others.

We are compelled to understand God’s foreknowing people in that He knows all people.  To understand this text, we must understand that God not only foreknew His people, but did so with a special knowledge.  He foreloved them.  He has so marked them that He foreknows them.  God has now decreed His love from all eternity those whom He wills.

Therefore, foreknowledge often carries more meaning that omniscience.

 

 

Share

How I Embrace the Doctrine of Election, Romans 8-9 by Pastor Walter Chantry

February 28th, 2012 1 comment

Open your Bibles to Romans, chapter 8.  We have learned today that there is a great deal in the Bible about the subject of election.  My basic text will be Romans 8:28-30.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Many have used this as an encouragement passage to many struggling with trials in life.  This passage does offer great comfort to the believer.  In verse 29, we find that this all happened to give the first born son many brothers.  Together with Christ, we will be glorified.  Matthew five tells us that we are blessed who are persecuted for His sake.  There is suffering to be a Christian.  If we suffer with Him, we will be glorified with Him.

Thus there is a certainty that we can assure others that “all things work together for good…”  We know that when we suffer because we are serving Christ we can begin to have questions.  There is truly this matter of assurance as we stand before God.  Am I truly one who has been called to Himself?  If we suffer, we will be glorified with Him for eternity.

Some of the language being used here reaches back into eternity past and into eternity future.  It is talking about the consequences of suffering for Christ and the great assurances to be hand in Christ.

From verse 29, we know that the Lord Jesus is intended to have a great number of brothers.  Christ must have a large family of bretheren alike him in spirit and morality.  We see a building up of the great acts of God in verses 29 and 30.  God foreknew, and those he foreknew, he predestined to be conformed to Christ and those who he predestined, he called and justified.  They are all acts of God.  They are interlocking links.

They begin in eternity past and end in eternity future.  Romans 8-11 fit well on this subject of election.  Look at Rom. 11:33 and we see the outpouring of worship from Paul because of God’s election.  Paul, a most educated theologian, stands in utter awe of the work of God.

This verse tells us something of attitude in which we should approach this subject of election.  I.e., one of worship and awe.  There needs to be reverence in entering this subject.

The reason we know we are saved is because of Romans 8:28-30.  The matter of knowledge is also used in Scripture to denote as love.  Amos states, “You only have I known.”  Certainly, God is not saying He has never known anyone else.  The conclusion of Amos is because of God’s great love, He will chastise his son.  Love and knowledge are interchangeable in the Scriptures. Therefore, I believe in our passage, God is saying whom He foreknew (loved) he also predestined.

There is still the idea of the effectual calling whereby many will not respond to the open call of the gospel. Jesus prayed and thanked the Father for hiding “these things” from the wise but “revealed them unto babes.”

This matter of effectual calling is so important in the Scripture.  It is so important in the matter of evangelism.  We see it played out over and over in the Gospel of John.  John the Baptist had to tell everyone of the light that had come into the world because they did not comprehend it.

The same kind of language is used in 2 Cor. 4 when it speaks of the glory of Jesus Christ.  Glory means majesty, beauty, etc.  John said, “We have beheld His glory.”  But, Satan, we are told in the Bible, has blinded men from seeing this glory of Jesus Christ.  To this Paul said we do not lose heart preaching the gospel.  We serve the God who created the Universe and said let there be light.  He has also commanded that we proclaim this message of light in a dark world.  This salvation of sinners is the effectual calling.

John 3 explicitly tells us that man must be born again to see and enter the kingdom of God.  This is why our Lord Jesus said at times that no man can come unto Him unless the Father who sent me draw him.  That is grace.

When God calls a person into the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and that person apprehends that knowledge, he is justified.  That always occurs when a person has been effectually called.  I.e., declared righteous by a holy God.

Everyone who is effectually called and was justified and has now left this earth has been glorified.  Those who have not left this earth will be glorified.  This begins and ends with God.  When we are suffering, we should draw from the glory of God and not our past works of devotions and prayers and Bible reading.  Keep it about what God has done.

Romans 9 explains further the effectual calling.  “Jacob I loved. Esau not so much.”  No, but I say that this way on purpose.  What Paul tells us is that election never worked in a covenantal way whereby in the family of believers all children come to faith.  No, we don’t see that with Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob!

This is why Paul says that God will show mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.  I will end at Rom 9:19 (Paul faced the same opposition that we face today), “Why does he still find fault?” (in Pharaoh after hardening his heart).  Basically, you cannot say it isn’t fair.  That is not what the Bible says.  God says, “For this very purpose I have raised you up.”

 

 

Share

Live Blog: How I Embrace the Doctrine of Election, Ephesians 1 by Dr. Curt Daniel

February 28th, 2012 No comments

Dr. Curt Daniel spoke last year on Philosophical Misdirection. You can read parts one and two of my live blog last year.  He is the pastor of Faith Bible Church in Springfield, Il.

My two messages will be basically election defined and election defended.  For now, we will look at election defined in Ephesians 1.  We could look at this subject topically, and there is a place for that, i.e., to show that the Bible does speak to a specific topic throughout all of Scripture.  This works for some people.  We, however, are going to look at one clear, explicit verse that teaches the doctrine of election.

Open to Eph. 1:1 gives us our context of who wrote and to whom this letter was written and where.  We now know the setting.  What then is the purpose?  We need the purpose of the whole letter in order to better understand one verse.  In Ephesians, one purpose is to discuss the church.  The higher purpose is God showing His glory (see, Eph. 3:21).

Verse two we see peace and grace being introduced to the Ephesians (and to the reader).  That brings us to verses 3-14 which is actually one long sentence in the Greek.  “Blessed be” is important as we recall that Paul was once a Rabbi.  This is important because Rabbi’s are always looking to add “blessings” to everything they write.

Notice he uses the word blessing more than once in this verse.  God is to be blessed by us because He is the one that has blessed us.  God gives blessing because He is a blessed God.  In other words, we bless God because he first blessed us.

Paul continues by giving a list of some of God’s good blessings election, redemption, inheritance, the Holy Spirit, etc.  These are but a few examples of being blessed by God.  Did you notice also that this passage is Trinitarian?  This is important as election flows out of the Trinity.

The key verse is verse 4, “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame in love.”  In short, “He chose us.”  This verse answers the major questions of elections!  Don’t tell me about predestination, tell me what you mean about election.  We can go right here.  This verse tells us the major components of election.

We see answers to the who, what, why, when, and where of election.

The context of “He” is God the Father.  To be precise, election is the prerogative of the father. If you are going to understand election, it must begin with God alone.  Not the angels.  Not God and the devil.  Rather, it is God alone when? before the foundations of the world.

“He chose us.” God is the subject, we are the object.  We don’t choose God.  Note the word between He and us.  It is the word “chose” which means to select to pick out.  The word for “chose” is in the middle voice which means that he chose for himself.  It is also a complete action verb.  It is finished.  Salvation is accomplished in time, Election took place back in eternity.  It is legal and cannot be broken.

Notice now the word “us.”  Us means “you and me both.”  When Paul says “us” in Ephesians he means believers.  That is, those who follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

According to the Bible, there are more who are not chosen than are chosen for salvation.  We see this in Revelation and in the words of Christ!  “Strive to enter by the narrow gate” and “many are called but few are chosen.”

The object of election could have been 1) everybody, 2) nobody, or 3) some.  In His infinite wisdom God chose some.  Predestination is personal according to our text; therefore, election is personal.  Jesus has called us by name!  In Revelation, we find that our names our written in the Book of Life.

Election is also particular.  That is, it is personal and specific.  Notice now that it is plural.  Paul is talking of all believers together.  We were each chosen but chosen together in Christ.

Again, getting the larger context of the Bible, we find that there are various kinds of election.  We need to learn how to distinguish things that differ.  Psalm 33:12 talks of God choosing Israel as a nation – that does not mean all of Israel is saved.  There is an election within an election.  In Dt. 18:5, God chooses priests.  Jer. 1:5, God chose the prophets.  2 Sam 1:6, God chose the Kings.  In Acts 1:2, the apostles were chosen by God, yet not all were saved (see Judas).

God is a God of order.  He chose us, not we chose Him.  Are you saying we don’t in any sense choose God?  There is a fine line here.  There is a volitional element where our wills do choose.  We choose because we were chosen.  Not the other way around.  This sounds much like a verse over in 1 John.

The Bible is clear, God chose us making us the chosen ones.  It doesn’t mean, however, that God chose because He foresaw we would choose.  This is popular in Arminian theology.  God doesn’t do it like that because of the causal order.  If God chooses because we would eventually choose Him, then that subverts the causal order we see explicitly in Scripture. John 15, Jesus says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you.”

Further, we see that He chose us in Him.  Who is the “him”?  The antecedent is Christ.  The apostle Paul often used the phrase “in Christ” or “in Him” to show that it all about Christ and not us!  We were chosen in Christ by Christ through Christ and for Christ.  Everything centers on Christ.

This is called the Covenant of Redemption.  Back in eternity, there was God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).  They put together a plan of redemption.  When God did the choosing, He did so for Christ.  It became a legal enforcement in the covenant.  We see this spelled out explicitly in John 17.  This all came about before time began.  I can’t comprehend this.

How can we, who did not exist in eternity past, be elect by a God who did exist?  Simple–He foreordained that we would exist.

What is the purpose of all of this?  First, in our text we see the past.  If there was only God at that time in eternity, what else could there be but God?  Why did God do it? Because God chose to do it!  The origin, then of the why question is God.  Verse 11 shows that it is the counsel of His own will.  I.e., God consulted only with Himself.

This business of election was a sovereign free choice of God almighty.  We see how God’s fore-ordination plays into God’s election.  If God foreordains something it will come to pass.  This is key!  Election has to be predestined.  I.e., the election has been fixed!  It has been legally rigged.  God carries out in time what He has predestined in eternity.

We were chosen before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love.

Being holy and without blame before Him is another way to say that we are saved from our sin. In time, God saves us by justifying us – the eradication of our sins legally.  Inside of us, the Holy Spirit begins to sanctify us.  He is gradually making us holy by infusing to us the righteousness of Christ.  The goal is holiness that will not be met completely until glorification in Heaven.

We finally see that it was out of love that God did His choosing.  God chose us out of pure love.  This is exactly the glory of election.  He chose us out of love for love so that in eternity we will love Him.  But wait, there’s more.  Whatever God does, He does Christologically.  We are His bride (i.e., the church).  Therefore, we were chosen to be loved by God for His Son, Jesus Christ to be His holy bride.

Have you ever felt the gravity and weight of the love of God being shown to you in your being chosen to love him?  If you are a Christian, you were not only chosen to be saved, you were chosen to be the bride of Jesus Christ.

What is the final and ultimate goal of all of this?  The glory of God.

Share

Live Blog: How John Broadus Embraced the Doctrine of Election by Dr. Roger Duke

February 28th, 2012 No comments

I have reviewed a couple of Roger’s books in the past and have been blessed to have interviewed him as well. You can read those here.

Dr. Duke has been gracious to give me the paper he prepared for this session.  What follows is Dr. Duke’s paper presented at the Founders’ Conference Midwest 2012.  (note: This is copyright and should not be duplicated without consent from Dr. Roger Duke.)

He has also informed me that he is open to speaking at more conferences.  He speaks on Philippians as well biographical sketches.  As a reviewer of his past works and a listener of him at this conference, I would highly recommend him for his knowledge is vast on the subjects on which he speaks.

 

“How John A. Broadus Embraced the Doctrine of Election”[1] [2]

By

Dr. Roger D. Duke

Assistant Professor of Religion & Communication

Baptist College of Health Science

Memphis, TN

A Lecture (or Sermon)

Delivered at the Annual Founders Conference Mid-West

Given February 27 & 28, 2012

In St. Louis, Missouri

At the Invitation of Dr. Curtis McClain

Of the Missouri Baptist University

Personal Introduction

Upon reflection of Dr. McClain’s invitation to give these two lectures (or sermons), I was taken back in my mind to a time many years ago when we first met. It was January of 1982. Curtis and his wife Patsy had just arrived in Memphis. I too had just arrived with my little family—consisting of my wife Linda, who was 6 months pregnant at the time, and my nearly 3-year-old daughter Leah. Both Curtis and I had come to Memphis to study at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary: Curtis with a newly minted Master of Divinity “in hand” to begin work on his PhD degree and me—who had left the construction trades as a Union Steamfitter Journeyman and had never even attended college—AT ALL! It is quite ironic that he would extend to me such an opportunity as this! I confessed to him: “I attend Founders Conferences Curtis—I don’t SPEAK AT THEM!” Needless to say we became fast friends over the years through some very random acts of Providence. Well—at least they seem random to me.

Early Remembrance from Seminary Days

One of the funny issues that stand out in my mind about the academe early in my seminary career was the friendly (and sometimes not so friendly) competition between the language department and the theology department. But these seem to have always been “in house” arguments which go back at least to the days of James P. Boyce and John A. Broadus. In his A Gentleman and a Scholar, Broadus related how that

His colleague [Broadus speaking of himself] who was professor of the New Testament once said to . . . [Boyce], in some pleasantries of conversation, that students of exegesis might have some freedom if it were not for those dreadful theological people, who know beforehand what every passage ought to mean, in order to suit their creeds and systems, and who have not a proper respect for philology and criticism.[3]

 

This remark may have been friendly teasing but might give some insight into the fact of how or why Broadus came to his Reformational understanding of the “doctrine of election” late. This was because he had been a classicist and linguist at the University of Virginia in the earlier days before coming to the new Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. At the University he served as professor and tutor of languages, university chaplain, and pastor of the Baptist church. When the seminary was formed, only two of the original four founding faculty were seminary trained—Basil Manly, Jr. and James Boyce. William Williams was trained in the practice of law. David Dockery observes that “Broadus himself had not attended a seminary.”[4] And he “never really donned the mantle of a Systematic Theologian.”[5] However, “His university education provided him an outstanding background in the classical languages and philosophy, but his theological preparation, like so many other Baptist preachers in the South, came about by self-study.”[6]

There may be one of those quirks or ironies of history working here that is somewhat glaring. Although Boyce and Manly had been trained in the seminaries of the North, they turned to Broadus to set up the program of study for the new seminary. And, “Not surprisingly the new proposal was based largely on the University of Virginia model; one based upon the English Bible, with freedom for the students in their selection of course work.” [7] “The plan emphasized scholarship for the able student with something worthwhile for all.” [8]

As early as 1857 “Broadus undertook a study of Calvinism.” [9] He wrote to Charles Hodge of Princeton University in an effort “to acquire an edition of Calvin’s works.”[10] “[T]he confessional Princeton theology” would come to govern “the thought of . . . the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary” in general. It would also become “incarnated in . . . Broadus” [11] in particular. The Founding President had already embraced these doctrines. Broadus also consulted with his uncle Andrew Broadus and inquired of the veteran Baptist minister asking: “How far should Calvinism be carried”? [12] “His uncle affirmed both that God was completely sovereign and that that humans were fully accountable to repent and believe in Christ” [13] for these doctrines “compatibility was beyond human understanding.” [14] Broadus would confess, “I cannot fathom the mystery connected with God’s sovereignty and man’s accountability.” [15] He “[eventually] concluded that the Calvinist approach was scriptural.”[16] After much consideration “[H]e postulated a distinct line of continuity that ran from Paul through Augustine to Calvin.” [17]

Abstract of Principles [18]

Just a short time later, “[I]n the months of March and April of 1858” [19] Basil Many, Jr., one of the “founding four,” began to draw up the Seminary’s Abstract of Principles. [20]As he wrote, compiled, and edited it, he “produced an abridgement of . . . the 1689 [London Confession] which had been familiar to him from his youth.” [21] Manley’s life had also been immersed in what some call the “Charleston Tradition.” [22] Because of this “The articles [of the Abstract] reflected the wording and order of the Charleston Confession of Faith.” [23]

“Manley’s task . . . involved ‘extreme delicacy and difficulty.’”[24] He “needed to draft a statement that comprehended the affirmations important to virtually all the regular Baptists.” But “The confession needed to be specific and definitive enough to secure the integrity of all the ‘essential doctrines held among . . . [other contemporary Baptists].’” [25] Ironically, then as well as now, “Particular redemption had been a flash point of controversy not only between the Calvinists and Arminians in the nineteenth century, but within the ranks of the Calvinist[ic] Baptists” [26] as well. Manly also had to hold the line for those who, like Boyce, sought “A complete exhibition of the fundamental doctrines of grace” [27] including election, predestination, and particular redemption. “Manly clearly intended that those who held to various perspectives on particular redemption and those who affirmed a general redemption could sign their agreement to . . . [the] statement” [28] of faith.

The Abstract ended up with twenty articles in total. “It contained articles on the Scripture, God, the Trinity, providence, election, [29] the fall of man, the Mediator, regeneration, repentance, faith, justification, sanctification, perseverance of the saints, the church, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s day, liberty of conscience, the resurrection, and judgment.” [30] In it “the doctrine of election [31] was defined as ‘God’s eternal choice of some persons unto everlasting life, not because of foreseen merit, in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ; in consequence of which choice, they are called, justified, and glorified.’” [32]

Although Broadus did not have a direct hand in writing the Abstract, he was no doubt in concert with the end result. The “Prologue” sets forth plainly that

. . . all persons accepting professorships in this seminary shall be considered, by such acceptance, as engaging to teach in accordance with, and not contrary to, the Abstract of Principles hereinafter laid down, a departure from which principles on his part shall be considered grounds for his resignation or removal by the Trustees (emphasis added). [33]

 

And because of “the seminary’s confession of faith . . . and through the determined opposition [to heresy]” and “ forthright teaching and writing,” Boyce and Broadus “established a standard of orthodoxy in the denomination that has endured to the present.” [34]At the end of the day, “The theological tradition reflected in the Abstract is in line with the historic orthodoxy at every point. The soteriology can be called moderately Calvinistic (italics added).” [35] It can be considered moderately Calvinistic because Particular Redemption is not mentioned only implied.

Somewhere between the times when “Broadus undertook . . . [his] study of Calvinism,” [36] Manley’s production of the Abstract of Principles, and when he signed the Abstract; we can be well assured that Broadus had embraced election as set forth in the “softer Calvinism” of the Abstract of Principles.

Election in Selected Broadus Writings

In his early days at Southern Seminary, Broadus did not leave much to posterity in the way of a writing legacy. Even in his preaching, he did not read, memorize, or write-out his sermons as was the custom of the “sacred rhetoricians” of his day. He preached extemporaneously and not from a manuscript, even teaching his students to do so as well. [37] Because of this there are not many of his complete extant sermons available for posterity. It was during those early days however, that he compiled an edited version of his preaching notes for his homiletics classes which became the landmark work—A Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons (or the PDS).[38]

After the PDS Broadus went on to publish two important volumes that shed major insights telling how he embraced the doctrine of election. One was his Sermons and Addresses. This was a transcribed compilation of different speeches and sermons delivered to various civic groups and such. Broadus was not only noted to be one of the outstanding pulpit orators of the 19th century, he was a true “Renaissance Man.” As such, was called upon to speak in a wide circle of influence outside the preaching, teaching, and pastoral ministries venues. He was invited to address such topics as; history, philosophy, classics, and the like by various groups.

The other published work was his monumental tome, the Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew in An American Commentary on the New Testament series edited by Alvah Hovey. This was the fruition of at least 20 years worth of careful study. [39] It set standards for exegetical commentaries that are still usable today. [40] Both works were released c. 1886. Sermons and Addresses gives insight into his developing theological understanding of “election,” while the Matthew Commentary better demonstrates how his exegesis informed this theology. Gleaned and synthesized insights concerning his understanding of election should be considered together. Let us look at each one in turn as Particular, Practical, and Privilege.

The Election of God is a Preference

First, consider Sermons and Addresses: There is no doubt that God had a preference for His people that began with a promise to Abraham. In one address entitled “The Holy Scriptures,” Broadus sees a corporate aspect of the concept of “chosen” or “election.”[41] This is demonstrate when he states that “The Old Testament is a history of redemption.” [42] “It is not merely a history of Israel.” [43] In this history, “God’s mightiness and mercies, and of a chosen (or elect) nation, [is seen] all along toward the promised, long-looking-for time when God’s Son should come to be the Savior of mankind (emphasis added).” [44] Here Broadus employs the term “chosen” corporately for Israel.

Broadus does not only see the doctrine of election as a national enterprise for God concerning Israel. In addition, he understands an individual application of the doctrine. In a sermon entitled an “Intense Concern for the Salvation of Others” [45] he takes for his text Roman 9:3: “For I would wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren.” [46] Broadus observes that, “This is known to students of the Scriptures as one which is commonly . . . difficult—one of the hard places” [47] in the Bible. The text is difficult because Paul bemoans the fact that his brethren—Israel—are lost, his desire is for Israel is to be saved! This verse immediately precedes one of the greatest passages on election in all of Scripture. But Broadus exercises one principle of exegesis and interpretation that superintended all of his biblical and theological work: “[B]e willing to let the Scriptures mean what it wants to mean. . . .” [48] So how does Broadus see the Scriptural conundrum worked out? He lays it out like this:

Concern for the salvation of others is not prevented by a belief in what we call the doctrines of grace; not prevented by believing in the divine sovereignty, and predestination, and election. . . . [Many argue] if predestination be true, then it follows that a man cannot do anything for his own salvation; that if he is to be saved he will be saved, but he has nothing to do with it, and need not care, nor need any one else care. . . . [But] Paul himself, the great oracle of the doctrine in the Scripture, has uttered these words of burning passionate concern for the salvation of others, so close by in the passage in which he has taught the doctrines [of election] in question (emphasis added).[49]

 

Broadus continues his argument that:

 

[W]henever you find your heart or the heart of your friend inclined to shrink away from these great teachings of divine Scriptures concerning sovereignty and predestination, then I pray you make no argument about it, but turn to this language of concern for the salvation of others, so intensely passionate that men wonder and think surely it cannot mean what it says. . . . I say that whatever be true, for or against the apostle’s doctrines of predestination and divine sovereignty in salvation, it is not true that they will make a man careless as to his own salvation or that of others; seeing that they had no such effect on Paul himself (emphasis added). [50]

 

The Election of God is Particular

 

Now consider the Commentary on Matthew. In Jesus’ prayer to the Father just before the “Great Invitation” of Matthew 11:28—“Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” there is a pivotal insight on election in verse 27often overlooked: “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him” (KJV). Before his plea of invitation, where Christ calls the Jews “to come unto me,” there is a symbiotic concert between the Father and Son concerning election—or to whom salvation will be revealed. Broadus asserts, “Notice, that this is not, as often quoted, an expression of mere resignation. Our Lord acknowledges the propriety of the sovereign Father’s course [of electing] and praises him for it. Whatever pleases God ought to please us.” [51] Concerning the “all things are delivered to me of my (by )[52] my Father[,]” [53] Broadus waxes theological like his colleague Boyce or one of the other Princetonian theologians when he acknowledges the eternal covenant of God the Father with the Son. “At some past time, not specified, say when he [The Son] entered upon earthly mission—or, perhaps, when the covenant of redemption was formed in eternity . . . all things were committed to him.” [54] That is, the things pertaining to the covenant with God the Father, were given to the Son in His Gospel, and then would be revealed to those whom Christ would sovereignty choose.

Concerning this most important clause, “he to whomsoever the Son will (willeth to) [55] reveal him,” [56] Broadus concludes that “All their wisdom and intelligence [i.e., those who want to know God] will not avail to gain a true knowledge of the Father, unless the Son chooses to reveal him to them.” [57] Here he drives home the point: “The son approves the Father’s will as to hiding and revealing, and the Father has authorized him to reveal or not, according to . . . [the Son’s sovereign] will.” [58]

Perhaps the best way to “hear” how Broadus embraced election at this point is found in another place in his Matthew Commentary. He sets forth a balanced theological and exegetical understanding in context when he comments on Matthew 22:14, “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Concerning this passage he observes:

Many are called to share the Messianic benefits, but few are selected [or elected] actually to attain them; a large portion of the called utterly refusing to accept and some even of those who profess acceptance not developing the corresponding character of life. This selection of the actually saved may be looked at from two sides. From the divine side, we can see that the Scriptures teach an eternal election of men to eternal life, simply out of God’s good pleasure. From the human side, we see that those persons attain the blessings of salvation through Christ who accept the gospel invitation and obey the gospel commandments. It is doubtful whether our minds can combine both sides in a single view, but we must not for that reason deny either of them to be true (emphasis added). [59]

 

Here can be heard the wise reverberations of his uncle Broadus from so many years earlier.

He reinforces this when he quotes the “Silver Tongued” orator John Chrysostom: “[R]everence the love of him who called you, and let no one continue to have filthy garments, but let each of you busy himself about the clothing of your soul.” [60] While the dynamics of how election works may be a contemporary issue for us. Broadus does not seem overly concerned with the mechanics of election itself. The more important consideration for Broadus is: Have you repented toward God? Have you placed your faith in His Only Son, Christ Jesus the Lord and Savior? Are you trusting him alone for your eternal salvation (Acts 20:20)?

The Election of God is a Privilege

In Matthew 13:11, concerning the Parable of the Sewer, Jesus’ disciples pose a question to him: “Why speakest thou unto them [the multitudes who followed] in parables?” Broadus observes that his response is most telling, especially when it comes to the doctrine of election. Jesus responds, “Unto you, it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” Broadus declares that “Because it is given you, literally, ‘has been given,’ and so stands as . . . [the Disciples] established privilege. To know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, [61] i.e., of the Messianic reign. . . .” [62] He continues with a description of the disciple’s privileged view of the reign of Messiah. This “mystery” or

[musterion] signifies something hidden or secret, and known only to the initiated, It might be a very simple thing in itself, but it was a secret. Yet some of the doctrines . . . and . . . secret associations of Greek . . . [and] Egypt . . . were really profound, and difficult of comprehension, and so the word has gradually come to suggest the idea of something incomprehensible, though we still sometimes apply it to things which are merely hard to find out. But . . . the New Testament use [of the word] . . . uniformly denotes that which we could not know unless revealed, whether it is in its own nature simple or profound.  Paul’s favorite application of [musterion] . . . is . . . the great fact that the Gentiles were to share in the salvation of the gospel on equal terms with the Jews, a fact always before kept in silence and secrecy, but now manifested by God and to. . . [be] everywhere proclaimed.[63]

 

Further Broadus explains that:

 

Our Lord is in this series of parables setting forth views as to the true nature of the Messianic kingdom—such as its partial acceptance among men, its small beginnings and gradual spread, its allowing the wicked to live on in the world mingled with . . . [the Kingdom’s] subjects until the end—which the mass of the Jews were not spiritually minded enough to comprehend, nor humble enough to receive. So he presents these views in the form of parables, which would, with the help of his explanations, make them clear to his disciples [or elect] but would leave them mysteries (secrets) to the unspiritual and unbelieving multitude.[64]

 

A Catechism of Bible Teaching [65] by John A. Broadus

Our discussion has considered Broadus’s Sermons and Addresses and observations from his Commentary on Matthew; now consider a final glimpse concerning “how he embraced the doctrine of election” towards the end of his life. In “Lesson VIII,” on “Regeneration—Question 9,” in his A Catechism of Bible Teaching [66] he poses the following question:

Q. Does faith come before the new birth?

A. No, it is the new heart that truly repents and believes. [67]

 

It seems at “first blush” that he has either argued himself to a more narrow position on election, or has been persuaded by others to a more staunchly reformed position, or that he has come to believe the “regeneration precedes faith and repentance” through life experience and self-study. However he came to his catechetical conclusion, it is clear that he may have been only a “half step” in front of the softer understandings of election held earlier. This final position smacks of the Reformational understanding of the “Ordo Salutis.”

Wayne Grudem states concerning election that it is only one event in a “list of the events in which God applies salvation to us . . . called the order of salvation, and is sometimes referred to [by its] Latin phrase.” [68] Grudem further explains that “election” is the primary of

[many] steps in God’s work of applying salvation to our lives include[ing] our hearing the gospel call, our being regenerated by the Holy Spirit, our responding in faith and repentance, and God forgiving us and giving us membership in his family, as well as granting us growth in the Christian life and keeping us faithful to himself throughout life. At the end of our life we die and go into his presence, then when Christ returns we receive resurrection bodies, and the process of acquiring salvation is complete. [69]

 

From a Reformation view, election is the first of a process that springs forth from God’s eternal decrees.[70] Grudem lists these as follows:

The Order of Salvation” [consists of . . .]

  1. Election (God’s choice of people to be saved)
  2. The gospel call (proclaiming the message of the gospel)
  3. Regeneration (being born again)
  4. Conversion (faith and repentance)
  5. Justification (right legal standing)
  6. Adoption (membership in God’s family)
  7. Sanctification (right conduct of life)
  8. Perseverance (remaining a Christian)
  9. Death (going to be with the Lord)
  10. Glorification (receiving a resurrection body).”[71]

 

Towards the end of his life and ministry Broadus stands in the same stream of theological thought with his colleague James P. Boyce and their forbearer Andrew Fuller. For “Fuller, the only way for faith to be holy is for God through his Word to regenerate the heart prior to believing.” [72] Fuller declares that

The . . . question is in what order these things are caused. Whether the Holy Spirit causes the mind, while carnal, to discern and believe spiritual things, and thereby renders it spiritual; or whether he imparts a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth, in consequence of which we discern its glory, and embrace it. The latter appears to me to be the truth. [73]

 

Gleanings Concerning “Broadus’s ‘Embrace of The Doctrine of Election’”

  1. Broadus was primarily a linguist, philosopher, and historian by training. As such, he was a Professor and Tutor of ancient languages at the University of Virginia, Chaplain to the University, and Pastor of the Baptist Church at Charlottesville, Virginia. In this role he was used as Itinerant Evangelists and had acquired a name for himself as pastor and orator before ever he came to The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
  2. Broadus came to his Reformational understandings of the “doctrine of election” late. He undertook a study of Calvinistic Soteriology sometime around 1857 after consulting with his uncle and the Princeton scholars.
  3. Particular redemption was then—as it is now—a flash point of doctrinal controversy.
  4. Broadus had come to consensus on the “doctrine of election” with others of the “Founding Four,” else he would not have been able in “good conscience” to sign the Abstract of Principles.
  5. At this point Broadus was what could be considered “moderately Calvinistic.”
  6. As a linguist and not a systematic theologian per se, he is not concerned with the “mechanics of election.” He just understood it to be just the plain truth of the Gospel.
  7. Towards the end of his life, he seems to have embraced the ordo salutis from a harder reformation understanding that “it is the new heart that truly repents and believes.”

[1] In this inquiry the terms “Election,” “Doctrines of Grace,” “Calvinism” et al that have to do with the historic doctrines referred to as the Soteriological Calvinism will be employed rather interchangeably with due notice given to the doctrine of election.

 

[2] I offer a special thanks to Drew Harris for his editorial work on this project. Drew is a Pastoral Intern at the South Woods Baptist Church and currently pursuing Master of Divinity at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

 

[3] John A. Broadus, A Gentleman and a Scholar: A Memoir of James Petigru Boyce (Birmingham: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2004; reprint New York: AC Armstrong & Son, 1893), 307 (page citations are to the reprint edition).

 

[4] David S. Dockery, “The Broadus-Robertson Tradition,” in Timothy George & David Dockery, eds., Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 95.

 

[5] James Patterson, “Broadus’s Living Legacy,” in David S. Dockery and Roger D. Duke, eds., John A. Broadus: A Living Legacy (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2008), 245.

 

[6] Dockery, “The Broadus-Robertson Tradition,” 95.

 

[7] Ibid., 95.

 

[8] Ibid.

 

[9] Gregory A. Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-2009 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 94.

 

[10] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 94.

 

[11] C. Jeffrey Robinson, Sr., “Evangelicalism from the Beginning: English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century” in Thomas K. Ascol & Nathan A. Finn, eds., By His Grace and For His Glory: Essays in Honor of Thomas J. Nettles  (Cape Coral, FL.: Founders Press, 2011), 63.

 

[12] Ibid.

 

[13] Ibid.

 

[14] Ibid.

 

[15] Ibid. Charles Hodge to John A. Broadus, 6 Jan. 1857, box 1, Broadus Papers; Andrew Broaddus to John A. Broadus, 3 March 1875, attached to Robertson, “Life and Letters of John A Broadus.” Cited in Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1859-2009 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), Footnote #194, 94.

 

[16] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 94.

 

[17] James Patterson, “Broadus’s Living Legacy,” in David S. Dockery and Roger D. Duke, eds., John A. Broadus: A Living Legacy (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2008), 245.

 

[18] The Abstract of Principles is the confessional statement of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. It is signed by every faculty member of the seminary every academic year publicly by all who teach at Southern. For more information on the Abstract see: Michael AG Haykin, Roger D. Duke, & A. James Fuller, Soldiers of Christ: Selections from the Writings of Basil Manly, Sr., & Basil Manly, Jr. (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2009), 36ff.

 

[19] Michael AG Haykin, Roger D. Duke, & A. James Fuller, Soldiers of Christ: Selections from the Writings of Basil Manly, Sr., & Basil Manly, Jr. (Cape Coral, FL.: Founders Press, 2009), 36.

 

[20] Hereafter referred to as Abstract.

 

[21] Ibid., 37.

 

[22] Ibid. See: Haykin, Duke, and Fuller, Soldiers, footnote #42, 36.

 

[23] Thomas J. Nettles, James Petigru Boyce: A Southern Baptist Statesman (Phillipsburg, NJ.: American Reformed Biographies, 2009), 146.

 

[24] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 33.

 

[25] Ibid.

 

[26]  Haykin, Duke, and Fuller, Soldiers, 38.

 

[27] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 31.

 

[28] Ibid., 38-39.

 

[29] Emphasis added.

 

[30] Nettles, Boyce, 146.

 

[31] Emphasis added.

 

[32] Ibid.

 

[33] The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Abstract of Principles, “Election” Article #5. To view a copy of the entire Abstract of Principles visit the web page of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at http://www.sbts.edu/documents/abstract.pdf.

 

[34]  Gregory A. Wills, “Crawford H. Toy: Southern Baptists and the Lessons of Controversy,” in Thomas K. Ascol & Nathan A. Finn, eds., By His Grace and For His Glory: Essays in Honor of Thomas J. Nettles  (Cape Coral, FL.: Founders Press, 2011), 50

 

[35] Dockery, “Broadman-Robertson Tradition,” 103.

 

[36] Wills, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 94.

 

[37] For a fuller discussion of Broadus’s A Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons see: Roger D. Duke, “John A. Broadus, Rhetoric, and A Treatise on the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons in David S. Dockery and Roger D. Duke, eds., John A. Broadus: A Living Legacy (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2008).

 

[38] Broadus’s Preparation and Delivery of Sermons was originally published in 1870.

 

[39] Broadus’s Matthew Commentary was under development at least as early February of 1863 during the time he spent in the camps of the Army of Northern Virginian with Gen. Robert E. Lee. See: AT Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Gano Books, 2003; reprint American Baptist Publications Society, 1901), 196 (page citations are to the reprint edition).

 

[40] Please see Richard Melick’s “New Wine in Broadus Wineskins?” in David S. Dockery and Roger D. Duke, eds., John A. Broadus: A Living Legacy (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2008).

 

[41] In many cases, but not all, the terms “chosen” and “elect” can be used interchangeably.

 

[42] John A. Broadus, “The Holy Scriptures;” in John A. Broadus’s, Sermons and Addresses, (Nashville, TN.: H. M. Wharton/Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1886), 161.

 

[43] Ibid.

 

[44] Broadus, “The Holy Scriptures,” Sermons and Addresses, 161.

 

[45] John A. Broadus, “Intense Concern for the Salvation of Others;” quoted in John A. Broadus, Sermons and Addresses, (Nashville, TN.: H. M. Wharton/Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1886), 110.

 

[46] Ibid.

 

[47] Ibid.

 

[48] J. D. Robertson, “Quotations from the Class Room of Dr. Broadus,” in Seminary Magazine (April, 1895), p. 428; quoted in Vernon Latrelle Stanfield, Favorite Sermons of John A. Broadus (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1959), 6.

 

[49] Broadus, “Intense Concern for the Salvation of Others,” Sermons and Addresses, 117ff.

 

[50] Broadus, “Intense Concern,” Sermons and Addresses, 117ff.

 

[51] Alvah Hovey, gen. ed., An American Commentary of the New Testament, vol. 1, Commentary on Matthew by John A. Broadus (Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication Society, 1886), 252.

 

[52] Italics in Broadus’s original text.

 

[53] Ibid.

 

[54] Ibid.

 

[55] Italics in Broadus’s original text.

 

[56] Broadus, Commentary, 252.

 

[57] Ibid.

 

[58] Ibid.

 

[59] Broadus, Commentary, 448.

 

[60] Ibid.

 

[61] Emphasis added in Broadus’s original text.

 

[62] Broadus, Commentary, 287.

 

[63] Ibid., 287.

 

[64] Ibid.

 

[65] A Catechism of Bible Teaching was the first publication of the new Southern Baptist Sunday School Board. It was published in 1892. Also see note 71 below.

 

[66] For more about John A. Broadus’s, A Catechism of Bible Teaching, see: James Patterson, “Broadus’s Living Legacy,” in David S. Dockery and Roger D. Duke, eds., John A. Broadus: A Living Legacy (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Academic, 2008), 242-245.

 

[67] John A. Broadus, A Catechism of Bible Teaching, 1892; in John A. Broadus, Selected Works of John A. Broadus, Vol. III (Cape Coral, FL.; Founders Publishers, n.d.), 208 (page numbers are to the reprint edition).

 

[68] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich., Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 669.

 

[69] Ibid.

 

[70] For a fuller discussion of the “Eternal Decrees of God” see: Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, “The Decrees of God,” (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing, 1994), 332-333.

 

[71] Ibid., 670.

 

[72] Gerald L. Priest, “Andrew Fuller’s Response to the ‘Modern Question’—A Reappraisal of the Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (Fall 2001): 45-73.

 

[73] Andrew Fuller, Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller with a Memoir of His Life, edited by Andrew Gunton Fuller (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1856), p. 151; quoted in Gerald L. Priest, “Andrew Fuller’s Response to the ‘Modern Question’—A Reappraisal of the Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (Fall 2001): 56.

 

Share

Live Blog: Corporate Solidarity in the OT: the Elect Ones and the Elect One by Dr. Joshua Wilson

February 28th, 2012 No comments

Dr. Joshua Wilson is an adjunct professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, MO.

Is. 49:1-7 will be our text this afternoon.  I am speaking on Corporate Solidarity and, to be honest with you, I am still learning what corporate solidarity is as well.

The main theme of our passage appears to be that there is a servant of the Lord chosen to redeem the people.  It seems as though a quick reading will point us toward Christ as being this servant.  For example, we see in vs. 5 that the servant will be called from the womb.  This brings to mind the early chapters of Matthew.

Another comment is that his mouth will be like a sharp sword.  We see this mentioned in Is. 11 and the book of Revelation.  It seems as though we are on the right track in saying this is Jesus.

Another task is to bring salvation to Israel and to the ends of the earth.  Furthermore, we know that Is. 49 does not take place in a vacuum.  We find that this servant shows up from Is. 41-53.  Is. 42:1-4 is another example that is said of Christ in Mt. 12:17-21.

However, we have a dilemma.  In Is. 49:3, we are told that “You are my servant, Israel.”  Is. 44:1-3, 21-23 is another servant passage that is talking of Jacob (Israel).  This is a clear reference to the nation of Israel.  Just as the servant in 49 is known and chosen from the womb, so is the servant in 44.

In both passages, this chosen servant, born from the womb is Israel.  We know from our passage that Israel is going to redeem whom? Israel.  How does Israel redeem Israel?  This is where the concept of corporate solidarity will help us to understand.

Corporate Solidarity is defined by Richard Longenecker, “The concept has been defined as “that important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group…too which he belongs so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.”

We see an example of this when the spies came back to Israel after investigating the Promised Land.

The key phrase is oscillation of representation in that the representative moves from the group to the individual and back to the group interchangeably.  We still need guidelines, however, to be able to apply this concept of corporate solidarity.  We must first and foremost turn to the Bible to understand this concept.  We often see in Scripture that the group is always defined by the nation and the individual is defined by the Davidic Era.

The Seed

We first find the promised seed in Gen 3:15. In the immediate context, we are not told who is the representative of the seed. On this side of Christ, we know that He is the one. Yet, biblically, we do not know at this point.

In Gen 22:17-18, we find that Abraham has been promised that his seed will greatly be multiplied cf. 2 chronicles 20:7. We begin to see the oscillation from the nation to the individual.

1 Chronicles 17:11-12, David is promised to have a seed set up after him. We see revelation progressing from individual to nation back to individual. In this passage, we know the Davidic heir immediately is Solomon but ultimately in Christ.

Jer. 33:25-26, shows us further more that their is an oscillation of representation from Davidic heir to the nation. In Galatians 3:16, Paul applies these “seed passages” to Christ as He is the ultimate representation.

The Son

Who is the Lord’s Son? We find it, too, oscillates from nation to individual. See first, Ex. 4:22-23 where Israel as a nation is called God’s first born.

1 Chron. 17:13-14 brings us to the Davidic covenant and makes it an individual again. See also Ps. 2:7. This is no one else than the David heir. See this fulfilled in Heb. 1:5-8.

Hos. 11:1 talks explicitly of the nation of Israel yet Matthew 2:14-15 quotes Hos. 11:1 as being ultimately a prophecy of Christ.

Hopefully, you can see how this concept of oscillation of representation is applied to our passage in Is. 49.

Jeremiah 46:27-28 shows that the representative of the servant is the nation of Israel. In Ez. 37:24-25 we find the servant moved from the nation to the individual who is to be the Davidic heir.

As we now return to the book of Isaiah, starting in ch. 41. we find that the nation is the representative of the servant Israel. In ch. 42, it moves to the individual, in 43-45, it is the nation. In Is. 49, it is the individual as it is in 50-53. Hopefully, you can see how this concept of corporate solidarity explains the importance of Ch. 49.

There must be a distinction maintained between the representatives. In Ch. 49, there is no oscillation taking place. It is clearly the servant Israel represented by the Davidic heir saves Israel the nation.

Election

How does the doctrine of election apply to this corporate solidarity? In Is. 44 we find that the servant is elected and called (see vs. 1-3, 21-23). Corporate solidarity helps explain how Israel can save Israel. The election language determines whether the davidic heir is the servant or the nation is the servant.

In Is. 49, how do we know who represents the nation? We know by the election language. The same with Is. 44. Understanding the election language greatly helps us to determine which representative (nation or individual) is being discussed in the various seed and son passages.

The main thrust of Is. 49 is that the Lord has elected the davidic heir to redeem the elected nation. This decree is based upon the Lord despite everything seemingly being wasted (see Is. 49:4). The frustration, however, is short lived because of the realization that his calling and election to redeem Israel is based upon the sovereign decree of the Lord. In other words, the prophet knows that what God has decreed will be accomplished.

This decree of the Lord is a major theme in the latter chapters of Isaiah. This divine decree is not based upon God’s looking in a crystal ball. Rather, it is based upon God’s personhood. Is. 46:8-11 gives great comfort to all in this regard. see also Is. 48:3 and Is. 55:11. God is not waiting to see if the nation will respond, He is declaring it because he is going to do it.

The main thrust of our passage is that God in His sovereign decree has elected Christ to redeem Israel, His elect nation and to take the gospel to all the nations.

 

Share