THE PASSION OF GOD – WHAT LOVE IS THIS
I was using
the fly swatter the other day. Oh,
don’t worry; I was using it on flies!
I was upset
to come home to discover there were a number of flies buzzing around the
kitchen area…hard to believe, with the kitchen as immaculately clean as it was
(fingers crossed). I was a little
disappointed when I saw two flies near each other, but not near enough I could
get them both with one swat. Oh well, I
made a choice and brought the “judgment gavel” down with deadly
efficiency.
And the
other flew to safety. In fact, I was
almost certain I could hear it issuing expletives as it blasted to safety! “Too bad it could not have been closer to
that other fly”, I thought. (I know;
you’re thinking, “This guy really needs to get a life!” Anyhow, there is no way that rascal will
come back to the same place, and who knows where or when it will light
next.
I waited a
second or two, and then, in my usual patient manner, I sat the flyswatter down
right next to where the two flies had been earlier and headed off to some
lesser pursuit. And then, out of the
corner of my eye, as I walked away, I saw an amazing thing. The fly came right back to the place of his
Uncle Buggy’s demise a few seconds ago.
This caught my attention and my imagination immediately, but before I
could really get a good grasp on this metaphor that I am now sharing with you,
the fly did something else, that blew my mind.
After
examining some of Uncle’s remains, he trotted over and examined most of the
remaining fly cadaver on the flyswatter, and then just parked his vehicle and
sat a spell. That’s right! He bounced right up onto the very instrument
of death that caused the untimely departure of his kinfolk. Amazing!
I mean you would think (even without a brain), there would be at least a
little bit of that thing called “instinct”.
Some semblance of self-preservation.
Some allusion of wisdom.
Something!
The crazy
fly marched right on to the flyswatter and camped out, pitched a tent, and
dreamt of roasting marshmallows with his squashed bud.
And then it
occurred to me. Humans are no
different! We want to ignore the
protections of God, His commandments.
We want to be free of rules and the self-preserving guidelines made
available to us by a loving Creator.
Do our thing! I am human! Hear me roar! We have all turned to our own way, and ignored the loving,
reaching hand of God. Who will deliver
us from this propensity to self-destruction?
Even in the
ranks of the Church, you can hear the murmurings, and sometimes see those
returning “as a dog to his vomit”.
Certainly, our hearts break, and we examine our message, and our own
lives and our own testimonies. We ask
ourselves, did they see the impossibility of it all and miss the fact that God
made the impossible possible? Did they
not see the stars displaying the power of His grace? Why? Why did the flies
return to the scene and instrument of their ultimate destruction? Did they not recognize the fading vapor of
their perishing flesh or their decaying possessions? Did they not recognize the clear intimacy of a communicating
Designer in the language of DNA?
Why? Why would the flies decide
to live with the flyswatter? Have they
not tasted the fruit of Life? Have they
not embraced the warmth of the Servant?
Why? Did they miss the purity of
poverty in a God made flesh? Or maybe
they did not catch the Advocate winning their case by personal substitution. Did someone forget to tell them they are
free? Why would they escort themselves
to the death chamber? Why? What is
wrong with this picture?
Perhaps you
can hear the fly saying, “Hey, there is spider webs out there! I’m just afraid!” Maybe you hear another, “But this kitchen counter is covered with
delectable dainties! I like it
here!” Wait a minute! Stop everything! Listen to me a minute.
That’s right. Read this out loud
and hear it. Christ took the hit for
you! Jesus became sin and suffered the
fatal torment…the wrath of God…the judgment of the Almighty for you. You have an opportunity…an opportunity to go
home…to the protection and warmth and abundance of your Father’s house. The Father sent His Son to get you. He wants you back. Don’t stay where you are.
Don’t send Him away. It is too
dangerous! The pleasure is just a
deception. The faultfinding is a
deception. The self-righteousness, the
personal piety, the legalistic techniques to make your own way back…all deceptions!
"Why is the LORD taking us to this country only to have
us die in battle? Our wives and little ones will be carried off as slaves!
Let's get out of here and return to Egypt!" Nu 14:3
But wait a minute!
What’s up with that? Have you
forgotten so quickly what was going on in Egypt. Have you forgotten the oppression, the slavery, the infanticide to
control the expansion of your people?
Have you forgotten so quickly the constant sense of imminent death? Don’t you remember the flyswatter? You scramble around so eagerly for crumbs,
when milk and honey is available to you.
When you are looking through the eyes of faith (faith in God), there are
no giants in Canaan. You are not
the “grasshopper”. You are the
beloved offspring of an omnipotent, protective God.
So, come on, cut it out! You may think you have a good excuse, but God says you’re really without excuse. So get real and get off the flyswatter! Just think, swimming through a lake of milk and honey! Sure beats splattering the countertop! I mean, get some sense between those bug eyes of yours! This is a no-brainer. (Sorry, couldn’t resist).
God loves you and I love you, and now, if you don’t mind,
I’ve got to buzz off!
Ó 2001 C. E. Briggs
The Practice
This is the message, which we have heard from Him and declare to you,that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that wehave fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do notpractice the truth. But if we walk in the light as He is in the light,
we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ HisSon cleanses us from all sin. (1 Jn 1:5-7) [Bold and underlining mine]
“Walking in darkness” and “not practicing the truth” are
apparently synonymous. And if so, it
follows that “walking in the light” and “practicing the truth” are
synonymous.
Jesus had (and has) fellowship with us and encourages
fellowship among us, and indeed marks this as a measure of walking in the
light.
We know our
sinful nature dogs us, but we have an option that God has given us, His Holy
Spirit. If His Spirit lives within us,
then we may live after the Spirit and reflect His fruits, rather than the
sinful nature and its fruits. But, will
sin happen, and what then is our status?
As long as this corruptible flesh contains us, we will be
drawn to that which we hate, and when we yield, sin occurs. Are we now walking in darkness? That can best be answered with a
question. What do we practice? I didn’t ask in what ways have we failed,
faltered, or stumbled? I asked what do
we practice?
Do we practice sin?
Does sin find a happy, comfortable home in us? Or does sin find an adversary in us? Do we despise sin or do we court it? The resister of sin may struggle and lose some battles, but if he
is living after the Spirit, he need not lose the war (and in fact, he need not
lose the battle).
You
see, we always know we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ. So, back to the question, do we walk in His
light? If so, the decision is clear
whenever we are faced with “get up or give up”. We rise, and we confess the sin that we so desperately hate and
refuse to practice and then we know the confession of our sin secures
the forgiveness of sin and cleansing (both soul and conscience) from sin by the
blood of Jesus Christ.
While I am always concerned with my conduct,
I am not as concerned in the action of the moment as I am in the actions that I
practice. Hopefully, as we
endeavor to love God with all of our heart, soul, might, and mind, our daily
actions will always consistently glorify God.
And when there is a hiccup, a
violation, let us look to the Spirit that lives within. Let us turn to the Savior, of whom the
Spirit testifies. And let us confess to
the Father in Heaven, our sin, and our hatred of that sin, and our desire of
the deliverance He promises.
What is the practice of your
life? Practice truth.
Ó 2001 C. E. Briggs
Isn’t
it interesting how?:
We
can be surrounded by a forest full of crickets and sleep peacefully as we camp out
in our tent, but a single cricket under our bedroom nightstand can drive us
absolutely nuts!
We
can lay next to a roaring brook with clarity of mind, but a persistent little
drip from the faucet can drive us stark raving mad!
We
can be surrounded and hounded by a world of iniquity and enjoy peace that
passes understanding through Christ Jesus, but the indulgence of one little sin
can leave us feeling defeated and empty.
Philippians
3 (NIV)
Vs
12
…I
press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
Vs
13
Brothers,
I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining
toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God
has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Repentance
(turning loose of sin) and believing (taking hold of) the Good News of Christ
Jesus, not only produces immediate admittance into the family of God, but daily
transforms us to reflect more and more the lordship of Christ in our lives as
the children of God. Trust God every
day; serve God every day; praise God every day, and He will give you your
deepest desires: desires, which are now focused on the heavenly treasures of
joy, peace, and love, rather than earthly treasures.
Ó 2001 C. E. Briggs
Do you believe in miracles?
While most people do believe in miracles, they do so
in many different ways.
There is a lot of attention given to miracles these
days. We need only turn on our TV sets to
see programs portraying angels, demons, witches, sorcerers. Many programs portray miracles indirectly;
but some use miracles as their main theme.
Roger Ebert, the famous movie reviewer, exclaimed
once about “angel” shows, “These scenarios are all wrong, wrong, wrong, from a
theological point of view (which is the only one worth having about angels).”
[Quoted in Citizen, December 1997].
Jesus responding to some
who were taunting him to perform another miracle, said in Luke 11:29, “This is
an evil generation. It seeks a sign,
and no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.”
Hiking the trails of the
Rocky Mountains, one occasionally will come to a sign that points the way to
the destination. The sign is not the
destination. It just points the way to
the destination.
Sometimes the signs are
just mounted loosely in a pile of rocks.
They can be easily turned by the wind or by pranksters. If the sign is blindly trusted, one could
end up hiking in the wrong direction.
The wise hiker will always confirm the sign with the map and compass.
Our map is the Word of God,
and our compass is the Spirit of God.
Jesus referred to the Old
Testament account of Jonah to illustrate His death, burial, and resurrection as
the sign that should be trusted over all other signs or miracles. If the others don’t point to this one, they
are pointing the wrong way.
The greatest healing, the
greatest miracle, the greatest blessing is not the remission of the cancer, the
business success, or the unexpected romance.
The greatest is the eternal salvation of the soul.
May God bless you with this
miracle first and many more following.
Ó 2002 C.
E. Briggs
I
was enjoying some Bible verses this week in the book of John and thought it would
be good to share them. The scene in
these verses picks up soon after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, when He has
appeared to some of His disciples.
JOHN 20:24 Now Thomas,
called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The
other disciples therefore said to him, "We have seen the Lord." So he
said to them, "Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put
my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will
not believe." (NKJV)
Of
course Thomas is known as The Doubter; in fact his name was immortalized
in the expression, Doubting Thomas.
But Thomas had previously demonstrated powerful faith (John 11:16), even
willing to die at one time for his Lord.
Frankly, I think he was like many of us. Sure Thomas was a little clumsy with his faith, but he was honest
and he wanted to be sure he was not falling for some crazy religion, which
there was plenty of in his day (as well as ours). He wanted facts! (John 14:5).
But
this time Thomas is seriously fed up with the whole situation. He has just seen the Person in Whom all his
hopes and dreams rested, brutally tortured and killed. He was in no mood for mystical musings. This was the biggest loss of his life. In other words, “Look guys, He is dead! He is buried! It is over! I am tired of
wishful thinking!”
Then
-- the Lord pays another visit, and this time, Thomas is with them! Read:
JOHN 20:26 And after eight
days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the
doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, "Peace to you!" 27 Then
He said to Thomas, "Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and
reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but
believing." 28 And Thomas answered and said to Him,
"My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him,
"Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those
who have not seen and yet have believed." 30 And truly
Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written
in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life
in His name. (NKJV)
Notice
Jesus does not criticize Thomas for his radical demand. Instead the Lord provides Him with the
requested proof, and Thomas responds with one of the most powerful affirmations
of the deity of Jesus in the Bible, “My Lord and my God!”
With discoveries such as the Dead Sea scrolls, the
historical accuracy of the Bible has been verified. In fact, we have documents verified to within a few years of the
crucifixion that match our current translations almost exactly. In comparison, the earliest available copies
of Aristotle’s writings are dated 1300 years after the original writings and
yet ironically are never questioned, even though historians suggest it takes
about 200 years for legend to begin to invade truth.
The fact is, the evidence of the validity of the claims of Christianity
far exceeds the most burdensome demands of secular legal proofs.
Which
leads me to ask: If you were wrong,
would you want to know it?
Ó 2003 C. E. Briggs
Nearly everyone knows
the story, either from the Bible, Sunday School, or even from the movies. God told Moses to lead the children of
Israel out of Egypt, and Moses wasn’t very happy about it. He wasn’t even sure how to identify God to
the people. God said, “Tell them, ‘I
AM has sent you.’” (Exodus
3:14) Fifteen hundred years later,
Jesus uses the same phrase in the following conversation:
So the Jews said to Him,
"You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?"
Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was
born, I am." (John 8:57-58)
It
sounds like a grammar mistake, but a closer look at the verbs is
interesting. The phrase “was born” is
translated from a single word, genesqai, which means to come into
existence. The next verb “am” is
translated from the word eimi, which means eternal existence.
Ok,
language class is over. Now, take a
look at what this means. First, it
means Abraham had a beginning. Second,
it means God did not have a beginning but existed eternally. Christ could have asserted His eternality by
saying “I was” but to show that He transcends the whole concept of time, He
says, “I am.” When speaking of God’s
existence the best word to use is not was or will be.
Jesus Christ is the
same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8).
This can be hard for a human to
understand. We are conditioned to think
in the context of time and it can cause many errors when considering the nature
of God.
God understands this and
so He condescends into
time to speak so that we can understand.
In fact, God’s Word actually became flesh when Jesus was born:
The Word
became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only
begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
What
does all this mean to you today - right now?
It means that God knows your earthly time is limited. While you are stressed because there are not
enough hours in the day, God is concerned with the welfare of your
eternity. In fact, He loves the world
so much, He sent His only Son to secure eternal life for those who trust in Him
(John 3:16).
Prophecy
may be the best demonstration of God’s lordship over time. Prophecy is unique to the Bible. It is not found in the writings of other
major religions, such as the Book of Mormon, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy
(Christian Science), the Quran of Islam, the Vedas of Hinduism, the Tripitaka
of Buddhism, or the Si Shu of Confucianism.
There
are 100’s of prophecies in the Bible and the rate of accuracy is 100%. I would suggest it is because its Author
knows exactly what the future holds. He
knows because He sees all of the past and all of the future – right now!
That
may leave you struggling to understand many things but one thing it should not
do, is leave you wondering where to place your trust.
He
stands at the door of your heart. Won’t
you open to Him today?
Ó 2003 C. E. Briggs
THE PASSION OF GOD -
WHAT LOVE IS THIS!
When people tell me they are sick of trying to live a
good life because of their constant failures, I tell them they are closer than
ever to the Kingdom of God. Of course,
they are surprised. They are thinking
why would God give the Ten Commandments, if no one can successfully follow
them. I mean - I cannot even get past
the first one without messing up!
The Apostle Paul explains that the purpose of the Law
of God is to provide a mirror to reveal our sinfulness. While the Law is good, it quickly teaches us
we are not. We may try to live by it,
but our best falls short. The question
is naturally raised, “How can a holy God forgive me without becoming unholy
Himself?” If God is righteous, He will
not wink at sin – He must judge it.
Anything less and He would not be holy, and then frankly, we would all
be toast!
But God has graciously allowed a system of
substitution. If we can find a human
who has lived a perfectly holy life with no personal sin whatsoever, and that
person is willing to stand in for us, consign our sin to Him, consign His
righteousness to us, and receive all the judgment for our sin that we deserved,
then we can spend eternity in the presence of the most beautiful Being ever,
God Almighty. But God knew that no
person born of man can live sinless, so if His creation is to be saved while He
remains righteous, He will have to become human Himself, live sinless, and
provide Himself to suffer and die to save the world that He so deeply
loves. God satisfies His own
wrath! Amazing love!
Man simply cannot invent a religion like this! How do we gain access to God? Every other religion shows us what we
must do. Christianity shows us what God
has done.
A new movie, called, The Passion of Christ
opens in theatres the week this is written. If you decide to see it, please remember, the greatest agony
endured by our Lord on the cross and in the days before was not visible to
human eyes. The greatest agony felt was
when the Sinless One had my sins (and yours) imputed to Him. You see, I know what I have done! And I cannot imagine the torment for Perfect
Purity to be exposed to such filth!
What love is this!!
If you have not already done so, embrace the Good News of Jesus Christ today!
Ó 2004 C.
E. Briggs
The Unity of Purpose
Charles E. Briggs
Copyright © 2003 by Charles E. Briggs
Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright
© 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
"Scripture quotations
taken from the New American Standard Bible®,
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973,
1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation
Used by permission." (www.Lockman.org)
Charles E.
Briggs
Contents
Chapter 1. Dance of the Dandelions
Chapter 3. The Gospel According to Who?!
Chapter 4. The Movement Starts With a C
Chapter 6. The Fundamentals: Common Ground or Just Another ‘Ism
Chapter 8. WWW: Whitefield, Wesley, and the World
Of the many theological debates within Christianity,
the one that fascinates me most is that of the so-called Arminians and
Calvinists, in which their differing views on the doctrines of Depravity,
Election, Atonement, Regeneration, and Free Will are discussed. I am drawn to this debate because it appears
so irreconcilable and because there are so many in both camps that are
unarguably and mightily used by God.
While much of the debate is resolved by the elimination
of semantics, there are nevertheless real differences. When each side to the debate discusses their
views in the Spirit of Christ, they inevitably discover with surprise that much
of what they believe is the same. The
problem is many of the terms potentially have dual meanings, or in some cases,
dualistic language is deliberately used to achieve desired support for an
established belief (Merriam-Webster 1059).
Walter Martin says, “The problem of semantics has always played an
important part in human affairs, for by its use or abuse, whichever the case
may be, entire churches, thrones, and governments have been erected, sustained
or overthrown” (29).
The intent of this project is to identify the common
ground of the Gospel of Christ and the unity of purpose it requires. In the process, I hope to expose the
attitudes prevalent in the Calvinist-Arminian debate, and to examine those
attitudes that promote division, as well as those that promote unity. If the Gospel is presented through (or
despite) both theological systems, we have an obligation to unify in the Great
Commission of taking the good news of Jesus Christ to the world.
The views set forth in this project may appear naïve
or idealistic, but I submit the alternatives are unthinkable and unacceptable.
Ch.
1. Dance of the Dandelions
Roberts said of The Potter’s Freedom, “In a
manner reminiscent of Luther demolishing Erasmus, James White grinds the
Semi-Pelagianism of Dr. Geisler to fine powder – not in the spirit of
triumphalism, but knowing that all Arminianism is as hostile to the true gospel
as it is friendly to a reviving Roman Catholicism” (back cover).
A person’s attitude is generally revealed most
vividly in his choice of adjectives and verbs.
Consider “demolishing” and “grinds” and “hostile to the true
gospel.” These dramatic word pictures
remind us more of a coworker’s break-table review of a slow-witted action movie
than the meek exchange of differing views between Christian brothers. Or should we conclude that Dr. Geisler or Dr.
White is not a Christian brother? Are
these terms justified? Do they promote
unity? I am not suggesting weakness
when debating issues one believes to be truth, but I am suggesting meekness, and in fact, it is more than a suggestion
(Matt. 5:5). God has clearly told us to
respond to challenges to our beliefs with meekness (1 Pet. 3:15).
Reymond said, “The Potter’s Freedom is the much
needed antidote to his [Norman Geisler’s] flawed (and failed) attempt, in
typical Thomistic fashion, to synthesize what cannot be synthesized.” Is that true? Can these views not be synthesized? Do they even need to be?
In What Love is This?, Dave Hunt tells us,
“Far from glorifying God, Calvinism gives God a bad name (213).”
An endorsement of Dave Hunt’s book by Elmer Towns of
Liberty University speaks of “the agonizing faults of Calvinistic abuses,” and
says that the arguments of students for and against Calvinism “are like weeds,
i.e., dandelions that bear no fruit.”
He also says, “Very little of their discussions are grounded in the
truth of the Word of God (inside cover).”
Indeed, dandelions are colorful, and can draw one’s attention as they
dance in the fields, but they are weeds, and any farmer dedicated to a healthy
crop and productive harvest will know, the fewer weeds there are, the greater
the harvest will be.
The question is, “Can Calvinists and Arminians be
saved while fully embracing their particular beliefs?” Once you answer that question and realize
synthesis of beliefs may not be possible, a problem emerges. Because Jesus said, “[. . .] he who is not
against us is on our side” (NKJV, Luke 9:50).
I have met Calvinists and Arminians that work very
effectively together reaching the lost.
They do not agree with one another on several theological issues but
they do agree on the essentials of the Christian faith. Paul Lim, in an article in Modern
Reformation, entitled, “The Unity of the Church,” said:
As confessing evangelicals, we can and should reflect
more biblically and theologically on the nature and necessity of the church’s
unity (11 par. 2).
However, there are probably even more of those who
call themselves Arminian or Calvinist who find this cooperation repulsive. They are absolutely opposed to one another
and consider each to be reprobate.
Ch.
2. Barely
Saved
Many theologians attempt to “ride the fence” possibly
for marketing reasons, but their speech inevitably reveals their
attitudes. R.C. Sproul, a prominent
Calvinist theologian, (respected by this writer) made the regrettable statement
in his book, Willing to Believe: “People often ask if I believe
Arminians are Christians? I usually answer, ‘Yes, barely’” (25).
Is this concept of “barely Christian” possible? I suggest there is no scriptural support for
this idea, nor does it have any place even in Calvinist theology. Some might say 1 Corinthians 3:15 suggests a
person can be barely saved, but a closer look reveals a discussion of works and
rewards rather than salvation. It does
however reinforce the fact that no person is barely saved. He either is or he isn’t. Jesus does not barely save anyone (Heb.
7:25). How does a Calvinist (in the
context of God’s sovereignty and irresistible, unconditional decrees) say someone
is barely saved? Did the Almighty have
a weak moment in which He was hindered?
The fact is, if it is agreed we have been saved,
unity in the body of Christ should be a primary concern and quest. Let’s look again at Luke 9.
Now
John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your
name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him,
for he who is not against us is on our side.” (NKJV, vss. 49-50)
This is the attitude of Christ concerning unity. Clearly some are against Jesus and His followers
and clearly some are on their side.
Jesus’ words show there is to be a division. Those that are “against” are excluded--no compromise--no
accommodation. Conversely, in the same
statement, Jesus reproves the attitudes that hinder unity within “our
side.” While the disciples with Christ
were jockeying for positions of authority, this busy missionary was not even in
their company, but going about winning souls for Christ. We should go the extra mile to find common
ground in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
But just how far did Jesus go with this concept?
He said, “Do not forbid him.” The only thing Jesus tells us to analyze is
whose side they are on. He indicates we
can find out who they support by identifying who they are against. If they are on the side of Christ and His
followers, we must not hinder them.
Ch.
3. The Gospel According to What?
Dr. Norman Geisler spoke to the congregation of
Calvary Chapel in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, on June 24, 2001. The title of his message was Five Reasons
I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist. As
he developed his clear anti-Calvinist message, he chose to use (in my opinion)
a regrettable phrase. He said, “God is
not a divine rapist.” His point of
course was to show that God does not force His love upon anyone, since forced
love is a contradiction of terms and is not possible. His choice of words was disappointing and unnecessarily
inflammatory, but I suppose he did not consider the audience to be antagonistic
to his message. But just how friendly
was the audience?
Apparently, at least one Calvinist in the area
decided to check out Dr. Geisler. Mr.
John Nolan wrote an open letter to A Puritan’s Mind, a website presented
by C. Matthew McMahon to propagate and promote historical Puritan
theology. The letter was a response to
Dr. Geisler’s message at Calvary Chapel.
It was entitled, The Gospel According to Timothy McVeigh. As you might deduce from the title, Dr.
Geisler’s beliefs are equated with the beliefs of Timothy McVeigh, convicted
murderer and bomber of the Murrah Federal building, in which 168 men, women,
and children died. His statement, read
shortly before his execution, proclaimed, “I am the master of my fate, I am the
captain of my soul.”
Is this the meekness or gentleness that Peter spoke
of in 1 Peter 3:15? This comparison of
a mass-murderer to a humble servant of God is possibly more regrettable than
Dr. Geisler’s choice of “divine rapist” as an insinuation of the Calvinistic
view of God. Dr. Geisler has provided
voluminous, Christ-honoring works respected and used in the work of the Kingdom
of God throughout the world. Norman
Geisler’s works have been daily referenced for many years by evangelicals
globally, including Calvinist scholars.
Frankly, I live in the Oklahoma City area. My office building rocked from the blast of
the bomb that Timothy McVeigh planted in front of the federal building. I lost friends in that disaster. I attended memorials including the funeral
of two baby brothers. I have several of
Dr. Geisler’s books in my library along with many books by Calvin, Sproul, and
White, among others. I have read and
referenced them for years. I realize
they have differences, but I am reluctant to conclude any of them are unsaved,
barely saved, believers in “divine rapism,” believers in “the gospel of Timothy
McVeigh,” or any other such inappropriate illustrations. It is heartrending when children of God
reject the fruit of the Spirit in the egotistical debate of dogma.
Narcissus, a Greek mythological character, was so
fascinated by his reflection in the water that he fell in and drowned. Today, the term narcissist describes one who makes personal fulfillment
first priority.
Dogmas, creeds, and confessions too often become the
platform of egos and the fertile soil of unbiblical deviations. Unsubdued egos, when studying God’s Word,
render attitudes that can lead to cultic behavior.
In The Kingdom of the Cults, Martin says the
typical cult “requires absolute faith in the supernatural authority of those
who received the initial revelation” (37).
So when “special revelation” is said to be needed to understand that
which controverts the Word of God and common reasoning, beware. Many have been ensnared in the “Kingdom of
the Cults” by this tactic. Martin
quotes The Watchtower, a publication of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (1 Feb.
1952, 79-80): “If we do not see a point at first [. . .] we should meekly go
along with the Lord’s theocratic organization and wait for further
clarification” (36). Actually, we
should diligently and prayerfully seek “further clarification” before we
“meekly go along.”
God invites us to reason with Him (Is 1:18). He tells us to study to gain approval and avoid shame (2 Tim 2:15), and to be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks a reason of the hope in us (1 Pet. 3:15). Discussion, study, and preparation, when approached with meekness and gentleness, will assure the approval of God, the respect of man, and the unity of believers.
Ch.
4. The Movement Starts With a C
On October 13, 1995, during a broadcast of the Bible
Study Hour, which was presenting an episode of the White Horse Inn broadcast,
the host and president of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Dr. Michael
Horton, and a group identified as “the staff at Christians United for
Reformation” began to discuss “anti-authoritarian movements creating
authoritarian sects.” The discussion
was referred to as part of “The Reformation Slogan tape series, produced
by CURE.” They immediately homed
in on one “movement” only, and they identified it by saying, “It starts with a
‘C’.” I was struck by this childish
language so uncharacteristic of the scholars participating in the
discussion. If the name is
inappropriate for this public venue, then hints of the name are also
inappropriate. The abbreviation is an
indictment against the attitude and maturity of the speaker.
Dr. Horton went on to say (about this church),
“Reformed people are not to be allowed in their congregation. They’re booting out the Reformed folk.” Another said they do this “under the guise
of not being a church.”
Referring to the pastor as “Pastor X” and “the pope” who “called a
summit of all the cardinals; I mean pastors,” Dr. Horton said this pastor
“doesn’t have any theological training,” and “Calvinists are not to be allowed
in the denomination [. . .], but evidently, philanderers are.” The doctrine of this church was then
referred to as the “particular pastor’s navel-gazing.”
The reference here is to the Calvary Chapel at Costa
Mesa, California. The “pope” referred
to is Chuck Smith, the founder of the Calvary Chapel movement, which currently
has approximately one thousand churches in America and many more around the
globe. The “summit” these men were
speaking of was a conference held at Twin Peaks in the San Bernardino Mountains
that same year. I confirmed this in an interview with one of the attendants of
the conference, Ken Merrihew, of Calvary Chapel of Oklahoma City, April 25,
2003.
Regrettably, the words of the discussion on the Bible
Study Hour were either outright wrong or out of context. Chuck Smith does have theological
training, and he did in fact graduate (4).
He “is one of the leading Bible teachers in the United States” and “his
radio ministry, The Word For Today, is heard on hundreds of stations
across the United States” (cover).
They do not “boot out” anyone because of adherence to Reformed (or
Calvinist) theology. They do, however,
disallow extremists from Calvinism, Arminianism, or any other theological
persuasion to sow discord or division in the body of Christ by forcing dogmas
down the throats of people who wholeheartedly embrace the fundamentals of the
Christian faith.
The Calvary Chapel organization is a respected,
fundamental Protestant movement that has been clearly blessed of the Lord. There is not a single claim to perfection or
papacy by Chuck Smith or any other pastor of Calvary Chapel. The only exclusions in this organization are
directed at sowers of discord, open and unrepentant immorality, and rejection
of the Fundamentals as listed herein (Smith 118-119). Even in these cases, every effort is made to reconcile and
restore a brother or a sister, but the priority is unity in the body of Christ
(Smith 119).
However, the purpose of this project is not to argue
the validity of the views of any person or group, but to consider the attitudes
that take place among those in the body of Christ who debate theology. Clearly the misrepresentation on the White
Horse Inn (mentioned above) was inappropriate and unChristlike. The words spoken were improper in any
setting, but especially in such a public setting as a worldwide radio
broadcast.
C.S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity, “Our
divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have
already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is His only
Son” (6).
In chapter 7, we will examine an email debate in
which Dr. Horton conducts himself much more honorably, but before we do, in our
quest for common ground, let’s take another look at the “requirement” of
salvation (ch. 5) and the essentials of the Christian faith (ch. 6).
In the identification of common ground among
believers, a big question is always, “What is the Gospel?” Is the Gospel what we must believe to be
saved? Most would think so. In fact, in Mark 1:15 Jesus began His
earthly ministry saying, “Repent, and believe in the Gospel” (NASB). At first, it seems appropriate to say the
Gospel is the minimum we must believe to be saved, but consider the
implications. The word “minimum”
suggests there are more things you can believe to be saved, and yet, they are
not part of the “minimum.” Most would
argue, if anything saves, then that is all that saves. Actually, a song by Priscilla Owens and
William Kirkpatrick, says it very well, “Jesus Saves!” For over a century that song has clearly
expressed the most profound truth in world history (97). Too many in Christendom today find this
fruit from the Tree of Life desirable to eat only when mixed into a fruit salad
from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Of course, this truth goes back much further than a
song from the 19th century.
In the development of the early Church as recounted in the book of Acts,
there is a marvelous drama in chapter 16.
As Paul and Silas sang and worshipped while chained in a dungeon, God
sent an earthquake. The doors of the
jail opened, and the chains fell off the prisoners. When the jailer discovered Paul and the others had not tried to
escape, he brought them out, and trembling, he asked the question that has
echoed through the corridors of world history and in the hearts of mankind from
the very first feeble attempts of Adam to cover himself. The jailer said, “What must I do to be
saved?” (NASB, vs. 30).
Paul’s response is the only true answer to the jailer
and every other person that has ever lived or ever will. Also interesting, is what he does not
say. He does not say, “You must believe
the ’true gospel’ as presented by John Calvin or James Arminius.” He does not say, “Embrace the creeds,
proclaim the confessions, and complete the 2-year catechism program of the
First Baptist or the First Presbyterian or the Holy Pentecostal Church,
maintain a good attitude and you have a great shot at being saved.” He does not ask to what religious persuasion
the jailer is inclined. He did not even
say, “God forbid you should do anything! Do you think you are the master of your own destiny? Shame on you!”
No, we all know what he said, “Believe in the Lord
Jesus, and you will be saved [. . .]” (NASB, Acts 16:31). Verse 32 then says, “They spoke the word of
the Lord to him [. . .].” The next
verse leads us to believe that within an hour Paul and Silas explained the Gospel
to them, the jailer cleaned their wounds from an earlier beating, and the jailer
with his family was baptized. It is
unlikely Paul and Silas took them through the full details of the book of
Romans, and after intensive Bible study, made sure all was perfectly understood
before baptizing them. So what was
“the word of the Lord” that “they spoke [. . .] to him”?
Paul’s writings indicate he knew how to present the
Gospel succinctly. To the Corinthians
he wrote that he gave them the Gospel that was able to save them, and he said
he did it right up front (1 Cor. 15:1-3).
He said it was “of first importance,” so it is reasonable this would be
his focus with the jailer. See if you
don’t think it would be brief enough and simple enough to present to the jailer
and his family. He said, “Christ died
for our sins according to the Scriptures, and [. . .] He was buried, and [. .
.] He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures [. . .]” (NASB, 1
Cor. 15:3-5). Great scholarship is not
required to see the correlation between these verses and the “five
fundamentals” (see ch. 6).
Want to know what to do? Believe what Jesus did!
Ch.
6. The Fundamentals: Common Ground
or Just Another ‘Ism?
Since
it is generally agreed among orthodox Protestants that truth is absolute and
relativism is unacceptable, it seems the best effort for unity within the body
of Christ would be to identify a basic core of beliefs recognized as essential
to established orthodoxy. This would
not be an activity of synthesizing biblical and non-biblical beliefs, i.e., ecumenism,
but of identifying the foundational truths of the Christian faith. Such identification would surely bring
Christians of various Protestant denominations together for the glory of Christ
and the work of the Great Commission.
Obviously, many differences would still exist but would not hinder a
coalescence of purpose, such as reaching the lost. The family of Christ could pursue cordial, scholarly debates
(which actually serve to further our knowledge of Christ), or simply agree to
disagree on the non-essentials.
Sounds
good, doesn’t it? That was essentially
the intent of identifying The Fundamentals, a set of beliefs initiated
in 1878 at the Niagara Bible Conference, in answer to the prevailing modernism
of the day. In 1910, these beliefs were
refined into the following articles, called the “five fundamentals”: 1) literal
interpretation of the Bible, 2) virgin birth and deity of Jesus Christ, 3)
doctrine of atonement, 4) bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, and 5) imminent
second coming of Jesus Christ (Fundamental, par. 3). These beliefs seem basic enough for most Christians, but
unfortunately, whenever truth is proclaimed in any absolute manner, it will
incur strong reactions from those who feel exposed by it. Ironically, while these articles did provide
a unifying effect that brought many evangelicals together on common ground,
they also effected a division of those repelled by one or more of the five
articles.
To make matters worse, extreme conservatives extended
these beliefs into voluminous, pharisaical interpretations that ultimately
projected a negative image, even beyond Christianity, to the world. As a result, these five simple articles of
belief became a new, and often, negatively viewed movement called, Fundamentalism. An article on the website of Columbia
University, written by Macksood Aftab, the managing editor of The Islamic
Herald, says, “The term Fundamentalist in the Christian world, is
synonymous with the ‘Bible Thumpers’ and the tele evangelists” (Aftab, par
3). While this seems a rather bigoted
remark, it nevertheless illustrates a prevailing mindset in academia.
Indeed, even among evangelicals, unnecessary and
improper enhancements of these fundamental beliefs have caused many
misunderstandings and hard feelings. In
some cases, the gap has widened within soteriology, as well as eschatology,
primarily due to the sense that a belief in dispensational theology is
essential to the fundamentals. But
those adhering to covenantal theology, amillennialism, and postmillennialism
can most certainly find common ground in these fundamentals with the
dispensationalists and premillennialists.
We are Christians--the body of Christ.
We are members with different tasks and outlooks, but we have a common
purpose, which is to serve the Head, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and spread
His good news.
Ch.
7. The
Chief Aim
We return
now to witness Michael Horton in a more positive setting. Dr. Horton has written many books and
articles, and participated in many debates.
I have read much of his work, and I am grateful for his additions to my
library. I have always perceived him to
be a wonderful servant of the Lord. In
fact, in contrast to the disappointing deviation above, Dr. Horton has
demonstrated clearly that he can employ a mature, Christlike attitude when
debating with other Christians who may oppose some of his views. In the March/April 2003 edition of Modern
Reformation (vol. 12 no. 2 pp. 20-23), an email debate between Dr. Horton
and Roger Olson is partially recorded in an article entitled, The Nature and
Future of Evangelicalism: A Dialogue.
The entire dialogue can be found, unabridged and unedited, at <www.modernreformation.org>.
Roger Olson initiates this debate with some important
questions that speak well to the subject of this project.
“What do you think about evangelical diversity? Can the movement include both monergists and
synergists? What concerns do you have
about the identity of Evangelicalism?”
(21)
Dr. Horton’s response includes statements that
indicate he is concerned with unity and is committed to the attitudes that
promote it. An example follows:
“Evangelicalism has found it possible to accommodate
a rather wide variety of soteriological interpretations, ranging from Arminian
(synergistic) to Calvinist and Lutheran (monergistic).” (22)
“I don’t think Arminianism is as evangelical as it
should be (theologically), but it’s a good deal more so than, say,
Unitarianism. I have Roman Catholic
friends whom I regard without hesitation to be my brothers and sisters, but I
do not regard the ecclesiastical institution to which they are attached as an
evangelical body. Similarly, “open
theism,” to my mind, is out of bounds of historic Christian commitment, but
that in no way indicates what I think about the destiny of its adherents.” (23)
While we can discern Dr. Horton’s differing views, we
can also clearly see the wise avoidance of a divisive attitude. Therefore, his capabilities in this regard,
both negative and positive, are evident.
When he suppresses the egotism portrayed publicly with comrades on the
broadcast previously mentioned, he is an articulate influence for unity in the
body of Christ.
We revert now to the Calvary Chapel issue for a few
additional (personal) thoughts. I
attend a Calvary Chapel. I have been
greatly blessed by fellowship in a church family that exemplifies the unity
that Christ prayed for (John 17). My
church family is comprised of Calvinists and Arminians, but mostly comprised of
those who prefer that such designations not be used when referring to
them. The teaching and discussions, at
times, may favor Calvinism, and other times, Arminianism. But, more often, the teaching simply reveals
what an unsaved person must “do to be saved” (Ac 16:31), and what a saved
person must do to fully glorify and enjoy God.
My church family regularly enlists in parachurch activities (i.e., Billy
Graham Crusades), announced from the pulpit, associating them joyously with
numerous other Protestant denominations.
As with the apostle Paul, the people of Calvary Chapel desire the people
of their community to know, if they “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” they
will be saved. Any view that cannot
allow this response to the “what-must-I-do” question is extremism, unbiblical,
and should be avoided.
I have attended churches conforming wholly to
Calvinism (i.e., Presbyterian), and I have attended churches conforming wholly
to Arminianism, i.e., Nazarene. Of
both, I encountered congregations in which I was convinced the chief aim was to
glorify God and enjoy Him forever.
Regrettably, of both, I also encountered groups in which I was convinced
the chief aim was different.
8. WWW:
Whitefield, Wesley, and the World
Three hundred years ago, John Wesley (not yet a
committed Arminian) and George Whitefield (not yet a committed Calvinist)
became friends in college through a strong, shared desire to live a
disciplined, godly life. However, their
crushingly legalistic efforts failed to bring them spiritual peace. Neither had realized that justification
before God comes only by grace through faith.
Later, Whitefield discovered the need to be born again, and received
Christ in a dramatic conversion experience.
Wesley also soon recognized the truth of justification by faith alone
and was converted. Whitefield
eventually embraced the doctrine of predestination, while Wesley ultimately
rejected it. As they discovered the
differences that had emerged in their beliefs, they decided to go their
separate ways.
In time, however, Whitefield pursued reconciliation
with Wesley, and until Whitefield died; John Wesley, his brother Charles, and
George Whitefield would simply agree to disagree doctrinally, while
recommitting themselves to unity and reaching the lost. Their love and support for one another was
truly reflective of the attitude commanded by Christ. One account revealed:
Even in death, George Whitefield had a final lesson
for his friends. Before he had left
England the previous year, Whitefield had told Robert Keen that if he should
die, he wanted John Wesley to preach the funeral sermon. It was a fitting tribute to his
single-minded determination to find common ground between his Calvinist
Methodists and John Wesley. (Fish 193)
Whitefield referred in his will to John and Charles
Wesley as his “honoured and dear friends and [. . .] fellow-labourers.” According to Fish, in the funeral sermon
Wesley gave for Whitefield on November 18, 1770, his concluding comments included
these words:
“Have we read or heard of any person since the
apostles, who testified the gospel of the grace of God, through so widely
extended a space, through so large a part of the habitable world? Have we read or heard of any person, who
called so many thousands, so many myriads of sinners to repentance?” (196)
In chapter one, I mentioned the ongoing published
debate of James R. White and Norman Geisler through books such as The
Potter’s Freedom and Chosen But Free, but despite some of the
previous references, the two have generally conducted themselves in friendship
and respect toward one another. On the
cover of White’s book, The King James Only Controversy, Dr. Geisler
writes, “This is the best book in print on a topic too often riddled with
emotion and ignorance.” The two have enjoyed
the friendship of one another, and if that friendship is strained now, I would
pray the example of Whitefield and Wesley is discovered and emulated.
Another worthy example is The Bible Answer Man,
a daily radio broadcast hosted by Hank Hanegraaff. Hanegraaff has hosted numerous famous authors, including R. C.
Sproul, Norman Geisler, Philip Yancey, Randy Alcorn, and many others with
differing views theologically. The show
and its host are highly respected even though his views have similarities and differences
to nearly all his guests. While the
broadcast is noted for the difficult issues discussed, it often notably avoids
taking sides in controversial, non-foundational doctrines. Whether this is purely marketing wisdom or
otherwise, is not important to this subject.
What is important, is the beautiful cooperation by virtually all
guests. They simply make the choice to
avoid such exchanges as the Calvinist-Arminian mud-slinging exercises, and
advance the kingdom of God.
Indeed, whether it is Whitefield, Wesley, Geisler,
White, Sproul, Horton, Olson, Hanegraaff, Smith, Merrihew, or the countless
other servants of the Almighty, it is certainly possible that they all be one,
even as the Father and the Son are one.
It seems every worthy cause or proper motivation
eventually has to deal with the encroachment, or downright invasion, of
extremism. Extremists who label
themselves Christians have been responsible for many bloody conflicts in human
history, and yet, the Church has prospered and expanded globally.
Alexander Strauch tells us; in an article entitled, The
Interdependence of Local Churches, published in the Emmaus Journal of the
Emmaus Bible College; that these fanatical, unbalanced, unChristlike attitudes are
the same as those that split the Brethren movement. He refers us to Harry A. Ironside’s “An Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement.” He goes on to tell us:
Jack Van Impe [. . .] in his revealing book Heart
Disease In Christ’s Body [. . .] [speaking of] fundamentalists’ churches
[said] [. . .] in the name of protecting the truth and their local churches,
the most Satanic [sic] attitudes and deeds were justified by so-called godly
Christian leaders. These Christians had right doctrine (or so they boasted) but
wrong, sinful attitudes.
James Emery White says many in the world today avoid
churches because, “Division and discord are perceived to be more present in
churches than in many other groups. Why
would anyone want to become involved with something that, in their mind, is so
obviously dysfunctional?” (17).
Larry Burkett says, “The difficulty is most
Christians don’t understand that we’re in a battle. We’re too busy with our individual differences to unite.” Burkett goes on to quote his friend, Dr.
Tony Evans:
“Brother let me tell you this: that when you’re in a
foxhole, you don’t care what color the guy is next to you; you don’t care what
denomination he is; you don’t care if he’s pre-trib or post-trib. All you care about is he’s shootin’ in the
same direction you’re shootin’ in!”
I recall the book, The Awesome Power of Shared
Beliefs: Five Things Every Man Should Know, by E. Glenn Wagner. Space will not allow me to share the
wonderful truths in this book, and so I will just refer the title to your
consideration. May we rediscover and
embrace the shared beliefs of Christianity and reach out to the lost with the
message of Christ crucified. Yes,
indeed, Dr. Horton, the movement does start with C. Let us look to Christ, and Him crucified,
for it is only as our focus remains on Him will we come evermore into the unity
that our loving Lord prayed for in John 17, and indeed, commanded in John
13:34.
It is
essential to the Christian witness, before a world of lost sinners, that
Christians discuss their different views in civility and love with the intent
of growing in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ph 3:10). Egos and dogmas must be surrendered to
Christ, and love for fellow Christians should be the principal motivation in
all our discussions.
I have concluded with several pointed quotations,
earnest prayers, and a passionate desire to cause change. I leave you with one final quote from God’s
Word, delivered through a prisoner of Rome, while chained to a guard:
…if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is
any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any
affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind,
maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. (NASB, Phil.
2:1-2)
Aftab, Macksood.
“What Does Fundamentalism Really Mean?” The Islamic Herald. Ed. Aftab Macksood. Apr. 1995.
21 Apr. 2003 <http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/nlp/summarization-test/summary-test/fundament1/text.html>
“Bible Answer Man.” Host, Hank Hanegraaff. KQCV, Oklahoma City.
Burkett, Larry.
Our Economy in Crisis.
Audiocassette. Wheaton: Oasis,
1994.
Fish, Bruce and Becky. George Whitefield: Pioneering Evangelist. Uhrichsville: Barbour, 2000.
Fundamental Christianity.
14 Mar. 2003. Wikipedia. 21 Apr. 2003. <http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity>
Geisler, Norman.
Chosen But Free.
Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001.
---. “Five
Reasons I Am Not a Five Point Calvinist.”
Calvary Chapel, Ft. Lauderdale.
24 June 2001.
---, Endorsement.
The King James Only Controversy.
Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995.
Horton, Michael, et al. Discussion with Christians United for Reformation. White Horse Inn broadcast presented
on Bible Study Hour. KQCV,
Oklahoma City. 13 Oct. 1995.
Hunt,
Dave. What Love Is This? Sisters: Loyal, 2002.
Impe, Jack Van.
“Heart Disease in Christ’s Body.”
Royal Oak: Van Impe, 1984. Ref. by Alexander Strauch. “The Interdependence of Local Churches.” Emmaus Journal 6 (1997): 189-212
Ironside, H. A. “A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement.” Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1942. Ref. by Alexander Strauch. “The Interdependence of Local Churches.” Emmaus Journal 6 (1997): 189-212
Lewis, C.S. Mere
Christianity. San Francisco: HarperCollins,
2000.
Lim, Paul C. H.
“The Unity of the Church.” Modern
Reformation Mar-Apr 2003: 11-17.
Martin, Walter.
The Kingdom of the Cults.
Ed. Hank Hanegraaff. Rev.
ed. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1997.
Merrihew, Ken. Personal interview. 25
Apr. 2003.
NASB: New American
Standard Bible. “Holy Bible.” Updated ed.
Iowa Falls: World Bible, 1995.
[See Title-Copyright Page]
NKJV: New King James
Version. “Holy Bible.” Nashville:
Thomas Nelson. 1998. [See Title-Copyright Page]
Owens, Priscilla, and William Kirkpatrick. “Jesus Saves!” 1882. Church Hymnal. Cleveland: Tennessee Music, 1951.
Reymond, Robert.
Endorsement. The Potter’s
Freedom. By James White.
Amityville: Calvary Press, 2000. Cover.
Roberts, Maurice, ed. Banner of Truth Magazine, Edinburgh, Scotland. Endorsement. The Potter’s Freedom.
By James White. Amityville: Calvary Press, 2000. Cover.
“Semantics.” Merriam-Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed.
1993.
Smith, Chuck.
Calvary Chapel Distinctives. Costa Mesa: Word For Today, 2000.
Sproul,
R.C. Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.
Strauch, Alexander.
“The Interdependence of Local Churches.” Emmaus Journal 6 (1997): 189-212
“The Nature and Future of Evangelicalism: A
Dialogue.” Debate of Michael Horton
and Roger Olson. Modern Reformation
Mar-Apr 2003: 20-23.
Towns, Elmer.
Endorsement. What Love is
This? By Dave Hunt. Sisters: Loyal, 2002. Inside front cover.
Wagner, E. Glenn Ph.D. The Awesome Power of Shared Beliefs: Five Things Every Man
Should Know. Audiocassette. Dallas: Word, 1995.
White, James Emery. Rethinking the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.
White, James R.
The Potter’s Freedom.
Amityville: Calvary Press, 2000.