Enabled by God

It seems to be the default response of some churches. Whenever a young man displays some passion, knowledge of the Scriptures, and a heart for ministry his fate is sealed for the next few years of his life. According to the elders of the church, the only logical next step for the child is straight into the lecture halls of higher education. We are convinced God’s calling on the young man will somehow be moot without formal Greek and Hebrew training, church growth theories, and an Old Testament history survey all under the tutelage of Professor Unibrow.

I have some serious reservations with the merits of this mindset. Acts 4:13 has a way of hitting me like a dagger everytime I pride myself on what I know instead of Who I know.

On the other hand, I also have some reservations concerning those who scoff at and reject outright the benefits of any formal ministry training (usually a charismaniac leader dabbling in heresy). I guess I might need you guys to help me sort things out (enter “Question of the Week!”).

The most pressing question is this:

Is the knee-jerk seminary path for aspiring young ministers biblical?

I mean thoroughly and overtly biblical. Not some vague principle.

Is there a biblical command regarding the necessity of seminary training for young men who feel called to ministry?

If not, then:

What is the biblical model for training budding pastors and leaders in the church?

Bryan

From the blog home of the indispensable Russell Moore (the man churns out thought provoking material like it’s child’s play), we have these penetrating “Question(s) of the Week” served up to us. Moore’s provocative queries are covering the health care media blitz, heightened populist fervor, and the proper Christian response to political craze and corruption:

Is it a problem that some of us who are tranquil as still water about biblical doctrine and ecclesial mission are red-faced about Nancy Pelosi and the talking heads on MSNBC? Is it a problem that some who haven’t shared the gospel with their neighbors in months or years are motivated to vent to strangers on the street about how scary national health care will be?

1. As Christians, is that a problem? Or should we spend a heap of our time and resources railing about political grievances instead of Gospel initiatives?

Russell goes on:

If we were half as outraged by our own sin and self-deception as we are by the follies of our political opponents, what would be the result? If we rejoiced as much that our names are written in heaven as we do about such trivialities as basketball brackets, what would be the result?

2. How much outrage do we express about our own fallenness and propensity towards all manner of wickedness and filth? Or do we hold a politician’s lies as a deeper wound to God’s honor than our own sins?

I’ve been guilty of venting to strangers and cracking more than one distasteful joke regarding Pelosi’s socialistic policies and surgical procedures.

Feel free to comment on any of the questions above.

Ouch, I think I need to go repent now….

Bryan

To introduce the “Question(s) of the Week” I’d like to share some thoughts from my friend, Mark Walker (aka the Apologetics Ninja). It’s from an essay he wrote entitled,”The Ironic Twist of Euthyphro’s Dilemma”:

One of the major objections to this (moral) arbitrariness is the fact that we have a sense of right and wrong and that we expect others to do the right thing. For example, if someone steals something very valuable from you, you’re not going to say “Oh, he stole from
me…yeah” with apathy but you are going to react with deep emotion and may say “Hey give it back, you shouldn’t do that!” This presupposes a moral standard that you expected the other person to follow. However, if morality is arbitrary, then why should I take you seriously if it is merely a personal preference or opinion?

Also we must consider this question: If morality is made up by human beings or society, then how come we can tell if someone is doing something right or wrong (like Mother Teresa and Hitler, respectively) before we try to enact laws over them? See, for them, if society has to enact a law or tell someone not to do something that is knowingly bad, they have to presuppose an absolute standard (usually their conscience in their hearts, as Paul indicated), which would be inconsistent. Also, if there is moral arbitrariness, why is there a concept of moral reform? Moral reform assumes that society’s laws are not as effective and that it needs change. The problem for them is that they are appealing to a higher standard by changing the rules to match the standard (unknowingly of course, but that’s why they want moral reform, to make the rules “better” and the only way to make something better is to appeal to an absolute standard). Last, what about judgment? If we have no innate sense of morality, how is it possible to judge at all?

(To view the entire essay go here)

Mark introduces in this passage the effective, but little known Christian discipline of “Presuppositional Apologetics.” Specifically, he’s dealing with the “morality argument” here.

Feel free to comment on the material here, but I want to ask a question that covers apologetics and evangelism on a wider scope. We know we are commanded to give a humble intelligible defense for our hope (1Peter 3:15). We know the all encompassing thrust of our message should be Christ and cross centered (1 Cor 2:2).

Given that, what is the proper function of apologetics in evangelism? In what situation should a witty apologetic be winsomely introduced into a conversation? In what situation should apologetics be avoided? Are there any pertinent Scriptural guidelines and standards for us to abide by in order to win a soul instead of just an argument?

Keep it biblical and classy.

Bryan

Hopefully, all Christians would agree that we serve a miracle working God. Even the most skeptical conservative minded believer would concede this point. I mean, He does have Genesis 1 on His resume, right? And even more than that, the empty tomb of Jesus speaks of His supernatural power to decisively defeat death and sin for us all. You can’t like Jesus the human philosopher and yet scoff at Jesus the miraculous Son of God. His philosophy flowed perfectly out of His divine nature. In fact, it would be an outright contradiction of terms for a person to claim the title of “Christian Naturalist”,or “Christian Materialist”, or unfortunately the most prevalent one: “Christian Humanist.” Just as it would be laughably obtuse to name a software program “Microsoft Works.”

But the “Question(s) of the Week” is of a more specific order. Particularly, regarding the nature of miracles we see in the gospels and Acts narrative. And even more particularly, the intensity and frequency of miracles in the early Apostolic ministry. For example, miracles along the lines of: Acts 2:2-6, Acts 3:6-7, Acts 5:15, Acts 8:39.

This question is not about God’s “ability” to supernaturally and sovereignly intervene in His creation however He would please. It’s more about by what means and frequency does this supernatural intervention take place in our day and age?

The question is this: Do miracles of that order exist today?

If not,

What (or Who) has changed since then?

And if they do exist,

Why don’t we seem to see the same intensity and frequency of such supernatural phenomenon at least in America?

I’m sure a well deserved Benny Hinn punchline could fit in here somewhere, and you have license to use some if you feel so led. I don’t see the biblical text indicating anywhere that a person’s supernatural gifting was directly correlated to the number of “bodies” that “hit the floor.”

But let’s not make this discussion primarily about pointing out the excesses of a few hyper charismatic groups. Let’s try to stick to the script.

Let’s also resist the urge to just copy and paste a MacArthur or Grudem commentary on the subject (two great Reformed guys on the opposite ends of the spectrum regarding this topic). I’d like to know what you honestly think.

Keep it biblical and classy.

Bryan

Given the demanding schedules of being full time husbands, fathers, and working men in general, Kyle and I would like to start sliding some of the heavy lifting in your (our gracious readers) direction. So enter: Question(s) of the week!

I’d like our conversation to continue naturally from our last post on “Peddling Your Destiny.” When predestination is brought up, it typically brings with it some tough implications that sometimes leave us scratching our heads.

Let’s all assume my view of predestination is correct; Use all your creative powers to imagine that. And let’s pretend for a moment the Sovereign Grace of God was not just a cool doctrine on paper, but the governing reality of our existence. Now, if God only chose some to be like Christ from eternity past, it would at least mean he chose not to choose others to be like Christ from eternity past, right?

Does predestining some for heaven and Christlikeness mean the rest are similarly predestined for hell and wretchedness (double predestination)?

Be biblical and classy in your response please. Of course, our Arminian brethren are more than welcome to enter the fun/fray too!

Bryan