Category: Recommended

yep, I recommend this link, article or whatever it is

The Best of Bob's Blog: A Year in Review (2006)

~ fundyreformed ~ 6 Comments

As I pondered the start of a new year, I thought it would be fun to highlight my best posts from this past year. I also thought it would be nice to review some of the milestones and hallmarks of my blog from throughout 2006. To some of you this might be a trip down memory lane. But many of you  only started reading my blog in the last few months. And  surely most of you have not kept up on all the sometimes long-winded posts around here.

Before we begin, let me stress that unlike some other bloggers, I am happy to open up old discussions and interact with comments on old posts. But like most bloggers, it can be hard to keep up with absolutely every comment, so there may be a few comments that are as yet unanswered around here.

Now this could just be a simple “top 10” list of posts. But if you are familiar with me at all, you know that I rarely ever finish a post with a simple paragraph. Hey, I am a preacher’s kid whose dad is also a preacher’s kid, and so I am blessed (cursed?) with a double portion of the “long-winded spirit”. So, don’t be surprised if I try to sneak in at least 10 other posts after the “top 10” list!

So without further ado, here are my top 10 posts from 2006 in reverse order.

Storms, Sleepers, and Substitutes—Jonah As a Type of Christ
This is one of my favorite devotional posts. It also illustrates redemptive historical hermeneutics.

The Role of the Church in KJV Onlyism
This is probably my best post on KJV Onlyism to date. It deals with several misconceptions and false assumptions on the part of KJV Onlyists.

1 Thessalonians and Churches’ Greatest Need
The point I make in this post is very important. Too often in the modern church we neglect the commands to “do church” as it were.

The Rise of the Modern Hymn Movement
This post reflects my desire to see more churches make use of the best of modern worship music. Many songs I highlight can/should be used by traditional-music-only churches.

Charles Finney and the Altar Call
The issue addressed in this post is important whether or not you are Calvinist. Modern evangelicalism needs to be aware of how much they have inherited from the heterodox Finney.

“Wine to Gladden the Heart of Man”: Thoughts on God’s Good Gift of Wine          While this post sure opened a can of worms (one of many opened around here!), I hope it causes some to seriously evaluate what Scripture says on this topic.

Calvinism and Evangelism
I hope this post helps people who are predisposed against Calvinism to be able to understand, appreciate, and even affirm Calvinism’s view of evangelism.

Regeneration, Reception, and Faith
Similarly, this post attempts to explain what Calvinists mean by regeneration preceding faith. Again, please hear us out on the issue before condemning us!

Once Saved, Always Saved?!?!
This attack on a “get-out-of-jail-free” view of salvation delves into the Biblical teaching of both eternal security and the perseverance of true believers.

The Rising of the Sun of Righteousness
Hands down, this is my best (and favorite) post. It is a devotional look at redemptive historical hermeneutics and the typology of all of life.

Alright, I have mentioned the cream of the crop and I plan on giving some more posts  honorable mention, but first let me chronicle some of the blog’s hallmark events from the year 2006.

I started the year on January 9th  with a truly  foundational post for my blog: “Beyond Blogging“, which focuses on my overarching goals. January 16 saw  my second post  focusing on  a modern worship song and really set the stage for many (15+) future  posts devoted to highlighting the lyrics of great modern worship songs. On January 29  I published the  first  of (now 14) my  “Bobspotted Blogrolls”. March  (3rd) began with me interacting with Phil Johnson’s (of Pyromaniacs)  second assessment of fundamentalism. That post actually earned me  my one and only  link from Sharper Iron.

March 25 marked my launch of a new motto: “Striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God”. And I celebrated the motto with a new banner (which adorned my old blogger blog). Then on April 21st, I publicized my KJV Only Debate Resource Center  (by the way, I have much work left to do over there). On May 8, I posted a memorable post on the Together for the Gospel conference. Besides linking to many conference resources, I also  gave one of my best calls for unity and criticisms of fundamentalist separation.  

July 17, 2006 was the day I launched Fundamentally Reformed 2.0. And let me tell you, I wouldn’t trade WordPress for anything.   It is such a great improvement over Blogger. Then on August 13th, I began my attempt at creating an aggregator of Fundamental Reformers. And finally,  on August 25th, I came out with my “new and improved about-this-blog-post” which is most of what you will read when you click on the “about” tab at the top.    The last hallmark, I guess,  would be the start of my longest series ever: “The Demands of Jesus“.

Okay, we’ve given you a top 10 and chronicled the hallmark events of the year. All that’s left is to hand out some awards and give honorable mention for some posts in various categories. So in no particular order, let’s begin:

  • My  best book review of the year had to be my 2 part series on C.J. Mahaney’s Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God. [part 1, part 2]
  • The best resources I pointed out would be a tie between BibleCentre.Net highlighted here, and 2 Ways to Live, an online interactive gospel presentation.
  • The funniest post of the year was undoubtedly “The Seven Dwarfs –An IFBx  Sermon!“
  • The saddest post of the year (which discussed the saddest comment of the year) was Hyper Fundamentalism and the Family.
  • The best illustration of the year was highlighted in “The Goodness of God in Election.” (Every non Calvinist needs to read it!)
  • The biggest flop of the year was my much hyped and long overdue participatory worship post. (I still have not unveiled part 2, but when I do, I hope to do it right this time!)
  • The most timely (and appropriate) post of the year had to be my post dealing with the Ted Haggard scandal.
  • My most controversial post was probably my first post on the wine debate (#5 above).    It, like my two posts on wine several months later, generated lots of comments (32) but the controversy runs deeper than merely numbers of comments [BTW my 2nd post on wine is my 2nd most commented post–49]. Most people assume ex-IFBx people will be into modern music, but something about wine makes it seem that such people have jumped off the deep end into rampant worldliness. I know some of my readers think this of me, so please, please, go read my posts on the issue and see that I really am motivated by God’s Word in this whole issue.
  • The post that generated the biggest debate, however, was my post on the John Piper and Christian Rap controversy. That post has the most comments of any on this blog (51) and several of the longest comments you will find anywhere! The article and comments print off a whopping 45 pages! (My extremely long “my story post” with its 48 comments prints off only 38 pages!)
  • The most disappointing debate was the recent one on limited atonement. The debate went well enough (on the other blog and then on mine), but 1 hour and 12 minutes before I finished a reply I was working on, my chief opponent quit the debate. That reply showed how he was double-speaking on a key passage. (See the beginning of comment #16….) So just when I tried to be very clear in exposing his error, the debate was over!
  • Choosing my favorite song (that I blogged on this past  year) is very difficult! So I will let the award end in a 3-way tie: “Knowing You“, “How Deep the Father’s Love for Us“, and “Before the Throne of God Above“.
  • I happened to blog about my favorite new CD  of the  year (it came out the end of last year, but I got it in 2006): Lifesong by Casting Crowns.
  • And lastly, I had to create a category for best new song of the year and again I couldn’t just go with one, so this past year’s award goes to both “Gospel Song” by Drew Jones (music by Bob Kauflin) and “Receive the Glory” by Bob Kauflin  [both songs are produced and promoted by Sovereign Grace Ministries, highlighted in this post (#7 above)].

So ends my most self-serving post ever! But hey, this is my blog, and I enjoyed it. So, do you have any of your own favorites that I didn’t mention? Oh, and don’t bother telling me that 45 pages of comments is ridiculous. Yeah, I know.

Thoughts on Educational Choices

~ fundyreformed

Originally, I was going to post a Bobspotted blogroll  post early this week. Well things got hectic with my sister visiting, and then  with almost all of us  getting sick. So here I am about to embark on a Christmas road trip, and I haven’t posted in a while. So I wanted to at least link to these articles by Tim Challies.

Tim Challies discusses the reasons why he sends his children to public school in the following articles: “Why I Do Not Homeschool Part 1“, and “Part 2” [HT: Justin Taylor]. Having been educated strictly in Christian or home schools, I have an inbred prejudice against public schools. But as a parent, I am realizing that deciding between the options for educating my children is really a difficult decision. And this article does a great job of explaining the issue of “to homeschool or not to homeschool”, as well as providing some good reasons why some Christians can legitimately send their kids to public school. I hope the following excerpt will encourage you to go read these posts.

God has placed us in this culture, among these people, and He expects us to reach out to them and to let the gospel go forth….I believe [my children] can best heed this call by being in the culture in which God has seen fit to place them. I want them to be with kids who are not Christians, to be friends with them and to love them, to learn what separates them from their friends, and to begin to understand how their convictions make them different from others. I want them to see and know and understand and believe in the superiority of Christianity to any other religion or way of life. I want them to see what the world has to offer and to see that it quickly loses its lustre….I find it difficult and painful to imagine a public school system devoid of Christians. Imagine, if you will, that every Christian pulls their children from the public schools. There will be no more Christian clubs in junior high schools; there will be no more prayer meetings or Bible studies at high schools; there will be no witnessing, no conversions. Christians will have removed the best indigenous missionaries from their natural mission field. I want my children to learn how to witness to their friends and want them to do it.

Atonement Addendum: Grudem’s Clarifications and Cautions

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

We have recently been explaining (and debating) the Reformed doctrine of particular redemption, also known as definite atonement or more popularly, limited atonement. And while my post on Calvinism and evangelism follows on the heels of that post, it really was in the works before that whole debate started. But since we are talking about Calvinism in general, and limited atonement in particular (no pun intended), I felt we would do well to heed some clarification and caution from Wayne Grudem on this subject.

If you are unfamiliar with Wayne Grudem, he is worth getting to know. He is a very influential conservative scholar, of a breed which is sadly becoming all to increasingly rare these days! He takes firm positions on hotly debated topics: he defends God’s sovereignty against open theism, and is a prime mover in the defense of complementarian views against the egalitarian or feminist position [this is the debate over women pastors and male headship in marriage]. He also has criticized some of the more liberal translations regarding their gender neutrality, being also a principle promoter of the English Standard Version. You can learn more about him here.

Get this book!!!But perhaps his greatest contribution has been his wonderful Systematic Theology. The book is certainly technical enough to require theologians to interact with its views, yet it is designed for the average church goer, too. Grudem firmly believes that it is the call of every church member to study theology. Proper doctrine is not only for theological professionals to be concerned about. And the book does wonders for making the study of systematic theology accessible to everybody. Each chapter ends with “Questions for Personal Application” and includes a helpful index so one can find sections which cover the same material in the other major Protestant and Catholic systematic theologies. Each chapter also includes a hymn, because Grudem believes theology should move our hearts. In fact the book does just that. Doctrine is not merely analyzed in a test tube, so to speak. Application and personal involvement with the truth presented is made throughout.

Another helpful quality of Grudem’s book is its fairness to opposing views. Grudem is Reformed, but he doesn’t anathematize every other view. He quotes from first hand sources and does his best to present the chief arguments of his opponents, rather than creating a bunch of straw men. He is also careful to tread lightly at times. Rather than making bold assertions, he leans toward one view or another, while honestly acknowledging that a particular topic is open to alternative understandings.

It is just this aspect of the book which really helps us with our current discussion. Pages 601-603 provide “points of clarification and caution regarding [limited atonement]”. And from these I want to stress two points, which are pertinent for us in the discussion that is still hanging in the air concerning this doctrine.

First, we need to be careful with how we phrase things. Many a Calvinist, myself included, is comfortable with the phrase “Christ died for his people only”. But by this I actually mean (according to Grudem) “Christ died to actually pay for all the sins of his people only”. The former phrase is often interpreted or understood by non-Reformed people to be saying “Christ died so that he could make the gospel available only to a chosen few”. And since this is not the case, and we don’t want to communicate that idea, we Calvinists should opt for the more precise phrase, rather than the simpler expression.

Similarly, we should not get bent out of shape over the phrase “Christ died for all people”, because that phrase is true if it means “Christ died to make salvation available to all people” or “Christ died to bring the free offer of the gospel to all people”. Grudem claims that Scripture itself uses such language (the first phrase) in places like John 6:51, 1 Tim. 2:6, and 1 Jn. 2:2. And often when a Calvinist is speaking pastorally, he may use the former phrase rather than the latter one. Grudem goes on to deal with the objection that some Reformed people have to the indiscriminate use of the former phrase, and it is worth the read, but we will move on here.

Secondly, Grudem stresses that both sides of the limited atonement debate agree that people will not be saved without actually believing in Christ. And both sides “want to avoid implying that there might be some people who come to Christ for salvation but are turned away because Christ did not die for them.” Both sides agree the offer of the gospel is a genuine bonafide offer: all who come/believe will be saved. Therefore, we should not make too much out of this whole debate. Grudem says,

…Scripture itself never singles this out as a doctrine of major importance, nor does it once make it the subject of any explicit theological discussion….In fact, this is really a question that probes into the inner counsels of the Trinity and does so in an area in which there is very little direct scriptural testimony—a fact which should cause us to be cautious….

That is all I have from Grudem for you, but you would do well to read those pages for yourself. Since I believe that reading them might help you to convince you to buy the book yourself, let me show you a way to view those pages online. This may not work for you, but it did for me. First, go here (Google Booksearch). Second, search [in the search box on the right of the display] for the following three phrases. They will each bring up links to view the pages in question (601, 602, and 603). However, they will only let you see one page at a time. Here are the phrases (be sure to put them in quotation marks when you search): “rightly object to the way in which some advocates of particular” “unbelievers simply do not reason that way” and “ultimate cause of the atonement is found in the love”. One more note: if you click on the picture above, you will be able to order the book.

Before I go, let me recommend a fascinating interview of Wayne Grudem by Christian blogger Adrian Warnock. Here is the summary post providing links to all 9 parts and more regarding the interview.

The points gleaned from Grudem borrow heavily from pgs. 601-603 of Systematic Theology. Anything within quotes in that section is a verbatim quote from these pages.

Calvinism & Evangelism

~ fundyreformed ~ 20 Comments

Perhaps you are familiar with this parable concerning the difficulties of affirming both man’s free will and God’s all-encompassing sovereignty.

A sign above the door to Heaven boldly proclaims “Whosoever will may come!” However, once through Heaven’s gates, an astute observer will notice that the flip side of the sign says, “Only those predestined before the foundation of the world may enter.”

There is more than a little truth to this parable. The first sign deals with salvation from man’s perspective. To the awakened sinner, the first sign gives hope that if he will but look, he will live. Calvinism pulls the curtain back on the awakened sinner’s soul and sees God’s Spirit at work in regenerating the sinner, and granting him repentance and faith, due to the second sign.

As I see it, Calvinism deals mostly with what goes on behind the scenes, so to speak, in respect to salvation. But let me stress that Calvinism is not prying into secret areas of God’s will. No, Calvinism responds to numerous Scripture texts. While they don’t claim to understand everything, Calvinists are bound to believe the five points due to their regard for Scripture. This is not something they enjoy “making up from thin air” so to speak.

A proper understanding of man’s part and God’s part in salvation will do much to help us sort through the sticky issues surrounding Calvinism and evangelism. Historically, some Calvinists (hyper Calvinists, actually) have claimed that we have no responsibility to evangelize since God will irresistibly draw His elect with or without our help. Furthermore, they have claimed that we cannot confidently tell anyone necessarily that if they will but believe and come, that they will be saved. Such hyper Calvinists, then, denied the first sign.

So it is due to extremists from within their own theological system, that Calvinists face such intense suspicion at times. Many people sincerely doubt that Calvinists believe in evangelism. And many go beyond doubt and actually claim that Calvinism will negatively impact evangelism.

But such claims are so utterly wrong! Historically, some of the greatest evangelists and missionaries, some of the most evangelical of pastors have been 5 point Calvinists. Names like Jonathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson and many, many more could be given. In fact many missionary movements and revivals have been started in large part due to the work of Calvinists.

History aside, if one understands that Calvinism addresses the “behind the scenes” actions of God (God’s part), he will not see any contradiction between Calvinists rushing to do man’s part (evangelism). For Calvinists believe that every sinner who would be saved, must actually believe, and he must do this himself. Furthermore, we understand Scripture to clearly teach that no one gets saved apart from the gospel, and almost always people must be involved in spreading that gospel.

So for Calvinists, evangelism is about obeying God. And yet it is more. It is about joining God in His mission. It is about spreading God’s glory among the nations for His sake. Calvinists are encouraged that God is the one ultimately responsible for results. This gives us hope to minister in many contexts that might not provide immediate results, from man’s perspective.

There is one other point to stress here. Calvinists tend to understand salvation as a “work in progress”. It is that “work” which God has started in us and promises to complete. And so for the Calvinist, mere human decisions are not the goal of evangelism. Numbers of noses, and baptism tallies mean little. Calvinists see discipleship and spiritual growth as the goal of evangelism. [This is not to say that all non-Calvinists disagree with us here, by the way.] I say this because when numbers are expected, many a Calvinist might fail the test. But to a Calvinist, numbers aren’t the most important thing.

I hope what I have said makes sense and helps work toward an understanding of where Calvinists stand in relation to evangelism. And if it doesn’t I have several articles here from the last few weeks, which will help you really understand this issue. I provide them, because it was partly by coming across these that I was motivated to write this post.

L, 'ish, & Particular Redemption

~ fundyreformed ~ 24 Comments

Yesterday, I concluded my involvement in a somewhat long blog debate over L, ‘ish, & particular redemption. The “L” is the middle point of TULIP, of course, which refers to “limited atonement” or as Calvinists prefer to phrase it  “particular redemption”. The ‘ish  is a Hebrew word for “man” which can also be translated “each” or “every”. That word became important in the debate which centered on Is. 53:6.

To summarize, Pastor Kent Brandenburg claimed that the use of  ‘ish indicated that the reference was expanding from either the nation of Israel or the believing  remnant (which is the consistent use of “we” throughout the context) to all people everywhere. He claimed that both the use of “all” at the beginning and end of the verse, as well as the use of ‘ish [translated as  “every one”] set the verse off from the context to indicate that all people in general, or all of mankind are in view in the final phrase “the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all”.

I disagreed with this view. I see the Hebrew word in question merely pointing to each person in particular within the “all we” group about whom the verse is speaking. In fact, ‘ish comes in a phrase that also includes “we” in the translation: “we have turned everyone to…”. That seems to support my view. (For more support, reference the debate itself.)

This is not to say that Is. 53:6 is an open and shut case for limited atonement. The word “all” is used twice in the verse, and I can see how people (like Calvin himself!) would take the verse to be referring to all of mankind. But I see the “all” as referring to everyone within the group referred to by “we”. A spokesman might say on behalf of a group: “we agree”. Then later he might emphasize, “we all agree”. I think a similar use of “all” is in view here.

And I believe this understanding  fits with two other important points. First, the verse is written as poetry—Hebrew poetry. And the poem is longer than just verse 6. Second, several verses in the context all point to the “suffering servant” (aka the Messiah—Jesus Christ) as suffering on behalf of and atoning for the sins of the believing remnant—a select group of people.

“Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…”  — vs. 4

“But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed.”  — vs. 5

“…stricken for the transgression of my people”  — vs. 8

“…by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.” —  vs. 11

“…yet he bore the sin of many,…”  — vs. 12

So this is my position on Is. 53:6.    It fits with the larger teaching on the atonement elsewhere in Scripture. In the atonement, Jesus actually substituted for and actually redeemed a people for Himself. Jesus did not merely make atonement or redemption possible, He accomplished it.    I recently came across a great blog post which gives many of the reasons for the Calvinist understanding of particular redemption. Let me refer you to that summary post  and also  this article (taken from this  online booklet) by John Piper.

But before I go, let me deal with two further things. First of all, Pastor Brandenburg, with many others I am sure, like to stress that just because the Bible says Christ died for the sheep (Jn. 10:11, 15), or died to purchase His church (Acts 20:28), or died to save His bride (Eph. 5:25-27) it does not follow that Christ did not die for the non-sheep, non-church, and non-bride. I respond as follows: such a logical dismantling of these texts results in a bunch of nonsense. What is the point in saying Christ shed his blood to purchase the church, if he also purchased everyone else? When Jesus says He gives His life for His sheep, that has to mean something. It is just such expressions of intent, which are one of the chief cornerstones of the doctrine of particular redemption. He bore God’s wrath for all of the sins of the elect. God did not intend to save the world, and fail; rather, He intended to save the elect and wonderfully succeeded!

Lastly, let me deal with Calvin. Perhaps some of my readers have some proof that he believed in limited atonement. But his comments on Is. 53:6 and 53:12 lead me to conclude that he did not accept this position. How can I respond to this? Well, for starters, Calvinism as a system of doctrine was still being formulated, and later Reformed people like John Owen would advance this understanding of the atonement. Further, particular redemption has never  ruled out  that general blessings  for all flow from Christ’s work on the cross (ie. common grace, not being thrown into Hell immediately, gospel preached to all nations, etc.). But most importantly, Calvin’s rejection of this doctrine highlights the fact that I don’t merely agree with a man, but with the Bible. Further, it shows that Calvinists can disagree over this point, and they have. There are a number of “4-point” Calvinists today. Some may argue that “L” logically follows from the other points, and I would agree. But  others differ. In other words, I’m saying if you shoot down “L” that doesn’t demolish Calvinism as a whole.

Finally, let me hear from you on this. Do you agree with my position that “we” refers to the remnant? Am I wrong about Calvin? What passages  convince you  of  particular redemption?

∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7