When you are traveling you always have baggage

Whether we are going for an overnight stay or an extended trip abroad, we will have baggage. Luggage of some size will be going with us, even if it is just the clothes on our backs, we have things that come along with us for good or bad. The same holds true in the Christian realm when we invite people to speak. Like the guest we invited to our home they will come with baggage, some good and some bad. We must determine ahead of time whether the baggage is something we wish to deal with or not. For the believer this determining is not done by our own wits or reason. God has given us His Word and has clearly laid out what determines acceptable baggage.

God has put forth Romans 16:17, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” and II Thess. 3:6, 14, 15, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” These passages guide us in the process of “baggage screening.” Sadly, many today, who claim to hold to the Word of God and accept its mandates, are ignoring or deliberately twisting God’s Word to accommodate some baggage.

A recent example of this is Northland International University. Back on October 5^th Rick Holland, an elder from Grace Community Church in CA (where John MacArthur is the senior elder), spoke in chapel. One then asks; what kind of baggage did Rick Holland bring with him? Well, let’s look. For starters, as already noted, he comes from MacArthur’s church. MacArthur is the most prolific advocate for Lordship Salvation. Between his books, The Gospel According to Jesus, and Hard to Believe, he has made it abundantly clear that his view of salvation is one that the unconverted must consciously submit to the implications of discipleship in order for salvation, justification to actually take place.[1] This is not the gospel that Paul articulates in Ephesians 2:8, 9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast,” or in Romans 10:9, 10, 13, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Nor is LS expressed in I Corinthians 15:1-4, “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”

Another piece of baggage with Rick Holland is his Resolved Conference. A conference for young people supposedly based upon Jonathan Edward’s list of resolutions. With the worldly music that is foisted upon the listeners as being Christian, it is a sad spectacle of a charismatic style, emotion laden experience which is somehow supposed to assist the audience in reaching a closer relationship with the Lord. James is clear enough when he states, “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God,” (James 4:4). John is also clear, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever,” (I John 2:15-17). When we bring in the world’s method and message into Christianity we are left with the constant degradation that the world brings with it in order to keep the current crowd and to entice the newcomer.

This baggage came to Northland with Rick Holland, whether Dr. Olson wanted it or not. While Rick Holland’s message was spot on (I listened to the message), this baggage came along for the ride as well and has as much influence on the audience as the message did. For by his presence, Northland gives tacit acceptance for this baggage. It would be interesting to know how many Northland students will be at the Resolved Conference in June and in following years.

Another example at Northland is the recent visit by Wayne Simien of Called to Greatness Ministries. He spoke in chapel on November 18^th. A visit to his website (www.iamctg.org) reveals his baggage. Your ears are bombarded by “Christian” rap music by various artists. A look at the camps that are available and you soon see that there are two “dance” camps for girls age 8 to 17. Again, a worldliness method to convey the message of the King of kings and Lord of lords to a world greatly in need, I think not. Wayne’s baggage came with him and again Northland gives tacit acceptance for this baggage. Will Northland’s camp ministry be extending itself by recommending its female campers to Wayne’s dance camps during the summer?

There is a future example with which I will close this article. Northland has invited in Dr. Bruce Ware from Southern Seminary to teach in their Doctor of Ministry program. What baggage does Dr. Ware bring? Well, for one he is a Southern Baptist coming into an independent Baptist university. Another piece of baggage that comes with him is his progressive dispensationalism. Dr. Ware was a contributing author for the book, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, edited by Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock. This was the first book published to espouse this new view of dispensationalism. You may ask, what is progressive dispensationalism? I encourage the reader to obtain a copy of Charles Ryrie’s book, Dispensationalism. In chapter 9 he goes into detail outlining the tenets of progressive dispensationalism. In a nutshell, it is an effort by some to bring in or reconcile Covenant Theology with Dispensationalism. Dr. Ryrie, in chapter 9 of his book, lists the basic tenets of progressive dispensationalism and I list them here:

1.      The kingdom of God is the unifying theme of biblical history.

2.      Within biblical history there are four dispensational eras.

3.      Christ has already inaugurated the Davidic reign in heaven at the right hand of the Father, which equals the throne of David, though He not yet reigns as Davidic king on earth during the Millennium.

4.      Likewise, the new covenant has already been inaugurated, though its blessings are not yet fully realized until the Millennium.

5.      The concept of the church as completely distinct from Israel and as a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament needs revising, making the idea of two purposes and two peoples of God invalid.

6.      A complementary hermeneutic must be used alongside a literal hermeneutic. This means that the New Testament makes complementary changes to the Old Testament promises without jettisoning those original promises.

7.      The one divine plan of holistic redemption encompasses all people and all areas of human life—personal, societal, cultural, and political.

(Italics are Ryrie’s)

Dr. Bruce Ware along with Dr. Andy Naselli will be teaching a class in the summer modular of the Doctor of Ministry program titled, Models of Sanctification. With the progressive dispensationalist’s “holistic redemption” approach to the doctrine of salvation, we are left to greatly wonder about the impact that thought has one’s understanding of sanctification, which is defined as “a separation to God, an imputation of Christ as our holiness, purification from moral evil, and conformation to the image of Christ,” (Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 287).

The “baggage” that these three men (Holland, Ware, Simien) and their respective ministries bring do not pass the “baggage screening” criteria that God has given to us in His Word. As such they ought to then be denied access to our services. Just as the baggage screeners at our nation’s airport are to be alert to potential harmful substances, so to we are to be ever vigil in our “screening” process of speakers that will hold the attention of our congregations and our young people while they seek their education.

Dr. Matt Olson has done a poor job at “screening!” It is debatable whether or not immediate harm has been done to NIU’s impressionable young people. While the above listed men may not have caused immediate harm, the gate has been opened for others who may very well cause direct harm, but then all that can be done will be clean up. Dr. Olson, for the sake of fidelity to the Lord and His Word, renounce this loose “screening” process and return to the Scriptural mandates.

For those who erroneously think that unless you have a vested interest in a ministry or institution then you have no credibility in bringing concerns or criticisms (calling it “clouds without rain”); I have from my church three graduates of Northland and one former student home working so that they can finish (which they are now considering to be at another institution). One of those three who have graduated currently works on campus. So, yes, I do have a vested interest in the ministry of Northland and even if I did not, the concerns and criticisms remain the same.

---

[1] Follow these links for a detailed explanation: http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2008/07/summary-of-lordship-salvation-on-single.html and http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2010/10/let-your-yes-be-kinda-sorta.html I would also recommend that you purchase a copy of Lou Martuneac’s book, details are there at the web site.

For all you "Little Guys" out there

For the past several weeks I have been thinking about what Dr. Jeff Straub, professor at Central Seminary, posted on a blog site. I will quote his two postings so that you can see what I have been musing about. Any misspellings and poor grammar belong to the author, they have not been inserted by yours truly or anyone at the blog site.

Posted 9-20-10

I really am puzzled who get listened to on the internet . . . you can be a ministry drop-out, working in the secular world with a blog site and be certified to comment on a man like Mark Dever. Or you can be a pastor of a pretty small church but because you are all over the internet making comments and are blunt, then you are qualified to speak. Mark Dever has done more than most men for the cause of Christ. Do I like his view of eschatology . . . no. But he is not the enemy.

Where was the loud cry when John Vaughn spoke for Clarence Sexton and with Jack Schaap. Oh yea, and Mike Schrock was there also.

So, given the choice of hearing Mark Dever or Jack Schaap . . . hummmmmmmmm this is really a tough choice to make . . . NOT! Mark has done much to help redirect the SBC ship and, if you actually know anything about him, his music, preaching and style of ministry, is as strong as anything . . . no its really stronger than most everything in fundamentalism.

I for one wish I could go to Lansdale in February and am glad both Dave and Kevin have chosen to ignore the lunatics and do what is right.

Posted 9-21-10

________(blog site administrator), I weary of the foolishness of the internet. Some guys (and perhaps ladies, though I am not shooting anyone in particular, but I'll be an equal opportunity critic) seem to have nothing else to do but comment on everything. Like the rest of the world needs their opinion about everything. Often these discussions are DOMINATED by the same voices. It used to be that, in most cases, someone actually had to have something credible to say to be heard. Today, every Tom, Dick and Harry with a computer can start a blog and pontificate. They don't actually have to be qualified to say something to merit being heard, they just have to have a computer keyboard. That alone is their entrance into the conversation. Ok, so the internet gives the little guy a voice . . . Why is it the big guys never participate in these discussions? Most are too busy in the Lord's work.

Mark Dever does not care what we think of him. And frankly, why should he. What have we done to merit his consideration? Mark has done more to promote true biblical Baptist ministry in these days than most anyone I can think of. This doesn't mean he is without flaw. Can this same argument be used of Billy Graham? Of course, but who is talking about Billy Graham? Most guys who criticize Dever, don't know much about him except that he is a Southern Baptist. Truth is his preaching is substantive, whatever you think of his eschatological views, his church is top shelf, and his ministry to the wider church is outstanding. We all ought to read Polity or Nine Marks. I don't know of a fundamentalist who is making the kind of impact that Mark is making.

Most of us need to put away our keyboards and go back to the work to which God has called us. Do we really need to weigh in on every conversation, multiple times? Would our sheep be better fed if we devoted more time to them? I really wonder how some guys feed their sheep with the amount of time they spend at their key boards. They troll the internet blogs entering into everyone's conversation. Do we find Dever, Mohler, Piper, MacArthur doing this? They don't need to. They actually have a voice, a legitimate voice.

_______(blog site administrator), I'm not knocking ______(blog site name) here, but I am saying that I weary of these kinds of forums that give universal access to most any one with an opinion. Many guys have too much time on their hands. I just wonder if, when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ, we will not be severely rebuked for our misuse of time. We are to redeem the times. I am not sure that the internet is the appropriate place to do this. Why should we care what a guy thinks who has no real standing? Small churches are not in and of themselves a problem. Many faithful men has pastored them. But since most pastors of small churches have little help, they must do everything themselves, which means they have little time to waste. Let's be about our business and give our keyboards a rest. Or maybe we just need to turn off the modium.

I removed names and the blog site name because they are unnecessary to the overall scheme of things. Besides, I don’t care to advertise for them.

The tenor of Dr. Straub’s two postings over two days is telling. I get the sense that he is rather condescending toward the little guy. He speaks of concern for time management for pastors of small churches, but one would have to ask of him, a seminary professor, how much of his time did he use to become aware of a “pastor of a pretty small church” who blogs?

To be honest with any readers, I was a bit taken aback when I read his comments. I am a pastor of a small church out in the Pacific Northwest, where most pastors I know pastor small churches (the largest, sound works I am aware of flirt with 150 on a Sunday morning, most of us run 50 to 100 on a Sunday morning, still more are running 20 to 40). Some of us are out in cyberspace blogging (personally, besides myself, I know of two other pastors who blog, two of us have our own blogs). So, with that said, most of the pastors I know out here fit Dr. Straub’s description.

Dr. Straub’s comments are in a thread that is about Tim Jordan’s Advancing the Church Conference next February at Calvary Baptist Seminary in Lansdale, PA. Along with Mark Dever, who is the keynote speaker, Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. Straub’s “boss” at Central, and Dr. David Doran, president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and some of Calvary’s seminary faculty will also be speaking. Some have raised legitimate concerns about these self-identified fundamentalist seminary presidents working in common cause with Mark Dever. The blogosphere is full of men rationalizing away separatism in order to make this convergence palatable for Fundamentalists. But, I digress.

One must ask, what does it take to be “certified to comment” and therefore “qualified to speak” concerning any man, movement, issue, or whatever, let alone Mark Dever? Must that person have a college education to be “certified” and “qualified”? If so, how much education is necessary; an associate degree, a bachelors, or a masters, maybe an M. Div, a ThD or a PhD? Or does that person need years of ministry experience? If so, then how many years; 5, 10, 20, 30, or 50? Or does he need to have been a member of Dever’s church for X number of years? Yes, I am being facetious here. Dr. Straub’s comments are absurd.

As he closes his rant (for lack of a better term), he states, “why should we care what a guy thinks who has no real standing?” Yes, Dr. Straub, WHY do you care? By your statements you have taken considerable time surfing the internet to find this “pastor of a pretty small church” and locate his haunts in the blogosphere and find that he is, “all over the internet making comments and are blunt,” and that he “comment on everything.” Maybe Dr. Straub was using hyperbole in his statements, if so that makes his commenting that much more condescending to men who, by reason of God’s calling, have not “despised the day of small things” and pastor small churches around the world. By that very fact (that they pastor small churches), many do consider them to not have a standing. Talk about arrogance! I thought we were beyond comparing ourselves amongst ourselves as to how many we had in services last Sunday in order to show our worth. I guess I was wrong.

One must ask another question, “why are there pastors of pretty small churches out on the internet blogging?” Because men like Dr. Kevin Bauder, Dr. David Doran, and now Dr. Tim Jordan are out there seeking to influence men who are Fundamentalists to “moderate” their separatist position by bringing in that “careful, limited form of fellowship” with Evangelicals. I for one, don’t buy their reasoning and will speak out against them.

Dr. Straub, neither Mark Dever, nor Al Mohler, nor John Piper, nor John MacArthur should have a voice, a legitimate voice within Fundamentalism. Yet, sadly, many a Fundamentalist has heard the siren call of these men and has not resisted that call of compromise.

For all you “pastors of pretty small churches” keep it up! Voice your concern! Cry out against compromise! Hopefully, these men, who by the nature of their positions (seminary presidents, professors) are men of some standing by default, will get the message that they have no standing, no hearing with many of us who are “pastors of pretty small churches.”

WHY?

Why? A question I have been musing on in recent days. Why is there the current, overt interest (current is a bit relative, this has been going on for well over a decade) in all things within the conservative wing of evangelicalism by some fundamentalists? Why does a fundamentalist college send its students to T4G, or fundamentalist colleges/seminaries invite conservative evangelicals in to speak on their platform and teach in their classrooms? These kinds of overtures call into question the validity of the original break back in the 40's/50's.

I know it is not because they (the conservative evangelicals) are writing the books, or that they are defending this or that. The very nature of evangelicalism causes them to have to be writing and defending. The break that brought about new evangelicalsim was in part because of their desire to hold hands (however loosely or tightly) with liberals, thus creating a rather large "tent" as it were, stretching from liberalism on the left and going all the way to the break at the right with fundamentalism. It seems evident over the past 50+ years since that break that this "tent" has been stretched much further than the original evangelicals thought would happen. And with this stretching has brought about the need by some to articulate/defend their position on various Biblical issues as they came under attack. Their books have been common fare for fundamentalists over the past 50+ years without any overt interest by fundamentalists toward evangelicalism, so why now?

I also know it is not because we (fundamentalists) think that they (conservative evangelicals) are not brothers in Christ. While I am admittedly rather limited in my knowledge here, I don't know of any mainstream fundamentalist who has declared that any conservative evangelical (or some evangelicals for that matter) is not a fellow believer. Are there fringe elements that claim to be fundamentalists who have said such things, probably, but then because of their own aberrant teachings about various issues they have moved outside of mainstream fundamentalism and outside of serious discussion. So again, why the overt interest now?

Which brings me to my question, why? Anyone reading this, feel free to drop your thoughts and let's talk.

What Bearing does Romans 16:17 have?

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Romans 16:17

In the previous article’s thread a question was posed by Christian concerning Romans 16:17. Instead of answering within the thread, I thought it would work better to introduce it in a new article.

Romans 16:17, I believe, is the touchstone for this issue of, “careful, limited forms of fellowship” between those who call themselves or are identified as Fundamentalists and those who are viewed as Conservative Evangelicals (or anyone else for that matter, Fundamentalists or Evangelical). And at the heart of this touchstone is the phrase, “contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.” Robert Haldane, in his commentary on Romans states, “The force of the passage lies in this sentence” (“contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned”). The teaching of Scripture which we have learned forms the basis by which all other teaching is to be judged. To this end, W. H. Griffith Thomas writes, “It is well for us to have some such simple powerful means of putting to a test the things we hear from time to time. Are they in accordance with the truth which we have learned and received? If they are, let us accept them; if they are not, let us beware of them.”

It really is as easy as Griffith Thomas states. We don’t need an elaborate schematic of, if yes, then this…; or if no, then this…. Does the teaching of the man or institution in question agree with the teaching that I have been taught? If so, I accept it, we’re agreed, we fellowship, etc. If not, I “mark” (skopeo- to look at, observe, to have the eyes open to) and “avoid” (ekklino-to turn aside, deviate, to turn away from) them. Paul does not break down “the doctrine” into different levels of importance so that we can then do a system of “twenty questions” in order to see if we can somehow cooperate at some level or not.

The men within Conservative Evangelicalism teach doctrine that is contrary to what I have been taught. The word “divisions,” dichostasia, refers to dissensions, parties, factions; and “offenses,” skandolon, refers to a trap or impediment, a stumbling block placed in the way to cause someone to fall. When this contrary teaching enters churches, “divisions and offenses” form and tear at the unity of that particular body of Christ.  These things ought not so to be! I am called upon by God Almighty in Scripture to “mark” and “avoid” these men. To do otherwise is to go against God’s own mandate and thereby be in disobedience. I am not perfect, nor are any of the readers who may happen by, but we are all called upon to walk in obedience to the Word the God.

This is more than just the camel's nose

Well, the proverbial camel’s nose in the tent story is finding reality within Fundamentalism. It was announced recently that Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary would feature Mark Dever as their keynote speaker, along with Kevin Bauder, Dave Doran, and several of the seminary’s faculty members, at their Advancing the Church Conference next February.

One must wonder how we are “advancing” the church when we start down the road of compromise. Particularly two of the, so-called, Fundamentalist seminary presidents involved in this conference (Kevin Bauder of CBTS and Dave Doran of DBTS) have, in various ways over the past year or so, made efforts to prepare us for this coming together of Fundamentalism and Conservative Evangelicalism. Central Seminary’s Ethos statement on Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism states, “we believe that careful, limited forms of fellowship are possible.” I guess we can now see what that statement means in practice.

I would recommend that you visit Lou Martuneac’s blog, In Defense of the Gospel, at  http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/ for more detail on what these men have been doing.

Dave Doran in 1995 wrote an excellent article for Frontline magazine titled, “In Defense of Militancy.” Sadly, he has moved away from that militancy he so well articulated. He closes that article with these five paragraphs,

I have never had a conversation with a militant Fundamentalist who denies that some of us have sinned in doing what we believe is right. We have sometimes taken the right stand with the wrong spirit (cf. 2 Thess. 1:5), or we have taken a stand on some issue too hastily or without solid Biblical support. These problems do not invalidate the cause of Fundamentalism or of being militant about separation.

Unfortunately, those who reject our position are quick to paint caricatures of our movement. The liberals did it; the New Evangelicals followed their example; and every defector from militant Fundamentalism has used the same tactic to “prove” his position while rejecting militant separatism (cf. the writings of Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe, and John MacArthur).

The tag of belligerence is no new one. Militant Fundamentalism has borne it many times before. The very nature of the combat, the very essence of being aggressive in a cause, means that some will one to be too zealous or belligerent. For those being tempted toward a Fundamentalism that softens its image and tones itself down, the words of George Marsden should serve as a wake-up call.

The neo-evangelicals were thus still torn internally over variations of the same issues that were dividing them from separatist fundamentalists. Their one impulse was to insist that the exact positions won in the fundamentalist stand against modernism were too important ever to abandon. At the same time, they clearly wished to purge themselves of all the unessential traits acquired during the fundamentalist era, especially the spirit of belligerence. To put their dilemma in a question, To what extent was their movement a reform of fundamentalism and to what extent was it a break with it? The “new evangelicals” had no easy rules by which to settle these issues (Reforming Fundamentalism [Eerdmans, 1987], p. 171).

It seems to me that those who are wanting to rid contemporary Fundamentalism of its alleged belligerence should proceed with great caution. The last group of people to take that path found it to be a winding road that ends up in a theological and moral wasteland.

Conspicuously missing within the articulations of those so-called Fundamentalist who wish some form of cooperation with Conservative Evangelical is Scripture. No one has weighed in on what the Bible says.

Look at Romans 16:17 for instance. Here we read, “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Some would have us narrow the term, “the doctrine” down to mean just the Gospel. With this verse coming at the end of such a letter, it is most negligent to suggest that after all the Apostle Paul has expounded upon that now at the end he would reduce it down to mean simply the Gospel. No, he is referring to the whole body of teaching we have received, and when we come across someone who has something different we are to note that man and avoid him.

Every Conservative Evangelical at some point within “doctrine” is contrary to what I have learned. I have no choice but to obey my Heavenly Father and have nothing to do with them. It doesn’t matter what “good” they may be doing on various fronts. That is not the issue. Doctrine is the issue and Fundamentalists and Conservative Evangelicals are at odds. Those who seek to redefine our terms and rewrite our history in order to make this “careful, limited fellowship” possible are doing so to their own demise.

A softening on separation always leads towards apostasy.

Esteeming others better than ourselves

There have been some who would cast aspersions upon the men pictured here on the left. For various reasons these men are not held in esteem by some who claim to be Fundamentalists today. One must ponder where these critics would be if these men had not come before them. A legitimate and forceful argument could be made that they would not be in their current positions if it were not for the ministry of these and many other men who have fought for the Fundamentals of the Faith.

Were these men perfect? Of course not, and if they could speak, I daresay to a man they would echo that assessment. Nor are we perfect. Did these men have idiosyncrasies, sure they did, and SO DO YOU! Too many seemingly wish to micro-manage Fundamentalists, both past and present.

Two passages of Scripture come  to mind to this preacher, Philippians 2:3 and I Thessalonians 5:12, 13. In Philippians we read, "Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves." Then in I Thessalonians 5:12, 13, "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves." I understand that today these men do not in any physical, literal sense, "labor among us and are over us," however, their ministries, while they have passed from the scene, do continue in another sense. We would do well to honor and remember these men for the work they did for the cause of Christ within Fundamentalism. I had the honor of meeting only one of these men but their ministries have affected me for the better over the past 36 years of my Christian life.

We who serve our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ today stand on the foundation that these and many other men laid for us. We would do well to remember and honor them and their labors.

Commenting

Eph 4:29 “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.”


Commenting guidelines, everyone has them and this site is no different. The Apostle Paul had much to say to the church at Ephesus concerning speech. The above quoted verse is for starters. I remind those who would post comments to be in keeping with the demands of our God upon our lives as we interact with one another. I also realize that there are many other verses which are applicable to our interacting, so do not misconstrue that I have limited our applicable verses to only one for determining how we conduct ourselves here.

Because this is my site, I am the final authority as to what will be considered an acceptable post. To take from a radio talk show host, I am the benevolent dictator here. For some that may rankle your feathers, to which I am sorry it does but that does not alter the fact that I am responsible ultimately for what is posted here. While discussions may be heated at times, we must remember that we will all stand before God one day and give an account of ourselves. A very sobering thought to consider as we interact with one another.

Just what is "parsings of a preacher?"

Just what is “parsings of a preacher?” In order to answer that question we must find out what is meant by “parsings” and “preacher.”


When I speak of “preacher” I am referring to my occupation. I am a minister of the Gospel. To be more specific, I am an independent, fundamental, Baptist preacher. In some other articles I may bring clarity to what is meant by “independent,” “fundamental,” and “Baptist.” For the present discussion, my focus is on “preacher.” In all of this we must have a starting point or reference in order to base our understanding upon. For that reference we turn to the Bible, God’s Holy Word. As we do we soon note that our word, “preacher” is used only four times in the New Testament, which is where we will focus our attention further. In the original language of Greek the word translated as “preacher” is the word kerusso. In the secular Greek setting, the word referred to the herald of a king. He was one who did not just represented the king but he also proclaimed the king’s word. As such, he stood in place of the king. To abuse the herald or ignore his words was the same as to abuse the king or ignore the king.

This concept carries over into the Bible’s use of the word. For the “preacher” is not at liberty to give his own thoughts about a matter. The preacher is the herald on earth of the Great King of kings and Lord of lords, the Lord Jesus Christ. The preacher is Christ’s representative, proclaiming Christ’s words. Truly it is to be heard in the pulpits of church, “thus saith the Lord!” and not, “this is what I think.”

Next, we move to the word “parsings.” This word comes from the word, parse. The word is primarily used by grammarians. It means to separate a sentence into its parts and explaining the form and function of each part. Now, I am by no means a grammarian, so we will not be taking apart sentences and identifying the subject, verbs, indirect objects, and the like. Instead, I desire to “parse” Scriptures passages, issues confronting believers, movements influencing believers. These kinds of things I will endeavor to examineand explain for our mutual benefit and understanding.

Hello...Cyberspace?

Well, has anyone heard me? Probably not. Like the oldtime radio announcer on a low powered am station which barely covered his city who said at the start of his career, "hello world," it is rather doubtful that this blog will have a large audience.

I have been internet conversant for some 15+ years, but only blogging conversant for say, 5 of those years. So I am a relative newcomer and a novice. Time, I trust, will be kind to me as I get up to speed in the blogosphere.

As my site title states, the parsings of a preacher, I will be looking at the Scriptures as the basis for my postings. You are welcome to come along and join in. I have no particular agenda as to when or how often I will post. Time restraints, due to being a preacher, and what perks my interest will dictate my frequency.