Are There Still Apostles Today? by Nathan Busenitz

Are there apostles in the church today?

Just ask your average fan of TBN, many of whom consider popular televangelists like Benny Hinn, Rod Parsley, and Joel Osteen to be apostles. (Here’s one such example [see page 22].)

Or, you could ask folks like Ron, Dennis, Gerald, Arsenio, Oscar, or Joanne. They not only believe in modern-day apostleship, they assert themselves to be apostles.

A quick Google search reveals that self-proclaimed apostles abound online. Armed with a charismatic pneumatology and often an air of spiritual ambition, they put themselves on par with the earliest leaders of the church.

So what are Bible-believing Christians to think about all of this?

Well, that brings us back to the title of our post:

Are there still apostles in the church today?

At the outset, we should note that by “apostles” we do not simply mean “sent ones” in the general sense. Rather, we are speaking of those select individuals directly appointed and authorized by Jesus Christ to be His immediate representatives on earth. In this sense, we are speaking of “capital A” apostles – such as the Twelve and the apostle Paul.


It is these type of “apostles” that Paul speaks of in Ephesians 2:20 3:5 ; 4:11 and in 1 Corinthians 12:29–30. This is important because, especially in Ephesians 4 and in 1 Corinthians 12–14, Paul references apostleship within the context of the charismatic gifts. If “apostleship” has ceased, it gives us grounds to consider the possibility that other offices/gifts have ceased as well. If the apostles were unique, and the period in which they ministered was unique, then it follows that the gifts that characterized the apostolic age were also unique.

The question then is an important one, underscoring the basic principle of the cessationist paradigm – namely, the uniqueness of the apostolic age and the subsequent cessation of certain aspects of that age.

There are at least five reasons why we believe there are no longer any apostles in the church today (and in fact have not been since the death of the apostle John).

* * *

1. The Qualifications Necessary for Apostleship

First, and perhaps most basically, the qualifications necessary for apostleship preclude contemporary Christians from filling the apostolic office.

In order to be an apostle, one had to meet at least three necessary qualifications: (1) an apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22; 10:39–41; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:7–8); (2) an apostle had to be directly appointed by Jesus Christ (Mark 3:14 Luke 6:13; Acts 1:2, 24; 10:41; Gal. 1:1); and (3) an apostle had to be able to confirm his mission and message with miraculous signs (Matt. 10:1–2; Acts 1:5–8; 2:43; 4:33; 5:12; 8:14; 2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4. We might also note that, in choosing Matthias as a replacement for Judas, the eleven also looked for someone who had accompanied Jesus throughout His entire earthly ministry (Acts 1:21–22; 10:39–41.

Based on these qualifications alone, many continuationists agree that there are no apostles in the church today. Thus, Wayne Grudem (a continuationist) notes in his Systematic Theology, “It seems that no apostles were appointed after Paul, and certainly, since no one today can meet the qualification of having seen the risen Christ with his own eyes, there are no apostles today” (p. 911).

* * *

2. The Uniqueness of Paul’s Apostleship

But what about the apostle Paul?

Some have contended that, in the same way that Paul was an apostle, there might still be apostles in the church today. But this ignores the uniqueness with which Paul viewed his own apostleship. Paul’s situation was not the norm, as he himself explains in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9Open in Logos Bible Software (if available). He saw himself as a one-of-a-kind anomaly, openly calling himself “the last” and “the least” of the apostles. To cite from Grudem again:

It seems quite certain that there were none appointed after Paul. When Paul lists the resurrection appearances of Christ, he emphasizes the unusual way in which Christ appeared to him, and connects that with the statement that this was the “last” appearance of all, and that he himself is indeed “the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 910).

He later adds:

Someone may object that Christ could appear to someone today and appoint that person as an apostle. But the foundational nature of the office of apostle (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14) and the fact that Paul views himself as the last one whom Christ appeared to and appointed as an apostle (“last of all, as to one untimely born,” 1 Cor. 15:8, indicate that this will not happen (Systematic Theology, 911, n. 9)

Because Paul’s apostleship was unique, it is not a pattern that we should expect to see replicated in the church today.



* * *

3. Apostolic Authority and the Closing of the Canon

It is our belief that, if we hold to a closed canon, we must also hold to the cessation of the apostolic office.

We turn again to Dr. Grudem for an explanation of the close connection between the apostles and the writing of Scripture:

The New Testament apostles had a unique kind of authority in the early church: authority to speak and write words which were “words of God” in an absolute sense. To disbelieve or disobey them was to disbelieve or disobey God. The apostles, therefore, had the authority to write words which became words of Scripture. This fact in itself should suggest to us that there was something unique about the office of apostle, and that we would not expect it to continue today, for no one today can add words to the Bible and have them be counted as God’s very words or as part of Scripture. (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 905–906)

Hebrews 1:1–2 indicates that what God first revealed through the Old Testament, He later and more fully revealed through His Son. The New Testament, then, is Christ’s revelation to His church. It begins with His earthly ministry (in the four gospels), and continues through the epistles – letters that were written by His authorized representatives.

Thus, in John 14:26, Christ authorized His apostles to lead the church, promising them that the Helper would come and bring to their remembrance all that Jesus had taught them. The instruction they gave the church, then, was really an extension of Jesus’ ministry, as enabled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 3:5–6; 2 Pet. 1:20–21. Those in the early church generally understood apostolic instruction as authoritative and as being on par with the OT Scriptures (cf. 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 Cor. 14:37; Gal. 1:9; 2 Pet. 3:16.

To cite from Grudem again, “In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the New Testament. Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolutely authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church” (Ibid., 911).

The doctrine of a closed canon is, therefore, largely predicated on the fact that the apostles were unique and are no longer here. After all, if there were still apostles in the church today, with the same authority as the New Testament apostles, how could we definitively claim that the canon is closed?

But since there are no longer apostles in the church today, and since new inscripurated revelation must be accompanied by apostolic authority and approval, it is not possible to have new inscripturated revelation today.

The closing of the canon and the non-continuation of apostles are two concepts that necessarily go hand-in-hand.

* * *

4. The Foundational Role of the Apostles

Closely related to the above is the fact that the apostles were part of the foundation period of the church (Eph. 2:20. Since (following the construction metaphor) the foundation stage precedes the superstructure, it is appropriate to infer that the apostles were given to the church for its beginning stages. As Grudem writes, “God’s purpose in the history of redemption seems to have been to give apostles only at the beginning of the church age (see Eph. 2:20” (Ibid., 911, n. 9).

Our interpretation of “foundation” (as a reference to past period within the church’s history) is strengthened by the evidence from the earliest church fathers. The foundation stage was something the fathers referred to in the past tense, indicating that they understood it as past.

Thus, Ignatius (c. 35–115) in his Epistle to the Magnesians, wrote (speaking in the past tense):

“The people shall be called by a new name, which the Lord shall name them, and shall be a holy people.” This was first fulfilled in Syria; for “the disciples were called Christians at Antioch,” when Paul and Peter were laying the foundations of the Church.

Irenaeus (c. 130–202) in Against Heresies, echoes the past tense understanding that Peter and Paul laid the foundations of the Church (in 3.1.1) and later refers to the twelve apostles as “the twelve-pillared foundation of the church” (in 4.21.3).

Tertullian (c. 155–230), in The Five Books Against Marcion (chapter 21), notes the importance of holding to apostolic doctrine, even in a post-apostolic age:

No doubt, after the time of the apostles, the truth respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the apostles their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the right of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation.

Lactantius (c. 240–320), also, in The Divine Institutes (4.21) refers to a past time in which the foundations of the church were laid:

But the disciples, being dispersed through the provinces, everywhere laid the foundations of the Church, themselves also in the name of their divine Master doing many and almost incredible miracles; for at His departure He had endowed them with power and strength, by which the system of their new announcement might be founded and confirmed.

Other examples could also be added from the later Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Chrysostom, for instance, would be another such source (from his Homilies on Ephesians).

The earliest church fathers, from just after the apostolic era, understood the work of the apostles to constitute a unique, “foundational” stage of the church. The fact that they reference this in the past tense, as something distinct from their own ministries, indicates that they understood that the apostolic age had passed, and thus the foundation stage was over.

While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices.

* * *

5. The Historical Testimony of Those Following the Apostles

In our previous point, we contended that the apostles were given for the foundation stage of the church (Eph. 2:20), and that the early church recognized this foundation stage as a specific time-period that did not continue past the first century.

But it is important to go one step further, and note that the earliest church fathers saw the apostles as a unique group of men, distinct from all who would follow after them.

(A) Those who came after the apostles did not view themselves or their contemporaries as apostles.

According to their own self-testimony, the Christian leaders who followed the apostles were not apostles themselves, but were the “disciples of the apostles” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 11; Fragments of Papias, 5; cf. The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 6; Ignatius, Against Heresies, 1.10), the elders and deacons of the churches.

Thus, Clement (late first century) in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, notes that:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labors], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Ignatius, for instance, purposely avoided equating himself with the apostles. Thus, he wrote, “I do not issue commands on these points as if I were an apostle; but, as your fellow-servant, I put you in mind of them” (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 11).

(B) Those who followed the apostles viewed apostolic writings as both unique and authoritative.

Moreover, in keeping with our third point (above), it was “the doctrine of the apostles” (cf. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 13; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, 1) that was to be guarded, taught, and heeded. Thus, the “memoirs of the apostles” were held as canonical and authoritative within the early church (cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.2.5; Victorinus, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 10.9).

Along these lines, Justin writes:

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things (The First Apology of Justin, 67).

The doctrine and writing of the apostles was unique, having been written by the authoritative representatives of Christ Himself.

(C) Those who followed the apostles saw the apostolic age as a unique and unrepeated period of church history.

The fathers saw the “times of the apostles” as a distinct, non-repeateable period of church history (cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 3.36.54; Reply to Faustus, 32.13; On Baptism, 14.16; et al). Thus, Chrysostom wrote on the uniqueness of fellowship during the apostolic age:

I wish to give you an example of friendship. Friends, that is, friends according to Christ, surpass fathers and sons. For tell me not of friends of the present day, since this good thing also has past away with others. But consider, in the time of the Apostles, I speak not of the chief men, but of the believers themselves generally; “all,” he says, “were of one heart and soul. and not one of them said that aught of the things which he possessed was his own… and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.” (Acts 4:32, 35.) There were then no such words as “mine” and “thine.” This is friendship, that a man should not consider his goods his own, but his neighbor’s, that his possessions belong to another; that he should be as careful of his friend’s soul, as of his own; and the friend likewise. (Homily on 1 Thess. 1:8-10.

Chrysostom looked back to the deep affection that characterized the apostolic era to provide a contrast to the relative lovelessness of the church in his day. In so doing, he underscores the fact that he understood the apostolic age to be long past. One additional passage might be cited in this regard:

I know that ye open wide your mouths and are amazed, at being to hear that it is in your power to have a greater gift than raising the dead, and giving eyes to the blind, doing the same things which were done in the time of the Apostles. And it seems to you past belief. What then is this gift? charity. (Homily on Heb. 1:6-8Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))

Many more examples from church history could be given. Eusebius’s whole history is based on the progression of church history from the “times of the apostles” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 8, introduction). Basil, in his work On the Spirit, points to previous leaders from church history (specifically Irenaeus) as those “who lived near the times of the Apostles” (29.72). Tertullian spoke of events that occurred “after the times of the apostles” (The Five Books Against Marcion, 21).

Historical Conclusions

Consistently, the fathers (from the earliest times) mark the apostolic age (and the apostles themselves) as unique. Their writings were regarded as unique and authoritative. Those that followed them were not considered to be apostles. Nor were the times that followed seen as equivalent to the times of the apostles.

Thus we conclude, once again, with Grudem:

It is noteworthy that no major leader in the history of the church – not Athanasius or Augustine, not Luther or Calvin, not Wesley or Whitefield – has taken to himself the title of “apostle” or let himself be called an apostle. If any in modern times want to take the title “apostle” to themselves, the immediately raise the suspicion that they may be motivated by inappropriate pride and desires for self-exaltation, along with excessive ambition and a desire for much more authority in the church than any one person should rightfully have. (Systematic Theology, 911)

* * *

A Final Note

Throughout today’s post we have leaned heavily on the work of Wayne Grudem (specifically, his Systematic Theology). This has been intentional for two reasons: (1) he makes excellent, biblically-sound arguments (and we appreciate everything he writes, even if we don’t always agree with his conclusions); and (2) he is a well-known and respected continuationist.

It is significant, in our opinion, that (as a continuationist) he argues so convincingly for the cessation of the apostolic office and the uniqueness of the apostolic age – since this is the very premise upon which the cessationist paradigm is built.

While the cessation of the apostolic gift/office does not ultimately prove the cessationist case, it does strengthen the overall position – especially in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28–30, Ephesians 2:20 and 4:11, where apostleship is listed in direct connection with the other charismatic gifts and offices.

The Four Qualities of True Friendship - Chuck Swindoll

 John 15:12-17
This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. 14 You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. 15 No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. 17 These things I command you, that you love one another” (NKJV)

The Story of Jesus and His Disciples is a story of friendship.
In the above text, there are 4 qualities or principles of true friendship. In other words, what constitutes a truly loving friendship between individuals.


 Number one: A true friendship has DISREGARD for personal sacrifice (vs 13).
When you REALLY love a person as a friend, you will disregard personal sacrifices. It’s not a problem for them to call at any hour of the day or night. It’s not a problem to impose on you for whatever. When you REALLY love a person as a friend, you will willingly give up your life for that person and they for you. When you have a close friend, there is no such thing as sacrifice, friends give and keep on giving without thought of return or cost.


Notes:
 EVERYBODY cannot and will not be your friend
 You can love people and NOT be their friend


Number two: A true friend is DEDICATED to mutual aims (vs 14).
With a close, friend you aren’t wrestling with fundamental differences. A true friendship has at its core what’s called a mutuality of aims. In other words, we agree on the essentials of life, we agree on the fundamentals (i.e., the important non-negotiables of life). True friends are one in heart, one in purpose, one in philosophy. The Apostle Paul wrote this about Timothy, “19 But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, so that I also may be encouraged when I learn of your condition. 20 For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare” (Phil 2:19-20, NASB). The word “Kindred” in the Greek means, “Like-souled”. Timothy was Paul’s soul mate, he was linked to Paul in heart and mind. The Old Testament book of Amos reads, “Can two people walk together without agreeing on the direction”? (3:3, NLT). In order for a true friendship to exist and function properly, the two parties MUST have the same pace and the same direction.

Number three: A true friend allows the DISCUSSION of privileged information (vs 15).
There are certain people you don’t share key things with. The deep, personal things you should only share with a true friend. I’m personally troubled when I see people share personal information on Social media. I question the motive of people who share personal information on Social media. The best and only place you should sharing your innermost thoughts and feelings is in the context of true friendship. Only in true/genuine friendships should there be no superficiality or secrets. Real friendships should be characterized by soul-sharing confidentiality.

Number four: A true friend DESIRES to implement fulfillment in the life of his/her friend (vs 16).
True friends desire others (i.e., their friends) to succeed. True friends rejoice when their friend succeeds. If there exists Jealousy, there exists no friendship. If there exists selfishness, there exists no friendship. True friendship is win/win. A true friendship is designed for each party to help each other reach their maximum fulfillment.

It was Thomas Aquinas who said, “There is nothing on this earth more to be prized than true friendship”.


 
[i] This document contains my notes taken from a sermon by Chuck Swindoll entitled, “Qualities of a friend”. The main points come from Chuck’s notes, but I added some of my own thoughts for clarity and continuity.

Which Bible translation is best? - Grace to you.

The common question of which Bible translation to use is very important—it concerns the most important words ever spoken, the words of God the Creator. It’s crucial to understand at the outset that behind each version is a fundamental philosophy of Bible translation. You want to make sure the
version you use reproduces in your own language what God actually said.

Translation Philosophy
You can separate modern Bible translations into two basic groups—formal equivalency and dynamic equivalency. Formal equivalency attempts a word for word rendition, providing as literal a translation as possible. Dynamic equivalency is more like a paraphrase, trying to convey ideas thought by thought.

Since no one language corresponds perfectly to any other language, every translation involves some degree of interpretation. A translation based on formal equivalency has a low degree of interpretation; translators are trying to convey the meaning of each particular word. When faced with a choice between readability and accuracy, formal equivalency translators are willing to sacrifice readability for the sake of accuracy.

By its very nature, a translation based on dynamic equivalency requires a high degree of interpretation. The goal of dynamic equivalency is to make the Bible readable, conveying an idea-for-idea rendering of the original. That means someone must first decide what idea is being communicated, which is the very act of interpretation. How the translators view Scripture becomes extremely important in the final product.

Sadly, there are many in the Bible-translation industry who have a low view of the Scripture. They think the Bible is merely a product of man, replete with mistakes, contradictions, and personal biases. Many translators today have also adopted the postmodern idea of elevating the experience of the reader over the intention of the author. They make the contemporary reader sovereign over the text and demote the intended meaning of the historic human writers who were carried along by one divine author (2 Peter 1:19-21).

Therefore, it’s vital that you find a translation that represents what the Holy Spirit actually said as faithfully as possible. Who’s interested in some contemporary translation committee’s spin on what they think contemporary readers want to read? We want to read what the author intended us to read, which is what the Holy Spirit originally inspired.

Translation Survey
The most popular dynamic-equivalency translations, which dominate the evangelical world, are the New International Version (NIV), Today’s New International Version (TNIV), The Message (MSG), The Living Bible (TLB), the Good News Bible (GNB), and the New Living Translation (NLT). Of those, the NIV is the most reliable.

The NIV was completed in 1978. Its translators did not attempt to translate strictly word for word, but aimed more for equivalent ideas. As a result, the NIV doesn’t follow the exact wording of the original Greek and Hebrew texts as closely as the King James Version and New American Standard Bible versions do. Nevertheless, it can be considered a faithful translation of the original texts, and its lucid readability makes it quite popular, especially for devotional reading.

The four most popular formal equivalency translations in English are the King James Version (KJV), the New King James Version (NKJV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the English Standard Version (ESV).

The KJV is the oldest of the four and continues to be the favorite of many. It is known as the Authorized Version of 1611 because King James I approved the project to create an authoritative English Bible. Although it contains many obsolete words (some of which have changed in meaning), many people appreciate its dignity and majesty. The NKJV is a similar translation, taken from the same group of ancient manuscripts, that simply updates the archaic language of the KJV.

The NASB, completed in 1971 and updated in 1995, is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. It is a literal translation from the Hebrew and Greek languages that incorporates the scholarship of several centuries of textual criticism conducted since the original KJV. It quickly became a favorite translation for serious Bible study.

The ESV is the most recent translation, which stands firmly in the formal equivalency tradition. It is a very solid translation in updated language that aims to reproduce the beauty of the KJV. The result is one of the most poetic and beautifully structured versions that maintains a high degree of accuracy and faithfulness to the original languages.

Translation Choice
Which version is the best to use? Ultimately, that choice is up to you. Each of the formal-equivalency versions has strengths and weaknesses, but they are all reliable translations of the Bible. If you want to read a dynamic-equivalency translation, the NIV is the most reliable.
Ideally, as a serious student of Scripture, you should become familiar enough with concordances, word-study aids, and conservative commentaries so that even without a thorough knowledge of the original languages, you can explore the nuances of meaning that arise out of the original texts.



For more study on Bible translations, the following resources provide reliable overviews and analyses:
The Canon of Scripture, F. F. Bruce
How to Choose a Bible Translation, Robert L. Thomas
The King James Only Controversy, James White
The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism, D. A. Carson
Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible, Leland Ryken
The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation, Leland Ryken

A Pastor's Authority - Ray C. Stedman

Rather than being lords, he went on to say, disciples are to be servants of one another and the greatest is the one who is servant of all.
By these words Jesus indicates that an entirely different system of government than that employed by the world should prevail among Christians. Authority among Christians is not derived from the same source as worldly authority, nor is it to be exercised in the same manner. The world's view of authority places men over one another, as in a military command structure, a business executive hierarchy, or a governmental system. This is as it should be. Urged by the competitiveness created by the Fall, and faced with the rebelliousness and ruthlessness of sinful human nature, the world could not function without the use of command structures and executive decision.

But as Jesus carefully stated, "...it shall not be so among you." Disciples are always in a different relationship to one another than world-lings are. Christians are brothers and sisters, children of one Father, and members one of another. Jesus put it clearly in Matthew 23:8 (RSV): "One is your Master, and all you are brethren." Throughout twenty centuries the church has virtually ignored these words. Probably with the best of intentions, it has nevertheless repeatedly borrowed in toto the authority structures of the world, changed the names of executives from kings, generals, captains, presidents, governors, secretaries, heads, and chiefs to popes, patriarchs, bishops, stewards, deacons, pastors, and elders, and gone merrily on its way, lording it over the brethren and thus destroying the model of servant-hood which our Lord intended. Christians have so totally forgotten Jesus' words that they frequently have set up the world's pattern of government without bothering to change the names, and have operated churches, mission organizations, youth organizations, schools, colleges, and seminaries, all in the name of Jesus Christ, but with presidents, directors, managers, heads and chiefs in no way different from corresponding secular structures.

It is probably too late to do much about altering the many structures that are commonly called "para-church" or "quasi-church" organizations, but certainly Jesus' words must not be ignored in the worship and training functions of the church itself. Somewhere, surely, the words of Jesus, "...it shall not be so among you," must find some effect. Yet in most churches today an unthinking acceptance has been given to the idea that the pastor is the final voice of authority in both doctrine and practice, and that he is the executive officer of the church with respect to administration. But surely, if a pope over the whole church is bad, a pope in every church is no better!

It is clear from the Scriptures that the apostles were concerned about the danger of developing ecclesiastical bosses. In Second Corinthians 1:24a (RSV), Paul reminds the Corinthians concerning his own apostolic authority: "Not that we lord it over your faith; we work with you for your joy, ..." In the same letter he describes, with apparent disapproval, how the Corinthians reacted to certain leaders among themselves: "For you bear it if a man makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or strikes you in the face," (2 Corinthians 11:20 (RSV)). Peter, too, is careful to warn the elders (and he includes himself among them) not to govern by being "domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock," (1 Peter 5:3 RSV). And John speaks strongly against Diotrephes "who likes to put himself first, and takes it on himself to put some out of the church," (3 John 1:9-10).

These first-century examples of church bosses indicate how easily churches then, as in the 20th century, ignored the words of Jesus, "it shall not be so among you." But if the church is not to imitate the world in this matter, what is it to do? Leadership must certainly be exercised within the church, and there must be some form of authority. What is it to be? The question is answered in Jesus' words: "One is your Master," (Matthew 23:8b KJV). All too long churches have behaved as if Jesus were far away in heaven, and he has left it up to church leaders to make their own decisions, and run their own affairs. But Jesus himself had assured them in giving the Great Commission, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age," (Matthew 28:20b). And in Matthew 18:20 (RSV) he reiterated, "... where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Clearly this indicates that he is present not only in the church as a whole but in every local church as well. It is Jesus himself, therefore, who is the ultimate authority within every body of Christians, and he is quite prepared to exercise his authority through the instrument he himself has ordained -- the Elder-hood.

The task of the elders is not to run the church themselves, but to determine how the Lord in their midst wishes to run his church. Much of this he has already made known through the Scriptures, which describe the impartation and exercise of spiritual gifts, the availability of resurrection power, and the responsibility of believers to bear one another's burdens, confess sins to one another, teach, admonish, and reprove one another, and witness to and serve the needs of a hurting world.

In the day-to-day decisions which every church faces, elders are to seek and find the mind of the Lord through an un-coerced unanimity, reached after thorough and biblically-related discussion. Thus, ultimate authority, even in practical matters, is vested in the Lord and in no one else. This is what the book of Acts reveals in its description of the initiative actions of the Holy Spirit, who obviously planned and ordered the evangelizing strategy of the early church (Acts 8, 13, etc.). The elders sought the mind of the Spirit, and, when it was made clear to them, they acted with unity of thought and purpose. ("For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden..." (Acts 15:28a RSV). The authority, therefore, was not the authority of men, but of God, and it was expressed not through men, acting as individuals, but through the collective, united agreement of men whom the Spirit had led to Eldership (see Acts 20:28).

The point is: no one man is the sole expression of the mind of the Spirit: No individual has authority from God to direct the affairs of the church. A plurality of elders is necessary as a safeguard to the all-too-human tendency to play God over other people. Even then, the authority exercised is not one of domination and arbitrary decree over anyone. The ability of a servant to influence anyone else does not lie in ordering someone around, but by obtaining their voluntary consent. This is the nature of all authority among Christians, even that of the Lord himself! He does not force our obedience, but obtains it by love, expressed either in circumstantial discipline or by awakening gratitude through the meeting of our desperate needs.

The true authority of elders and other leaders in the church, then, is that of respect, aroused by their own loving and godly example. This is the force of two verses which are often cited by those who claim a unique authority of pastors over church members. The first is found in First Thessalonians 5:12-13a (RSV), "But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work." The key phrase is "and are over you in the Lord." The Greek word in question is prohistamenous. Though this is translated "over you" in both the Revised Standard and King James versions, the word itself contains no implication of being "over" another. The New English Bible more properly renders it, "... and in the Lord's fellowship are your leaders and counselors." The thought in the word is that of "standing before" others, not of "ruling over" them. It is the common word for leadership. Leaders can lead only if they are able to persuade some to follow.

Another verse used to support command authority is Hebrews 13:17a (RSV), which the Revised Standard Version renders, "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account." The imperative translated "obey" is from the word peitho, "to persuade." In the middle voice, used here, Thayer's lexicon gives its meaning as "to suffer one's self to be persuaded." Again there is no thought of a right to command someone against his will, but the clear thrust is that leaders are persuaders whose ability to persuade arises not from a smooth tongue or a dominant personality, but from a personal walk which evokes respect.
At this point many may be tempted to say, "What difference does it make? After all, the pattern of command authority is too widely established to alter now, and, besides, many churches seem to be doing all right as it is; why try to change now?"

In response, consider the following:
The Bible indicates that any deviation from the divine plan inevitably produces weakness, division, strife, increasing fruitlessness, and, ultimately, death. The present low state of many churches is testimony to the effects of ignoring, over a long period of time, God's way of working.

A command structure of authority in the church deprives the world of any model or demonstration of a different way of life than the one it already lives by. Worldlings see no difference in the church, and can see no reason why they should change and believe.

A command authority inevitably produces resentment, repression, exploitation and, finally, rebellion. It is the law, which Scripture assures us we can never redeem or restore, but which must, by its very nature, condemn and repress.

The desire of the Lord Jesus to show to the world a wholly new form of authority which is consistent with grace, not law, is nullified by a command structure among Christians, and the gospel of dying-to-live is denied even before it is proclaimed. This means that God is robbed of his glory and distorted before the watching world. Nothing could be more serious than this!

Admittedly, a call for a change of this nature is radical, even revolutionary. But since when was the church called to be a conforming society? Is it not high time we took seriously our Lord's words: "it shall not be so among you"?

Why We Should Care About Israel Today -Dr. Micheal L. Brown

Many believers today, especially in the younger generation, have serious questions about why they should stand with the people of Israel. What connection, they wonder, does the modern State of Israel have with ancient biblical prophecy? After all, didn't Paul state in Romans 9:6 that "not all Israel is Israel"?

And, why should Christians stand with Israel when Israel is allegedly guilty of committing atrocities against the Palestinians? What about standing on the side of justice?
Why focus on the salvation of Jewish people as if their salvation were more important than the salvation of any other people group? To give priority to the salvation of Israel would imply favoritism (or even racial discrimination) on the part of God.

These are serious questions that deserve serious answers, so let's examine them carefully, following Paul's discussion in Romans 9-11 in detail.

When it comes to Romans 9:6, we need to remember that Paul devoted three chapters to the subject of Israel in this letter. He had not yet been to Rome to preach the gospel and he wanted to be sure that, before he arrived there, the believers clearly understood the foundations of the faith.

That's why, right up front, he declared, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek" (Rom. 1:16).
And notice that he put a priority on the gospel going to the Jewish people. (As many top Bible scholars recognize, when Paul said "to the Jew first," he was speaking of priority and not just history.)
Paul next speaks of the wrath of God on sinful human beings, making plain that all people, both Jews and Gentiles, are guilty in God's sight (Rom. 1:18-3:31).Then, in Romans 4-5, Paul lays out the extraordinary message of justification by faith, continuing with his teaching on victory over sin and life in the Spirit in chapters 6-8. These are not trivial matters.

In Romans 9-11, he focuses on Israel, which was obviously as important to him as the other, foundational subjects he had just covered. As one of my colleagues at FIRE School of Ministry has said, if you don't understand Israel, you don't understand Paul's gospel.
Yet there are pastors who actually skip over Romans 9-11 when preaching through the book, thinking it is not relevant for believers today. Talk about a serious error!

The big question for Paul was this: Did God's Word fail? After all, the Lord had made many promises to Israel in the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament), and yet as a nation, they missed the Messiah when He came. What happened? Paul first reiterates that the covenant promises still belong to Israel, writing, "to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises" (Rom. 9:4).

But there is a mystery here that Paul unfolds, explaining that there is a believing remnant within the nation, an Israel within Israel, writing, "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise who are counted as Abraham's offspring" (Rom. 9:6-8).

Unfortunately, many of those who are familiar with this passage are not familiar with what comes next, and so they miss the whole point Paul was making. They also misinterpret this verse as if Paul were saying here that Gentile believers are Israel (something he never says; in fact, in Romans 11, he states the opposite).Instead, Paul was making a spiritual observation, pointing out that God's faithfulness continued to be manifest in the remnant within Israel, like the 7,000 who didn't bow the knee to Baal, to use imagery that Paul takes up in Romans 11:1-5.

But here is what so many Bible teachers miss. Paul then speaks of Israel 10 more times, and every single time, he is referring to the nation as a whole, the natural children, not to the Israel within Israel, the spiritual children. (Don't take my word for it; keep reading from Romans 9:8 to the end of Romans 11). Here is where it gets exciting. Paul explains to the Romans that while a remnant of the Jewish people embraced Jesus as Messiah, the rest of Jews fell and were hardened. But that is not the end of the story. "So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall [the NIV says, "fall beyond recovery"]? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous" (Rom. 11:11).

Here we have the first part of Paul's major answer to the question, "Why should I care about Israel's salvation?" It is because the gospel has come to the Gentile world "so as to make Israel jealous."
And there's more: "Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!" (Rom. 11:12)

This is glorious beyond words. The "full inclusion" of Israel, which we'll see shortly, speaks of their national turning to the Messiah, will bring about something that makes the current worldwide harvest of Gentile believers actually look small. Israel's salvation is mega-important, with massive implications for the entire population of the world.

That's why it is so important for Gentile believers, whom Paul addresses as Gentiles rather than as spiritual Israel, to provoke the Jewish people to spiritual jealously.
Tragically, throughout much of church history, professing Christians have driven Jews away from Jesus, to the point that many religious Jews today associate the Holocaust with Christianity. In fact Martin Luther, who wrote some of the most ugly, anti-Semitic words in history, has been called the John the Baptist of Adolf Hitler.

As the great Old Testament and Hebrew scholar Franz Delitzsch wrote, "The church still owes the Jews the actual proof of Christianity's truth. Is it surprising that the Jewish people are such an insensitive and barren field for the gospel? The church itself has drenched it in blood and then heaped stones upon it." (For more on this subject, see my book Our Hands Are Stained with Blood: The Tragic Story of the 'Church' and the Jewish People.)

Before getting back to Paul's words, as a Jewish believer in Jesus, I can say from the heart that this is another reason the church should show love and solidarity to the people of Israel: It is only tears of love and acts of love that can wipe away the stain of "Christian" anti-Semitism.

Returning to Romans 11, Paul wrote, "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them" (Rom. 11:13-14).

And once again, he wants the Gentile believers in Rome to understand the implications of Israel's salvation, writing, "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" (Rom. 11:15)

Did you catch that? Paul speaks of life from the dead, also known as resurrection.
He is saying that Israel's salvation is intimately tied in to the return of the Messiah, and when He returns, the righteous dead are resurrected and living believers receive their glorified bodies. You'd better believe that Israel's salvation matters!

Peter emphasized this as well, preaching to his Jewish people in Acts 3 and saying, "Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the [Messiah] appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago" (Acts 3:19-21).

Jesus taught this as well, ending His denunciation of the hypocritical leaders in Matthew 23 with a warning and a promise: "your house [speaking of Jerusalem] is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord'" (Matt. 23:38-39). In other words, Yeshua will not return until the Jewish leadership in Jerusalem recognizes Him as Messiah and says, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" (see the Messianic usage of this phrase in Matthew 21:9).

It is not that God shows favoritism. It is not that God is guilty of ethnic discrimination. It is that He keeps His promises, and He has promised to save the people of Israel, a people that has suffered greatly for many centuries because of being specially chosen and specially judged (see Amos 3:1; Rom. 2:9-11).

Since the Law and the prophets and the Messiah and the apostles are all from Israel, and since the Gentile believers have been grafted into the commonwealth of Israel—into Israel's olive tree (see also Eph. 2:11-22)—they should be humble rather than prideful. And so Paul warns, "do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you" (Rom. 11:18); in Rom. 15:27, Paul goes so far as to urge the believers in Rome to help support Jewish believers living in Israel, since they are spiritually indebted to them.

Paul explains that the great bulk of the nation remains hardened and outside of the Messiah (and therefore lost), but that hardening is only "in part," meaning, it is not for all the people (there is always a remnant that believes) and it is not for all time. As he writes, "Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Rom. 11:25).

Paul was concerned that the Gentile believers would think that they were the new Israel and that they had replaced the old Israel (sadly, this had been taught through much of church history, resulting in much suffering for the Jewish people, not to mention much spiritual darkness in the church). He emphasized that Israel's hardening was only partial, waiting until the full harvest of the Gentiles would come in. This clearly speaks of the climax of the Great Commission.

Paul then writes, "And in this way [meaning, on the heels of the fullness of the Gentiles coming in or provoked by that fullness] all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob. And this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins'" (Rom. 11:26-27).

This is what God declared through Jeremiah more than 2,500 years ago, "At that time, declares the LORD, I will be the God of all the clans of Israel, and they shall be my people" (Jer. 31:1). And this is why the Lord called for prayer for Jerusalem in Isaiah 62, urging His people to give Him no rest until Jerusalem became the praise of all the Earth (see Is. 62:1-7).

To repeat: This is not a matter of divine favoritism; it is a matter of the faithfulness of God. He always keeps His promises! And so Paul concludes, "As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:25-29).

How strange it is that we understand grace when it comes to God's dealing with the church—and with us as individuals—but we don't understand when it comes to His dealings with Israel.
You might be wondering, "But how do I know if the modern state of Israel today is the fulfillment of prophecy?"

The answer: When God blesses no one can curse, and when He curses no one can bless. When He opens a door, no one can shut it, and when He closes a door, no one can open it. In the same way, when He scatters no one can gather, and when He gathers, no one can scatter.
It is He who scattered the Jewish people in His wrath, preserving us under His discipline as He promised (see Jer. 31:35-37), and therefore it is only He who can regather us. The fact that we have been regathered to the Land, especially in the aftermath of the horrors of the Holocaust, can only be explained as a glorious act of God.

As for Israel's alleged atrocities against the Palestinians, the reality is actually quite the opposite, and the fact remains that if the Palestinians put down their weapons, there would be no more war. But if the Israelis put down their weapons, there would be no more Israel. Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle East and is America's most significant ally there, and so standing with justice means standing with Israel, which includes calling them to account when there is injustice against the Palestinians, a people loved by God as well.

But most important are the larger implications.
The church should stand with Israel because of its spiritual, historic debt, since salvation is from the Jews (John 4:22). The church should stand with Israel to help eradicate the horrible history of "Christian" anti-Semitism. And, the church should stand with Israel and share the gospel with the Jewish people because Israel's salvation means life from the dead and the return of the King.
I'd say that's pretty important.

The E’s of Decision Making by Bryan Hardwick

While the Scriptures give us a lot of direction for life, there are a lot of issues we face that don’t seem to have a direct scriptural response. In other words, the Bible seems silent. But in actuality, the Scriptures are not silent on these matters. Instead, the Bible gives Christians the liberty to make God-glorifying decisions based on their convictions and principles from God’s word.

As followers of Jesus, God desires us to reflect his character, conduct and commitments, yet each day we are faced with lots of choices that the Bible seems unclear on. In other words, what does the Bible say about the movies we watch, the music we listen to, and the activities we engage in. Well, below is a list of questions, based on the principles of God’s word that can help guide you when making choices, in what I call the grey areas of life:

Expedience: Will it be spiritually profitable?
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything.  – 1 Cor. 6:12


Edification: Will it build me up?
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.  – I Cor. 10:23

Excess: Will it slow me down in the race?
Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. – Hebrews 12:1

Enslavement: Will it bring me into bondage?
I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. – 1 Cor. 6:12

Equivocation: Will it hypocritically cover my sin? Does it give me a license to sin?
You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. – Galatians 5:13

Encroachment: Will it violate my conscience?
He who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin. – Romans 14:23

Example: Will it strengthen and help other Christians by example?
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. – Romans 14:13

Evangelism: Will it lead others to Christ?
Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved. – 1 Cor. 10:32-33

Emulation: Will it be consistent with Christ-likeness?
Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did. – I John 2:6

Exultation: Will it glorify God?
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. – 1 Corinthians 10:31

So what questions do you have? Run them through the principles above. And remember what is good for me, might not be good for you. So be careful not to judge, but hold true to your own convictions.

As a people charged with the task of being salt and light (Matthew 5:13–16), a “royal priesthood” called out of darkness and into light (1 Peter 2:9), we must consider how our choices contribute or detract from our calling

"What is complementarianism?"

Complementarianism is the teaching that masculinity and femininity are ordained by God and that men and women are created to complement, or complete, each other. Complementarians believe that the gender roles found in the Bible are purposeful and meaningful distinctions that, when applied in the home and church, promote the spiritual health of both men and women. Embracing the divinely ordained roles of men and woman furthers the ministry of God’s people and allows men and women to reach their God-given potential.

The complementarian view starts with Genesis 1:26–27, which says that God created humanity, male and female, in His own image. Genesis 2:18 contains the further detail that God created Eve specifically to complement Adam: “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” The two genders are, therefore, part of God’s created order. Any modern-day blurring of the genders or distortion of the roles is a result of the Fall.

Complementarianism follows Ephesians 5:21–33 as the model for the home. The husband has the role of headship in the family. He is to nurture his wife and lead his family lovingly, humbly, and sacrificially. The wife has the role of nurturing her children and intentionally, willingly submitting to her husband’s leadership. When both husband and wife are complementing each other in this way, Christ is honored. In fact, the marriage itself becomes what it was designed to be: a living picture of Christ and the church (verse 32).

In the church, complementarianism follows 1 Timothy 2:11 — 3:7 and Titus 2:3–5 as the model. Biblically, the men in the church bear the responsibility to provide spiritual leadership and training. The women are to exercise their spiritual gifts in any way that Scripture allows—the only prohibition is “to teach or to assume authority over a man” (2 Timothy 2:12). When men and women are fulfilling their God-given roles within a church, Christ is honored. In fact, the church itself becomes what it was designed to be: a living picture of Christ’s body (1 Corinthians 12:12–27).
The opposing view is egalitarianism, which teaches that, in Christ, there are no gender distinctions anymore. This idea comes from Galatians 3:28. Because all believers are one in Christ, egalitarians say, men’s and women’s roles are interchangeable in church leadership and in the household. Egalitarianism sees gender distinctions as a result of the Fall and Christ’s redemption as removing those distinctions, bringing unity. Complementarianism sees gender distinctions as a result of Creation and Christ’s redemption as a return to those distinctions, avoiding confusion. Paul sides with the complementarians, citing the order of creation as the basis for his teaching: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:15).

A difference in role does not equate to a difference in quality, importance, or value. Men and women are equally valued in God’s sight and in His plan. Complementarianism seeks to preserve the biblical differences between men’s and women’s roles while valuing the quality and importance of both genders. The result of true complementarianism is honor to Christ and harmony in the church and in the home.

What is an Evangelical Christian? - Gotquestions.org

To begin, let’s break down the two words. The term Christian essentially means "follower of Christ." Christian is the term given to followers of Jesus Christ in the first century A.D. (Acts 11:26). The term evangelical comes from the Greek word that means "good news." Evangelism is sharing the good news of the salvation that is available through Jesus Christ. An evangelical, then, is a person dedicated to promoting the good news about Jesus Christ. Combined, the description "evangelical Christian" is intended to indicate a believer in Jesus Christ who is faithful in sharing and promoting the good news.

In Western culture today, there are many caricatures of evangelical Christians. For some, the term evangelical Christian is equivalent to “right-wing, fundamentalist Republican.” For others, "Evangelical Christian" is a title used to differentiate an individual from a Catholic Christian or an Orthodox Christian.

Others use the term to indicate adherence to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. In this sense, an evangelical Christian is a believer who holds to the inspiration, inerrancy, and authority of Scripture, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. However, none of these definitions are inherent in the description "evangelical Christian."

In reality, all Christians should be evangelical Christians. The Bible is consistently instructing us to be witnesses of the good news (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 1 Peter 3:15).

There is no better news than Jesus! There is no higher calling than evangelist. There is no doubt that holding to the fundamentals of the Bible will result in a certain worldview and, yes, political belief. However, there is nothing about being an evangelical that demands a certain political party or affiliation.

An evangelical Christian is called to share the good news, to preach God's Word, and to set an example of purity and integrity. If these callings require political action, so be it. At the same time, evangelical Christians should not be sidetracked into abandoning our highest calling—sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Copied from Gotquestions.org

What is free grace? What is Free Grace Theology?" - Gotquestion.org

Free Grace Theology is essentially a view of soteriology grown from more traditional Baptist roots. It was systematized by theologians such as Dr.’s Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges in the 1980s, mainly as a response to Lordship Theology or Lordship Salvation, which has its roots in Reformed theology. Today, Free Grace is still going strong, supported by such Christian voices as Tony Evans, Erwin Lutzer, Bruce Wilkinson, Dallas Theological Seminary, and the Grace Evangelical Society.

The basic teaching of Free Grace Theology is that responding to the “call to believe” in Jesus Christ through faith alone is all that is necessary to receive eternal life. This basic, simple belief brings assurance of “entering” the kingdom of God. Then, if a person further responds to the “call to follow” Jesus, he becomes a disciple and undergoes sanctification. The follower of Christ has the opportunity to “inherit” the kingdom of God, which includes receiving particular rewards based on works accomplished for God on earth.

Free Grace theologians point to a number of passages to validate their distinction between having saving faith and following Christ, mainly from the Gospel of John and the Pauline Epistles. For instance, Jesus’ explanation to the woman at the well of how to receive salvation—that she simply ask Him for it (John 4:10)—is compared to Jesus’ words to the disciples a few minutes later—that they must “do the will of him who sent me” (John 4:34).

Other verses in John’s Gospel mention the act of belief as the sole requirement for salvation, including John 3:16 and John 5:24. And John 6:47 says, “The one who believes has eternal life.” The fact that works lead to rewards in heaven may be seen in passages such as Matthew 5:1–15; 1 Corinthians 3:11–15; and Hebrews 10:32–36, particularly verse 36, which reads, “For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.”
Many Reformed theologians are appalled by the assertions of Free Grace theologians, accusing them of “easy believism” or even antinomianism. Antinomianism is the heretical belief that a Christian is under no law whatsoever, whether biblical or moral, and thus may do whatever he pleases. The fact of the matter is that Free Grace Theology can make it easier to arrive at antinomianism. However, Free Grace teaching is not antinomian per se. Free Grace theologians consider their position more biblical than Lordship Salvation, which they consider to be a works-based theology. According to Free Grace theologians, Lordship Salvation holds that saving faith includes inherently the “act” of accomplishing radical internal change leading to good works.

This leads to the Free Grace emphasis on assurance of salvation, again based on the basic promises in John’s Gospel, that belief is all that is necessary for salvation. To the Free Grace theologian, this is a simple, cut-and-dried issue—if you believe, you are saved. For the Lordship Salvation camp, assurance of salvation comes through the observation of change in the professing believer, i.e., that he is accomplishing good works. Each camp views the other as possibly leading to heresy.
Although Free Grace Theology and Lordship Salvation are terms that have developed only recently, they represent concerns that have been around since the beginning of the church. At the end of the day, there is no question about the basic salvation of those who hold either view. Both views are within the limits of orthodoxy. Still, this does not mean it’s an insignificant discussion. One’s beliefs in this matter can change his view of himself, God, and assurance of salvation a great deal.

Recommended Resource: So Great Salvation by Charles Ryrie

Why Are Most Fundamentalists Dispensationalists? By Dave Saxon

Although precise statistics are not available, it is undeniable and commonly recognized that the majority of American believers calling themselves “Fundamentalists” today are also dispensationalists. For instance, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International, the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches, the Baptist Bible Fellowship International, the World Baptist Fellowship International, the Sword of the Lord, Pensacola Christian College, Hyles-Anderson College, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, Central Baptist Theological Seminary (MN), Central Baptist Theological Seminary (VA), Maranatha Baptist Seminary, and the state independent Baptist associations of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois all explicitly affirm dispensational eschatology in their doctrinal statements (or in addenda to the same). This list could be extended considerably but already represents a large number of self-styled Fundamentalists who differ widely on a significant array of doctrinal and practical issues. Nevertheless, they are all dispensationalists.

Of course, no claim is being made here that all Fundamentalists are dispensationalists or that all dispensationalists regard themselves as Fundamentalists. Both statements are demonstrably false: one could compile lists of Fundamentalist organizations that do not explicitly affirm dispensationalism and dispensational organizations that are reluctant to be considered Fundamentalist. The observer must be careful, therefore, to avoid overgeneralization.

Historically, the proto-Fundamentalists[1] who gathered at the Niagara Bible Conference were deeply committed to premillennialism, but one cannot characterize them as predominantly dispensationalist. Similarly, the assortment of anti-Modernists who allied together between 1918 and 1930 reflected a variety of eschatological perspectives (reflecting a variety of hermeneutical approaches to Scripture). The “Fundamentalists” associated with Machen founded Westminster and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, both of which repudiated dispensationalism and, quite quickly, the Fundamentalist label (which Machen had never particularly valued). The National Association of Evangelicals, although including many Fundamentalist stalwarts at its founding in 1942, left the hermeneutical question open. Not surprisingly, perhaps, it was on the vanguard of Evangelicalism as the great rupture with Fundamentalists occurred in the 1950s and ’60s. In general, after 1930 many institutions and organizations left dispensationalism concurrently with leaving Fundamentalism or became non-Fundamentalists once alliance with dispensationalists was deemed no longer necessary.

These observations bring us back to the original issue: why does Fundamentalism find itself today largely dominated by dispensationalists?

Sea Cliff and Scofield

When the Niagara Bible Conference began to fragment in the late 1890s, the primary source of disagreement was the timing of the Rapture. Robert Cameron and Nathaniel West led the contingent that argued for a posttribulational Rapture. On the pretribulational side were C. I. Scofield, A. C. Gaebelein, and others. Dispensationalism drove the logic of the pretrib side. In the first decade of the twentieth century the dispensationalists launched the Sea Cliff Bible Conference, which considered itself the successor to Niagara, and Scofield began working on his great reference Bible. In short, the dispensationalists organized and perpetuated their beliefs in popular literature more effectively than did their “historic” premillennial brethren (the rather optimistic title assumed by many posttribulationists).

Oxford Press issued the Scofield Reference Bible (SRB) in 1909 (first edition) and 1917 (second edition) and discovered that it had a bestseller on its hands. Over the next half century, the SRB became the principal Bible for Fundamentalists, and the SRB embodied the classic dispensationalism developed in systematic form by the Plymouth Brethren and popularized in the writings of Scofield and L. S. Chafer. Of course, this history suggests a “chicken-and-egg” problem: did Scofield’s Bible rise to popularity because of the dispensational hermeneutic already reigning within Fundamentalism, or did the SRB shape Fundamentalism in a dispensational direction? The increasingly homogenous dispensationalism of Fundamentalists as the twentieth century progressed suggests that to some extent the latter is the more significant factor: Fundamentalists imbibed and institutionalized the dispensationalism of their favorite study Bible.

BJU and DTS

The rise of key institutions also contributed to the triumph of dispensationalism in Fundamentalism. While enforcing a standard fundamental creed and having at times a mix of dispensational and covenant professors, Bob Jones University (founded as Bob Jones College in 1927) has consistently maintained allegiance to a premillennial, pretribulational eschatology that makes the most sense in a dispensational context. Quantifying the influence of such an institution is difficult, but the sheer number of graduates it has sent into Fundamentalist churches worldwide suggests that this influence has been substantial.

While less visibly associated with the Fundamentalist movement, Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) has been committed to dispensationalism since its founding by leading dispensationalists Chafer and W. H. Griffith-Thomas in 1924. During the presidencies of Chafer (1924–52) and John Walvoord (1952–86) Dallas exerted enormous influence on both the Fundamentalist and broader Evangelical communities through its graduates and publications, especially Bibliotheca Sacra, which it took over in 1934. Prominent among the Dallas graduates who contributed to the dispensational direction of Fundamentalism was Charles Ryrie. DTS influenced Moody Bible Institute (MBI) to move decisively in a dispensational direction in the 1930s and ’40s, and MBI has been a leader in dispensational training and publishing since that time. DTS and MBI have belonged to a broader religious spectrum than Fundamentalism throughout their histories, but their influence on Fundamentalism has been undeniable.

Fundamentalists in the twentieth century established a number of Bible colleges and seminaries in addition to BJU, and the great majority of these schools have espoused dispensationalism (several of these institutions are mentioned in the first paragraph above). As Fundamentalists drew away from denominational and Evangelical schools, they received dispensational teaching in the Fundamentalist schools. Thus, the dominance of dispensationalism in the movement was perpetuated and reinforced.

Also contributing to the sway of dispensationalism is the fact that Reformed Christians, many of whom were willing to ally with dispensational Fundamentalists in the culture wars of the 1920s, saw no further value in working with dispensationalists after 1930. Their commitment to Reformed orthodoxy and the Westminster standards was far more important to most of them than the separation issues that came to define the Fundamentalist movement. When the great Fundamentalist/New Evangelical divide occurred in the 1950s, most Reformed Christians were simply spectators. While many were skeptical of the Arminianism implicit in ecumenical evangelism, they did not have a separatist tradition that would cause them to draw ecclesiastical lines such as were drawn by leading Fundamentalists. Hence, Fundamentalists viewed most Reformed Christians as simply part of broader Evangelicalism. Reformed elements have never disappeared from Fundamentalism—one thinks of the Faith Free Presbyterian churches, for instance—but Fundamentalist separatism has never been a hallmark of the Reformed tradition.

A Deeper Reason?

All of the reasons just given, however, seem to cry out for some deeper reason. Why did the heirs of the Niagara Bible Conference turn primarily to dispensationalism in the early twentieth century at a time when they were combating liberalism in the denominations and American culture? Why did the Scofield Reference Bible become so popular among these Fundamentalists? Why do dispensationalists find Fundamentalist separatism more appealing than do Reformed Christians, by-and-large?

As a Fundamentalist and a dispensationalist, answering this question is tricky for me because my commitment to each has contributed to my adherence to the other. It would be easy for me to overstate their congruence. Clearly, there is nothing in either label that necessitates that one adopt the other label, as previously noted. Nevertheless, it may be that central tendencies in both make their convergence reasonable and not unexpected.

Dispensationalism has often been accused of having a basic pessimism about contemporary culture. Premillennialism, in general, and dispensationalism, in particular, argue that Christ’s reign will be realized on this earth only during a future ideal kingdom. Believers should invest in earthly cultures with the constant mindset that the return of Christ is imminent and that this earth will experience devastating judgments during the Tribulation period. Such a perspective does not necessitate total disengagement; indeed, most dispensationalists believe they can impact their culture in various ways to the glory of God. Nevertheless, they stand in marked contrast to most Reformed Christians, Lutherans, and Catholics in their attitudes regarding cultural involvement.

When Modernism/theological liberalism began to sweep through the American denominations in the late nineteenth century, the Modernists believed they were advancing modernity. That is, they sought to wed their theological thinking with the reigning paradigms of modern culture. When Matthews, Fosdick, and other liberals slandered the conservatives, their favorite charge was that the old orthodoxy was out of touch with the times, backward-looking, and irrelevant.[2] In rejecting naturalistic evolution, materialism, pragmatism, and other philosophies that appeared to be gaining the ascendancy in the West in the early twentieth century, Fundamentalists appeared to secular and liberal observers to be opponents of modernity. Indeed, many Fundamentalists perceived themselves to be the guardians of earlier, simpler times, as is evidenced by their strong preaching against various social sins. This opposition of Fundamentalists to the perils of modernity correlated quite well with a dispensational eschatology that held little hope for the rescue of modern culture.

What is, perhaps, most surprising is that dispensational Fundamentalists joined hands for a while with nondispensational Fundamentalists in the 1920s to fight a great culture war against evolution and theological Modernism. Historian George Marsden highlights in Fundamentalism and American Culture the basic incongruity of the kind of cultural engagement carried on by the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association, for instance, and the dispensationalism of most of the leaders of the WCFA.[3] Once these battles were lost, the Reformed and other nondispensational combatants went their own way, and the dispensationalists were left to ponder a more effective way of reflecting their theological commitments. Fundamentalist separatism and focus on evangelism and local church ministry thrived thereafter in a dispensational context.

Graham, FTS, NEA, and New Evangelicalism

When the New Evangelicalism emerged in the 1950s under the leadership of Billy Graham, Fuller Theological Seminary, and the National Association of Evangelicals, parallel trends began to become apparent. The New Evangelicals desired more tolerance and openness to varying eschatological positions and were embarrassed by what they deemed extreme dispensationalism. Second, they desired more cultural and academic impact; they eschewed the isolationism of their Fundamentalist brethren. Carl Henry’s The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (1947) explicitly linked premillennarian “despair over the present world order” with Fundamentalist loss of “social passion.”[4] In other words, he feared that Fundamentalists were retreating into an exclusively evangelistic mindset because of their eschatological commitments and abandoning their prophetic voice relative to the great social issues of the day. Hence he offered his famous advice:

Contemporary evangelicalism needs (1) to reawaken to the relevance of its redemptive message to the global predicament; (2) to stress the great evangelical agreements in a common world front; (3) to discard elements of its message which cut the nerve of world compassion as contradictory to the inherent genius of Christianity; (4) to restudy eschatological convictions for a proper perspective which will not unnecessarily dissipate evangelical strength in controversy over secondary positions, in a day when the significance of the primary insistences is international.[5]

This quote foreshadows the gradual trek of large segments of the Evangelical world away from dispensationalism that has occurred over the intervening sixty years. During this time, Fundamentalists have been ever more marginalized in a culture sinking into secularism. Not surprisingly, then, Fundamentalists have retained or embraced the dispensationalism many Evangelicals have been jettisoning.

Speaking quite broadly, Eevangelicalism has sought to transform or, at least, to infiltrate culture, an effort far more conducive to less dispensational theologies. Social consciousness flourishes when the kingdom is viewed as having primary reference to the present.[6] Fundamentalism has been far more discriminating in its critique of culture, separating from any aspect of modernity (such as evolution or feminism) that appears to stand in opposition to the authority of God’s Word. Such separatism flourishes when the kingdom is viewed as primarily future. Fundamentalists are not trying to build a kingdom now; hence, they need not blur lines of distinction either ethically or ecclesiastically. Again, dispensationalism is a hermeneutic that serves the Fundamentalist community admirably.

Perhaps such reasoning at least partly explains why the majority of Fundamentalists today are also dispensationalists. It also may help explain another modern trend. When young Fundamentalists follow after progressive dispensationalism, new covenant theology, or traditional Reformed theology because of the social implications of these theologies, they usually abandon Fundamentalism in the process.

It is this author’s hope that Fundamentalists will strive to explore the proper balance between cultural engagement and the specific task of world evangelism while maintaining a strong allegiance to the blessed hope of Christ’s imminent return and to the normal interpretation of Biblical prophecy, i.e., while remaining committed dispensationalists.

A professor of church history, writer, and speaker, Dr. Dave Saxon has taught in Christian colleges for over twenty years. He and his wife, Jamie, have four children.

This article originally appeared in the July/August 2010 issue of FrontLine magazine.  Click here to subscribe.

[1] “Proto-Fundamentalist” refers to late nineteenth-century conservatives who opposed modernism and generally espoused premillennialism. They laid a foundation in American Christianity upon which the self-styled Fundamentalists built in the years immediately after World War I. The title “Fundamentalist” first appeared in 1920 among Northern Baptists.

[2] For instance, Fosdick’s predecessor Cornelius Woelfkin scornfully wrote, “The whole world-view has changed since the Bible was written, and we cannot make the modern and the ancient world-views correspond. . . . Our conservatism threatens to become the winding sheet of death. . . . If men prefer to become octogenarian before their time and sink into religious lotus eaters and dream dreams of the past, let them at least grant to youth their heritage and permit them to see visions, new visions, and follow the Lord who goes before them” (Religion: Thirteen Sermons [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc., 1928], 42, 50, 51).

[3] George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 128.

[4] Carl F. H. Henry, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1947), 29.

[5] Ibid., 57.

[6] See, for instance, Russell D. Moore, The Kingdom of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), who argues for a progressive dispensational view of the kingdom and then affirms “the church cannot address only personal ‘spiritual’ matters, but instead witnesses to the whole counsel of God and to the justice of the Kingdom, through the internal discipline of the Body and through the external witness to the state and the societal structures” (167).

John MacArthur and his “Leaky” Dispensationalism - gty.org

The following question was asked by a member of the congregation at Grace Community Church in Panorama City, California, and answered by their pastor, John MacArthur Jr. It was transcribed from the tape, GC 70-16, titled "Bible Questions and Answers." A copy of the tape can be obtained by writing, Word of Grace, P.O. Box 4000, Panorama City, CA 91412 or by dialing toll free 1-800-55-GRACE.

Question: What is dispensationalism? And what is your position, from Scripture, on the subject?

Answer: I will try to condense this because I don't want to get too bogged down. Dispensationalism is a system. It is a system that got, sort of, out of control. I think it started out with a right understanding. The earliest and most foundational and helpful comprehension of dispensationalism was:
"That the Bible taught a unique place for Israel and that the Church could not fulfill God's promises to Israel, therefore, there is a still a future and a kingdom involving the salvation and the restoration and the reign of the nation Israel (historical Jews). "Dispensationalism at that level, (if we just take that much of it, and that's all I want to take of it, that's where I am on that), dispensationalism became the term for something that grew out of that and got carried away because it got more, and more, and more compounded. Not only was there a distinction between the Church and Israel, but there was a distinction between the new covenant for the Church, and the new covenant for Israel. And then there could become a distinction between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven; and there could become a distinction in the teaching of Jesus, between what He said for this age and what He said for the Millennial Age; and they started to even go beyond that; and then there were some books in the New Testament for the Church and some books in the New Testament for the Jews, and it just kept going and going and going until it became this very confounded kind of system. You see it, for example, in a Scofield Bible and other places. If you want to see it in graphic form . . . in a book by Clarence Larkin . . . and all kinds of charts and all kinds of things that try to explain this very complex system.

I really believe that they got carried away and started imposing on Scripture things that aren't in Scripture. For example, traditionally, dispensationalism says, "The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) has nothing to do with us, so we don't need to worry about it." When I went through the Sermon on the Mount in writing my commentary, as well, I pointed out how foolish that is.

So let me tell you, I have been accused through the years of being a "leaky dispensationalist" and I suppose I am. So let me take you down to where I believe dispensationalism (I don't use that term because it carries too much baggage), but let me take you down to what part of dispensationalism I affirm with all my heart--it is this: "That there is a real future for Israel," and that has nothing to do with some kind of extrabiblical system. That has nothing to do with some developed sort of grid placed over Scripture. The reason that I believe you have to have a future for Israel is because that is what God promised. And you see it in Jeremiah, in Jeremiah, chapter 30, right on to the 33rd chapter, there is a future for Israel--there is a new covenant. Ezekiel, chapter 37, the Valley of Dry Bones is going to come alive--right? God's going to raise them back up; God's going to put a heart of flesh in and take the stony heart out and give them His Spirit. And you have the promise of a kingdom to Israel; you have the promise of a king; a David's line; a Messiah; a throne in Jerusalem. You have the promise that there is going to be a real kingdom.

So my dispensationalism, if you want to use that term, is only that which can be defended exegetically or expositionally out of the Scripture, and by a simple clear interpretation of the Old Testament--it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel. And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on them. The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an "amillennialist," or a "Covenant Theologian" that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel--an amillennialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom.

My answer to them is simply this, "You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church--show me!" Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says "Israel" He means the "Church"? Where does it say that? That's where the burden of proof really lies. A straightforward understanding of the Old Testament leads to only one conclusion and that is that there is a kingdom for Israel. One way to understand that is to ask yourself a question. In the Old Testament . . . and if you wanted to get sort of a general sense of what the Old Testament is about, it's simply about this--it reveals God and His Law, and it tells what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and what's going to happen to you if you don't--and then it gives you a whole lot of illustrations of that--right? It reveals God and His Law and it tells you what's going to happen to you if you obey it, and if you don't--blessings and cursing.

Now, when Israel sinned, disobeyed God--what happened? Judgment, chastening, cursing, slaughter--was it literal? Yes. Was it Israel? Yes. So if Israel received all of the promised curses--literally--why would we assumed they would not receive the promised blessings literally, because some of those are in the same passages? And how can you say in this passage the cursing means literal Israel, but the blessings means the Church? There is no exegetical basis for that and you now have arbitrarily split the verse in half--you've given all the curses to Israel and all the blessing to the Church--on what basis exegetically?

I remember when I was in Jerusalem one time and we were in the convention center, right near the Knesset in Jerusalem, and I was there with Dr. Charles Feinberg, who was the keynote speaker, and David Ben-Gurion was there, who was the Premier of the Land of Israel at that time, and Teddy Kalik (sp.) who was the mayor of Jerusalem. We were sitting on the platform and an amillennialist had come to speak, it was the Jerusalem conference on prophecy, it was a tremendous event, and it was an amillennialist who got up to speak and he made the great announcement to David Ben-Gurion and to some of the Knesset members, and the mayor of Jerusalem, and all these Jewish dignitaries as well as the three thousand people that were there, that the promises to Israel in the Old Testament were being fulfilled in the Church. Now it is one thing to say that, but you don't need to take a trip to Jerusalem to say that. There would be no kingdom . . . he preached on Isaiah 9:6, "The government will be upon His shoulders" (9:6ff), and he said that means the government of your life, and he's talking about personal conversion here and so on and so forth. Well, I remember when that message was done, and I sat through it with Dr. Feinberg--Dr. Feinberg was, to put it mildly, "upset." And his opening line, because he gave the next address, was, "So we have come all the way to Jerusalem to tell you that you get all the curses but the Gentile Church gets all the blessings." And then he launched into a message about the promises of God.

If you take a literal approach to Scripture, then you cannot conclude anything other than that God has a future for Israel. What that means is that the Church is distinct from Israel, and when God is through with the Church, and takes the church to glory then He brings that time of Jacob's distress, that we read about earlier, purges, redeems Israel, and the kingdom comes.

I don't want to say any more than that about dispensationalism. I don't believe there are two different kinds of salvation. I don't believe there are two different covenants. I don't believe there is a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. I don't believe the Sermon of the Mount is for some future age. I don't believe that you can hack up New Testament books--some for the Jews and some for the Church. I think that the only thing the Bible really holds up in that kind of system is that there is a future for Israel, and that's an exegetical issue.

It is probably more than you wanted to know, but it is very, very important, because it preserves the literal interpretation of Scripture. Listen folks, once you're not literal, then who's to say? Right? I mean, then why not just say, "Well, Israel really means 'left-handed Texans'--if it's not exegetical--if it's not in the text, it could mean 'Canadians'" How can you say, if you can't say what's literally there?