William Chong

This is a very rough type-up from notes I took during the Q&A session from the Impact Conference (Sunday 30 May, 3.30pm). The panel included Rick Holland, Russell Hohneck, Donald Stevenson and Jerry Wragg. Note that this is written from my notes and not from the audio, so I’m picking there will be inaccuracies and things I’ve misheard/misread until I have the opportunity to revise it according to the session recording.

Q: What books do you read?

Rick: Iain Murray – “The Forgotten Spurgeon”, has impacted John Macarthur’s ministry.
The pastoral letters of Samuel Rutherford, which Spurgeon describes as “the closest thing to Holy Scripture since the closing of the canon.”

Russell: There’s no time to read books if you’re on Joe Fleener’s email list! But should mention Charles Jefferson – “The Minister as Shepherd”.

Donald: “Agape Leadership”, on the life of RC Chapman, and his testimony of being involved with people on a long-term basis. “The Courage to be Protestant” by David Wells. Also refers continually back to C.J. Mahaney’s “The Cross-centred Life“.

Jerry: Feels that David Wells has a keen insight on the Evangelical movement over the past 100 years. Names a number of books: “My Heart for thy cause” by Brian Borgman; “Ministry Exposé” by Albert Martin; “Lectures to my Students” by Charles Spurgeon; “Practical Wisdom for Pastors” by Curtis Thomas. Advises a gradual approach to building up a reading habit, taking the time to gain an appetite for the subject matter.

Q: Why does God command all to be saved, but only elects some?

Rick: The simple answer is we don’t know for sure. This is one of the doctrines we can explore and may not figure out totally. It’s important to note that the Bible affirms human responsibility, but never affirms free will. Note the passage in Romans which contrasts being a “slave to sin” and being a “slave to righteousness”. Those who are spiritually dead don’t have free will – look, Arminianism is not a heretical view. But the burden of proof has been placed on the Calvinists but shouldn’t be… if you think through passages like Ephesians 1, the book of Romans, even Deuteronomy 7. Yes, Israel was elect too. Note that this issue hasn’t been answered fully in 2000 years of Christian history… but the eventual risk is that one says that “man is sovereign, God is not.”

On free will, I haven’t met a honest Arminian – I mean, they will still pray for someone’s salvation. Is that not the same as asking God to save someone? Also, in the Bible, election is always discussed with Christians who need comfort, not a place you begin regarding evangelism. No Calvinist would really evangelise by saying, “This is the gospel. Are you elect?”

Jerry: There’s this concept called a wall of worship, which I think Arminians shy from fully approaching. The other error is where hypercalvinists jump over the wall of worship/revelation and try to resolve all of it, when really we sometimes have to admit that we have hit tension and instead of shying from approaching the wall, or jumping over it, we should bow down before it.

Here’s a question to ask yourself: is God unjust if He saves no one? You would say no (given our depravity). So why do we say He’s unjust if He saves some? Because we’re proud.

Donald: I’d like to add as well, that the doctrine of election is freeing with regards to evangelism. We see in Acts 20 that Paul went from house to house to preach – his “Calvinism” didn’t affect his zeal for evangelism. I think it was Spurgeon who once said, “I believe like a Calvinist, but preach like an Arminian.”

Q: Are infants and young children who die early elect?

Rick: Macarthur has a book on this subject. My theological extrapolation is that babies and toddlers prior to the ability to make a decision would be redeemed. I mean, beyond passages of the Scripture such as 2 Samuel 13 – where King David’s child died as a punishment for his sin, there is not much re: clues on this issue. It’s worth noting though that Rev 20 refers to the final judgement based on deeds. The works reveal your belief or lack of belief in Christ, so if a child/infant is pre-deeds when they die, then he/she is redeemed.

Jerry: (Explained further re: David’s story in 2 Samuel 13). Also in Revelation 20, the people cast into the Lake of Fire are revealed as “unbelievers”, not “unelect”. So the implication is that those without the mind to comprehend it is elect. The Bible also talks about unbelievers without excuse – this implies that for some, there would be one. (Explained further that this was different to an adult not exposed to the gospel)

Q: What are the doctrinal implications of the book “The Shack“?

Russell: It’s a radically different and havoc-inducing presentation of who God is. And it’s also a very engrossing read, offering the reader a glimpse into a fictional intimacy of fellowship with God that is enviable. However, the premise here that God speaks outside the Word is questionable. The book did not draw me to holy living – it’s dangerous theology.

Jerry: It’s an attempt to depreciate revelation about God. It’s an issue when people say “this book changed my life” – what principle did you learn from “The Shack” that you didn’t learn from Scripture? Also, fiction pretending to be theological truth is not a new idea, e.g Frank Paretti’s series.

Rick: When you read fictionalised accounts of a truth, it is hard to bifurcate between the truth and the speculation that clouds it. E.g. “Left Behind” series.

Q: Rick, should I get a tattoo?

Rick: There’s two extremes on this: those who say “I’m free in Christ”, and those who quote Leviticus 19:26-28 – though I’d say this Scripture is not a reason not to get a tattoo. Ultimately it’s between you and God, but from my experience with the youth I work with, most of them hide their tattoos in certain contexts anyways.

Q: Can you give a fair critique of Mark Driscoll?
Donald: He’s referred to by some as “the cussing pastor”, which is a 6-year-old term.

Jerry: Cussing is not the issue. Look, none of us would say that he’s not in Christ. He professes Christ crucified and I commend his understanding of the gospel. I’ve read all his books and listened to his sermons. My concern is that his missiology is presented as this: “If you are going to be intentionally missional to society and be an effective minister of the gospel, you’d engage and advocate filthy speech, raw sensual behaviour, smoking and drinking as a way to remove barriers.

Here’s the problem: the gospel of Jesus Christ is for the atoning. We are covered by the holiness of Christ, and we are then to mortify sin in our lives as a reflection of that. Mark communicates to me a denial that transformation is necessary for his life. Some of his open and frank sermons have blurred this line, and I think he will enslave his generation to carnality – that’s the ultimate danger. (Retold the story of a man in his church who fell into unholy living after missional teaching at college).

When you preach on atonement but don’t do holy living/sanctification, then you’ve got a problem.

Rick: I have to be careful about this, as my pastor has made a number of rebukes about Driscoll’s “Song of Solomon” series.

2 things: if Mark believes what he preaches on the atonement, he’s on our side. My concern? The media points out that he is a sexually provocative, edgy pastor. If this is how unbelievers see him, at what point do we ask if a guy is above reproach?

I’ve also heard a sermon he preached in Scotland on the “Song of Solomsn”. After I listened to it, not trying to be dramatic, but I cried. The content is too horrible to describe in any detail. (Quotes Driscoll from the sermon re: “if your wife thinks what she’s doing is dirty…”) If an intern of mine offered that, I would fire that person.

Donald: 1 Peter sets the standard: “Be holy, for I am holy”.

Russell: I see disaster for MD and his followers and disciples if there is no obedience, no sanctification, no holiness.

Q: Regarding contextualising the gospel, what role does technology, dance, music, drama play in church?

Jerry: The gospel itself is offensive in its basic, biblical dress. Look, the methodology itself is not evil. Technology shouldn’t be about repackaging the gospel. It becomes a problem when the gospel message is marginalised in the process of contextualisation, or we offer entertainment and then do a bait-and-switch for the gospel.

Also the preaching of the Word is a supernatural event. It’s a priority, and has always been since the foundation of Israel, even.

On Sundays, none of us should be here to uphold our preferences – we’re here to lift up our voices, pray, serve, listen to preaching. I mean this is related to the “worship wars” issue as well. Ultimately, if the words are biblical, we look at Hebrews 13:17 – obey your leaders, and put to death your own preferences. Look, the worship music leaders can focus on choosing the songs – I’ll focus on teaching the congregation to put away preferences and self-centredness. Worship wars dishonours Christ.

Rick: You can’t win with music – someone won’t like it. Music ministers are marked men! The higher principle though is this: older and younger are to defer to each other. I like something John Piper’s said: “Don’t compare the best hymn with the worst chorus… and don’t compare the best chorus with the worst hymn.” (e.g. How Great is our God vs The Great White Throne – which is about hell…)

—————–

Twitter updates: http://twitter.com/wchong
Jono’s writeups: http://bit.ly/jonomac/

Rick Holland. Jerry Wragg. Martha Peace. Joe Fleener. Hugh Rorrison.

Beautiful weather in the Hawkes Bay, clear skies and over 500 folks from New Zealand, Australia and further afield for the Impact Bible Conference 2009.

Jono and I and about 30 others from Howick Baptist are down here too. Tonnes of good Bible teaching from many great teachers: Jono’s grand idea is that we’ll keep folks updated over the weekend on the talks as they happen.

Rick’s going through 1 Peter 1:1-12, and a seminar series on youth ministry. Martha Peace doing a whole series on Titus 2 teaching – great for the ladies. If you’re interested in keeping up with the talks and seminar sessions, we’ll put notes and main points up as they come:

Jono’s blog updates
William’s Impact blog updates
William’s Twitter updates

Have a great long weekend everyone!

I think the best justification I’ve discovered for singing, writing, recording and worshipping with songs can be summed up below:

“The LORD your God in your midst, The Mighty One, will save; He will rejoice over you with gladness, He will quiet you with His love, He will rejoice over you with singing. (Zeph 3:17, NKJV)

All the good guys sing: the angels (Luke 2:10), the saved people (Rev 15:2-4) and God – isn’t that something? If we were made in God’s image, then I’m looking forward to the day when our glorification might just include a vocal-cord upgrade. At this point I’m trying to imagine what God’s singing voice would sound like. Basso profundo? Frank Sinatra? Mary J Blige? David Caruso? Or maybe it’s a vocal mesh that’s somewhere between Clay Aiken, Brooke Fraser, John Mayer and the Vienna Boy’s Choir.

Here’s another point: in the Bible, there’s no mention of Satan, or his associated cronies singing. It’s not immediately obvious whether they are tonedeaf or musically broke, but here’s the sobering possibility: sin takes away the desire to sing, and to sing happily.

I think I need to sing more.

—————

Here’s something for Christians to consider: the Rational Response Squad issued a challenge to all atheists to commit what they termed the “unforgivable sin” – denying the Holy Spirit, by posting a youtube clip online recording their statement of non-belief: http://youtube.com/watch?v=i7QVbJnSPQE.

As you can see, they quote Mark 3:29, which states:

“…but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation.”

And they make it a dare to publicly do this, and therefore never be forgiven. Sorry to disappoint you all, but if you read the Bible carefully (including other chapters and verses), the general consensus is that God does forgive us of our sins. 1 John 1:9 says that “if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just and will forgive us of our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

Granted, looking at Mark 3:29, it does look pretty contradictory. But the RRS, bless their souls, leave out Mark 3:30, which explains why Jesus said this. 

“…because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”"

And they also leave out the entire 3rd chapter of the gospel of Mark, which outlines the circumstances surrounding this seemingly shocking claim.

Isn’t it sad to hone in on one or two verses that seem so offensive, your mind becomes irrationally closed? That’s just poor hermeneutics.

I’m not here to push an agenda – atheists are free to make their leap of faith as much as anyone else. But I do want to dispel the myth that Mark 3:29 refers to a sin that can *never* be forgiven.

Context here is crucial – Jesus was responding to the Pharisees and lawmakers that, after seeing for themselves throughout Jesus’s ministry direct evidence of his miracles of healing, bread-multiplication, driving out unclean spirits and so forth, instead of accepting that he was truly the Son of God, they claimed that “He has Beelzebub,” and , “By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.” (Mk 3:22).

In the next few verses, Jesus then explains why he isn’t demon-possessed by using some good old fashioned logical thinking – “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.” (Mk 3:23-4).

So if these religious leaders came all the way to watch him do miracles, and attributed this power not to the Holy Spirit but to demonic activity… this isn’t just denying the Holy Spirit. This is calling God a demon, calling good evil and mixing it all up – knowingly, and in the presence of Jesus Himself. Unpardonable? It seems so.

But since Jesus isn’t here at the moment, this unpardonable sin can’t be duplicated today. Even if I posted a statement blaspheming the Holy Spirit on youtube, it’s not the same as watching plain evidence of Jesus’s power and nature, and then declaring it to be demonic. What these guys are doing is in fact nothing new, nor special – we’ve all been denying accountability to our Creator one way or another since the beginning of time.

Continued unbelief, it’s fair to say, won’t lead to forgiveness. Posting a youtube clip saying essentially the same thing? It’s about as useful as Ray Comfort’s argument about bananas.

—————————-