adrianwarnock.com » Albert Mohler

Al Mohler on Raised With Christ

hostmaster — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:45:00 +0000

“The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead separates Christianity from all mere religion—whatever its form. Christianity without the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is merely one religion among many. Adrian Warnock points us all to the centrality of the resurrection for every dimension of the Christian life. Adrian is a first-rate communicator and a man whose life demonstrates the joy of Christ’s resurrection. You will be greatly blessed by this book.”
—Al Mohler
President, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Host, Albert Mohler Program

As I said when I interviewed him for the blog, Dr. Albert Mohler is a remarkable phenomenon who, by God’s grace, accomplishes more for the Kingdom than ten ordinary men could possibly hope to do!

This is the final endorsement I have received so far. I now look forward to reading some reviews in the future, including on blogs by some of my readers. If you have a suitable outlet for book reviews, feel free to send me a request to consider sending you a free copy. I have a number to give away. In the meantime there is little left for me to do, at least for now, except wait for the book to come out, and record more video for the free online study guide.

People have been very kind in their comments, and this leads me to dare to hope that Raised With Christ, How the Resurrection Changes Everything will be of use to a number of people. Certainly there are no subject that is more directly relevant to us today. I am very grateful for the help I have received from so many people. Publishing a book is far from a solitary activity. May God take this volume and use it to bring glory to his name.

On that note, I am actually going to check out for a little while now. We may not celebrate Thanksgiving here in the UK, but two tweets today made me realize it was time once more to try to disconnect from as much technology as I can for a while (without dropping out of my job!). One tweet came from @TopeKoleoso: “Spending some extended time thinking, learning, praying, reflecting and writing. The soul needs solitude.” The second was from @sdmcbee: “If at the end of your life, your ministry is considered a success, but your family despises you, you have wasted your life.” I deliberately shut down the blog from time to time to try to focus more on prayer and free up some spare time to be with the family.

So, tomorrow I am going to post some links to some of my most popular posts of the past, then I plan on not writing anything more on the blog for at least two weeks.

2008 Top Posts Numbers 17 and 18

adrianwarnock — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:50:00 +0000

The 18th most read post here on my blog highlighted the controversy caused when the television program, American Idol, had contestants sing “My Jesus, My Saviour.”

In 17th place is my interview with Al Mohler.

Replacing UK Evangelical Leader Joel Edwards

adrianwarnock — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 03:05:00 +0000

There is no doubt that it has been a difficult time in the Evangelical movement on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years. There have been numerous arguments about what the definition of an Evangelical should be and how closely we can work together with people who disagree with us about a range of issues. In the UK, for example, these arguments erupted within the Spring Harvest/Word Alive partnership and have led to the formation of a new conference, New Word Alive, which appears headed for a second highly successful year in 2009.

In the USA, one attempt to define an Evangelical is a manifesto which has received some criticim from leaders such as Al Mohler. The UK’s Evangelical Alliance has a definition on their website, and the outgoing leader, Joel Edwards, has recently set forth the Alliance’s vision for the future in a book, Agenda for Change. Currently that organization holds together some 7,000 churches across the UK. Joel Edwards has steered the Alliance through some fierce controversy over the years, arguing strongly that the charismatic churches should be seen as part of the mainstream and has avoided a potential split in the organization over Steve Chalke.

There are, of course, many questions about the future direction of the Alliance, and Christians in the UK do need to pray for its Board as it considers who should take the place of the much respected Joel Edwards. I asked the EA for comments about how they plan to select a new General Secretary. Mike Talbot, Chair of the Evangelical Alliance board, said:

“A very clear vision has been set under Joel’s leadership, which focuses the Alliance’s work, and will continue to do so as the new General Director is appointed.

We recognize this is a crucial appointment and that many in the evangelical world have a keen interest in Joel’s successor.

The Evangelical Alliance board members responsible for the appointment have been prayerfully consulting with a wide range of member organizations as they seek to discern God’s will for the future, and their next step is to work on the job description before advertising the post.

The Alliance has a strong leadership team, who will work with the board to run the Alliance until the new General Director is appointed.”

Book Both "Together" Conferences NOW

adrianwarnock — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:56:00 +0000

I can’t offer two conferences for the price of one, but I can—in one post—discuss two conferences which, for all the similarities of their names, do have some important differences. For a start, they are on opposite sides of the Atlantic, so booking into the wrong one would be a significant logistical headache! I am quite sure, however, that many will cross the “pond” to attend one of what I am calling the “Together” conferences. In fact. they don’t happen at the same time, so it is very possible for you to attend BOTH if you want to, as at least one blogger I know is considering!

Both conferences have one important thing in common—they are filling up FAST and expect to be sell-outs, having to turn people away. Hotel rooms are disappearing even more rapidly for both events. Since I have now firmly booked my own place on the second one (sadly I can’t make the first), I feel safe to remind you, my readers, that it is time to MOVE QUICKLY!

TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL (T4G)
Tuesday April 15 – Thursday April 17, 2008
Kentucky International Convention Center, Louisville, KY
BOOK HERE

It doesn’t seem possible that it is now almost two years since this conference first burst onto the international stage. Representing a relationship-based coming together of much of what is best in various different evangelical traditions, this conference models something we would all do well to learn from. Speakers for T4G are Ligon Duncan, Thabiti Anyabwile, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, R. C. Sproul, Albert Mohler, John Piper and C. J. Mahaney.

TOGETHER ON A MISSION (TOAM)
Tuesday July 8 – Friday 11, 2008
Brighton Conference Centre, UK
BOOK HERE

TOAM is the international leaders conference for a worldwide family of approximately 600 churches, although it is open to anyone. There will be 5000 delegates gathering from some 50 nations. Less a conference, more a family reunion, TOAM has a very different feel from any other conference I have ever attended. This year Mark Driscoll will be the main visiting speaker. Speakers for TOAM are Terry Virgo, Mark Driscoll, Stephen Van Rhyn, Dave Stroud, David Devenish, P-J Smyth, Dave Holden, Guy Miller, Wendy Virgo, Mick Taylor, Roger Smith, Steve Oliver, Jeremy Simpkins, John Groves, Greg Haslam, John Hosier, and Ray Lowe

4th Most Read Post – Sam Storms, John Piper, and John Bunyan Versus Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever

adrianwarnock — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:50:00 +0000

No. 4 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on August 21, 2007, and was one in a series of posts that catalogued a major debate about baptism and church membership which took place online between such theological heavyweights as John Piper, Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, Lig Duncan, and Mark Dever.

The posts listed below were all so popular they could have made the top 30 in their own right. It’s worth reading all of them:

The post begins as follows:

This whole baptism debate is shaping up to be very interesting indeed. It is surely the first time in living memory that those who I can only think to call the “big guns” have used the blogging medium to have a serious theological debate in front of the rest of us. While Lig Duncan and Justin Taylor have both helpfully shared a bit about what paedobaptists believe, this debate has rather been about whether our local churches must have clear stances on this issue.

Arguing for a more rigorous approach, we have seen Wayne Grudem (who also started the whole thing), Mark Dever, and his 9Marks buddy, Aaron Menikoff, while on the other side we have had comments from John Piper, Abraham Piper, John Bunyan, and now in this post, Sam Storms.

I and many others have very deliberately steered clear of joining in the debate because, for some reason, I’m finding it one that is very stimulating and interesting to observe from the touchline. It has been a model debate, and is a clear example of how we can disagree robustly on an issue while still loving and respecting each other. The following words from Sam Storms are no exception. Sam is a good friend, and has given me permission to republish the following complete article which appeared in his newsletter.

The rest of this post is taken in its entirety with permission from an e-mail from Sam Storms, who retains the copyright and is alone responsible for its content.

Reflections (46)

Piper, Grudem, Dever, et al. on Baptism, the Lord’s Table, and Church Membership

(Just how “Together for the Gospel” are we?)

A few days ago Justin Taylor alerted us to a slight change in Wayne Grudem’s view on baptism, to which John Piper then responded. Wayne then posted his response to John’s response, and one needed only to wait for the ripple effect. By the way, you can read these articles on Justin’s blog in the archive section (www.theologica.blogspot.com).

Recently (August 16, 2007), Mark Dever posted on this issue at the 9Marks blog (www.blog.9marks.org). My primary concern is less with the question of the relationship between baptism and church membership (as important as that is) and more with a related topic that emerges in the course of discussion.

Let me take you back to the Together for the Gospel conference that was held in late April, 2006. It was hosted by Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and C. J. Mahaney, who also invited three others to deliver plenary messages: John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur. Registration for next year’s conference is now open and I strongly urge you to attend. I will certainly be present.

After the conference was officially over, on Friday afternoon, there was a small gathering of some 75 people in one of the adjoining rooms at the Galt House Hotel. The purpose of this meeting was to address an issue that was raised last year by John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

To be brief, John has come to the conviction that the terms on which one enters the membership of the local church should be, generally speaking, as close as possible to the terms on which one enters the membership of the universal church. In other words, he grew increasingly unsettled by the fact that conscientious, born-again, Christ-loving, Bible-believing Christians who were only baptized as infants could not join his local church. It has been the policy of Bethlehem Baptist Church, a member of the Baptist General Conference, that in order to become a functioning member one must, among other things, be baptized as a believer. On this scenario, Ligon Duncan and R. C. Sproul, being Presbyterians, could attend but would not be permitted to join Bethlehem Baptist Church. . . .

Read more . . . Sam Storms’ e-mail

22nd Most Read Post – Dr. Albert Mohler: Radio Host and Theologian

adrianwarnock — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:07:00 +0000

No. 22 on the list of most widely-read posts on this blog appeared on November 8, 2006, and was the last segment of my seven-part interview with Dr. Albert Mohler.

Dr. Mohler is a phenomenon who, by God’s grace, accomplishes more than ten ordinary men could possibly hope to do!

It is a real pleasure to welcome to my blog again today, Dr. Albert Mohler. Dr. Mohler should need no introduction to most of my readers, but I include a link to his biography for any who need to know more, as well as a link to my Together for the Gospel Conference Round Up Post.

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published parts one, two, three, four, five, and six. Today we conclude the interview and discuss one of the most controversial things Dr. Mohler said at Together For the Gospel.

A full version of the interview can be downloaded here.

Adrian

One of the striking things that you said at the conference was that you wanted to put SBTS out of business—what exactly did you mean by that, and what do you think the rest of the board would make of you being successful in that quest?

Dr. Mohler
There is always the danger that my statement will be taken out of context! I do not mean to say that Southern Seminary should cease to exist in the very near future. I emphatically believe that the best and most proper place for the education and preparation of pastors is in the local church. We should be ashamed that churches fail miserably in their responsibility to train future pastors. Established pastors should be ashamed if they are not pouring themselves into the lives of young men whom God has called into the teaching and leadership ministry of the church.

I do believe that there is a role for formal theological education, but we should not be seen as an agency that is assigned the task of training ministers by franchise. I want to assist churches and to assist pastors in training pastors. But, after fourteen years of service in this capacity, I am absolutely certain that the finest theological seminary on earth is absolutely incompetent at replicating the actual life of a gospel congregation. I want to train a generation of pastors who will train pastors, and I want to help them in that task.

Adrian

What would this concept of a seminary in every church look like?

Dr. Mohler

Well, the concept of a seminary in every church would look pretty much like what I just described. As a matter of fact, I think it would look pretty much like what we see in the New Testament, and especially in the relationship between Paul and Timothy. Paul poured himself into Timothy, exhorted him, taught him, corrected him, and entrusted significant ministry to him. Undoubtedly, Paul served as his mentor and model in preaching and teaching and in the leadership functions of ministry. This is what I hope to see develop in healthy gospel churches—a group of young “Timothys” studying under the directed leadership and teaching of a senior pastor. I want to help those churches and those pastors by providing a program of theological education that assists them, working in partnership.

Read more . . . Albert Mohler: Radio Host and Theologian

Al Mohler’s Tribute to Dr. D. James Kennedy

adrianwarnock — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:25:00 +0000

As many of you may already know, Dr. D. James Kennedy, well-known pastor, teacher, and evangelist died September 5th at his home in Florida after having suffered a cardiac arrest last December.

Many Christians world-wide have been influenced by Dr. Kennedy, not the least of whom is Dr. Albert Mohler, who remembered Kennedy in this personal tribute titled “Excellency in All Things, and All Things to God’s Glory—The Legacy of Dr. D. James Kennedy,” Here is a portion of that tribute:

“My indebtedness to Dr. Kennedy is very personal. I was a young Southern Baptist who as a teenager had serious questions about the big issues of the Christian faith. Dr. Kennedy’s ministry at Coral Ridge addressed those big questions. He was unafraid to take on the intellectual challenges of the faith. He was kind to a Baptist teenager, introducing me to Francis Schaeffer and dignifying my questions. He clearly enjoyed talking theology and he was the first person I had ever met who demonstrated this joy. He was kind. I was hooked. In no small way my own calling as a theologian can be traced to Dr. Kennedy’s influence. I was inspired by his intellectual engagement and motivated by his vision of excellence for God’s glory.”

Rediscovering Theopedia

adrianwarnock — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:01:00 +0000

I have spent a bit of time over the last few days rediscovering Theopedia. It is not quite so frenetic and unstructured as Wikkipedia. This is probably due to its requirement that you acknowledge a statement of faith and be registered before editing items. They are keen for more contributors and if you have good quality material you have blogged and are willing to adapt, they are happy for it to be included in their articles with the appropriate acknowledgments. Would be great to have a few more bloggers over there. Here are the articles for which I have made some contributions so far (some more significantly than others):

Sam Storms, John Piper, and John Bunyan vs. Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever

adrianwarnock — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:24:00 +0000

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 4th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 5th most-read post was “Steve Chalke and the Lost Message of Jesus.”

The 4th most widely-read post was one in a series of posts that catalogued a major debate about baptism and church membership, and took place online between such theological heavyweights as John Piper, Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, Lig Duncan, and Mark Dever. The posts listed below were all so popular they could have made the top 30 in their own right. It’s worth reading all of them:

***************

This whole baptism debate is shaping up to be very interesting indeed. It is surely the first time in living memory that those who I can only think to call the “big guns” have used the blogging medium to have a serious theological debate in front of the rest of us. While Lig Duncan and Justin Taylor have both helpfully shared a bit about what paedobaptists believe, this debate has rather been about whether our local churches must have clear stances on this issue.

Arguing for a more rigorous approach, we have seen Wayne Grudem (who also started the whole thing), Mark Dever, and his 9Marks buddy, Aaron Menikoff, while on the other side we have had comments from John Piper, Abraham Piper, John Bunyan, and now in this post, Sam Storms.

I and many others have very deliberately steered clear of joining in the debate because, for some reason, I’m finding it one that is very stimulating and interesting to observe from the touchline. It has been a model debate, and is a clear example of how we can disagree robustly on an issue while still loving and respecting each other. The following words from Sam Storms are no exception. Sam is a good friend, and has given me permission to republish the following complete article which appeared in his newsletter.

The rest of this post is taken in its entirety with permission from an e-mail from Sam Storms, who retains the copyright and is alone responsible for its content.

Reflections (46)

Piper, Grudem, Dever, et al. on Baptism, the Lord’s Table, and Church Membership

(Just how “Together for the Gospel” are we?)

A few days ago Justin Taylor alerted us to a slight change in Wayne Grudem’s view on baptism, to which John Piper then responded. Wayne then posted his response to John’s response, and one needed only to wait for the ripple effect. By the way, you can read these articles on Justin’s blog in the archive section (www.theologica.blogspot.com).

Recently (August 16, 2007), Mark Dever posted on this issue at the 9Marks blog (www.blog.9marks.org). My primary concern is less with the question of the relationship between baptism and church membership (as important as that is) and more with a related topic that emerges in the course of discussion.

Let me take you back to the Together for the Gospel conference that was held in late April, 2006. It was hosted by Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and C. J. Mahaney, who also invited three others to deliver plenary messages: John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur. Registration for next year’s conference is now open and I strongly urge you to attend. I will certainly be present.

After the conference was officially over, on Friday afternoon, there was a small gathering of some 75 people in one of the adjoining rooms at the Galt House Hotel. The purpose of this meeting was to address an issue that was raised last year by John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

To be brief, John has come to the conviction that the terms on which one enters the membership of the local church should be, generally speaking, as close as possible to the terms on which one enters the membership of the universal church. In other words, he grew increasingly unsettled by the fact that conscientious, born-again, Christ-loving, Bible-believing Christians who were only baptized as infants could not join his local church. It has been the policy of Bethlehem Baptist Church, a member of the Baptist General Conference, that in order to become a functioning member one must, among other things, be baptized as a believer. On this scenario, Ligon Duncan and R. C. Sproul, being Presbyterians, could attend but would not be permitted to join Bethlehem Baptist Church.

Piper’s desire was to make it possible for individuals who had been baptized as infants, and believed it would be a violation of their conscience to be baptized as adults, to join his church. They would not, however, be permitted to hold a leadership position as an Elder in the local body. As of today, the issue at Bethlehem has been temporarily put on hold, pending further discussion and prayer.

Now, back to Louisville. Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and John Piper each began with a brief statement concerning their view on this proposed policy. Both Dever and Mohler, who are Southern Baptists, oppose it, while Piper and Duncan support it. But my primary concern is not with this policy per se, but with what happened in the course of discussion.

Let me be clear on one thing. I am a credo-baptist, not a paedo-baptist. That is to say, I believe that only those who believe in Jesus Christ should receive the ordinance of water baptism. I also believe that the proper mode of baptism is by immersion. Ligon Duncan, on the other hand, is a Presbyterian paedo-baptist. Because of this, both Mark Dever and Al Mohler made it clear that if Duncan were in attendance at either of their churches they would not permit him to partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.

Let me repeat that. Because of Duncan’s paedo-baptist convictions, both Dever and Mohler would prohibit his participation in the Eucharist. They would deny to him partnership in the table of our Lord. They would withhold the bread and the cup from him because of his disagreement with them on who are the proper recipients of Christian baptism.

As best I can tell (and I’m open to correction on this point), since Jesus clearly commanded (believer’s) baptism, a paedo-baptist (says Dever in his recent blog post) is guilty of “disobedience” and “unrepentant sin” (however unintentional it may be) and is thus disqualified from participating in the Lord’s Table.

Duncan believes that when an adult comes to faith in Christ he/she should be baptized in water (he prefers by effusion, but would acknowledge the validity of immersion). But he also believes that the infants of Christian parents should be brought to the baptismal font. I disagree with him on this latter point, but I’m disturbed that anyone would deny him access to the Lord’s Table on such grounds.

I have tremendous respect for both Mark Dever (whom I count as a good, personal friend) and Al Mohler (although I don’t know Dr. Mohler personally). Truly I do. They are both an incalculable blessing to the body of Christ. I also agree with them concerning the proper subjects of Christian baptism. But I find it remarkable that they would turn away Ligon Duncan from that ordinance of the church that above all else signifies and expresses the unity of the brethren in the body of Christ.

This may be offensive to some, but the claim to be “Together for the Gospel” rings a bit hollow to me when some would decline to fellowship with others around the Lord’s Table because of their disagreement on the proper recipients of baptism.

Let’s be sure we understand what the Eucharist is designed to communicate. Aside from differences of opinion concerning the nature of Christ’s “presence” (whether physical, spiritual, or merely symbolic), there can be no mistake that this ordinance signifies, embodies, and expresses the foundational essence of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before us are the elements of bread and wine that unmistakably represent the body and blood of Jesus Christ given on behalf of sinners like Ligon Duncan, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Dever, and myself.

Jesus himself made it clear that the cup represented or pointed to or in some sense embodied “the forgiveness of sins” that would come from the saving efficacy of his atoning death (Matthew 26:28). In 1 Corinthians 11:26 Paul echoed this truth by telling us that every time we celebrate the Lord’s Table we “proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” In other words, the Eucharist is a dramatic, visible, vocal enactment of the gospel itself. It stirs our hearts to meditate on Christ’s redemptive work and is designed to stimulate the mind to reflect on the significance of all that he achieved on behalf of those for whom he died.

My question, then, is this: How can we claim to be “together” or “united” for the sake of the gospel and turn away a brother or sister from the very expression and proclamation of that gospel that is so central to the life and testimony of the church? What does this prohibition say to the world around us? What must they think of our professed “togetherness” or “unity” when the elements of the Eucharist would be withheld from a brother such as Ligon Duncan?

In effect, this is the message that is sent: “Ligon, we agree with you on the nature of the gospel. We agree with you that we must faithfully proclaim and preach the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in what he has accomplished on Calvary. But you cannot share with us the table of the Lord or the elements that represent and proclaim that gospel.”

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t sound to me like “together” or “united” or any such thing for the sake of the gospel. It sounds rather like a narrow sectarianism that fails to consider the unity of the one body as represented by the one bread (1 Corinthians 10:17). It sounds like the colossal loss of an excellent opportunity to deepen and strengthen Christian fellowship and bear witness to a lost and dying world both of the gospel itself and our unity that is grounded in it.

For some brethren to look at Ligon Duncan (or others in his camp) and say, “We believe the same gospel, we preach the same gospel, but we refuse to express that belief and proclaim that gospel with you by means of the ordinance that Jesus commissioned as an expression of our unity and our confident hope in its capacity to save,” calls into serious question the significance of the word “together”.

I hope none will conclude from this that I think the conference was a failure or was not beneficial to those in attendance. As I said, I plan on attending again in 2008. I hope none will think that Al Mohler and Mark Dever do not love their Christian brother, Ligon Duncan. Indeed, they would no doubt contend that it is precisely because of their love for him (among other reasons) that they feel compelled to hold firmly to their position. True love is never served by compromising the truth. There is no greater expression of love for another than the willingness to make painful and unpopular decisions for the sake of bringing an errant brother into the light.

One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: “The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd.” Yes, it does.

In a similar vein, another comment asked: “why would you let someone in unrepentant sin be teaching the flock at Capitol Hill?”

Finally, more directly to the point of this article, the question was asked: “If your Anglican . . . friend were preaching in your pulpit on a Sunday where the Lord’s Table was observed, would you exclude him from participating?” The answer, clearly, is that Dever would indeed exclude him from participating.

In fact, let’s suppose, just for the sake of argument, that the Lord’s Table is celebrated every Sunday at Capitol Hill Baptist Church (although I don’t think it is). This would mean that Dever’s Anglican or Presbyterian friend might conceivably preach a profoundly biblical message on the gospel of the dying and rising Christ and salvation through him alone, only to be told (if not in words then surely by the actions then taken) that he must sit to the side and refrain from receiving the elements that symbolize and embody the very dying and rising Christ whom he only moments before so faithfully and biblically proclaimed.

In this not unlikely scenario, the visiting paedo-baptist might even reinforce the truth of the gospel message by pointing to the elements on the table before him, articulating with passion and humility how the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood, here symbolized by the bread and wine, have secured for all Christians forgiveness of sins and eternal life. He would then, I suppose, be led away from the elements and told that although he is no less trusting in what they represent than are his credo-baptist brothers and sisters, he cannot partake with them in the supper.

Does anyone see anything askew in this picture? I’d love to hear your comments.

Sam

Article now also available on Sam Storms Blog.

The Atonement – Packer on Penal Substitution

adrianwarnock — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 11:06:00 +0000

This morning on his blog, Al Mohler reminded us of Jim Packer’s eloquent defense (in 1973) of penal substitution in a post entitled “The Logic of Penal Substitution.” In light of my ongoing series on the atonement, this is well worth the read. Mohler says this about Packer’s historic lecture:

“Packer starts by describing that the penal substitutionary understanding of the atonement ‘by and large, is a distinguishing mark of the world-wide evangelical fraternity.’ It is noteworthy that Packer expected his audience to accept that statement at face value. Just over thirty years ago it was safe to assume that most evangelicals understood the penal substitutionary view to be paramount.”

In his lecture, Packer outlines three views of the atonement, and says this when describing the third:

“The third type of account denies nothing asserted by the other two views save their assumption that they are complete . . . there is biblical support for all they say, but it [the third view] goes further. It grounds man’s plight as a victim of sin and Satan in the fact that, for all God’s daily goodness to him, as a sinner he stands under divine judgment, and his bondage to evil is the start of his sentence, and unless God’s rejection of him is turned into acceptance he is lost forever. On this view, Christ’s death had its effect first on God, who was hereby propitiated (or, better, who hereby propitiated himself), and only because it had this effect did it become an overthrowing of the powers of darkness and a revealing of God’s seeking and saving love. The thought here is that by dying Christ offered to God what the West has called satisfaction for sins, satisfaction which God’s own character dictated as the only means whereby his ‘no’ to us could become a ‘yes’, Whether this Godward satisfaction is understood as the homage of death itself, or death as the perfecting of holy obedience, or an undergoing of the God-forsakenness of hell, which is God’s final judgment on sin, or a perfect confession of man’s sins combined with entry into their bitterness by sympathetic identification, or all these things together (and nothing stops us combining them together), the shape of this view remains the same — that by undergoing the cross Jesus expiated our sins, propitiated our Maker, turned God’s ‘no’ to us into a ‘yes’, and so saved us. All forms of this view see Jesus as our representative substitute in fact, whether or not they call him that, but only certain versions of it represent his substitution as penal.”

Mohler closes his post with the hope that this will “once again become a ‘distinguishing mark of the world-wide evangelical fraternity’.”

Continues with “The Atonement – Should We Disagree with John Stott?“

The latests posts from my blog about the atonement can be seen below. For more, follow the xml link:

The Atonement – An Attack on Penal Substitution

adrianwarnock — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 22:55:00 +0000

A couple of days ago, in the first of my posts on the atonement, I quoted Jeffrey John from an article in the London Telegraph. Today, I want to share more from the transcript of his talk, which is now available on Radio 4’s website. You can also listen to him for yourself here. The words of this talk are not really any different to those controversially aired by Steve Chalke. If you want to hear Chalke for himself, there is an interview in the archives here. Dr. Albert Mohler has come out strongly against the position aired by both Chalke and Jeffrey John. I hope that to most readers of this blog it will be immediately obvious why I disagree so strongly with the ideas expressed in this quote. I think these concepts are not only wrong, they are dangerous, and worse still, they risk robbing us of the true Gospel. I hope that as we study the issue of Jesus’ cross together, we will see that the biblical view of the atonement is neither what this vicar is responding to, nor what he explains as his view. For now, though, I am going to let him speak for himself:

“The explanation I was given went something like this. God was very angry with us for our sins, and because he is a just God, our sin had to be punished. But instead of punishing us, he sent his Son, Jesus, as a substitute to suffer and die in our place . . . In other words, Jesus took the rap, and we got forgiven, provided we said we believed in him. Well, I don’t know about you, but even at the age of ten I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive, as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we’d say they were a monster. Well, I haven’t changed my mind since. That explanation of the cross just doesn’t work, though sadly it’s one that’s still all too often preached. It just doesn’t make sense to talk about a nice Jesus down here, placating the wrath of a nasty, angry Father God in heaven . . . the wrath of God is no more than a human projection . . . The cross, then, is not about Jesus reconciling an angry God to us; it’s almost the opposite. It’s about a totally loving God, incarnate in Christ, reconciling us to him. On the cross Jesus dies for our sins; the price of our sin is paid; but it is not paid to God, but by God . . .

On the cross God absorbs into himself our falleness and its consequences and offers us a new relationship. God shows he knows what it’s like to be the loser; God hurts and weeps and bleeds and dies. It’s a mystery we can hardly glimpse, let alone grasp; and if there is an answer to the problem of suffering, perhaps it’s one for the heart, not the reason. Because the answer God’s given is simply himself; to show that, so far from inflicting suffering as a punishment, he bears our griefs and shares our sorrow. From Good Friday on, God is no longer “God up there”, inscrutably allotting rewards and retributions. On the Cross, even more than in the crib, he is Immanuel, God down here, God with us.” (Jeffrey John).

Continues with “The Historical Background to the Cross.”

Shepherds Conference V – Al Mohler: Preaching the Cross, Not Human Wisdom

adrianwarnock — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:22:00 +0000

Dr. Al Mohler is next up at the Shepherds’ Conference. I just can’t get over how similar the line-up is at all these different conferences these days!

You may notice a discrepancy in the numbering between my blog and Tim’s. This is because Tim has numbered one of his posts that discuss things that have been happening outside of the sessions.

Go over to Tim’s blog to read the rest of this, but I found this quote stood out for me in our current age. I do value Mohler’s prophetic way of assessing the world in which we live, and how it is similar and different to that of the Bible era:

“We don’t worry too much today about orators coming to town or sophisticated eloquence being the problem in our churches. Our problem is that everything is distilled to a sound bite, to commercials. If you can’t say it in thirty seconds, it’s not worth saying. In our harmonic age, when people mostly want to feel better about themselves, there are those who will package whatever you want to sell to meet the expectation. You can package things to meet any need, either real or created. Politicians play this game and spend millions to help them reframe and repackage their platforms in order to alienate the fewest and attract the most. This is all pathos, no logos, no need for ethos. Much the same is true in the church. Paul was concerned that any reliance on the game that was expected would reduce the gospel’s power.”

— Al Mohler

The Inverse Power of Praise and Psychological Research

adrianwarnock — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:32:00 +0000

Al Mohler pointed us the other week to an article in New York Magazine which puts forward a fascinating argument that counteracts the prevailing view that our greatest need is for increased self esteem.

Basically it seems we have been wrong all along about self-esteem and praise. Kids need to understand that effort is required, and should be praised for specific achievements rather than being given indiscriminate praise. This gives them the determination to keep going even when they experience failure. Kids who are even praised when they fail end up becoming praise junkies who underachieve. Interestingly, the article raises the prospect that when we are raised without any delayed gratification we develop a character which sounds remarkably like the “learned helplessness” of Seligman.

Our very affluence and lack of adversity may be producing the depression we seem to struggle with so much more than those in developing nations.

Again and again, well designed psychological research ends up supporting biblical concepts of what makes us tick. Those of us who believe in general revelation and science as a natural outworking of a belief in an orderly creator God should not be surprised. It is man’s theories when left to his own devices that are so dangerous, not his carefully conducted studies.

Should We be Optimistic or Pessimistic About the Future?

adrianwarnock — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:00:00 +0000

Mark Dever over at Together for the Gospel has written about how we should expect persecution. He may well be right. As I read his post, however, and also a few of his buddy, Al Mohler’s, cultural observations, I wonder if I detect a more general note of pessimism about the future of the church.

I may very well be wrong about that in the case of the individual people I mention, but I’m sure there are many Christians who are, indeed, very negative about the future. It certainly seems that Spurgeon’s view that more will be saved than not is vanishingly rare today.

So which is it? Are you an optimist or pessimist about the future of the church and why?

UPDATE

Mark Dever has written more about optimism and pessimism concerning the future over on his blog. Here’s a quote from his lead paragraph:

Our brother Al Mohler once said somewhere that “optimism is naive, but pessimism is atheistic.” I think he’s right. On non-ultimate matters (our government’s fate, our culture’s response to the Gospel, the world in rebellion against God) we can be agnostic or even pessimistic. But on ultimate matters—God’s glory, His victory in procuring a people to His eternal praise, the triumph of the church—there is nothing but ultimate optimism presented in the Bible—Old Testament or New. Jesus promised in Matt. 16 that His church will prevail. We see from visions in Ezekiel, Daniel, Revelation, and prophecies in Isaiah and the Gospels that, in the end, and FOREVER, GOD WINS!!

Church of England Proposal to Unite with Catholics Under the Pope

adrianwarnock — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:28:00 +0000

If today was April 1st, I would be sure this was a hoax. An article in today’s Times suggests that the Anglican Communion may sweep hundreds of years of history (and the little matter of the Reformation) under the carpet and go back to Rome. Quite how they propose to take a union that is at the brink of collapse over issues that the Catholics are quite clear on and steer it intact back to what they call the Mother Church is beyond me. Phil Johnson is, of course, right—doctrine comes before unity.

There are so many ways that this idea of reuniting with the Roman Catholics is a bad idea that I do not even know where to start. Quite simply, I do not believe that our lack of organizational unity—even among evangelicals—is even a bad thing. But, I don’t have time to explore this further tonight, so I will let you read the article and make your own conclusions.

UPDATE

Al Mohler has also covered this story and had the following insightful observations:

The more liberal wing of the Church of England could certainly find much common ground with the Roman Catholic Church on issues of social justice, ecology, and peacemaking, for example. On the other hand, what would the liberal Anglicans think about joining a church that denies the ordination of women and steadfastly opposes the normalization of homosexual behavior? This makes no sense.

The more conservative wing of the church finds itself in the opposite position — agreeing with the Roman Catholic Church on many of its most controversial social and moral teachings, but hardly in agreement on other grounds of concern.

The Anglo-Catholics, long favoring a more Roman Catholic form of Anglicanism, will likely find themselves encouraged by the proposal. The Evangelical wing will surely be steadfastly opposed.

FILM – The Nativity Story, a Review and Personal Reflections

adrianwarnock — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:32:00 +0000

Living in the UK as a Christian in 2006 is a strange experience sometimes. Some fellow believers point to a number of events that seem to suggest that we are entering days of hostility to Christians. Events that have come to my attention in the last few months include:

The growing hostility to the use of the word “Christmas” or Christian images – bizarrely this has led to a statement from something called the Christian-Muslim Forum reminding the politically correct brigade that Muslims (and presumably those of other faiths, too!) are NOT in fact offended by us celebrating Christmas!

The national airline fighting to prevent flight attendants from wearing crosses – which led to the Prime Minister urging BA to get on the right side of common sense on that matter.

The arrest of a Christian for giving out leaflets at a gay march.

The potrayal of a fictional “Christian terrorist” atrocity being planned with the full knowledge of an Anglican bishop in the popular BBC programme, Spooks.

The increasing religious discrimination on University campuses.
An active campaign to prevent the selection to stand as a conservative MP of a woman whose only crimes consist of going to a church and being married to a pastor.

The blatant attempts to link all religion with extremism and terrorism by even respectable newspapers.

Attempts to pass legislation that many fear will limit religious freedom.

According to some we are not far from entering a police state, and real persecution is not far away. There is, however, as always, two sides to the story. The increasing resurgence in Bible-believing Christianity is throwing our society into clear contrast and leading to some interesting developments. In London in particular, the last few years have seen the emergence for the first time of megachurches, and there are many church plants beginning up and down the country. There is much to be grateful for.

One of these developments is the sudden realisation by the film industry that Christians watch films, too. So, this Christmas, not only is there a terror-ridden film called “Black Christmas” being shown in cinemas, alongside it will be The Nativity Story, which wouldn’t be at all out of place being shown in a Sunday School class.

I was thrilled to be invited to watch a preview of this film a few days before it goes into general release. It seemed so strange to me – despite the success of The Passion – to be seeing a film like this on the silver screen. It is a sight we are going to need to get used to. I predict that this film will be far more successful than many might think.

For the truth is that everyone, believer or not, is fascinated by the story of Christmas. And, as Christians, this is a film that I believe we can endorse with confidence, and take our non-Christian friends along to. It is not purely a children’s film, but it is suitable in my view for all but the youngest and most sensitive of children. There are a few brief episodes of violence, but nothing that I wouldn’t allow my children to see.

There is a long tradition of artistic works being inspired by the story of Christ. Modern filmmakers may believe that they have discovered a new genre and new ways of marketing these kind of films. But is this so very different from the church nativity play – which often takes poetic license – or indeed the traveling plays of centuries ago which taught the Bible to illiterate masses?

These days our society is returning to having a functionally illiterate mass of people and a more literate elite who at least know how to use a Google search to return almost any useful piece of information they require! It should be no wonder that some are turning to the screen to retell the greatest story ever told, and I, for one, believe that the church as a whole should get right behind it – if we all attend this film, it will be another encouragement to filmmakers to produce wholesome material. It would be an amazing vindication of the power of market forces if eventually Hollywood realised that making blatantly immoral material was no longer profitable.

What is interesting is that the filmmakers are already increasingly convinced that producing a film that the Christians will like will mean making a significant profit. Why else would this film choose to be premiered in the Vatican – the first time that the world premiere of any film has taken place there?

This film is no Catholic propoganda, however. Mary (played by Kisha Castle-Hughes, who played the Queen of Naboo in Star Wars III – The Revenge of the Sith) is portrayed as a normal young woman with doubts and fears rather than a sinless saint. The way Castle-Hughes exudes both youthfulness and emerging womanhood is masterful. The story attempts to get inside her mind and the mind of Joseph, and in so doing gives the age-old story a new lease on life. It certainly seemed to work for me.

Director Catherine Hardwicke said, “I had seen the Nativity Story just as we all do – a few simple passages with minimal detail and almost no insight into who Mary or Joseph were as people. But in Mike’s script, I saw this opportunity to really get inside the heads, hearts, and souls of this young couple. This story means so much to people all over the world. I thought by humanizing them, audiences could relate to the film on a personal level and find some inspiration to get through their own challenges and difficulties.”

Hardwicke goes on to say, “We were looking for epic intimacy. The story is grand and sweeping, stretching across breathtakingly beautiful terrain, yet we want to feel deeply what this couple felt – each of their physical and emotional obstacles – in a very personal visceral way.”

There are a number of the makers of this film who profess a Christian faith and claim that they had a sense of calling to produce the film. The writer speaks of being on his church’s prayer list throughout production.

The film really does have an authentic middle-eastern feel – with actors who look and sound like I imagine the biblical characters really would have. The truly multicultural cast included actors from Trinidad, Iran, Guatemala, Cameroon, and Jordan – this is no European Jesus story. There is no mistaking one of the points of the film – Jesus really was a Jew born into a cruel Roman-occupied world. The film was shot in the same area of Italy used in The Passion.

A number of plausible, but fictional, events are introduced to the film that cleverly foreshadow significant events of Jesus’ adult life – these include the temple cleansing, washing of the disciples’ feet, and even the crucifixion. These are subtly done, and you might miss them if you aren’t watching for them.

I saw the movie with a room full of “cynical hacks,” and yet the film seemed to be affecting them emotionally. At one of the most impactful moments of the film, there was a sudden brief cackle of laughter as a line hit home. To be confronted with what was, to our ears, a humorous line suddenly made you realise afresh just what announcing that she had conceived a child “by the Holy Spirit” must have been like for Mary. The young girl tries to persuade her parents of the truth of her claims to have “broken no vows” by telling them that her cousin, Elizabeth, had a child in her old age. Their retort was simply “But Elizabeth has a husband!” In a matter of seconds, however, it doesn’t seem funny any more as you see the villagers preparing to stone her.

The irony is that the sinless one was born into a situation that looked to the outsider very much like it was a most sinful one. To be pregnant before consummation of your marriage might not be a great issue today, but back then it could cost you your life.

When Joseph refuses to accuse her, and stands by her, the attitudes of the villagers are wonderfully portrayed. Suddenly, you realise that Mary would have probably been glad to leave Nazareth for Bethlehem with her new husband.

The film is very much about journeys – the pain and difficulties of traveling in those days before roads and planes are brought home. But more than that, we see the journey of Mary from being a child who is frightened of marriage to a man she barely knows to a woman who falls in love with the protective Joseph and gives birth to a child who Joseph wonders if he will ever be able to teach anything to.

There really are some great artistic touches along the way, and mine were not the only eyes in the house that needed wiping by the end. It remains to be seen how touched the old hacks really were – or how much their editors allow them to be – but this blogger found himself reliving the story as though I had heard it for the first time. The emotional impact was certainly very significant for me, and I will definitely be taking my whole family (with children ranging from 3 to 9) with great anticipation of the joy they will get from the film and what they will learn.

Just in case your children ask you, here are a couple of final facts for you – firstly American Humane made sure that no animals were harmed during the filming, and secondly there are now sufficiently more trees in Tensas National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana to counteract the films “climate change footprint.” For some reason, those two statements intrigued me, so I thought I would share them here!

Other Links about the Film

As I reported last week, Albert Mohler gives The Nativity Story, the thumbs up – he says it is “In season and on message.”

Allthings2all on The Nativity Story reports being undone, but points out some minor deviations from the biblical account such as the Magi and shepherds arriving on the same day, but these are easily classified under artistic license.

The Nativity Story Blog also has regular updates on the film.

There is already a Wikki page on The_Nativity_Story which looks like it could do with some expansion.

The Nativity Story, UK and The Nativity Story, US official sites are well designed and there is a generous encouragement of the use of images for church materials

I will leave you with two interviews from a site of video clips about the film that you can embed in your blog if you want to.

FILM – The Nativity Story – A Must-See This Christmas

adrianwarnock — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:34:00 +0000

Albert Mohler gives The Nativity Story, to be released in the US and UK on 8th of December, the thumbs up – he says it is “In Season and On Message.” I have only seen this trailer, and some other video clips, but I have seen enough, together with Mohler’s praise (he has seen the whole thing) to strongly recommend that my readers take their kids to see it this Christmas. There is both a The Nativity Story, UK and The Nativity Story, US official sites for more information. I think the least we can do is spread the word among the blogs.

INTERVIEW – Dr. Albert Mohler, Radio Host and Theologian

adrianwarnock — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 03:00:00 +0000

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 22nd all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 23rd most-read post was the concluding segment of my interview with Wendy Alsup, a deacon at Mars Hill Church in Seattle.

Dr. Albert Mohler is a phenomenon who, by God’s grace, accomplishes more than ten ordinary men could possibly hope to do!

***************

It is a real pleasure to welcome to my blog again today, Dr. Albert Mohler. Dr. Mohler should need no introduction to most of my readers, but I include a link to his biography for any who need to know more, as well as a link to my Together for the Gospel Conference Round Up Post.

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published parts one, two, three, four, five, and six. Today we conclude the interview and discuss one of the most controversial things Dr. Mohler said at Together For the Gospel.

A full version of the interview can be downloaded here.

Adrian

One of the striking things that you said at the conference was that you wanted to put SBTS out of business—what exactly did you mean by that, and what do you think the rest of the board would make of you being successful in that quest?

Dr. Mohler

There is always the danger that my statement will be taken out of context! I do not mean to say that Southern Seminary should cease to exist in the very near future. I emphatically believe that the best and most proper place for the education and preparation of pastors is in the local church. We should be ashamed that churches fail miserably in their responsibility to train future pastors. Established pastors should be ashamed if they are not pouring themselves into the lives of young men whom God has called into the teaching and leadership ministry of the church.

I do believe that there is a role for formal theological education, but we should not be seen as an agency that is assigned the task of training ministers by franchise. I want to assist churches and to assist pastors in training pastors. But, after fourteen years of service in this capacity, I am absolutely certain that the finest theological seminary on earth is absolutely incompetent at replicating the actual life of a gospel congregation. I want to train a generation of pastors who will train pastors, and I want to help them in that task.

Adrian

What would this concept of a seminary in every church look like?

Dr. Mohler

Well, the concept of a seminary in every church would look pretty much like what I just described. As a matter of fact, I think it would look pretty much like what we see in the New Testament, and especially in the relationship between Paul and Timothy. Paul poured himself into Timothy, exhorted him, taught him, corrected him, and entrusted significant ministry to him. Undoubtedly, Paul served as his mentor and model in preaching and teaching and in the leadership functions of ministry. This is what I hope to see develop in healthy gospel churches—a group of young “Timothys” studying under the directed leadership and teaching of a senior pastor. I want to help those churches and those pastors by providing a program of theological education that assists them, working in partnership.

Adrian

How can a local church begin to take the first steps towards accomplishing this?

Dr. Mohler

I am sincerely honored by your interest, Adrian. I guess the one thing I would want to say here at the very end is that I can only hope that every minister could come to know friends as true, as faithful, and as genuine as I have come to know in C. J., Mark, and Lig. We are exhilarated in being together, and we take tremendous delight in each other. One of the problems we face in today’s church is that men are not often sustained by authentic friendships. This is especially deadly for pastors. I hope and pray that pastors could come to know friendships as I know in these brothers. And I would hope that those friendships are, like ours, established in the deepest Christian convictions. I truly believe that God is glorified in this.

Adrian

Well, our time really is coming to an end here. Thanks so much for joining us today Al!

Dr. Mohler

Thank you again, Adrian. We are sincerely thankful to have a friend of this movement in you and we admire the good work you do in Great Britain and beyond.

Adrian
Well, there you have it—a wide-reaching interview with one of America’s leading evangelicals. I hope you got a sense of the man—a man driven by a sense of call to the church universal to help it theologise and train its new pastors and who recognizes that what he is doing in his ministry is what we charismatics call “apostlic.”

A man who recognizes the need to interact with our culture and what is going on, but is not afraid to hold onto unchanging truths. A man who is prepared to risk the dislike of others to complete the task to which he feels God has called him. A man who is not afraid to say that tongues speakers and paedobaptists are plain wrong in his understanding, but holds a fellow Baptist, a charismatic, and a Presbyterian to be his closest friends who center his life. A man moving through life at great speed and yet who believes the greatest need for the Church today is for pastors who have real friends in other pastors.

Albert Mohler is truly a gift of the risen Christ to his universal Church today. It has been a real privilege to have interviewed him here.

BLOGS BY AL MOHLER . . .

http://www.albertmohler.com/ — includes Dr. Mohler’s main blog and information on his radio show
Crosswalk.com - Al Mohler’s second blog
Conventional Thinking – Al Mohler’s blog on current issues
Together for the Gospel – Group blog

Note: Headlines from all the above blogs appear in the “Warnie Winners” box here on my site.

OTHER SITES ABOUT AL MOHLER . . .

INTERVIEW – Al Mohler, Part Six

adrianwarnock — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 03:00:00 +0000

This interview is being serialised over several days. So far I have published parts one, two, three, four, and five. Today we discuss the future ramifications of Together For the Gospel.

Adrian
In light of your experience in Together for the Gospel, have you guys given any thought to how you can foster such partnerships for the Gospel based on real friendships at a local level? Is there any way to create, if you like, local bands of brothers who come together in the way you guys have? Some have suggested some way of either making a list of attendees public or creating a list of churches or individuals who hold to the “T4G” ethos – is that something you have in mind?

Dr. Mohler
That is certainly something we hope to see develop. We are looking closely at mechanisms for helping persons associated with this movement to identify each other and establish local or regional relationships. The actual mechanism for doing that is something we are considering very carefully.

Adrian
I think it was Mark that spoke of not wanting to create another organization – have you any thoughts about how to avoid that, or do you think it is almost inevitable that your friendships will spark something more concrete?

Dr. Mohler
We certainly do not want to create another organization—I have been fairly emphatic in trying to make that point. The evangelical landscape is littered with organizations that have taken on something of a life of their own. We do not want to create anything that would seek to perpetuate itself and to outlive its usefulness. On the other hand, since our movement, if this is the right word to describe Together for the Gospel, is based in prior relationships, we see the relational aspects as far more important than the institutional representation.

Adrian
How do you guys all feel about the response that has been seen to Together For the Gospel – did you predict that it would be this successful and capture the minds and hearts of so many poeple?

Dr. Mohler
We were confident that there were many pastors and young Christians headed for the pastorate who shared many of these common concerns and a desire to see a healthy, happy, and hopeful direction charted for a Gospel movement. But, we would all have to admit, we were overwhelmed by the response to the conference. Taking the point even further, we were overwhelmed by the spirit of those who attended the conference. This was a truly humbling experience for us.

Adrian
Why do you think Together for the Gospel was so successful?

Dr. Mohler
I hope this represents the blessing of God upon the pastors of churches. Our hope is that the movement, growing out of the conference, will be a genuine source of encouragement. If that defines success, then we are thankful to be successful.

Adrian
One of my readers asked, “When are we going to have a Together for the Gospel England” – do you have any response for them?

Dr. Mohler
Well, we are certainly honored by the interest among our brothers in England and Great Britain. This is something we would certainly want to consider as we look to the future. At the same time, there are many capable leaders in Great Britain who have a much keener sense of what is most urgently needed there.

Continued in Part Seven . . . .

INTERVIEW – Al Mohler, Part Five

adrianwarnock — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:00:00 +0000

This interview is being serialized over several days. So far I have published parts one, two, three, and four. Today we discuss the Together For the Gospel statement released at the conference.

Adrian
Up until now, Together for the Gospel has been founded, as far as I can tell, purely on the relationships of you four guys – what made you decide to issue a joint statement of faith and is that how you all see the document?

Dr. Mohler
I should clarify that we do not see our document as a statement of faith, presented in confessional form, but as a statement of common convictions and concern. We are not seeking to supplant the historic creeds and confessions of our faith, but we are speaking to a specific set of urgent concerns that are based in a specific set of deeply held convictions. We would see the document as a manifesto of concern, not as a replacement for our creeds and confessions.

Adrian
What was the practical process behind this document – there is a rumour circulating that you wrote it yourself with very limited input from the others – is that a fair description?

Dr. Mohler
Well, in the actual writing process, that is true. Nevertheless, the document grew out of our investment in hundreds of hours of conversation. Beyond this, all four of us contributed topics and concerns we wanted to be in the statement. I wrote the original draft, but the final product represents all four of us.

Adrian
How much did other similar documents influence your work on this document – which previous statements of faith did you draw upon?

Dr. Mohler
In terms of previous statements of faith, I drew upon a wide range of documents from the Reformation tradition—especially the tradition closest to our own. Beyond that, previous statements of crucial evangelical concern were also informative. We were particularly informed by movements and statements such as those associated with the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, and similar movements.

Adrian
Do you think it is important that every generation works though theological positions based, at least in part, on the theological contoversies of its age?

Dr. Mohler
This is certainly true. It was true in the early fourth century when Athanasius helped the church to forge an orthodox Christology at Nicaea. Every generation brings its own theological controversies, and it is especially important that we work through these controversies in a way that honors God’s truth and protects the deposit of faith entrusted to us.

Adrian
Some have speculated that you plan on using this document as some kind of yardstick of orthodoxy – is that true? Do you plan to anathematise those who cannot sign it for some reason? What kind of uses do you imagine it being put to?

Dr. Mohler
Actually, those are functions that belong to churches and denominations. The four of us claim no power to anathematize those who could not or would not sign the document. At the same time, we do hope that the statement helps to define what leads to health and to unhealth in Christ’s church. In terms of our cooperation and our willingness to recognize evangelical identity, this statement is indeed intended as something of a standard. We would not claim to be the universal arbiters of orthodoxy in Christ’s church. Our goal is simply to offer a word of witness and to make clear where our own sense of cooperation for the cause of the Gospel is defined. Our statement is a clear and heartfelt call to biblical fidelity.

Adrian
When considering the positions which you would include in the document, what criteria did you use for your theological triage? There are some issues that you address and have a position on that some people would see as peripheral, and others that you don’t address that others would also say were fairly essential.

Dr. Mohler
Those are fair questions. In the first place, we did not seek to repeat the good work accomplished by other movements and organizations. As I’ve already mentioned, we assumed the work of groups such as the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy. Thus, we did not seek to replicate the Chicago Statement released by that organization in defense of biblical inerrancy. Similarly, we were not seeking to write a new creed or confession of faith, so there is an entire range of doctrines that are not directly addressed in our statement. We directed ourselves to those issues and concerns that we felt had not been adequately addressed by previous movements. Even within our statement, we recognize that not all issues are of equal consequence. Nevertheless, we did sense that these issues shared a common urgency.

Adrian
I mean, to make it specific, I have seen some people asking why you see modes and the practice of baptism as not requiring a joint position to work together on. Why is that?

Dr. Mohler
The answer to that question is quite simple—we are deeply committed to our own confessions of faith and we are quite clear about those commitments. There is no ambiguity in the fact that Ligon Duncan is a Presbyterian pastor. I can hardly hide from the fact that I am, by deep conviction, a Baptist. Mark is also a Baptist, and C.J. is a representative of a newer tradition, deeply rooted in the faith once for all delivered to the saints. If we intended our statement to be adopted by any specific group of churches, we would be obligated to speak to those specific questions related to baptism. But, as this was not our purpose or focus, it would have been foreign and strange for us to have addressed that question in this document. I would point once again to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It spoke directly to the issue that brought that group together—biblical inerrancy—and not to a host of other, equally important issues.

Adrian
Others on the net have already expressed surprise that you seem to view the role of women in ministry as essential enough to working together to include in the document. What guided that decision?

Dr. Mohler
The decision on complementarianism as a common tenet grew out of a mixture of our conviction and experience. We recognize that there are true Christians who disagree with us on these issues. Nevertheless, the issue of the role of women has now risen to a status and significance that makes common effort extremely difficult. For one thing, such common effort requires the implicit, if not explicit, recognition of women as pastors. We consider this issue to be so important, and the biblical issues so crucial, that we do not see this cooperation as advisable or healthy.

Adrian
And what of the lack of a mention of any statement concerning the charismatic issue – why was that left out?

Dr. Mohler
Interestingly, this was not even a major issue of discussion. None of us is a charismatic in any conventional sense. Our understanding of these issues is sufficiently clear and united that it has never become an issue of consequence among us. It is fair to say that the issue did not emerge as a topic suggested for inclusion in the statement. This is not because we are not concerned about these issues. I am particularly concerned about the excesses of the charismatic movement. Nevertheless, this was just not our concern in this project.

Adrian
As a Southern Baptist, you can’t get away from an interview like this without being asked about the recent decision of the SBC IMB to exclude tongues-speakers from all future missions appointments. What is your perspective on this? At first sight, it would seem to be contrary to the spirit of “together for the Gospel” or is this in some way different because it is taking place back in the world of denominational relationships where I assume you would want to hold more tightly to some of the distinctives?

Dr. Mohler
Your last statement is precisely where I am headed. I must also stipulate that the decision to exclude those who speak in tongues from mission appointments is not actually a new policy at all. The new policy relates to what some have called a “private prayer language,” but is not, in the main, associated with what most people consider speaking in tongues. I do not consider this practice to have any adequate biblical foundation. Nevertheless, I am able to work together with persons who might practice such things in the cause of the Gospel. Nevertheless, this would not be an institutional unity but a unity in the spirit of Christ.

In other words, I can celebrate the fact that some of my charismatic brothers will lead persons to Christ and preach the Gospel with authenticity. Nevertheless, it would be impossible for me to establish a church together or for us to be united in a denomination’s position on these questions. There is no question that the Southern Baptist Convention is not a charismatic denomination. It never has been and, so far as I can foresee, it is not open to being so in the future. Nevertheless, our missionaries gladly work alongside charismatic missionaries and our pastors gladly work in the same community with charismatic pastors. I think some persons confuse institutional and spiritual unity in these matters.

Adrian
In thinking about the issues on which you have chosen to make a stand together and those that you have not, I guess one of the conclusions I have come to is that you have chosen to address issues where either compromise in those areas in some way threatens the Gospel, or where it is possible for a group to work together for the Gospel without any of the individuals compromising their position.

Thus, for example, those who believe that certain acts of ministry should only be taken by women would struggle with working together with the women preachers who thought otherwise without compromising that position. On the other hand, since when you get together no one is baptising anyone else, it is possible for different positions to co-exist without anyone repudiating their positon. Is that a fair conclusion for me to have come to? Do you concur?

Dr. Mohler
I think that is a very fair summary of our approach. You have delineated very well the distinctions on these issues.

Continued in Part Six . . . .