I can exclusively announce that the all-new and FREE Gospel Coalition Network website opened just a few minutes ago. The kind people running it have offered blog readers like you the chance to be first in line to join.

If you already know what this is all about, then feel free to just follow one of the links below depending on which continent you’re on, since this genuinely is a global offer. Don’t worry, you will have access to the whole community no matter where you live. Then, do feel free to mention this on your own blog, or view my profile and add me to your contacts to follow my updates. You can also join a group to discuss the resurrection and help me choose my book cover!

To join, simply follow the links:

“. . . expositional preachers are modern day prophets, serving merely as conduits through which the Word of God may flow into the people of God in order to do the work of God in them.” Mark Dever

My friends at Crossway continue to outdo themselves in the area of excellence. I sometimes think I should just issue a blanket recommendation—buy ANYTHING they print. But for some specifics, I thought I’d post some mini-reviews today. They have also recently started a book blog which has already had some great posts, so I’ve decided to award them a “Warnie Award,” which means that their headlines will appear in my sidebar from now on.

Here are a few Crossway books that have helped me as I have dipped into them in recent months:

THE SUPREMACY OF CHRIST IN A POSTMODERN WORLD
Each year the Desiring God Ministries Conference seems to spawn a book. This is one of them, and in it John Piper, D. A. Carson, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, Voddie Baucham, and David Wells all interact with the vital issues of how we can be both faithful to Scripture and relevant to the culture. Avoiding the extremes of compromise and alienation, this book charts a course we would be wise to follow carefully. Here is a quote to whet your appetite:

“This culture basically says that there is no rhyme or reason, so we’re here to make the most of it. Consume. Enjoy. That’s why we’re here. That is the overarching mentality in our culture, both inside and outside the Church, resulting in an unquenchable materialism and causing us to look at children as a blight and as a burden. While many in the poorest nations of the world talk about the number of children with which they can be blessed, we talk about the number of children we can afford. We have houses that are larger than they’ve ever had and families that are smaller than they’ve ever had…. Why? Because they get in the way of our consumption and our enjoyment” (page 60).

WHAT JESUS DEMANDS FROM THE WORLD
For a religion founded on the God-man Jesus, it is amazing how little attention we tend to give to what he said. John Piper’s book goes a long way to correcting this omission. If you thought commands and demands were only found in the Old Testament, this book will surprise you. Far from making things easier for us, Christ actually lays out a set of demands that far exceed the Old Testament law in their reach and challenge to us. Of course, he does this to show us our need for him, but nonetheless, empowered by the Spirit, we are intended to live as Jesus tells us. After all, he commanded us to make disciples of all nations and teach them to obey whatever he has commanded us (see Matthew 28). This book will help you understand and obey these commands.

IN MY PLACE CONDEMNED HE STOOD
We can never have too many books helping us to understand the glory of the cross and everything it accomplished for us. Mahaney recommends reading a book on the cross every year, so it’s no wonder he encouraged his friends in this endeavor, which brings together short essays from Mark Dever and J. I. Packer.

One other fantastic thing about Crossway is that they have published 29 books by Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. I can’t comment on this author enough. Although based on sermons he preached decades ago, the books sound like they were written for the 21st century. More and more of his talks continue to be adapted for publication. They are supreme examples of what preaching should be like, but also function very well as books. If you haven’t discovered the Doctor yet, where have you been? His sermons are also available at mlj.org.uk. Here is an extract from one recent book, Compelling Christianity, based on Acts 8:

“The Christian message does not stop at the mere proclamation of the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to God. It goes on to say say that this Gospel changes men and women. . . . Christ came into the world not only to bear my punishment and to reconcile me to God, but also to fit me for heaven. He came to do something to me that enables me to enjoy God even in this world. What is it? I must be “born again”….

That is it! We must be made anew, we need a new nature, a new heart, a new mind, we must be new persons. And he has come to do this for us. This is the wonderful, amazing, astounding doctrine of regeneration and rebirth.

This new creation is the act of God. The God who made the world and made man at the beginning makes us anew in Christ. Get rid forever of the notion that becoming a Christian simply means being forgiven or trying to be a little bit better than you were before; you cannot be….

He is there! I am not left to myself. I have a new nature. The Spirit is working in me, getting rid of the pollution, sanctifying me, preparing me for Glory; and even before I get there I have, in Christ, access to God” (pages 59-63).

Finally, I should not neglect to mention a commentary I found helpful when preparing my talks from Philippians earlier this year. It’s a slim volume that nevertheless manages to get to the pith of the message of this vital book. The “Preaching the Word” series deserves to be read.

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

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

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 Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate

• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism
• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper on Baptism
• John Piper Disagrees with Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously
• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord’s Supper
• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord’s Supper
• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem Versus Piper Baptism Debate
• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever Versus Piper Baptism Debate

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

No. 21 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on January 30, 2006, and was my first meeting with Mark Dever. Mark is a great man of God, and was very much the initiator of the set of relationships now described as Together for the Gospel. I interviewed him for a second time in a post entitled “Theology for All—An Interview with Mark Dever,” and posted notes from a series of talks he gave in London in September of 2007.

One of the highlights of the year for me has been meeting Mark Dever—so much so that several weeks after this meeting I published a post entitled, “Is Mark Dever an apostle?“

He graciously made space in his schedule for me to interview him face-to-face in spite of the fact that I was unable to hear him preach during his visit to the UK. I had previously reviewed his book, Deliberate Church, so this opporunity to meet the man filled me with eager anticipation. I have also enjoyed his new group blog, Together for the Gospel, which he writes together with C. J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, and Ligon Duncan.

On meeting him, it immediately became clear just how much Mark is a relational guy. At first it felt as if he was the one interviewing me, along with my pastor and friend, Tope! He showed such an interest in our church and in our history that I almost forgot why I was there. He was interested in us as people, and we spent a significant amount of time chatting about church leadership, preaching, and friendships that cross denominational boundaries.

He is a man of humor—when I confessed that of the four guys running Together for the Gospel, Lig was the only one I didn’t really know, he laughed and accused Lig of being the “pope of evangelicalism.” He rattled off a list of Lig’s credentials and jobs, and then finished up by saying something like this:

“It’s no wonder you don’t know him—after all, he’s a Presbyterian! There’s a bit of a jump between charismatics and Presbyterians, so he would be the one furthest away from you. And besides, there aren’t too many Presbyterians in the UK anyway! Baptists are like cousins to charismatics, and C.J.—well, if you’re in Newfrontiers, he must be like an apostolic uncle to you!”

I was impressed that he was aware of the relationship between Newfrontiers and Sovereign Grace, and for that matter, that he had even heard of us—our family of churches is not very large in the US.

I did, however, protest that I know of at least one famous American Presbyterian—David Wayne—and we chatted about how friendships that cross genuine differences of opinion are invaluable to our learning and development as Christians.

Mark was eager to point out that he had learned a lot from the three other guys despite the fact that he is utterly convinced that Lig, in particular, is living in sin over his view of baptism! We had a good laugh about that. I explained to him what I felt was my trump argument—one I had put to David Wayne when we had discussed it online. The argument essentially goes like this. If the Baptist is wrong and the paedobaptist is right, what is the worst possible outcome? Unless you believe in baptismal regeneration and that babies who die unbaptized go to hell, then the worst outcome is that we are unnecessarily delaying baptism for people and as a by-product giving them a chance to remember it happening to them! On the other hand, if we are right and the paedobaptist is wrong, then, as Mark put it, they are in sin and preventing people from obeying a simple and direct command in Scripture. Mark smiled and said, “I used exactly that argument with Lig!”

Read more . . . Adrian Interviews Mark Dever

No. 25 on the list of the all-time most popular posts with readers of this blog appeared on July 2, 2007, and summarized some of my series on the atonement. It also included links to a number of other posts on the subject. There were many other posts within this series—the most popular of which was entitled “J. I. Packer on the Atonement.”

As we finally draw near to the conclusion of this long-running series on the atonement, it has struck me just how the lines are being drawn. On the one hand there are those of us who feel PSA is essential to the gospel. It’s not that we think it’s the only thing—or indeed that every gospel presentation must major on it. It’s just that we think it’s essential, and that gospel presentations can’t deny it.

Just yesterday I heard what, to me, was the best gospel message I’ve ever heard. In fact, it didn’t major on an explanation of the exact mechanism of the atonement, but there was a line about the coming wrath of God and how that had to be taken away. I was reminded as I was listening that the gospel shouldn’t become merely a battleground for us to fight over. It should, instead, be something we hold precious. I can’t encourage you enough to download and listen to Tope’s sermon on the prodigal son. Many Christians heard the impact of this message of God’s love and forgiveness with a fresh insight. Several visitors made a response to the gospel. I loved what he said at the close of the sermon—“It may be free, but it wasn’t cheap. It cost the life of his son.”

It seems impossible for those of us who love the gospel of the Savior suffering the punishment of our sins to simply agree to disagree with those on the other hand who claim it is “divine child abuse.” I suspect the divisions in the visible church over this issue will grow more prominent rather than less so. This is just one of several reasons that, as Andrew Cottingham spoke of today, makes ecumenicalism so difficult for some of us who really care.

Today the American magazine, Christianity Today, published an article about the recent UK controversies over the atonement online. They were kind enough to quote me in the article, acknowledging my role in breaking the Word Alive / Spring Harvest story.

9Marks has this month published a whole issue about defining the gospel. They were eager to point out that PSA is essential to it, and the controversy over PSA is mentioned in one of their editorials. Others (including myself) were asked to write 100-word contributions explaining the gospel. I would love to read such a brief outline by someone from the other side of this debate.

There has also recently been an article by D. A. Carson on Penal Substitutionary Atonement which, not surprisingly, comes down firmly on the side of the authors of PFOT and makes plain that PSA is at the heart of the gospel. . . .

Read more of . . . “PSA—Precious Gospel or Divine Child Abuse?“

During the months of September and October, I spent a lot of time quoting from a book Justin Taylor produced—a lightly edited John Owen. These can all be read on the category page for posts labeled “John Owen.” In November, I gave John Piper on N. T. Wright the same treatment.

I also wrote a post titled Blogging, Discernment, and a Book by Tim Challies which managed to provoke the Pyromaniacs, review Tim’s book, and muse about the best approach to blogging for Christians—all in the same post! It was not long after that when I made the important decision to remove comments from this site because I just wasn’t managing to find the time to moderate them properly. This was announced in Thanksgiving and Some Changes Around Here.

Terry Virgo hasn’t found out and stopped me yet, but I managed to let everyone into the Secret of Newfrontiers—if you want to know what that is, you will have to read the post. I was also able to share an interview with a man who has a unique perspective on our movement, having been in it for decades before officially leaving, while remaining our very good friend. I am, of course, talking about Greg Haslam, who is currently occupying D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ pulpit in Westminster Chapel, London.

It was very moving to be able to visit the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois. I was also able to return to London in time to renew my acquaintance with Mark Dever, and to listen to him preach. Here are the posts:

• Theology for All — Lessons for the Future by Mark Dever
• Theology for All — Lessons for the Present by Mark Dever
• Theology for All — Lessons From the Past by Mark Dever
• Theology for All — Mark Dever in the UK
• Theology for All — An Interview with Mark Dever

In November I met Mark Driscoll in the flesh for the first time and shared the following posts about the meeting and his sermons there, as well as mentioning a couple of key ones from his home church:

• Driscoll on the Defeat of Shame and the Scotland MP3s
• Mark Driscoll at MenMakers in Scotland
• Mark Driscoll Preaches on the Atonement in Edinburgh, Scotland
• Mark Driscoll Apologizes For Not Being Humble
• Mark Driscoll Firm, But Kind, About Joel Osteen on Prosperity Teaching

In December I posted probably my most political post so far—”Time to Put a Stop to Brown?” It is fair to say that I assumed people would understand that I believed that, for better or worse, it is God who has given us this leader at this time. I should not have assumed that, nor should I have neglected to remind all of us of the need to pray for him. With Brown seemingly helpless against Cameron’s weekly accusations that the PM is dithering and indecisive, it sure looks like the leader of “The B Team” needs our prayers! For the sake of our nation, I hope something changes and soon.

My final interview of the year was actually a transcipt of an interview I had previously shared in audio form. The interviewee was Rob Rufus, and that was surely a good way to end what has been my most eventful year of blogging so far.

Mark Dever is not a man who is shy of controversy. For example, during my recent interview with him, he stated concerning the book, Pierced For Our Transgressions, “If you don’t like that book, you don’t like Christianity!” Strong stuff!

Before we leave Mark for awhile, I want to share with you once again some excerpts from what I believe has been his best blog post ever. It was written in 2006 and is entitled “Undermining Tolerance of Egalitarianism.” Whatever your views on this subject may be, you will surely see in these quotes his passion and the reasoning behind his strong belief in the crucial nature of the controversy facing the Church over this issue:

“. . . it is my observation that those older than me who are complementarian generally want to downplay this issue, and those younger than me want to lead with it, or at least be very up front about it. . . .

The older group is among peers who see women’s ordination as an extension of civil rights for people of different races. The younger group is among peers who see women’s ordination as a precursor for creating legal categories of gay rights. But having a certain skin pigmentation is to the glory of God; having a sexual partner of the same gender is sin. The younger group is more alarmed not simply by the egalitarian position, but by what it is assumed that will eventually entail, either in those who allow it, or in those who come after them.

There are, of course, many evangelical feminists. Some Christians whom I most love and respect and have learned from are in this category. . . . ‘Well then,’ you might say, ‘Why don’t you leave this issue of complementarianism at the level of baptism or church polity? Surely you cooperate with those who disagree with you on such matters.’ Because, though I could be wrong, it is my best and most sober judgment that this position is effectively an undermining of—a breach in—the authority of Scripture. As Lig [Duncan], the paedo-baptist, has often said, ‘If there were a verse in 1 Timothy saying, ‘I do not permit an infant to be baptized . . .’ we wouldn’t be having this conversation about baptism! There is such a verse about women serving as teacher/elders!’

Dear reader, you may not agree with me on this. And I don’t desire to be right in my fears. But it seems to me and others (many who are younger than myself) that this issue of egalitarianism and complementarianism is increasingly acting as the watershed distinguishing those who will accomodate Scripture to culture, and those who will attempt to shape culture by Scripture. You may disagree, but this is our honest concern before God. It is no lack of charity, nor honesty. It is no desire for power or tradition for tradition’s sake. It is our sober conclusion from observing the last 50 years.”

For more information about Mark Dever, see the following sites: Together for the Gospel Blog, Capitol Hill Baptist Church, and 9Marks.

For the final session, Mark took us to the vital subject of the future. We cannot see what will happen. There are some difficulties we face currently. There are threats to the freedom of religion. Entrenched secularism dismisses the value of Christianity. Our ideas are marginalized. There is a new phenomenon of legal intolerance towards Christianity. Certain statements about other faiths and sexual practices are likely to be considered “hate speech” and become illegal, i.e. we may be told it is illegal to say that another religion is wrong. Many of our brothers around the world face opposition. If we become subject to such restrictions, what should we do?

Mark took us to the book of Daniel to learn three lessons which expose a myth about our future.

1. God is our only hope—The myth of a godless future. We have a hope. “No other God can save.” The point of the book is not Daniel’s faithfulness, it is God’s faithfulness. In the furnace, in the place where earthly power would seem to be the greatest in dealing out death, there God showed his true greatness. God will perform his promises. Study God’s sovereignty and his loving kindness. See what he has done with his sovereignty.

2. We can survive—The myth of the hopeless world. If Daniel can survive, that should inspire us in the circumstances we face. It’s like he was playing with lions for decades, but made it! Daniel is not afraid to confront the kings with their rebellion against God. Daniel prospered time after time. Let us treasure the Gospel because this is how we will survive.
3. We will face opposition—The myth of the moral world. The world is so fallen that it is normal for the godly to face opposition. When evangelizing, we shouldn’t sound like “used car salesmen!” Righteousness is no guarantee of avoiding trials. We, just like Jesus, will face opposition. The big news of Daniel in the end is that God wins! But there is a theme of trouble and attack in this world. We will face suffering. We cannot avoid or eliminate persecution. We have to accept it when he takes us through suffering. He will turn those difficulties into good. We must remember that however culturally sensitive we may be, people will hate us as Christians.

We are righteous because we have found something we value more than this world’s praise or pleasure and ease. We will never face a trial that we will not outlast.

Mark began the second session of his day conference in London by taking us to 1 Corinthians 9. He briefly overviewed 1 Corinthians as a whole, and said that he felt one of the key themes was considering each other. Paul teaches the Corinthians what the Church is like and how it is supposed to be. We need to learn theology in order to know how to live as a Church.

1. The Church is meant to be holy. Holiness is strangeness to the world. Our message is different to this world’s. We are special to God (3:15,17). We are meant to be pure. Paul urges the Church to exercise discipline rather than tolerance in chapter 5. Churches must be ruthless in dealing with serious sin in their midst. When someone considers your church, they should think of it as holy.

2. The Church is meant to be united. Chapter 1 shows them as being like the world and separated from each other instead of being united with one another and separated from the world.
3. The Church is meant to be loving. This is an application of theology to our experience. Love is not ONLY actions; it also involves a disposition of the heart (1 Corinthians 13). Our focus should be on edifying others. 1 Corinthians 16:14— “Do everything in love.”

Why should we be like this? It is because the character of the Church is to reflect the character of God.

1. We are to be holy because God is holy. If we belong to God, we should be strange to the world. Our holiness is derivative. It demonstrates the holiness of God.

2. We are to be united because God is united. Leaders in the Church are servants of God.
3. The Church is meant to be loving because God is loving. We love in response to God’s love for us. Does the Church display the love of God sufficiently today?

Simply loving each other won’t do—we must love God and desire to glorify him.

To be quite honest, when reading the publicity, this talk was the one that most inspired me to attend the Theology for All conference. Mark is somewhat of an expert on Church history, and in particular the Puritans. As a pastor, he is concerned not merely with transferring knowledge to his congregation, but also in showing them the lessons to be learned from what has happened in the past.

Mark underlined the old maxim, “What one generation knows and teaches, the second generation assumes, and the third generation loses.” Our study of Church history is to insure that we don’t fall into the same trap.

He explained that some people have mocked his interest in the Puritans. He has heard all the old jibes: “The Puritans hated bear bating, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it caused pleasure to the viewers.” Or, “The Puritans went to America because they were hoping to find more restrictions than were permissible under English law.” They are often characterized as those who were afraid that somebody somewhere might be having a good time! Dever does not believe those descriptions to be accurate.

Dever spent time focusing on Richard Sibbes. He began by explaining that Sibbes argued that the killing sin that many religious people lay under is a dead formality. Sibbes was eager to underline that the Spirit is the one who quickens, not mere words and structure. Spirit-less Christianity is no Christianity at all. He was no mere formalist himself.

Sibbes was a great success. He was able to preach the Gospel faithfully throughout his life. Sadly, many he influenced to become preachers did not find the same ease in the established faith.

Sibbes had a great optimism in the progress of the Gospel. He was even optimistic when godly people endured trials. His view of the Church was typical of the “magisterial reformers” (e.g. Calvin, etc.). The common thread was that the preaching of the Word was the heart of the Church.

Sibbes and his Puritan brethren had an evangelical vision of the Church. They wanted to see freedom in order that the Gospel could be preached. He firmly believed in the centrality of the right sort of preaching for the health of the Church.

“Death came in by the ear . . . so life comes in by the ear.” What happened to Adam? He heard a voice he should not have heard. In the same way, the Gospel is heard.

Sibbes did not worship preaching, however. He argued that “unless the Spirit of Christ quicken them,” preaching and the Word were useless. It is the preaching of the Gospel rightly anointed that will reveal Jesus to us. The Spirit flows with the doctrine that we hear according to Sibbes. Sibbes expressed himself fully, with passionate emotion.

What lessons can we learn for today? Sibbes challenges us with the centrality of preaching. Preaching is more fundamental than Church authority structure. Sibbes had friends who were Congregationalists and Presbyterians. He wanted the Gospel to go forth in all churches. Denominations are secondary pragmatic creations. In fact, denominations are parachurch organizations. It is the local church that is entrusted with the preaching.

Preaching is generative—it creates new life. It is by the Holy Spirit taking the preaching of the Gospel and bringing life that people are saved. The solution to our problem is neither making our churches as ‘pure’ as possible (i.e. a rigorous application of church discipline). Nor is it making our churches as nonthreatening to visitors as possible. Rather we must allow God’s Word to take center place. Preaching is more important than whatever else happens in the church’s meetings. The Spirit restores the ability of the soul to appreciate God, and enables man to desire him.

Our social action is not as important as preaching the Gospel! Preaching is more central to the health of your church than anything else you can think of. The great trunk of the Puritan view of the Church is that the Gospel preached is the hope of the Church.

Last month Mark Dever was on tour. In the middle of central London, somewhere off Picadilly in a large church—complete with organ—I sat with a gathering of church leaders and others eager to hear Mark speak. (OK, so it’s been a long time since I sang a hymn to an organ!) Anyway, Mark began the day by turning to 1 Timothy 1:12-17.

True to form, Dever began with the Gospel. Paul reminds his son in the faith of the dramatic call he himself had received to preach the Gospel. He wanted to be sure that his hearers who had decided to spend a day listening to theology were really saved. He established Paul’s credentials. It was Jesus who had appeared to him on the road to Damascus. Paul’s teaching came with the authority of God. Timothy had also received that call. Timothy’s theology was critical. The Bible really is God’s words.

Grace was abundantly poured out on Paul. In contrast to his previous life, God gave him the power to preach. Timothy was to be encouraged that God would provide. Christianity is not merely a religious way to talk about self-help, self-effort. Much modern “Christianity” is a-theological. We need God to actually act to change us. He gives us things we don’t deserve, and loves us in ways that we can’t imagine.

Paul is humble and joyful, yet also hopeful, as he is confessing where he has come from and what God has done for him in Christ. Paul is aware of great sin, but also of great grace. This chapter is almost like a personalized Ephesians 2—BUT GOD!

Paul was a wolf who had become a sheep. A man full of pride became humble. A persecutor became a pastor. He wanted nothing but to serve Christ Jesus. Paul uses the word “sinner,” a word which is rarely said today. He says still I “am” the worst sinner. Dever was anxious to point out that even the best Christian remains in some sense a sinner. Sin has ruined our world. None of us are immune from its effects.

Paul was shown mercy, not because his ignorance and unbelief were mitigating factors—rather his ignorance was culpable. He was shown mercy, not because his sins were more excusable, but precisely because they were so great. So Paul’s ignorance was part of what made Paul into the greatest sinner. His very opposition to the Gospel demonstrated God’s power. Paul became a pattern for those who would follow. God saved Paul to demonstrate his patience towards sinners to the world.

God uses people we feel are beyond the reach of God’s mercy to display his glory to the maximum. It is through us that his glory is revealed!

On Saturday, September 22nd I attended the Theology For All Conference in central London at which Mark Dever spoke. To be honest, I was a bit apprehensive about attending as I wondered if I would be the only charismatic in attendance. Since the concept of Together for the Gospel hasn’t really crossed the Atlantic, I almost felt like an interloper.

It was great then to arrive and to feel so welcomed by a good number of my readers who were also attending. It still surprises and pleases me when I meet readers in real life—somehow thinking of them as eyes gazing at a screen is totally different from meeting them in real life. I was also greatly encouraged to discover that apparently my blog is widely read in such circles as the students of Oak Hill or the Cornhill training program. I was just disappointed not to have exchanged contact details with some of the people who I met that day. If you were there, or indeed if you are a lurking reader, feel free to make contact with me via e-mail, or still better, by asking me to be a friend on Facebook.

Listening to Mark Dever was a great blessing, and over the next few days I will share my notes. At the end of the conference I was able to sit with Mark over dinner and we recorded an informal interview. We discussed his latest book, The Gospel and Personal Evangelism, among other subjects. The book is a useful introduction to personal evangelism, what it is, and how we should go about evangelizing. I believe the book is a great introduction to the subject, and certainly reading it challenged me to seek God for more opportunities to share the Gospel with others on a one-to-one basis.

The interview was a lot of fun, and at times it felt more like I was being interviewed by Mark! You can download it or listen to it right here:

I have just booked in to attend next Saturday’s “Theology for All” conference. Mark Dever will be speaking about what we can learn from the past in developing the churches of the future.

Date Saturday 22nd September 2007
Time 10:30am-4.00pm
Venue Christ Church Mayfair, London. Map

The cost is £15. If you are free and can get to London I will see you there!

Book online here

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):

• Gifts of the Spirit
• Gift of Prophecy
• Penal Substitutionary Atonement
• Pastor
• Steve Chalke
• Mark Driscoll
• Wayne Grudem
• C. J. Mahaney
• Together For the Gospel
• Mark Dever
• Ligon Duncan
• Albert Mohler
• Jacob
• Terry Virgo

In news that will shake the blogosphere, Justin Taylor has not only shown that he is with Sam Storms on these issues, he has exclusively revealed that Lig Duncan was not baptized as an infant! Anyone questioning his commitment to the Presbyterian cause would no doubt be told “It wasn’t my fault my parents didn’t baptize me!” which perhaps to a credobaptist is precisely the point! Anyway here is what Justin said:

Trusted sources tell Between Two Worlds that Ligon Duncan was not baptized as an infant, but was baptized as a believer! This certainly adds a wrinkle to the discussion, doesn’t it? So shouldn’t Dever accept Duncan both into membership and at the Lord’s Table? Inquiring minds want to know!

I’m not sure why anyone would care what my position is, but I agree with old Piper, new Grudem, and unchanging Storms. I agree with Dever about membership and disagree with him regarding the Lord’s Supper. And I think we’d all get along if we just followed the happy middlemen, Ted Christman and Vern Poythress!

In the comments section of Sam Storms’ contribution to the baptism debate is a comment that is too good to leave there. Here is what the commentator said:

Adrian,

I think Sam might be misunderstanding Mark’s position. He keeps referring to the idea that Mark would deny a [paedobaptist] (visiting his church, maybe even speaking in his pulpit) access to communion. Hence Sam writes:

“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. But Mark is in print saying something entirely different:

“Questions of visitors coming occasionally to the table may be separated from the question of Christians regularly coming as members under the care and guidance of that particular congregation. Such occasional communion may be considered as similar to occasional pulpit fellowship, or other kinds of Christian cooperation between congregations that may not agree on secondary matters, but that would agree on the primary issue of the gospel. On the issue of pulpit fellowship with those who have not been baptized as believers, see Dagg, Church Order, 286—298. Dagg concluded that it was not inconsistent for a Baptist congregation to allow someone to preach to it and yet for the congregation to deny that same paedobaptist minister membership in their Baptist congregation.”

Mark Dever, “Baptism in the Context of the Local Church” from Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, footnote 16. p. 341.

To use Sam’s analogy, Mark may occasionally have a paedobaptist visit his church and preach (and/or take communion). This is an expression of fellowship and togetherness! But he wouldn’t have them come and preach weekly, nor would they join his church, nor would they be allowed regular, consistent continual attendance at the table.

Sam may still not agree with Mark’s position, but it seems he needs to state it more carefully before he attacks it,

Or, am I the one that’s getting this wrong?

Tom (promiseskept.wordpress.com)

Sam Storms has replied as follows:

Tom,

Thanks for your comments on my article. There appears to be some confusion on the point you raised. I’ve actually written to Mark for clarification on his view, and if it becomes clear that I’ve misrepresented what he believes, I’ll make immediate corrections in what I wrote.

But in the meantime I should point out that both Mark and Al Mohler were quite clear in their public comments at the T4G forum that a paedobaptist would not be permitted to participate in the Lord’s Table at their churches. You rightly point out that the footnote in Mark’s article appears to suggest that he might allow “occasional” participation by a paedobaptist. But this creates problems of its own. What constitutes “occasional”? Once? If once, then why not twice? If twice, then why not three times? Who draws the line and on what basis? It quickly becomes rather arbitrary, does it not?

It seems to me that if a paedobaptist is EVER disqualified from the table (simply for being a paedobaptist), he/she is ALWAYS disqualified from the table. Whatever it is that makes their subsequent and repeated presence at the Table unbiblical and wrong would make their initial and even “occasional” presence unbiblical and wrong.

What do you propose be said to a paedobaptist who has been granted access to the Table once or twice and then comes a third time? “I’m sorry, sir/madam, but although we didn’t regard your convictions as worthy of disqualification before, now we do. You weren’t in sin by partaking of the elements before, but you are now. Furthermore, although WE weren’t in sin by allowing you to partake before (on ‘occasion’), we would be in sin if we let it continue.” Is this really what we glean from the NT concerning celebration of the Table?

So, my point is simply that if a paedobaptist is welcomed by God to the Table once, he/she is welcomed by God at all times (assuming, again, that he/she is not under discipline). Otherwise you put the credobaptist in the rather awkward (and what seems to me unbiblical) position of compromising on his/her convictions out of compassion or friendship, but only once or twice, i.e., only “occasionally,” and then expecting them to do what they really believe is right and closing the Table to any further participation by paedobaptist believers.

The bottom line is this. If you believe the Bible forbids that a paedobaptist should be granted access to the Table, then abide by your convictions. Aim for consistency. Don’t try to make everyone feel better by saying, “Well, for the sake of ‘fellowship’ and in order to avoid giving offence to those we regard as ‘friends,’ it’s o.k. this one time. And maybe we’ll stretch it to twice, but after that we’ve got to stand firm on what we believe is biblical.”

Again, thanks for your comments. I hope this helps bring some clarity to the issue.

Sam Storms

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:

• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate

• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism
• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper on Baptism
• John Piper Disagrees with Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously
• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord’s Supper
• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord’s Supper
• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem Versus Piper Baptism Debate
• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever Versus Piper Baptism Debate

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

Justin Taylor has shared a number of statements on which Mark Dever agreed with David Coffin from the PCA about baptism. The following extracts stood out to me (hence the odd numbering), but they are all worth reading. Do any of you, my readers, disagree with any of these?

You will note that, for once, I’m standing on the sidelines of this debate, simply pointing out what various people are saying. I should, however, at least say that there are a couple of the statements on Dever’s list with which I am not sure I totally agree, and some that I would be surprised to find that David Wayne (and other paedobaptists whom I love) would sign.

• (#1) No one disagrees with professor baptism (except Quakers).

• (#10) Infant baptism is widely practiced by the late second [century] A.D.
• (#11) There are some who are baptized who are not in fact saved.
• (#12) There are some who are not baptized who are in fact saved.
• (#15) The texts urging “believe and be baptized” or referring to “household” baptisms do not of themselves constitute conclusive evidence for either side.
• (#17) Children of believers enjoy particular privileges and have special obligations.