Jacques Lefèvre D’Etaples – An Early French Reformer

Posted by Dan C. on

by Simoneta Carr

Image result for Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples – An Early French Reformer imagesThe life of Jacques Lefèvre D’Etaples ran almost parallel to that of Martin Luther. Born around 1455 (28 years before Luther), Lefèvre died in 1536, when Luther was still teaching, preaching, and establishing churches.

            In 1512, when Luther received his doctorate and became a professor of biblical studies, Lefèvre had already established himself as an esteemed scholar. The same year, he published a commentary to the Epistle to the Romans that explained justification by faith alone as clearly as any Protestant reformer could later do: “Let every mouth be stopped; let neither Jew nor Gentile boast that he has been justified by himself or by his own works. For none are justified by the works of the law, neither the Gentiles by the implanted law of nature nor the Jews by the works of the written law; but both Gentiles and Jews are justified by the grace and mercy of God …. …. for it is God alone who provides this righteousness through faith and who justifies by grace alone [sola gratia] unto life eternal.”[1]

            This is just an example of Lefèvre’s writings, that included all the five solas of the Reformation (Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Sola Scriptura, and Soli Deo Gloria), as well as the doctrine of assurance of salvation and perseverance of believers that so irritated Cardinal Robert Bellarmine almost a century later. He affirmed in fact that “‘the forgiveness of our sins, our adoption as children of God, the assurance and certainty of life eternal, proceed solely from the goodness of God’ through faith in ‘our blessed Saviour and Redeemer Jesus,’ and that thanks to God’s love ‘we have complete confidence in him and the certainty of the forgiveness of our sins and of eternal life, and we have no fear of the day of judgment or of being condemned for our sins.’”[2]

In 1521, when Luther was excommunicated and declared an outlaw at the Diet of Worms, Lefèvre was attacked by the authoritative faculty of theology of the University of the Sorbonne, who had already viewed him with suspicion. (This was the same faculty that condemned a speech written by John Calvin, forcing him to go into exile).

The professors of the Sorbonne then forced Lefèvre to close an experimental school in Meaux, near Paris, that he had been leading under the auspices of Cardinal Guillaume Briçonnet to lead for the reform of preaching. And yet, many seeds had been planted. From this community in Meaux (known as Circle of Meaux) sprung a new generation of preachers, including Guillaume Farel, the reformer who firmly encouraged John Calvin to move to Geneva..

In the meantime, Lèfevre had also been working on a translation of the New Testament from the Latin vulgate into French. The complete translation appeared in 1524, two years before Luther’s publication of the New Testament in German. Once again, Lèfevre’s efforts met the disapproval of the doctors of the Sorbonne, who ordered the destruction of every copy of his translation. And once again, by providing a translation of Scriptures in the language of the people, Lèfevre contributed to the start of the Reformation in France.

Recalled by King Francis I of France in 1526, Lèfevre was assigned to serve as tutor at the court of Francis’s sister, Marguerite de Navarre, who became one of his most loyal followers and supporters. Lèfevre spent the last part of his life there, teaching, writing, and translating until his death in 1536.

Besides Marguerite of Navarre and William Farel, Lefèvre influenced many of his contemporaries, including Anne Boleyn, the second wife of Henry VIII, who lived in France during her teenage years; Renée of France, daughter of Louis XII; Martin Luther, who based his Pauline lectures on Lefèvre e remained in correspondence with him; and John Calvin, who most likely met Lefèvre during his travels in incognito.

While Lefèvre’s writings include many of the teachings of the Reformation, they are not always consistent – possibly due to his desire to remain in the Roman Catholic Church and reform it from within. But they were influential enough that Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza allegedly spoke of Lefèvre as the man “who boldly began the revival of the pure religion of Jesus Christ”[3] in France.

[1] Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Lefèvre: Pioneer of Ecclesiastical Renewal in France, W.E. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984, 74 [Quoting Lefèvre’s commentary, published in 1512].

[2] Hughes, Lefèvre, 191-192.

[3] Jean Henri Merle d’Aubigné, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, vols. 1-5, New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1856, 441

_____________________________

Online Source:

Jacques Lefèvre D’Etaples – An Early French Reformer – Place For Truth

The Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ

Posted by Dan C. on

Just another FB conversation…………

clip_image002_thumb2From a Facebook post:clip_image004_thumb8

“Never once in the King James Bible do we find the term, “the Bride of Christ.” That is a religious term, and frankly, it is a core doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, never once does the Bible refer to the Church the Body of Christ as “the Bride of Christ.” This should indicate to us that it is nothing more than a man-made concept, a tradition of men, aimed at deceiving and robbing us of the clarity of God’s Word, and furthering a man-made theological system. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

We do find in our King James Bible the following phrases and terms: “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Revelation 19:7,9), “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Revelation 21:2), and “the Lamb’s wife” (Revelation 21:9). A marriage is certainly occurring in the closing chapters of the book of the Revelation, but who is marrying whom? We should not rip these verses out of their contexts and fabricate the identity of the bride and the groom (unless, of course, we seek to advance a denominational system rather than the simple teachings of Scripture!).”

Reader (Dan) Response:

So what is your exact point in all of that? You must have said it for a reason. We should never take passages out of their natural context, however given the many scripture passages with references to Christ and his Bride, it’s undeniable that Christ has a Bride. Eph 5:25-27 clearly identifies Christ’s bride as the church (called out body of all believers).

You said: “We should not rip these verses out of their contexts and fabricate the identity of the bride and the groom (unless, of course, we seek to advance a denominational system rather than the simple teachings of Scripture!).

The identity of Christ and His bride are CLEARLY defined in scripture, so again, what is your point?

NEVER MIND………….I just read that the purpose of this group is “TO PERSUADE BELIEVERS TO RIGHTLY DIVIDE THE WORD OF TRUTH…Persuade – to cause someone to do or believe by ‘reasoning’. Your point has to do with Mid-Acts Dispensationalism, and it begin with a gross misrepresentation of 2 Tim 2:15, literally “ripping it out of its context”.

Author Response:

Then why are you here Dan. Best you find a suitable group to join, instead of coming in here with your insults. If you believe the body of Christ is the Bride of Christ then you believe in Replacement Theology which is a damnable heresy.

Reader (Dan) Response:

First of all, I am NOT defending a personal opinion. I’m trying to get clarity. It wasn’t until some months ago that I first learned about Mid-Acts Dispensationalism and its definition of “Rightly dividing the word of truth.” I am not attacking M.A.D. doctrine nor defending it. I am however comparing its teachings with I believe the Bible teaches.

Concerning your statement, “If you believe the body of Christ is the Bride of Christ then you believe in Replacement Theology which is a damnable heresy.”:

Heresy is a strong word and one that I use sparingly. Replacement theology is the belief that the church has replaced the church in God’s plan. At best it’s just wrong and at worst it’s heresy, in my opinion, no matter who teaches it or believes it. God still has a plan for Israel.

I understand, from what seems to be plain in scripture, that the terms Body of Christ and Bride of Christ describe two aspects of the relationship between Jesus and His followers. Perhaps the clearest expression of the church as both the body and bride of Christ is in Paul’s own words:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.” (Eph 5:25-29)

That marriage metaphor also appears in Jesus’ own words:

“In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John 14:2-3)

However, M.A.D. doctrine tells us that Jesus was only speaking to the Jews and not to us Gentiles, which could support only Israel being the Bride. Or can it?

Back to Ephesus. It’s significant that when Paul visited Ephesus, he spent three months teaching in a synagogue in an effort to bring the Jews to accept union with the gentiles in Christianity, but without success. For the next two years he stayed in Ephesus seeking to convert Jews and gentiles and appears to have made many converts. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that, in his letter to the Ephesian church, he was speaking to both Jewish and Gentile believers.

The mystery of the gospel, revealed to Paul, along with the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit (v.5), is summed up in Eph 3:6:

“That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

Paul was telling his Ephesian audience that right then and there, when He wrote that letter (60-61 A.D.), and from that day forward, Jews and Gentiles are one body, united in Christ.

Dan’s Conclusion: The church, the Body of Christ, which is composed of all of Jesus’ followers, will also the Bride of Christ at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

NOTE: I am not trying to convince anyone of anything; you will believe what you believe. My only goal here is to have clearly explained what I believe and why I believe it. When it comes to spiritual matters, the Holy Spirit is the grand persuader.

Have a nice day!

What blew me away was the insistence that believing that Christ is the Bride of Christ meant that I believed in Replacement theology, until I realized that M.A.D. doctrine was humming in the background. I used the KJV because it’s the only version some will even consider as a valid version. I guess I’m still trying to find at least one M.A.D. type who might be open to honest impartial, objective discussion. I’m batting .000 so far. Sadly I am adding preterists and KJV Only types to the list of those whose minds seem to be ‘rusted shut’. I know that sounds harsh, but it’s true. I’m getting better at just trying to talk things through………I hope.

Thoughts?

Twisted Logic

Posted by Dan C. on

image

That question was found online in a FB group professing to be about Pauline Doctrine. The name was interesting, so I popped in. Turns out it’s run by a couple of ladies who seem to be advocating for full preterism (Jesus returned in judgment in 70AD) in interesting ways. There will be a post that asks a leading question and makes a ‘logical’ suggestion that unwary readers will naturally accept. I’ve been blocked from commenting until the end of January, partly because I suggested that their preterism was showing, and they hated that. Another reader caught on before I did and has since disappeared. He had also been attempting polite conversation about things.

What I have found out is that I can read these seemingly innocent posts, do a little research study and merely respond to them and see what happens, which is what I had been doing and ended up in ‘purgatory’ for a month. I was actually responding to the above question when I found out about my suspension.

If I assume that the above statement telling me “Since messengers of God told those present (at the Ascension) that they’d see His return” was true, the answer could be ‘yes’, however………

The answer is no, because the messengers didn’t tell them they would see Jesus’ return: Here is Acts 11, along with a couple of other passages to add context. The scene is the ascension of Christ after his resurrection.

“Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11who also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11, NKJV)

The two messengers didn’t tell those present that they would ‘see’ his return. That passage just says the Jesus would come again to Earth in like manner (in the same way) he left. So how did he leave? What does “in like manner” mean?

1. Well, since Jesus ascended after his resurrection, He left in a glorified body and will return in his glorified body.

2. He ascended in clouds, so He will return in clouds, which was an Old Testament Prophecy Daniel 7:13, as well as something Jesus told a Jewish High Priest at his trial Matthew 26:64.

That means that the assertion (it wasn’t an ‘IF’ statement), “Since messengers of God told those present (at the Ascension) that they’d see His return” was false on its face.

Pretty slick! Start with a false assumption, combined with a partial truth in order to suggest your ‘logical’ conclusion. It’s true that ‘someone’ told the disciples that some of them would “see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (See Matt 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27) but that doesn’t necessarily mean Jesus was talking about his return to at His second  coming. There are alternative interpretations, and since I’m merely suggesting here, I’ll leave further research to you. Isn’t Bible study fun?

So there it is. A false assertion was made, leading to a ‘logical’ conclusion. There was no direct assertion that Jesus returned in judgment, just a nice little question based on a false statement. The reader is supposed to realize ‘logically’ that Jesus return to earth was in 70 AD. That was the point of the meme and exactly what “full preterism” teaches, as opposed to other interpretations of prophecy that claim that the 2nd coming of Christ is still in the future (partial preterism, historicism, futurism). Why a couple of FB group admins would bristle at my mentioning preterism, I’ll probably never know.

So call this an academic exercise. Along the way, I really dug into scripture, commentaries, as well as articles I could find online, therefore enhancing my knowledge concerning Bible prophecy!

Be Blessed!

When Did the Church Begin?

Posted by Dan C. on

image

Ask almost anyone who professes Christianity, from master theologians with lots of letters behind their names to us common laypeople in the pews, when the church was born and they will tell you that the birth of the church was on the day of Pentecost, as recorded in Acts, chapter 2. However, there are some who will tell you that the church began with Paul’s conversion (Acts 9), when he began his first missionary journey (Acts 13), or while he was in prison (Acts 28),. We won’t get into the reasons for the mid to late Acts positions in this article, suffice it to say that it can get rather complicated.

I’ve never really understood exactly why any time other than the Day of Pentecost is even considered as the birthday of the church, because it seems to be quite clear in the text of Acts, chapter 2, verses 41 – 47. Here is that passage:

“41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. 42And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 43And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. 44And all that believed were together, and had all things common; 45And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. 46And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, 47Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:41-47, KJV)

That passage describes the response of many of those in the mostly Jewish crowd who listened to the Apostle Peter’s sermon after the Holy Spirit had come and filled the disciples and Apostles of Jesus who had been praying in an upper room in Jerusalem.

We are told that there were some who heard Peter preach that “gladly received his word and were baptized.” What word was that? Well, they had just heard Peter’s reveal some rather startling (to put it mildly) news!:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (v 36)

Peter had told them that they had killed their promised Messiah! No doubt, some must have been angry at that accusation, however there were some who, when realizing exactly what they had done, responded quite differently:

“Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (v37)

Peter’s instruction:

“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (v 38)

Then comes Luke’s (the author of Acts) concluding remarks about the day’s activities, followed by a description of how those who ‘repented and were baptized’ continued going about their lives as newly born Christian believers.

The answer to our main question, “When did the church begin?” can easily be answered by revisiting just two verses:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls 47bAnd the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:41-42b)

To whom does the “them” in v.41 refer? None other than those who “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” Then we are told in v. 47 that more people were being saved and were added to the same company of those who were “continued steadfastly”, and were called the church!

So if you are ever challenged about the birth of the Christian church, you can just point Acts, chapter 2, and specifically only two verses, Acts 2:41-42!

Can it possible be any clearer that the birthday of the church was in the Day of Pentecost, as recorded in the 2d chapter of Acts? I think not.

Sadly, there are those who would rather cling to teachings developed by mere mortals in the 19th century – undisputable facts of history, than the actual text of scripture, all the while telling us that they only use and trust the Bible! All I can suggest to that is, “We believe what we WANT to believe?”

Let the Bible Speak!

Posted by Dan C. on

image

A blogger recently asserted the following:

“The scriptures confirm two distinctly different plans of salvation.. . . .Our (church age believers) plan of salvation is found only in Romans through Philemon, the 13 books written by the apostle Paul.” (Emphasis mine)

You might recognize that quotation as being one of the teachings from a segment of Christianity that promotes a system of interpreting the Bible called Mid-Acts Dispensational Right Division. That system tells us that “The key to understanding the Bible hinges on our ability to discern what is written to us and what is not. This is what is meant by right division of the Bible.”[i]

A central tenet of that system is the belief that “While the entire Bible was inspired by God for our benefit, it is not all written to the same people.”[ii]  Therefore, scripture must be ‘rightly divided’ into the portions written only the Jews, and that which is written only to Gentiles (church age believers). Since portions of the Bible were written to different people groups, there are different plans of salvation for each group.

The application of that principle results in the claim that the plan of salvation for Gentiles (church age believers) is found only in Romans through Philemon. The entire rest of the New Testament was written only to Jews.

With that background information in mind, let’s return to the purpose of this blog post, which is to let the Bible, and only the Bible speak to the issues at hand. What follows is a direct response to the blogger who provided the introductory quotation.

You  (the blogger) say:

“The scriptures confirm two distinctly different plans of salvation. . . .Our plan of salvation is found only in Romans through Philemon, the 13 books written by the apostle Paul.”

Here is the Apostle Paul’s definition of the gospel:

1Co 15:1-4  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;   And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

I invite you to consider the following passages of scripture recorded by the Apostles, and prayerfully ask yourself if they speak of the same gospel message that Paul preached, that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ (Eph 2:8-9).:

Luk 24:44-47 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Joh 3:14-17  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Joh 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 8:24  I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

Joh 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Joh 20:28 -31 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Act 10:39  And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

Act 10:40-43  Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Act 15:7-11  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

1Pe 1:3 -5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,   To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,   Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1Pe 1:10-12  Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

1Jn 5:10-13  He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

I am not adding any personal opinions concerning the above passages, or what I think they teach or do not teach. It is not necessary that you reply to me concerning the above passages of scripture. I don’t want to argue about them or engage in personal debate. I offer them to you for own prayerful consideration, to let them speak for themselves.

May God bless you in your journey through this life and into the next!

Dan

I confess that I really struggled with not inserting any personal opinions or interpreting any of the above passages, as well as not responding to various forms of gaslighting. I sincerely hope that I am improving in the “gentleness and respect” department! My personal Bible study isn’t hurting either!

[i] Introduction to Mid-Acts Dispensational Right Division (graceambassadors.com)

[ii] Ibid.

A Few Foibles of Social Media

Posted by Dan C. on

clip_image002

Please excuse my feeble attempt at alliteration. Having begged the reader’s pardon, allow me to define the word ‘foible’ before I proceed further. Simply put, a ‘foible’ is defined as:

  • a minor weakness in someone’s character (Oxford Dictionary)
  • a strange habit or characteristic that is seen as not important and not harming anyone (Cambridge Dictionary):
  • a minor flaw or shortcoming (Webster’s Dictionary)
  • a small fault or foolish habit (American Dictonary)
  • a minor weakness or failing of character (Dictionary.com)

Synonyms for ‘foible’ include eccentricity, fault, failing, frailty, infirmity, and shortcoming. The word comes from 16th century French, as an adjective meaning ‘feeble’.

Why do I claim that there are ‘foibles’ associated to social media? I’m glad you asked. Actually, based on recent, and not so recent experiences using social media (primarily Facebook), it just seemed to pop up in my tired old brain. Now you know.

Additionally, I need to say that my remarks here are specific to self-professed “Christian” FB groups dedicated to enlightening the rest of us concerning the truth of a certain ‘pet’ doctrine. For the purposes of this blog post allow me to use a specific example of one the several groups dedicated to ‘rightly dividing’ the text of scripture. The actual names of FB groups are omitted here in order to protect both the innocent and the guilty (concerning the aforementioned ‘foibles’, or weaknesses).

First, let me say that to ‘rightly divide’ the text of Scripture means, in simple terms, to properly handle God’s word, Literally, to ‘rightly divide’ means ‘to cut straight’. The Apostle Paul told young Pastor Timothy, “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Tim 3:15).

For some however, the term ‘rightly dividing’, or ‘rightly divide’ has taken on a life of it’s own and become almost a mantra used frequently and often in ways never intended by the Apostle Paul.

But I digress. We’ll get back to our example, I promise. The topic here is the ‘foibles’, or weaknesses of social media that hinder intelligent, rational, and respectful dialogue. Here are a few that come to mind:

1. You can sit (and hide) behind a computer screen (or Ipad, Ipod, Iphone, etc.) all alone, by yourself, without seeing another face, hear a human voice, or recognize heartfelt emotions. You lose significant aspects of human communication that are present in face-to-face dialogue. In my opinion, this is at the heart of other serious issues.

2. Sitting alone behind your screen lets you make all of your opinions (about anything) known to everyone in the ‘room’, as adamantly as you want, without having to actually consider other’s opinions, or intelligently substantiate your own. You know you are right, you let others know that fact, and you can easily dismiss others’ contributions to a discussion, even calling them names, using pejorative adjectives to their faces, and refusing to even consider any opinions other than their own

3. Face-to-face communication allows for reading the Bible together, carefully examining relevant passages of scripture relevant to the matter at hand. Ripping passages out of their natural contexts to ‘prove’ one’s point is much easier when you are behind the ‘screen’. Sadly, that also occurs during face-to-face dialogue, but hopefully not as easily.

4. When you are sitting in the same ‘real’ room (as opposed to a ‘digital’ one) with other believers, discussions (especially with good leaders/facilitators) tend to be more organized and can flow much more smoothly than the online ‘free-for-alls’ we are faced with on social media.

Those are just a few weaknesses (foibles) of communicating via social media. I’m sure you can think of more. Back to our FB Group example focused on ‘rightly dividing’ the word of truth.

To many who use the term ‘rightly dividing’ (and variations thereof) in every other sentence. It means that the only NT scripture that pertains to Gentiles is from the middle of Acts through Paul’s letter to Philemon. The rest, including the synoptic gospels, Jesus’ own teaching, and Hebrews through Revelation was written to and for Jews only. Furthermore, Peter and Paul preached completely different gospels.

I’ve made it a project of mine to demonstrate, with as much gentleness and respect than I can muster up, and using excellent resources, as well as scripture itself, their ‘interesting’ beliefs. The responses I have received clearly demonstrate ‘social media foible #2, mentioned earlier.

“Sitting alone behind your screen lets you make all of your opinions (about anything) known to everyone in the ‘room’, as adamantly as you want, without having to actually consider other’s opinions, or intelligently substantiate your own. You know you are right, you let others know that fact, and you can easily dismiss others’ contributions to a discussion, even calling them names, using pejorative adjectives to their faces, and refusing to even consider any opinions other than their own.”

At this point I must freely admit that the attitudes and behaviors described above are not unique to those who claim to really truly ‘rightly divide’ scripture. We can find them all over social media, especially where individuals opinions are shared. Face it, people can be really ugly. Being able to hide behind a computer screen, etc. makes it worse. At least when we are sitting with one another, face-to-face, there’s a better chance of honest, intelligent, and rational dialogue.

So now the question for this old soldier is whether or not to just completely ditch some social media venues or keep trying to reason with unreasonable people. One thing I know for sure is that the amount of time I spend researching topics raised on social media, in support of finding the truth or a matter or issue is good for spiritual clarity in particular and my soul as well!

We Believe What We Want to Believe Redux

Posted by Dan C. on

I recently joined a private Facebook group that claimed the following purpose:

“Promoting the Reformation that Luther started and supported by the reformers Calvin, Vermigli, Hooker, Bucer and connection to the fathers, creeds, councils which is ultimately supported by the infallible Scriptures.”

I read the purpose statement several times. Something seemed a bit off. Then I cut out much of the middle portion to leave “Promoting the Reformation that Luther started . . . which is ultimately supported by the infallible Scriptures.”, which helped me get to the questions bouncing around in my old brain. “Would this FB group focus on examining the reformers (particularly Martin Luther) and comparing what they taught with the text of scripture?” Since that seemed like a worthy endeavor, having been at one period of my life a worthy endeavor, I joined the group.

I spent a few days primarily discussing two topics before I left the group for reasons that will hopefully become clear. Those two topics were 1) infant baptism and 2) salvation by faith alone (sola fide).

Infant baptism was significant because the group’s creator and main admin came to the conclusion that infant baptism was the correct method of performing the rite. At the same time, I read a lengthy post talking about how one of the group members had also come to believe that infant baptism was the correct method. Reasoning was based on what was taught during the Reformation, which is, according to group members, clearly taught in scripture, even though the Bible nowhere commands it, but neither is it prohibited.

Salvation by faith alone, specifically Martin Luther’s views was the other topic I discussed, mostly with one of the other group members, a Lutheran, who told me that “Luther’s sola fide requires extra nos outward means of grace, or it isn’t sola fide.” The outward means of grace is of course, baptism (infant or adult). Although my Lutheran friend understood faith as an inward gift, baptism as an outward means of grace, while maintaining that they were completely compatible. The multitude of passages telling us that “faith alone” is the sole requirement for salvation do not matter. Perhaps he meant that since they don’t specifically omit baptism, baptism can be added to faith in order to be saved.

I politely left the group when it became apparent that he wouldn’t respond to questions I asked or to specific passages of scripture I offered. Other specific details of our lengthy discussion aren’t relevant to this article, although they were valid points of debate/argument.

What did I learn from my experience? I’m glad you asked.

1. Well, I added significantly to my digital library concerning the beliefs of Martin Luther concerning baptism and salvation by faith alone. At best, I can say that the great Reformer believed different things at different times, partly because of his Roman Catholic background. I found differing opinions from various resources.

2. My own views did not change concerning either topic. The Bible does not clearly teach infant baptism, nor does it prohibit the practice. Examples of Christian baptism in the New Testament include repentance from sin and trusting in Christ for salvation. “Faith alone” means “faith alone”.

3. We should follow the same advice the Apostle Paul gave to young Timothy:

“Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.” (2 Timothy 2:23)

4. While it’s certainly interesting to find out what certain Reformers thought about various points of doctrine, scripture must be the final authority in all doctrinal matters. If scripture isn’t crystal clear about a particular issue (modes of baptism) we should let that which is clear interpret what is unclear or less clear.

5. Sometimes it’s necessary to politely disengage and move along down the road.

clip_image002

Did Peter and Paul Preach Different Gospels? – Pt. 2

Posted by Dan C. on

image

While it’s true that our salvation does not rest on our works, but on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor 15:1-4), to state that Peter and Paul preached different gospels is entirely false. There has always been and forever will be only one gospel message concerning the salvation of men:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Eph 2:8-9)

Peter’s different “gospel of the Kingdom” referred to above is clearly described by a group called Grace Ambassadors (and others):

“The message taught by Peter, James, and John was that Jesus was the promised Son of God, and whomever believed this truth and followed the commandments would be counted worthy of eternal life (Acts 3:26, 1 John 5:12).”[i]

Note that both the Ephesians passage and the Grace Ambassadors’ definition of being “counted worthy of eternal life” are both talking about salvation! To be ‘saved’ and ‘counted worthy for eternal life’ are to be considered “righteous” before a just and holy God. Lest there be any shadow of doubt, consider the following:

“And he (Abraham) believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.” (Gen 15:6)

“For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” (Rom 4:2-3)

William MacDonald, in the Believers Bible Commentary, tells us that there is one gospel with different features/emphasis:

“While there is only one gospel, there are different features of the gospel in different times. For instance, there is a different emphasis between the gospel of the kingdom and the gospel of the grace of God. The gospel of the kingdom says, “Repent and receive the Messiah; then you will enter His kingdom when it is set up on earth.” The gospel of grace says, “Repent and receive Christ; then you will be taken up to meet Him and to be with Him forever.” Fundamentally, they are the same gospel—salvation by grace through faith—but they show that there are different administrations of the gospel according to God’s dispensational purposes.”

Those who maintain the ridiculous notion that there are two separate gospels, one for the Jews and one for the Gentiles will even propose to us that the only portion of scripture that pertains to believers today range from somewhere in the middle of the book of Acts through Paul’s letter to Philemon and that the remainder of scripture was spoken only Jews. However, we need only to consider the Council at Jerusalem for clarity.

The record of the Jerusalem Council is recorded in Acts, chapter 15. To summarize, The Jewish leaders of the believers in Jerusalem, along with the missionary team of Paul and Barnabas met in 49/50AD, to discuss the attitude some of the Jewish believers in Jesus towards Gentile believers. Apparently, there were Jews who believed that Gentile believers must be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses in order to be saved.

Luke, the author of Acts, records the post-debate words of Peter:

“7And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (Act 15:7-11)

Additionally, the Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, spoke of the Council meeting in Jerusalem and the acknowledgement by all that Paul had been entrusted with proclaiming the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles (uncircumcised) and Peter having been entrusted with proclaiming the gospel to the Jews (circumcised).

“7On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8(for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.” (Gal 2:7-9)

There is absolutely no indication that Peter and Paul had different gospels, but only different primary missions.

If that isn’t sufficient to settle the issue of different gospels, we can look at how Peter and Paul described redemption:

Peter:

“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.” (1 Peter 1 :18-21).

Paul:

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

So What?

It seems abundantly clear that Peter was entrusted with sharing the gospel of salvation by faith in Christ primarily with a Jewish audience and Paul’s mission was to preach that same message to Gentiles. They were both chosen by God for their ministries and had the blessing of the Apostles for their respective tasks. To maintain otherwise is in error. What are we do to with these truths?

It’s quite simple, actually! First, continue to share the glorious message of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Christ. Secondly, if you are approached by someone or come across the idea that Peter and Paul preached different gospels, be ready to give an answer with gentleness and respect (1 Pet 3:15).

[i] Did Paul Preach a Different Gospel? (graceambassadors.com)

_____________________________

NOTES:

1. The earlier post with the same title can be found here: Did Peter and Paul preach different gospels? | The Battle Cry (thebattlecry49.com)

2. The Grace Ambassadors teach what is called Mid-Acts Dispensationalism.  Their basic teachings can be found here: What is Mid-Acts Pauline Dispensational Right Division? (graceambassadors.com)

Is God in Control of Everything?

Posted by Dan C. on

by William Boekestein and posted by Ligonier Ministries Oct 25, 2023

image

One sixteenth-century confession claims that “nothing happens in this world without [God’s] orderly arrangement.”1 Actually, every Reformed confession says this or something similar. “God’s sovereignty”—His freedom from external control—“is the marrow of doctrinal Calvinism.”2

But is God’s sovereignty real? Is God truly in control of everything? And if so, how should God’s absolute rule affect the way we live?

What does Scripture teach about God’s sovereignty?

God’s sovereignty is shown in His providence—His total rule over His creation. Here’s how God describes His dominion:

I form light and create darkness;
I make well-being and create calamity;
I am the Lord, who does all these things. (Isa. 45:7)

Humans are the crown of creation. But not even the most important person can outmaneuver God’s providence:

The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord;
he turns it wherever he wills. (Prov. 21:1)

Jesus’ argues that if God governs even the seemingly insignificant things—such as the hairs that fall daily from our bodies (Matt. 10:30)—then surely He also rules over the big events of history. Nothing escapes God’s notice or eludes His control:

Our God is in the heavens;
he does all that he pleases. (Ps. 115:3)

If we lived in a sinless world, accepting God’s sovereign providence would be simple. But what about when things go against us? Scripture teaches that God so restrains Satan and all our enemies that they cannot hurt us without His permission. But sometimes they do—and God wills it (Job 1:12; 2:6):

Does disaster come to a city,
unless the Lord has done it?” (Amos 3:6)

Sovereignty is complicated, so it is important to understand the purpose behind God’s governing of both good and evil. If God’s providences seem blameworthy to us it is because we forget that God is executing His good plan and has plenty of patience. When Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, no one but God could see the intended end: the Lord sent Joseph to Egypt to keep many people alive by his shrewd leadership (Gen. 50:20). The providential medicine in Joseph’s life brought sweet salvation, even if it tasted bitter.

God’s sovereignty and the wicked acts of men coordinate most shockingly in the death of Jesus. God used “the hands of lawless men” to execute His “definite plan” to offer His precious Son as payment for our sins (Acts 2:23; 4:28). God works all things according to His holy will. For believers, this is always good (Eph. 1:11; Rom. 8:28).

What does a faithful response to God’s sovereignty look like?

Sovereignty may not seem to warrant any response, but it does. After all, “God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means.”3 For example, God promised that no one would die on Paul’s doomed ship (Acts 27:24). But He also required the travelers to stay on board (Acts 27:31). So, what does a faithful response to God’s sovereignty look like?

Reverence

Particularly hard providences tempt us to curse heaven. Job’s wife sensed God’s hand in their tragedy but failed to revere His sovereign activity. Her husband asked a critical question: “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10). All providence warrants obeisance (Job 1:20).

Trust

The sovereign God who values His children is always in full command (Matt. 10:31; Ps. 121:3–4). If you know Christ as Savior, the Spirit as Comforter, and God as Father, then you can trust divine providence. A holy God will never cast away His children. No trying circumstances can divert you from God’s loving plan for your life (Rom. 8:38–39). In fact, God sometimes troubles His children “to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself.”4

Humility

Young children assume the doctor is cruel for administering a shot. Mature Christians regard God’s providence more carefully. The once-confident Job came to realize his ignorance of divine ways: “I have uttered what I did not understand” (Job 42:3; see also Ps. 77:19). As students of Christ, we should claim to know only what He has revealed to us and admit our lack of understanding in hidden matters.

Adoration

Proper grappling with God’s sovereignty produces worship. God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge are deep, His judgments unsearchable, and His ways inscrutable. We know little of His mind beyond what He has revealed to us in His Word. Mustn’t we then worship Him “to whom be glory forever” (Rom. 11:33–36)?

Before the English pilgrims set out for America, their Calvinist pastor, John Robinson, pronounced this blessing: “He who hath made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all rivers of waters, and whose providence is over all His works, especially over all His dear children for good . . . guide and guard you in your ways, as inwardly by His spirit, so outwardly by the hand of his power.”5 Based on the pilgrims’ rough first year, a critic might claim the prayer had failed. But those inwardly guided by God’s Spirit know better. God’s sovereign providence never fails to accomplish His good will.

  1. Belgic Confession of Faith, art. 13.↩
  2. Joel Beeke, Living for God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism (Lake Mary, Fl.: Reformation Trust, 2008), 40.↩
  3. Westminster Confession of Faith, 5.3.↩
  4. Westminster Confession of Faith, 5.5.↩
  5. Jordan D. Fiore, ed., Mourt’s Relation: A Journal of the Pilgrims of Plymouth (Plymouth: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1985), 10.↩

“Cessationist” Movie Comments Review

Posted by Dan C. on

Well friends, I just finished watching “The Cessatinist” film. To say it was a really good presentation of what’s at state in the continuationism/cessationism debate is an understatement. The film confirnmed the large amount of research I’ve already accomplished and added to that large volume of material.

This is actually a review of a long comment on the VIMEO site made by an avowed and ardent continuationist for which I wanted to try do an analysis of her reasoning. It might be helpful, but maybe not. Tim Challies did a review concerning the merits of the film and there’s a link to his review at the end of this blog post. So here goes nothing.

I recently purchased The Cessationist movie Deluxe Package available here. I read through comments and came across the comment shown below and found it interesting, in fact interesting enough to record personal thoughts about its contents and share them I’ve broken the long comment into sections as quotations. It was one long praragraph on the VIMEO site. My comments are shown under each separate comment. I hope I have ‘Rightly Divided” them (Some of you will get that.)

“I have a couple agreements with this film and some serious critiques as well.”

I found it interesting (but I’m not sure why), that ‘agreements’ are just a ‘couple’, and the disagreements/’critiques’ are ‘serious’. That tells this old brain that the comment was probably written by someone who watched it as an ardent ‘continuationist’. Years ago I was one (an ardent continuationist) and would haveresponded to the movie with the same tone.

Agreements

“The scriptures are to be our only foundation and that the gift of regeneration by far is the greatest gift and miracle for us.”

I think the reference to scripture as our only foundation might have been referring to “Sola Scriptura”, which is the theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations, in particular the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, that posits the Bible as the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. The foundation spoken in the film is the Apostles and Prophets as the foundation of the church, not the foundation of individual believers. And of course regeneration IS the greatest miracle!

“I also agree that Agabus didn’t make a partially incorrect prophecy but a fully accurate prophecy.”

Agabus was the prophet who predicted a great famine in Acts 11, and that Paul would be taken and turned over the Gentiles in Acts 21 when he (Paul) arrived in Jerusalem. The Acts 21 prophecy was discussed in the film, at length. Continuationistshave used the argument that Agabus’ prophecy was partially incorrect. The film offers proof that there were no errors in his prophecy.

I also agree that signs authenticated prophets (but I disagree that authentication was the primary or only purpose).”

I don’t think the film states that the authentication of Prophets and Apostles was the ONLY purpose for the sign gifts, but the implication that they were the PRIMARY purpose is clear. That they served other purposes was not specifically discussed that I could see, but it didn’t need to be talked about. Signs and miracles, by their very nature, also serve other purposes. One source I found 5 additional purposes:

1. Signs Reveal Jesus’ Glory

2. Signs Show us what the Father is like—and Express His love for People

3. Signs Confirm God’s Word

4. Signs are the Manifestation of God’s Kingdom among us

5. Result in People Believing in Jesus

Since there are no actual OT/NT types of prophets in our day, the foundation of the church having been already built, Apostles and Prophets and authenticating sign gifts are not required,

So those are the only agreements mentioned – 3 in a two-hour film.

Disagreements/Serious Critiques

On the disagreement side, one of the most glaring faults of this film is the ridiculous caricatures used in the film. The continual reference to Benny Hinn and Todd Bentley (and the like) as good examples of what most modern charismatics are like is simply unfair and ridiculously careless. It seems like the film is only concerned in confronting a caricature and not concerned with addressing arguments from the other side in an honest/open fashion from more honorable proponents. If you are attempting to convince someone they are wrong you shouldn’t caricature them in the worst possible fashion—that is disingenuous and ineffective.

I didn’t hear a single reference to Benny Hinn and Todd Bently, etc. being good examples of what modern charismatics are like, but rather just the opposite.

Also, the film’s tactic to discredit the more honorable proponents of continuationism (Piper and Brown) seems to be to associate them with those who have done some ridiculous things such as Jim Baker or Todd Bentley.

I saw no “association” between more honorable proponents of continuationism and the Todd Bently’s and JimBaker’s although John Piper did say he was in a ‘wait and see’ mode about Todd Bently, who I thought he should have dismissed outright.

On the topic of prophecy: they delve a little into Wayne Grudem’s interpretation but then quickly dismiss it by quoting OT passages and claiming it’s a new interpretation without thoroughly examining the possibilities that what Paul describes as prophecy in the NT may actually be something different in many cases than what went on in the OT. The film dismisses this topic too quickly.

The film’s treatment of Wayne Grudem’s (and others) definition of NT prophecy not needing to be exactly what is given the prophet to speak was IMO accurate. The OT passages concerning true and false prophets are valid. The cute graphics in the film that depicted how God speaks through prophets in the OT and how it changed in the NT were spot on.

Another problem is that the film claims miracles were only manifested to authenticate prophets and apostles until the words were recorded. This is false. Jesus also performed miracles because of compassion (Matthew 14:14). Miracles were a manifestation of his love (but, to be clear, not the only way he shows love of course).

Again, the film never made that claim, at least that I could see (discussed earlier). The film focused on the authentication of the Prophet or Apostle that performed a miracle, as well as the issue of the need for Apostles and Prophets in the church, Apostles and Prophets were foundational but once that foundation was built and Jesus established as the cornerstone and the canon of scripture was established there was longer a need for them. Now, scripture itself is all we need to live a godly life and do the works God intended for us (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Also, confronting the “3 epochs” claim, books such as psalms, proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther—were these written by a prophet who was confirmed and by signs and wonders? Should we take these books from the canon since they were not properly authenticated?

REALLY bad argument. The issue is not who wrote certain books, but whether or not signs and wonders are recorded IN the books. For instance, Moses is credited with writing the first five books of the OT the first four of which contain miracles signs and wonders. Furthermore, not all OT books written by Prophets contain the miraculous. A list of OT miracles can be found here. There are 83 miracles performed by men in the OT and over 80 in the NT (different sources might differ on the totals). That there are three relatively short periods in the Bible is a sound argument: The three periods when men had the power to perform miracles are: Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha, Jesus and the Apostles. Each period was about 65 – 70 years. The contention that signs and wonders performed by men were normal everyday occurrences is simply not true. Moses lived during the 13th & 14th centuries BC so the span of miracles from Moses’ Day to Christ and the Apostles is about 1,500 years.

In summation, I believe the idea that the gifts have been stopped only comes from speculation and fear of abuses—not clear, plain scriptural teaching. You should not preach a doctrine that you are willing to divide over that is based on mere speculation and tradition. What the scriptures do clearly teach, however, are that there are indeed spiritual gifts, not that they ceased. Continuationism is the result of the plain reading of the text. It’s ironic how my Calvinist friends decide to read Romans 9 very literally but when it comes to the gifts of the Spirit they are caught doing some serious scriptural gymnastics to try and prove their cessassionism point.”

The claim: “the idea that the gifts have been stopped only comes from speculation and fear of abuses” is completely without merit. The support provided for cessationism in the film was well thought out, meticulous, scriptural and/or based on actual experience(s). It is my opinion that for the most part, we believe what we WANT to believe, and there are many who want to believe that signs and wonders should be a normal part of life in the church, so they find passages that, if taken out of their biblical context (immediate and throughout the Bible) seem to prove what they want to believe.

The NT and OT both contain spiritual gifts. The NT spiritual gifts can be categorized, generally speaking, as being miraculous signs & wonders, primarily to authenticate the message/messenger or serving/ministry gifts for the building up of the body of Christ.

I don’t think for a moment that the film was produced to ‘prove’ cessationism based on a desire to prove a presupposition/assumption, but to carefully examine scripture and teach what is actually contained therein concerning the topic(s) at hand.

The comment about her ‘Calvinist’ friends was a cheap shot. She could have at least told us what about Romans 9 doesn’t need to be taken literally. IMHO.

_____________

If you are interested, Tim Challies published a review of the film primarily to see if it presented the cases for cessationism and continuationism at: Cessationist: The Film | Tim Challies.