So I’m sitting here at my computer in Orrville, Ohio, finishing up the last twenty minutes of my lunch break and wondering, like I have so many times in the past few months, where this strange journey is taking me. At the end of February, I made a painful decision to leave the seminary that I had been attending for what I thought was only going to be a quarter. My wife has had some serious medical issues and I was simply not sure if I could go on in school full-time without providing meaningful income to my family. It turns out, I was more than right.

Leaving the seminary created a ripple effect that I had not anticipated. Because I was no longer a student, student loans could not cover my rent. My wife exhausted all of her short-term disability and we had to COBRA her health care. All of a sudden, I had over $1100 a month going out and not near enough income to cover it all.

I felt punched in the stomach. I felt like the rug had been pulled out from under me and I was left in the air waiting to fall flat on my butt. My wife’s stepfather stepped in and offered us some much assistance in living with them and helping me some with finances and setting up a budget. I had secretly vowed never to move in with them. I mean, really, who wants to live with their in-laws? My wife contends that we had no choice. I reminded her that we always have a choice, but sometimes the options that you have make it very obvious the route that you should choose. So here I sit, working for Smuckers in a position that was not even on the radar two months ago. I still wonder where all of this is going to take me. It has legitimately left me looking at the sky asking God why. I think that many people think that questioning God is wrong. I am not one of those. Questioning God is not the issue. It is when your faith is so weak that you no longer trust in God. To pray to God and ask Him what He is doing is simply not wrong. It is a product of our humanity.

Almost every morning when I get in the shower and that hot water hits my back, I begin to think about the day and what it might bring. Sometimes I am quiet and just let the water run down my back. Sometimes I get vocal, questioning what in the world is going on. Sometimes I cry. Sometimes I question my calling, question what on earth I am doing. I confess, sometimes I worry. I mean, after all, when you look at this messed-up situation from a human perspective, there is a lot to worry about. Job security, making enough to pay the bills, forming a budget, making enough money that I am no longer living with my in-laws, Kandice’s health, our marriage, my health, my stress, the war in Iraq, deaths in the families of friends, politics, religion, Christianity…I could go on and on. I guess when all the conjecturing is through, you come down to only one issue: Where do you place your faith?

If I place my faith in anything but God, I am just simply wrong. The whole thing would be pointless then, wouldn’t it? Most of these things I cannot control even if I wanted to. I guess I really do not have to worry after all. Despite what some would believe, even former pastors of mine, God is in control…of everything. Did it ever occur to you that nothing ever occurred to God? It’s not an easy belief, is it? To think that God knew that almost 3,000 people would die on 9/11 and He seemed to do nothing about it is hard, isn’t it? To think that thousands lost their life from a tsunami and God seemed to do nothing is hard. You often want to ask just what in the world is going on?

I offer no answers, no conjecturing, no speculation, only some wise words from the Apostle Paul: “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?”

As always, especially after every shower I take and prayer I make, I am left with no further answers that the ones I started with.

Awesome link about the merging of country and rock music:

Praising God for 35 Years with Ann!
Sam Storms
May 26, 2007

Today, May 26, 2007, is my thirty-fifth wedding anniversary. I simply had to take this opportunity to break from my regular series of biblical meditations and say something about the most awesome woman in the world, my wife Ann.

I first laid eyes on her at the University of Oklahoma at a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting in early October of 1970. Actually, I was gazing with admiration at two young ladies, Ann (although I didn’t know her name at the time) and one of her sorority sisters. I was trying to figure out which of them was prettier and therefore deserving of my calling and asking for a date. Yes, I know that’s immature and prideful and countless other things, but I was an immature and prideful young man of 19 at the time! Later that Wednesday night, I called Ann and asked her out. Praise God, she said Yes! For our first date, we drove to Oklahoma City to watch the movie, Dr. Zhivago.

As many of you have heard, Yes, it’s true, I proposed to her later that evening! No, I do not recommend this to anyone else. Yes, it was silly and arrogant and unwise. No, she didn’t say Yes immediately. She was too stunned to take it seriously.

If that first date wasn’t weird enough, it got even stranger in the weeks that followed. When Thanksgiving arrived, Ann returned home to Tulsa and I to Duncan, Oklahoma. I called her and asked if I might drive to Tulsa and bring her back to school at Norman. She said yes. What I didn’t know at the time was that upon returning to Tulsa for the holiday break, her former high school sweetheart had called her and asked if she would be willing to drop out of school at OU and transfer to in-state rival OSU. That was bad enough, but he then asked her to get engaged with a view to marriage the following summer. Worst of all, she said Yes! You’ll have to ask her why, but I think it had something to do with not believing the sincerity of a young man silly enough to propose on the first date!

Her plan, following my phone call, was to break the bad news to me during our drive from Tulsa back to school at OU. But before she could inform me of her recent engagement, I told her that I wanted to solidify our commitment and begin a more steady dating relationship. Lo and behold, she said Yes again! But No, she never told me about having said Yes to her high school boyfriend, at least not until many years later (a wise decision, indeed).

Needless to say, we made a lot of mistakes along the way, but God was gracious and forgiving and probably got more than a few laughs out of us as well.

On May 26, 1972, we sealed the deal. Not once in these thirty five years have I regretted the decision (although I certainly can’t speak for Ann!). What an unspeakable blessing she has been. She has given me two beautiful daughters and a lifetime of love and sacrifice and support.

I read Proverbs 31 and say, “Sorry lady, but you ain’t got nothing on Annie!” She has given herself to her family and to others in need in ways that I can’t begin to describe. She is a true servant and revels in the opportunity to hide away behind the scenes and do whatever unpleasant tasks everyone expects but few fulfill. If you want to get a good definition of the spiritual gift of “helps”, look it up in the dictionary and you’ll see Ann’s photograph. She embodies mercy and kindness in ways that remind me, fittingly, of Jesus himself.

But best of all, she loves her Lord Jesus more than anyone or anything. What more could a man want in a wife? I thank God daily for her presence in my life, for her words of counsel and wisdom, for her undying support even when I’m stupid and reckless and say dumb things.

Sadly, I’m in Scotland today on a lengthy ministry trip and unable to share this anniversary with her except by way of e-mail and a brief telephone call. But we’ll celebrate together soon. In the meantime, Ann, thank you for everything: for your love of God, for your love of me, our children, our grandchildren, and countless others, many of whose names you didn’t know but whose lives were forever transformed because of your kindness and tender-hearted compassion.

Grateful for thirty-five years and expectant of many more,

Sam

IMVU

IMVU - The World's Greatest 3D Chat

Jerry Falwell dies At 73

By Lisa Anderson
Tribune National Correspondent
Published May 15, 2007, 1:02 PM CDT
NEW YORK -- Influential conservative televangelist and Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell died at a Lynchburg, Virginia hospital early this afternoon after being found unconscious in his office at nearby Liberty University.He was 73.

Falwell had "a history of heart challenges," according to Ron Godwin, the university's executive vice president. "I had breakfast with him, and he was fine at breakfast," Goodwin told the Associated Press. "He went to his office. I went to mine, and they found him unresponsive.

"Falwell was found unconscious and unresponsive in his office, located in a stone cottage on the campus grounds, at about 10:45 a.m, said Goodwin.Falwell's death came just days before Liberty University will graduate its first law school class on May 19.

Born and bred in Lynchburg, Falwell came back after college to found the Thomas Road Baptist Church in 1956. That church currently has 24,000 members.The church is on the same property with Falwell's education complex that includes schools from pre-K through PhD programs.The law school was the most recent addition, opening in the fall of 2004.

In an interview at his Liberty University office on May 1, Falwell spoke to the Tribune about his dream."More than 40 years ago, I had already been pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church here in Lynchburg for 10 or 11 years and I began building a dream. The dream was a Christian institution of education providing preschool, kindergarten, elementary, high school, liberal arts university, graduate schools, seminary, law school, engineering school, medical school. Well, the engineering starts this fall and the medical is five years down the road," he said proudly.

"We bought 5000 acres of land over the years. It's called Liberty Mountain," he said.

Falwell is survived by his wife of nearly 50 years, three grown children and eight grandchildren.

Jonathan Falwell, one of his two sons, is the executive pastor of the Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Here is a statement regarding Beckwith's resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society written by the editor of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dr. Andreas J. Kostenberger:

"May 8, 2007

"On May 5, 2007, Dr. Frank Beckwith resigned as President of the Evangelical Theological Society. This resignation has come as a result of his decision to be received into full communion in the Roman Catholic Church, which he did on April 29, 2007. Dr. Beckwith has informed the Executive Committee that this was a decision he came to “after much prayer, counsel, and consideration.” Subsequently, after further prayer and reflection, Dr. Beckwith has voluntarily withdrawn his membership from the Society as well.

The members of the Executive Committee wish Dr. Beckwith well in his ongoing professional work. We have come to appreciate him as a scholar and a friend. On behalf of the Society, we want to express our gratitude for his work organizing and coordinating the 2006 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., with the theme, “Evangelicals in the Public Square.” No one, perhaps, appreciates how much labor is involved in such a task, except those who have undertaken it in the past, as is the case with most of the members of the Executive Committee. And so, we thank Dr. Beckwith for his service to the Society.

At the same time, the Executive Committee recognizes Dr. Beckwith’s resignation as President and subsequent withdrawal from membership as appropriate in light of the purpose and doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Theological Society and in light of the requirements of wholehearted confessional agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.

The work of the Evangelical Theological Society as a scholarly forum proceeds on the basis that “the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” This affirmation, together with the statement on the Trinity, forms the basis for membership in the ETS to which all members annually subscribe in writing. Confessional Catholicism, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church’s declarations from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, sets forth a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation.

Specifically, it posits a larger canon of Scripture than that recognized by evangelical Protestants, including in its canon several writings from the Apocrypha. It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church), as well as certain pronouncements of the pope, which are delivered ex cathedra, such as doctrines about the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary.

We recognize the right of Roman Catholic theologians to do their theological work on the basis of all the authorities they consider to be revelatory and infallible, even as we wholeheartedly affirm the distinctive contribution and convictional necessity of the work of the Evangelical Theological Society on the basis of the “Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety” as “the Word of God written and . . . inerrant.”

In recent years, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have often labored together in common cause addressing some of the critical social and moral issues of our contemporary culture. We welcome this and fully expect it to continue. A number of publications have appeared comparing Evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism. Certainly, the two traditions share many common Christian doctrines. However there are important theological differences as well. We expect that the events of these days will bring a renewed discussion of these matters. We welcome and encourage this as well.

Finally, regarding the Presidency of ETS, Dr. Hassell Bullock, President-elect will also serve as acting President until the annual meeting at which time elections for the officers for 2008 will take place.

We are grateful for Dr. Beckwith’s past association with ETS, and we pray that God will continue to use his considerable gifts.

C. Hassell Bullock, President-Elect (Wheaton College)
Bruce A. Ware, Vice-President (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Edwin M. Yamauchi, At-large member (Miami University)
Craig A. Blaising, At-large member (Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary)
Gregory K. Beale, At-large member (Wheaton College)
David M. Howard, Jr., At-large member (Bethel Seminary)
James A. Borland, Secretary-Treasurer (Liberty University)
Andreas J. Köstenberger, JETS Editor (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary)

As some of you may have heard, Frank Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theological Society, has resigned his post. His reason is quite shocking: He is returning to the Catholic Church. However, if I understand correctly, he is to remain a member of the ETS.

The biggest question is, as far as the Society is concerned, is the question of whether or not Beckwith remains an evangelical. I'll get to that in a second. Here, in his own words, is why he went back to the Catholic Church:

"he past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles."

I want to pick at this a little. I mean, that's what I do, isn't it? :) First of all, he says, "...there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable." That has to be the theological understatement of 2007. What has tended to separate the Catholic Church from Protestants, essentially and at the core, is the disagreement of the doctrine of justification by faith. Reformers say that we are justified by grace through faith alone. Catholics leave out the "alone," insisting that a person is also justified by works, ala the Epistle of James. However, there is much more to Catholic faith than a simple disagreement on justification by faith. For instance, what about the teachings of Marian divinity?

He also said, "I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. "

Really? I still do not get how one can read any of Paul's epistles and get the Catholic version of theology. He goes on, "Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible [now really, can both be biblically and historically defensible?], I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries."

Okay, one cannot have this both ways. Either the Pauline passages on justification by faith work with each other, or they work against each other. It is much easier for Protestants to explain James in its proper context with the Pauline passages than it is to squeeze multiple Pauline epistles into a warped interpretation of James, even with historical understanding. What Catholics fail to understand is the justification by grace through faith alone is the historical understanding of justification. The necessity of displayed works was a must historically because of the persecution and the subsequent diaspora that the Epistle of James mentions in his very first verses and was seen only as confirmation that one truly had met the Christ.

I am saddened by this news. Not because I think that a brother has slipped from the faith. I have always had a bit of sympathy for Catholics. After all, they want to hold on to the unity of the universal church and they have to do it with all the baggage of the Church. Catholic Church history is filled with blemishes and excesses. Some of these were the very reasons Protestants came into existence; the protested the excesses of the Catholic Church. Hey, we all want unity. But I won't do it for the sake of essential doctrines.

There are essential doctrines. And I do believe that you have to hold to these in order to be considered a Christian. It is hard to say whether or not Beckwith has crossed a line, but I will say that he should not be considered an evangelical. According the Oxford Pocket Dictionary that I found online, the term "evangelical" as an adjective means "of or according to the teaching of the gospel or the Christian religion [in other words, is a certain doctrine considered evangelical?] or denoting a tradition within Protestant Christianity emphasizing the authority of the Bible, personal conversion, and the doctrine of salvation by faith in the Atonement" (italics added). If this definition is correct, and I believe that it is, then Beckwith is no more an evangelical than Mickey Mouse.

James White makes an interesting note on his blog:

"[The] ETS has already shown that it is unable to expel from its ranks those who are Open Theists, and this due to the maddening brevity of the statement of faith. And, I have learned today as well, this entire discussion may be irrelevant, since there are already Roman Catholic members of ETS. But while Open Theism, at least in the form promoted by such men as Boyd, Sanders, and Pinnock today, was not even in the minds of the founders of ETS when they formed the organization, Roman Catholicism...was. And while membership is one thing, can anyone seriously argue that the election would have gone the way it did with a confessing Roman Catholic running for the Presidency?"

It seems that the ETS has become a bit of a joke, don't you think? White also tells an interesting story:

"In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. 'Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?' The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:

'The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.'

Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, 'Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group.' He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura."

As much sympathy as I have for a good Catholic trying to maintain the unity of the universal church despite numerous Catholic atrocities, it is their own fault when they depart from the Scriptures. And when they depart, they should not be considered evangelical. An Evangelical Catholic is an oxymoron.

While I admire Beckwith's courage, however misguided, lets not fool ourselves. He is not an evangelical and he needs to resign from the ETS. Either he's got it wrong or they have it wrong. There is one other option.

Perhaps they both have it wrong.

Ohio woman drops Starbucks habit because of coffee cup quote

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 7:58 AM

SPRINGBORO, Ohio (AP) — A southwest Ohio woman who loves Starbucks coffee has decided to drop the Starbucks habit because she was offended by a religious-related statement the company printed on the side of a cup.

Michelle Incanno, of Springboro, said she got an unexpected jolt when she saw the statement on a cup of coffee she bought last week.

Printed on the cup was: “Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure.”

The statement is attributed to Bill Schell, a Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, and was included on the cup as part of an effort by the company to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.

“As someone who loves God, I was so offended by that. I don't think there needs to be religious dialogue on it. I just want coffee,” said Incanno, who is Catholic.

Incanno wasn't satisfied with a company disclaimer saying the quote is the author's opinion, not necessarily that of Starbucks. It invites customers to respond at www.starbucks.com/wayiseeit.

Tricia Moriarty, spokeswoman for the Seattle-based Starbucks, said the collection of thoughts and opinions are inspired by “the old coffeehouse tradition of thoughtful discussion” on a variety of issues, including religion.

The company chooses about 30 new quotes every few months, she said. By the end of 2007, nearly 300 quotes will have been printed since the program began in January 2005.

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/05/08/star.html

Ohio woman drops Starbucks habit because of coffee cup quote

Tuesday, May 8, 2007 7:58 AM

http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/content/local_news/stories/2007/05/08/star.html

Robert E. Webber, Theologian of 'Ancient-Future' Faith, Dies at 73

I am sitting here in Panera Bread in Massillon, Ohio, after a long few days of moving and am now trying to adjust living in a basement in a house with my wife and my in-laws, including a sweet, but a very 10 year old sister-in-law. For instance, I learned last night that Heather, my sister-in-law, gets overly excited and hyper when American Idol is on. But what can I say? Last night was Bon Jovi night. I was a little excited too.

This past Friday, April 27, 2007, my wife and I celebrated our five-year anniversary. We celebrated with dinner at Buffalo Wild Wings (her choice and I wasn't complaining) and then having Hot Fudge Brownie Cake that my mother-in-law had made. All in all, probably not the way I would have chose to celebrate, but with circumstances being the way that they are, I was quite pleased.

These past few weeks have been marked by some real turbulence in my Spirit and in my prayer life. I sometimes feel like I have literally fought with God. Trying to find His exact will is often very tumultuous. I have tried to be a good Christian, a good soldier, and "dig in." I have tried to continue reading my Bible every day as I am trying to remain on track for reading in all in two years. I am also going through a demanding program at my in-laws church (not ours yet and I'm not sure it will be) called BILD. It's a good program, from what I can tell, although I haven't completed the first lesson yet because of that crazy move.

This morning, in my devotions, I read the "Shema." It is Deuteronomy 6:4-9:

4 “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

I have been struggling lately with the idea of people who always talk about God and/or Jesus, like it's the only conversation they know how to have! With all due respect to their love for Christ, I have noticed that most of these people are more heavenly minded than they are earthly good. I have often thought, rather erroneously, that God should be a component of my life. While that is somewhat true, it is not fully true. The Shema tears down that idea completely. It says that you shall love the Lord (LORD in the KJV; denotes the use of the proper name of God spelled YHWH, often written as "Yahweh" and pronounced "Adonai") your God with all your heart, soul, and might. While God can remain a component of your life, we are commanded to love Him with everything we have. In the context of this passage, what God was saying is that YHWH was clearly saying that HE is GOD. He was saying this to a people who were prone to embrace multiple gods. God is clearing saying here, "YHWH is God, not a god among many that you can put on your shelf and worship with the others. YHWH is the God." God is clear that he is not to be a part of a polytheistic culture, but a monotheistic one. He is God, He is the only God and he deserves to be worshiped as the only God with all of our heart, soul, and might and not to be shared with anything else.

You ever asked a question and just had God answer it directly? Well, there you go...

I urge you to do what verse 6 says. Keep these things in your heart. Dwell on them throughout the day. Love YHWH with all your heart, soul, and strength.

Below is an article printed in "The Baptist Press." Following that is a response by Sam Storms:

The Bible & tongues Jimmy Draper

Posted on Apr 17, 2007

EDITORS' NOTE: Today is the second day in a week-long series of columns on biblical doctrine by former LifeWay Christian Resources President Jimmy Draper. The series coincides with "Baptist Doctrine Study" week within the Southern Baptist Convention.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Recently there's been much discussion about the issue of tongues in Southern Baptist life. I know individuals who believe in the gift of tongues and know that they love the Lord and His Word. So with what I write I am not attacking anyone. I only endeavor to summarize the scriptural teaching on this matter.

Primary passages in two books -- Acts and 1 Corinthians -- describe the gift of tongues. One resulted in thousands being saved, the other in confusion and problems in the church. In Acts 2 the apostles and about 120 other disciples were gathered in a room near the temple when the Holy Spirit filled these believers and they began to praise God in other languages. People had gathered from 15 different provinces, yet each person heard the words of praise to God spoken in his or her own dialect.

In Acts 10, Cornelius -- the first Gentile convert -- had a similar experience but without all of the supernatural manifestations. Several years later in the city of Ephesus the Apostle Paul met 12 believers in Christ who had been led to the Lord by a follower of John the Baptist. They had an incomplete understanding of the Gospel, so Paul instructed them, baptized them and placed his hands upon them. The Holy Spirit came upon them and they spoke with languages and prophesied (19:6).

Each of these instances involved individuals speaking in a known language they had not learned. Their speaking was understood by those who heard them. No evidence is found that anyone sought or prayed for the gift of speaking in other languages. Every occurrence was the spontaneous work of the Holy Spirit. The fact that this phenomenon was not mentioned in all of the other great experiences recorded in Acts shows its lack of importance as an ongoing ministry.

The emphasis in Acts is not on the gift of tongues, but the filling of the Holy Spirit in believers. That filling revealed the continuous control that the Holy Spirit exercised over the disciples so they could witness in power (1:8).In the 22 books of the New Testament that follow Acts, only 1 Corinthians mentions tongues.

These 22 books contain 143 chapters, yet only three chapters make any reference to this gift, and only one chapter treats the subject in detail. Whatever we may deduct from this, it certainly means that speaking in tongues was not a major factor in the spread of the Gospel or in the practice of the apostolic church.

Additionally, when Paul listed the spiritual gifts in Romans 12 and Ephesians 4, he did not mention speaking in tongues. Believing that the Holy Spirit has inspired every word of the Bible as He spoke through the writers, we must conclude that the gift of tongues was either not a matter of importance, or that it was not practiced by the Christians in Rome, Ephesus and elsewhere.

In the three chapters in 1 Corinthians several things emerge regarding gifts that need to be noted. No one is left out. Everyone is given a spiritual gift or gifts. They are not rewards for spiritual maturity and achievement. It is not the normative experience for all believers. Chapter 12 clearly teaches that the gifts are divinely distributed and work for the good of the entire body of believers. They are designed to prepare a people to function as a witnessing community.

Another thing is abundantly clear in this passage. The abuse of tongues was a problem in the church in Corinth. Care was given to regulate and restrict the use of tongues in the church and not to encourage their use. Clearly it teaches that no believer has all of the gifts and none of them are equated with the infilling of the Holy Spirit. Paul used a distinctive negative participle in all of the questions asked in 1 Corinthians 12:29-30 which indicates that the answer to each one was "no." None of these gifts is bestowed upon all, nor are all bestowed upon any one individual. The great apostle concludes in verse 31 that the Corinthian believers should "desire the greater gifts. And I will show you an even better way." The better way is love, according to chapter 13.

In chapter 14, Paul provides restrictions for the use of the gift of tongues and in-depth instruction on how to correct abuses found in the church. The key is found in the last verse of this chapter when we read, "But everything must be done decently and in order."

Paul noted something positive about the gift of tongues, but each time he did so he followed the positive with a qualifying statement. For instance, he wrote in verse four that tongues edifies only the person speaking, but follows that with the better alternative. It is best, he wrote, to do what builds the body of believers. In verse five he expressed a desire that all of the Corinthian believers should speak with other languages, but he desired even more for them to prophesy. That is, he wanted them to expound the Word of God in a language that was understandable. Paul saw this act of proclaiming the Gospel as being far superior to speaking in other languages. Though he spoke in languages more than those in Corinth, he wrote that he would rather speak five words with understanding than 10,000 in another language (14:18-19).

Careful restrictions were given on the exercise of the gift of tongues in these chapters. Here are just a few. The gift of tongues should not be exercised in the presence of unbelievers (14:23). Only one person at a time is to speak and not more than three in one service and an interpreter must always be present (14:27). This must not cause confusion among believers (14:33). Women are not to speak in tongues at any time in the church (14:34-35). This was probably because it would be too similar to the temple prostitutes' ecstatic frenzies as they practiced their pagan, immoral rituals. In no way does this mean that women cannot teach or speak in church. That issue was settled in 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 when Paul gave instructions to the women as to how they were to dress when they prayed or prophesied in the church.

One thing is clear: pre-occupation with tongues-speaking is childish (14:20). It was a problem with the immature and carnal Christians in Corinth. These chapters were not given to recruit people to speak in tongues, but to correct, control and restrict the use of the gift.

All spiritual gifts are divinely bestowed by our sovereign God. He can give the gifts as He pleases and to whom He pleases. No one can "develop" a gift or be "taught" how to exercise a gift. This gift must not be a test of fellowship, but it must be restricted and regulated by Scripture under the authority of the ministers of the church. It should not be a reason for disfellowship unless the one practicing the gift uses it in a way that promotes confusion and disharmony. We must remember that nowhere in Scripture is anyone commanded to speak in tongues. Gifts are sovereignly bestowed individually by God. The church must be a ministering church expressing love as the greatest gift, "the even better way."--30--

Jimmy Draper is the former president of LifeWay Christian Resources.

A Response to Jimmy Draper on "The Bible and Tongues"
Sam Storms
Apr 18, 2007

In today’s issue of the Baptist Press website (www.bpnews.net) there is an article titled “The Bible and Tongues” by former LifeWay Christian Resources President Jimmy Draper. Given the fact that next week I’m speaking at a conference in Arlington, Texas, on the subject of the Holy Spirit in Baptist life, I perked up when I saw it.

Jimmy Draper is one of the true treasures of the Southern Baptist Convention. Having grown up in Oklahoma, where Dr. Draper pastored for many years, I have benefited greatly from his preaching and evangelistic zeal. However, I fear that this article tends to perpetuate a number of misconceptions about the nature and exercise of the spiritual gift of tongues.

Regardless of whether or not you believe that tongues is a valid gift for the church today, it is important that we all understand what the NT says about this spiritual gift. So, even if you are a cessationist (or, maybe especially if you are a cessationist!), I invite you to join me in this exploration.

(1) I’ll begin with Draper’s belief that tongues is evangelistic in Acts 2 (by the way, since “tongues” is here envisioned as a single gift of the Spirit, I use the singular verb “is” rather than “are” throughout this study). He argues that the exercise of tongues in Acts 2, on the day of Pentecost, “resulted in thousands being saved.”

Actually, Acts 2 says no such thing. People did indeed hear “the mighty works of God” from those who spoke in tongues, but their conversion did not come until Peter openly proclaimed the gospel in vv. 14-36 (especially vv. 22-36). Acts 2:37 explicitly says that when the people “heard this,” i.e., Peter’s proclamation of the person and work of Jesus Christ, that they made inquiry about how to be saved. My point is simply that Draper, like so many others, makes the mistake of thinking that the gift of tongues was designed for use in evangelistic contexts. The fact is that tongues is never used evangelistically anywhere in the NT. This isn’t to say it could never be used in this way, only that the NT does not conceive evangelism as one of its functions.

Draper then says that tongues in 1 Corinthians resulted “in confusion and problems in the church.” This is only partially true and therefore somewhat misleading. The problem in Corinth wasn’t tongues but the immature, prideful and ambitious abuse of tongues on the part of the Corinthians. Let’s never forget that tongues is a good gift that God conceived and bestowed on his church for its edification. The problem is never one of any spiritual gift per se, but rather of those who misunderstand and misuse what God has graciously provided.

(2) Draper contends that when Cornelius (Acts 10) and the “disciples” in Ephesus (Acts 19) spoke in tongues it was “in a known language they had not learned.” But nowhere does the text say any such thing. Draper simply assumes that since tongues speech in Acts 2 was known languages that all other instances must also be. But the apostle Paul indicates that there are “various kinds” (or “species”) of tongues (1 Cor. 12:10,28) and a close study of 1 Corinthians 14 indicates that they are not always human languages previously unlearned by the speaker. So it is unwarranted to simply assume that such was the “kind” or “variety” of tongues spoken in Acts 10 and 19.

Furthermore, the reason why tongues speech in Acts 2 was human languages is due to the presence there of unbelievers of differing dialects. But the only people present in Acts 10 and 19 to hear the tongues speech were Christians. Clearly, then, tongues had no evangelistic purpose in these two instances.

(3) Draper concludes from the instances of tongues speech in Acts 10 and Acts 19 that “no evidence is found that anyone sought or prayed for the gift of speaking in other languages.” Instead, so he suggests, “every occurrence was the spontaneous work of the Holy Spirit.” But this leaves the impression that it would always be wrong for someone to seek after or pray for the gift of tongues. Yet Paul clearly exhorts the Christians at Corinth to pray for the gift of interpretation of tongues (1 Cor. 12:13). Indeed, he exhorts the Corinthians to “earnestly desire [or seek after] the spiritual gifts” (1 Cor. 14:1), one of which is speaking in tongues.

And there is no inconsistency between spiritual gifts being distributed according to the sovereign will of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:11) and the responsibility of believers to seek after and pray for such gifts. God accomplishes all things according to his sovereign will (see Eph. 1:11), but that does not eliminate the need for humans to pray and pursue in accordance with biblical commands. This is a problem only for someone who believes that divine sovereignty eliminates or is inconsistent with human responsibility.

(4) Again, Draper says that in both Acts 10 and Acts 19 the tongues speech “was understood by those who heard them.” However, there isn’t anything to this effect in Acts 19. Nothing suggests that Paul or others who witnessed this event understood what was being said in tongues. They certainly understood what these “disciples” said when they prophesied, but that’s to be expected given the fact that prophecy is always something delivered in one’s native language.

As for Acts 10, we are told that those present “were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God” (v. 46). There’s no indication that they understood what was said in tongues, unless one insists that “extolling God” defines the content of what they spoke. More likely is that “extolling God” refers to a second, albeit related, proclamation that was delivered in their native language. The verb translated “extol” is used three times in Acts, only two of which refer to humans praising God. Aside from its use in Acts 10:46, it is used in Acts 19:17 where it has nothing to do with tongues but simply describes people extolling or praising Jesus in their normal language.

(5) Draper says that since tongues is not explicitly mentioned in other instances of conversion in Acts that “its lack of importance as an ongoing ministry” is indicated. This sort of argument from silence proves little, if anything at all. How many times is it necessary for a gift to be mentioned for it to be a valid expression of spiritual life? Outside of 1 Corinthians the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper is never mentioned in Paul’s epistles. Would Draper want us to conclude from this that Communion is therefore unimportant? I suspect that any number of other examples could also be cited. The simple fact is that tongues is mentioned three times in Acts and numerous times in 1 Corinthians 12-14. That it is not the most important gift or ministry is obvious. Who would suggest it is? But that doesn’t give us grounds for ignoring, marginalizing, or neglecting it altogether.

(6) Again, Draper says that since, aside from Acts, only 1 Corinthians mentions tongues “it certainly means that speaking in tongues was not a major factor in the spread of the Gospel or in the practice of the apostolic church.” But as noted above, if I may use Draper’s own words, “in the 22 books of the New Testament that follow Acts, only 1 Corinthians mentions” the Lord’s Supper. What are we to conclude from that? Nothing, aside from the fact that since Paul’s instruction on the Lord’s Table was so clear and decisive in 1 Corinthians there was no need to mention it repeatedly in his other letters. Are we not warranted in concluding from the lack of reference to tongues in his other epistles that this gift was not a problem in those churches and that Paul’s guidelines for its exercise as given in 1 Corinthians were sufficient for the life and ministry of believers in other congregations? I think so.

Furthermore, there is not the slightest indication anywhere in the NT that tongues was designed by God to be “a major factor in the spread of the Gospel.” Tongues were not evangelistic!

(7) Draper thinks it is highly significant that Paul did not mention tongues in his list of spiritual gifts in Romans 12 and Ephesians 4. He argues from this that “we must conclude that the gift of tongues was either not a matter of importance, or that it was not practiced by the Christians in Rome, Ephesus and elsewhere.”

In the first place, virtually all NT scholars acknowledge that no NT epistle contains an exhaustive list of all spiritual gifts. Whether 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, or 1 Peter 4, what we have are representative lists, not comprehensive ones.

In Romans 12 Paul only mentions seven spiritual gifts, yet all acknowledge that there are a minimum of nineteen gifts listed in the NT. So, would Draper have us believe that these twelve gifts that Paul doesn’t mention were unimportant or, worse still, non-existent in the church at Rome? In Ephesians 4 only five gifts are mentioned (some scholars believe it is only four). So, I suppose on Draper’s logic that fifteen spiritual gifts were absent for the church in Ephesus or were deemed unimportant by the apostle.

(8) I applaud Draper’s statement that spiritual gifts are not rewards for spiritual maturity or achievement and that the gifts were distributed for the good of the entire body of believers. But let’s not forget that among those gifts distributed for “the common good” (1 Cor. 12:7) of the body were “tongues” and “interpretation of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:7-10; see especially 1 Cor. 14:26 where the purpose of tongues and their interpretation is explicitly said to be the “building up” of the body of Christ).

(9) Concerning 1 Corinthians 12-14, Draper rightly notes that Paul’s concern was with the “abuse of tongues.” He says that “care was given to regulate and restrict the use of tongues in the church and not to encourage their use.” This is only partly correct. Paul certainly regulated the use of tongues in the corporate gathering of the church. His instruction is unmistakable: in the absence of an interpreter, there is to be no speaking in tongues in the corporate assembly. But this isn’t to say he didn’t “encourage their use.” If there is an interpreter, Paul is happy for tongues to be expressed in the corporate assembly (see 1 Cor. 14:5). That is why he encourages the one with the gift of tongues to pray that God would also impart the gift of interpretation, that is, so that tongues could be used properly in the assembly for the edification of all present.

If Paul didn’t want to encourage the use of interpreted tongues in the corporate assembly, then why did he give the Corinthians this explicit word of instruction: “When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up” (1 Cor. 14:26)?

(10) It is also misleading for Draper to say that according to 1 Cor. 14:4 “tongues edifies only the person speaking.” Paul is talking about uninterpreted tongues (cf. v. 2). This is clear upon reading v. 5 where he says that if the tongues speech is interpreted the church is edified. So, it is true that only the tongues speaker is edified if he speaks in private or if his public speech remains uninterpreted. But with interpretation, the tongues speech becomes a means for the edification and building up of the entire body of Christ.

(11) Draper also says that the gift of prophecy entails expounding “the Word of God” and “proclaiming the Gospel.” But prophecy is not preaching. Prophecy is speaking forth in human words a spontaneous revelation that comes from God. This is clear from what Paul says in 1 Cor. 14:24-25 and especially in 14:30,32.

(12) He also argues that “women are not to speak in tongues at any time in the church.” But this would be strange indeed, given that women clearly prophesied in church (1 Cor. 11:4ff.). A closer examination reveals that the sort of speaking that Paul prohibits is the passing of judgment on prophetic utterances (most likely because this would be an exercise of authority by women inconsistent with Paul’s instruction concerning male headship in the church and home). I encourage the reader to consult my more in-depth analysis of this passage (1 Cor. 14:34-35) at my website, www.SamStorms.com (it is in the Biblical Studies section under Deciphering Difficult Texts).

(13) Draper believes the reason Paul prohibited women from speaking in tongues was because it would be “too similar to the temple prostitutes’ ecstatic frenzies as they practiced their pagan, immoral rituals.” But there isn’t so much as a word in 1 Corinthians to indicate this was in Paul’s thinking. Tongues is nowhere portrayed as being “ecstatic” or entailing any degree of “frenzy”. Be it noted that contrary to what some believe, the word “ecstatic” is never used of tongues in the NT. You may find it in some English translations but it is utterly absent from the Greek text. Paul portrays those who speak in tongues as capable of starting and stopping at will (1 Cor. 14:15-19, 27-28, 40), hardly the sort of thing one associates with uncontrolled ecstasy or frenzy.

(14) Draper believes “one thing is clear: pre-occupation with tongues-speaking is childish (14:20).” Again, this is misleading. Tongues-speaking per se isn’t childish. It’s a good and glorious gift of God. Nor is a desire to possess this gift a sign of immaturity. What Paul characterizes as childish and immature is (a) the belief that tongues (above and beyond other gifts) was a sign of heightened spirituality and (b) the determination on the part of some in Corinth to dominate the meeting with uninterpreted tongues speech.

(15) Finally, Draper says (and I agree) that “spiritual gifts are divinely bestowed by our sovereign God. He can give the gifts as He pleases and to whom He pleases.” But I’m concerned when he goes on to say that “no one can ‘develop’ a gift or be ‘taught’ how to exercise a gift.”

If what Draper means by this is that no one can do anything to induce or persuade God to grant a gift contrary to his sovereign will, of course I agree. But I want to make sure that he does not mean to suggest that once a gift is bestowed that we cannot develop, grow, improve and be instructed on how to use it more effectively. This would apply to virtually all gifts, such as the gift of evangelism, or the gift of leadership, or the gift of giving, or any and every spiritual gift. If Christians can’t be “taught” how to exercise a gift, what are we doing offering courses in homiletics (preaching) in our colleges and seminaries? What are we doing offering seminars on how to more effectively share our faith with non-Christians? And the list could go on.

As you can see, I have some profound concerns with the way Dr. Draper has portrayed the gift of tongues in the NT. I hope my response has been helpful and above all else respectful in the way I have expressed my disagreement with him. Would that we all might live and serve the body of Christ as faithfully as Jimmy Draper has these many years!

Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit preview: Interview with Sam Storms
Published April 5th, 2007 in
SBC, General Christian, Church.

In just three short weeks, the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit will take place in Arlington, Texas. One of the featured speakers is Dr. Sam Storms. As a preview to the conference, I thought I would post an email interview in which I was privileged to participate with Dr. Storms. Some of it relates directly the confrence, but some deals with the SBC in general. I hope you enjoy it.
Here it is:

12 W: For those who don’t yet know you, can you tell us a little about yourself?

SS: Sure. I was born and raised in Oklahoma and was blessed to have Christian parents and a Christian sister. My parents led me to the Lord, although I’m not sure when I actually came to saving faith. I walked the aisle during a “revival” service at First Baptist Church in Shawnee. I was nine at the time, but I may well have come to faith before that.
During my teen years the only thing that mattered to me (sadly) was athletics. By the time I reached high school (in Duncan, Oklahoma) I was reduced to playing basketball and golf because of four major surgeries I had undergone. It was pretty clear that the Lord was re-directing me from athletics to ministry. I still had aspirations of playing golf professionally, but by the end of my freshman year at the University of Oklahoma I realized that a notoriously bad temper and a lack of skill made that highly unlikely.
I met my wife, Ann (to whom I’ve now been married 35 years), while at OU. We got married after our junior year in 1972. I attended Dallas Theological Seminary and received my Th.M. in Historical Theology there (1977). We were members at First Baptist in Dallas for the first year, having been drawn there by the preaching of W. A. Criswell. However, I soon left in order to fulfill requirements in church ministry for a class I was taking. Ironically, I ended up spending my final three years of seminary serving as interim pastor of a small Presbyterian church. I knew it was only temporary, as my baptistic convictions run quite deep!
I joined the pastoral staff at Believer’s Chapel in Dallas in 1977, a non-denominational Bible church. I served there for eight years, during which also I studied for my Ph.D. at the University of Texas at Dallas. I received my doctorate in 1984 and hoped to teach in a seminary, but the Lord had different plans. I took the position of Senior Pastor at Christ Community Church in Ardmore, Oklahoma, in 1985 (another non-denominational Bible church) and ministered there for eight years, until 1993.
It was in late 1987 into early 1988 that I underwent a major theological shift. I rejected cessationism and embraced the view that all spiritual gifts (even private prayer language!) are valid and available to the church today. This led eventually to my accepting a position with Metro Vineyard Fellowship in Kansas City. I served there for another seven years, primarily as Associate Pastor and President of Grace Training Center, our full-time Bible school. I left Kansas City in August of 2000 and accepted a position teaching theology at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Illinois. In August of 2004 I resigned at Wheaton and returned to Kansas City to establish Enjoying God Ministries.
My wife Ann and I have two daughters (Melanie and Joanna) and two grandsons.
One more personal element. Although we live in Kansas City and serve with Enjoying God Ministries, we are members of Emmanuel Baptist Church in Enid, Oklahoma, where your friend Wade Burleson is pastor.
Those who may want to read in more detail of my spiritual journey and especially how I’ve labored to integrate Word and Spirit in life and ministry can get my book, “Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist” (at www.SamStorms.com).

Could you give your academic credentials?

I have a B.A. in History from the University of Oklahoma, a Th.M. in Historical Theology from Dallas Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Intellectual History from the University of Texas at Dallas.

According to your pastor, you are a prolific writer. Could you give some of the books that you have written? What are you working on now?

I think I’m up to thirteen books, with two new ones coming out in the next 12 months. The ones that are still in print include “Pleasures Evermore: The Life-Changing Power of Enjoying God” (NavPress), “One Thing: Developing a Passion for the Beauty of God” (Christian Focus), “Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist” (Enjoying God Ministries), “The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts” (Regal), “The Singing God: Discover the Joy of Being Enjoyed by God” (Creation House). I’m also one of the four contributors to the book, “Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Four Views” (Zondervan).
In February of this year, Crossway Publishers released my book, “Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election.” In July they will publish “Signs of the Spirit: An Interpretation of Jonathan Edwards’ ‘Religious Affections’” Finally, in January or February of 2008 they will release “The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians.”
I’m currently working on three more books: one on eschatology, one on experiencing the Spirit, and one that will consist of about 50 daily meditations on the seven letters of Revelation 2-3.

What is your experience with Southern Baptist life?

My roots are deep within the convention. My mother and father were members at Bellevue Baptist in Memphis after WW II, where my dad was a deacon and my mom served for a while as R. G. Lee’s secretary. As I noted above, we attended First Baptist in Dallas for a while, and then got involved in a number of other churches for the next thirty or so years. I’ve always been baptistic in theology (although I recently read a SWBTS professor who said that those who use the term “baptistic” are under the influence of postmodernism; go figure!), but the Lord has led me to serve in a variety of church contexts (including independent Bible, Plymouth Brethren, Vineyard, Anglican). As I said, we are now members at Emmanuel Baptist in Enid.

Within the Southern Baptist landscape right now, what issues do you see driving our mutual discussion? Is there an overarching issue that relates to all of the things abuzz in the Convention? If so, what is it?

The issues are much the same as they’ve been for generations. The things Christians disagree and argue about are fairly constant: the sovereignty of God and human responsibility, especially as it relates to evangelism and missions; the role of the Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts in particular; the role of women in ministry and leadership; eschatology, spontaneity vs. liturgy in worship, etc. These and a few other issues are almost always at the center of debate, not just among Baptists but across denominational lines.
The one thing these issues have in common is that none of them is central to the gospel itself. They are all, at best, secondary doctrines, or doctrines on which Christ-exalting, Bible-believing Christians can and often do disagree. Sadly, some question the evangelical credentials of anyone who might dare to differ with their view on Calvinism or whether miraculous gifts occur today or the timing of the rapture or the nature of the millennium.
But there is something else that is even more disturbing, and that is the angry and divisive dogmatism that is emerging over behavioral issues on which the Bible is either silent or leaves one’s decision in the realm of Christian freedom. Perhaps the greatest threat to unity and acceptance in the Church is the tendency to treat particular life-style and cultural preferences as though they were divine law. To be even more specific, it’s the tendency to constrict or reduce or narrow the boundaries of what is acceptable to God, either by demanding what the Bible doesn’t require or forbidding what the Bible clearly permits.
My experience has been that this is typically driven by one of three things: either an unjustified fear of being “spiritually contaminated” by too close contact with the surrounding culture, or an unbridled ambition to gain power over the lives of others, or a failure to believe and trust in the all-sufficiency of Jesus Christ (or all three combined).
I’m concerned that in certain segments of the Convention there is a mindset reminiscent of the old “fundamentalism” that is characterized by isolationism, separatism, anti-intellectualism, cultural withdrawal, and a generally angry and judgmental attitude toward all those who dare to differ on these matters that quite simply don’t matter; at least they don’t matter nearly as much as whether or not you believe in the deity of Christ, his substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, and salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
Whereas conservative evangelicalism has typically drawn the line on theological essentials, this more recent fundamentalism draws the line ever more narrowly on issues such as total abstinence vs. moderation in the use of alcohol, the degree of freedom and the role of affections in public worship, the legitimacy of so-called “private prayer language,” etc. Sadly, when one’s commitment to Christ and the authority of Scripture is judged on the basis of this latter group of issues, rather than the former, the situation is bleak indeed.

Where do you see the tension over Reformed theology going in the SBC?

If you have in mind agencies and institutions within the convention, I fear that we may see seminaries and colleges and other agencies drafting statements similar to the one by Southwestern Seminary concerning charismatic gifts and practices. But in this case it would be to eliminate and forbid from the faculty those who embrace five-point Calvinism, or conversely, four-point Arminianism (I can’t image any Southern Baptist agency or institution ever taking a stand against the doctrine of the security of the believer).
I hope this never happens. The healthiest and most instructive and edifying atmosphere in an educational institution is when both perspectives are fairly and objectively represented. I’m a five-point Calvinist but I’ve worked for years alongside colleagues who were five-point Arminians. I’ve found most of them to be Christ-loving, Bible-believing evangelicals that served only to enrich the educational experience.
As far as the Convention as a whole is concerned, I suspect that someone somewhere along the line will propose amending the BFM to exclude Calvinism. If that ever were to happen, I predict a significant exodus from Southern Baptist life of those whose convictions would prohibit them from affirming such a statement. That would be tragic. Short of that, I encourage both sides within the Convention to continue the pursuit of civil dialogue and biblically-based discussion.

The claim has been made, specifically by Dr. Malcolm Yarnell of SWBTS, that there is NO Biblical evidence for the existence of a “Private Prayer Language.” How do you respond? What Scriptures do you think are relevant to the discussion of such a claim?

I’ll be brief on this one, since I’ve written a couple of articles setting forth my view on tongues. I’ve also written more extensively on this in my book, “The Beginner’s Guide to Spiritual Gifts” (Regal).
As I read 1 Corinthians 14, it seems clear that Paul advocated and personally practiced a “private” prayer life that entailed speaking in tongues. If he is thankful that he speaks in tongues more than all (14:18), yet declares that he rarely does so in the corporate meeting of the church (14:19; indeed, in the absence of interpretation he never would do so), one is forced to ask: Where is Paul praying in tongues? It can only be that this takes place in his “private” prayer closet (cf. also 14:28). Therefore, this practice is “private”.
It is certainly “prayer” because Paul calls it such on several occasions (1 Cor. 14:14-15). It is speech, of whatever sort it may be, directed to God (1 Cor. 14:2) in which he “gives thanks” (14:16) and, I assume, since it is “prayer,” petitions God, intercedes, praises (14:15), and whatever else one typically does when engaged in communication with God. Therefore, this practice is “private prayer”.
Is it “language”? Yes, if by “language” one means a form of communication. Whether tongues is always a human language un-learned by the speaker (which it isn’t, in my opinion) or also some form of heavenly or angelic dialect (which I believe it is), it is linguistic in nature. The Apostle Paul speaks of “various kinds of tongues” (1 Cor. 12:10), indicating that the expression of this Spirit-induced ability may take any number of forms.
Certainly one is free to argue that the “private prayer language” described in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is no longer valid today, having been designed by God solely for the church of the 1st century, but one can hardly deny that it was precisely that: a private prayer language. Of course, I don’t believe there is anything in the NT that would justify belief that tongues speech ceased with the passing of the apostles, but that is another issue entirely.

What do you say to the claim that the acceptance of a “Private Prayer Language” among our missionaries is allowing an influx of Pentecostal theology?

First, we need to define what is meant by “Pentecostal” theology. The word “Pentecostal” has traditionally been used solely of those churches, denominations, and theological practices that came out of the Azusa Street Revival at the turn of the previous century (most notably, but by no means restricted to, The Assemblies of God). “Pentecostalism” typically affirms three things of tongues speech: (1) it is the initial physical evidence of one having been baptized in the Holy Spirit (thus if one has not spoken in tongues one has not been Spirit-baptized); (2) there is a distinction between tongues as a “sign” (that accompanies Spirit baptism) and tongues as a “gift” (which is designed for one’s devotional experience); and (3) God desires for all Christians to receive the “gift” of tongues.
Those who embrace a modified “Charismatic” view or what some have called a “Third Wave” theology would reject all three of these points at the same time they believe that tongues is a valid gift for the body of Christ today. But like all other gifts it is sovereignly distributed by the Spirit to whomever he wishes. It is not a gift possessed by all. There is no basis for distinguishing tongues as “sign” from tongues as “gift,” although Third Wave folk (such as myself) acknowledge that tongues can be manifest in a number of ways or settings depending on context and intent. Finally, no single spiritual gift, not even tongues, proves anything other than that the Spirit has sovereignly chosen to bestow it. It is not an infallible or necessary sign that one is either “baptized” or “filled” with the Spirit.
The point of this is simply that I seriously doubt if there are many (any?) Southern Baptist missionaries who are advocating a “Pentecostal” perspective on tongues. They may well be in favor of a Third Wave perspective. Personally, I hope the IMB would allow the freedom for this view and practice to exist on the mission field. However, if someone on the field was insisting that all must speak in tongues or that those who do not have not been Spirit-baptized, this raises another issue that would need to be addressed. I don’t necessarily think that such a “Pentecostal” view should exclude someone from the foreign field, but my opinion on that would probably run counter to most Southern Baptists today. Still, I would hope if such a “Pentecostal” view emerged among SBC missionaries that careful and loving instruction would be provided in an effort to bring them into alignment with the teaching of Scripture. But as I said, I suspect my approach to this matter would very much be a minority position within the SBC.

How do you see the debate over moderation concerning the consumption of alcohol? Do you see a disparity in the approach to the alcohol issue and other issues under debate?

Honestly, I’m weary of this debate. Certainly anyone who embraces the authority of Scripture must denounce drunkenness. But I’ve never been persuaded in the least by the alleged “biblical” arguments for total abstinence. Having said that, I think total abstinence is a perfectly honorable and permissible practice to embrace. Any Christian is free to abstain from alcohol. But they aren’t free, in my opinion, to insist that others do the same. They are even less free to accuse those who drink in moderation of being sub-Christian. Abstinence per se is neither a sign of spiritual weakness nor of spiritual strength. Neither is one’s choice of moderation in the use of alcohol a sign of weakness or strength. Whether one totally abstains or drinks in moderation is simply irrelevant to Christian spirituality.

What are your thoughts on the Traditional church, the Missional church and the Emergent church?

That’s a huge question that warrants a dissertation! But I’ll keep my comments brief.
I’m glad to see that you distinguish between the Missional church and the Emergent church (some mistakenly equate them). Every church ought to be missional, if by that you mean that mission is what the church is and not simply one program that it pursues or funds. The church is by biblical definition and divine calling “sent” to the world, whether that world be across the street or across the ocean.
Sadly many conceive of “mission” as something a segment of the church does or as a program the church “funds” rather than as the very identity of what the whole church is.
My primary concern for the Traditional church is that its customs, rituals (yes, even Southern Baptist’s have rituals; they just don’t call them that), habits, and accepted patterns for ministry and worship are so deeply entrenched in the spiritual psyche of a people that the Bible itself is not allowed to critique what is done or provide direction for new expressions of life as the body of Christ.
There is also the potential threat of a Traditional church losing touch with the surrounding culture. They can often create a “fortress” mentality, circle the wagons, hunker down so to speak, and rarely engage with the developments in society or the unsaved who populate it.
Too often, in the name of tradition, freedom in worship is stifled, the power of the Spirit is suppressed, age old “doctrines” are immune from biblical scrutiny, and what makes people “feel comfortable” is the decisive factor in evaluating fresh proposals or efforts to reach the lost and more effectively communicate with the saved.
I have deep disagreements with the agenda of many (not necessarily all) in the Emergent church. People who want to know the specifics can go to my website (www.SamStorms.com) and click on Recommended. There is a seven part review of Don Carson’s book, “Becoming Conversant with Emergent” that should give them a pretty good idea of where I stand.
What concerns me most about Emergent isn’t the “style” of ministry or the use of “candles and couches” or the commitment to “relevance”. I believe we have to engage with culture if we are going to effectively communicate the gospel to it. What bothers me, though, is the tendency to minimize or, in some cases, altogether jettison the possibility of our knowing absolute truth as it is revealed in Scripture. Too many in Emergent give the impression that because we cannot (and never will) know revealed truth comprehensively or exhaustively that we cannot speak of “absolute truth” in any meaningful sense of the term. Thus they balk at any talk of doctrine or theological boundaries or the importance of identifying “heresy”. Expository preaching is set aside as “modernistic” and ideologically oppressive. This is a serious error that in the long run will threaten the uniqueness of Christianity and undermine our efforts to evangelize the lost.
Again, as I said, there’s so much that could be addressed on this point, but I should probably stop and suggest your readers take a look at my review of Carson’s book.
How serious is the divide within the SBC right now? Do you think it will survive? If it does survive, in what shape will it be?
The divide is certainly real. How serious it is, I’m not sure. There is an unmistakable presence of a “fundamentalist” mentality that I fear will become increasingly belligerent and narrow and critical of those who don’t “toe the line” on their cherished secondary and tertiary issues. I hope those in the Convention can unite on their commitment to the “Fundamentals” of the faith and build a cooperative and effective witness on that basis. But there is, sadly, always an element within any movement or group or denomination that is convinced that true spirituality will always look the same, act the same, worship the same, even when the Bible is either altogether silent on such matters or permits a freedom that such zealots find uncomfortable (if not dangerous).
Yes, the SBC will most certainly survive. But I dare not speculate on what form it will assume.

You are a featured speaker at the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit later this month. What do you hope this conference will accomplish? How do you think the make up of the conference speakers will help achieve this?

Conferences are a strange thing. Too often they can become an escape from the routine rigors of Christian living. At other times people fall into the mistake of thinking that the spiritual “highs” of a conference are typical of what the Christian life in general is to be. But neither of these is necessary. We need to view a conference like this as an opportunity for honest and open dialogue on issues facing Baptists today. I have high hopes and great expectations for this time in Arlington. I think, if nothing else, it will reveal that there is room under SBC tent for both positions on the ministry of the Holy Spirit. More than that, I hope that cessationists in particular will recognize that their continuationist or charismatic brothers and sisters are as equally committed to the Great Commission and the authority of Scripture as they are.
The speakers represent virtually all possible positions. This is really unusual for a conference on the Spirit. Typically there is only one view that is promoted. There’s always a risk in doing it the way Dwight has chosen, but I think he made the right choice. Let’s pray that in the midst of what will undoubtedly be heated disagreement there will prevail a commitment to loving one another and exalting Christ. That’s certainly what the Spirit would want!

Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?
Posted: Friday, March 02, 2007 at 3:40 am ET
What if you could know that your unborn baby boy is likely to be sexually attracted to other boys? Beyond that, what if hormonal treatments could change the baby's orientation to heterosexual? Would you do it? Some scientists believe that such developments are just around the corner.
For some time now, scientists have been looking for a genetic or hormonal cause of sexual orientation. Thus far, no "gay gene" has been found -- at least not in terms of incontrovertible and accepted science. Yet, it is now claimed that a growing body of evidence indicates that biological factors may at least contribute to sexual orientation.
The most interesting research along these lines relates to the study of sheep. Scientists at the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station are conducting research into the sexual orientation of sheep through "sexual partner preference testing." As William Saletan at Slate.com explains:
A bare majority of rams turn out to be heterosexual. One in five swings both ways. About 15 percent are asexual, and 7 percent to 10 percent are gay.
Why so many gay rams? Is it too much socializing with ewes? Same-sex play with other lambs? Domestication? Nope. Those theories have been debunked. Gay rams don't act girly. They're just as gay in the wild. And a crucial part of their brains--the "sexually dimorphic nucleus"--looks more like a ewe's than like a straight ram's. Gay men have a similar brain resemblance to women. Charles Roselli, the project's lead scientist, says such research "strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans."
What makes the sheep "sexual partner preference testing" research so interesting is that the same scientists who are documenting the rather surprising sexual behaviors of male sheep think they can also change the sexual orientation of the animals. In other words, finding a biological causation for homosexuality may also lead to the discovery of a "cure" for the same phenomenon.
That's where the issue gets really interesting. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA] has called for an end to the research, while tennis star Martina Navratilova called the research "homophobic and cruel" and argued that gay sheep have a "right" to be homosexual. No kidding.
Homosexual activists were among the first to call for (and fund) research into a biological cause of homosexuality. After all, they argued, the discovery of a biological cause would lead to the normalization of homosexuality simply because it would then be seen to be natural, and thus moral.
But now the picture is quite different. Many homosexual activists recognize that the discovery of a biological marker or cause for homosexual orientation could lead to efforts to eliminate the trait, or change the orientation through genetic or hormonal treatments.
Tyler Gray addresses these issues in the current issue of Radar magazine. In "Is Your Baby Gay?," Gray sets out a fascinating scenario. A woman is told that her unborn baby boy is gay. This woman and her husband consider themselves to be liberal and tolerant of homosexuality. But this is not about homosexuality now; it is about their baby boy. The woman is then told that a hormone patch on her abdomen will "reverse the sexual orientation inscribed in his chromosomes." The Sunday Times [London] predicts that such a patch should be available for use on humans within the decade. Will she use it?
This question stands at the intersection of so many competing interests. Feminists and political liberals have argued for decades now that a woman should have an unrestricted right to an abortion, for any cause or for no stated cause at all. How can they now complain if women decide to abort fetuses identified as homosexual? This question involves both abortion and gay rights -- the perfect moral storm of our times.
Homosexual activists have claimed that sexual orientation cannot be changed. What if a hormone patch during pregnancy will do the job?
As Gray suggests:
In a culture that encourages us to customize everything from our Nikes to our venti skinny lattes, perhaps it is only a matter of time before baby-making becomes just another consumer transaction. Already have a girl? Make this one a boy! Want to impress your boho friends? Make a real statement with lesbian twins!
More to the point, Gray understands that such a development would reshape the abortion and gay-rights debates in America:
Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy (assuming the stigma on homosexuality survives the scientific refutation of the Right's treasured belief that it is a "lifestyle choice.") Pro-choice activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?
The development of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis [PDG] is one of the greatest threats to human dignity in our times. These tests are already leading to the abortion of fetuses identified as carrying unwanted genetic markers. The tests can now check for more than 1,300 different chromosomal abnormalities or patterns. With DNA analysis, the genetic factors could be identified right down to hair and eye color and other traits. The logic is all too simple. If you don't like what you see on the PDG report . . . just abort and start over. Soon, genetic treatments may allow for changing the profile. Welcome to the world of designer babies.
If that happens, how many parents -- even among those who consider themselves most liberal -- would choose a gay child? How many parents, armed with this diagnosis, would use the patch and change the orientation?
Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:
1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.
2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.
3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment.
4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible's moral verdict on homosexual behavior.
5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.
6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God.
7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.
8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.
9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.
10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.

Last night, after getting off work later than I thought, I was still in the mood to cook. For some strange reason, it relaxes me. What is even more astounding is that I was also in the mood for pizza. Given that I deliver pizzas for Pizza Hut, you would think that I would be sick of pizza, but I am not. I eat it even more that I used to. I decided on flat bread pizzas.

My journey for food started me out at Save-A-Lot where I picked up a back of Mozzarella Cheese, a bag of Pepperoni, and a bag of Sharp Cheddar Cheese that I thought I would use with some salad items I had back at the apartment. But Save-A-Lot is Save-A-Lot and they did not have A-Lot of what I needed. I trekked up to the nearest grocery store and picked up some flat bread, pizza sauce and some ranch dressing. I came back home, baked up three small flat bread pizzas and ate two of them with a really good salad before them. I was happy and relaxed.

This morning, my friend Josh invited me out to CiCi's Pizza with him tonight after praise and worship practice. I decided that it probably would pizza me out if I had flat bread pizzas again for lunch and then pizza for dinner too. I remembered I had some bacon in the freezer and some eggs, so for lunch I decided I would have breakfast. I got the skillet nice and hot ready for the bacon. Three strips down and they sizzled and smelled great. The burned a little on one side, but that made them nice and crispy so I did not mind. After pulling out the three strips, I had three left, so I decided I might as well fry them up to. Here's is where the fun begins.

I forgot to drain the grease from the first three strips. Thus, when I dropped the first raw bacon strip down into the pan, the grease splashed up and burned the snot out of my middle finger on my right hand. (I can't wait to show people.) After immediately getting my finger under cold water, I went ahead and placed the other two strips in and went back to nursing my finger. All of a sudden, I noticed a great deal of smoke building up in my apartment and then realized that I had got the second batch of bacon very crispy. I pulled the skillet off the burner just in time for the smoke alarm to go off. The smoke alarm in my building is hard-wired to the rest fo the fire system. Any other smoke alarm would have allowed me to simply remove the batteries and wait for the smoke to clear and then hook it back up. Not this one. Since it is hard-wired to an apartment wide system, it usually means that the alarm goes off for the entire apartment and it means that security for the university is notified. I was lucky that the whole apartment system did not go off. I thought that if I got a fan going and opened the windows that the smoke would clear and the alarm would go off. Not so. A security guard shows up at my door wanting to know if everything is ok. Seeing the smoke, she asked, "What happened?"
"I burned some bacon," I explained.
"Well, can you unplug the smoke detector?"
"No, it is hard-wired," I explained. She needed to see it, which meant that she needed to come into my apartment and wade through all my messy stuff. (Since Kandice is not here, I do not spend a lot of time cleaning.) After inspecting the hardware, she decided to reset that alarm and that did the trick. The alarm went off and I was left, unburned, but embarassed.

But wait, I'm not done. I still had to eat lunch somehow and I still did not want pizza. I still had some eggs and I figured that I could use some diced ham I had bought and the cheeses and make a mean omelet. I get my eggs whipped and I put them in the skillet, carelful not to have the skillet too hot or the eggs would burn. After I was convinced that the eggs were cooking at the right temperature, I put the diced ham in with a generous portion of each of the cheeses because I love cheese. I made a mean omelet alright. And a big one. So big I couldn't close it. I got it almost closed, but it was much too big to use a spatula to put it on a plate so I had to use two spatulas. After getting it in the plate, I realized that part of the omelet was not done. I decided to put in back in the skillet and scramble it. So, I made the first scrambled ham and cheese omelet.

It wasn't bad, but after all the work I had put into a this meal, I was too tired to enjoy it. I ate about half the omelet and gave up.

Moral of the story: One good meal does not make another.

Perhaps I will stick with cereal.

Kandice come home soon. :)

My Thesis Proposal

Luther and Inerrancy: Is There A Connection?

David G. McDowell



Description of Topic

I have chosen for my topic to look at the theology of Martin Luther, specifically his doctrine of biblical authority and how that may compare to the current doctrine of biblical inerrancy as expressed by the signers and adherers of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI). I will look at Luther’s thoughts and doctrines on the authority of Scripture and see how it may have affected current thoughts on Biblical Inerrancy. I will seek to answer the question, “How does Luther's view of the authority of Scripture compare to the modern evangelical view of inerrancy as expressed by the signers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?"

Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this project is to compare Lutheran thought and doctrine to the theology of the signers and adherers to the CSBI and to see if the two are compatible. To accomplish this, I will examine Luther’s doctrines and thoughts on Scripture in depth, his approaches to Scripture, and to some extent, his methodology. I will then take this and compare it to current doctrines and thoughts from signers and adherents to the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy as well as to the document itself.

Significance of the Study
The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) is spurned from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. It was the ICBI that produced the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) in 1978-79. In addition to this document, they have also produced the Chicago Statement of Biblical Hermeneutics, which was produced in 1982. The ICBI original members were some of the leading Reformed theologians of the day, including R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Greg Bahnsen and Norman Geisler, among others. Current members include John Piper, John MacArthur, Albert Mohler, and C.J. Mahaney. All of these men are leading Reformed theologians.
Reformed theology traces its roots back to Martin Luther and his 95 Theses. Other reformed thinkers of the 16th century include John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, but it is Martin Luther who holds the distinction of being the author of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, meaning “Scripture Alone.” This is one of the major tenets of Reformed theology, one of the “five solas,” the others being Sola Fide (Faith Alone), Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), Solus Christus (Christ Alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone).
Since Reformation Theology seems to be the basis of some of the foundational beliefs of the doctrine of Inerrancy, then there must be a line of thought that connects the doctrine of Inerrancy, directly or indirectly, back to Martin Luther and his doctrines and thoughts regarding the place of Scripture. It is this line of thought that I wish to research and thus attempt to place the doctrine of Inerrancy in its historical place. By looking at one end of the spectrum, Martin Luther’s 16th century doctrine of biblical authority, and the other end of the spectrum, the 20th century doctrine of the Inerrancy of Scripture, it is my belief that the comparison will show a line of thought or thinking that lead, directly or indirectly, to late 20th century thought on Scripture and may even show us the direction Christian thought will take further into the 21st century.

Description of Methodology
I will examine in depth Martin Luther’s thoughts and doctrines regarding Scripture up to and including his doctrine of Sola Scriptura and what affect that may have had on the CSBI. This will include examining his very own writings and examining the claims that those who have written about him have made. I will also examine the CSBI document itself, examine the claims that it makes, tracing back Scriptural references, and compare the articles of the documents to Luther’s doctrine and thought. In the event that the CSBI draws from a creed or confession of faith, I will also seek to understand Luther’s understanding of that creed or confession of faith, if possible.

Preunderstanding and Limitations
I am presupposing a direct or indirect line of thought between Luther and the signers and adherents to the CSBI. I am doing this because I believe that the signers and adherers to the CSBI claim that they hold to several Reformed confessions of faith including, but not limited to, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Westminster Confession of Faith, among others.
I will also try to focus specifically on the work of Luther and only include works of the other Reformers when they are appropriate or show influence on Luther or on the CSBI. In other words, I will do my best not to draw lines of thought or conclusions when they do not flow directly or indirectly from the works of Luther unless they are appropriate and fall within the parameters of the comparison.


Selected Bibliography

Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Translated by Robert C. Shultz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.

Lienhard, Marc. Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ. Translated by Edwin H. Robertson. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1982.

Lohse, Bernhard. Martin Luther: An Introduction to His Life and Work. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

Luther, Martin. Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings. ed. Timothy F. Lull. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

Mathison, Keith A. The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2001.