PIEDMONT BAPTIST GRADUATE SCHOOL

25 SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON ECCLESIOLOGY

ADVANCED ECCLESIOLOGY THE735 DR. HOYLE E. BOWMAN GRADUATE DIVISION

BY TIMOTHY L. DECKER 4/23/2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

Briefly explain the usage of ejkklhsia in Classical Greek, Hebrew, LXX, and the NT Koine refuting the idea of a church in the OT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2.

Define the ejkklhsia in its developed sense within the NT both positively and negatively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

3.

Refute the idea of a Board of Elders (lay-elders) in the NT utilizing 1 Tim. 5:17 and other refuting arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

4.

Refute that 1 Tim. 3:11 and Rom. 16:1 teach an order of deaconesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

5.

Refute baptismal regeneration utilizing Mark 16:15, Acts 2:38, & 22:16. Identify the movement which holds to this view. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

6.

Refute foot washing as a church ordinance utilizing John 13. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

7.

Refute infant baptism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

8.

Identify the different views on the Lord’s Supper in Christendom stating and defending the Biblical view. . . . 8

9.

Refute the Landmark view as to the participants in the Lord’s Supper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

10.

Militate against oijnoV being used in the Lord’s Supper. Stated and defend the proper element. . . . . . . . . . . 9

11.

State and refute the moderate and extreme types of Ultradispensationalism regarding baptism and the Lord’s Supper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

12.

Distinguish John the Baptist’s baptism, Christ’s baptism and the Church’s baptism. What does baptism mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ii

13.

Refute Trine baptism, and what denomination advocates it? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

14.

What is alien baptism?

15.

Refute proxy baptism (1 Cor. 15:29). What cults hold to it? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

16.

Should bizarre substitutes such as potato chips and cola ever be used in the Lord’s Supper? Elucidate! . . . 15

17.

Refute transubstantiation utilizing the copula in Matt. 26:26, Mark 14:22, & 1 Cor. 11:24 as well as other arguments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

18.

Enumerate spiritual gifts that are not for today with some explanation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

19.

Is there the gift of exorcism today?

20.

Can a Christian be indwelt by a demon/s? Scripturally explain! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

21.

State and refute partial rapturism, midtribulationalism, and posttribulationalism.

Should Baptist practice it? . . . 13

Explain!

. . . . . 19

. . . . . 20

22.

State and briefly refute the pre-wrath raptural view.

23.

What is the bottom line philosophy in Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church? Refute using the church’s mandate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

24.

What is wrong in the present day emerging church philosophy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

25.

State what this course has meant to you. Shoot the bull! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Works Cited

23

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

iii

1) Briefly explain the usage of ejkklhsia in Classical Greek, Hebrew, LXX, and the NT Koine refuting the idea of a church in the OT.

Classical Greek held to a very general definition to the word ejkklhsia. There was no religious implication, but it simply meant an “assembly.” As the word progressed, the LXX used the word to refer to an assembly of any kind. Radmacher states on the issue, “It is easily seen, then, that ekklesia is not a technical term in the Septuagint. Rather, the content of the word ekklesia was determined by its modifier…The assembly may be religious, political, military, judicial, national, or racial.”1 The 2 Hebrew words which the LXX translates ejkklhsia are lh2q2

4 Neither of these words can be used in a technical and hd2e. sense to read into them a NT idea of ejkklhsia as the Body of Christ. To this Radmacher adds, “The Hebrew concept of qahal was of an untechnical noun that only gained particularity by the context. After noting this nontechnical usage of the word, one is able to see the fallacy of those definitions that explain it as the technical term for the redeemed community or the church in the Old Testament.”2 By the time of the New Testament Koine Greek, ejkklhsia still retained the idea of an assembly. Paul began to use it with a technical meaning of a local assembly or “church” or even to the Body of Christ “Church.” It was not until the New Testament that the technical usage of ejkklhsia took on this meaning of “church.” Thus, there was no idea of “church” in the technical New Testament sense back in the Old Testament.

2) Define the ejkklhsia in its developed sense within the NT both positively and negatively.

By the New Testament era, the word ejkklhsia has reached a more technical meaning. The Church took advantage of this technical meaning and gave it a developed sense of “church” 1

Radmacher, Earl D., What the Church is All About: A Biblical and Historical Study (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), 130. 2

Radmacher, What the Church is All About, 125.

1

2 which was not used in such a way ever before. The inference was that the ejkklhsia of the Church referred to a body of believers in an assembly. But this development of the technical usage of ejkklhsia has both positives and negatives. The positive to the developed use of ejkklhsia is that the New Testament writers now had something to call this new program. The Apostles had previously preached the Kingdom of Heaven to Israel. This new Dispensation was not related to the Kingdom and thus needed a distinct name. Thus, ejkklhsia was the word chosen to indicate the technical, developed sense of the congregation of that age. The technical meaning of ejkklhsia took on a meaning of the local churches as well as the Body/Bride of Christ meaning the redeemed of the age. While this title was good in that this age and program had a name to go with it, it also leads to the negative aspect in that the word ejkklhsia was used both for the local church and the Body of Christ Church (also known as the Universal, Invisible, and Spiritual Church). This has lead to different views that ejkklhsia only refers to the local assembly (Landmark view) or ejkklhsia refers mainly to the Body of Christ (Ultradispensational view). The interpreter is left with the task to determine when the local ejkklhsia or the Body of Christ ejkklhsia is meant. Context is always the key so this task is not impossible, but this is a negative aspect of the development of ejkklhsia.

3) Refute the idea of a Board of Elders (lay-elders) in the NT utilizing 1 Tim. 5:17 and other refuting arguments.

In keeping with a consistent use of the interchangeable nature of a Pastor/Bishop/Elder, the system which uses teaching elders along with ruling elders is Biblically unwarranted. Acts and Pauline literature will show the fact that Bishop and Elder refer to the same “office” or person (Acts 20:17, 28, and Titus 1:5-7). An unscriptural view of a board of elders or lay-elders will lead to an unbiblical church government. The view that holds to a board of ruling elders (a non congregational system of church polity) will mainly look to 1 Timothy 5:17. The problem with using a passage like this is that Paul is not establishing an office for the church called “ruling elders.” Paul is emphasizing one group of people – namely elders. Paul then emphasizes that this group of elders has two responsibilities – ruling and teaching.

3 The phrase in question literally reads as follows : “The one well ruling elders” or in other words “the elders who rule well.” Had Paul meant to assign a “ruling elder” terminology, he would have logically left the word kalwV (“well”) in a different position than the one it is in (the middle of the substantival participle phrase). Placing kalwV within the phrase gives only 2 options: 1) this new office is “the good ruling elder” or 2) kalwV is a descriptive word describing what kind of elder deserves a double portion – namely one who rules well. Since Paul never indicates in any other portion of Scripture of a different office other than simply “elder,” it is reasonable to assume that the second option is the preferable one. To follow Paul’s argument, he is stating what kind of elder is deserving of a “double-honor.” Paul makes it clear that elders are the ones who rule (1 Tim. 3:4-5). Paul further clarifies that the one “who rules well” is worthy of a “doublehonor.” Paul continues to emphasize that those worthy of a “double-honor” not only must rule well but also “especially”4 work hard at studying the Word of God and dispensing the truths from that study. Any Pastor who rules well through servant leadership and still works hard at the study of God’s Word in order to feed the flock, he is definitely a man worthy of a “double-honor.” 3

4) Refute that 1 Tim. 3:11 and Rom. 16:1 teach an order of deaconesses.

Does Paul really teach an office of Deaconess? Some would like to take 1 Timothy 3:11 as referring to women deacons. But if this is the case, Paul pointed this distinct office out very peculiarly. Had Paul wanted to explain the office of a Deaconess, he would have logically explained it after verse 13 which ends the explanation of the office of Deacons. For Paul to abruptly interrupt his qualifications for Deacons to insert the qualifications of a Deaconess only to abruptly resume the qualifications of a Deacon, would be very uncharacteristic of the formal, organized writing style of the Apostle Paul. 3

4

The word order is emphasized here. The phrase reads oiJ kalwV proestoteV presbuteroi.

The Greek word for “especially” here is malista. 1 Tim. 5:8 uses malista in the same way to emphasize the exact same thing.

4 Noting the immediate context of the word gunaikaV in verse 11, the word should be taken as wives. Verse 2 speaks of the gunaikoV in relation to the Bishop. This is undoubtedly referring to the wife of the Bishop. The same is true of verse 12. The idea is of a wife not woman. Thus, the idea in verse 11 would refer to the wife of a Deacon and not to a specific office of Deaconess. Philippians 1:1 supports the view of only Bishops and Deacons. Had there been a third office of the Church, it would seem likely that Paul would have added them in his introduction as he did in Philippians. Romans 16:1 should not be used to support the view of a Deaconess. Paul had in mind the nontechnical sense of the word diakonon as a servant. Romans was an earlier epistle written on Paul’s third missionary journey.5 This being the case, it would seem normal for Paul to develop the word diakonon as he did with ejkklhsia. 1 Timothy was not written until much later and would allow time for Paul to develop the idea of the office of a Deacon being called diakonoV.

5) Refute baptismal regeneration utilizing Mark 16:15, Acts 2:38, & 22:16. Identify the movement which holds to this view.

Right away we must begin with the supposition that salvation cannot be earned nor merited. This is made quite clear from passages like Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:20-21, Galatians 2:16, Ephesians 2:8-9, and Titus 3:5. With this understanding, other questionable passages like Acts 2:38 can be more correctly interpreted. Since Scripture must be aligned with other Scripture, Acts 2:38 must not conflict with the idea of the other passages mentioned above pertaining to salvation apart from any work of righteousness. Before Acts 2:38 is addressed, one might consider Acts 16:31-34. Paul tells the Philippian jailer to “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (vs. 31). Notice Paul did not even make mention of baptism. If baptism were a requisite of salvation, it would seem logical that it too would be included in this “salvation formula” of Acts 16. It was not until after their faith that the jailer and his household were 5

Hiebert, D. Edmond, An Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 2, The Pauline Epistles (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1977), 175.

5 baptized. Verse 34 makes this point referring to their faith in the perfect tense. Another passage to address is Romans 10. Where in this passage (and for the book of Romans for that matter) is baptism even addressed. Verses 9 and 13 do not even contemplate whether baptism is apart of salvation. Paul’s thought does not deal with that at all. In fact, baptism is only mentioned twice in Romans 6:3. But this verse hardly teaches that baptism is apart of salvation. In fact, it is far more likely that Paul was referring to Spirit Baptism which places the believer of this age into the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13 and 27). With all this stated above, the rest of Scripture will determine exactly what Peter meant in Acts 2:38. If Peter’s prescription for salvation included baptism, then there is a direct conflict between his idea of salvation and Paul’s. But the doctrine of inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture would argue that there would be no conflict. Therefore, in light of other Scriptures, Acts 2:38 must be interpreted through the grid of the rest of Scripture. The objectionable part in this passage is the phrase “Repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” This translation (which is a common one) makes it sound as if baptism is apart of repentance needed for the forgiveness of sins. If this were the case, the rest of Scriptures are silent to the issue. The Greek preposition eijV used in the translation “for the forgiveness of your sins” should not be taken as the normal rendering of “in”, “into”, “unto”, or “for” as in this case. It is far better to see the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” tied to baptism not baptism plus repentance. That would mean that the eijV is to be taken in the resultant sense of “because of” or “on account of.” This translation for eijV is much more likely in light of the rest of Scripture. It also builds logical sense for Peter to declare to “Repent and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness of your sins.” This use of eijV makes baptism an act of obedience for the believer who has already been forgiven of sins. Thus, baptism would be followed as a result of forgiveness. Anyone just saved would naturally not want to disobey the command to be baptized. Baptism is a logical result of a changed life. It should also be noted that Peter said metanohsate (“Repent”) which is 2nd person plural. Peter goes on to say baptisqhtw (“be baptized”) which is third person singular. Peter’s emphasis here is that those who do repent are the ones who should follow up in believer’s baptism. The verse could be translated as follows: “You all repent and each one of you who repents be baptized on the name of Jesus Christ because of the forgiveness

6 of your sins.” It is with this understanding that we see Peter actually teaching the opposite of baptismal regeneration. Baptism is a result of salvation obeyed by the believer who has just been forgiven and thus the result is an obedient disciple who will follow up on the Lord’s command in Matthew 28:19-20.

6) Refute foot washing as a church ordinance utilizing John 13.

The Church was only prescribed two ordinances to be carried out. The first is the initiatory ordinance of baptism. This is done only once and done by immersion. The other ordinance is the continual ordinance called the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Table, or Communion. This ordinance is to be done “as often as” the church feels necessary. It should also be noted that these two ordinances were given by Christ personally (Matt. 28:19-20 for baptism and Matt. 26:26-29 and 1 Cor. 11:24-25 for Communion). What is more important is that these commands of our Lord are repeated and mentioned in the rest of the New Testament. For instances, baptism is clearly seen as being carried out in Acts 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, and 19. Paul also mentions the ordinance of baptism being carried out in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17. The Lord’s Supper is also seen in Acts 2:42, 46, and 20:7. Paul then goes on to give further information concerning this ordinance of Communion in 1 Corinthians 11. Therefore, in order to have a Biblical ordinance, it must be commanded by Christ (as Baptism and Communion was) as well as have it taught in the epistles and seen carried out in Acts (as Baptism and Communion was). Foot washing does not meet this qualification. Firstly, Christ does not give a command for this to be followed as He did for Baptism and Communion. John 13:15 speaks of Christ setting an example of humility. Not one imperative is used in verse 15. Had Christ emphasized the aspect of a command, He would have done so with an imperative. Baptism is linked with an imperative in Matthew 28:19-20. In fact, it is likely that the participle for Baptism is to be taken as an imperatival participle. The Lord’s Supper was commanded in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25 with Christ commanding us to “do this in remembrance of Me.” Since Christ never commanded foot-washing to be carried out but only suggested that His example be followed, it is better to see foot-washing not as a Church ordinance but as an act of humility.

7 The second aspect of foot-washing not being a Biblical Church ordinance is that it was not mentioned in Acts of the early Church or alluded to in the epistles. If this was to be practiced as an ordinance of the Church, then surely it would have been seen taken place in Acts. Much more, the practice of foot-washing would also be clarified in the epistle if it were meant to be carried out as a Church ordinance.

7) Refute infant baptism.

Again, we must begin with the supposition that baptism is the result of salvation and not the means of it. Therefore, it is logical to assume that baptism is only for a believer. This is the case in every mention of a person being baptized. It was always done as a result of salvation and belief. The case where a household salvation takes place (Acts 16:15 and 34) should not be used to set out to prove infant salvation. The very fact that Luke does not mention the age of any person in the household much less the presence of an infant would be reaching farther than God revealed for the reader to go. The argument of infant baptism should not rest on an assumption but rather God’s revelation of such a truth. Since there is no revelation to show a teaching of infant salvation, any such doctrine should be avoided. Any passage where one has to make an assumption and add to the text what God did not want to reveal is also incorrect. Most if not all of the proponents of infant baptism are Reformed in their theology. With that being said, another argument is that since Israel would circumcise the male children 8 days from birth, the carryover into the New Testament would be infant baptism. This mistaken interpretation is seen from a lack of distinction between the people of Israel and the Church. Any practice instituted for Israel in the Old Testament should not be carried over to the New Testament Church unless revelation clearly allows for such a carryover. There is no Scripture that would allow one to interpret infant baptism as Jewish circumcision carried over to the New Testament. The mere fact that only males could be circumcised would argue against the fact that infant baptism is a carry over of circumcision. If one were to be consistent in carrying out this logic of carry over, then only male children should be baptized. But we know this cannot be the case since females are baptized as well (Acts 16:15).

8 8) Identify the different views on the Lord’s Supper in Christendom stating and defending the Biblical view.

There are four different views concerning the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper – Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Dynamic, and Memorial. Each view stems from a certain teaching within Christendom such as Roman Catholicism and etc. The first view is that of Transubstantiation. This is the view that is held by Roman Catholicism which says that Christ literal body and blood are present within the elements of bread and wine. Some Protestants protest that this is actually exalting the human nature of Christ over His deity thus making Jesus an idol of worship. While this may be true, there are other reasons for disregarding this view. These reasons, however, will be dealt with in question #17. The next view is Consubstantiation. This is a step closer from the extreme view of the Transubstantiation view of the Catholics. Consubstantiation is the Lutheran view which holds that Christ’s presence is within the elements of bread and wine. This view is also title the “mystical” view for obvious reasons. This view defies logic in that 1 substance such as bread cannot be 2 different things at the same time! That is illogical and unBiblical. Christ’s presence is in the believer as a part of the Church (Col. 1:25-27). Therefore, the presence of Christ is in each person of the assembly at the observance of the elements but not in the elements themselves. The next view is the Dynamic view. This is the Reformed view held by Calvin and his followers. This view teaches that Christ has a spiritual presence on the elements but not a physical presence. Thus, this view is a compromise of the Consubstantiation view and the next view of a Memorial. The Memorial view is the preferable view which was taught by Zwingli during the Reformation time period. This view is the most simplistic and sees the two elements of Communion as being merely symbolic of the actual body and blood of Christ. It should be noted that the Passover institution was very similar in nature in that the elements used for that institution were also symbolic or memorial. This is the most preferable view which keeps the focus on remembering Christ’s death and not actually taking part in His shed blood or broken body in some way. Christ was wounded for our transgressions not for our partaking of the Lord’s Supper (Isa. 53:5).

9 9) Refute the Landmark view as to the participants in the Lord’s Supper.

The Landmark Baptist view of the Lord’s Supper is that it is closed to any outside participation. Only those of that local church are allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper. While their view is correct in that the local church is to carry out this ordinance, it is extreme to no allow other Christians of like faith and practice to participate. The main reason in keeping it closed is that they interpret the Church’s origin back to the life of Christ. When He instituted the ordinance of Communion, Landmarks see that it was only those apart of the church that were allowed to participate in the event. The main error in this view is to read the Church in the life of Christ. The upper room supper was not the Church at that time. Also, after Pentecost in Acts 2, 3,000 people were saved and added to the Body of Christ. There had to be multiple places where people met in their houses which would also lead to the conclusion that it was not restricted but freely participated by everyone who believed at that time. The preferable view of Communion should be close not closed. Those of like faith and practice should be invited to participate in the remembrance of the death of Christ. This is a natural reading of the Bible, especially since the New Testament never supports any idea of closed Communion in the first place.

10) Militate against oijnoV being used in the Lord’s Supper. Stated and defend the proper element.

A large number of churches use wine as one of the two elements of the Lord’s Supper. But is such a practice a good idea in light of the Biblical teaching concerning such a strong alcoholic beverage as wine? It must first be remembered that the wine of our day is not the wine that was drunk 2,000 years ago during the life of Christ. The oijnoV or wine drunk back then was very diluted with water. In fact, the main reason that wine was even present was to cleanse the water. The alcoholic content of wine in that day is miniscule compared to the wine of today. The great difference between the two wines would categorize the wine of today as the “strong drink” of Christ’s day. For that reason

10 alone, a church should avoid the use of wine for their Communion elements. Another consideration should be made as to the Biblical teaching of Communion. Never is the word oijnoV used in any account of the Lord’s Supper! Christ only used the word “cup” and “fruit of the vine.” Thus, one must assume that this refers to wine (but it could not be the wine of today). Wine is a good assumption as to the substance that was contained in the “cup.” But one must remember that this wine was very diluted. For poor people, this wine was probably diluted to the point in which only 1/15 of it was actually wine. With this knowledge, it is better to use simple grape juice as the element which symbolizes Christ blood. This is probably closer to the substance used by the early Church in those days. This would also keep from the abuse of the Lord’s Supper that took place in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 11).

11) State and refute the moderate and extreme types of Ultradispensationalism regarding baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

When dealing with Ultradispensationalism, one must keep in mind that there are two different types – moderate and extreme. The extreme type of Ultradispensationalism holds to the origin of the Church after Acts 28. Thus, the only “Church” epistles are Paul’s pastoral epistles and John’s writings. Therefore, since there is no mention of any ordinances in these parts of Scripture, the extreme view of Ultradispensationalism holds to no ordinances of the local church at all. The moderate type of Ultradispensationalism would hold to the origin of the Church to be in Acts 9 or 13. Therefore, all of Paul’s writings and John’s writings are “Church” writings. This view would allow for only one ordinance to be apart of the local church – the Lord’s Supper. Baptism, in this view, is seen as apart of the “Jewish Church” started by Peter which ended at Paul. The obvious refutation to this error of Ultradispensationalism is to point out that the Church began on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The beginning of Spirit Baptism would clearly point this out (Acts 1:5 and 11:15-16). It was even Paul that wrote that Spirit Baptism places the believer in the Body of Christ – the Church (1 Cor. 12:13/27, Eph. 1:22-23, and Col. 1:24). Paul even says that there is only “one baptism” probably referring to Spirit Baptism (Eph. 4:5). Therefore the

11 Body of Christ concept as well as Spirit Baptism was apart of Peter’s ministry as well as Paul’s. Another clear refutation to the moderate view in rejecting baptism is that Paul was apart of baptism as well (Acts 16:15 and 33). This means that water baptism was apart of Paul’s “church” just as it was apart of Peter’s “church.” Therefore, the view local church ordinances of Ultradispensationalism is incorrect due to the incorrect view of the origin of the Church.

12) Distinguish John the Baptist’s baptism, Christ’s baptism and the Church’s baptism. What does baptism mean?

A main error within Landmark theology is that John’s baptism and Christ’s baptism is the same as Christian baptism. If it can be shown that John’s baptism is not at all Christian baptism, a fatal blow will be thrown in the system of Landmark theology. It must first be recognized that the message of John the Baptizer and the message of Christ during His earthly ministry was not the Christian message of the Gospel found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The message preached by John, Christ, and His disciples was the message of the Kingdom (Matt. 3:2, 4:17, and 10:7). Therefore, the baptism that was tied to the message of John and Christ was Kingdom baptism not Christian baptism. Baptism is also a means of identification. This was always the case in Proselyte baptism in the intertestamental period as well as pagan baptisms. Therefore, any baptism done by John the Baptizer and Christ’s disciples would identify them to the message being preached. Since the message was about repentance for the Kingdom, the baptism would identify the person to the Kingdom. This is exactly the reason for Christ being baptized by John the Baptizer. It was not that Christ needed to repent (especially since Christ was fully impeccable and unable to sin and therefore needing to repent). Christ was baptized by John to confirm to the people that Christ agreed with the message of John. It also identified to the people that He was taking part in the message of the Kingdom being the King of that Kingdom. The King would have to be identified to the message of the Kingdom, and thus Christ was baptized by John. Acts 18 and 19 also make a distinction between John’s Baptism and Christian baptism which is carried out by the local church of the New Testament. In Acts 18:23-28, a man named Apollos was only acquainted with “the baptism of John” (vs. 25).

12 When Paul explained to Apollos about the new program of the Church, Apollos began to refute the Jews using Scripture to proclaim Christ (vs. 28). This passage marks a distinction between the program of John the Baptizer (and thus his baptism) and the new program of the Church. Acts 19:1-7 is a place where Paul runs into about 12 men who followed John the Baptizer. These men were baptized by John earlier (otherwise they would not be referred to as “disciples”) during John’s ministry. They even proclaim to Paul that they were baptized under the ministry of John (vs. 3). Paul then explains the new program of the Church age to them and as a result, the Baptism of the Spirit takes place as well as Christian baptism (vs. 5). This passage clearly marks a difference between John’s baptism and Christian baptism. An objection to this passage by Landmarkers is that Paul was addressing unsaved individuals. This is not the case since Luke never refers to an unsaved person as a “disciple” as in the case of verse 1. Paul also assumes that these men were believers when he asked them a Dispensational question – “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” Thus, Paul assumed that he was dealing with believers. These men responded by saying they were not aware of such a teaching concerning the Holy Spirit and thus they were unaware of the new program of the Church. They were still awaiting the Kingdom (being under the Kingdom teaching of John). Therefore, it is better to hold that these 12 followers of John were saved and were re-baptized into Christian baptism distinguishing Christian baptism from John’s baptism.

13) Refute Trine baptism, and what denomination advocates it?

Grace Brethren is the denomination that holds to the practice of Trine baptism. This baptism is the practice of dunking the candidate for baptism three times each time for a person of the Trinity. Such a practice only arises from Matthew 28:19-20 but this passage does not teach an immersion of three different times. A closer look at Matthew 28:19 will reveal that immersion is to take place only once. The absence of any idea of three immersions is the first indication. The only idea is of one immersion per person. The person being baptized is not be baptized in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The person is being baptized in the name of the Trinity – Father,

13 Son, and Holy Spirit. The definite article attached to “name” would argue for only one immersion.6 Therefore we are baptized into the name not each person. This construction here argues for the one essence of God in three persons argument of the orthodox Trinitarian formula. Therefore, to use this passage outside of the bounds of its teachings (Trine baptism) is untenable.

14) What is alien baptism?

Should Baptist practice it?

The question of “what is alien baptism” has different results depending on the answers. If by alien baptism we mean a water ritual of non-immersion subsequent or prior to salvation, then this flies in direct contradiction to Biblical church polity and Baptist should not practice it. The word alien has the idea of outside baptism. This subject is somewhat related to the idea of closed, open, or close Communion. Alien baptism at its greatest degree would be an outside “baptism” that directly conflicts with the clear teachings of the New Testament concerning baptism. However, if by alien baptism we mean just a baptism from another local church of like faith and practice (in this case the like practice is baptism by immersion subsequent to salvation), then yes Baptists churches should accept this kind of alien baptism if the candidate is seeking membership. If by alien baptism one means a ritual total foreign to baptismal traditions within Christendom, then of course Baptist should not practice such a thing.

15) Refute proxy baptism (1 Cor. 15:29).

What cults hold to it?

Mormonism holds to a practice called “proxy baptism.” According to Abanes, Mormons “believe that such baptisms proved those in the afterlife the choice to join, or reject, the LDS faith. The baptisms must be performed here on earth by proxy because it is only the LDS priests who can offer valid, properly 6

The Greek text reads as follows: baptizonteV aujtouV eijV to ojnoma tou patroV kai tou uiJou kai tou aJgiou pneumatoV.

14 7

authorized baptism.” Concerning 1 Corinthians 15:29, which is the passage Mormons use to base this doctrine, it is said, “This is an obscure and isolated passage. It is unwise to base any doctrine on such a passage. Rather, one should always use the clear passages of Scripture to interpret the unclear ones.”8 Since this idea of baptism for the dead is seen nowhere else in Scripture, it is reasonable to assume that 1 Corinthians 15:29 can be interpreted in light of its immediate context as well as the entire context of Scripture. One possibility that has been suggested on the passage is that Paul is referring to new converts being baptized and replacing the members who have died in the Corinthian church. In this case, Paul would be saying that these new converts are “baptized for them [the dead]” in the sense of baptized and become members in their place. Another possibility which is likely is one based on the entire context of chapter 15. This is known as the resurrection chapter. Therefore, the idea in verse 29 could be a sarcastic but logical premise to prove the resurrection of the dead. The preposition for the Greek (eis) can mean ‘for the sake of.’ In this case, baptism would be for the sake of those who are dead. Paul says ‘If the dead do not rise at all; Why then are new converts[,] who one day will die[,] baptized?’ (v. 29). Since it was common in the New Testament period to be baptized as one accepted the gospel, this was a sign of one’s faith in Christ. But why be baptized if there is no resurrection? Paul later says that if there is no resurrection, ‘let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’ (v. 32).9 This seems like a very plausible interpretation solely based on the idea of the context. If there is no resurrection, then why is there even baptism? The entire idea of a baptism for the dead, however, cannot be confirmed by Scripture. 1 Corinthians 15:29, in light of every other place of Scripture, would argue against proxy baptism. Therefore it is better to hold to one of the above two interpretations above.

7

Abanes, Richard, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2004), 272. 8

Giesler, Norman L. and Ron Rhodes, Correcting the Cults: Expert Responses to Their Scripture Twisting (Grand Rapids: Backer Books, 1997), 235. 9

Geisler and Rhodes, Correcting the Cults, 236.

15 16) Should bizarre substitutes such as potato chips and cola ever be used in the Lord’s Supper? Elucidate!

It is a sad day when churches begin to water down their preaching. It is even sadder when churches take lightly the practice of the Lord’s Supper which is a memorial of the death of Christ which is the basis for salvation. But some churches, in order to reach out to the world and be seeker-sensitive, have made an abomination of the elements of the Lord’s Supper by substituting potato chips and soft drinks for unleavened bread and grape juice. This, in the eyes of this author, falls under the category of partaking of the Lord’s Supper “in an unworthy manner” (1 Cor. 11:27). Why are strict adherences to the elements which are laid out in Scriptures so important? Well, the first and most obvious answer is that these elements are laid out in Scripture! Why would a substitute be used in the place of what the Scriptures so clearly teaches about the Lord’s Supper? Any avoidance on the elements in Communion is direct disobedience to God and His Word. Another reason that a substitution of the elements is wrong is that the elements symbolize something very specific that chips and soda cannot. Unleavened bread was used for Christ’s body indicating the sinlessness of Christ. Grape juice is a good representation of Christ’s shed blood which was the price which needed to be paid for the redemption of man. Any substitute to these elements misses the entire point of the Lord’s Supper. The practice of this sacred ordinance (I call it sacred in the sense that it is very important to me as a believer to remember Christ’s death) should not be misinterpreted with substituted elements. The elements are specific to give the one partaking of the elements a specific picture in their mind of the death of Christ. The last reason that a substitution of the elements is downright wrong is that it leads into a level of irreverence. Chips and soda is known as “junk food.” Why would Christians want to partake of an ordinance by using “junk food” to remember Christ’s death? This kind of substitution would also bleed over to other areas of church doctrine and practice. If the elements of the Lord’s Supper can be substituted, then why not the way in which one is to be baptized? The fact of the matter is this; the Bible lays out clearly what the elements should be. There is no good reason to avoid using the prescribed elements of the Bible.

16 17) Refute transubstantiation utilizing the copula in Matt. 26:26, Mark 14:22, & 1 Cor. 11:24 as well as other arguments.

As was stated above in question #8, the Roman Catholic view of Transubstantiation holds to the idea that in partaking of the Lord’s Supper, the bread and wine actually become the literal, physical body of Jesus Christ. This view of Transubstantiation is the most extreme view concerning the Lord’s Supper. It is by far the most unnatural and nauseating of the views. There are very good reasons to refute the Roman Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. First of all, the Lord’s Supper was instituted with Christ in His natural body before the resurrection. Obviously, as we observe Communion now He is in His glorified body due to the resurrection. Thus, it would be illogical to participate in the same institution even in the same way to the point that the Roman Catholic’s would have it. How can we partake of Christ’s body and blood when His body has been resurrected and in the glorified state? It is also unreasonable to hold to Transubstantiation since Jews are not permitted to drink blood (Gen. 9:4, Lev. 3:17, 7:26-27, 17:10-11, and Deut. 12:23-25). Even in the early Church, drinking blood was not permitted (Acts 15:29). The idea of Transubstantiation was definitely not apart of the Apostles idea of Communion nor was it the truth they taught. The idea of drinking Christ’s blood and eating His body would be appalling to the Apostles. The institution of the Lord’s Supper is based on the idea of the Passover. Since the elements of the Passover are symbolic in nature, it is very reasonable to assume that this symbolism carried over into Communion. Logically speaking, the idea of Transubstantiation goes against the faculties of our senses. The elements do not taste, feel, smell, or appear to be the literal, physical body and blood of our Savior. On the contrary, they seem to be exactly what they are presented as – bread and wine! The idea of partaking in Christ’s actual body and blood raise the question as to why such a thing would be done. Does Christ blood have to be shed over and over again to retain redemption for the saved? Of course not! Hebrews 10:12-14 speaks on this issue. Christ’s offering or sacrifice was made at one time only. His blood only has to be shed one time (Heb. 10:10). For Christ to continually shed His blood is a contradiction to the clear teachings of Hebrews 10. Another idea I would also add is that no Catholic priest would even sip the wine if it had some poison mixed into it.

17 They know that the wine does not really become Christ’s blood and that the poison would kill them. So for all practical purposes, Transubstantiation is not even believed to the point of practice that it is supposedly held to.

18) Enumerate spiritual gifts that are not for today with some explanation.

There are 5 main spiritual gifts that have ceased after the first century and are not for today (the “gift of exorcism” is not included since it will be dealt with in the next question). These gifts (also called sign gifts) are as follows: 1) the gift of Apostleship (Eph. 4:11), the gift of prophecy (1 Cor. 12:10), the gifts of healing (1 Cor. 12:9 and 28), the gift of miracles (1 Cor. 12:10 and 28), and the gift of speaking and interpreting tongues (1 Cor. 12:10 and 28). The cessation of these gifts must be seen in accordance to the time period in which they were needed. The New Testament was not fully completed much less shared among all the local churches. Therefore, there was a need for people to have an authentication of the message and the man bringing the message. If there were no signs present, then any “gospel” could be preached but not verified to be from God. These sign gifts, as they have become to be called, put the stamp of approval of “thus says the Lord.” The main idea that these gifts ceased is the idea of the gift of Apostleship. If this gift is no longer necessary, then it is reasonable to assume that the other sign gifts are unnecessary. The main qualification for Apostleship is to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Lord. This is seen in passages such as Acts 1:22, 10:38-43, 1 Corinthians 9:1, and 15:8. Since Christ has ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father, it is physically impossible for any human being to visually see Christ with their own eyes. That being the case, there cannot be any Apostles for today. So the gifts that were tied to the Apostles have also ceased with the office of an Apostle. Another important point about Apostleship is that they were used as the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:19-22). I think it is safe to say that the Church has moved well past the foundational stage of the development of the Church. If Apostleship and the sign gifts of the foundational stage of the Church are still in effect, then that would mean that the Church is made of one entire foundation. But Peter and Paul speak of

18 the Church being a spiritual house upon which is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Christ. Therefore, since we are past the foundation stage of the Church, it is reasonable to assume that the foundational gifts have ceased. As far as the gifts of tongues and prophecy are concerned, 1 Corinthians 13:8 is very explicit in stating that “they will cease” and “it will be done away.” The question is, when do these gifts cease? Paul goes on to say in verse 10 that “when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.” So what is “the perfect?” A more literal rendering of the Greek would be “when the completed thing comes.” The noun to teleion is in the neuter gender. The various ideas as to what this could refer to become limited when one takes into account the neuter gender. Most hold to this as a reference to Christ’s 2nd coming or the Rapture. But had Paul meant to refer to Christ, the masculine case would have been used. It would also seem more likely that a direct statement concerning His coming would have been used as well. The preferable view is to take “the completed thing” as referring to the completion of the canon of Scripture. Paul was somewhat vague on this since the concept of a completed canon was a vague thought to him. This is the only idea that can account for the neuter gender being used. Therefore, when the completion of the canon occurs, the gifts of tongues and prophecy are done away with. As to the gifts of healing and the gift of miracles, we can see the gifts begin to wane away even in the life of Paul. The gift of miracles is directly tied to Apostleship (Mark 16:17-20, 2 Cor. 12:12, and Heb. 2:3-4). Since Apostleship has ended, so too has the gift of miracles. The gifts of healing were also tied to the Apostles. But this can be seen as fading away in the life of Paul. Acts 19:11 is a sure statement that indicates that Paul was an Apostle who could carry out acts of healing. As we carry this over, Philippians 2:26-27 speaks of Epaphroditus being sick. But no mention is made of Paul healing him. 2 Timothy 4:20 is similar in that Paul tells Timothy that he left Trophimus sick at Miletus. If Paul still retained the gifts of healing, it would seem logical that he would heal these two individuals. The ultimate example that the gifts of healing had left Paul towards the end of his ministry is that Paul was not able to even heal himself (2 Cor. 12:7-10). This is a good indication that these gifts began to fade away as the New Testament was being written and put together.

19 19) Is there the gift of exorcism today?

Explain!

Another “gift” that is referred to in Charismatic circles is called the gift of exorcism. This “gift” is actually not mentioned in the three main passages of Spiritual gifts (Rom. 12, 1 Cor. 12-14, and Eph. 4). Therefore, to even hold to this “gift” is already moving beyond the Scriptural teachings concerning the subject of demon possession and exorcism. The Apostles were directly told that they would have the ability to cast out demons on several occasions. The first occasion is when Christ sent them out in the Kingdom commission of Matthew 10. This authority was again given to the Apostles in Mark’s account of the great commission for the Church (Mark 16). He tells the disciples that “these signs will accompany those who have believed: in my name they will cast out demons…” (Mark 16:17). Therefore the “gift” of exorcism is directly tied to the gift of Apostleship. For anyone to claim to have the gift of exorcism is to also claim to have the gift of Apostleship. But as was stated in question #18, one can only be an Apostle if they are an actual eyewitness to the resurrected Lord. Since Christ ascended to heaven almost 2,000 years ago and has not yet returned, it is safe to say that He has not been seen by any human with their physical eye. Therefore, no one can fulfill the main qualification of an Apostle and thus no one can have the “gift” of exorcism. Another compelling evidence to refute the idea of the “gift” of exorcism is that Paul never mentions this in detailing the Spiritual armor of God (Eph. 6:10-20). Paul begins by stating that there is a supernatural war going on (vss. 11-12). Since this demonic war is raging right now, it would seem logical for Paul to include such an offensive weapon as the gift of exorcism here. But there is not even an intimation that we have this kind of offensive weapon. God has given us certain pieces of armor to combat the devil and his demons, but the gift of exorcism is not one of them.

20) Can a Christian be indwelt by a demon/s? explain!

Scripturally

A supposition that must be laid down before one can continue into this area of study is that doctrine cannot be

20 based on experience but rather solely on the Word of God! With that being said, one must look to Scripture to make any correct and logical conclusion. Another supposition that must be presented is that a believer in this age is indwelt by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (John 14:20, 23, Rom. 8:9-11, and Col. 1:25-27). This is a comforting thought to know that God lives within the believer and thus the believer is the temple of God. With the above presuppositions set in place, the idea of God and an evil angel being in a believer is hardly logical. One must understand the attribute of God’s Holiness in order to understand that God cannot fellowship with evil. Therefore, a purely evil demon could not dwell in a believer who has the purely holy God dwelling in him! This is only the logical conclusion. The issue is not about space but conflicting personalities. Pure evil cannot reside in the same place as pure holiness. Equally, pure holiness will not allow pure evil to reside in the same place. Another interesting factor in this area is that Christ presents the principle of a divided kingdom in Matthew 12. This principle would carry over to a believer who would be indwelt by both God and a demon. Would this not be a divided kingdom? But Christ declares that a kingdom cannot be divided and be successful. Therefore the idea of a Christian able to be possessed by a demon is irrational. For a demon to even enter a believer that demon would have to bind God first, but this cannot happen. Thus the teaching of a demon-possessed Christian is irrational.

21) State and refute partial rapturism, midtribulationalism, and posttribulationalism.

The partial rapture view is defined by Ryrie as follows: “Partial rapture teaches that only those believers who are ‘watching’ and ‘waiting’ for the Lord’s return will be found worthy to escape the terrors of the Tribulation by being taken in the Rapture…Partial rapturists teach that there will be several times for the Rapture and resurrection of overcomers.”10 There are some major problems with this view.

10

Ryrie, Charles C., Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 558.

21 First of all, 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 teaches that all will be changed. With this word is implied that it is not at different times but at one distinct point in time in the future. Another point is to remember that the Tribulation is for Israel and the world. The Church is never mentioned in any Rapture passage of the Bible, therefore it is not warranted to see a partial rapture. Ryrie points out that “the baptism of the Spirit does place all believers [of this age] in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), thus all will experience the promise of the Rapture.”11 Ryrie makes a strong point in that since all saints of this age are apart of the Body of Christ, it would seem very unlikely that Christ would leave part of His bride on earth and present the other part to Himself for the marriage of the Lamb. Any promise made to the Church is fulfilled with the entire Church. Ryrie defines the midtribulational rapture view as follows: “The midtribulational Rapture view holds that the Rapture of the Church will occur at the midpoint of the seven years of Tribulation; that is, after three and one-half years have elapsed. In this view, only the last half of Daniel’s seventieth week is Tribulation.”12 Since this view has an incorrect view of the 70th week of Daniel, in that the Tribulation period is only the last half of the 70th week and not the entire week, this view is still considered by some to be a form of pretribulationalism. If this is the case concerning the 70th week of Daniel, then where is the Rapture of the Church in Revelation? Buswell writes, “It is my opinion that in the coming to life and Rapture of the two witnesses (Revelation 11:11 ff.) we have an exact synchronization of events. The two witnesses are caught up into heaven ‘in the cloud’ at the same moment that the elect of God are caught up together in clouds to the meeting of the Lord in the air (1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).”13 According to Buswell, the event of the two witnesses being resurrected and taken up into the clouds refers to the time of the Rapture of the Church (granted Buswell is a Covenant Premillennialist so his idea of the Church is not consistent with Scripture). Yet, a consistent, literal hermeneutic cannot allow for such an interpretation. There is no indication that John intended to include the entire Church here in Revelation 11. Therefore, Buswell reads more into the passage than John intended. 11

Ryrie, Basic Theology, 560.

12

Ibid., 579.

13

Buswell, J. Oliver, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 456.

22 th

The 70 week of Daniel is seen taking place in Revelation 6-19 and Matthew 24:4-28. If the Tribulation is seen in only the last half of the 70th week of Daniel, then one is left with an inconsistency in the book of Revelation. Revelation 3:10 speaks of the Church being kept out of the hour. This would include all the events spoken of beginning in Revelation 6. The antichrist will establish a peace covenant with Israel for 7 years. Half way through that peace covenant, the antichrist will break the promise and wreak havoc on Israel. Revelation 12:6 and 14 relate to the abomination of desolation which is spoken of in Daniel as the middle of the 70th week. Therefore, Revelation 6 and following is all apart of the Tribulation since the middle of the Tribulation is indicated in Revelation 12 and 14. Thus the midtribulational view of the Rapture is incorrect due to the incorrect view of the 70th week of Daniel. Posttribulationalism is the most popular of the opposing views of a pretribulational view. “Posttribulationism teaches that the Rapture and the Second Coming are faces of a single event that will occur at the end of the Tribulation when Christ returns. The church will be on earth during the Tribulation to experience the events of that period.”14 The major point of disagreement between pre- and posttribulationalism is the distinction between the Rapture of the Church and the 2nd Coming of Christ. Noting the differences between these two events will help to show the incongruities with posttribulationalism. First of all, Christ is said to meet the saints in the air at the Rapture (1 Thess. 4:16-17) whereas Christ is said to return all the way to the earth at the 2nd Coming (Zech. 14:4). The 2nd Coming has been prophesied in the Old Testament as has been noted in Zechariah whereas Paul speaks of the events taking place at the Rapture as a “mystery” (1 Cor. 15:51). John 14:1-3 speaks of Christ taking His bride to be in His Father’s with Him which is inconsistent to view this as the 2nd Coming since Christ is coming to earth to establish His Kingdom (which is not the Father’s house). Paul also declares in 1 Thessalonians 4:14 that those involved in this even are those “in Christ” which is a statement referring to the Church. Matthew 24 deals with the context of Israel not the Church so the Lord’s coming there would indicate something totally different than the Rapture. Posttribulationalists also have a hard time explaining the fact that the Church is promised not to go into the Tribulation as well as not being mentioned during the Tribulation. 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9 is a bold promise that the Church

14

Ryrie, Basic Theology, 582.

23 will not go through the Tribulation. Revelation 6-19 never uses the word ejkklhsia as was the case in chapters 1-3. The chronological teachings of 1 Thessalonians 4 and 5 deal a death blow to the posttribulational scheme of eschatology. Paul begins to deal with the Rapture first in 4:13-18. Chapter 5 begins with a peri de which indicates a shift in thought. Paul then deals with the Day of the Lord which deals partially with the Tribulation period. Thus the logical and chronological teaching here is that the Rapture occurs first and then the Day of the Lord begins (the Tribulation being apart of the Day of the Lord).

22) State and briefly refute the pre-wrath raptural view.

The pre-wrath raptural view is somewhat intricate and can be difficult to understand. Benware gives a general analysis as follows: “The pre-wrath view sees the Second Coming and the Rapture as one event, lasting about a year and a half, with four comings of Christ within the confines of that one Second Coming.”15 Karleen says of the pre-wrath view, “The Rapture of the Church of Jesus Christ will occur, not at the beginning of the seventieth week of Daniel, but sometime after its midpoint, just prior to the Day of the Lord. The Day of the Lord will be a time of wrath from God upon the inhabitants of the earth. Church-age believers will go through the first half of the seventieth week – three and one half years – and more but will be spared the time of wrath.”16 This gives a general idea of the teaching of Marvin Rosenthal’s view which he published in his book The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. Much could be said about this view of the Rapture but for brevity sake this will be concise. Rosenthal views Revelation 7:9-17 as referring to the Rapture. This of course is going beyond what the text explicitly states. First of all, there is no reference to Christ coming at all as in 1 Thessalonians 4 and John 14. Secondly, 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4 deals with dead and living saints at the Rapture whereas Revelation 7 refers only to the dead. Revelation 7 is also only dealing with Gentiles (7:9) whereas the Rapture of the Church deals with the 15

Benware, Paul N., Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 223. 16

Karleen, Paul, The Pre-Wrath Rapture: Is It Biblical? (Langhorne, PA: BF Press, 1991), 10.

24 Body of Christ – saved Jews and Gentiles. Also, Revelation 7:13-14 indicates that John does not know these individuals. This is very illogical if this were referring to the Church which he would be apart of. Finally, the biggest problem with holding to a Rapture in Revelation 7 is the use of the substantival present participle oiJ ejrxomenoi ejk thV qliyewV thV megalhV (“the ones coming out of the Great Tribulation”) in verse 14. The Rapture is always seen as an event that takes place all at one time, whereas in Revelation 7:14 John makes use of a present participle which means that these people continuously came out of the Tribulation. Since this was not a one time event, it is very unlikely that this refers to the Rapture at all.

23) What is the bottom line philosophy in Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven Church? Refute using the church’s mandate.

Rick Warren’s bottom line philosophy for running a church is to make the local body as appealing to the world as possible. He tries to bait and lure sinners into the Sunday morning services with all kinds of pragmatic devices such as irreverent music, entertaining atmosphere, relaxed worship, restricted preaching, and a fleshly appeal in all aspects of the service. Warren’s goal is to bring in the sinner, preach a salvation message, have the sinner make a decision for Christ, and let him stay stagnant in the sanctification process. People are not asked to change into the image of Christ. Warren’s message is to come as you are and leave without any change. Warren has missed the entire point of the pastor of a local church’s ministry to edify, train, and build up the saints for service (Eph. 4:11-12). Warren should not be seeking to bring sinners into his service, but rather he should be sending his congregation out to the sinners to evangelize the Word of God to them. God never intended the Gospel to be non-offensive. Thus God would not want to compromise Biblical standards just to appeal to the sinful world. Warren is to be a Pastor-teacher and yet he is letting that ministry go right by. Instead of Warren seeking to make disciples, he is making baby Christians (that is assuming these people are truly converted) and not giving them the pure milk of the Word to grow. Meat will never be a main course at a purpose-driven/seeker-sensitive church.

25 24) What is wrong in the present day emerging church philosophy?

The Emerging Church philosophy is becoming more and more rampant in our society. In this day of Post-Modernity, truth is taught as absolutely relative (which is a contradictory thought that is allowed since everything is relative). The Emerging Church is the direct result of what happens when conservative church leaders mix theology and postmodern philosophy together. Absolute, Bible truth is no longer important. People are invited to come no matter what the beliefs are. This kind of “tolerance” will undoubtedly lead to universalism and the mission of the social gospel. The Emerging Church is nothing more than a Postmodern, Liberal Church. In contrast to the Purpose-driven/seeker-sensitive movement, the Emerging Church is visually sensitive. Everything about the Emerging Church is pleasing to the eye. Candles, stained-glass windows, ritualized liturgy, and other components add to the appeal of this experience driven movement. People will attend such a place to feel good not to hear the Word of God faithful exposited. The biggest error here is that the Word of God is cast aside to a pluralistic philosophy and worldview.

25) State what this course has meant to you.

Shoot the bull!

I have the privilege to take this class before I begin a pastoral ministry. I am planning on beginning that ministry as soon as the Lord wills. A major concern in beginning ministry is the fear of “what am I supposed to do?” This class has given me a strong sense of what is right and wrong in the doctrine and practice of the Church. This class has given me a stable foundation for me to carry out a Biblical, God-glorifying church. If I could, I would make every Pastor take this class. It has enforced my philosophy of ministry even greater on the importance of solid Bible teaching. I am forever indebted to my professor, Dr. Bowman, for sacrificing and teaching us the Word of God concerning the subject of ecclesiology. The work load might have been rough, but I know that in the long run I will look back and refer to this class and the teachings which I have gained in it.

WORKS CITED Abanes, Richard. Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism. Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2004. Benware, Paul N. Understanding End Times Prophecy: A Comprehensive Approach. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995. Buswell, J. Oliver. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962. Giesler, Norman L. and Ron Rhodes. Correcting the Cults: Expert Responses to Their Scripture Twisting. Grand Rapids: Backer Books, 1997. Hiebert, D. Edmond. An Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 2, The Pauline Epistles. Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1977. Karleen, Paul. The Pre-Wrath Rapture: Is It Biblical? Langhorne, PA: BF Press, 1991. Radmacher, Earl D. What the Church is All About: A Biblical and Historical Study. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978. Ryrie, Charles C.

Basic Theology.

26

Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.