The above photo is what was left after a guy ran a red light and took the life of David Mann, a fellow street evangelist and Facebook friend that was 26 years young. Now, both David and the driver that ran the red light are in eternity. That is how fast we can go from this life to the next, yet most of us live as if we will never die. This is why Biblical evangelists do what they do. Call us wide-eyed fanatics, misguided zealots, or specially gifted, but before you do, please consider the above picture. Hell is real and Biblical evangelists are those who are convinced from the bottom of their hearts that the most loving thing they could do is to warn you of it and preach the gospel so that you may be saved from God's impending wrath. We do so even if it gets a little loud, a little inconvenient, and even if it makes you (and us) pretty uncomfortable. All we are trying to do is live out a God-entranced worldview in light of our specific gifting. Because we love you enough to tell you the truth, we may seem a little weird to you. However, I'd rather be interpreted as a loon by you than be ashamed to use my evangelistic gifts to glorify Jesus. Please contemplate the following verses. In light of David's death, I sure have:
Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” 14 Yet you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. 15 Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” 16 But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil. 17 Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin. James 4:13-17
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . ."
INTRODUCTION: That's right folks, you're seeing the photo above correctly and no, its not Photoshopped; it really is an atheist wearing a "Jesus riding a T-rex" suit. That's about as sophisticated (but not as blasphemous) as the inaugural 2012 "Reason Rally" was. Here's what the Reason Rally website said about how things were going to go down:
Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?
No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years (and beyond) and motivating those in attendance to become more active. While speakers have the right to say what they wish, the event is indeed a celebration of secular values.
This in fact was an opportunity to trash religion in general and Christianity specifically. Yes, there was the occasional insult directed towards Islam, but for the most part, this was a highly organized rant against the God of the Bible.
The turnout was pretty good, but not as good as I expected.
Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake? That doesn't sound very reasonable to me!
Given the fact that most of the atheistic "pastors" and "worship leaders" had such a filthy mouth that I either had to immediately cover my 8 year old daughter's ears or they used so much blasphemy that it would make a sailor blush, I can tell you that this was indeed a flamboyant "trashing" of religion. But again, that's about as intellectually sophisticated as it got.
ASSESSMENT
Here's a great example of the kind of nonsense I encountered this weekend (and no, I'm not interested in discussing controversies related to Kent Hovind, tax-protesting, or the like; this video serves only as one example of the type of irrationality I regularly encountered when interacting with its participants):
While that type of irrationality was plenteous, we had a great time of outreach:
After being on the streets surrounding the Rally for one-on-one evangelism, tract distribution, and open-air preaching, we then went into the outskirts of the Rally itself and intermingled among the crowd of atheists that the street preachers gathered in order to attempt to have rational dialogue and discussion:
Some of the preachers holding signs were decent apologists whereas others were unprepared to interact intelligently with the unbelievers surrounding them.
Me interacting with a small group at first.
Thankfully, the guys with the big signs drew huge crowds of atheists around them and all you had to do to get your own crowd was to ask some of those on the outskirts of the already existing crowds, "Are you an atheist?" and when they said "Yes" then I asked "Why?" This was a great way to profitably start a conversation with these folks, though not many of the conversations were profitable thereafter because atheists don't know the weaknesses in their own worldviews very well.
Some of the sign-holders agitated the atheists at times, but it made for a great way to start conversations.
Like many Christians, most young atheists only read the pop-level New Atheists and don't attempt to read and seriously grapple with the many robust criticisms of their own views nor are many of them even aware that there are serious, weighty philosophical criticisms of their views. Many of them seemed to expect that most Christians are like those associated with the "Westboro Baptist Church" instead of having the ability to offer serious theological, philosophical, scientific, and historical arguments against their views. Several of the atheists I interacted with said that we were like a breath of fresh air to them simply because we knew what we believed and could defend it adequately. These types of atheists seemed to really enjoy conversations with us, even after we explicitly told them that they needed to repent.
Me explaining to an atheist that he is taking Scripture out of context to justify his position. This drew a huge crowd of people who were able to hear the gospel.
Many listening to me reason with the unreasonable.
It was heartbreaking to see someone so Hell-bent against God that they had tattooed "unsaved" on their arm.
I found that trying to video tape any of the interactions resulted in the unbeliever trying to "perform" for the video camera rather than actually grappling with the arguments I was presenting against their position, thus further promoting irrationality. Therefore, I have no video footage to offer.
The crowds in the perimeter were growing just as steadily as the dialogues were.
MY APPROACH
I attacked the four areas that skeptics pride themselves on by asking the following simple questions:
1. Truth - I asked, "What is truth in your worldview? What's your definition of 'truth'?"
2. Logic - I asked, "If you believe that only matter exists, (a) how do you account for the immaterial, universal, propositional, immaterial laws of logic given your philosophical materialism apart from an appeal to God and (b) how to you make sense out of our obligation to be rational?"
3. Science - "How do you answer the problem of induction from a secular perspective?"
4. Morality - "How do you account for objective morality without God?"
Regarding truth, most atheists responded, "I don't have to give a definition or account of truth to know what's true." I then responded usually with something like this, "If you don't know what truth is and can't account for it at all, how do you know that Christianity is false and atheism is true?"
Regarding logic, every atheist I interacted with in an in-depth way (which was probably 10-15 people) was completely unprepared to deal with this line of argumentation. I essentially simplified and used Drs. Welty and Anderson's argument for God from logic. Most of their rejoinders were of two kinds: (1) the laws of logic are just descriptions of the way humans have evolved to think, and (2) Nominalism - the laws of logic don’t really exist; claims about laws of logic are just convenient fictions. I refuted both of these by pointing that (1) confuses a description of those laws with the laws themselves, and (2) if the laws of logic don't really exist then they do. In other words, I pointed out that the laws of logic must exist in order to deny them; i.e., they exist necessarily.
Regarding science, we defined the problem of induction and then asked them if they knew how to answer the problem of induction apart from an appeal to the Judeo-Christian God. Using arguments from this paper, we showed that they can't make sense out of their scientific investigation apart from an appeal to God.
Regarding morality, we defined what objective morality was, showed that it requires God to make sense out of it, and as expected, most atheists defended moral relativism. When we showed the self-defeating nature of moral relativism, several atheists became emotional, inconsistent, and/or admitted that it would be okay to torture little girls for fun as long as society agreed to it. Please read the italicized portion of that last sentence again, its not a typo.
As expected, the atheists we interacted with were a philosophical and theological mess. All of the ones we interacted with were clueless about the very worldview they were attempting to critique and every one of them had a "Christian" background. We lovingly called every one of them to repentance and weaved Scripture in and out of our apologetic discussions. Paul nailed their predicament 2,000 years ago,
So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; 19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. (Eph. 4:17-19)
FUN
Nevertheless, we had some fun by enjoying some sightseeing the day before, some fellowship the night before during the "training time" and when taking breaks from evangelism:
A decent high-definition photo of the Capitol Building. It was a beautiful day for sight-seeing.
Elissa pondering the tulips as we overlook the National Mall.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution chiseled in stone on the side of this building.
Daddy and daughter enjoying some time together after evangelizing for almost 6 hours straight.
Mommy and daughter gettin' their grin on for the camry!
Bethel World Outreach Church - these were the only facilities we could procure for our training Friday night.
Photo opp with Pastors Jeff Durbin and Luke Pierson of Apologia Church. Both of these men are ardent defenders of the faith and good friends.
Enjoying Pastor Luke Pierson's manly beard.
IN CONCLUSION, atheism has nothing to offer and it was further confirmed this weekend. However, I want to finish on a good note. The last young man we spoke with was an early twenty-something who said he was as "former Christian". From a strategic standpoint, we didn't immediately challenge this claim as we sensed that it would have caused him to shut down to further dialogue, but we first listened to him and then asked diagnostic questions in order to show the problems with his worldview using the four categories above. When challenged, he then started "performing" in front of the other atheists standing around listening. They then entered the conversation but when we shut them down too, they all became very irrational and this young man picked up on their inconsistencies and irrational behavior and by his body language, you could tell that it made him uncomfortable and embarrassed. We then closed down those conversations since they were becoming unprofitable and then the young man said, "Hey, why don't we go over here and talk since I'd really like to listen to the next speaker." This was a sign that he wanted to ask some sincere questions, so we walked over to the edge of the Rally's main crowd while the next speaker began, and the young man began to ask me, "How do you really know that Christianity is true, how do you really know the Bible is God's word? Why do you believe that?" and as I began to "slice and dice" with apologetics and he said, "No, I don't want to challenge you or put you on the defensive, you see, I used to be a Christian, and I want to really know why you personally and sincerely believe these things." I essentially gave him this answer,
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. [1689 LBCF 1:5]
I then explained that when you begin with the correct foundation for all your reasoning, you're not left to "the futility of [your] mind, being darkened in [your] understanding" (Eph. 4:17-18). He then said, "But I really don't believe in God anymore." I then said, "I believe you're being sincere as well, but there's a part of you that's agreeing with me right now and saying, 'What's this guy's saying makes a whole lot of sense' and there's another part of you that's saying, 'No, run from this nonsense!' I know man, I've been there!" I then explained per Romans 1:19-32, that all people with normally functioning mental faculties intuit God through their own consciences and through the external world. However, because he went above and beyond in his truth suppression by drinking deeply from the sewage of secularism, those mental faculties that naturally intuit God were now damaged by sin. I then explained to him that this is the downward spiral of reprobation that God describes in Romans 1:18-32. At this point his hands began shaking and his jaws were clenching from what appeared to be some measure of conviction of sin. I then told him, "Many of the people in this crowd in front of you are too far gone. They have suppressed the truth for 30-40 years and as a result, they have been given over fully to a depraved mind." I then pointed out that he too was on that path and that he needed to beg the God that he hated for the ability to love Him. I gave him my ministry card and it was then that I was whisked away by one of the bearded pastors in the photos above. May God get great glory to Himself in these outreach endeavors and may He move Christians to both support those who are going into the secular mission field and equip themselves to do the work of evangelism in their own little sphere of influence.
Preaching to the crowds in the middle of the street in downtown Raleigh, NC
My family decided to take a day trip to participate in an evangelistic outreach at the 2012 St. Patrick's Day Parade in downtown Raleigh, NC. After preaching for 5 minutes in the middle of the street right before the parade started, I stepped down and got back together with my family and we started watching the parade. As I was holding my one year old daughter and enjoying the festivities, I felt something hit my shoe. When I looked down, my entire right side and her entire front was covered in vomit. My little sweetie-pie had just vomited all over herself and me.
I had vomit in my pockets, vomit all over the tracts I was going to hand out, and vomit inside my right shoe. I cleaned sweetie pie up, cleaned myself up as best I could, and then we proceeded to try to find a bathroom because we figured more was eventually coming from our little sweetie pie. Well, while we were waiting, our three year old was sitting in the stroller, doubled over, and gifted the sidewalk with a nice pile of puke for all to see. I stood there and watching in amazement, as I, a medically trained man, was trying to calculate how in the world so much liquid could come out of such a small person. It was then that my wife and I looked at each other thinking in stereo, "We gotta get outta here!"
As we drove home, I smelled like puke, my three year old was still puking in a bag in the back seat, and I only got to preach about 5 minutes. Nevertheless, I had a great time with my family. You might be thinking, "How is that possible?" The answer follows:
I don’t say this out of need, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. 12 I know both how to have a little, and I know how to have a lot. In any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of being content—whether well fed or hungry, whether in abundance or in need. 13 I am able to do all things through Him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:11-13 HCSB
The guy that wrote that knew a whole lot more about "hardship" than I do. Puking children were nothing to him. Just read his story of suffering in 2 Corinthians 11 and you'll see what I mean. But like Paul, I am slowly learning that when things don't go as anticipated, just enjoy the ride anyways because I can be sure that my loving Heavenly Father has custom crafted events like these for my good and for His glory (Romans 8:28).
What follows is Jesse Johnson's critique of The Way of the Master's method of evangelism delivered at the 2012 Shepherd's Conference: The Way(s) of the Master.
Evangelical scholar Dr. Paul Copan has thrown down the gauntlet against presuppositional apologetics in the following Gospel Coalition article in a series on apologetic methods: Questioning Presuppositionalism
Difficult to grasp? No, not really; “The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?"
Jeremiah 17:9“The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it? 10“I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds. 11“As a partridge that hatches eggs which it has not laid, So is he who makes a fortune, but unjustly; In the midst of his days it will forsake him, and in the end he will be a fool.”
In Kassi Underwood's self serving article on abortion she demonstrates an intense desire to justify the murder of her own child. While masking the purpose in a rambling metaphor of her dirty laundry, she gives herself away as a desperately wicked woman. She knows she is accountable to God according to Romans chapter one,
Romans 1:18-25, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
In an attempt to get the "sock in my washing machine" out of her conscience, she employs a religious idolatry that demonstrates her desperation;
"Four years ago, I started meditating, by which I mean that I sat down in the shower, for one minute per day, trying to focus on my breath. I mostly engaged in relentless thinking, but during the occasional break of silence, I incubated some useful realizations. I learned: my mind was like a washing machine with a bright sock lodged in the spin tub. Whatever passed through became discolored. Any information that my brain received would be tinted with prior reference."
She admits her sin, renames and redefines it, then presents her selfish rationalization to others who hold the same guilt for sinning against God in the murder of her own child.
Kassi; when your webcrawler finds this article, assume that Jesus Christ is using me to appeal to you to "the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15
I tell you the truth according to The Truth (John 14:6), unless you repent (Luke 13:3-5) you shall surely perish. Put away your idolatry, self justification and mystical comforts, and believe the Truth; Only Jesus Christ can save murders from their rightful judgment.
"a liability of human nature. We live in a world of ubiquitous stuckness."
Kassi, you admit sin in that statement. While you may redefine both the conscience and sin as "ubiquitous stuckness" you are denying your conscience which tells you that you have sinned, there is a God and you are rightfully due His perfect judgment! Therefore, my appeal to you is to repent, believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ and be saved from your sin! We will pray for you this week, culminating in praying for you on Saturday morning at A Woman's Choice Abortion Clinic, where those who you comfort will act out their own sin, murdering their children.
I beg you, repent, put your faith in Jesus Christ!
It is no secret that the traditions of men often crowd out the word of God. The history of true religion has always been a fight to keep man’s ideas from distorting God’s truth. When it comes to the Christian church, traditions aren’t bad in and of themselves. We have them here at Shepherd’s Fellowship. We have a particular way that we do things each Sunday morning. Some of the things that we do are part of what’s known as a traditional Protestant worship service. For instance, we have certain Scripture passages we plan to read, songs we plan to sing, and verses that the elders plan to teach. We are not bound by this order; we could change it as we see fit because Scripture doesn’t mandate any particular order. But, Scripture does say that when we meet, we must have order. We can’t just show up whenever we want to and start banging on a piano while three people in the back preach simultaneously during announcements, while the children enjoy a good food fight. Such would be lunacy. So, we try to do things in a decent and orderly way (1 Cor. 14:40) and while Scripture doesn’t mandate the particular way we’ve chosen to do it, it is designed to help us better understand and live out the truths of Scripture.
However, traditions can become a problem when they nullify the word of God. Traditions nullify or invalidate the word of God when:
They prevent us from doing something that God specifically commands.
They cause us to do something that God clearly forbids.
Consider what occurred in Jesus’ day with what was known as the “Corban rule” in Mark 7:1-13:
The Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Him. 2 They observed that some of His disciples were eating their bread with •unclean—that is, unwashed—hands. 3 (For the Pharisees, in fact all the Jews, will not eat unless they wash their hands ritually, keeping the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they have washed. And there are many other customs they have received and keep, like the washing of cups, jugs, copper utensils, and dining couches.) 5 Then the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why don’t Your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating bread with ritually unclean hands?” 6 ¶ He answered them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written:
¶ These people honor Me with their lips,
but their heart is far from Me.They worship Me in vain,
teaching as doctrines the commands of men.
8 ¶ Disregarding the command of God, you keep the tradition of men.” 9 He also said to them, “You completely invalidate God’s command in order to maintain your tradition! 10 For Moses said: Honor your father and your mother; and Whoever speaks evil of father or mothermust be put to death.
11 ¶ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or mother: Whatever benefit you might have received from me is Corban’” (that is, a gift committed to the temple), 12 “you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 You revoke God’s word by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many other similar things.”
The word “Corban” is a Hebrew word that means “offering”. By using this word in a religious vow, an irresponsible Jewish son could formally dedicate to God (i.e., to the temple) his earnings that otherwise should have gone to support his elderly parents. That money however, didn’t necessarily have to go for religious purposes. The “Corban rule” was simply a means of circumventing the clear responsibility of children toward their parents as commanded in the Law of Moses (Ex. 20:12). The teachers of the law held that the Corban oath was binding, even when uttered rashly. The practice was one of many traditions that adhered to the letter of the law while ignoring its spirit. The teachers of the law appealed to Numbers 30:1-2 in support of the Corban vow, but Jesus categorically rejects the practice of using one Biblical teaching to invalidate another. The scribal interpretation of Numbers 30:1-2 satisfied the letter of the passage but missed the meaning of the law as a whole. God never intended obedience to one command to invalidate another. Thus, this was a tradition of men and not a teaching of God’s word. Notice that this tradition of men invalidated God’s word on both counts:
It prevented one from doing something that God specifically commanded: “But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or mother: Whatever benefit you might have received from me is Corban’” (that is, a gift committed to the temple), 12 “you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.”). In other words, since the guy made an oath to give this money to the temple, he couldn’t give any future money to his elderly parents.
It causes us to do something that God clearly forbids: “. . . Moses said: Honor your father and your mother . . . But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or mother: Whatever benefit you might have received from me is Corban’” . . . “you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus, you don’t honor your parents.
Do you see the problem? Traditions of men are sneaky and deceptive. They oftentimes begin out of a good motive; namely, a desire to be obedient to the word of God. But once they take full effect, they not only fail to keep the word of God, but they do the exact opposite! As we look at Mark 2:18-22, keep the issue of traditions of men in mind.
OBSERVATION & INTERPRETATION
Verses 18-20 – “Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. People came and asked Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the Pharisees’ disciples fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” 19 Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests cannot fast while the groom is with them, can they? As long as they have the groom with them, they cannot fast. 20 But the time will come when the groom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.”
John’s disciples may have been following the traditional Jewish fasting schedule, which was about five fasts per year (Zech. 8:19; Est. 9:31).
The Pharisees went far beyond this with some P. fasting at least twice per week at the time of Jesus.
Either way, it was visibly obvious that fasting was going on (contra Jesus’ warnings in Mt. 6:6-18) and these people wanted to know why Jesus’ disciples didn’t.
V. 19 – Jesus reminds them that weddings are a time of festivity, not fasting. The Groom is with them, this is truly a time to “eat, drink, and be merry”!
V. 20 – Jesus speaks of a time when He will be forcefully (Gk., aparthe) taken away from them. Just like John’s disciples fasted after he was taken away from them, so Jesus’ disciples will do the same.
Verses 21-22 “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. Otherwise, the new patch pulls away from the old cloth, and a worse tear is made. 22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost as well as the skins. But new wine is for fresh wineskins.”
V. 21 – “ unshrunk cloth” refers to cloth that hasn’t been processed by a fuller. A fuller was a professional cleaner that cleaned and combed fabrics to remove natural oil and gum from them, and bleached them to make them ready for use in making clothes. The cloth fabric was thus pre-shrunk. However, “unfulled” cloth (i.e., “unshrunk cloth”) was still liable to shrink when washed; thus, its disastrous effect when used as a patch on an old (and therefore already shrunk) garment. Jesus was saying that the shrinking patch pulls away from the old garment, leaving a worse tear than was there originally.
V. 22- In ancient times goatskins were used to hold wine. At first they were soft and pliable, but after constant use they became brittle. They were then liable to burst under the pressure of fermentation if used for “new wine” (i.e., grape juice that wasn’t fermented yet). As the fresh grape juice fermented, the wine would expand, and the new wineskin would stretch. But a used skin that was already stretched out would break. As His listeners heard the parable, they understood that this related to the implications that the gospel would have upon their previously existing religious structures and traditions. Jesus brings a newness that cannot be confined within the old forms of Judaism with its traditions. The HCSB Study Bible puts it this way, “Both sayings indicate the impossibility of integrating Jesus’ teachings [the new] with the religious structures and practices of traditional Judaism [the old].”[1]
As France notes, “Clearly the new wine (and the new cloth) represents the teaching of Jesus and the new vitality which is coming into the religious experience of those who through him are encountering God’s kingship. The old skins and the old garment are, in the narrative context, the structures of the existing religious tradition, as represented especially by the Pharisees and their scribal teaching, whether in theology (the forgiveness of sins) or practice (purity of table fellowship; fasting). Attempts to contain Jesus with these constraints have already proved futile, and his followers must be prepared to break free. It would be a mistake, however, to confine the relevance of these parables only to Jesus’ confrontations with the scribes and to the specific issues raised in these chapters. The principle is a broader one, as applicable to the constricting influence of Christian traditions as it is to the context of first-century Judaism.”[2] With that in mind, let’s apply Jesus’ teaching to our own situation.
APPLICATION
We can't do two things:
1. We cannot take New Covenant truth and try to shove it back into Old Covenant forms. This means that Torah keeping, circumcision, Old Covenant ceremonies, feast days, Sabbaths, and the like cannot hold New Covenant truths, teachings, and blessings because they were never designed to do that. They were designed to be types and shadows of what was to come. The Law of Moses was a "nanny" that "babysat" the people of God until the time of the New Covenant arrived (Gal. 3:23-26). Once the New Covenant age of "faith" came, the "nanny" was no longer needed. Thus, to try to make the New Covenant fit into the forms of the Old Covenant shadows is to destroy the truths of both covenants. It is like trying to move the redemptive clock backwards as it were.
2. Religious rituals, traditions, and other forms of unbiblical, man-made rules and structures cannot be universally mandated upon the people of God in the New Covenant era. What works for one era of Church history may be completely irrelevant for another era of Church history and may cause the people of God to turn an originally good yet unbiblical tradition into law and thus cause believers to nullify the word of God.
Questions for discussion:
Given what the NT says about what an elder/pastor/overseer is supposed to do (“training saints to do the work of the ministry” – Eph. 4:12), do you think that early Roman Catholicism with its view of the absolute necessity of “grace dispensing priests” affected the original New Testament body life envisioned by the apostles of Jesus in the pages of the New Testament? In other words, did the accretion of human tradition in the early medieval church invalidate the commands (and the ability) for Christians to practice the “one-anothers” of the New Testament?
Given the fact that the Protestant Reformers came out of Catholicism, do you think they carried some of these same traditions into their Protestant churches? In other words, did their religious background and the fact that they knew nothing other than a tight church-state relationship affect the way they ministered in their churches?
Given the fact that Sovereign Grace Baptist Churches are historical heirs of the Reformation, do you think that any of these traditions of men have affected the leadership of their churches in any way?
Given the fact that Shepherd’s Fellowship is a Sovereign Grace Baptist Church, do you think that this has affected the thinking of the leadership of our church?
Given the fact that you are part of Shepherd’s Fellowship, how has this “tradition” affected your thinking?
Do our “Protestant traditions” (1) prevent us from doing something that God specifically commands and (2) do they cause us to do something that God clearly forbids? If so, what should we do to fix the problem? If not, how do we avoid the problem in the future?
IN CONCLUSION, putting new wine into fresh wineskins doesn’t apply only to Jesus’ contemporaries, but it applies to us today. We can’t take New Covenant truth and chain it down to either Old Covenant shadows or to the ritualistic traditions of men. Many “blessed Protestant and Baptist traditions” have the potential of nullifying the word of God by allowing ritualism, traditionalism, and outright obstinacy to destroy New Covenant truth, gospel-preaching, Kingdom building, and Christian living. When it comes to doctrine and body life, we must always be asking ourselves the question, “What does the New Testament say?”
[1]HCSB Study Bible, (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2010), Mark 2:21-22 footnote, 1683.
[2] R.T. France, The New International Greek Testament Commentary: Mark, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002), 142.
[3]Robert A. Morey, The Traditional Church vs. The New Testament Church: The Encyclopedia of Practical Christianity, (Las Vegas, NV: Christian Scholars Press, 2003) 393-395.
