Issue 208 June 2014 How To, and How Not To Preach the … · 1 Quoted in D.A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 16. 2 J.I. Packer in My Path of

that you can determine what really matters and can be pure and blameless in the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.” We can glean four things from this God-centered prayer.

First, we learn that we should pray for one another. We saw this in verse four of chapter one where Paul prays for all the Philippians. He prays for all of them and for their love. He asks that their love would abound yet more and more. We should absolutely pray for those outside our church family, but we should prioritize those in our own immediate faith family.

Second, we should pray with affection for those in our faith family. Paul deeply misses this church. We should long for our church members. You say, I just re-ally don’t care that much for anyone in

This article was transcribed from a sermon. It was left very much as verbally presented, which accounts for the way some things are stated.

We previously have covered nine things to do, or not to do, when introducing someone in an understanding of the doctrines of grace. This article concludes the series.

Number 10: Never preach sovereign grace without appealing to the mind as the means to reach the heart.

Our goal in preaching is to have the truth of God’s word affect the mind, the heart or emotion, and finally to move the will to obey the truth; however, the order is very important. If we try to move the will to choose to obey without carefully explaining precisely what is to be obeyed, we will wake up tomorrow not knowing what we chose. We will have a religion based totally on emotions that has, by bypassing the mind, unwit-tingly rejected the Word of God as the foundation and authority for what we believe and how we are to live. We will have

Issue 2 0 8 Ju ne 2 014

… It is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace … Hebrews 13:9

How To, and How Not To Preach the Doctrines of Grace—Part Three

John G. Reisinger

Who should pray more? All hands go up. Robert Mur-ray M’Cheyne writes, “What a man is alone on his knees before God, that he is, and no more.”1 Similarly, J.I. Packer says, “I believe that prayer is the measure of the man, spir-itually, in a way that nothing else is, so that how we pray is as important a question as we can ever face.”2 It is easy to make people feel guilty about our lack of prayer. Perhaps we need some of this, but rather than being reminded of how terrible we are at Christianity, I think we need inspi-ration. Philippians 1:8-11 gives us just that: “For God is my witness, how I deeply miss all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus. And I pray this: that your love will keep on growing in knowledge and every kind of discernment, so

1 Quoted in D.A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 16.

2 J.I. Packer in My Path of Prayer, ed. David Hanes (Worthing, West Sussex: Henry E. Walter, 1981), 56.

Praying God’s Way (Phil. 1:8-11)A. Blake White

Reisinger—Continued on page 2

White—Continued on page 12

In This IssueHow To, and How Not To Preach the Doctrines of Grace—Part Three

John G. Reisinger

1

Praying God's Way (Phil. 1:8-11)

A. Blake White1

Apologetics and Reformed Theol-ogy, Why Bother?

Steve West

3

Heaven on Earth or Paradise Lost? Part 1 of 2

Dr. J. David Gilliland

5

Reflections on JGR's Ministry for a Younger Generation

Steve West

7

Page 2 June 2014 Issue 208Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign

Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt 501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound of Grace are deductible under section 170 of the Code.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year. The subscription price is shown below. This is a paper unashamedly committed to the truth of God’s sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology. We invite all who love these same truths to pray for us and help us financially.

We do not take any paid advertising. The use of an article by a particular person

is not an endorsement of all that person believes, but it merely means that we thought that a particular article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger, David Leon, John Thorhauer, Bob VanWing-erden and Jacob Moseley.

Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385; e-mail: [email protected].

General Manager: Jacob Moseley: [email protected]

Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938 – Phone 301-473-8781 Visit the bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial material and questions to: John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16, Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org or SOGNCM.org

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNA-TIONAL VERSION® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked “NKJV” are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Contributions Orders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contri-bution to Sound of Grace, please mail a check to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label to find the expiration of your subscription. Please send payment if you want your subscription to continue—$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you would prefer to have a pdf file emailed, that is available for $10.00 for ten issues. If you are unable to subscribe at this time, please call or drop a note in the mail and we will be glad to continue Sound of Grace free of charge.

Reisinger—Continued from page 1


a religion based on emotions that fails to be the true Gospel. We will preach fervently, “believe, believe,” but will not root what we are to believe in the Scriptures. We, even if unknow-ingly, will have denied the authority of Scriptures. We have given our emotions the final authority to decide truth. This is dangerous.

I remember listening on the radio to the keynote message of an inter-national charismatic conference. The speaker said, “You will never know the fullness the Holy Spirit until you put your brains into a box and shoot it to the moon and totally open your self up to the Holy Spirit’s leading.” I will agree in insisting that our religion must have a definite emotional con-tent, but emotions are not the control-ling element. Paul is quite clear that “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets” (I Cor. 14:32). The mind controls the emotions, the emo-tions do not control the mind.

The other extreme is to preach to the mind as an end in itself and not as the means to arouse the emotions to desire the will to choose the truth. A mere intelligent decision and sincere belief of the truth of the Bible does not, in itself, save the soul if it is only an intellectual belief. Believing that “Columbus crossed the ocean blue” is not the same as “believing in Christ” to be saved. A Gospel that affects the mind but not the emotions is not the Gospel of the Bible. That’s the way we must preach all the time: we must not be satisfied until our preaching has Biblically instructed the mind, the heart and the will.

I remember a man who loved to have dinner with me because he loved to discuss theology. He was very or-thodox including a clear grasp of the doctrines of grace. I’m not sure if the man was really converted. He knew a great deal about theological concepts but very little about Scripture itself. He worshiped the Canons of Dort and

always wanted to argue on the basis of the creeds. He was more interested in what Calvin said than in what the Apostle Paul said. He never wanted to discuss the Scriptures alone. One time he said to me, “The real dif-ference between us is your attitude toward the Scriptures. You will not believe anything unless you can see it in a specific text of Scripture.” I said, “That’s right.” He said, “That would be awfully boring.” At the last meal I had with him he said, “There are two things I have learned from you. Num-ber one: I now believe for the first time that you can be both Calvinistic and also be evangelistic. I didn’t use to believe you could be both, but you are really both.” The other thing he said he learned was what the Lord’s Table means and what it means to worship at the Lord’s Table.

We must preach with an appeal to the will, but that appeal must come from Scripture. We must be evange-listic, but the content of the message must be from the platform of the sovereignty of God. We don’t hide our belief in the sovereignty of God until Christians are more mature. Romans chapter 9 is an awesome chapter. Can anybody, without looking, tell me how chapter 10 begins? It says, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved.” You might be ready to say, “wait a minute! That’s a contradiction of everything you just said!” So be it. I don’t care if I’m consistent with John Reisinger, just so I’m consistent with Scripture. The same man who wrote in Romans 9 that God sovereignly chooses to either damn or save whom he will also wrote in Romans chapter 10 that he prayed and worked to see all his Jewish brethren be saved. A firm belief in God’s sovereign election did not hinder Paul’s evangelistic zeal.

Sometimes people say to me, “Mr. Reisinger, how do you get these two things that seem to be so opposite of each other—how do you get moral

Issue 208 June 2014 Page 3

West—Continued on page 15

Apologetics and Reformed Theology: Why Bother?Steve West

The subject of apologetics gener-ates inordinate amounts of friction in the Reformed community. There are at least three major apologetic meth-ods that are endorsed by Reformed thinkers, and these major approaches can be subdivided into schools that can themselves be subdivided. Not only are there a plethora of opinions about apologetic method, the strength of certain arguments, the value of par-ticular bits of data and evidence, etc., there are some Reformed folk who are convinced that apologetics is a waste of time at best, and dishonoring to God at worst.

All of this can be very confus-ing—not to mention frustrating—for people who do not have the time, interest, or technical background to comb through the enormous volume of literature written about apologetics from a Reformed perspective. This can be particularly difficult for pas-tors. Many people in the congrega-tion look at the pastor as the church’s resident expert on all matters of the Christian faith. If you have a question, you ask the pastor. Unfortunately, to-day there seem to be more questions than ever before. A culturally and philosophically pluralistic society is, of course, an environment where the sheer diversity of life will challenge assumptions that a more homogenous group takes for granted. Not only is this the case, but contemporary com-munications technology makes it possible to find any opinion on any subject under the sun. Add to this a zeitgeist that is distinctly following a trajectory from favoring Christianity to distancing itself from Christianity, to increasing in its hostility toward Christianity, and all of a sudden the average pastor is going to find them-selves serving a congregation where

many, many people are facing chal-lenges to their faith and looking for help.

One of the things I’ve discovered in the ministry is that I spend more time dealing with apologetic questions that come from Christians than from non-Christians. In my experience, the likelihood of being challenged by a militant atheist is far smaller than the likelihood of meeting with a believer who is struggling with doubts about the intellectual credibility of their faith. (In fact, I must say that the athe-ists I’ve talked with about the faith are actually usually remarkably civil and respectful—the more atheists I meet, the more Richard Dawkins seems like an anomaly, for more reasons than one.) In the last few months, I have met with three university students from other churches who are seriously doubting the truth of the Christianity they were taught while growing up. Pastors, teachers, and leaders cannot afford to neglect learning how to de-fend the faith: part of today’s reality is that there are many Christians in those very churches who need apolo-getics.

Fairly obviously, saying this clearly places me outside of the camp of those who believe that apologet-ics is a subject that Christians should avoid. The reasons frequently given for why we should stay away from apologetics tend to make fair points, but then end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For example, it is sometimes noted that apologetic arguments are never directly respon-sible for someone’s conversion. This is true, and people who subscribe to Reformed theology should know it better than anyone! Total depravity guarantees that nobody will respond to the gospel apart from God’s sover-

eign grace. Certainly nobody is going to be argued into the kingdom. Why, then, engage in apologetics? Why not—as some suggest—simply preach the gospel, and trust in the regenerat-ing power of the Holy Spirit? If the apologetic arguments won’t convince a totally depraved sinner to accept Je-sus, what good are they?

In my judgment, as well-inten-tioned as this objection is, it is based on a fairly elementary fallacy. There are many things that are not directly instrumental for conversion, but that hardly means they’re valueless. Thankfully, today there is an increas-ing realization that evangelism nor-mally requires building bridges and establishing relationships with the un-saved. Having people over for meals, informal chatting, or any one of a mil-lion relationship-building activities is worth doing. It seems strange, then, that of all the conversations we’re al-lowed to have with unbelievers, the only one that is ruled out involves the intellectual credibility of the faith! Furthermore, if we are going to have real discussions about sports, politics, the economy, morality, and religion, how will we be able to share our perspectives without at least tacitly engaging in apologetics and defending what we believe?

Of course, it is only the gospel that saves, but apologetics gives peo-ple the opportunity to be challenged by the reality of the gospel. It gets them thinking about it. Sometimes an apologetic discussion actually allows for a direct articulation of the gospel. For example, a defense of the resur-rection of Jesus Christ from the dead is a discussion about the resurrec-tion, and if you are capable of talking

Page 4 June 2014 Issue 208

responsibility and sovereignty togeth-er?” I show them texts like John 6:37. The first part clearly teaches election, “All the Father giveth me will come to me.” There will be no empty chairs in heaven catching cobwebs because man’s so-called free will could not be persuaded to believe the Gospel—that is sovereign election. However, the verse does not stop there. Jesus con-tinues, “And him that cometh to me, I will in nowise cast out.” We can, and must, say, “Sinner, whoever you are, when you come to Christ and trust him to save you, you will be saved.” I say without fear of contradiction, “My dear friend, the problem is not how do I get free moral agency and sovereign-ty together. The question is how can you get them apart?” It isn’t my job to get them together; but you must figure out some way to get them apart. Jesus put those two together, and you must twist the very words of God to deny either one of them. Read John 6:37 again, but be sure to read the whole verse.

Look at the eleventh chapter of Matthew. “When Jesus lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, ‘Father, I thank you that you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent and revealed them unto babes,’” and then that awesome verse: “No man knoweth the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son chooses to reveal him. You can’t get any higher theology than that? You can’t know God unless the Son chooses to reveal him, and he reveals him to whomso-ever he will. Look at the next verse? “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” That is the free offer of the Gos-pel addressed to sinners. You can’t get the sovereignty of God and appealing to the hearts of sinners apart from each other in these verses if you be-lieve and you preach the Scriptures.

Number 11: Never preach the truth of grace unless we demand the fruits of grace in our lives as evidence

that we really believe.

What I mean is this: do not preach your own election. We must insist that believing in election is not the same as having the truth of election pierce our heart. Effectual calling is not a doctrine you argue over. It’s an experience of being brought to a living faith by the Spirit to trust Christ. John 6:44-45 are two verses that should never be separated. “No man can come to me except the Fa-ther which has sent me draw him.” No man can come to Christ, except or unless, that’s depravity. What’s the next verse? “They shall all be taught of God; every man therefore that hath learned of the Father cometh to me”—that’s effectual calling. No man can unless—depravity. Every man will come when--that’s effectual calling. That’s not theology that you argue about; that’s experience. The question is not, “Do you believe in elec-tion?” but, “Do you believe in the God who graciously saves?” Not, “Do you believe in ef-fectual calling?” but, “Have you been brought by the power of the gospel to trust and love Jesus Christ?”

We must preach the necessity of experience. The Jews made this tragic mistake. Do you know what the Jews believed? They believed God hated the Gentiles just because they were Gentiles, and he loved the Jews just because they were Jews irrespective of the way they lived. Unfortunately, we sometimes think God loves the Calvinists just because they’re Cal-vinists regardless of whether they preach the gospel or not. We think God doesn’t have anything to do with the Arminians just because they’re Arminians. That’s nonsense, utter nonsense! Sometimes we chide our covenant theological friends in the Presbyterian denomination. They

tease me about covenant children, and I say, “I believe in baptizing covenant children.” I really do. I believe in bap-tizing covenant children as soon as they prove, by their faith and repen-tance, that they are covenant children. This becomes an example of preach-ing your own election. We can do the same thing if we substitute a personal knowledge of the truth for the per-sonal experience of the truth.

Number 12: Use great men with whom you agree as examples.

I am a nobody, but C.H. Spurgeon agrees with me on this point. Spur-geon was beyond question both a Cal-vinist and a great soul-winner. Always add, “that great soul-winner” when you quote Spurgeon! As I mentioned before, there was only one person

in the church I pastored in Canada who believed in the doctrines of grace in the whole church. God blessed our ministry, and we saw people converted. I did not give altar calls. One night after the service a couple of deacons came to me and said, “Pastor, if

you would have given an altar call to night, twenty people would have come forward!” They would argue about altar calls, but they never once ques-tioned whether I preached the Gospel. They saw the evidence of the grace of God in real conversions. Their biggest problem was often expressed, “Why didn’t we ever hear this before?” The people thought they had to disown all the godly pastors they knew. It seemed to them that I was claiming to be the only one that was right.

I invited Dr. Harold S. Laird, who was then about 75-years-old and a Presbyterian preacher that God had greatly used in my life, to speak at a missionary conference. I asked him to speak on the doctrines of grace and missions. He is one of those people who looks like a saint when he smiles.



“I believe in baptizing covenant children.” I really do. I believe in baptizing covenant children as soon as they prove, by their faith and repentance, that they are covenant children.


Gilliland—Continued on page 10

Whether by the theories of evolu-tion, modern humanistic psychol-ogy, or socialistic political systems, modern man—under the tutelage of the philosophers, scientists, and politi-cians—seeks to rid the world of a God and sin consciousness. We romanti-cally cling to the notions reflected in the old Beatles song:

Imagine there’s no heaven / It’s easy if you try / No hell below us / Above only sky.

This is all with the goal of elevat-ing the status and glory of man, as William Faulkner in his Nobel Peace Prize address so aptly summarized:

I believe man will not merely en-dure: He will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among the crea-tures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and en-durance.

But, the catastrophic political and geographic events of the last few years have shaken this philosophy to the core. As the dust settles or the wa-ters recede, one can hear the voice of the prophets, “Who art man that thou are mindful of him?” Gerard Baker, writing in The Australian shortly after the 2004 Tsunami reflected:

We stand in awe of nature and feel helpless before its apparently insuper-able power. The rising death toll in Southeast Asia seems to mock our pretensions to progress. We may have been to the moon, eradicated small-pox and created eBay, we think, but when the tectonic plates move we are no more secure than were the barefoot citizens of Pompeii.

Martin Kettle, writing for The Guardian echoes this awareness of helplessness:

The modern era flatters itself that human beings can now know and shape almost everything about the world. But an event like the Indone-sian earthquake exposes much of this for the hubris that it is.

But in the midst of this epistemo-logical bedlam we should ask, “Where are the answers?” Gerard Baker con-tinues,

Inevitably, confronted with a trag-edy of unimaginable scale, the human mind looks for someone to blame. In the Dark Ages, disasters were as-cribed to the wrath of God … In the absence of a deity to decry or appease when the earth moves in such devas-tating fashion, humankind reaches for the next best thing—worldly author-ity. Authority should have known it was coming. Authority didn’t do enough to prevent it. Authority was too preoccupied with its own nefari-ous priorities to care.

Boris Johnson, writing for the Opinion in mocking despair adds:

If we can persuade ourselves that there is some divine justice in a terri-fying flood, then we have the consola-tion of believing that man may be in some sense the author of his own mis-fortunes. Of course, we are no longer quite so primitive as to think, with the writers of the ancient scriptures, that natural calamities may be casually connected to human bad behavior. If there are any loonies out there who think that Phuket is being punished for being the modern Nineveh, they have had the good sense to keep it to themselves … In this largely godless age, we have a more subtle interpreta-tion of the relation between human

excess and natural disaster … But, whatever you say about the slipping of tectonic plates on the seabed off Su-matra, it had nothing to do with global warming. It was not caused by deca-dent use of Right Guard, or George W Bush, or the flouting of the Kyoto Protocol, or inadequate enforcement of the Windows and Doors Regulation of April 2002 … And if the priests and the scientists have nothing useful to say on the matter, the same goes in spades for politicians and journalists. We yearn, with that immemorial hu-man ache, to find someone to blame—but whom?”

The biblical message comes to us in the midst of this arrogant confu-sion. That message can be summed up in one word − judgment − and these events explained in one sentence: man is ultimately at fault, and God is the ultimate cause. In the words of Martin Luther in his epic work The Bondage of the Will, “God always has His hand in the action of the sin, but never in the sin of the action.” Did God not say, “The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these?” (Isa. 45:7). If God were the ultimate cause of calamity, what would be one of the purposes of such catastrophic events if not the judgment of God? Even the non-believers recognize it in some sense. Regarding the recent tsunami one Buddhist monk remarked, “It’s the punishment of nature. If there are many people who are selfish, thinking about only themselves, then the nature will punish.”

But there is perhaps no subject that will draw the angst and ire of profess-ing Christians like a discussion on the justice and judgment of God. Even if

Heaven on Earth or Paradise Lost? Part 1 of 2

Dr. J. David GillilandThis article was first presented some years ago by Providence Theological Seminary. We consider it worthy of reprinting. Ed.



do is draw a picture of a horse. For others you need to write underneath your drawing, “This is a horse.” There are still other people for whom you have to put a picture of a cow and write underneath it, “This is a cow.” In our day of theological ignorance we have to say to most people, “This is not a horse; it’s a cow.” We really have to do that when we teach. We have to say, “This is truth and this isn’t truth, it is error, and this is why the first is truth and the second is error. The sec-

ond is error because it will not fit into the Scriptures. It is not consistent with the rest of the Word of God. “

Number 14: I would suggest that you don’t attack any man or any movement.

We do not preach against or for Billy Graham. God has been pleased to use him. Remember when Jesus’ disciples said, “There are some fel-lows over here preaching in your name, call fire down on them.” Do you remember what Jesus said? He said to leave them alone. He did not say go over and join them, and he did not say condemn them. Billy Graham is responsible to God not to me. Mar-tyn Lloyd-Jones was mentioned by Bill Payne as not going along with the Billy Graham Crusade. Billy Graham personally came to visit Lloyd-Jones and twisted his arm to cooperate, but Lloyd-Jones refused. He would not for two reasons: because of Billy Gra-ham’s theology and use of altar calls and secondly, because of his open cooperation with liberals. Shortly after that I heard a sermon on tape by Lloyd-Jones, and I heard his prayer before the sermon. I looked on the date of the tape, and it was the week that Billy Graham was holding a city wide evangelistic meeting. Lloyd-Jones stood in his pulpit and prayed for God to bless Graham’s efforts to reach men with the gospel. Lloyd-Jones could not in good conscience publically participate in Graham’s

You almost see and feel the grace of God when he preaches. He preached his way right into the hearts of our people. I mean they really loved him. For the next two years I said, “As Dr. Laird said when he was here …”

Our job is to impart truth, not to make disciples. I’ll tell you what will happen if you get people to come and teach the same thing you believe. If they teach it graciously, they will af-firm what you believe. “You will often see people that have struggled with what you teach begin to understand. They may have been very vocal in their oppo-sition. They fought with you so often they do not want to admit they were wrong. A guest preacher, like Dr. Laird, comes along and preaches the same thing you preached but with a slightly different twist. That gives that person a bridge. He can come to you and say, “Pastor—if you would have said it that way, I would have under-stood it.” What do you care if he’s us-ing a bridge and doesn’t want to admit he was wrong? Who do we think we are that we think people have to publi-cally admit they were wrong? Let’s just rejoice that they believe the truth. This will happen because of the prin-ciple: “by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall everything be estab-lished.” If they choose another preach-er, maybe with grey hair, to establish the truth, all the better--especially if that gray hair is walking in the way of righteousness.

Number 13: Be clear, patient, and honest when you teach.

Don’t be ambiguous. As I men-tioned before, always start by admit-ting that there are Christians who disagree with you. Be very clear about this! When you do teach a theologi-cal truth, make sure that you teach it clearly and people understand what it means. For instance, to teach some people about a horse, all you have to

crusade, but he also felt no compul-sion to openly condemn it. He also did not hesitate to publically pray for the crusade. That should be our attitude, and we can do it without denying what we believe. We don’t have to join things that we can’t conscientiously publically be a part of. However, if God chooses to use somebody who does not line up with me 100%, then I say, “God bless them.” Is that right? We need the spirit of John the Bap-tist: “He must increase, and I must decrease.” Imagine losing all of your disciples overnight. That is what hap-pened to John the Baptist. Imagine somebody pointing to Jesus and say-ing to John, “Isn’t that the man that took all your disciples?” John would have replied, “Yes, but that’s the way it should be.” That is a servant’s heart. We should rejoice wherever God is pleased to work and not think that he has to work through us and us alone. If you are forced into openly criticiz-ing someone, make sure that you don’t take a statement that somebody makes and push it to a logical conclusion and create a caricature that the person re-ally doesn’t believe. God has not made you or me his sheriff. I can’t join some things; there are some things I can’t participate in, but I’m not going to publicly criticize things that God seems to be using and blessing in the lives of other people.

Along the same line, don’t ever say to someone who professes to be a Christian but does not agree with some of your theology, “Well, you don’t believe the Bible” or, “He doesn’t believe the Bible.” When people reject my understanding of predestination that does not necessar-ily mean they’re not Christians. They may reject my version because they do believe the Bible. They will object because they misunderstand it. The first time they hear biblical election, everything they have been taught about sovereignty and free will is called into question. They have never


Our job is to impart truth, not to make disciples.


Reflections—Continued on page 19

This Spring, John G. Reisinger turned 90 years old, which means he is slightly more than 55 years older than I am. I remember years ago at a summer camp hearing him say: “Soon I’ll be 70: that’s terrible!” I was unable to attend a gathering for his birthday since I was teaching a modular semi-nary course on the Saturday it was held, but I did think of him. As I was thinking about this milestone in his life it gave me pause to consider some of the things about his ministry which should encourage a younger genera-tion of preachers. What follows is not exhaustive, but rather represents some of my personal reflections on this topic. I thought about trying to have 90 reflections, but I settled on six.

1. Be a student of the Word. I think this is one of the most impor-tant aspects of John’s ministry. He was a student of the Word. He read it and studied it and meditated on it. He clearly read many other books, but his messages and lectures were never just cut-and-paste quotations and ideas from commentators and theologians. The Bible itself shaped his thinking and warmed his heart.

When I was just starting in min-istry around 20 years of age, I heard John preach and teach at several camps and conferences. I’ll never for-get how I came away from those times excited to study the Bible. Sometimes I hear people speak and it makes me want to buy and read their books—but with John I always wanted to go out and get right into the Word itself. He knew it, understood it, and loved it, and that was infectious. When I think of John’s ministry I think of a min-istry that was Biblicist. He never just gave lip-service to the importance of the Bible, he demonstrated it every

time he spoke.

This Bible-centeredness some-times brought criticism because of the views he had to abandon and the views he had to accept. But I appreci-ate so much the stand that John has taken: our theological systems need to fit into the Word, not vice versa! No matter how cherished the doctrine or how seemingly logical the deduc-tions, if our theological formulations are out of step with biblical texts then we simply have to stand with the Scriptures. John’s study of the Bible is where he got his Calvinism. His study of the Bible is where he broke some truly new ground in New Covenant Theology. If he had only studied the Westminster Confession, or if he had been content to stick with the old-line Dispensational notes in his Scofield Reference Bible, we would never have the biblically-grounded Abraham’s Four Seeds (in my opinion, his best book, and still an excellent resource). John’s theology was informed by oth-ers, but it was truly formed by the Scriptures. That is well worth remem-bering and well worth imitating.

2. Be a teacher of the Word. This might sound like something that doesn’t need to be said, but teachers and preachers of the Word need to teach and preach the Word! I recog-nize that John was uniquely gifted in being able to teach theology in a way that everyone could understand, but that would also have been a conscious choice. Going over everyone’s head to demonstrate your theological acumen is useless. Teachers and preachers must serve their audiences rather than their egos.

John did such a good job of teach-ing theology to everyone that one might have been forgiven for some-

times thinking he wasn’t that well read, or he wasn’t able to plumb the depths of theology like some other people. I can tell you from personal experience that John was very well informed! Twice in the last few years I was able to drive him down to the John Bunyan Conference in Lewis-burg, and on the way he would ask questions and give answers and talk about things he was thinking about. In the car I saw a side of him that wasn’t seen in the pulpit. It was the deep thinker who worked carefully and logically through an issue, and who then figured out how to express it so clearly in the pulpit that it seemed like no effort at all had gone into it!

You don’t have to be a profession-al scholar to have a deep understand-ing of the Bible, and you certainly don’t have to present yourself as an academic in order to actually have a profound grasp of biblical truth. Per-haps many of our ministries would be much stronger if we spent more time in the Bible, less time in other books, and more time thinking about the clearest and simplest possible way to teach other people. John’s style is inimitable, and his gifting extraordi-narily unique, but there are some prin-ciples behind his teaching ministry that are well worth imitating.

3. Be approachable. I remember the first few times I talked with Mr. Reisinger. I was well aware that he was very respected by many people I knew, and I was reasonably nervous. But he was always kind and invariably warm. My wife and I attended the Seaside Heights Conference in New Jersey when we were in our early 20s, and John sat with us at one session,

Reflections on John G. Reisinger's Ministry for a Younger Generation

Steve West


heard anyone teach what you are say-ing. They sincerely think you are contradicting the Bible. They think that somehow you’re twisting verses. They don’t know how you’re doing it, but you must be doing it some way. They rebel out of their love for what they think is the truth, not because they don’t believe the Bible. They object because they sincerely believe the Bible. They just do not understand it. Be patient with them and teach them. Try to show them what Scrip-ture means. Don’t do or say anything that cuts the ears off people. Can you imagine what Peter would have done the next day if he had a chance to wit-ness to that guy whose ear he had cut off? That’s what we do. We get in a discussion, and we cut the guy’s ear off. We cut off the friendship, destroy the relationship, and we’ve lost the eargate which is the only gate we can use to get the truth into his heart.

Number 15: Make sure that your own heart is always in a state of wonder, awe and worship when you preach the doctrines of grace.

If there’s ever a subject that you should not preach on with a cold heart, it is the truth of sovereign grace. You should remember your own case, and then you can preach with joy, power, and fear. Doc Berry is one of the businessmen who helped with this conference. Years ago I went down to Lancaster to hold meetings in the congregation where he attended. He picked me up at the airport. He was always joking, and when he got in the car I said, “Doc, it’s a good thing election is true or you wouldn’t have made it; even I wouldn’t have voted for you!” Now if you would know Doc Berry, you’d know that he’d have three responses ready, but he was silent. I saw a tear in his eye as he turned his head and looked away. I felt awful. I thought I had hurt his feelings. That night I said, “Doc, maybe I owe you an apology. Did I hurt your feelings this morning when I said, ‘it’s a good

thing election is true or you wouldn’t have made it; even I wouldn’t have voted for you!’” “No, no,” he said. “When you said that at the airport, it reminded me of an incident about ten years ago right after I became a Christian. I flew 165 flights with the same crew in a plane in the South Pacific during the war. After the war I stayed in contact with the bom-bardier. Every year at New Year’s we would get together. One year he came to my house, and the next year I went to his house. When he came to my house, I wanted to go to the nightclubs and go boozing. When I went to his house, he didn’t want to do anything. Then the Lord saved me, and the next year it was my turn to go out to his house. I remember my surprise at seeing an Episcopal prayer book. I got the prayer book down and asked my friend, ‘What’s this,’ and he said, ‘That’s a prayer book.’ I said, ‘What do you do with it?’ ‘He looked surprised and said, ‘We use it for de-votions every morning.’ I said, ‘Do you believe this religious stuff?’ My friend half stuttered, ‘Ye . ye. Yes.’ There were a couple of Bibles lying there, and I picked one of them up and said, ‘What’s this?’ He said, ‘It’s a Bible.’ I said, ‘Do you believe the stuff the Bible teaches?’ He again stuttered, ‘Y-e-e-eah!’ I looked him in the eye and said, ‘Are you a born-again Christian?’ He was shocked but managed to stutter, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘How long have you been born again?’ He said, ‘Since I was thirteen.’ I grabbed him by the shirt and shook him and said, ‘You mean to tell me you went up in an airplane with me 165 times, and I could have been shot down and gone to hell, and you never once told me about Christ!’ My friend started to cry. When you said what you did this morning, I could just hear my friend’s voice. He said, ‘Doc, I wanted to talk to you, but I thought you were too far gone!’“

We were all too far gone, weren’t we? Do not forget that when you preach election. Remember that God loved you when you hated him. He showed grace to you when you de-served his condemnation. Maybe your lips, like mine, used the name of Jesus Christ as a curse word. Remember it was his sovereign electing grace that chose you unto salvation. It was his Holy Spirit that effectually calling that brought you to himself. Nothing should melt your heart and make you able to appeal to the worst sinners as believing in sovereign election. Al-ways remember that if God could save you, he could save anybody. Remem-ber your own case.

Mr. Herendeen, the man who pub-lished Pink’s books, was a member in the first church that I pastored. He gave me a tract on limited atonement written by A. W. Pink. I tore it in half and threw it into the waste basket. I said, “You’ll never make me believe that!” He said, “I know that I can-not teach you that is true, but I know somebody who can.” I look back on that with shame at how absolutely

arrogant I was. Mr. Herendeen prayed for me, and God was pleased to open my heart to understand the

truth of the biblical doctrine of effec-tual atonement.

I’ll never forget the first time I tried to talk to my brother Ernest about election. He took a Bible, and his face was livid with anger. He grit-ted his teeth, and said, “If I believed that, I’d tear this Bible in half.” About a year later he said, “I believe election is in the Bible, but you ought to only teach it to very mature Christians.” About another year later he said, “You ought to teach it, but you oughtn’t to harp on it.” After another year he said, “If you don’t believe election, you just don’t understand the gospel correctly.” I wonder how many who read this re-acted just as negatively the first time


Always remember that if God could save you, he

could save anybody.

Issue 208 June 2014 Page 9you were confronted with the bibli-cal view of the sovereignty of God. Pink in his book on sovereignty said, “There’s a sense in which we do not believe in the sovereignty of God, but we believe in a God who’s sovereign.” One is theology and the other is wor-ship. One is a person and the other is a personal relationship.

I read an illustration used by Don-ald Barnhouse where he said, “What would you think if I went down to Atlantic City, and I got one of those very expensive beachfront rooms and wrote a letter to my wife. In the letter I said, ‘Honey, I wish you were here. There’s a window in my room. It is 6’ 3 1/2” wide and 7’ 9 3/4” high. I mea-sured the glass. It is 5/16 of an inch thick. It’s one whole pane, and on the side there’s special putty that doesn’t expand. There are beautiful drapes

that close and keep the sun out. The hangers are 1 7/8” apart.’ Barnhouse then said, ‘What would you think of me? You’d think I was a nut! The only point of the window is to let you see the ocean! Is that right? What’s the point of our theology? To let us see our God! Our theology is the material we use to build a throne upon which to seat our blessed Lord and Savior. If we are not worshiping him with our hearts and our lives, we’ll never be able to preach grace. I think you have to feel grace to preach grace ef-fectively.

John Newton said that if by the grace of God he made it to heaven there would be three things that would amaze him. One, there are a lot of people he expected to see there that wouldn’t be there. I think that’s true. I think a lot of people we might

look at and say, “Man, that’s the epitome of holiness,”—are not going to make it. He said the second thing is there are going to be a lot of people there that he never expected to see there. He then said the most amazing thing of all is that old John Newton himself is there. That’s the thing we must not lose and that will help us to preach aright. We once were sinners that were lost until God sovereignly brought us to a “knowledge of the truth.” However, we did not learn all the truth immediately. Many of us did not get converted in a church that understood and taught the sover-eign grace of God. We none the less loved the Lord Jesus. We loved God as much then as we do tonight. We prayed, we read his word, and we wit-nessed to friends and loved ones. Let’s never deny our own experience.

Council on Biblical TheologyTuesday Evening July 22 to Friday Noon July25, 2014

Grace Church at Franklin4052 Arno Rd., Franklin, TN 37065

Theme: God’s Eternal Kingdom Purpose:NCT—Time for a More Accurate Way

Tony Costa. Christian Apologist & Adjunct Professor, Providence Theological Seminary (PTS). “The Sabbath and Its Relation to Christ and the Church in the New Covenant.”

Peter Gentry. Professor of OT Interpretation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. (Two Messages) “Ephesians 3:4-6: What the OT Says about the Inclusion of the Gentiles” & “God’s Dealings with Abraham: Conditional or Uncon-ditional? One or Two Covenants?”

Gary George. Evangelist & Pastor, Sovereign Grace Chapel, Southbridge, MA; Board Member PTS. “The Regenerative Power of the Holy Spirit in the OT and the NT”

Frank Gumerlock. Professor of Church History and Systematic Theology, PTS. “Hebrews 11:8-19: God’s Land Promise to Abraham and the New Covenant”

Zach S. Maxcey. Graduate of PTS and Blog Administrator for PTS. “Daniel 9:24-27: The Messiah and the New Cov-enant”

W. W. Sasser. Pastor, Grace Church at Franklin and Board Member PTS. “Grace and Law: What’s the Big Deal?”Greg Van Court. Pastor, Dayspring Fellowship Church, Austin, TX & Adjunct Professor PTS. “2 Timothy 3:16-17: The

Profitability of All Scripture”Kirk Wellum. Principal, Toronto Baptist Seminary, Toronto, Canada. “The Ecclesiological Implications of the New Cov-

enant”Stephen Wellum. Professor of Christian Theology, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. (Two Messages) “What Is

New about the NC?” and “The Nature of Typology Revisited: Do We All Agree?”Blake White. Pastor, Spicewood Baptist Church, Spicewood, TX. “1 Corinthians 9:19-23: Not Under Law But Not With-

out God’s Law.”

For more information please visit http://ptsco.org then click on “Council on Biblical Theology”

Page 10 June 2014 Issue 208Gilliland—Continued from page 5 and judgment is the reason—be it the

result of the Adamic curse in general or the actions of a specific nation or group. That does not mean that we can always know what sin—indi-vidual or corporate—God is judg-ing. For example, the destruction of Jerusalem was the culmination of centuries of rebellion by God’s people. But the Scriptures do give us dramatic examples of the type of sinful activ-ity that has brought his judgment on a society in the past—and will again in the future. There are few places in Scripture where these principles are more clearly seen than in the Book of Revelation.

One of the main reasons given for judgment is the vindication of God’s people. Just as God responded to the cries of his people in their deliver-ance from Pharaoh (which by the way is one of the “types” of judgment that we see throughout Revelation), so he does in our day. As we see in the fifth seal in chapter 6, the souls of the mar-tyrs (or witnesses) pray continually for vindication − and their prayers do not fall on deaf ears. Later in chapter 8 we see the result of those prayers, as well as the prayers of all the saints on earth:

”Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, went up before God out of the angel’s hand. Then the angel took the censer and filled it with the fire of the altar, and threw it to the earth; and there followed peals of thunder and sounds and flashes of lightning and an earthquake” (Rev. 8:3-5).

This by the way is one of the ways in which the saints “rule on (or over) the earth” in this age. Ok, but what − you ask − does this have to do with the tsunami in Indonesia? Let me read you some rarely reported statistics.

This is a list of events that have been recorded in the same region from the years 2000-2003:

•Petrian Malenge, a Christian police sergeant, was shot while riding his motorcycle.

•A Torajan Christian man was shot to death on his plantation

•Two Christian men and five Christian houses were shot at by a group of armed men, killing and injuring several.

•At the Al-Fatah Mosque, Mus-lims were called to take up arms against Christians. Two days later armed attackers bru-tally murdered Christians in the village of Soya.

•A Muslim mob destroyed a Christian church in Makassar.

•A Christian was burned to death when a mob of angry Muslims began throwing stones and burning vehicles in Ambon.

•During an attack on Christian villages, a 3-year-old child was strangled to death.

•Muslims in a speedboat shot and killed 9 Christian passen-gers.

•Muslims burned the Christian village Sepe to the ground.

•Jihad terrorists murdered four Christians during at unofficial checkpoint. Jihad warriors tar-geted four Christian neighbor-hoods in Ambon. They knocked on doors and anyone opening them was stabbed with a bayo-net. Grenades were thrown re-sulting in 9 dead and 17 injured.

•Several churches were de-stroyed and 19 people killed as bombs exploded in Sumatra.

•A survivor reported that most of the Christians were forced to convert to Islam while as many as 100 Christians died for refus-

they are willing to acknowledge that God is disposed to such thoughts and actions, surely they must be confined to the ancient peoples of biblical his-tory, or the recalcitrant rebels of a final tribulation. That may be why—at least to some degree—the most popu-lar views of the Book of Revelation see its fulfillment predominantly in the events of 2 centuries ago or at the very end of history.

Permit me to digress for a moment and let us review the fundamental biblical principles on the doctrine of divine judgment. First of all, the legal basis for all hardship or calamity is sin. Even if it is not traceable con-temporaneously to any individual act or thought, it is certainly explained ultimately by Adam’s sin. Since Adam was our legal or covenantal represen-tative, we all share in the guilt and consequences of that sin. To assign ultimate blame for a natural catastro-phe to mere “natural causes” prevents us from an honest appraisal of the human condition as well as creation in general. Secondly, the Scriptures make a distinction between individual and corporate judgment. Individuals who are “innocent” in a restricted covenantal sense may still be affected by the decisions of the leaders of the family, church, or state. Finally, it is our tendency to develop judicial myo-pia; as Christians, we easily recognize God’s judgment in the past and under-stand the biblical rationale for a final judgment. What is far more difficult, however, is to recognize and admit that judgment is happening now—in this age—as well. To some degree it is about “developing eyes to see.”

Our quick survey of world opin-ion showed that the non-Christian has no spiritual ability to understand the ultimate cause of events like the tsunami in Indonesia, other than by such meaningless terms as “chance” or the “power of nature.” The Scrip-tures, on the other hand, tell us very clearly that God is the ultimate cause,


Gilliland—Continued on page 14

ing to recant their faith.

•As of 2001, an estimated 8,000 people have been killed and at least 500,000 have been dis-placed. 5000 Christians have been forced to undergo Muslim conversion rituals. Those refus-ing to embrace the Islamic faith are often beheaded. Their heads are then paraded around the vil-lage to strike fear into the hearts of other Christians.

It is hard to believe that this is part of our world isn’t it? It seems to fit what we know of the first century, or possible the very end of history. That it could be happening now is more difficult to conceive. From the world’s perspective the plight of these people seems bleak. It appears that they have little choice but to patiently endure, but it is through patient endurance that the justice of God often comes. It is part of the principle of the “burning coals” that Paul refers to:

”Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep … Never pay back evil for evil to anyone Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If pos-sible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL RE-PAY,” says the Lord

… In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head” (Rom. 12: 14-20).

But unlike the many examples given us of God’s justice in the Old and New Testaments, we are no lon-ger able to definitively associate an environmental catastrophe with an act of God’s judgment against a specific people or nation. Do we know with biblical or historical certainty that the recent tsunami in Indonesia was a specific judgment by God against the nations that have been involved with –or given tacit approval to—the

persecution of His people? Of course we don’t. But that does not mean that we cannot recognize the types of situ-ations that God has publicly judged in the past. Furthermore, the fact that God might bring the destruction and devastation of a tsunami upon a nation that persecutes his people should be of no surprise to us. The psalmist gives us a glimpse of God’s anger at the willful slaughter of His people.

”O LORD, God of vengeance, God of vengeance, shine forth! Rise up, O Judge of the earth, render recom-pense to the proud. How long shall the wicked, O LORD, how long shall the wicked exult? They pour forth words, they speak arrogantly; all who do wickedness vaunt themselves. They crush your people, O LORD, and af-flict Your heritage. They slay the wid-ow and the stranger and murder the orphans. They have said, “The LORD does not see, nor does the God of Ja-cob pay heed.” Pay heed, you sense-less among the people; and when will you understand, stupid ones? He who planted the ear, does He not hear? He who formed the eye, does He not see? He who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke, even He who teaches man knowledge? The LORD knows the thoughts of man, that they are a mere breath” (Psalm 94:1-11).

We know what kind of result this brought on nations like Egypt, Baby-lon, and Israel. If our understanding of the application of this book of Revelation is correct, we should not be surprised to see similar judgments in our day. Has the nature of man or the nature of God changed? Does man hate God, or does God hate sin any less than he did two or three centuries ago? But, and this is a very important ‘but,’ remember − as in the days of the Egyptian exodus − judgment is also associated with deliverance. Thank-fully, part of the reason for God’s judgment “in history” is to warn of a more severe judgment that is yet to come and provide an opportunity for repentance. Like the prophet Habak-

kuk we too can pray, “in the midst of wrath remember mercy.” We should not be surprised that the persecution that drove many of the believers from the lowlands into the mountains of Thailand was also what God used to spare them from the coming disaster. nor should we be surprised, that the disaster is also something God used to open the door for the gospel. The following report was issued by one of the missionary agencies in the days following the disaster:

After the tsunami, God changed everything … neighbors who used to eye the church with suspicion − and even joined in persecuting its mem-bers − are now receiving relief sup-plies from them. Within two weeks after the disaster, five families came to Christ and began to attend church. Seeing the congregation’s compassion for the town’s suffering, a community Buddhist leader who formerly threat-ened them with reprisals if they did not stop preaching the gospel came in tears asking how he could help.”

That brings us to consider another recent catastrophic event—Hurricane Katrina and the massive destruction of New Orleans in 2005. Again the world asks, “What possible justifica-tion would there be for God to be involved with such misery and dev-astation? Almost two millennia ago, Augustine characterized history as a conflict between “The city of God” (the Church) and “The city of man.” In describing “the city of man” he said,

The earthly city will not be ever-lasting; for when it is condemned to the final punishment it will no longer be a city. It has its good in this world, and rejoiced to participate in it with such gladness as can be derived from things of such a kind. And since this is not the kind of good that causes no frustrations to those enamored of it, the earthly city is generally divided against itself by litigation, by wars, by battles, by pursuit of victories that

Page 12 June 2014 Issue 208ally leaves it vague and ambiguous because the two are tied together.4 Vertical love and horizontal love are inextricably bound together. First John 4:20-5:1 says, “If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For the person who does not love his brother he has seen cannot love the God he has not seen. And we have this command from Him: The one who loves God must also love his brother. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Fa-ther also loves the one born of Him.” Love for God demands love for one another. Both must increase.

Having said that, Paul is probably primarily asking for their love for one another to increase. In Philippians 2:2, Paul exhorts the Philippians to “have the same love.” In 1 Thessalonians 3:12, he prays that the Lord would cause them “to increase and overflow with love for one another and for ev-eryone.” In Ephesians 3:17 he prays we’ll be “rooted and firmly estab-lished in love.” What is love? Giving of self for the good of others. Here we are back to action!5 We become loving by loving. We never arrive fully here. Paul prays that our love would abound yet more and more.

He prays that our love will grow in knowledge and every kind of dis-cernment. This isn’t about knowledge in general. The Holy Spirit is not concerned about us growing in knowl-edge of physics, biology, or math, but knowledge of God’s Word and God’s 4 D.A. Carson, Basics for Believers

(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 20.5 Stephen E. Fowl, Philippians (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 33.

ways.6 Paul prays something very similar in Colossians 1:9-10: “For this reason also, since the day we heard this, we haven’t stopped praying for you. We are asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual under-standing, so that you may walk wor-thy of the Lord, fully pleasing to Him, bearing fruit in every good work and growing in the knowledge of God” (cf. Eph. 1:17). How do we grow in this knowledge? It definitely does not happen on its own! First and foremost it comes through Bible reading. It also comes from faithful attendance to a worship service, Sunday school, home groups, and other avenues your church provides for teaching and discussion of the Word of God. It also happens through exposure to Christian truth. Do you value reading solid Christian books that help you grasp the message of Scripture? What is the ratio of time spent reading Scripture or Christian books in comparison to the TV? We have a fridge magnet with a picture of a television on it that reads, “Think outside the box; read a book.”7

You will find that growing in the knowledge of God is fuel for the fire of worship. We never get to the bottom. The more we love, the more we learn and the more we learn the more we love. This is why Paul prays in Ephesians that we may be able to

6 Carson, Basics for Believers, 20.7 While I am not opposed to all TV,

many of us probably need to heed the famous words of Neil Postman: “This is one use of television – as a source of illuminating the printed page.” Amusing Ourselves to Death (New York: Penguin, 1985), 83.

my church family. Well, the honesty is appreciated, but we need to work on that. The fastest road to affection is the one paved with action. When we act for the good of another, that is to say when we love them, more often than not our heart follows. C.S. Lewis writes, “The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do not waste time bothering whether you ‘love’ your neighbor; act as if you did. As soon as we do this, we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him.”3

Notice it is the affection of Christ Jesus. This shows us two things. First, and amazingly, Jesus has affection for us. He longs for us. Oh, how he loves us. We are his portion, and he is our prize. We are his bride. As the hymn goes: “The church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord; she is his new creation by water and the Word. From heaven he came and sought her to be his holy bride; with his own blood he bought her, and for her life he died.”

Second, this affection for one another only comes through Jesus. There are many people in our congre-gations that are totally different from us, but because we are in Jesus Christ through faith, our relationship is one of affection toward one another.

Third, our prayer should be for love to grow. He prays this: that their love would continue to grow (Phil. 1:9). Is this love for God or love for one another? Paul probably intention-

3 C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, in The Complete C.S. Lewis (New York: HarperOne, 2002), 110.

White—Continued from page 1

I find myself frequently depressed – perhaps more so than any other person here. And I find no better cure for that depression than to trust in the Lord with all my heart, and seek to realize afresh the power of the peace-speaking

blood of Jesus, and His infinite love in dying upon the cross to put away all my transgressions.

C.H. Spurgeon

Issue 208 June 2014 Page 13comprehend the length, width, height, and depth of God’s love and to “know the Messiah’s love that surpasses knowledge” (Eph. 3:19). We must strive after and pray for the knowl-edge that is unknowable: the love of Jesus.

Fourth, the purpose of growing in love is so we can know God’s will. Philippians 1:10 says the purpose for the prayer for love’s increase is “so that you can approve the things that are superior.” The purpose of our growth in love, knowledge, and all discernment is to be able to better determine what really matters. There are lots of grey areas in the Christian life, and we need Spirit-produced dis-cernment to determine what is best. We need sanctified common sense in the new covenant. Romans 12:2 fa-mously reads, “Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleas-ing, and perfect will of God.” There is a freedom in the new covenant that was lacking under the law. You would never hear a good Jew talk of discern-ing the will of God apart from Torah, but this is exactly what the Apostle is praying we’ll do! We need to approve the superior things so that we will be ready for the day of Christ. Martin Luther used to say there were two days on his calendar: this and that. All we do has that day in mind.

We know that becoming loving, pure, and blameless is a lifelong pro-cess. The process is slow, sometimes painfully so, but it is progressive. “We are not yet what we ought to be. But by the grace of God we are not what we were.”8 Jesus said that the pure are blessed because they will see God (Matt. 5:8). Are you striving after pu-rity of heart? Is there any known sin in your life?

We want to become increasingly pure and blameless, having been filled

8 Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reforma-tion, 135.

with the fruit that comes from righ-teousness that comes through Jesus Christ. This righteousness refers to our standing before God. We are sin-ners; God is holy. We are unrighteous; He is righteous. That’s a problem because none of can attain a right standing by our own good works. He must provide us with a right stand-ing before Him. And He does. This righteousness does not come through us but through Jesus. Nothing in my hand I bring; simply to the cross I cling. Philippians 3:9 is a hugely im-portant passage in this regard: Paul wants to gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own from the law, but one that is through faith in Christ—the righ-teousness from God based on faith.” This is an alien righteousness. It is a gift from (ek) God. “My hope is built on nothing less Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness; I dare not trust the sweetest frame, But wholly lean on Jesus’ name.” If we have believed, we have been filled with the fruit that comes from that right standing. No-tice the order, the fruit (the life trans-formation) comes from being declared in the right through faith. As good old traditional Protestant theology has taught for 400 years, justification is the basis from which sanctification flows. As Tim Keller puts it, “Religion operates on the principle of ‘I obey—therefore I am accepted by God.’ The basic operating principle of the gospel is ‘I am accepted by God through the work of Jesus Christ—therefore I obey’.”9 And in good form, Paul notes that it is all for God’s glory and praise. Soli Deo Gloria.

Do we pray this way? Sadly, usu-ally we do not. We tend to focus on physical needs. We pray about jobs, sickness, cancer, children, comfort, and travel and praise God he cares about such things. My Mom always says if you can’t take a pimple to God you can’t take a tumor. We can

9 Tim Keller, Prodigal God (New York: Dutton, 2008), 114.

confidently cast all our care on Him because He cares for us (1 Peter 5:7). God commands us to devote ourselves to prayer (Col. 4:2). A good prayer life takes devotion. It takes work. First and foremost, we must plan to pray. John Piper writes, “Unless I’m badly mistaken, one of the main reasons so many of God’s children don’t have a significant life of prayer is not so much that we don’t want to, but that we don’t plan to. If you want to take a four-week vacation, you don’t just get up one summer morn-ing and say, ‘Hey, let’s go today!’ You won’t have anything ready. You won’t know where to go. Nothing has been planned, but that is how many of us treat prayer. We get up day after day and realize that significant times of prayer should be a part of our life, but nothing’s ever ready. We don’t know where to go. Nothing has been planned. No time. No place. No pro-cedure. We all know that the opposite of planning is not a wonderful flow of deep, spontaneous experiences in prayer. The opposite of planning is the rut. If you don’t plan a vacation, you will probably stay at home and watch TV. The natural, unplanned flow of spiritual life sinks to the lowest ebb of vitality. There is a race to be run and a fight to be fought. If you want renewal in your life of prayer, you must plan to see it. Therefore, my simple exhorta-tion is this: Let us take time this very day to rethink our priorities and how prayer fits in. Make some new resolve. Try some new venture with God. Set a time. Set a place. Choose a portion of Scripture to guide you. Don’t be tyr-annized by the press of busy days. We all need midcourse corrections. Make this a day of turning to prayer—for the glory of God and for the fullness of your joy.”10 Brothers and sisters, let’s plan to pray.

10 John Piper, Desiring God (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2003), 182-83.

Page 14 June 2014 Issue 208Gilliland—Continued from page 11

bring death with them, or at best are doomed to death. (City of God, Book IV)

In Scripture, that city was rep-resented by Babel, Sodom, Egypt, Babylon, Jerusalem, and Rome. But all are a “type” of the “City of man” and referred to by John in the book of Revelation as “Babylon the Great.” It is a symbol of any city, nation, or cul-ture that exalts itself above God and His Word. A review of chapters 17 and 18 makes it clear that this could represent any number of cities around the world during the last two centuries − including many in our own nation. Consider Isaiah chapter 14 where we see the same “near and far” structure employed. The near or historical ful-fillment refers to the King of Babylon (Isa. 14:12-15) and his kingdom (vv. 20-24):

“How you have fallen from heav-en, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have weakened the nations! “But you said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. 14’I will as-cend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ “Nevertheless you will be thrust down to Sheol, to the recesses of the pit … because you have ruined your coun-try, you have slain your people. May the offspring of evildoers not be men-tioned forever. Prepare for his sons a place of slaughter because of the iniquity of their fathers … “I will rise

up against them,” declares the LORD of hosts, “and will cut off from Baby-lon name and survivors, offspring and posterity,” declares the LORD. “I will also make it a possession for the hedgehog and swamps of water, and I will sweep it with the broom of destruction,” declares the LORD of hosts. The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, “Surely, just as I have in-tended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand.”

We see again in the Book of Rev-elation, Isaiah uses the destruction of the literal Babylon as a “type” of the future and final destruction of man’s system:

This is the plan devised against the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out against all the nations. “For the LORD of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back? (Isa. 14:26-27).

With its celebration of decadence and official sanction of immorality, New Orleans was clearly a city wor-thy of the title “Babylon the Great.” And it may not have been mere co-incidence that hurricane Katrina hit just days before the officially sanc-tioned homosexual festival “Southern Decadence” was scheduled to begin. Do we know with certainty that the hurricane was in response to that festival, and if it was that it was the only reason? No, of course we don’t. But one thing we do know for certain is that this type of public immorality has been the object of God’s wrath in the past. We should not be surprised

should it be so again, for it is a sure sign of what will happen in the end.

Yes, these are “hard sayings” − especially for a Western church that has become used to the good times, but we too − like the rest of our brethren around the world − can expect difficult times ahead as well. Which brings us to a final question: As Christians, and in light of the increasing judgment we may well experience in our nation, what should our responsibility be to God and our culture? Should we fall in step with much of the Western church that has embraced a sort of spiritual dualism? A view where God is only associated with blessing, and Satan or “mother nature” is responsible for calamity? Should we work with other people of “faith” toward a moral consen-sus—whatever that is? Should we use whatever political or military force is deemed necessary to establish a biblical government? Or, perhaps, we should just withdraw from society with the hope that God will spare our churches and families from the judg-ment that is certain to come if our na-tion remains on its current path? Time will not allow a detailed analysis of each of these options, but clearly none of them represents, exclusively, the biblical mandate for the Church. In that light, let me ask you to consider a few foundational principles that should guide the attitudes and conduct of God’s people as we are confronted with a culture increasingly hostile to God, his Word, and his people, the church.

Visit www.sogncm.com or www. soundofgrace.org for

Audio and Video sermons by John G. Reisinger and A. Blake White Back issues of Sound of Grace

Announcements Churches

Articles and more.

Issue 208 June 2014 Page 15West—Continued from page 3

about the resurrection without talking about the gospel, you should be very alarmed. The more we share about what it is that we believe—and the grounds on which our belief is intel-lectually justifiable—the more people are going to listen to the gospel. In fact, I think that a winsome apologetic contains an enormous amount of dis-guised preaching!

As was previously mentioned, the function of apologetics is not to bring about conversion. What it can do, however, is show people that their objections to the faith are not sound. There are many people who will say that they would believe in God, except for a particular intellectual issue (e.g., the existence of evil and suffering, or that science and faith are enemies, or that there is just no evidence that Jesus ever lived, etc.). When these objections are refuted, the person is then left with a dilemma: they said they would believe in God except for perceived problem x, but now it’s been demonstrated that perceived problem x isn’t insurmountable—yet they still don’t want to believe. Why not? They had insisted their lack of faith was an intellectual issue, but it turns out it’s an emotional-spiritual problem in-stead. In other words, apologetics can demonstrate that a person’s so-called intellectual problems are really ethical problems that have been rationalized. We deceive ourselves into thinking our heart problems are really head problems: apologetics helps expose this particular deception for what it is.

Even though it is a mistake to reject the discipline of apologetics on the basis of Reformed theology, it is desperately important to use an apologetic that is consistent with it. We must not use apologetics that ac-tually conflict with biblical doctrine. One example will suffice. Today it is becoming increasingly common to argue that God has not made his existence overwhelmingly obvious to people, because he wants them to have

the necessary “epistemic distance” to choose out of their own libertarian free will whether or not they want to be in a loving relationship with him. If everyone knew for sure that God ex-ists, the argument goes, then everyone would be coerced into a relationship with him. Who, after all, would refuse a relationship with God when they knew that he would punish them for doing so? People would grudgingly acquiesce to having a relationship with him, but they wouldn’t love him freely. All obedience would be forced, and the relationship would be a farce.

Now, in terms of abstract phi-losophy, this argument isn’t entirely bad (it’s not entirely good either, but that analysis will be ignored at the present). The real problem with the argument is that it’s false; it is simply unbiblical. Romans 1:18ff. clearly states that everyone knows that God exists. Paul categorically affirms that the knowledge of God is found in every human heart, and his manifest presence is literally unavoidable (cf. Psalm 19). God is not a hidden deity! It is also worth noting that, however obscure the origins of evil really are, and however little we’re actually told about Satan and demons, evil beings were originally good. Satan rebelled in full awareness of God’s being and power. Adam and Eve walked with God in the garden; God spoke to them. Nevertheless, Adam and Eve rebelled against God and broke the relationship. Before we are out of Genesis chapter 3, we know that the basis of the divine hiddenness argu-ment is false! Furthermore, if we are Reformed in our thinking, we also know that God is not trying to dance around our libertarian free will, largely because libertarian free will is not something anyone possesses. In the end, it would be more than a little bit contradictory to hold to the divine hiddenness argument, total deprav-ity, and irresistible grace. Apologet-ics must not be the tail that wags the theological dog. Theology comes first;

apologetics must be subordinated to biblical truth.

Given the reality of ministry in our contemporary society and the fact that the faith is being attacked on all sides, how can busy pastors and non-specialists be adequately equipped to engage in profitable apologetic work? How can one even begin to sort out the tangle of arguments, issues, and methods? It is my hope that this article series will be a helpful intro-duction to the field from a Reformed perspective. This will involve writing a brief précis of the major apologetic methods that are used by Reformed thinkers, and then providing just a few brief sketches of how particular arguments can be structured in a way which is consistent with good philoso-phy, exegesis, and theology. The first précis will be offered in the next ar-ticle, but for the present, I think mak-ing a few general observations may be helpful.

First, as a pastor there is a peren-nial temptation to pretend you know more than you do about any given topic. Let’s be honest: we all like to be experts in everything. The truth is, however, we’re not likely experts in anything. So when someone asks a question we don’t know how to answer, or when someone points out something we’ve never thought about before, the right thing to do is to acknowledge we don’t know. In a strange way, sometimes not having an answer is the best thing possible because it allows us to demonstrate humility and integrity. We have every right to say that we don’t know, but if they’d like, we would be more than happy to try to do some research and find out. This gives us a chance to connect again about the gospel, and that’s always a positive thing. In a related vein, it can also be extremely wise to admit that we don’t know, but we know a good book that addresses the relevant issue. Lending books also means that you’ll talk again,

West—Continued on page 18


Laurelville Family Conference August 7-10, 2014

For more than 30 years members and friends of Covenant Baptist Church of Uniontown, PA and Grace Cha-pel of Kingwood, WV have met together in beautiful Laurelville, PA, for a time of teaching of God’s Word and fellowship.

The Conference will be held in the Solarhouse. This facility has 32 rooms sleeping 2-4 each, with private baths. It has both a large and small meeting room and includes an atrium.

Check in time is 5:00 p.m. on the 7th. Evening sessions will begin at 7:00 p.m. and morning sessions will be held at 10:30 a.m.

If you would like further information or would like to register for the 2014 Laurelville Family Conference, please contact before 7/20/14: Ron and Pam Kelly 313 Irish Meadows Lane Bruceton Mills, WV 26525 304-379-1029 [email protected]

2014 Registration Fees: Solarhouse: 2 adults per room: $89.10/day ($10 more per child over 11) Camping: Full Hook-up (Water, Elec., Sewage) $23/day Hook-up (Water, Elec.) $19/day Hook-up (Water) $16/day

Breakfast and Lunch will be provided daily. There are several nice, reasonably priced places to have your evening meal just a short distance away. Arrangements may be able to be made to eat all meals at the Lau-relville kitchen at an additional cost. (Ask when registering.)

Laurelville Mennonite Church Center is located about 40 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, at the foot of the Laurel Mountains of southwestern Pennsylvania.

You may log onto www.laurelville.org for more information concerning the variety of activities available while at Laurelville such as: hiking trails, swimming, miniature golf, volleyball, basketball, tennis, and ropes course.

2014 Conference Speakers

Pastor Dennis GundersonDennis has served as Senior Pastor for 26 years in three Tulsa churches since 1984, and is currently President of Grace & Truth Books. He is the author of Your Child's Profession of Faith and Courtship or Dating: So What’s the Difference? and is also an Adjunct Professor at Tlapaneco Bible Institute, Guerre-ro, Mexico. Dennis and his wife Naomi have been married since 1976, and have four sons. He is an avid mountain climber, cyclist, and photographer.

Pastor Jason McClanahan Jason was born and raised just outside of Charleston, WV. He graduated from West Virginia State Uni-versity (B.S. Social Work - May 1997), Virginia Beach Theological Seminary (Master of Divinity – May 2001), and The Master's Seminary (Doctor of Ministry - May 2008) in Los Angeles. After planting and pastoring Providence Baptist Church in Westerville, OH for 7 years, he moved back to Charleston to pastor Randolph Street Baptist Church in 2007. Jason married his wife, Ginger, in 1995 and they have 3 children: Ty (16), Olivia (14) and Julia (11).


2014 John Bunyan ConferenceAUDIO CD ORDER FORM

QTY CD NO SPEAKER TITLEJB14-A01 A. Blake White The Gospel Gift of God’s Righteousness JB14-A02 Steve West The Old Covenant ShepherdJB14-A03 Steve West The New Covenant ShepherdJB14-A04 Larry McCall Loving Your Wife as Christ Loves the Church, #1JB14-A05 Steve Wellum. Underpinning and Understanding Biblical Theology

JB14-A06 Peter Gentry Overview of How the Covenants are Central to the Plot Structure of Scripture Culminating in the New Covenant

JB14-A07 Peter Gentry Exposition of the Covenant at Creation and Its Foundational Role in the Understanding of the New Covenant

JB14-A08 Steve Wellum Understanding the Covenants—Central to Theology

JB14-A09 Gentry, Wellum, White“Round Table” discussion of Sessions 5–8

Question and Response – Sessions 5 - 9JB14-A10 Larry McCall Loving Your Wife as Christ Loves the Church, #2

JB14-A11 A. Blake White Mark’s Prologue and the Isaianic New Exodus (Mark 1:1-15) includes Q & R

JB14-A12 Steve West The New Covenant Undershepherds includes Q & R

Total Qty X $5.00

MP3-JB14-A01 MP3 CD Includes JB14-A01 - A04 and A10 – A12 (with corresponding Q & R

Sessions)MP3-JB14-A02 MP3 CD Includes JB14-A05 – A09 (with corresponding Q & R sessions)

Total Qty X $15.00 =

Name:

Address:

City: State/Province: Zip/Postal Code

Phone: Email:

Credit Card No. - - - (Discover/VISA/MC only) Exp Date: / CCV No:

Postage & Handling Rates—U.S. Up to $15.00 = 3.95 $15.01—$50.00 = $5.95 $50.01 and Up = 12%

Postage & Handling Rates—Canada—Credit Card only Up to $25.00 = $5.00 $25.01 and Up = 20%

Postage & Handling Rates—Overseas—Credit Card only

Please call or e-mail for rates

You may place an order by:

• Emailing this form to [email protected]

• Mailing this form to:

New Covenant Media 5317 Wye Creek Drive Frederick, MD 21703-6938

• Calling 301-473-8781

Page 18 June 2014 Issue 208West—Continued from page 15 ple. You might have a great argument

that shows faith and science aren’t enemies, but the person you’re talking to might not care about those things. The person you’re talking with might be deeply sensitive and struggling to understand how a good God can allow the existence of evil and suffering. Unfortunately for us, people have a way of lining up outside of our cat-egories and boxes! I remember hear-ing a very famous apologist respond to a question he was asked about the Bible. He immediately launched into a canned answer that he must have given hundreds of times before. Not only was it mechanical, it was also tragically irrelevant. It was only bare-ly related to the subject-matter of the question. He heard the word “Scrip-ture” and pulled out his mental file on “reliability.” After a few minutes of rabbiting on about the early dates of the manuscripts and the accuracy of textual transmission, the poor ques-tioner had long since given up listen-ing to the response. On one hand, it was a reasonably good answer—just for a different question. Giving an-swers to questions people aren’t actu-ally asking is neither productive nor respectful. Engaging in apologetics requires listening as well as talking.

Although we should not build our theology on anecdotes, I have had

one experience with apologetics that I believe shows how God can use a de-fense of the faith for his glory. I spoke at a College and Career retreat, and a girl there had rejected the faith and turned her back on the church’s teach-ing that she had grown up under. We talked for a few hours one afternoon about the Christian worldview and about some of the problems in other worldviews. She lived in another city, but drove up to my church a few times after our talk. One Sunday morning, the Lord took the gospel message and opened her heart. It was an answer to the prayers of many people who had been praying for her for years. Noth-ing I said converted her, and it was the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than an apologetic argument that touched her heart by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet she would never have driven up to the church service if it wasn’t for the fact that she had been intellectu-ally challenged by the coherence of the Christian faith. We of all people should know that a sovereign God can use whatever he wishes to bring people to his Son, and that includes apologetics as a means of bringing people under the sound of the gospel of grace.

simply because the books need to be returned. Really, this is nothing more than being consistent with biblical character: we are to be honest, hum-ble, and helpful.

Second, honestly face how much you know about philosophy and sci-ence. I know a very smart young man who has struggled with the faith, and he went to talk to his pastor about it. During the conversation, the pas-tor talked about Nietzsche, but in a way that made it very clear he had no idea what he was talking about. Far from being impressed, the young man wondered what else the pastor would confidently say, even though he really didn’t understand the subject matter. Perhaps this is even more common when the subject is science rather than philosophy. If you are not a scientist, then don’t make scientific claims. I have heard many well-meaning pas-tors scoff at Darwinian evolution, and in the comments they’ve made, they have only revealed that they actually don’t have the faintest idea of what Darwinism is. This is not to say that Darwinian evolution is true, but it is to say that, like in every other area of life, beating down a straw man can actually weaken your case.

Third, you need to listen to peo-

Rethinking the Law by Eric Lane

Is the Law of Moses (the Sinai code beginning with the Ten Commandments) the rule of life for the Christian, as it was for the Israelite in Old Testament times? This question concerns many Christians, as it did the author of this book, and in fact it was the main motive for writing it. This question cannot be answered without a thorough examination of the whole subject of the Law in both testaments. The author is convinced that he has made this examination and in so doing has answered the question about the Christian’s rule of life. He offers his findings to other Christians in the hope that this will deepen their understanding of the whole subject and of Scripture generally.

Eric Lane was born and raised in London. He served in the Royal Air Force and is a graduate of Cambridge Uni-versity with degrees in English and Theology. Eric served for nine years in the Anglican ministry in Carlisle and Lon-don, UK. After that he ministered in independent evangelical churches in various parts of the UK. He is now retired and living in Yateley, Hampshire. 226 pages, paperback with scripture index, $15.99 order from newcovenantmedia.com

Issue 208 June 2014 Page 19the Lord in the areas God has given him. We are all called to do what we can. It would have been totally under-standable to fully retire at 70, or 80—but John hasn’t even fully retired at 90! J. I. Packer is another excellent ex-ample of steadfastly serving the Lord in his 90s. We might not be able to do all the things we used to do, but we can still do what we can! I trust that in God’s grace I will also be a servant of the Lord for as long as I’m given strength. Ministry focus and function might shift as the years go by, but if there are ways I can be of use to the Master and his Church, then by his grace I hope to do so. We need godly men and women who show us that the goal of this life is to live for the glory of God rather than self-indulgence.

6. Be Positive. There are some people who seem to think that being overly critical is a spiritual gift. They will listen to a speaker and then point out all the little things they disagreed with or they didn’t like. I’ve been at conferences a number of times when someone has spoken, and John has said afterwards “That was good stuff!” or “That was great preaching!” Too often we want to show people that we’re experts, and one of the ways we try to do that is to tear other people down to build ourselves up. I never remember hearing John do that. There

Reflections—Continued from page 7talked with my wife, and was just very congenial and pleasant. There were other people far more important than we were, but John wasn’t going around being political and network-ing. He was there, he was personable, and he never made us feel anything but welcome and respected. I have at-tended other conferences were some ‘big name’ speakers have been unfath-omably rude and condescending when they’re out of the pulpit. I am thankful that John preached a message of grace in the pulpit, and demonstrated a life of grace outside the pulpit. As a pas-tor, I hope that there is a similar con-sistency between my preaching and personal life.

4. Be willing to admit mistakes. A few days ago I received my copy of Sound of Grace, which contained an article (the first in a series!!) by John Reisinger concerning mistakes he’s made in his teaching ministry. May we all be willing to admit our mis-takes, and never believe we’ve arrived at a place where no further correction is needed!

5. Be steadfast. John is 90, and he is still writing. He has candidly and honestly admitted that it has been dif-ficult to have to give up preaching and pulpit ministry, but he is still serving

were definite times I knew he didn’t agree with what was said, but even in those cases I remember him saying something kind about the speaker. He wasn’t rude or critical for the sake of being critical. He would ask a ques-tion or voice his disagreement, but never in a way which was disrespect-ful, scornful, or belittling. As a result, when John preached grace, he had credibility. He was a preacher of sov-ereign grace in the pulpit and a practi-tioner of grace outside it.

So those are just a few thoughts about John’s ministry—a ministry which is still ongoing. It’s interesting to me that John has had an impact on my life and ministry, even though I only heard him speak once or twice a year when I was younger. I didn’t grow up in his church, and we don’t have a long history of a close relation-ship the way he has with some others. But through his recorded messages and books he’s taught me a great deal. I’m sure there are many people like me who know a lot about John’s teaching, even though he doesn’t know that much about them! Only eternity will show the impact of his life and ministry. And, as Mr. Reis-inger clearly proclaimed, it will all be of grace, and it will all be Soli Deo Gloria.

I would like to help support the ministry of Sound of Grace: A tax-deductible gift in the amount of ______________ is enclosed.I would like to receive Sound of Grace via the USPS: A check in the amount of $20.00 for a paper copy (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.I would like to receive Sound of Grace via email: A check in the amount of $10.00 for a pdf file (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY—THANK YOUName: Street Address: City: State/Providence: Zip/Postal: Email address: @ Phone number:

Mail to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938

SOVEREIGN GRACE NEW COVENANT MINISTRIES 5317 WYE CREEK DRIVE FREDERICK, MARYLAND 21703-6938

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE PAID PER MIT NO. 45

FR EDER ICK, MD 21701

A Mother's Influence

from Timothy Shay Arthur, "The Mother"

Upon the character of the mother depends, almost entirely, the future character of the child. No matter how wise and good the father may be, his influence will do but little—if opposed

by that of an injudicious mother.

The father is with the children only for a short time each day, and cannot know their char-acters thoroughly, nor the means that best react upon and correct their evils. Upon the

mother devolves, therefore, of necessity, the high and important duty of molding the char-acters of her children—of impressing them for good or evil—of giving them true strength for

their trials in after life.

The whole life of the child is affected by the mother's character, and the influences which she has brought to bear upon him.

Courtesy of Grace Gems: www.GraceGems.org

Documents

Issue 208 June 2014 How To, and How Not To Preach the … · 1 Quoted in D.A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 16. 2 J.I. Packer in My Path of