by Pastor Mark Chin

Dr. Richard Mayhue defines ordination as “the biblical concept of God’s appointment of men to full-time ministry.” [1] He goes on to say that, “ordination is to church leadership as the bar exam is to the legal profession, the C.P.A. exam to accounting, or state board examinations to medical practice.” [2] This comparison serves to highlight a process whereby a man’s calling and qualification for full-time ministry are publicly affirmed by God and the local church, both its leaders and its members. It also serves to highlight how scary and taxing ordination can be, especially for those of you have written the bar or state board exam.

When I graduated from seminary, ordination was something I very much desired. And yet God graciously made me aware that it is something neither earned nor accomplished by men, but like all good things, it is a gift given entirely by God. God made very clear that if ordination was going to be a reality for me, it was something I would have to wait a long time for. God did this, in part, by withholding from me the opportunity to serve full-time in a local church for two years following my graduation from seminary. And when God finally did give me the opportunity to serve full-time at Lighthouse Bible Church San Jose, the first two years of full-time ministry provided little time for me to prepare for the ordination exam – a comprehensive 4-hour oral exam that was to cover my life, my seminary education, and the entirety of the Bible. Like most of the great things in my life, God made me wait.

When Pastor John gave me the ordination manual and Pastor Patrick sent me a list of theology topics I needed to know for the exam, one glance at both the manual and the list informed me that I would need some divine intervention to be remotely ready for the exam. I must confess, that many times, the only thing I looked forward to with regards to ordination was being finished with it. Frequently ordination loomed over my head like an insurmountable debt. To squeeze me a little more, God graciously raised up any number of church or family issues that made prepping for the exam nearly impossible. Over an extended period of time, being made aware of how little I could do yet how much needed to be done turned out to be a long and painfully nerve-wracking experience. The first week I finally was able to study for the exam, I could barely sleep – as my mind raced through the material, continually reminding me that there was not enough time to cover all the required material. The weeks prior to ordination involved 5am starts, study cards ad infinitum, and never ending quizzing by my wife that continually reminded me of how much a human being can forget. And yet, all of this was a wonderful gift from God.

Not only was I forced to be patient and to pray – a lot. I was forced to depend on the patience of others – the elders of LBCSJ, the LBC alliance pastors, my wife, my children, and the members of LBCSJ. I learned that one of the most precious gifts in this life is to see the beauty of God’s patience extended to us through other believers. Typically, this only happens when we are stretched beyond what we ourselves can handle. As the Lord brought me closer and closer to the ordination exam, He made me aware that ordination is an exercise of patience – first and foremost His patience for me. Paul in 1 Timothy 1:16 states: And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. The context of this statement is Paul’s testimony of having been put into service by Christ Jesus our Lord. In a sense, Paul, in 1 Tim. 1:12-17, is providing Timothy and us with the testimony of his ordination. And what he points to is not long hours of study, seminary training, service in the local church (all of which do play a valuable God-given role), but rather the amazing love, mercy, grace, and perfect patience that God demonstrates in the lives of sinners when He puts them in His service, doing so as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Pastors are not the only ones who are forced to wait patiently for the good things of God. Pastors are not the only ones who are called to serve full-time. In one sense, as children of God in Christ and members of His body, we are all called to serve Him full time as our King and Lord. And yet at the same time, we are all unworthy and unable to fulfill the task for which God has called us. Waiting for God’s grace can often be frightening, difficult, and painful. And yet, in all these things, God proves to be faithful to His Word, demonstrating in the lives of undeserving sinners, His perfect love, mercy, grace, and patience in Christ – not only for our benefit but also for the benefit of our fellow believers. For every true child of God, ordination is an exercise of His patience in Christ that is a wonderful and fruitful gift. May it be yours in the fullest.

[1] Richard Mayhue, “Chapter 8: Ordination to Pastoral Ministry” in Pastoral Ministry, edited by John MacArthur, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 107.

[2] Ibid., 109-110.

by Pastor Patrick Cho

One of my fondest memories from attending Bible study in college was being a part of small groups. We were a group of about five young men coming together each week to pray for one another and grow in our understanding of God’s Word. I can hardly think of a better way to spend time with other believers. This is true in the church as well where small groups are one of its most helpful ministries. Whenever we have membership classes, I encourage our incoming members to take advantage of our small groups whenever possible.

Perhaps small groups have become such a familiar part of the church’s ministry that we take them for granted without really thinking through the great benefits they provide. Here are some reasons small groups might not be as helpful as they should:

1. You treat them more like a right than a privilege. Perhaps your attitude with small groups is to treat it too casually – attending whenever you want, participating whenever you want, but without really making much of a commitment to it. It would be good to remember that each person in your small group is also setting time aside for you, including your small group leader who presumably prepared well for your time together.
2. You don’t really know how to utilize that time. Perhaps you signed up for small groups without really knowing what to expect. It is helpful to know what small groups are for and why the church provides them. Once you know the purpose behind small groups, you can attend in a more informed way. Don’t just sign up for small groups because your friends do. Know what you are getting involved in.
3. You depend on them too much for your spiritual health. Small groups are a way to help provide spiritual support, but they are not a substitute for the cultivation of your own relationship and walk with the Lord by spending quality time in His Word and in prayer. Small groups are most effective when you come to them spiritually strong, ready to contribute and give rather than only take.
4. Your pride is getting in the way. This can manifest itself in a number of ways. Perhaps a fear of man is preventing you from opening up to others or asking for help. Maybe because of a spirit of elitism you don’t feel like others can really contribute to your spiritual growth. The truth is that we all need help. What might be helpful is to take a long, hard look at your own shortcomings and faults and to confess those things to the Lord. Yes, the people in your small group have issues, but so do you.

If you have a good understanding of what small groups are and what they are for, then being part of them can really be a rewarding experience. What are some of the benefits of participating in a small group?

1. Small groups provide a close setting in which to develop relationships with other people in the church. Especially as the church grows larger, it is going to become increasingly difficult (even impossible) to develop close relationships with everyone. It may become more difficult to get plugged in and find ways to begin relationships and fellowship with others. Small groups provide a good environment to enjoy these benefits. People in the church have testified frequently that some of their closest relationships were borne out of small groups.
2. Small groups allow for concentrated times of fellowship that are centered on spiritual truth. Oftentimes we spend time with other believers but in ways that are not essentially spiritual. We play games, watch movies, or enjoy the outdoors. But the purpose of small groups is to spend time together in a deliberately spiritual way – to pray with one another or study the Bible together. As such, small groups can be used by God to help you grow considerably in the faith.
3. Small groups offer members a specific environment to practice the “one anothers” of Scripture. Most of the “one another” commands in Scripture are given in the context of the church, and while they are generally applicable in any context, they certainly should be applied in the church. By being a part of a small group, you are placed in a context conducive to loving one another, serving one another, praying for one another, etc.
4. Small groups are a great place to cultivate and identify future leaders of the church. While this is not its primary purpose, because of its emphasis on accountability and spiritual growth, small group is a great place to see if there are any men and women in the church that exhibit spiritual maturity and consistency.

All of these principles are wonderful, but they still do not guarantee that your small group time will be a good one. Much of that depends on the effort you put into small groups. What you put in is likely to be directly proportionate to what you get out of it. How can you make the most of your small group time, and when your small group meets, how can you best make use of that time together? That will be the focus of the next article.

by Pastor James Lee

As a junior at UCLA, I read Roland Bainton’s classic biography on the life of Martin Luther. It affected me deeply, and it still does. My favorite entry describes April 1521 when a humble, yet fearful monk named Martin Luther when ordered to recant replied, “This touches God and His Word. This affects the salvation of souls. Of this Christ said, ‘He who denies me before men, him will I deny before my Father.’ To say too little or too much would be dangerous. I beg you, give me time to think it over.” Granted a clemency by the emperor, he was given one more day to think it over. With the anguish that only true integrity can bring, Luther famously responded the next day, as it has been passed down to us, to the command to recant by replying, “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against my conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen.” What about us? Are our minds captive to the Word of God today? Is our response to our Lord’s will, promises, and commands, “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise?”

Luther was a man of conviction! And because he was a man of conviction, he was also a man of great humility, passion, zeal, energy, and impact. Eric Liddell, whose story was told in the movie Chariots of Fire, was the real-life Scottish runner who distinguished himself by refusing to race on the Lord’s Day during the Olympics. He was a man of conviction. When the martyr Chrystodom was brought before the Roman emperor, the pontiff threatened him with banishment if he remained a Christian. Chrystodom replied, “Thou canst not banish me, for this world is my Father’s house.”“But I will slay thee,” said the emperor. “Nay, thou canst not,” said the noble champion of the faith, “for my life is hid with Christ in God.” “I will take thy treasures.” “Nay, but thou canst not, for my treasure is in heaven and my heart is there.” “But I will drive thee away from man, and thou shalt have no friend left.” “Nay, thou canst not, for I have a friend in heaven from whom thou canst not separate me. I defy thee, for there is nothing that thou canst do to hurt me.” These men held and lived the truths they proclaimed with deep personal conviction. They are the truths for which Christians would die. Conviction is what they had. Conviction was the difference.

Webster’s dictionary defines “conviction” as, “the state of being convinced; firm belief; convincing, as of a truth.” It’s been accurately said, “Men hold opinions, but convictions hold the man.” Dr. Alex Montoya said, “Convictions are spiritual instincts that drive us to action regardless of the circumstances.”

Are you and I, men or women, of conviction? Do we really believe, own, and obey what God’s Word says? How does the imminent return of Christ positively affect us? Is our identity joyfully grounded in Christ? Do we embrace our spiritual responsibility to disciple our children and remember His grace in that very role? Is the grid and lens in which we view our studies, our problems, our workplace, our weaknesses, and our churches in line with what we claim to hope for and who we profess to worship? What real convictions are functionally displayed by our testimonies as husbands, wives, in-laws, etc? How does our “wisdom” reflect the Lord’s revelation? Do we believe every false word, careless word, hurtful word is dangerous to the soul, and that every encouragement, kindness, and correction are wonderful opportunities to build up?

History is replete with examples of men and women, ordinary, weak, and sinful like you and me, who stood for what they believed, who were willing when called upon, to suffer unspeakable harm for their convictions, even to die for what they believed was pleasing to the Lord. God powerfully used them:

• The conviction of Joshua – “Choose for yourselves today whom you will serve… but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)
• The conviction of restored Samson – “Let me die with the Philistines!” (Judges 16:30)
• The conviction of Ruth in relation to Naomi – “Thus may the Lord do to me, and worse, if anything but death parts you and me.” (Ruth 1:17)
• The conviction of Samuel – “Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord?… Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has also rejected you from being king.” (1 Samuel 15:22-23)
• The conviction of Nathan the prophet – who had to rebuke David even at the risk of execution, proclaiming, “You are the man!” (2 Sam 12:7)
• The conviction of Elijah, battling the prophets of Baal – “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” (1 Kings 18:21)
• The conviction of Esther – “… and if I perish, I perish.” (Esther 4:16)
• The conviction of Job even after great loss and Satan’s attacks – “Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” (Job 2:10)
• The conviction of Daniel – “Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself” (Daniel 1:8)
• The conviction of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (or Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah) in being thrown into the fiery furnace rather than bow down to an idol – “But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” (Daniel 3:18)
• The conviction of John the Baptist – “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7) and “It is not lawful for you to have her” (speaking to Herod about his incestuous marriage; Matthew 14:4)
• The conviction of the apostles – “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19-20) and later in Acts 5:29, “We must obey God rather than men.”
• The conviction of Stephen – “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just what your fathers did.” (Acts 7:51) and later as he was being stoned by those he confronted, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” (Acts 7:60)
• The conviction of Paul – “For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain” (Phil 1:21)
• The conviction of John – “I… was on the island called Patmos, because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” (Rev 1:9)
• The conviction of Jesus – “The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.” (Luke 9:22)

These are godly examples for us, not just to admire from a distance, but for us to be encouraged by and live out in the allotment that God has assigned each of us. Conviction involves far more than the content of our belief, it involves the crucial question if we really believe what we claim to believe and if we really trust Him who is Faithful. Hebrews 12:1-3 exhorts us, “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.” Let us hear our Lord’s oft repeated and loving call, “Be strong and courageous!”

by Pastor James Lee

People in every generation have faced varying degrees of temptations towards anxiety about the uncertainties of their life circumstances. Read the history books, interact with old journal entries, and listen to the songs of every man, woman, and child that ever lived – and we are not alone in the painful daggers and persistent drownings of life that we feel. We are neither removed from the seeming uncertainties of living in a fallen world, nor are we insured from any pending hardship down the road. It is assigned to the godly. In any and every generation of true believers, we will regularly need to be thrust back to the blissful forefront of hope in the ultimate realities of God’s goodness and His glorious gospel.

For the uneasiness of what we see around us can often overshadow the greater eternal realities we should appropriate when we are walking by faith, not by sight. But, we know weakness. But, we know heartache. But we can feel like despairing. There is not a single day where there isn’t a natural disaster or loss of a loved one or marital discontentment or church conflict or cancer being faced or hurtful lie being uncovered. And don’t get me wrong, there is not all and always bad news – we shouldn’t be half-glass empty pessimists who dismiss the powerful work of God in our lives and those around us! This is in spite of the spiritual war tempting us to not believe the gospel’s transforming power. There are abundant reasons to rejoice, if we would choose to see them! God is doing some amazing and humbling things in our individual lives, in our churches, and in our world to encourage us profoundly… even when we fail to fully see what He is accomplishing on behalf of His people and for His glory. This is not to minimize the real hurt, suffering, and depression we face, let alone privilege to patiently come alongside those in the midst of such sorrows.

But when our perspective narrows like a zoom lens only on the difficulties, depravity, and decline we continually witness around us, we can very easily get discouraged by what we only see or experience – and we lose sight of the great and guaranteed certainties promised, preserved, and proven for His own children. Romans 8:28 is no cliché, but independently and actively true, as surely indeed, “God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”

So instead of listening to ourselves, we need to preach the truths of God’s Word to our own hearts. We have to run to His Word, despite how we might feel at any given moment. We have to trust God, even if it’s just one step forward at a time. As D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones exhorted, “Have you realized that most of your unhappiness in life is due to the fact that you are listening to yourself instead of talking to yourself?” Or as the psalmist reflected and instructed in Psalm 42:5, “Why are you in despair, O my soul? And why have you become disturbed within me? Hope in God, for I shall again praise Him for the help of His presence.”

I want to remind myself and all of us of His great, wonderful, merciful, true, and “gonna happen no matter what” certainties that God has promised and will sovereignly bring to pass. We can bank our lives on these truths. Consider today just a tiny sample list directly from God’s Word, so our dear Holy Spirit will shepherd us. Engrave them on your hearts, tattoo them on the insides of your eyes, drink and breathe them deeply as undeniable, unimpeachable, life-transforming doctrines that give us the perspective we need right now – not merely to humanistically “cope” with some difficult circumstances and challenges, but because they are free gifts of His grace to live a God-honoring, Christ-centered, Spirit-filled, Gospel-saturated, Joyous life.

Let us keep urging one another to live each moment in the hope-giving, manifold certainties of His Word:

1. The Certainty of Jesus’ Past Resurrection Demonstrates the Future Certainty of Our Own

“For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.” (Romans 6:5)

2. The Certainty of Our Promised Glorification

“And whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Romans 8:30)

3. The Certainty of God’s Sovereign Control

“Who is there who speaks and it comes to pass, Unless the Lord has commanded it?” Lamentations 3:37

4. The Certainty of God’s Faithful Character

“No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13)

5. The Certainty of God’s Powerful Word

“So shall My Word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

6. The Certainty of the Eventual End of a Believer’s Pain

“And He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:4)

7. The Certainty of God’s Merciful Reward

“For he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6b)

8. The Certainty of Materialism’s Emptiness and Heaven’s Joys

“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal.” (Matthew 6:19-20)

9. The Certainty of God’s Care and Provision

“Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you at the proper time, casting all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you.” (1 Peter 5:6-7)

10. The Certainty of God’s Goodness in His Demands

“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)

11. The Certainty of the Enduring Profit of Godliness

“Discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness; for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life & also for the life to come.” (1 Timothy 4:7-8)

12. The Certainty of God’s Unending Affection for Us

“Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” (Romans 8:1)

13. The Certainty of the Church’s Unchanging Mission and His Presence

“And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

14. The Certainty of Christ’s Return

“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

It is when we return to God’s Word, and begin to preach His truth to our hearts, rather than listening to ourselves and the lies of the world and the wicked one, that our living hope again becomes the accurate lens for which we see all things. The Word sanctifies us. Perception becomes reality. We are not to be deceived by the falsehoods of positive thinking, but anchor ourselves in who Christ is. Our hearts need to be shepherded by His Word, and we will need to shepherd one another with His Word. As we believe the sufficiency of His Word, that biblical counsel will change us. As Eric Davis recently exhorted, “As a Christian, there are always reasons to rejoice. Always. The God of the Bible reigns. Christ has propitiated the Father’s wrath. He has risen. We are in him. He is working all things for good. Despite our felt decline at times, the Holy Spirit moves us forward. Christ will return and we with him, shining forth as the sun in the kingdom of our Father. In that day, sorrow will be laid to rest. Until then, though sorrowful, we are always rejoicing.”

Remember our brother Apostle Paul in the midst of his imprisonment and his testing, who rejoiced in being enabled to say out of a heart of worship in Philippians 4:8-9, “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things. The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.”

by Pastor John Kim

The hymn, “I Love Thy Kingdom Lord” by Timothy Dwight is one that I recall singing often when I attended Grace Community Church in my youth. I really loved going to church on Sundays. It was pretty much an all day affair – it really was the Lord’s Day, not the Lord’s hour and a half. I started attending in the summer before 9th grade and would go the main service, then the Sunday school service, then spend the afternoon with my small group, and then return to church for the evening service. I spent most of my high school years doing the same and then joined the junior high staff my first couple of years in college. So every Sunday was pretty full and I loved it. Sure, there were times when I was tired and sometimes there was some drama and challenges and even conflicts but it never crossed my mind to minimize being at church on Sundays.

Then I became a pastor. I quickly found out that many people didn’t share my enthusiasm to be at church. In fact, attending even just one service was enough for most people and if the sermon was too long or if the song selection was boring or if the snacks were stale, there was always a reason to complain or be critical and people would drop off in their attendance or just disappear.

I understand that many people have had disappointing and difficult church experiences. Believe me, I have had my share and I completely understand why some people would rather have nothing to do with the hypocrites, the legalistic Pharisees, the scammers, the creepers, and the host of other problematic people that make church not too attractive. Sadly, there are some churches that are devoid of the presence of God and that is the reason why it is not a good place to be.

But even in the best of churches where there is a commitment to worship God, a high view of Scripture, a mission to make disciples, a vision to plant churches, and a conviction to love God and people, why is it that there are still many who struggle in even regularly attending church and getting involved in the lives of the members?

Could it be that there is a simple and fundamental lack of love for the church? I think we all understand that there is no perfect church, that we are all sinners, and that we will have to face the reality of all the weaknesses and shortcomings and failures that any church would share. It is often surprising and even shocking at how indifferent and apathetic many professing Christians are toward the church. The mean-spirited and the hard-hearted emerge to crush and destroy people, all in the name of Christ. The refusal to forgive and reconcile, while dividing and fracturing the fellowship of believers instead, reaches epidemic levels at many churches; it is no surprise we see the departures of many not only from the church but even some from the faith.
I would like to encourage those who might be quick to point the finger at others and take a long hard look in the mirror and answer a few questions:

1. Are you loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength (Matthew 22:37-40)?
2. Does the love of Christ control you (2 Corinthians 5:14-15)?
3. Are you kind, tender-hearted, and forgiving in the way Christ has forgiven you (Ephesians 4:31)?
4. Are you patient and kind in a way that bears all things, hopes all things, believes all things, and endures all things (1 Corinthian 13:4-7)?
5. Do you go to church with the deliberate and purposeful intention of stimulating others to love and good deeds and to encourage (Hebrews 10:24-25)?
6. Do you remember that Christ is the ultimate head of the church and that your heart attitude and conduct must first and foremost consider His glory?

Everyone will have reasons to find it difficult to love your church and yet we must consider how much we are either contributing to the difficulty or seeking to address the lack of love by choosing to love first before waiting to be loved by others. We are already loved (1 John 4:19) and so we are able to love. The stakes are high – we cannot say that we love God and hate our brother (1 John 4) and so we must all consider the accountability we have before God and His Word to carry out what is most basic and foundational to the Christian life. It also affects our testimony to the world as loving one another shows that we belong to Christ (John 13:34-35).

Do you love your church? I pray that you would indeed love your church with the love of Christ to His glory.

by Pastor Mark Chin

The response to this question by any self-proclaimed conservative evangelical Christian is typically the following: “Yes! Absolutely!” However, before anyone can truly answer this question with any degree of integrity, there is another question that needs to be addressed. Have we seriously considered the claims of the Bible?

The claims of the Bible, if taken at face value, are outrageous – quite literally, incredible. The Bible claims that its words are the very words of the Creator of the universe – words breathed out by God Himself. Exodus 24:4 claims that “Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD.” 2 Timothy 3:16 claims that “All Scripture is breathed out by God …” Genesis 1 claims that the words that proceed from the mouth of God possess the power and authority to create the entire universe out of nothing in 6 literal chronological 24 hour days. Hebrews 4:12 claims that the Bible is a “living” entity. Isaiah 55:11 claims that the words of the Bible will not return to God empty but will always successfully accomplish God’s purposes for it. 2 Timothy 3:15 claims that the words of the Bible are able to make a person wise for salvation through faith in Christ. Psalm 19 claims that the words of the Bible are perfect, sure, right, and pure and that they revive the soul, make wise the simple, rejoice the heart, and enlighten the eyes. Jesus claims that His words give eternal life. The Bible claims to possess the power and authority, not merely to change, but to recreate and transform our world and our lives. Do we actually believe what the Bible says?

As a former physician, I used to regularly witness many people’s willingness to sacrificially spend exorbitant amounts of money to purchase and regularly consume medications that claimed far less than what the Bible does. I used to witness many people’s willingness to rise each morning and take that medication without fail. Compliance to a specific medical regimen was frequently tied to confidence and belief in the necessity and benefit of a given medical regimen. Few people take medication regularly that they believe is doing nothing for their lives. Few people take medication merely because they think it’s the right thing to do or because their physician told them to take it. Compliance typically requires some belief in the efficacy of a given treatment. Compliance with a given treatment says much about one’s belief in it. This of course, begs the question: What does our compliance with the Word of God say about our belief in it?

As a pastor, one of the great heartbreaks is witnessing how neglected the Word of God is in the lives of people who claim to believe it. One of the questions I frequently ask “believers” is “How is your time in the Word?” One of the frequent replies I receive to this question is “Pastor, I’ve really been busy lately.” Time in the Word is frequently an afterthought for many professing “believers” – what comes after everything else in my life has been taken care of, what comes when I have time to spare, when nothing else important is going on. When lives get busy or difficult for whatever reason – work, relationships, family, vacation, illness, sermon preparation, ministry demands – one of the first things to get kicked to the curb for many professing Christians is their time in the Word (the other thing is prayer). As a pastor, one of the great heartbreaks is witnessing, as D. Martyn Lloyd Jones pointed out in his seminal work, Spiritual Depression, how many people in the church, though professing to be “believers”, remain discouraged and joyless. But what is even more heartbreaking, as a pastor, is to see how unwilling many struggling Christians are to go to God’s Word consistently for help in their time of need. These trends suggest that we don’t quite believe what the Bible claims – at least not to the extent that we think we do. Our priorities and compliance frequently tell a different story from our profession of what we believe.

If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that spending consistent time in the Word of God is frequently a struggle. Many believe that this is because we lack discipline. Many tell me that it is hard to do so. Some honestly share with me that their time in the Word is dry and uninspiring or that it simply no longer works for them. But if the Bible is truly what it says it is and does what it truly says it does – then the fundamental struggle is one of faith. Do we really believe what the Bible says is true? If the Bible’s claims are true, then it demands to be set apart and set above all other words or priorities in our life, even as it guarantees a life transformed into the image of Christ by those who truly receive it by faith as the living Word of God. The real secret to a transformative quiet time is not, first and foremost discipline – though discipline certainly has its place. The real secret is faith – faith that is a gift from God (Eph 2:8,9) – faith that comes from hearing, and hearing through the Word of Christ. So let’s repent of unbelief and pray for more faith – for ourselves and those who are struggling – that we might all see and experience the glory of God’s Word in Christ – that we might actually believe what the Bible says.

by Pastor Patrick Cho

August 7, 2016 is a date that will forever be etched on my mind. That was the day that the Lord took Emily Taylor Choi home after a long and hard fought battle with stage four neuroblastoma. August 7 is the day after my birthday, and I know it seems petty and perhaps even self-centered to make that connection, but that is what Emily did to people. That was the way she touched pretty much everyone she came into contact with. You wanted to have any sort of connection with her, however small. Because of the way her parents, Aaron and Tina, graciously and selflessly shared her with the rest of the world through their Facebook page, many came to love Emily as their own.

I honestly didn’t even know what neuroblastoma was until I first heard about Emily’s condition, but since then I have learned what a devastating disease it is and how it affects so many families each year. Apparently, it is the most common form of cancer for small children. Emily was first diagnosed in December 2014 when she was nineteen months old.

One conversation I had with Pastor Aaron particularly stood out to me. It was about a year ago when we were visiting with the Choi’s. Aaron had mentioned to me that many people were commenting through conversations and social media about how encouraged they were at how strong he and Tina had been. But, he replied, he wasn’t strong. If anything, this trial revealed how weak he was and how he needed to depend on the Lord for every step of the process. What he said that afternoon resonated with me, and I did not make the connection then, but it also resonated with the teaching of Scripture.

So often we emphasize our weakness and insufficiency to make the point that in Christ we are strong and in Him we have our sufficiency. But perhaps the point is not to demonstrate the strength that we have in the end. Sometimes, through the Lord’s sovereign dealings with our lives, we are simply and plainly shown to be weak. And it is okay for us to be weak. This may be one of the key lessons to learn from passages like Psalm 82:3-4, “Vindicate the weak and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and destitute. Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.” It isn’t so much that the Lord makes weak hands strong, but that He helps those who are weak with His strength. How encouraging is the psalmist’s conclusion in Psalm 109:27 after he calls upon the Lord for help and confesses his weakness, “And let them know that this is Your hand; You, LORD, have done it” (Ps. 109:24-27).

Weakness so often characterized the ministry of the Apostle Paul. He writes to the Corinthians, “I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling” (1 Cor. 2:3). He does not say this to demonstrate how God made him strong, but instead to show how the Spirit’s power is made manifest through what he preached. The conclusion of his life and ministry was to boast in his weakness (2 Cor. 11:29-30). He gladly accepted his weakness because it allowed for Christ’s strength to be put on display all the more.

Perhaps we need to be re-instructed in our theology of weakness. It is especially in our trials and hardships that our weaknesses are emphasized, and it is okay for us to be weak. God is not degraded or dishonored by our weakness. Sometimes it is best simply to confess our weakness to the Lord and to call out to Him to be strong for us rather than in us. It is in light of this truth that I am particularly encouraged by Christ’s taking on flesh for us and understanding our weakness. Hebrews 4:15-16 reminds us that He sympathizes with our weaknesses so that He can better grant mercy and grace in our time of need.

To Pastor Aaron, Tina, their son Silas, their families, their friends, their church, to all who have been following the events and details surrounding Emily’s sickness and death, and to me: we are weak. As we confess our weakness, we hurt with this family in their loss and we pray that God would continue to be their comfort and strength.

I will never forget the moments our family was able to share with sweet Emily. We wish it could have been more often but sadly distance separated us. She absolutely glowed with her brilliant smile. I won’t forget that. I will also always remember her incredible strength to endure all the treatments to fight her cancer. She certainly was resilient. Emily, we love you and miss you dearly. We cannot wait to see you again. Praise God that the fight is over and now you can rest. Praise God that the sickness is removed. Praise God for the three wonderful years we had with you. They were God’s grace to us. And praise God that we can trust and rejoice in the hope of a glorious reunion one day in Heaven.

by Pastor Mark Chin

Darby’s Hermeneutical Commitments

Of Darby’s primary commitments, Wilkinson notes the following: “Darby’s eschatology was rooted in his devotion to Jesus Christ and his study of the Bible.” [28] The validity of this observation is abundantly clear to anyone who has read Darby’s writings. They are saturated with Scripture, consumed with the supremacy of Christ. Of all Darby’s commitments, four that seemed to inform much of his thinking were his commitment to the absolute authority, sufficiency, and perfection of Scripture as God’s direct communication to man, his commitment to the supremacy of Christ as Lord of all, his commitment to the believer’s spiritual union with Christ in heaven as the defining aspect of a true believer’s existence and that of the church, and his commitment to the distinction between the metaphysical sphere of “heaven” and “earth.”

Scripture

For Darby, the God of the Bible was the starting point of all things. As such, Scripture is “ a revelation of what He is and the way to Him.” [29] It is a “direct communication from God,” and therefore it commands “absolute authority”. [30] It is unique, without comparison or peer, in that it is the only “divinely given record of God’s thoughts.” [31] Of its composition, Darby was firmly committed to the inspiration of Scripture, stating that, “The facts (of Scripture) are put together by the Holy Ghost.” [32] Consequently, he was quick to defend its “perfection” and inerrancy, in both structure and detail. [33] As such, Darby heralded “the revealed written word of God” as “the only source and standard of truth.” [34] Though incredibly well-educated and well-read, demonstrating an in-depth understanding of German rationalism, higher criticism, naturalism, and evolution, Darby, as evidenced by his collected writings, held no substitute for Scripture as the divine authority and the divine gold standard by which all things must be measured and upon which all things must be built, especially the endeavor of interpreting Scripture or addressing alleged heresy.

That being said, Darby did not hold Scripture to be some sort of inanimate tool, encyclopedia, or reference book whose details were to be neatly dissected and categorized, to be scientifically and systematically ordered to prove a point, as is often attributed to the likes of Scofield and Torrey, Darby’s dispensational step-sons. [35] This is, perhaps, something that served as an embarrassment to his American successors. Darby believed Scripture to be, in whole and in part, the living word of God that transformed lives by communicating the grace of God. “It (Scripture) is the beauty and blessedness of scripture as the word of God to work by its own power, and convey, through grace, its divine contents to the heart.” [36] As will be shown, it is this comprehensive commitment to Scripture as the living Word of God that informed all of Darby’s work. In turn, much of Darby’s work was focused on how this living Word was to be properly handled, understood, and lived. Scientific and systematic categorization was of secondary importance to Darby as reflected in his writings.

The Interpretation of Scripture

This was certainly true with regard to how Darby handled the endeavor of interpretation. If Scripture for Darby was God’s perfect and direct authoritative communication to man, then one thing was and is certain. Natural man is a sinner, the world is fallen, and both are in opposition to God, under His judgment, and incapable of rightly understanding His revealed truth on their own. “It is the foundation truth of Scripture that man is a sinner …” concluded Darby. [37] Furthermore, “The history of the Bible is the history of original sin; the doctrine of the Bible is the doctrine of God’s putting it away forever.” [38] In light of the Creator/creation distinction, and even more so in light of the sin of man, Darby was committed to upholding large and opposing distinctions between the things of God and the things of man, between what he would describe as “heavenly” and “earthly.”

Such distinctions shaped much of Darby’s hermeneutical approach to Scripture. In as much as philosophy, science, or higher criticism were the products of the minds of sinful men, Darby was vehemently opposed to rendering to them any authority over Scripture or any role in the interpretation of Scripture. For Darby, “ … conscience being above revelation is nonsense … Conscience is man; and a conscience above revelation is man above God … Man is not judge of the way. He has received every kind of lie as God …” Illumination, then, by the Holy Spirit, the author of the Word itself, was for Darby the only means of rightly understanding the divine truths of Scripture and the only rightful place for man, including his mind, was under, not above, the Word. “The humble mind learns according to the power of God’s truth … He is subject to Him, and the power He gives is subject to the moral guidance of the Spirit working in man … with the simplest language, there must be divine apprehensions in the soul to understand Scripture.” [39]

Scripture as a Divine Complex Unity

Scripture for Darby, along with the right interpretation and understanding of it, was and is entirely a divine work that begins and ends with God, not man. Scripture was clearly and entirely, for Darby, to the tiniest detail, the product of “the one divine Mind” that has proceeded from “one Spirit” for “a distinct divine object.” [40] From this, Darby drew two significant and influential implications for his own study of Scripture. First, the proper goal of Scripture study and interpretation is the determination of the divine meaning by divine assistance. “If I seek the meaning, I must seek, not the effect on others, but the intention of the speaker or writer … and nothing else … I must seek simply the purpose and meaning of the speaker and nothing else.” [41] For Darby, this commitment to authorial intent was nothing less than an uncompromising commitment to divine intent. “If I believe it (Scripture) divine, I seek the divine meaning and I shall be helped to discover it, and wait till I do. The moment you compromise, you are off the ground on which the Bible is of any value; or that contending for it is of any consequence whatever.” [42] Secondly, that Scripture presents an overarching “great scheme or plan such as must be in God’s mind …” which “ binds the whole together, from the Pentateuch to Revelation, and brings in the New Testament into its place in the organization of the whole.” [43] These two implications and convictions provided the framework for much of Darby’s hermeneutic, for the way in which he understood Scripture, and for the way in which he understood the continuities and discontinuities between the Old and New Testament.

In light of such convictions, Darby understood Scripture to be a divine complex unity, a composition of many discrete parts perfectly woven together according to the divine design of the one divine Mind, through the work of the one Spirit, for the accomplishment of the one divine plan. This emphasis on the harmony or unity of Scripture is something that seems lost at times by those who championed dispensationalism in America, men who were oftentimes preoccupied with scientific distinctions, schemes, and charts. Darby likened Scripture to a map that presents God’s divine plan for dealing with man. “I believe every book of scripture finds its place, like the parts of a dissected map, and gives a whole which proves its own completeness.” [44] It was within this paradigm that Darby understood the relationship between the Old and the New Testament. Of their relationship Darby states the following: “Now everyone … knows that the later writers were thoroughly imbued with, their minds wholly formed by, what preceded; the prophets by the law, and the New Testament by the Old – that the New Testament … is yet built in every thought on the basis of the Old; though the truths and state be wholly new, and in a certain sense set aside the whole system of the Old, yet nine-tenths of its language is unintelligible, unless we are versed in the Old.” [45]

For Darby, then, Scripture revealed a clear chronology of the divine plan of God’s dealing with man that began in the Old Testament and ended in the New, where the New did not reinterpret the Old, but rather the Old provided the foundation and context with which to understand the New. Each individual part was to be interpreted simply and plainly, according to the context and nature of the passage, whether narrative, poetry, or instructive doctrine, and then understood within the greater context of the whole of Scripture. Darby’s handling of OT prophecy exemplifies this approach. “And, though interpreting each part simply and just as I find it as to the direct meaning of the passages … yet … I shall surely find … a fitting of each part into the whole, and into its own place in the whole, each part in that whole … as the members of the body different entirely in service, yet serve the whole, and serve each other.” [46]

Simplicity and Plain-Sense

To this end, Darby championed a literal or “plain-sense” hermeneutic. He was deeply opposed, for reasons stated above, to allegorizing, spiritualizing, or mystifying Scripture, especially the contents of OT prophecy. He was committed to taking “prophetic scriptures in their direct and plain meaning.” [47] “I reject entirely this mystifying of the Old Testament … ‘The office of the interpreter is not to add another (interpretation), but to recover the original one.’” [48] For the hermeneutics of the early church fathers, he had little use. “Mystical and allegorical interpretations of the Fathers I throw overboard at once. Scripture is not answerable for them; but our friend Philo and the Alexandrians mainly.” [49]

It was to such “allegorical and mystifying” hermeneutics that Darby directly credited heresies such as Arianism. In doing so, Darby demonstrated his keen awareness of the toxic influence of Platonism and Greek philosophical dualism on early church thinking and hermeneutics. So it was that he concluded the following: “It is to me as evident as possible historically, that the Arian doctrine came direct from Philo, at least from the Alexandrian school of philosophers, or Platonist Jews, who held that the supreme God could not be directly connected with the material creation … It was Platonism, not Scripture, and deeply infected the assembly (church).” [50] In contrast to this approach, Darby stated the following: “Each part (of Scripture), as to its statements, is to be understood in itself … We do not assume anything about it. We take what is said in the book itself about itself, and find it verified in the richest and most instructive manner.” [51] For this reason, Darby was able to conclude that “Zion means Zion when she is prophesied about … The prophecy concerns her because it speaks to her on the moral ground she is on, and the arbitrary application to the assembly (the church) is entirely false, because the principle of relationship with God is different.” [52] Consequently, Israel was to be interpreted as Israel and the ekklesia as the church or assembly, distinct in their design and dealings with God, yet both part of God’s overarching divine plan.

Unity in the Heavenly Supremacy of Christ

For Darby, the Bible was a divinely inspired complex unity, expressing a single divine plan that proceeded from the mind of God, composed of multiple distinct but connected parts and people that included Israel, the nations, and the Church, progressively being fulfilled in the history of the world. So Darby concludes, “I get Jews, Gentiles, Israel, Messiah, their history developed in multifarious ways; but all treated by one mind to whom all belong, history bringing out the thoughts of that one mind by each one in the sphere they belong to, and by a revealed bearing one upon another … all running into one another in one great scheme.” [53] There was, for Darby, in Scripture a clear and explicit end to this great divine scheme. The consummation and end of this great scheme, according to Scripture, is to be found in Christ – in many ways the focus of much of Darby’s biblical studies and ministry. So it is that Darby concluded the following: “All in heaven and earth is to be gathered up into one head in Christ. Besides individual salvation and blessing, there are two great topics in scripture – God’s government of the world, and the Church. In Christ both find their Head. He will rule over all, Israel being the earthly centre, while the Church is united to Him … His redemption work being the basis of all, in the power of which He fills all things.” [54] If it was the mind of God that brought unity to the divine plan of Scripture then it was the person of Christ who brought unity to its fulfillment.

It was this conviction, especially the believer’s union with Christ in heaven and Christ’s earthly rule over Israel, which influenced much of Darby’s handling of Scripture and much of Darby’s ministry as a leader of the Brethren movement. The identities of different peoples in the Bible and the role they would play in God’s overarching divine plan was largely determined by the way in which these groups were related or united to Christ within that divine plan. For Darby, what distinguished the believer’s unique relationship with Christ as opposed to that of the nation of Israel was the believer’s present “place in Christ.” [55] The Church, also defined by its relationship to Christ, was, according to Darby, “a congregation of souls redeemed out of ‘this naughty world’ by God manifest in the flesh, a people purified to Himself by Christ, purified in faith in Him, to Him their Head sitting at the right hand of the Father, having consequently their conversation (commonwealth) in heaven, from whence they look for the Savior, the Lord of glory; Phil. 3:20. As a body, therefore, they belong to heaven …” [56]

In many ways, for Darby, the believer’s union with Christ was the ultimate compass both soteriologically and eschatologically. How a person or people were and are related to Christ, soteriologically and eschatologically, determined where and how they fit into God’s overarching divine plan and how they were to live in the present dispensation. So it was that Darby concluded, “There are two great subjects which occupy the sphere of millennial prophecy and testimony: the church and its glory in Christ; and the Jews and their glory as a redeemed nation in Christ.” [57] Because the divine plan ultimately finds its end and its perfection in Christ, preparation for Christ’s return was to be the chief preoccupation of every believer, and so it was for Darby. “I saw that the Christian, having his place in Christ in heaven, has nothing to wait for save the coming of the Saviour, in order to be set, in fact, in the glory which is already his portion ‘in Christ’…” [58] The end, for the believer and for the church, was not primarily an event, but rather a glorious union with Christ in heaven as between a bride and her groom. This is a significant distinction from many of Darby’s dispensational step-sons, for whom emphases on events and the order of those events often overshadowed the individual believer’s union with Christ.

Consequently, much of Darby’s thoughts and labor, in the OT, in the NT, and in the local church, were deeply influenced by this conviction. Wilkinson notes, “It was Darby’s understanding that the expectation of Christ’s imminent return ‘had ruled the intelligence, sustained the hope, [and] inspired the conduct, of the apostles,’ and that the spiritual decline for the Church owed much to the loss of this expectation.” [59] In light of this, one can appreciate though hardly commend, Darby’s separation over differences in eschatology and the Lord’s Supper, in light of the connection he drew between these issues and the believer’s spiritual union with Christ. However, one also notices that perhaps there is a tendency for Darby’s emphasis on the believer’s union with Christ to overshadow the doctrine of the atonement in his writings. Henzel notes that in Darby’s recollection of his assurance of salvation, he oddly did not mention “the forgiveness of sins through the atonement of Christ” and argues that there is a similar trend of under explaining the doctrine of the atonement in the rest of his writings. [60] One wonders how much such a trend contributed to the separation and splits that would sadly come to characterize the Brethren Movement under Darby’s direction.

Darby’s Heavenly Dualism

In considering Darby’s emphasis on the believer’s union with Christ and the supremacy of Christ over all things, what becomes evident is a commitment to an apparent dualism between what is referred to as the “heavenly” and the “earthly” and, consequently, between the purposes of God for Israel and for the Church. Much has been made of this dualistic hermeneutic in recent years, both in and outside of the dispensational community. Clearly, such distinctions dominate much of Darby’s thinking and writing, highlighting his deep commitment to them. It is exemplified by the way in which Darby defines and distinguishes the Church and Israel in the following way:

(The Church in Christ and Israel in Christ are) the heavenly people and the earthly people; the habitation and scene of the glory of the one being the heavens; of the other, the earth. Christ shall display His glory in the one according to that which celestial; in the other, according to that which is terrestrial … When all is accomplished, God shall be all in all…Though the church and Israel be, in connection with Christ, the centres respectively of the heavenly and the earthly glory, mutually enhancing the blessing and joy of each other, yet each ahs its respective sphere…angles, principalities, and the powers in one; the nations of the earth in the other. [61]

As evidenced by Darby’s convictions about Greek philosophy previously cited, this dualism was clearly not a neo-platonic, spiritual verses material, dualism. Henzel linked this dualism to Darby’s conversion and his commitments to the believer’s union with Christ in heaven. “So the heavenly nature of the believer’s union with Christ became the key that unlocked the door to Darby’s spiritual enlightenment, and because it worked so well on that door, it became the key he would use to unlock other theological doors as well… For him, the heavenly position of the believer in Christ was the key.” [62] It is hard to completely substantiate Henzel’s opinion about the basis of Darby’s dualism. For in many ways, Darby’s dualism was as much a prophetic and apocalyptic dualism as it was a metaphysical one. Throughout the Old Testament, what is certainly obvious is that the eschatology of the prophets is rooted in a covenantal world view that makes very hard distinctions between the evil of men and the world and the righteous of God and His heavenly kingdom, between the nature of the present age and the age of the Messiah.

However, did Darby and the traditional dispensationalists who followed him take these distinctions too far? The classical dispensational belief in two separate eternal plans and purposes for Israel and the Church certainly suggest that this may well be the case. Did prophetic dualism in the hands of men descend into an apocalyptic dualism? Mounce’s description of the apocalyptic genre and its dualism certainly bears a remarkable resemblance to trends in Darby’s dualism and that of traditional dispensationalists.

…apocalyptic (genre) is dualistic. This dualism is not metaphysical but historical and temporal. There exist two opposing supernatural powers, God and Satan. There are also two distinct ages: the present one that is temporal and evil, and the one to come that is timeless and perfectly righteous. The first is under the control of Satan and the second under the immediate supervision of God. Closely related to the teaching of two ages is the idea of two worlds, the present visible universe and the perfect world that has existed before time heaven … it should be observed that it (apocalyptic dualism) may also be accounted for by ideas contained in the OT prophets.

Apocalyptic is also characterized by a rigid determinism in which everything moves forward as divinely preordained according to a definite time schedule and towards a predetermined end…Other features that went to make up the apocalyptic outlook include…the conviction that they were living in the last days. [63]

Whatever the source or cause, Darby’s commitment to this dualism certainly influenced his hermeneutic, including viewing the church as a “parenthesis” in God’s plan for Israel. It is interesting to examine Darby’s Ministry on the Epistle to the Ephesians and note that in his discussion of Ephesians 2:13-22, there is no explanation about the Gentiles becoming fellow citizens with the saints or about the meaning of the household of God. [64] For Darby, this is entirely about the church, the heavenly people of God who have absolutely no connection with the nation of Israel or the saints of Israel prior to the cross. So it is that Darby feels obligated to make the following statement in his discussion of this passage, revealing how bound he was to maintain this dualism and distinction at all times: “God could not reveal the church during the Jewish dispensation; for the existence of the church then would have denied the special position of this people.” For Darby, distinction entailed mutual exclusivism and separateness in every possible way. How much of this was Scripture driven verses historical reaction?

Conclusion

Dispensationalism’s attempts to distance its theology from Darby is a most curious phenomenon which traces its roots to the very rise of dispensationalism in America, its acceptance of some of Darby’s thoughts and its rejection of the Brethren Movement as a whole. In many ways, the emphases of classical dispensationalism reflect the historical modernist-fundamentalist battles in America as much as they reflect the ideas that moved Darby and his handling of Scripture. Sadly, however, in separating the man from the movement, many of the fundamental commitments that framed Darby’s theology and provided a unifying biblical balance to the distinctions and discontinuities of his eschatology seem to have been discarded. Chief among them is the unifying theme of a believer’s union with Christ – its absence in dispensational theology often resulting in a cold scientific collection of charts and prophetic timelines that sometimes overshadow the Gospel.

Understanding Darby’s historical context, especially the corruptness of the Established Church, the historical turmoil, and the apocalyptic fervor of the time, goes a long way to understand the battles Darby was fighting and the emphases of his writing and theological thinking. Understanding the commitments of his heart go a long way to demonstrate that many of the ideas that formed the basis of dispensationalism were not merely the product of his imagination or of prophetic fads of the time, but rather the product of a deep commitment to the divine authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, to the supremacy of Christ in all things, and to the proper handling of the Word of God as a living expression of the One divine mind. At the same time, understanding Darby’s times and commitments go a long way in understanding that he was a man like any other, subject to the same flaws and shortcomings, at times over and under emphasizing critical doctrines, blurring the lines between prophetic and apocalyptic worldviews.

Did Darby take things too far, especially in his relations with those who disagreed with him? Jonathan Burnham notes that Darby exhibited a propensity, as evident in his writing, to believe “ that his views had been enlightened by the truth of Scripture, and that those who disagreed with him were not only wrong, but deluded by the power of the Evil One.” [65] H.A.Ironside, a man with great sympathies for the Brethren movement, gently concluded the following with regard to one of Darby’s acts of ecclesiastical separation from those who disagreed with him: “The impression left on my mind is that Mr. Darby was overzealous for what he conceived to be the glory of God and was not actuated by pride and self-will. But God alone can judge this.” [66] How Darby’s eschatology and ecclesiology tied into the separatism and conflicts of the Brethren Movement is the topic for another paper. However, what can be concluded is that some of the things that predisposed him to ecclesiastical conflict are certainly true of many biblical scholars of every era, men who are prone to equate their own theological conclusions and systems with the authority of Scripture. To ignore the man, is to ignore our own blind spots and our own Achilles heels, and those of dispensationalism.

[28] Henzel, 104.

[29] Darby, Modern Philosophy and Modern Theology, Both Compared with Scripture, CW 9:117.

[30] Ibid., 9:116. Wilkinson, 105.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Darby, Inspiration and Interpretation, CW 9:309.

[33] Ibid., 9:321.

[34] Ibid., 9:358.

[35] Of these two men, Marsden states: “Dispensationalist leaders regarded these methods of dividing and classifying as the only scientific ones. Scofield, for example contrasted his work to previous ‘unscientific systems.’ Similarly, Reuben Torrey regarded ideas basically as things to be sorted out and arranged…Torrey depicted his work as ‘…The methods of modern science are applied to Bible study – thorough analysis followed by careful synthesis.’” Marsden, 60.

[36] Darby, Inspiration and Interpretation, CW 9:334.

[37] Ibid., 9:347.

[38] Ibid., 9:289.

[39] Darby, Inspiration and Interpretation, CW 9:241, 245.

[40] Ibid., 9:340.

[41] Darby, Inspiration and Interpretation, CW 9:257.

[42] Ibid., 9:321.

[43] Ibid.,9:252.

[44] Darby, Inspiration and Interpretation, CW 9:339.

[45] Ibid., 9:340.

[46] Darby, Inspiration and Interpretation, 9:255

[47] Ibid., 9:256.

[48] Ibid., 9: 256,257.

[49] Ibid., 9:304.

[50] Darby, Inspiration and Interpretation, CW 9:298.

[51] Ibid., 9:308.

[52] Ibid., 9:305.

[53] Darby, “Inspiration and Interpretation, CW 9:256.

[54] Ibid., CW 9:255.

[55] Wilkinson, 71.

[56] Darby, “To the Archbishop of Dublin” in CW  1:5.

[57] Wilkinson, 110.

[58] Ibid., 71.

[59] Wilkinson, 121.

[60] Henzel, 74.

[61] Darby, Divine Mercy CW 2:122-123.

[62] Henzel, 79.

[63] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 3.

[64] J.N. Darby, Ministry on the Epistle to the Ephesians, (Oak Park, IL: Bible Truth Publishers, 1972), 20.

[65] Jonathan D. Burnham, A Story of Conflict: The Controversial Relationship between Benjamin Wills Newton and John Nelson Darby, (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, an imprint of Authentic Media, 2004), 212.

[66] H.A.Ironside, A Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement. Neptune, (NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1985), 45.

by Pastor Patrick Cho

Spiritual pride is something that all believers will want to be careful to guard against. First, this is because of how susceptible all believers are to this often subtle and always-dangerous sin. We all have a tendency to take good spiritual accomplishments and lean a little too heavily on the side taking the credit for ourselves. Perhaps it is true that there is a “little Pharisee” in each of us manifesting our own self-righteousness in various ways.

Second, the warnings in Scripture of how God treats spiritual pride should give all believers reason to be extra wary of the sin. Consider the thoughts in Proverbs alone:

“The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way and the perverted mouth, I hate” (Prov. 8:13).

“When pride comes, then comes dishonor, but with the humble is wisdom” (Prov. 11:2).

“Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; assuredly, he will not be unpunished” (Prov. 16:5).

The warnings throughout Scripture against pride serve as a good reminder for all Christians to put away sinful pride and work hard at humility. James points his readers back to the principles in Psalm 138:6 and Proverbs 3:34 when he writes, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Knowing how huge and mighty our God is, why would any believer want to willingly put themselves in opposition to Him?

This theme was one I thought about as I was reading through the book of James. While it is not THE major theme of the book, it is certainly A major theme. This is not surprising considering that so much of James’ material is devoted to helping believers mature in their faith. One sure hindrance to spiritual growth is pride, and so it is not surprising that pride and humility come up from time to time throughout James, whether overtly or implicitly. There are various warning signs of spiritual pride and the Book of James addresses several of them.

One clear sign is taking in spiritual instruction without putting God’s truth to practice. In his first chapter, James writes that the church is to be committed to being doers of the Word and not merely hearers (James 1:21-24). This entails removing any hindrances to spiritual growth like personal sin, and of course it means receiving the Word so that you know what to apply (v. 21). But James’ emphasis is on practicing God’s truth in love. The Apostle Paul also warned against simply focusing on the accumulation of spiritual knowledge. He reminded the church that knowledge makes one arrogant if it is not exercised in love (1 Cor. 8:1). As believers, we ought to be resolute in our commitment to apply God’s truth especially in love towards others.

Another sign of spiritual pride is the inability to control one’s tongue. This is explicit in James 3 where he writes that self-control in this area of life is a definite sign of maturity. This is consistent with the wisdom of Proverbs (cf. Prov. 10:19; 13:3). Those who are rash with their speech give away their lack of control, which is a fruit of the Spirit. This could apply in numerous ways. Perhaps you talk too much. Perhaps you tend to be the focus and point of your conversations. Perhaps you are quick to advise or give an opinion when it has not been solicited. This could be seen in those who are quick to come to judgments or to direct blame. Whatever the application, all believers should seek to master their tongue.

James really focuses on the issue of pride and humility in chapter 4. There, he blatantly states that “God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). He seems to particularly zoom in on people’s tendency to be self-righteous instead of feeling the weight of their own sin and guilt. But the warnings also come with a glorious promise. Those who humble themselves before God will be exalted (James 4:10). What an amazing statement of profound grace that God would lift up the lowly. This is consistent with the way God has revealed Himself throughout Scripture. He is the lifter of our heads (Ps. 3:3).

Pride so easily creeps in the door and entangles us. Each of us tends to think more highly of ourselves than we should, and in turn we give much less honor to God for what He is accomplishing through us. Let this be a reminder to us all of our need to humble ourselves in the presence of God, and that any good in us is because of Christ who is our good. We need to constantly look at ourselves through God’s lenses, to see ourselves as He sees us. And as we walk through the Scriptures, what is repeatedly emphasized is how we are rebellious sinners desperately in need of grace and salvation, which are found in Christ. Instead of boasting in ourselves, let our boast be about the greatness of God’s grace that He poured out on us through His Son.

by Pastor Mark Chin

Introduction

Who was John Nelson Darby and why should anyone care? J. Gordon Melton helps answer these questions in The Encyclopedia of American Religions where he notes the following: “Probably no Christian thinker in the last 200 years has so affected the way in which English-speaking Christians view the faith, and yet has received so little recognition of his contribution as John Nelson Darby.” [1] This is a curious yet telling observation. It is an observation that provides an invaluable insight into the heritage and heart of dispensationalism, a modern systematic theology that “first took shape” in the Brethren church reform movement in early nineteenth century Britain [2] and that ultimately provided the theological framework and identity of the evangelical fundamentalist movement in North America. [3] The latter, in turn, would be a movement that would give rise to such evangelical academic institutions as the Moody Bible Institute, Dallas Theological Seminary, Grace Theological Seminary, and Biola and that would largely shape the mindset of western evangelical Christianity in the twentieth century.

By most accounts, John Nelson Darby, the controversial co-founder of the nineteenth century Brethren Movement, is considered to be the modern “father” and “chief architect” of the system of beliefs that, in many ways, came to define dispensationalism. [4] By the mid-1830’s, Darby was responsible for presenting the first modern day biblical formulation of a clear distinction between ethnic Israel and the church, a future earthly millennial kingdom, and a pretribulation rapture, all set within an eschatological scheme that divided the biblical text and narrative into separate “dispensations.” [5] However, though his teachings were quickly embraced, systematized, and popularized in America by the likes of C.I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer, forming the foundation of what has come to be known as “Classical Dispensationalism,” it would appear that the same could not be said for Darby himself or the Brethren Movement that served as the practical expression of Darby’s theological convictions and commitments. [6]

To this day many contemporary dispensationalists still go through great pains to distance dispensationalism from John Nelson Darby. Blaising, for example, in the book Progressive Dispensationalism, conspicuously fails to mention Darby in his discussion of the origins of dispensationalism except to mention in passing that the Brethren Movement, the place where dispensationalism first took shape, “generated a large volume of expositional and devotional literature, some authors of which became well known, including John Nelson Darby, Benjamin Wills Newton, George Muller, Samuel p. Tregelles, William Trotter, and Charles Henry Mackintosh.” [7] Similarly, Ryrie, in his definitive apologetic, Dispensationalism, begrudgingly gives details about Darby primarily to counter what he considers “prejudicial statements” that suggest “Dispensationalism was formulated by one of the nineteenth-century separatist movements, the Plymouth Brethren.” [8] Ryrie, attempting to distance dispensationalism from both the man and the movement, concludes, “Only one comment is necessary concerning Darby’s teachings – it was obviously not the pattern Scofield followed … Although we cannot minimize the wide influence of Darby, the glib statement that dispensationalism originated with Darby, whose system was taken over and popularized by Scofield, is not historically accurate.” [9]

How accurate is Ryrie’s statement and what is the motivation behind it? Many credit dispensationalism’s uneasy relationship with Darby to its discomfort with charges that dispensationalism is a “new (therefore heretical) theology” and also with the history of separatism and divisiveness associated with Darby’s role in the Exclusive Brethren Movement. Darby’s work on eschatology has often been accused of being the novel product, not of sound orthodox biblical study, but rather of his own personal innovation, the prophetic and apocalyptic ferment of his era, and the ideas of such contemporaries as Edward Irving, a forerunner of the charismatic movement, self-proclaimed “prophetess” Margaret MacDonald, or Spanish Jesuit Manuel de Lacunza. [10] His reputation has been equally questioned over the separatist policies of his Exclusive Brethren movement and the infamous church conflicts within the movement, conflicts with which he was directly involved and which were directly tied to both his eschatology and ecclesiology. [11] So it is that David J. MacLeod concludes the following: “Modern proponents of dispensationalism…are inclined to distance themselves from Darby in the interest of escaping the charges of recency and divisiveness.” [12]

Whatever the reasons may be, the move to separate the man from dispensationalism raises difficult questions. What was the basis of Darby’s beliefs that formed the framework for dispensationalism? Can one fully appreciate the theological contributions made to dispensationalism when they are separated from the man who made them? The goal of this paper is to examine two aspects of John Nelson Darby: the historical context of John Nelson Darby and the theological commitments and presuppositions that formed the basis of his hermeneutics and his theology. The hope is that through considering the man, his times and his theological commitments, there will be a greater understanding and appreciation of the system of theology that is connected to him.

Darby’s Historical Context

Raised as an Anglo-Irish aristocrat, educated as a lawyer, ordained as an Anglican clergyman by the Church of Ireland, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was the co-founder and leader of the Plymouth Brethren movement, a church reform movement originating in the U.K. that has been characterized as both a “Bible study” movement and “church separation” movement. [13] Though a gifted and industrious biblical scholar, well versed in the Bible’s original languages and author of an English language translation of the Bible from the original languages, Darby’s labors and endeavors were, by all accounts, not primarily those of the academic or systematic theologian. [14] It is widely accepted that the primary intent of his writing was not to provide an academic treatise or systematic theology on dispensational schemes. [15] This would be left to the likes of Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie.

In many ways, Darby was first and foremost a Christian, a reformer, and a church leader of the Brethren Movement, one who attempted to address biblically the historical challenges of his era, specifically those that faced the church and the Brethren Movement. Consequently, much of his writing is of an “ad hoc nature” in which is contained a “diffuse and non-systematic treatment of theological principles.” [16] Darby was a passionate church leader whose theological contributions, including those made to the field of eschatology and ecclesiology, cannot be separated from his labors in the Brethren Church Movement of his day. Darby’s views did not arise in an academic vacuum. For this reason, it is helpful to consider the historical and ecclesiastical context of Darby’s contributions to Dispensationalism as well as Darby’s conversion, two critical contributors that helped shape the emphases of Darby’s theology.

Darby’s Times

The nineteenth century was a time of political, economic, social, and religious change and upheaval in the United Kingdom. [17] By the turn of the century the industrial revolution had begun, the seeds of modernism, naturalism, historical criticism, and evolution would shortly blossom both in and outside of Christian theological circles, and the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the established church of the U.K. (the Anglican or “State” church), especially its worldliness, spiritual dryness, and political compromises, were being exposed and questioned on an unprecedented level. [18] At the same time, the American Revolution (1775), the Irish Rebellion (1798), the horrors of the French Revolution (1789) and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815) made Europe and the U.K. fertile ground for all manner of apocalyptic theories and end-time biblical prophetic preoccupations both in Catholic and Protestant circles. [19]

Of these times Sweetnam and Griven note the following: “Samuel Taylor Coleridge described this period as ‘an age of anxiety from the crown to the hovel, from the cradle to the coffin,” and his words accurately capture the pervasiveness of social uncertainty and upheaval…In this ferment, speculation about the future of the world turned many to a renewed study of prophetic Scripture. It is this context that provided a background for the development of Darby’s ideas.” Though Darby would become a futurist in his eschatology, his labors would always be overshadowed by a pressing conviction that Christ’s return was most imminent and that he was witnessing the very end of the church age or dispensation, as evidenced by the apostasy of the Established Church, something that weighed heavily on Darby from the start of his church ministry.

Prior to his conversion, Darby, the son of English protestant Aristocrats living in Ireland, had been enrolled as a classics student at the Anglican Trinity College, Dublin. Trinity at this time was considered to be “ a centre of millenarian ferment,” a place where Catholic amillennialism was seriously questioned and where members of the faculty expressed an interest in Biblical typology and a future restoration of the Jews. [20] In 1825, Darby began full time service in the Church of Ireland. Though in retrospect, Darby states he did not possess Christ as Savior during his early years as an ordained Anglican priest, he most certainly became deeply disillusioned with the worldliness and lack of spiritual integrity of both the Catholic and Anglican Church. [21]

It was not lost on the young Irish clergyman at that time that there was a significant disconnect between the church as portrayed in the Bible and the politically minded “state” churches of the day. [22] In a letter written to the Archbishop of Dublin and the clergy of the church of Ireland, Darby, then age 26, commenting on the political and worldly preoccupations of both the Anglican and the Catholic church, identified a fundamental conflict of interest in the political mandate of the “Established Churches” (i.e. the official state church) of the day. [23] The fundamental design and mandate of both churches, as political and worldly institutions consumed with “the glory of this world”, placed the headship of the Pope and the king over the headship of Christ, whose kingdom was self-admittedly, “not of this world.” [24] Even at this early date, one can see Darby’s conscience wrestling with a political and worldly institution that was blatantly unbiblical in its behavior and explicitly built upon amillennial and postmillennial replacement theology, a theology that embraced the present church-state as the New Israel of Christ. The direct connection between eschatology and practical ecclesiology was not lost on Darby. Years later he would conclude that “ one of the underlying reasons why the Church, as the visible ‘pillar and foundation of the truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15), had fallen into ruin was that she had confused her own raison d’etre with that of Israel.” [25]

Darby’s Conversion

These issues weighed heavily upon his soul during this time. Within a short period of time the disillusioned Darby would abandon the Anglican Church as he looked to the Scriptures for answers. Looking back at that season, Darby stated the following: “When I left the Episcopal church, there was no one with whom I could walk; I was led on and guided simply by the word of God.” [26] Darby would find resolution and clarity in the Scripture during a time of convalescence following a riding accident on October 1827. In retrospect, Darby assigned the assurance of his salvation to this time. His testimony of that event is most revealing, demonstrating the rudimentary themes that would dominate his life’s work:

During my solitude conflicting thoughts increased; but much exercise of soul had the effect of causing the scriptures to gain complete ascendancy over me. I had always owned them to be the word of God. When I came to understand that I was united to Christ in heaven, and that, consequently, my place before God was represented by His own, I was forced to the conclusion that it was no longer a question with God of this wretched “I” which had wearied me during six or seven years, in presence of the requirements of the law. It then became clear to me that the church of God, as He considers it, was composed only of those who were so united to Christ, whereas Christendom, as seen externally, was really the world, and could not be considered as “the church,” save as regards the responsibility attaching to the position which it professed to occupy – a very important thing in its place. At the same time, I saw that the Christian, having his place in Christ in heaven, has nothing to wait for save the coming of the Savior, in order to be set, in fact, in the glory which is already his portion in Christ. [27]

From this time onwards, the complete authority of the scriptures, the believer’s spiritual union with Christ in heaven (not on earth), the true identity of the church of God as a heavenly entity (as opposed to Christendom), and the anticipation of Christ’s return would become themes and commitments that would dominate Darby’s ministry in the Brethren movement, a ministry that would attempt to harmonize theology, eschatology, and ecclesiology in the authoritative truth of Scripture and in the assembly of true believers.

[1] Ronald M. Henzel, Darby, Dualism, and the Decline of Dispensationalism: Reassessing the Nineteenth-Century Roots of a Twentieth-Century Prophetic Movement for the Twenty-First Century, (Tucson, Arizona:Fenestra Books, 2003), 49.

[2] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), 10.

[3] Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), 808, 811.

[4] Ibid., 808.

[5] Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths,(LA, CA: Theological Studies Press, 2008), 8.

[6] George, M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalsim 1870-1925, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 46.

[7] Blaising and Bock, 10.

[8] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 69.

[9] Ryrie, 79.

[10] Henzel, 58-66.

[11] Jonathan D. Burnham, A Story of Conflict: The Controversial Relationship between Benjamin Wills Newton and John Nelson Darby, (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster Press, 2004), 150-231.

[12] David J. MacLeod, “Walter Scott, A Link in Dispensationalism between Darby and Scofield?” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (April 1996): 156.

[13] Paul Richard Wilkinson, For Zion’s Sake: Christian Zionism and the Role of John Nelson Darby, (Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2007), 67, 68, 76.

[14] Henzel, 49.

[15] Wilkinson, 100.

[16] Mark Sweetnam and Crawford Gribben, “J.N. Darby and the Irish Origins of Dispensationalism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society  52 (September 2009): 570.

[17] Tourette, 2:1179.

[18] Ibid., 2:1179, 1185.

[19] Henzel notes that the entire British ecclesiastical scene of the 1820’s and ‘30s was consumed with an interest in biblical prophecy as evidenced by the vast bibliography of prophetic studies from this era. Henzel, 58. Wilkinson, 69-72.

[20] Wilkinson., 73-75.

[21] Ibid., 70,76.

[22] J.N. Darby, “Consideration Addressed to the Archbishop of Dublin and the Clergy Who Signed the Petition to the House of Commons for Protection” in The Collected Writings of J.N. Darby, edited by William Kelly, (Reprint, Sunbury, PA: Believers Bookshelf, 1971), 1:1-19.

[23] Darby, Consideration Addressed to the Archbishop of Dublin…, CW 1:1-19.

[24] Ibid.,1:8-9.

[25] Wilkinson, 104.

[26] Ibid., 105.

[27] Henzel, 71.