For the first time since 1978, I am not engaged in pastoral ministry. Just over a week ago, I submitted my resignation from Calvary Road Baptist Church, where I served since November 1985.
     It is very challenging to withdraw from a congregation you have loved for forty years, so the flock can follow the spiritual leadership of another man. My successor is Anthony Kim, a young man I have known for more than twenty years. I am excited for him and for the Church.

I am thrilled that my wife of fifty years is 100% with me and our future together. Our goal and heart's desire is to retire from the pastorate but not from active ministry. We must contend with issues of age, but the future looks bright.
     As our plans unfold and our prayers are answered, we will keep you updated. We can still be reached via email and by phone, and we are relatively active on social media. Please connect with us on WhatsApp to ensure you can reach us. My WhatsApp address is my cell number.
     As Pam and I transition, and as Calvary Road Baptist Church transitions, please pray for them and us.
     Until next time ....

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Type your new text here.

Considering Your Introduction
It is a near-fatal error for a preacher, teacher, or speaker to attempt to communicate without a well-planned introduction. Allow me to suggest to pastors and others engaged in training future pastors, missionaries, and/or Bible teachers that they give thoughtful consideration to their introductory remarks. These first words come out of their mouths when standing before their audience.

Why read this? I can think of several reasons why you should invest a few minutes reading something that will help you train communicators, the first of which is that it is a sin to bore people with the truth. This article will help you avoid that.

Crucial to any lesson, sermon, speech, or talk is your introduction. Suppose you divide your delivery (sermon or lesson) into three parts: the introduction, the body, and the conclusion. In that case, your introduction is the critical bridge your audience crosses to travel from where they are (mentally, emotionally, spiritually) when you begin to where you want them to be when you arrive at the threshold of what you intend to say to them, your sermon, your message, your lesson.

But you already know that if you are an experienced Gospel minister or Bible teacher who has been successful over time. The challenge is to teach the importance of the introduction to future preachers, teachers, and trainers who might imagine their only task is to begin speaking, expecting their audience's attention.

I will pass over (at this time) the tendency of preachers, teachers, trainers, and other communicators to stand before their audiences dressed not only casually but disheveled, with one hand in a pocket and an untucked shirt. I am writing to draw your attention to the introduction.

A sermon, a Bible lesson, or a discipleship training session is a specialized form of speech, a topic of such importance to the ancients that the Greeks and Romans placed great emphasis on speaking, which they called rhetoric. That said, there are traits common to both speeches and sermons, as well as to lessons and training.

Here is a link to a YouTube channel I came across and wanted to share with you. The presenter summarizes and encapsulates features of a good introduction that you have indeed used in your ministry and will help you pass on valuable principles you have already learned.

Enjoy.

Hi Pastor.

Last Saturday, during the Zoom session you recorded, you mentioned that we could discuss Charlie Kirk’s impact on our lives after this Saturday's Zoom session. I am too chicken to have that recording on YouTube. And I don’t know how to be concise about this.   So I wanted to share with you my thoughts on Charlie Kirk and his impact on my life.

 I also wouldn’t be able to say all of this in person. A lot of times, I don’t know what my thoughts are about something until I start writing them down. Anyway, I apologize in advance for this being lengthy and somewhat disorganized.

I had heard about Charlie Kirk and had seen clips of his debate videos. After his death, my social media feeds were flooded with numerous videos of him. When I found out about his assassination, my heart sank. I never met him, and I can’t really explain the heaviness in my heart. There is a bond between Christians that’s different from other relationships.

It was after his death that I actually began to see videos of his full debates. By going to schools to debate, he willingly put himself in situations where most of us would feel uncomfortable discussing disagreements. During debates, sometimes others would misinterpret his intentions, but he would patiently explain his point of view. His form of debate was an art, and he was very skilful. Although it’s bittersweet watching his videos, I'm always on the edge of my seat waiting to see how he responds.
And how others will respond to him.

I have learned more about him because of his death. The more I learn, the more impressed I am by him and how he used the gifts that God gave him for God's glory.

I think it’s fantastic that he lived during this time, when our technology allowed many of his talks and debates to be recorded. It’s all out there for everyone to see. And seeing people twist what he says and portray him as hateful, and then looking up an actual whole debate of his on that subject, it’s obvious to see that he wasn’t vicious at all. Hard truths, boldness, and disagreements, but there was kindness and never hate. I even saw in one of his videos that he mentioned he might sometimes say too much or express himself differently, but he would rather do that than not say anything at all. It seemed a humble thing because he was aware that maybe his approach to some cases might not have been the best one. He was human, just like the rest of us, making mistakes along the way and still prone to sin.

I’ve enjoyed listening to his pastor mentor, Frank Terik, speak about him and their relationship. How hungry Charlie was to have a biblical answer to the questions people would ask him. And his genuine concern for young people, his appreciation for marriage and family as a blessing, and his desire for everyone to experience it.

It saddens me to see so many people reacting in a hateful way toward Charlie. Many people are being deceived. A couple of my liberal cousins stopped looking at my stories after I started posting about Charlie. And more videos about him sharing the gospel. And some people defriended me.

Charlie shone brightly, and he changed people's lives, continuing to do so. He has influenced people to change their political views, and most importantly, he has influenced some to turn to Christ. I like hearing those stories of conviction and freedom from sin. Where light shines brightly, the dark is exposed. And there is a lot of evil surfacing. Intolerance for differing points of view and people being more violent if others don’t agree with their beliefs. There is a lot of good that’s coming out after his death, but it’s also sad to see a great divide.

Charlie encouraged others to be courageous. And for me I’ve been thinking about that in my life. it’s been a challenge figuring out how I can do that. I feel like I avoid politics with others because I’m not good at debating, but I also don’t like feeling uncomfortable with disagreements. It is easier to talk to someone about spiritual things when they are open to hearing them. However, I don’t know how to lead conversations to a spiritual point that will direct others to Christ, regardless of the person's background. I have been quiet a lot and I would like to learn to have more of those conversations with others. I need to get out of my comfort zone because if I don’t, then what am I doing? I’m not living for Christ. So I feel convicted, and I want to point others to Christ more, but I don’t really know where to go from here.

I am a fearful person by nature, but in one way, Charlie’s courage has affected me, and I don’t remember exactly what he said; one of the things he might have mentioned was to do the next right thing. But that’s what I have been working on. I intentionally strive to be kinder to others in my daily life. He was that way with strangers at a deeper level in conversation. In my life right now, I'm taking baby steps by trying to be kinder in the small things, especially with my parents. I think that if I make kindness a habit in the small things where I would be timid or would rather hide, it will be the right step toward kindness in more meaningful and challenging conversations. Additionally, something else that has stood out to me about Charlie's approach is that he would try to find common ground with others during disagreements. I believe that common ground with others can be found in various areas of life, beyond politics. And that would include finding empathy with others and voicing care. These Things might seem pretty basic to others, but for me, it feels like a big step when I’m only talkative with those I am comfortable with and would rather hide from people I don’t know.

I also can’t explain what impact it had on me seeing Charlie get shot and bleed out. But the fact that everyone had the chance to see a violent, horrible death on video. It’s crazy, and thinking about it makes me sick to my stomach. I honestly think seeing his assassination would have impacted me more if I had not seen just a week or a few weeks before the young lady who was stabbed multiple times to death on the train. I had never seen such graphic death of a real person before, and that just like killed something inside of me. I don’t know how to put it into words.

It also saddens me that he died so young with such great potential. The more I’ve seen of him, the more I like him and the more I think he could have been president.

With his death playing a role in people becoming Christians, more people having conservative views remind us of the Bible, where in periods of time, nations turned away from God, and then people would repent and turn back to God. It is kind of exciting being there now, seeing many people repent and come to Christ, or at least have a desire to change, to be better, to read the bible, to go to church. I feel cautious about people calling it a revival, though. Additionally, it’s unfortunate that modern Christian music sometimes obscures the gospel. It was fantastic hearing so many political figures share the gospel during Charlie’s memorial service, but I wish they hadn’t included all the modern worship music. I hope that some of the things happening aren’t pagan frenzy.

In some ways, his death seems to be having an exponential impact and might be more significant than he would have been if he had lived longer.  His voice got louder, and more people are listening and turning.

The fact that there is so much distraction away from Charlie speaking the truth and against sin, and turning to Christ, makes me think that something big is happening. There is a distraction by deception, as people twist what Charlie says. Distraction in all of the focus on who really killed Charlie, that he was turning toward Catholicism, some saying he was a Mason, and he was a sacrifice, and the conspiracy theories, and political divisions. Maybe more people are open to hearing about the gospel now, and Satan knows it, so there is a distraction everywhere.

I am excited, though, to live during this time and see how things play out.

For many years, I have had the privilege of preaching for an astonishingly fruitful church planter in Nepal named Samuel Rai. Trained by the London pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle (where Spurgeon once served), Peter Masters. After his conversion to Christ out of a life as a Maoist revolutionary, he has to date established an astounding 350+ Baptist churches in his region, with many congregations located in almost inaccessible Himalayan valleys at altitudes most of us could not deal with.

     Attached is a PDF featuring the testimonies of twenty-one of these mountain pastors of small congregations who live in valley caves in the highest mountain range in the world!  Though I could never remember their names, I recognize a number of their photos from having preached to them at various conferences over the years.

     Please download and carefully read their testimonies and prayer requests, and then consider presenting them to your congregation to provide short-term support (two years) for one or more of these Baptist pastors.

     Nepal is a communist country, yet it is there that the fastest-growing Christian community in the world is located. These preachers live way off the grid and away from any modern conveniences. Your prayers and short-term support can provide much-needed encouragement and aid them in establishing more churches.

     If you'd like, I can provide you the names of preachers in the USA and the UK who have traveled to Nepal and can attest to Samuel Rai's ministry.  As well, feel free to text or email me to set up a phone call so I can answer any questions you might have about Samuel Rai and his ministry (I typically do not answer calls from callers I do not know).

Blessings, for Christ's sake.

What is your primary interest? Is it the confirmation of your biases or an unsettled but closer to the truth position that demands precision of thought and reconsideration of your assumptions?  Surprisingly to many (if not most), the truth does not lie at the extremes. At one extreme is the notion that God's Word was not available until the arrival of the KJV. At the other extreme is the idea that the eclectic Greek text (modern translations) has not yet and will never completely reconstruct the original. I am persuaded this is the best book on the question that should be asked that I have ever read.

May God be praised for a concise, tightly reasoned, and well-researched little book addressing the question "Which Bible should I read and why?" The author has delightfully written, without hint of the immoral influences of another person's thrice-married arrogance or the accompanying distortions resulting from the astonishing pride of intellect that, while having no grasp of Hebrew or Greek, resolutely concludes that knowledge of Biblical languages is useless. Really?

Concerned from the earliest days of my Christian walk, and put off by those who had decided (without investigation) their position and sought to demand my compliance without discussing the matter, I embarked on a half-century of personal study. I took Greek, went to seminary and enrolled in classes using only Greek texts, and enrolled in textual criticism courses, to see for myself with my engineering education and experience background that Wescott & Hort (and Bruce Metzger, I might add) and their successors have built their professional careers on untested and unverified assumptions about how manuscript copyists' mistakes were made back in the day, an easily remedied situation for anyone honestly seeking the truth. Why has no one thought of testing easily verifiable assumptions if arriving at the truth is their goal?

While enrolled at Talbot School of Theology in textual criticism courses, I came across a book written by a former Talbot dean named Harry A. Sturz, who authored a wonderful work that modern translation advocates pretend was never written, "The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism." Not only was the book eye-opening, but the lack of intellectual honesty in the academic community pretending the book (and the position it advocates) were non-existent was disheartening.

Among the other books I have read along the way is the work by former Scotland Yard chief inspector Alan J. Macgregor, "400 Years On: How does the authorized version stand up in the 21st century?" It is a thorough and logically straightforward product of an experienced investigator.

Finally, the book, "The Received Text: A Field Guide," has just been finished and is now reviewed. The author is new to me, but he has written a most unusual book, with mostly declarative assertions that land like hammer blows.

Here are a few of the assertions made by this author.

Both the KJV-Onlyists and the eclectic text modern translation advocates believe the Bible was lost to time, with only the KJVOnlyists believing it was reconstructed with the translation of the KJV.

Most of the KJV is written in English, which is understandable to fifth-graders. At the same time, the ESV targets high school reading proficiency, and the NKJV is translated for middle school reading proficiency. Thus, the "KJV is too hard to read" argument is specious.

I recommend the 155-page book without reservation.

David H. J. Gay, a friend, has a penetrating style that reflects a laser-like focus on Bible truth.

His writings of late zero in on the drift away from doctrinal certainties in his efforts to foster a return to the clear presentations of Scripture.

In this book he shows his readers that heaven is not the ultimate for the believer, but a way station on the way to resurrection glory.

It is a great read for those of us who are closer to home base than third base in the baseball game of life on earth, with home base not being heaven! Our hope is not heaven, but resurrection glory with the Savior!

This will almost certainly be the most inflammatory posting regarding my reviews of the chapters in The History & Theology of Calvinism. Once more, I must admit to being at a loss as to why so many brethren are as excitable about this issue as they are. I suppose many have embraced dogmatic opinions about the topic without reading anything written by well-informed authors.
As well, my experience suggests many are willing to label as heretics anyone holding a view they disagree with, even such men as Benjamin Keach, Andrew Fuller, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Isaac Backus, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Isaac McCoy, John Gano, Hezekiah Smith, Daniel and Abraham Marshall, Dwight L. Moody, Charles Spurgeon, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, D. James Kennedy, Peter and Kenneth Connolly, and Peter Masters. These men include well-known Baptists and profoundly fruitful evangelists who, one would think, put to rest the notion that Calvinism stifles evangelism.

My review of this book’s chapters does not include any advocacy of a position. Instead, it is an effort to overturn the obnoxious ignorance of those opposing a position they have no firsthand knowledge of, who demonstrate not only an absence of intellectual curiosity but also betray a fear that their convictions cannot stand up to facts they are unfamiliar with. I am convinced that if your beliefs result from erroneous conclusions, then your beliefs, however right, are wrong! To be right for the wrong reason is to be wrong! Truth, in both the recipe and the result, sets us free!

This said, let us begin.

The chapter is divided into eleven parts, beginning with an unlabeled introduction and ending with a labeled conclusion.

Introduction – Comprised of two paragraphs, the author embraces Romans 5.8: “Christ died for us,” as a universally held Christian position while touching lightly on various substitution theories. He decries the term limited atonement and favors definite atonement or particular redemption and raises the question, “For whom did Christ die?”

Election and the Atonement – Three paragraphs, while pointing out that both terms have to do with salvation, Second Thessalonians 2.13. Mention is made of comments made by Thomas Watson and Jonathan Edwards, and a sentence in the First London Baptist Confession of 1644. Romans 8.29-30 is also cited.

Atonement for the Elect Bride – Six paragraphs. Ephesians 1 and 5 are referred to as showing the relationship between election, atonement, and salvation. Mention is made of Christ’s general love for all and His particular love for His bride. Hebrew marriage custom is referred to, husbands’ imitation of Christ’s love, as well as John 11.52 and Hebrews 12.5-11 and 2.13-17.

The Shepherd and the Sheep – One paragraph. The Good Shepherd died for His sheep, not for the wolves and goats.

Christ Died for His People – Eight paragraphs. Old and New Testament passages are cited. Mention is made of God’s provision of the Passover lamb for the Israelites, not the Egyptians. Reference is made to verses that indicate those for whom Christ died and those for whom He did not die.

Deliverance from Evil and the Evil One – Three paragraphs. Christ did not die for Satan or the demons. The author asserts the same for the non-elect and points out the eternal destiny of Satan, the demons, and the non-elect is the same.

Effectual Atonement – Eight paragraphs. “What God does, He always does as a Trinity. The Father effectually elected a definite and limited number of sinners, not all. The Holy Spirit effectually draws this same limited number to Christ. It follows that the second person of the blessed Trinity effectually redeemed those same elect and them alone. The father has a general love for all and a special electing love only for the elect. The Spirit gives a general call to all and a special call only to the elect. Christ died in a general way for all men but in a special way for the elect alone.” The author asserts that everyone except strict universalists believe in some limitation of the atonement, differing only in where they place the limitation. Spurgeon summed it up: “I would rather believe in a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it is intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it.” Loraine Boettner: “The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.”

The Special Intent – Four paragraphs. “The atonement was full payment, not a refundable down payment in part… He won… He did not fail.”

The Double Payment and Triple Option – Four paragraphs. “Two further arguments in favor of particular redemption are related.”

Miscellaneous Proofs – Ten paragraphs. The author reviews a popular argument that he asserts lacks merit. He reviews a less obvious argument. He refers to arguments some Calvinists use. He asserts, “Christ did not die for Judas, who hanged himself and went to Hell before Jesus died.” He quotes Spurgeon: “I thank God I do not believe that I was redeemed in the same way that Judas was, and no more. If so, I shall go to hell as Judas did. General redemption is not worth anything to anybody, for of itself it secures to no one a place in heaven; but the special redemption which does redeem, and redeems man out of the rest of mankind, is the redemption to be prayed for, and for which we shall praise God for ever and ever.”

Conclusion – One paragraph.

I copied this in the dim recesses of the past, only for my ever-faithful secretary to discover it. However, it reflects a sentiment I have long held and was recently reminded of at the passing of a dear friend. I offer it to you for consideration and possible use. Click to see the full-size image. Download and use as it suits you.

Some pastors and ministries major on soul-winning, which is good. Other pastors and ministries major on baptisms, which is not wrong in its place. Other pastors and ministries major on expositions and explanations, which also has its strengths. Important to remember, however, is the emphasis placed by the most well-known of the Great Commission passages, Matthew 28.18-20, on making disciples.

It is possible to reach people for Christ without making them disciples. It is possible to baptize a great many people without making them disciples. It is also plain to see that a ministry that is strong on exposition and explanation can still fall far short of bringing a significant portion of those in attendance along as disciples rather than mere spectators.

I have had the privilege of traveling to and preaching in countries in North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Throughout my 45+ years of ministry, I have not witnessed a disciple maker as well-developed, well-thought-out, and Biblical as Dr. Samuel Rai.

Now in his sixtieth year, his almost four decades of faithfulness to God's Word is demonstrable. I have preached for him numerous times since my first visit to Nepal in 2012 and three times in 2024. I say that to assure you of my recommendation of Samuel Rai as a man God has used to develop a profoundly fruitful evangelistic Church planting ministry that has seen great success in making disciples in every congregation.

I prayerfully invite you to attend his three-day, five-session introduction to discipleship ministry, which I have not seen elsewhere. Attend yourself, bring your wife, Church members, and young people. All are invited. Business casual attire will be the order of the day, and lunch will be served on Tuesday and Wednesday.

A Poor Style Of Christian
 We have much to learn from J. C. Ryle about matters related to personal holiness and what properly styles a Christian. This excerpt is taken from his devotional classic, "Holiness."

Needs of the Times
"Men who had understanding of the times'' (l Chronicles 12:32)

     These words were written about the tribe of Issachar, in the days when David first began to reign over Israel. It seems that after Saul's unhappy death, some of the tribes of Israel were undecided what to do. “Under which king?” was the question of the day in Palestine. Men doubted whether they should cling to the family of Saul, or accept David as their king. Some hung back, and would not commit themselves; others came forward boldly, and declared for David. Among these last were many of the children of Issachar; and the Holy Spirit gives them a special word of praise. He says, “They were men who had understanding of the times.”

     I cannot doubt that this sentence, like every sentence in Scripture, was written for our learning. These men of Issachar are set before us as a pattern to be imitated, and an example to be followed; for it is a most important thing to understand the times in which we live, and to know what those times require. The wise men in the court of Ahasuerus knew the times (Est. 1:13). Our Lord Jesus Christ blames the Jews, because they “knew not the time of their visitation” (Luke 19:44) and did not “discern the signs of the times” (Matt. 16:3). Let us take heed lest we fall into the same sin. The man who is content to sit ignorantly by his own fireside, wrapped up in his own private affairs, and has no public eye for what is going on in the church and the world is a miserable citizen, and a poor style of Christian. Next to our Bibles and our own hearts, our Lord would have us study our own times.

J. C. Ryle

Smugness

This installment is titled “Smugness.”

What are we to do about Gospel ministers who do not think about thinking? What can we do about Gospel ministers who do not read about reading? What are we to do about Gospel ministers who do not study about studying?

I am serious about these questions in my seventy-fifth year, my fifty-first year in the faith, and my forty-seventh year in the pastorate. My concern at this time is with smugness.

Smugness, as I define it, is a somewhat subtle form of pride and cannot coexist with humility, which is one of the most Christ-like character traits. We see God’s attitude toward pride in James 4.6 and First Peter 5.5 and recognize how the Lord Jesus exemplified humility from Paul’s comments in First Corinthians 11.3 (where it is intimated the Second Person submits to the First Person throughout eternity) and Philippians 2.5-8 (where Paul’s use of the imperative shows the believer’s humility is not optional).

How is smugness revealed in the thoughts and conduct of a Gospel minister? I would suggest various ways, including the complete absence of curiosity, when a view, a concept, a doctrinal position, or a variant stance on an issue is brought to our attention. Many peers and almost peers embrace the notion that they already know everything there is to know, understand everything there is to understand, and that no further progress is to be entertained, much less implemented.

I remember a New Testament interpretation course at PCBBC. One day, a substitute filled in and was lecturing when one of my classmates raised his hand to ask him the source of the material he was teaching. The substitute teacher said, “These are my notes from BBC.” In other words, he had effectively learned nothing in the more than twenty years since he earned his ThG! Sad. I did not know at the time that I was appalled by his answer that so many in the ministry would not only not study the Bible (not really anyway) but would also never look at a systematic theology or missionary biography after leaving school.

When I asked him what had recently captured his interest, I once had a missionary tell me, “Brother John, I don’t read.” I almost choked. A few years ago, a discouraged friend who had retired with a 10,000-volume library (he is truly a scholar) told me that his new pastor once said, “I don’t read. I listen to podcasts!” Has it come to that?

I have a friend who no longer has a relationship with his pastor from childhood to his teen years after he asked him if they might spend some time discussing the doctrine of election. My friend had not formed an opinion or established a position, yet his pastor was so hostile to the word that their relationship was forever irreparably damaged. Seriously?

Open, close, and closed communion is a topic never revisited once a position is staked out. The doctrines of grace are effectively avoided (regardless of one’s position) once the positions of your friends are known. Also, the treatment of brothers and sisters in Christ will frequently and callously ignore the Savior’s imperative of John 15.17, sometimes treating other believers as non-believers.

I find such closed-mindedness offensive and reflects a gross misunderstanding of the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit, Who never teaches any of us everything and Who is always interested in revealing the truth to us as we exercise the correct use of means (reading, studying, praying, interacting with other faithful Bible students, etc.).

Not too long ago, I read an astonishing declaration from someone who ought to know better, in which he said (in essence) that it is wrong to read anything written by anyone ‘who is not one of us.’ Sadly, he has ruled out so much. Do not read “The Theocratic Kingdom” by George Peters? Do not read the sermons that Spurgeon preached in print? Do not read accounts of great revivals written by the men who were there but were not Baptists? Do not read the writings of Jonathan Edwards? Seriously?

It came to a head in my mind before I recently traveled to Nepal, where I had the opportunity to preach to several hundred Baptist pastors about holiness and the doctrine of the Bible. Several years ago, I was given a small book written by Charles L. Hunt. It is one of the most remarkable works I have ever read, bearing very heavily on the doctrine of the Church. Sadly, however, I have encountered the smugness I am writing about, with almost no one interested in a book that puts to rest once and for all the erroneous Protestant view of the Church.

Whether you are young or old, with an established ecclesiology or not, I urge you to seriously consider this book, which I will send you upon request. The book will either seriously bolster the position you already embrace or change your stance entirely. At worst, it is a book I am sure you will want to pass on to others to read.

JohnSWaldrip@ClassicalBaptist.Press

www.ClassicalBaptist.Press