Open Letter to Nathan White

Nathan,

(I was going to just message you through Facebook, but was inspired by centuri0n's recent open letters on Pyromaniacs to encourage you publicly.) This past weekend, I finally listened to your sermon on Psalm 1. [Anyone may listen to the sermon HERE.] (Since going on Christmas break, I finally had time to listen to and focus on the entire presentation.)

I was certainly blessed by your sermon, and plan to listen to it again. This is not meant to slight previous sermons I've heard from you, but I've heard definite improvement in your preaching, especially in terms of the confidence of your delivery. It is obvious that you meditated on this text and on the gospel, and so you are able to describe the details and implications of Psalm 1 in a natural manner and using such straightforward eloquence as one might employ in describing a beloved family member.

I suppose that anyone who does any amount of preaching at all has the experience of hearing sermons from others-- even very well-preached sermons-- and thinking about how the sermon could be preached somewhat differently: how various points could be better emphasized or illustrated, how different connections with other Scriptures could be explored, etc.

Your teaching on Psalm 1 was one of those rare sermons in which my only thought regarding your preaching was that-- if I could be as skillful in preaching as I could want-- I would want to preach the text in the exact same way. This is all the more remarkable since I am so familiar with this Psalm that I was tempted to think that little edification could come from a sermon on it.  I certainly learned facts from your sermon-- because your exegesis of the terms in the Psalm was excellent-- but I was also encouraged in the gospel by your sermon. It is rather obvious to make an application of this Psalm to Christ, as He is the only righteous Man, but even acknowledging this, it would be easy to tack on a discussion of Christ to the end of a sermon as if it were an appendix. But when you speak of Christ in this sermon, it does not seem an imposition on the text; rather, you show how a consideration of our Lord Jesus organically flows from a consideration of the text.

Anyway, I thank you for your gospel-work for the kingdom and hope this is truly an encouragement to you.

Your friend,
-Andrew

Prayer and Providence: A Quote from Charles Spurgeon

From the sermon "True Prayer = True Power."

Oh! to think of this; that you a puny man may stand here and speak to God, and through God may move all the worlds. Yet when your prayer is heard, creation will not be disturbed; though the grandest ends be answered, providence will not be disarranged for a single moment. Not a leaf will fall earlier from the tree, not a star will stay in its course, nor one drop of water trickle more slowly from its fount, all will go on the same, and yet your prayer will have effected everything. It will speak to the decrees and purposes of God, as they are being daily fulfilled; and they will all shout to your prayer, and cry, "Thou art our brother; we are decrees, and thou a prayer; but thou art thyself a decree, as old, as sure, as ancient as we are." Our prayers are God's decrees in another shape. The prayers of God's people are but God's promises breathed out of living hearts, and those promises are the decrees, only put into another form and fashion.

Christmas Wish List

A couple of family members have, I think, asked Abby about what I would like for Christmas. I may be too late getting this posted, but any one of the following books would be great!

God's Wisdom in Proverbs by Dan Phillips

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson

Biblical Theology by John Owen

A History of the Work of Redemption by Jonathan Edwards

God's Glory in Salvation Through Judgment by Jim Hamilton

A New Testament Biblical Theology by G.K. Beale

The Forgotten Trinity by James White

Father, Son, & Holy Spirit by Bruce Ware

The Cross of Christ by John Stott

The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself by George Smeaton

1689 Baptist Confession of Faith: A Modern Exposition by Sam Waldron

The Religion and Attraction of John Shelby Spong

As demonstrated above, the religion of John Shelby Spong is based neither on revelation, nor on reason.

Spong's religion is not based on revelation, because he denies special revelation, asserting that God is not personal.

Spong's religion is not based on reason, because reasoning requires assertions with evidence. Spong offers no evidence for his assertions; instead he merely spouts opinions.

And what is the content of the opinions offered by Spong? Each of his opinions follows a simple formula; whenever the Bible says "a," Spong asserts "non-a."

So, as seen in the video above:

• The Bible records Jesus as saying, "You must be born again" (John 3:3,7). Spong opines, "People don't need to be born again."
• The Apostle Paul writes, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23). Spong opines, "You and I are emerging people, not fallen people."
• King David writes, "Surely, I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psa 51:5). Spong opines, "Our problem is not that we are born in sin."
• Again, the Bible records Jesus as saying, "The Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost" (Luke 19:10). And again Spong opines, "The function of the Christ is not to rescue the sinners."
• Jesus consistently called God "Father in heaven," and taught His followers to do the same (for example, Matt 6:9), whereas Spong opines, "God is... not a parent-figure up in the sky."

The type of discourse in which Spong engages is not argument, but simple contradiction, and it takes no more intellectual capability to assert such contradictions than that exercised by a precocious kindergartner who says, "Nah-uh," to everything his teacher tells him.

And so why do so many find Spong's opinions persuasive? I would argue that it is because his religious views feed into our pride. We do not like to think of ourselves as less than God, fallen, sinful, lost, and in need of salvation. But until we recognize our true condition, we will not see the Savior nor submit to Him.

John Shelby Spong on Prayer

Spong's presentation concerning prayer in the above video is nonsensical both in his critique of the traditional Christian understanding of prayer and in his proposed solution for how people should understand prayer.

As to Spong's critique:

I suppose it is possible that those who were friends with Spong or under his influence could have really believed that Mrs. Spong's life was extended merely "because lots of people prayed for her." But this understanding of prayer is sub-Christian both in terms of how the Bible presents prayer and how Christian theologians have explained prayer.

The biblical presentation of prayer. The Bible NEVER intimates that the amount of people praying impacts the effectiveness of prayer. From Moses interceding on behalf of Israel, to King Hezekiah's prayer for himself, to Jairus pleading to Jesus on behalf of his daughter, the Bible consistently presents God as willing and able to answer the prayer of a single faithful individual. However, from these examples, we also see that God does indeed answer prayer; this is a teaching that is meant to encourage the faithful, but it may also be troubling to the theologian who wonders, "What if no one prayed?"

The theological explanation of prayer. God is not "wringing His hands," waiting to see whether or not someone will pray so that He may act. Rather, God says, "I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please'" (Isa 46:10 NIV). Likewise, Jesus says, "Your Father knows what you need before you ask Him" (Matt 6:8b NIV). And the Apostle Paul writes that God "works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will" (Eph 1:11b NIV). So, from our perspective, we pray because we want to and then God acts on the basis of our prayers; since this is the case, we are held accountable for whether or not we pray. But from God's perspective, the prayers as well as the answers are part of His eternal plan. Additionally, believers in Christ are indwelled by the Holy Spirit so that God can move His people to pray in accordance with His will.

As to Spong's proposed solution:

Based on his critique of Christian prayer-- a critique that I argue is invalid, on the basis of the evidence above-- Spong asserts "a whole new understanding" of prayer. For Spong, prayer involves people 'channeling God energy.' But notice that Spong's hypothetical Newarkian garbage collector fares no better under this "new understanding." Since the garbage collector only knows "one or two" people, there are only one or two people 'channeling God energy' to him. The garbage collector, then, is actually much worse off than Mrs. Spong in this view, because, unlike the garbage collector, the bishop's wife has multitudes 'channeling God energy' toward her. In the proper Christian view, the "one or two people" are potentially in communication with a personal, infinite, omnipotent God who can more than balance the scales of influence and who can effectively work healing. Spong's philosophy has nothing to compare with this.

Excerpts from "The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama

I recently had the opportunity to listen to The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama on audiobook. (Yes, the book is now several years old, but I finally found it at Half Price Books!) Below are a few of the quotes that stuck out to me, and my initial thoughts re: these quotes, which I will place under the quotes in bold.

"[Clinton's vision of politics] tapped into the pragmatic, non-ideological attitude of the majority of Americans." (Chapter 1: Republicans and Democrats)

-But isn't pragmatism itself an ideology?

“[T]his New Conservative leadership was eerily reminiscent of some of the New Left’s leadership during the ‘60s. As with their left-wing counterparts, this new vanguard of the Right viewed politics as a contest, not between competing policy visions, but between Good and Evil: you had to choose sides. It was Bill Clinton’s singular contribution that he tried to transcend this ideological deadlock.” (Chapter 1: Republicans and Democrats)

-It seems that Mr. Obama makes a good point about Congress elevating every instance of "competing policy visions" to a battle "between Good and Evil." On the other hand, I think that he would be forced to admit that there are some "competing policy visions" that do, indeed, amount to a battle "between Good and Evil." Debates in Congress about slavery, "Indian removal," anti-lynching laws, and civil rights, to name a few-- debates that centered around the commitment of Congress to either protect or repress the people's rights to life and liberty-- were battles "between Good and Evil." Similarly, I would argue, there are certain "policy visions"-- his denial of the right to life for the unborn being the chief example-- held by Mr. Obama that do ascend to the level of being a battle "between Good and Evil."

"[American] values are rooted in a basic optimism about life, and a faith in free-will: a confidence that through pluck and sweat and smarts each of us can rise above the circumstances of our birth." (Chapter 2: Values)

-This statement does, indeed, seem accurate re: American values, but it is sub-biblical re: Christian values, though the mentality expressed by Mr. Obama is certainly present within the current American church scene [see R.C. Sproul's essay, "The Pelagian Captivity of the Church"].

"I wasn't sure what happens when we die, anymore than I was sure where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang. Walking up the stairs, though, I knew what I hoped for: that my mother was somewhere, together in some way with those four little girls [killed in the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham], capable in some fashion of embracing them, of finding joy in their spirits." (Chapter 6: Faith)

-This agnosticism re: the state of the soul after death and affirmation of "the Big Bang" are extremely odd coming from someone claiming Christian faith.

"Limitless" and the Limit of Human Potential

[This post is not necessarily a recommendation for the movie Limitless; as you may glean from the following reflection, there are some pretty rough elements in the film. SPOILERS FOLLOW.]

In the movie Limitless, a man takes pills that allow him to access the full potential of his mind; he is given a much sharper awareness of the world around him, he has photographic memory of anything he encounters (so that he can remember anything he has ever read, learn languages simply by hearing them, etc.), and he is able to analyze problems and find solutions immediately.

If you were given such mental abilities, what would you do with them?

For the main character in Limitless, the answer to the above question quickly becomes obvious; he seeks to seduce as many women as he can, gain as much money as he can, and eventually win as much power as he can by seeking election as the President of the United States. Even with super-smarts, the very best goals people can think of-- apart from God-- boil down to sex, money, and power. The bad news is that these can never satisfy. The good news is that there is One who can.

A Quick Note of NO - Thanks!

Mark Lamprecht of Here I Blog did not win the Blogging Scholarship. He did not come in second or third place. He came in sixth. Mark has graciously written "A Quick Note of Thanks" on his blog to those who voted for him and those- like James White, Frank Turk, and Tim Challies- who helped promote his cause on their respected, high-traffic blogs. This post is a corresponding NO - thanks, because I am disappointed that the Christian blog-o-sphere couldn't (or wouldn't) more effectively pull together to help a brother out. So NO thank you to those who did not take a couple of seconds out of your day to vote for Mark, and NO thank you to those who ignored my e-mail requests to place a link for Mark on your websites/blogs. Your verses for the day are: Luke 6:31 and James 2:16.