Response to "Being Biblical More Than Logical"

Recently on the blog for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. John Hammett argued for the "Four-Point" Calvinist position, denying the "L" of TULIP, which stands for "Limited atonement" (most every Calvinist I know would prefer that this point be known as "Particular redemption," but this throws off the acronymn).

As evident by the title, Dr. Hammett argues that, while "L" has a certain ring of logic, Unlimited atonement (or General redemption) is more consistent with the Bible's teaching.

The following is my response to Hammett's post:

The idea that “L” is simply a logical, rather than a biblical, conclusion, is often asserted by “four-pointers,” but does not ring true. Quite the contrary: I could think of ways to support the “four-point” position that (at least) seem logical, but am convinced, instead, of particular redemption by the biblical text, which presents a necessary connection between the sacrifice made for the [new] covenant people and the benefits certainly enjoyed by the elect on the basis of that sacrifice (Rom 8:32; Heb 10:14).

Even the verses used to argue against “L:” notice how many concepts from outside the verses must be then crammed into the verses in order for them to be used to deny particular redemption. And the actual words found in the verses– words such as “propitiation,” “Savior”– must be either either explained away or turned on their head, while words such as “all” and “world” must assume unusual meanings (in any given context, Scripture does not generally mean to indicate “every person who ever lived throughout history” by these terms).

Band of Bloggers Panel on "The Elephant Room Controversy:" Helpful, Then Lousy

Attempted Brief Summary of The Elephant Room Controversy

The Elephant Room was a conference this past year put on by some men associated with The Gospel Coalition. The organizers of The Elephant Room asked T.D. Jakes-- a prosperity gospel preacher, who is well-known for his Oneness theology-- to speak at the conference. This invitation was, of course, extremely controversial, and many people asked the organizers of The Elephant Room to reconsider; many people also asked The Gospel Coalition to come out with a statement denouncing the "ministry" of T.D. Jakes.

At The Elephant Room, Jakes gave an ambiguous answer to questions about modalism, saying that he believes in "One God-Three Persons," on the one hand, yet he still prefers the term "manifestations" (a term commonly employed by modalists) to the word "Persons."

The Elephant Room organizers then embraced Jakes as an orthodox brother in Christ, with no mention being made of his prosperity gospel teachings.

Band of Bloggers Panel Reaction One: Helpful

At the recent Band of Bloggers [BoB] fellowship, a panel consisting of Timmy Brister, Tim Challies, Collin Hansen, Owen Strachan, and Justin Taylor addressed issues concerning the current state of Reformed blogging [the audio for this panel discussion is HERE]. As it was one of the major controversies within evangelicalism this past year, the panelists addressed The Elephant Room.

Regarding The Elephant Room, Tim Challies said:

I chose just not to address that one, because I just didn't know what to say about it. I thought, "If I just spew something out, I'll get lots of traffic, but I'm just going to expose my own foolishness in this; I don't have anything wise or godly to say about it."

This fits with what Timmy Brister had said earlier in the discussion:

I've just come to the point where I've realized that 99 out of a hundred people are going to say it better than me, so why do I feel like I have to say something about that?

I do think that it is a helpful reminder to note that we who blog should not feel that we must make some comment on every controversy: even every important controversy. People who forget this are constantly in danger of falling into the sin mentioned in Proverbs 10:19.

With that in mind, the only time I've previously mentioned The Elephant Room on this blog is when I took notes while listening to a Dividing Line webcast. I was not planning on mentioning the recent BoB fellowship, but there has been-- it seems to me-- a real paucity of response to the panel discussion, and now the Pyromaniacs have put the issue on the front-burner.

Band of Bloggers Panel Reaction Two: Lousy

I DO think that David Kjos was correct in his summary concerning the main point that the BoB panelists seemed at pains to communicate about The Elephant Room controversy: "if you're not on the inside, you're not qualified to speak."

I do NOT think Kjos was quite correct in his assessment of what the panelists meant to indicate by this attitude; I do NOT think that the BoB panelists were taking an "us" vs. "y'all" attitude toward the BoB attendees. I DO think that the panelists were taking an "us" (BoBers) vs. "them" (The Elephant Room organizers) position, and saying that all of us bloggers (including the panelists themselves) should exercise extreme caution in criticizing The Elephant Room, because we were not privy to private conversations between The Elephant Room organizers and T.D. Jakes. If my assessment is correct, then notice: 1) the BoB panelists' attitude lacked the "arrogance" that Kjos charges them with, yet; 2) the BoB panelists' attitude was still completely bogus.

If The Elephant Room organizers had simply invited T.D. Jakes to a private conversation over dinner, and if bloggers had criticized The Elephant Room organizers for this private conversation, without knowledge of what was actually said, then the BoB panel may have had a valid point. BUT this is not what happened. Instead, T.D. Jakes was invited to speak from the platform of The Elephant Room, and every blogger that I read who criticized what happened criticized (1) Jakes' previous "ministry" and then (2) what actually happened on stage at The Elephant Room. In other words, the public critique was aimed at public matters; private conversations are simply irrelevant. The BoB panelists know this: they know it, for example, when they publish book reviews. If one of the BoB panelists goes to critique The Shack, he does not think, 'Hey, I need to find out whether William Paul Young ever had some private conversation with his publisher in which he clearly expressed an orthodox view of the Trinity;' if Young had done so, then it would not change what he printed in the book, and it would not change the need to critique the book on its own terms.

Actual NASA Photos of Jupiter and Saturn

I'm somewhat of a sci-fi geek (lately, I've been watching some of the Borg episodes from Star Trek: Voyager on Netflix), but no CGI image on a movie or TV show can compare with the actual beauty of God's creation.

[Thanks to my friend Tim Thompson for sharing this on Facebook.]

Government Regulation for the Benefit of the Poor

‘When you reap the harvest of your land, moreover, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field nor gather the gleaning of your harvest; you are to leave them for the needy and the alien. I am the LORD your God.’” (Lev 23:22 NASB)

As David Noebel has noted, government is "the institution of justice" and "should prohibit, prevent, prosecute, and punish injustice;" government should not "attempt to dispense grace through tax-funded handouts."

Noebel's assertions are based on a close examination of biblical principles concerning government, and they lead to a conservative view concerning the role of government.

One area in which political conservatives' instincts may run contrary to scriptural principles, however, is concerning the regulatory powers of government. Many conservatives seem to take such a "hands-off" approach that-- if they had their way-- government would be allowed virtually no say in regulating private enterprise. But notice the passage at the beginning of this post. Leviticus 23:22 is not a suggestion, but a command, coming within the Mosaic law. Presumably, if an ancient Israelite was found guilty of violating this law, they could find themselves facing a legal proceeding. The Mosaic law prescribed government regulation of private enterprise for the benefit of the poor.

"Shinar" in Daniel 1

Sunday before last, Mitch Chase began teaching through the Book of Daniel in the evening service at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.
As we read from the opening verses, I noticed that the names "Babylon," "Chaldea," and "Shinar" seemed to be used interchangeably in reference to the same place. But Mitch pointed out something that I did not know: apparently "Shinar" was already an archaic term when the Book of Daniel was written. On the basis of this fact, Mitch argued that the name "Shinar" was purposefully used in order to connect readers' thoughts to a previous misadventure in the same region; the plain of Shinar was the site where the undivided tribes had infamously erected the Tower of Babel. Nebuchadnezzar's social experiment in taking the choice youths from the Hebrews (and other surrounding peoples)-- educating them in the language and customs of the Chaldeans-- had the ring of Babel about it. Through conquest, the Babylonian Empire was seeking to bring the world under its umbrella, thereby making everyone Babylonian. That this was an anti-god enterprise is demonstrated in the pervasive references to paganism found throughout these opening verses.

At the very least (as we touched on in the church discussion after Mitch's teaching), reflection on Babel and Babylon should make Christians cautious about:

1. Any efforts of trans-national unity as imposed by government. (The Church has a unity that incorporates every tribe, language, and nation, but this unity is from within-- through faith in the gospel-- as we join together in worship of the Lamb of God, who was slain for our sins yet lives forever.)

2. Systems of education. (Christian parents must take responsibility for the education of our children; whatever type of school our children attend, we must make sure that our children are given a Christian worldview, so that they see their education as a means of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever, and they are therefore equipped to hold fast to those things that are good, rejecting ungodliness.)

Audio for "Propitiation: The Most Important Word Sinners Should Know." Sermon by Mitch Chase.

Last month at Kosmosdale Baptist Church, Mitch Chase preached from Romans 3:25-26.

Many people, upon seeing a five-syllable "-tion" word at the beginning of the title-- a word that most of us do not use in our daily lives-- may be tempted to allow their eyes to glaze over, and to think, 'there goes a seminary doctoral student, trying to preach a sermon as if he's in a Systematic Theology classroom.'

If you find yourself in this category, please notice the second half of the sermon title: "The Most Important Word Sinners Should Know." I believe that Mitch, to God's glory, did an exceptional job explaining why "propitiation" is not just an abstract theological concept, but is key to understanding Scripture and is vital to all of our lives.

I encourage everyone to listen to the audio for this sermon, which is now available HERE.

Sermon Notes from "Where Angels Long to Look: Salvation Foretold by Prophets and Fulfilled by Christ." Sermon by Mitch Chase.

[From the 10:45AM worship service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.]

1 Peter 1:10-12.

I. Introduction

A. The easy road is not always the most desirable, especially when the journey itself is important.

B. OT prophets prophesied about the salvation that was to come in Christ to us.

II. Inquiry of the OT Prophets

A. OT prophets had a sense that there was something more than what they could understand.

B. OT prophets were not merely disinterested vessels through which revelation came, but they were keenly interested in the subject of their prophecy.

C. OT prophets demonstrated an understanding that they were looking for something more and greater.

III. Revelation to the OT Prophets

A. OT prophets foretold Christ's passion and subsequent glory.

B. OT prophets were ultimately serving us:
1. Not that they were not also serving the people of their time;
2. We should consider ourselves to have been placed in a privileged position.

C. OT prophets prophesied by the Spirit, who now empowers preachers in proclaiming the gospel.

IV. Results

A. Angels marvel at God's salvation.

B. Believers' suffering will give way to glory.

Jimmy Carter versus Jesus Christ

JC vs. JC


Last month, when Albert Mohler interviewed Jimmy Carter-- who has recently come out with a study Bible based on his years as a Sunday school teacher-- Dr. Mohler asked Mr. Carter about some of the more controversial issues of our day. In defense of his moderate-to-liberal theological leanings, Mr. Carter said: "I really turn almost exclusively to the teachings of Jesus Christ."

This has long been the liberal ploy: take the "teachings of Jesus Christ" and try to set them against the teachings of the Apostle Paul and the rest of the Bible. But this method of reading Scripture is entirely unsustainable. One problem with the 'Jesus-only' method of liberal interpretation is that the actual teachings of Jesus keep getting in the way. Take, for example, the Sermon on the Mount: perhaps Jesus' most famous teaching. At the beginning of Matthew 5, with the beatitudes-- "Blesed are the poor," etc.-- this Sermon may start out in a way that is not too inimical to the liberal perspective: at least as long as one does not think too deeply about the definition of certain terms. Then the reader comes to Matthew 7:1, perhaps the most well-known verse in America today. But by the end of that same Chapter, Jesus teaches about the wide gate that leads to destruction and about rejecting those who reject His words; these teachings are entirely consistent with Jesus teaching about Himself as the exclusive Way to the Father (in John 14:6 and elsewhere) and they tend to contradict the moderate/liberal doctrine of inclusivism or universalism. The liberal theologian must, like Thomas Jefferson, take a pen-knife to the Gospels in order to create a Jesus in his own image. This is idolatry.

The liberal response to this conservative, evangelical observation is typically to mount an ad hominem tu quoque ['you too!'] defense. In the Mohler interview, Mr. Carter's words tend in this direction when he says, "I know that Paul condemns homosexuality, as he did some other things like selfishness that everybody’s guilty of..." With this statement, Carter seems to be implying what other liberal theologians state explicitly: conservatives have blind spots in their reading of Scripture, too; 'look, we might turn a blind eye to Paul's teaching on homosexuality,' so the reasoning goes, 'but you conservatives turn a blind eye to teachings against selfishness, and your sin is more serious.' The main difference is, inasmuch as the responsible conservative theologian realizes that he has under-emphasized a teaching of Scripture, he seeks to repent of this error. This is why, when the liberal theologian correctly points out that we in our selfish and materialistic culture have overlooked the Bible's teachings concerning the poor, we seek to make changes. On the other hand, the convinced liberal theologian actively seeks to rationalize away the Bible teachings that bother him, as Mr. Carter openly admits during the interview.

A Good Reminder from Spurgeon for the Week After T4G

[From Charles Spurgeon , The Power of Prayer in a Believer's Life, Robert Hall, ed. (Lynnwood, WA: Emerald Books, 1993), 155.]

I even fear that some allow public religious engagements to over-ride private communion with God. They attend too many sermons, too many conferences, too many Bible readings, too many committees, and even too many prayer meetings-- all good in their own way, but acting injuriously when they cramp out our private prayer. A friend once said that if the apostles were preaching at her time for private communion with God, she would not forsake her place of prayer to go and hear them. It must be better to be with God than with Peter or Paul. Praying is the end of preaching, and woe to the man who, prizing the means more than the end, allows any other form of service to push his prayers into a corner.

My Philosophy of Christian Education

[I've had to type this out a few times, and thought I'd share it here.]

Each follower of the Lord Jesus Christ has been commanded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Matt 22:27 NKJV), and each follower of the Lord Jesus Christ has been commissioned, “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20 NKJV). Christian students should seek to honor God as they receive education appropriate to their vocation. As a Christian educator, it is my goal— as I lead my students to accomplish the objectives in whatever class I teach­— to help “make disciples” of the Lord Jesus Christ by assisting men and women to love the Lord God with all of their minds, while also turning my students’ attention to matters concerning proper Christian desires and affections.

Each follower of the Lord Jesus Christ has been commanded to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2b NKJV). This transformation comes about first and foremost by means of the Scripture: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17 NKJV). As a Christian educator, it is my goal to help students see life through the lens of the inerrant, infallible written word of God. Any subject that I teach will, therefore, be related to Scripture. Some subjects that I may teach (such as Theology), will be directly derived from Scripture, whereas in other subjects I may teach (such as English) I will strive to guide my students to evaluate the subject-matter according to biblical principles.

Sermon Notes from "Joyful Faith in the Fire: Loving and Trusting the Unseen Christ." Sermon by Mitch Chase.

[From the 10:45AM worship service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.]

1 Peter 1:6-9.

I. Introduction: Reference to "What Can Miserable Christians Sing?" by Carl Trueman.

II. Joyful Faith in the Presence of Trial (vv. 6-7)

A. Trials Are Temporary
1. Present suffering is presented as something God is doing for His people.
2. God knows best what will sanctify us.

B. Trials Are Varied

C. Trials Are Purposeful
1. Genuine saving faith is more valuable than anything in the world.
2. Trials prove true from false faith.

III. Joyful Faith in the [Bodily] Absence of Jesus (vv. 8-9)

A. "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe."

B. Joy:
1. Inexpressible;
2. Full of glory.

C. Salvation: already/not yet.

Charismaticism and Inerrancy

At the Together for the Gospel Conference this week there was a panel discussion on the subject of biblical inerrancy. New Testament scholar Simon Gathercole mentioned two major arguments for inerrancy: 1) The character of God yields inerrancy; 2) The way Jesus handles Scriptures presupposes inerrancy. Key to an understanding of this first argument is the idea that God cannot lie (Num 23:19; Heb 6:18); that is, He cannot communicate error.

Interestingly, there was a rather large group of Reformed Charismatics at the conference; this group holds to the idea that God still gives special revelation in the form of prophecy today, but that-- unlike the prophecies we find in Scripture-- human fallenness may interfere with the prophecy in such a way as to allow for errors in the communication of that prophecy.

Notice that the charismatic view of prophecy mentioned above completely erodes Gathercole's first point in his argument for inerrancy; if the charismatics are correct, then it turns out that God regularly communicates in a way that involves error. The questions that still must be answered are:

1. Does the Bible itself allow for the idea that true prophets may make errors when delivering a word from the Lord?
2. If prophets were expected to deliver prophecies without error during the biblical age, is there any hint in the Bible that a lesser type of prophecy-- consisting of prophecies that admit errors-- will be operative in the Church age?
3. If the answer to both of the above questions is "no," then doesn't the idea of fallible prophecy prone to error, as mentioned above, provide a pathway to Liberalism?

Two Thoughts on the Mahaney Detractors

[I discussed this with a couple of beloved brothers earlier this evening, but in case I say things differently than they would want them articulated, I will not mention their names here.]

As the Together for the Gospel Conference was underway this week, it seemed like the small, vocal group of Mahaney detractors amped up their efforts to protest against C.J. Mahaney's continued acceptance as a faithful gospel minister.

Those who wanted to expand their protest against Mahaney attempted to point to personal testimonies of disaffected Sovereign Grace church members and blamed others for not taking the truth seriously. In response, I would like to note to things:

1. Mahaney has been cleared by faithful gospel ministers. The board of directors for Sovereign Grace Ministries apparently looked over the charges against Mahaney carefully, and they issued a statement affirming his fitness to serve. Mahaney's fellow ministers with Together for the Gospel seem satisfied that the charges did not merit them censoring Mahaney. Now Mahaney's detractors yell, "Conspiracy!" Well, to be quite honest, it is certainly possible that a conspiracy of sorts is taking place. The other T4G guys are definitely friends with Mahaney, and the other board members at SGM may be personal friends with him as well: but the common blogger or T4G attender is at the mercy of those trusted ministers in this matter, especially since Mahaney's detractors may not be telling the entire story accurately. If the detractors are in the right, they will certainly be vindicated before God and the SGM/T4G leadership will be accountable to God, but based on the decisions of the SGM/T4G leadership, the detractors cannot expect a mass protest to break out against Mahaney.

2. It's your own fault! There is a real sense in which the detractors-- even if they have been legitimately wronged-- yet have no room to complain. If you are a disgruntled former SGM member, then guess what: you voluntarily joined a group whose leadership claimed apostolic authority and the ability to receive new special revelation through modern-day prophecies! Given that theological understanding: instead of complaining that the man who wrote The Cross Centered Life may have been a jerk to you,  you should be praising God that your charismatic leader didn't turn out to be Jim Jones!

Nine Ways in Which Preaching is Being Undermined

Compiled from statements made during T4G Panel 2.


Mohler: [1] Through a dependence on images rather than on the Word; [2] Through speaking of “worship” and preaching as separate, rather than seeing preaching as the summit of worship; [3] Through viewing preaching as passive, rather than participatory;


Duncan: [4] Through assuming that people will be attracted to what they already find all week in the world;


Dever: [5] Not enough preparation; [6] Not enough specific application; [7] No “feed back loop” (to provide insight into strengths and weaknesses in the sermon) in place;


Mohler: [8] The idea that there must be immediate, visible results; [9] Turning to moralism or pop psychology for application.

T4G: Seeing Timmy Brister and Trevin Wax; Meeting Carl Trueman and Dan Phillips

One benefit to attending the Together for the Gospel Conference (rather than just listening to the audio over the Web) is getting to interact with people in person who you usually only encounter over the Internet.

Last night I got to spend a little time at dinner with my old friend Timmy Brister and with Trevin Wax (Trevin and I graduated at the same time from SBTS: I met him in the graduation line).

This evening I got to shake hands with Carl Trueman and speak with him briefly: telling him how much I appreciated his recent review of The Unintended Reformation by Brad Gregory. I also got to meet Dan Phillips, who graciously autographed my copy of God's Wisdom in Proverbs. I gave Dan a copy of my friend Mitch Chase's book The Gospel is for Christians; Dan looked interested, so perhaps the book will one day be mentioned on the Pyromaniacs blog.

You are NOT a theologian

In my first full post to this blog, I referenced the following famous quote from Book IV of C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity:

Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones- bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas. For a great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today, are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected.

In that earlier post, I focused on the idea from the above quote that it is impossible to have "no ideas about God" in order to make the point that we are all-- unavoidably-- theologians, and as theologians we must not shy away from the study of theology.

In this post, I want to focus on another aspect of Lewis's statement: the idea that it is possible for people to have "bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas," which have been discredited by "real Theologians."

It strikes me as odd how representatives from the media will ask anyone famous-- from among musicians to sports figures to movie stars to politicians to pop psychologists-- to express his or her ideas about God or religion, and then (as long as the interviewee does not mention sin), the reporters will regularly take the answers that are given with unquestioning seriousness.

This would not happen in regard to virtually any other field of study. A reporter would never (for example) ask Dr. Drew about astro-physics, and if he began to spontaneously offer his opinion on that subject, the responsible journalist would fact-check the doctor. Yet the other day on the radio I heard a pop-psychologist spouting his view on what sexual activities were or were not to be considered sin in God's sight, and apparently listeners were expected to accept that somehow his psychological training made him an expert on God and sin.

Obviously-- just as an amateur astronomer could discover a previously unknown comet or an amateur historian could write an influential biography-- someone does not necessarily need a degree in Theology in order to do sound theology; C.S. Lewis himself had no such degree (and-- if the reader has objections to Lewis-- Calvin, Bunyan, Spurgeon, and others could be mentioned). On the other hand, when an amateur makes a contribution to a field of study, it is normal for that contributor-- as an amateur-- to face increased scrutiny. Whether amateur or trained expert, others should only accept a researcher's findings if that researcher has used sound methods of inquiry appropriate to his or her field of study.

Though theology and psychology are fundamentally different, theology may be seen as analogous to psychology in that both disciplines study something that cannot be directly observed-- you cannot see either God or the human psyche-- and in both theology and psychology there are various schools of thought regarding how the discipline should be considered. Now, there is certainly a great deal of controversy between different religious traditions regarding proper methods for reaching theological conclusions, but within each tradition there is a certain discernible range of agreement. The Protestant tradition, for example, teaches that God (who is definitionally transcendent and spiritual) has condescended to reveal Himself in the Holy Bible; therefore, we are to use sound grammatical-historical-Christological exegetical methods in order to come to conclusions regarding God and the spiritual realm. Other Christian traditions teach that God has granted authority to the Church, which formed the Bible (instead of the Bible forming the Church, as Protestants argue), and so they would prescribe study of Church fathers, councils, papal decrees, etc., as the way to form theological conclusions. Various other cults or religions look to different texts or groups of people as authoritative. NO trained theologian follows the method of 'just make stuff up on the spot.'

You sitting there reading this on your computer screen- you are not necessarily a theologian; you are not a theologian if you have not been diligent in your study of theology- carefully weighing the ideas about God that you hear around you or that you have received by tradition. You must "examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil" (II Thessalonians 5:21-22).

If you are not a theologian-- if you do not do the work of a theologian-- and if you then attempt to practice theology, then the shoddy nature of the theology that you practice may have an everlasting, negative impact on your life and the lives of those around you.

Sermon Notes from "Born Again to a Living Hope through the Resurrection of Jesus." Sermon by Mitch Chase.

[From the 10:45AM worship service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.]

1 Peter 1:3-5.

I. Introduction

A. We have no reason to follow, trust, or worship Christ if there was no resurrection.

B. But the disciples saw the risen Christ.

II. Summary: "God should be praised for mercifully regenerating us unto a living hope."

III. Reasons God Should Be Blessed and Praised:

A. We've been born again into a living hope.

B. We've been born again into an inheritance: imperishable, undefiled, unfading:

1. Imperishable: this inheritance cannot be lost through our physical death;

2. Undefiled: this inheritance cannot be lost through our sin;

3. Unfading.

C. We've been born again to a final salvation.

IV. The Three "Reasons" Above Are Inseparable

V. The Gospel Call 

The Resurrection in Revelation 1

Currently I'm teaching through Revelation 1-3 in Sunday school at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.

Every Easter, when it is normal and proper to especially focus on Bible accounts concerning the resurrection of Christ, if it is my turn to teach Sunday school, I do my best to focus on how whatever book of the Bible we are studying points to the cruciality of the resurrection. So, instead of turning to the Gospel accounts tomorrow, we will be looking at the resurrection of Christ as it is seen in Revelation 1.

At the end of verse 1, John is referred to as "his servant;" the "his" in this phrase seems to refer to "Jesus Christ's" as in Jude 1. This title for John presupposes the resurrection as you cannot be the servant of a dead person.

In verse 5, one of the titles for Christ is "the firstborn from the dead." This title for the Lord directly points to His resurrection. This title for Christ is also found in Colossians 1:18, and so it seems to have been a commonly known title among Jesus' earliest followers.

The title "ruler," the present-tense verb "loves," and the promise of the Second Coming may be seen as implying the resurrection, but (of course) the most obvious indication of the resurrection is the fact that-- as recorded in Revelation 1-- the living Lord Jesus actually shows up and speaks with John! Jesus-- the one "like a son of man"-- declares Himself to be, "the Living One," going on to say, "I was dead-- but look!-- I am living from forever into forever" (verse 18). In giving a certain place (“Patmos”) and time (“the Lord’s Day”) for his vision, John seems to be once again giving a literal, eyewitness testimony as he did in his Gospel account (John 19:35; 21:24) and in his first epistle (1 John 1:1). Moreover, John does not only see the resurrected, glorified Christ, but he actually experiences physical contact with Him. Observe verse 17: "And when I saw him, I fell before his feet like a dead man, and he placed his right hand on me." Having encountered deity, John has the natural reaction of overwhelming terror (see Isaiah 6:1-5). But Jesus comforts John and raises him up.

Application: when we truly consider the holiness of the Lord (and our sin in light of His holiness) we count ourselves as dead; the one who died for our sins and was raised to life for our justification raises us up and gives us life in Him.

The Extent of the Atonement as Seen in Christ's High Priestly Work

Recently, Dr. Stephen Wellum delivered the faculty address at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His address was titled, “What does the Extent of the Atonement have to do with Baptist Ecclesiology: an Experience of Doing Theology,” and it can be heard HERE.

In the course of his address (to give a sampling of how Dr. Wellum developed his argument) Wellum considered six truths concerning the Old Testament high priest:

1. The high priest offered sacrifices for a particular, covenant people.

2. There was no division between the making of the sacrifice by the priest and the application of the benefits of that sacrifice (when the blood was applied to the altar, atonement was immediately made).

3. There was always a separation between God's people and the nations.

4. Under the Old Covenant the sacrifices were relatively efficacious, pointing to the need for an ultimate, ultimately effective sacrifice.

5. The high priest offers sacrifices and intercedes for those he represents.

6. The Old Testament priest defended God's house against those who would enter in an unprescribed way.

Dr. Wellum demonstrated the connection between the work of the typical Old Covenant high priest and the work of Jesus Christ as the antitypical high priest of the New Covenant.

Proverbs 9:1-6, Initial Observations

[I intend to teach this passage for the prayer meeting tonight at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.]

Translation
1 Wisdom has built her house; she has carved out her seven pillars.
2 She has slaughtered her meat, she has mixed her wine, and she has set her table.
3 She has sent out her maids; she calls out from the tops of the heights of the city,
4 "Whoever is naive, let him turn in here!" She has said to the one who lacks willpower,
5 "Come, eat some of the food and drink some of the wine I have mixed.
6 Abandon naivete and live, and advance in the way of understanding."

Notes
1 There is some controversy among the commentators concerning the identification of the "seven pillars."
2 This verse obviously indicates preparation for fellowship with guests.
3 Wisdom is calling out through her female servants in a way that her call is inescapable throughout the city.
4 "Inexperienced:" simple, naive, 'green,' unacquainted with the ways of the world and thus easily fooled. "Lacks willpower:" literally "lacks heart;" often translated "lacks sense/understanding;" this phrase is used of one who is immature and does not know what to do with himself.
5 Parallel with verse 2: notice Wisdom's gracious demeanor toward the rather silly person and the comparison/contrast between Wisdom's invitation and the invitation of the harlot, recorded earlier.
6 "Advance:" "walk," "step," "proceed," "go straight."

Parallel: James 1:5-7. Note the generosity of wisdom and the danger of double-mindedness.

Why I didn't repost the "single cell" picture on Facebook

Several of my friends on Facebook re-posted the following picture today:

I did think that this picture was somewhat thought-provoking, and I clicked "Like" the first time I saw it, but I did not repost it myself.

I do not think that the picture is that useful apologetically without some modification because:

1. Those who are pro-abortion would not deny that "a single living cell found in the womb of a pregnant woman" should be "considered life" in some sense;

2. Those who are pro-life do not think that every "single living cell" should be "considered life" in the same sense (otherwise we would protest if a scientist killed an amoeba during a lab experiment).

In other words, the picture above is practicing equivocation regarding the term "life."

The real controversy is whether the fertilized egg in the womb constitutes an individual human life.

And I would argue that it does.

My four-year-old son, the gospel, and the problem we all face

From the time he wakes up to the time he goes to bed, my little boy is a Tasmanian Devil-like flurry of activity, so getting him to sit still and have a conversation (especially a conversation that is not centered on the Incredible Hulk's ability to smash things) is extremely difficult. Therefore, I will often use bed-time as an opportunity to ask Christian about his day and about his thoughts on the people and activities he has encountered during the day. Last night, after asking him about his various friends at church, I asked Christian what he learned in Sunday school. To my surprise, he remembered (this is, I think, literally only the second time he has ever remembered the Sunday school lesson: my four-year-old lacks listening skills): the lesson was about Jesus on the Cross.

"Do you know what happened after they hung Jesus on the Cross?" I asked.

"He died," Christian replied.

"That's right, buddy," I answered. "And do you know what happened after he died?"

Christian had no idea (I think his Sunday school teacher might have been saving that part for next week), so I went ahead and read him the resurrection story from The Jesus Storybook Bible (which is not much of a "Bible," but does, I think, provide a good explanation of the gospel). Christian seemed to follow the story quite well.

Then I asked Christian if he knew why Jesus had to die. Christian answered that bad guys killed Him, which I affirmed, but I added that Jesus was so powerful that the bad guys could not kill him by themselves, He had to let them kill Him. Then I asked Christian if he knew why Jesus let the bad guys kill Him; he did not know.

"Do you know how sometimes you do bad things, and I have to give you a spanking, or I do bad things, and I have to apologize to you?" I asked (I've lost my temper with Christian before, and have had to apologize to him for yelling at him).

"Yes," he replied.

"Well, everybody does bad things, buddy, and God says that anyone who does bad things has to die. But Jesus died in our place so that we don't have to die if we believe in Him."

"So if bad guys hang me on a Cross, and I believe in Jesus, I won't die?" Christian asked.

I explained that if he believed in Jesus he might still die, but that-- like Jesus-- he would not stay dead, but be raised from the grave.

"Do you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead?" I asked him.

"No," he replied.

"Why not?" I asked calmly, not wanting to coerce him into saying "yes" if he did not meant it.

"Because I don't believe anything!" responded the little skeptic.

I was a bit surprised by this answer, so I asked him what he meant. From what he told me, I realized that he was claiming that he does not believe in anything that he cannot see.

"Do you believe that I love you?" I asked.

"Yes," he said.

"Do you believe that 'God made all things'?" I continued (this was, basically, the first thing I had ever taught him).

"Yes," he said.

With these kinds of questions I helped Christian understand that he does believe some things he cannot see (my apologetics skills are spectacular when it comes to four-year-olds). Then I asked again: "Do you believe that God raised Jesus from the dead?"

"Yes," he said.

"Are you sure, buddy?"

"Yes!" he said, convinced.

In asking Christian these things, I had been thinking of Romans 10:9. Now I had to think about how to address the other half of that verse: how could a four-year-old understand the concept of lordship? Well, for some reason (perhaps because Abby and I have reprimanded him for being bossy toward his little sister and others), Christian often talks about wanting to be the "boss." So I told him: "if you want to believe in Jesus, you have to tell Him that you do not want to be the boss of your life, but that you want Him to be the boss of your life." Well, Christian did not like this idea at all. He asserted that he wants to be the boss, and not Jesus or his Mommy or me.

"Well, if you want to believe in Jesus, you have to ask Him to change your heart, so that you want Him to be your boss," I told Christian.

"Why do I have to ask Jesus to change my heart?" Christian asked.

"Because you can't do it yourself, because you want to be the boss so bad," I replied.

"I can change my own heart!" replied the cherub-faced Pelagian.

"You really can't, though, buddy," I said. "Do you mind if I pray for you and ask Jesus to change your heart?"

"OK," he said.

I prayed for him and wished him good-night. A moment later, as I was telling Abby about the conversation (she had only heard the very end of it and the prayer), we both realized that Christian has the same problem that every single one of us has: naturally, we want to be the boss over our own lives (and over the universe, if it were possible), and we do not want God to be sovereign over us.

Sermon Notes from "Christ to the Chosen Sojourners: Grace and Peace to You." Sermon by Mitch Chase.

[From the 10:45AM worship service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.]

1 Peter 1:1-2.

I. Introduction: Peter as a five-sided diamond.

II. The Sender

A. Peter (NT Background):
1. Peter prior to the resurrection
2. Peter following the resurrection
3. Peter, a mature apostle

B. An apostle: Peter represents Jesus.

III. The Recipients

A. Exiles:
1. Physical exiles
2. Spiritual sojourners

B. Elect:
1. OT Background
2. Election is presented as a comforting doctrine.
3. Three aspects of election:
a. According to the foreknowledge of the Father
b. Sanctification of the Spirit:
i. "sanctification" = "set apart"
ii. "sanctification" indicates a call to holiness
c. Chosen for obedience to the Son:
i. background: Exodus 24
ii. "sprinkled with blood" = "cleansed for obedience"

IV. The Greeting: The apostles opened their epistles by combining a Gentile and Jewish greeting, and Christianizing these greetings with gospel concepts.