Call To Die

Twelve Quotes from Paul Tripp

2012-01-28T07:02:00.001-05:00

[The following quotes from biblical counselor Paul Tripp come via Twitter/Facebook feeds from my friends Timmy Brister and Stephen Newell; I am not sure of the original source(s).]

re: the Bible

"The Bible is not an encyclopedia of topics. It's a story of God's grand redemptive story."

re: sin

"Since sin is driven by self, it will dehumanize people in your life. They will be reduced to being a vehicle or an obstacle."

"Sin causes us to shrink our lives to the size of our lives. It is anti-social in its most fundamental form."

"When you turn a blessing into a demand, nothing good ever happens."

"The kingdom of self functions on earthbound treasures and anxiety bound needs (Matt. 6)."

re: obedience

"Obedience is an act of thankful worship, not a fearful means of trying to gain favor with God."

"The thing you treasure will control your heart, and what controls your heart will control your words and behavior."

"True horizontal love is born in the soil of vertical gratitude"

"No one gives grace better than the one who knows he desperately needs it foremost."

re: words

"The words you say in your marriage always reveal more about you than the person you are living with."

"Your words and behavior are more caused by what's inside of you than what is outside of you."

Live-blogging the "Dividing Line" webcast re: T.D. Jakes

2012-01-27T08:41:00.001-05:00

[Notes of highlights from 11:06-12:30.]

I turned on the webcast late, and the first thing that I heard was Dr. White saying, "How can you be angry with a squirrel?!"

I'm still not quite sure what prompted that question. :)

Dr. White: "There needs to be an explanation [from T.D. Jakes] about what he has said in the past."

Dr. White played an audio clip of T.D. Jakes "preaching" from John 14, misquoting the text as saying, "I am the Father."

Another audio clip from Jakes, 1 Tim 3:16: "God was manifest in the flesh" (KJV).

A final clip from Jakes, casting aspersion upon the term "Trinity," emphasizing the oneness of God, and defining Father, Son, and Spirit in terms of God's activity. (Father in creation, Son in redemption, Holy Spirit in regeneration.)

Dr. White: The attitude expressed by Mark Driscoll would have us to conclude that Athanasius was a fool, who was sinful in his defense of the Trinity.

Audio clip from the "Elephant Room" meeting of "evangelicals:" Jakes claims to have been converted to Christ in a Oneness church. [All subsequent quotes from T.D. Jakes are from the "Elephant Room."]

Dr. White: the "Elephant Room" is a "Downgrade Controversy."

Dr. White: previous generations were willing to give up their lives in defense of the truth of the Trinity.

Dr. White: Driscoll will "go off" on Justin Brierly re: complementarianism vs. egalitarianism, but will not scrutinize Jakes on the Trinity? Though complementarianism is important, this is symptomatic of doctrinal imbalance.

Jakes: "[Oneness] is really not the best description of how I now understand the godhead."

Dr. White: "Anybody who believes in objective truth should find this to be offensive." We should reconcile in regard to personal sin, but not compromise in regards to Truth.

Dr. White: Oneness teaching and Trinitarianism are "night and day."

Jakes: [quotes several Trinitarian proof-texts] "made me re-think some of my ideas... there are some things that can be said about the Father that cannot be said about the Son," etc.

Dr. White: every Oneness advocate can and does use this kind of language.

Jakes: "There is very little difference in what I believe and what you believe."

Dr. White: Paul wrote about "false Jesus'." The issue is whether Scripture is clear enough to decide an issue like the Trinity.

Driscoll [from "Elephant Room," question directed to Jakes]: is one God manifested in three ways "successively," or is He three "simultaneously."

Dr. White: Driscoll's question is good as far as it goes, but in the following discussion, note that Oneness literature stresses the distinction between "manifestations" and "persons."

Jakes: "Neither of them totally get it for me... I'm not crazy about the word persons" (citation of 1 Tim 3:16). "So God was manifest in the flesh."

Dr. White: the belief statement of Jakes' congregation is neither clearly Trinitarian or Oneness (it uses the term "manifestations"), and it is insufficient for a defense of the biblical faith.

[A point that Dr. White mentioned previously is that "manifest" is a verb in 1 Tim 3:16, rather than a noun, as Jakes and Oneness advocates use the term.]

Dr. White: we can see when the secular world is being intolerant, while claiming tolerance (for example, in regard to gay marriage), but when those who claim Christ claim tolerance while sacrificing truth, we sometimes fail to see what is going on.

Dr. White [in response to a question re: how we can determine what properly constitutes "heresy"]: we must rely on the consistent testimony of Scripture (the "analogy of faith"). Many passages may be interpreted the wrong way based merely upon the grammar or even in the immediate context of the passage, but we must interpret each passage in light of the entire canon. Orthodoxy is not a matter of "majority wins." For example: "Paul's teaching on grace" will always be a minority opinion. Athanasius was, for a time, in the minority in regard to the Trinity.

Manuel (a Oneness caller) confirmed that he would consider Jakes heretical for his being "comfortable" with Trinitarian language. Manuel (if I understood him correctly) made the point that it seemed like Jakes seemed to be compromising his Oneness beliefs in order to be accepted into a certain "club" [of "evangelicals"].

John Coleman (an African-American caller, who does apologetic ministry, much of which takes place within the African-American community) made the point that Jakes does not ONLY have a problem with the Trinity, but also with "subjectivism" in his preaching. John says that Jakes is adept at accurately using a dialect in order to achieve his own ends; with the economy sliding and people giving less, Jakes is now suddenly orthodox!? "The drastic change, so-called, that has come about is just another dialectical ploy."

Dr. White: I would not want to "crush the bruised reed... I have, obviously, worked with" people who have come out from under Oneness teaching, but Jakes' language is not the language of repentance.

Dr. White: a lot of people do not understand why the Trinity is important in the first place.

In-Depth Commentary on Genesis 28:6-10

2012-01-27T08:23:00.002-05:00

TEXT Now Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him away to Paddan-aram to take a wife from there, and that as he blessed him he directed him, “You must not take a wife from the Canaanite women,” and that Jacob had obeyed his father and his mother and gone to Paddan-aram. So when Esau saw that the Canaanite women did not please Isaac his father, Esau went to Ishmael and took as his wife, besides the wives he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son, the sister of Nebaioth.
Jacob left Beersheba and went toward Haran.
(Genesis 28:6-10 ESV)

COMMENTARY
Esau is an idiot.

APPLICATION
Don't be an idiot like Esau, vainly trying to win the favor of people by violating God's principles.

C.J. Mahaney Cleared by Sovereign Grace Ministries' Board of Directors

2012-01-26T22:25:00.001-05:00

[C.J. Mahaney's ministry has been a blessing to me personally, primarily through his book, The Cross-Centered Life, and so I was extremely happy to read the following report, as quoted on Challies' blog. (Mahaney had been accused by a small, loud group of former Sovereign Grace Ministries members of such seemingly vague indiscretions as pride, deceit, and hypocrisy.)]

Dave Harvey: “In July 2011, Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) installed an interim Board of Directors. Our primary task was to determine C.J. Mahaney’s fitness to serve SGM as President in light of accusations made against him by a former SGM leader. … After examining the reports of these three review panels, we find nothing in them that would disqualify C.J. from his role as President, nor do they in any way call into question his fitness for gospel ministry. Therefore the Board has decided unanimously to return C.J. to the office of President, effective immediately.”

Images from the Hubble Telescope

2012-01-25T21:37:00.001-05:00

Observe that the "deep field" pictures-- the final images-- are not showing stars, but galaxies.

Selected Notes Re: Genesis 4:1

2012-01-24T16:14:00.002-05:00

Now Adam knew Eve, his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD." (Genesis 4:1)

[Re: "from the Lord."] That is, according to the Lord's promise, as Gen. 3:15... [Geneva note]

"Eve seems plainly to express her hope in and dependence of that promise [given in Gen. 3:15], in what she says at the birth of Cain (Gen. 4:1), 'I have gotten a man from the LORD;' that is, as God promised, that my seed should bruise the serpent's head, so now has God given me this pledge and token of it, that I have a seed born. She plainly owns that this, her child, was from God, and hoped that her promised seed was to be of this her eldest son; though she was mistaken, as Abraham was with respect to Ishmael, as Jacob was with respect to Esau, ans as Samuel was with respect to the first-born of Jesse." [Jonathan Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2003), 31-32.]

"The woman's seed could be identified with the totality of humanity. However, the immediately succeeding section in Genesis narrates Cain's murder of his brother Abel (Gen. 4). The New Testament explicitly determines the significance of these two persons in the cosmic struggle between God and Satan. Cain originates from "the evil one" (1 John 3:12). Though descended from Eve just as his brother, he cannot be regarded as belonging to the 'seed' of the woman as described in Genesis 3:15. Instead of being opposed to Satan, he is the seed of Satan. The 'seed' of the woman cannot be identified simply with all physical descendants of womankind." [O. Palmer Robinson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1980), 98.]

"...Eve was mistaken in supposing that the son thus born to her was the Messiah. The language of inspiration only asserts that she said this, without admitting that she was correct. Indeed, the record shows that she was not[, but] she had believed the promise of God, was looking forward to its fulfillment, and had learned in some way to associate the name of Jehovah with the expected seed of the woman." [James P. Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2006), 261.]

Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin (Part 22)

2012-01-23T23:59:00.000-05:00

From The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended 2.3.1.

Observations on John 3:6 in connection with some other passages in the New Testament.

I. The "flesh" and "spirit"-- and being "carnally minded" versus being "spiritually minded"-- are consistently set in opposition by the apostles.

II. The "flesh" is continually written of as that which is "perfectly contrary to God and His law."

III. Comparison of passages demonstrates that "flesh" and "sinful flesh" are used interchangeably.

IV. "Flesh," as the term is used by the apostles, "is something very evil in its nature, and an irreconcilable enemy to all goodness."

V. "Spirit" is used to indicate "a new, divine, and holy nature."

VI. "Spiritual" is used to indicate "truly virtuous and holy," whereas "fleshly" is used to indicate "sinful."

VII. "[P]ride of heart is the [chief] effect or operation of the flesh."

VIII. "The word 'flesh' is often used in both the Old and the New Testament to refer to signify mankind in their present state."

IX. "[W]hat is born in the first birth of man" is a creature utterly lacking in spiritual life, "without anything divine in him."

X. "[M]en by nature are... wholly corrupt, without any good thing."

XI. The apostle uses the terms "carnal" and "natural" interchangeably."

XII. The natural man is "totally corrupt, wholly a stranger and enemy to true virtue or holiness."

Sermon Notes from "The Kind of Pastor This Church Needs." Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick.

2012-01-22T23:15:00.000-05:00

[The following notes were taken during the 10:45AM service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church. The sermon should soon be available to hear on-line HERE.]

1 Timothy 3:1-2.

I. Introduction

A. "Does a fish know that it is in water?"

B. Like a fish, we are unable to discern our environment until we are exposed to a contrast.

C. Through books from the past, we may have our cultural biases challenged.

D. Kosmosdale Baptist Church is part of a very small percentage of people in this country who are interested in serious public discourse.

II. Confirming a Call to Ministry

A. Desire

B. Gifts

C. Opportunity

III. Two Major Qualifications from These Verses [a third to be addressed next week]

A. Above Reproach

1. NOT sinless, but

2. NOT characterized by reproach

B. Self-controlled

1. A one-woman man:
a. NOT
i. a polygamist
ii. a "serial monogamist"
b. Marriage is designed by God as an illustration of Christ and the Church.
c. Misunderstandings of marriage either result from or lead to a misunderstanding of the gospel.

2. Sober-minded:
a. Mentally in control with regard to outside influences
b. May be applied to:
i. preaching
ii. fads
iii. eating
iv. sleeping
v. entertainment

Translation of Genesis 4:1

2012-01-21T07:29:00.000-05:00

[The following translation is made as the first step in a Bible study I am preparing. As always, the reason I am placing the translation on this blog is to invite discussion/feedback from any friends of mine: especially those, in this case, who know Hebrew.]

Now Adam knew Eve, his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain. Then she said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD."

Disembodied Fellowship

2012-01-14T17:55:00.000-05:00

The church is the body and bride of Christ (1 Cor 12:27; Col 1:24; Eph 5:22-33).

A professing Christian who consistently neglects the fellowship of the church has, at very best, a relationship to Christ that is analogous to a wife trying to have a relationship with her husband only over the phone. Over the phone, a wife may hear her husband's voice [as a Christian may hear the voice of Christ through the private reading of Scripture or through hearing sermons on the radio, etc.], but she will not receive her husband's embrace unless she is physically with him. A wife may have a good cause to be separated from her husband for a lengthy period of time (I think of my aunt, whose husband-- my uncle-- is serving with the Army in Iraq), but if she loves her husband this separation will be considered unusual and she will want to physically be in his presence at the earliest opportunity. Similarly, the Christian may be away from the church by necessity (through disease, etc.), but such separation should be considered unusual; the Christian should long to be with the fellowship the church: Christ's body on earth.

Closing Your Prayers With Gospel Consideration

2012-01-13T17:14:00.000-05:00

People do not choose to do things that they find boring. And repetition-- doing the exact same thing in the exact same way-- is one of the surest paths to boredom. One of the reasons that some Christians falter in their duty to pray is because, after awhile, prayer gets boring: the same basic prayers are brought before God again and again, and the prayer is ended with "in Jesus' name, amen;" thus, prayer becomes a rote exercise.

One opportunity for a greater degree of variety in our prayers, which many of us may miss, is at the end of our prayers. Christians should certainly pray in the name of Jesus. But instead of simply rattling off "in Jesus' name" at the end of your prayers, consider giving serious attention to who Jesus is and what He has done as you pray.

In considering who Jesus is when you pray, think of who He is in your personal experience. For example: if you have found Jesus to be dear to you, you might end some of your prayers with, "in the precious name of Jesus I pray;" if you have found Jesus to be mighty in answering prayer, you might end some of your prayers with, "in the powerful name of Jesus I pray."

Also, pay close attention as you read your Bible day-by-day. If you have just read Genesis 1, for example, you might end your prayer with, "in the name of Jesus-- the Word through whom the worlds were created-- I pray;" if you have just read Genesis 3, you might end your prayer with, "in the name of Jesus-- the true seed of Eve-- I pray." One benefit of ending your prayers in this way [or in including this type of consideration at any point when you pray] is that it will help you to see how all Scripture points you to Christ, and it will help you to get to know the incarnate Word through means of His written Word.

Additionally, give attention to categories of Systematic Theology as you pray. When you think about perseverance, for example, you might end your prayer with, "in the name of Jesus, who keeps my soul safe safe until the end, I pray;" as you think about imputation, you might end your prayer with, "on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone I pray."

Prayers using terms from the Bible and from systematic theology will also lead you to think about what Jesus has done as you pray. Thinking of Jesus' obedience to the Father on our behalf-- obedience to the point of death-- and thinking of Jesus' victory over death, can also invigorate your prayers. And so you might end some prayers with, "in the name of Jesus-- who died for our sins, and was raised for our justification-- I pray." Speaking to God in such gospel terms will train your heart and mouth to speak the good news of Jesus Christ before the people for whom you are praying.

Do the work of prayer

2012-01-12T23:53:00.000-05:00

Brethren, pray for us. (1 Thessalonians 5:25)

“Sickness, age, obscurity, illiteracy, and poverty cannot hinder the power of prayer.” - Charles Spurgeon

If you are a Christian-- if you have confessed Jesus as Lord-- then, since He is your Lord, you wish to serve Him. But all who wish to serve God struggle, at least at times, with the question of how we can best serve Him; you will face questions such as: what job should I pursue? where should I live? etc.

Furthermore, you may feel discouraged in your work for Christ. You may think you lack intelligence or boldness or passion. You may feel that you lack the time or the health to commit yourself to Jesus.

And so what can you do?

First, you can pray. Prayer-- calling out to God for His will to be done in your life and in the lives of others, bringing our requests before Him-- is commanded. And it cannot be stopped. As long as a believer is conscious, he or she can call out to God. The bedridden saint dying of cancer can perform the service of prayer. The one who is homeless, uneducated, and despised by the world can render the service of prayer. The businessman can call out to God on His way traveling to and from appointments each day. And you can pray, coming daily before the throne of grace.

Even if you find yourself unable to personally travel to a foreign nation, you can be part of seeing Christ's kingdom manifested throughout the earth as you pray for missionaries.

Even if you cannot give large sums of money to the needy, you can call out to God, who owns everything, that He will open up His storehouses.

The only major hurdle to prayer is that we often do not value prayer as we should, and so we allow our time to be filled with other things, robbing ourselves of this great opportunity for service.

A short reflection on what Christianity is NOT and what it IS.

2012-01-11T21:38:00.001-05:00

Often American evangelicalism focuses on the feelings that people experience in worship. And we should feel JOY as Christians. But the Christian faith is not primarily about working ourselves up into a certain emotional state.

In the Reformed tradition, we often focus upon honoring God with our minds, and rightly so. But the Christian faith is not primarily an intellectual exercise.

Rather, the Christian faith is first and foremost a relationship with a Person: the living Lord Jesus.

Now, neither I nor anyone reading this post has ever yet seen the resurrected Christ face-to-face. And so we must take hold of Him by faith. This faith itself is a gift from God, coming through the gospel, which is found in God's Word: the Holy Bible.

For this reason, the Christian faith returns again and again to Scripture, the vehicle of the Holy Spirit.

Outline of "Pilgrim's Progress," Chapter 11

2012-01-10T23:39:00.001-05:00

This spring, the 5th and 6th grade boys Writing & Literature class I am tutoring will be reading John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. In preparation for this class, I am re-re-reading the book and constructing a detailed outline for each chapter as I read. The following outline is for Chapter 11 (in the 1991 Tyndale House Edition).

I. In the Plain Called Ease

A. Description of Ease:
1. Lovely,
2. Small.

B. Description of Lucre:
1. A small hill,
2. At the far side of the plain,
3. Containing a Silver-mine,
4. The ground of the hill is untrustworthy, causing many to fall down into the mine with the result of great injury or death.

II. The Appeal of Demas

A. Demas beckons the pilgrims to the Mine.

B. Hopeful wishes to go, but Christian warns him of the danger involved.

C. Demas protests that he, too, is a son of Abraham.

D. Christian reveals that Demas is the son of Judas and grandson of Gehazi.

E. Christian and Hopeful pass on.

F. By-ends and his friends follow after Demas, and are never seen again.

III. The Pillar of Lot's Wife

A. The Pilgrims discover the Pillar.

B. Hopeful repents of his foolishness in being enticed by the Mine.

C. Hopeful notes that the Pillar should "be both a caution and example."

D. The pilgrims reflect on the hard-heartedness of Demas and his friends, since the Pillar is visible from Lucre.

IV. The River of God: The pilgrims travel alongside a pleasant River, receiving needed food, rest, and healing.

V. Temptation to Leave the Rough Way:

A. The Way veers away from the River.

B. The Way becomes rough, and the pilgrims decide to hop a fence and travel in a pleasant Meadow, which appears to run alongside the Way.

VI. In By-path Meadow

A. The pilgrims meet Vain-confidence, who says he is also travelling to the Celestial City.

B. Night falls and Vain-confidence falls in a pit, where he dies.

C. A dreadful storm comes, bringing a flood.

D. Christian repents of leaving the Way and asks for Hopeful's forgiveness.

E. Hopeful insists on leading the way, facing the danger.

F. The pilgrims hear a voice, beckoning them to return the way that they came.

G. The pilgrims brave the flood, seeking to return to the Way, but cannot find it in the dark, so they must take refuge for the night in a small shelter.

VII. Seized by Giant Despair

A. Giant Despair from Doubting Castle catches the pilgrims trespassing on his property.

B. The Giant throws them into a dark, foul dungeon inside his castle, where they are kept without food or water from Wednesday morning to Saturday night.

VIII. Distrust's Persuasions

A. Thursday: at the prompting of his wife (Distrust), Despair ridicules the pilgrims and beats them mercilessly with a wooden club.

B. Friday:
1. Again following Distrust's advise, Despair counsels the pilgrims to commit suicide; he leaves them a knife, a rope, and some poison.
2. The pilgrims beg to be freed:
a. Despair rushes at them with murderous intent;
b. He is only prevented from killing them due to a bout of epilepsy, and affliction from which he often suffers during sunny weather.
3. The pilgrims consider the possibility of suicide.

IX. Hopeful Refuses to Abandon All Hope

A. Christian desires to commit suicide.

B. Hopeful cautions Christian against suicide, for:
1. Their Lord has forbidden murder;
2. Suicide is murder;
3. All murderers will certainly go to Hell.

C. Hopeful further asserts that they may find a way of escape, for the Giant may:
1. Die,
2. Forget to lock them in,
3. Have another seizure in their presence.

D. The Giant returns and again angrily counsels suicide, and Christian wants to follow his advice; Hopeful encourages him to pay no heed to the giant, reminding Christian of:
1. The past trials over which Christian has already persevered;
2. The presence of Hopeful with him in his trials;
3. The shame that he will bring upon the name of "Christian" if he does commit suicide.

E. Saturday morning:
1. Again following Distrust's advice, Despair takes the pilgrims out of the dungeon and into his courtyard to show them the bones of all the pilgrims he has previously killed;
2. Despair tells the pilgrims that he will kill them before ten days have passed;
3. Despair kicks and beats the pilgrims all the way back down into their cell.

X. Remembering the Key of Promise

A. At midnight on Saturday, after the pilgrims pray, Christian chastises himself for being a fool, since he remembers that he has a key called Promise.

B. The pilgrims are sure that the key will open the lock, and they resolve to try it immediately.

XI. Escape from Doubting Castle

A. The key opens:
1. Their cell door,
2. The dungeon door,
3. The gate of the Castle.

B. The Giant attempts pursuit, but has a seizure, and so the pilgrims are able to return to the King's High-way, outside of Despair's jurisdiction.

C. The pilgrims build a monument at the place where they had crossed into By-path Meadow, to warn other travelers of Giant Despair.

Outline of "Pilgrim's Progress," Chapter 10

2012-01-09T14:54:00.001-05:00

This spring, the 5th and 6th grade boys Writing & Literature class I am tutoring will be reading John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. In preparation for this class, I am re-re-reading the book and constructing a detailed outline for each chapter as I read. The following outline is for Chapter 10 (in the 1991 Tyndale House Edition).

I. Hopeful Joins Christian

A. Hopeful was made hopeful by the testimonies of Christian and Faithful.

B. Hopeful says that soon many others from Vanity will be converted and follow them.

II. The Pilgrims Meet Mr. By-Ends

A. Mr. By-ends says he is from a town called Fair-speech.

B. Christian says that he has heard that Fair-speech is a wealthy town, which By-ends affirms.

C. By-ends says that he has many wealthy relatives in Fair-speech, these relatives have names like Mr. Facing-bothways, Rev. Two-tongues, etc.

D. By-ends says that he is married to Lady Feigning's daughter.

III. Mr. By-Ends's Religion

A. Mr. By-end describes his religion as:
1. Going with the flow,
2. More concerned with religion when it is refined and elegant.

B. Mr. By-ends says he was given "by-ends" as a cruel nickname simply because he adjusts his views to the present trends of the times.

C. Christian fears that By-ends's name may be more appropriate to him than he is willing to believe.

IV. They Must Part Company

A. Christian tells By-ends that if he wishes to travel with the pilgrims, he must:
1. Be willing to travel against wind and current,
2. Embrace the faith even when it is in rags.

B. By-ends protests that he should not be imposed upon to change his beliefs, and he resolves to walk alone until he can find others who will agree with him.

V. Mr. By-Ends's Three Friends

A. Mr. By-ends meets up with three former schoolmates, i.e., Mr. Hold-the-world, Mr. Money-love, and Mr. Save-all.

B. The friends had been taught by Mr. Grasp-man in the town of Love-gain, "a center of commercialism in the northern County of Coveting."

VI. They Evaluate Christian and Hopeful

A. By-ends says that the pilgrims are "very rigid and dogmatic" and that if a person does not agree with them "on every point" they cast that person out of their company.

B. Mr. Save-all says that he has read about such extreme legalists who judge and condemn everyone but themselves.

C. Through the use of various Scriptures, the friends condemn the pilgrims as reckless and foolish.

VII. A Question from Mr. By-Ends

A. Can a person be considered honest who seeks to attain the good things in this life through becoming zealous for religion?

B. Mr. Money-love's answer:
1. Such a man as described in the question is a man of integrity if he is a minister:
a) God Himself has given the opportunity for greater compensation;
b) The man will be improved through becoming zealous;
c) Accommodating himself to the needs of his people will demonstrate a self-denying spirit;
d) The man will become more diligent in his work.
2. Such a man as described in the question is a man of integrity if he is a businessman:
a) To become religious is commendable, regardless of motivation;
b) A man may get good things from good people by becoming good himself.

VIII. Christian Answers the Question

A. Biblical examples:
1. Hamor and Shechem, with their friends became circumcised in an attempt to secure Jacob's daughter and cattle;
2. The Pharisees made long, impressive prayers as a pretense, while cheating widows out of their houses;
3. Judas was religious so that he could carry the common purse, but he was cast off;
4. Simon the sorcerer desired to receive the Holy Spirit for money;
5. Again, Judas took up religion for gain only to sell his faith for gain.

B. Conclusion, taking up faith for worldly gain is:
1. Pagan,
2. Hypocritical,
3. Devilish.

C. Reactions
1. Hopeful was pleased with the soundness of Christian's reply;
2. Mr. By-ends and his friends shrank back.

Still time to resolve to read the Bible this year

2012-01-08T23:57:00.002-05:00

If you have never read through the Bible, if it has been a while since you have read it, or if you are re-reading any book this year, there is still time to resolve to read the best-selling book of all time-- the book that has so fundamentally shaped all English literature and Western thought in general-- this year. If you simply read 4 chapters a day (and a couple extra on the Lord's Day) for the next 3 weeks, then you will be on track to cut back to 3 chapters a day, and 5 on the Lord's Day, and complete the Bible in a year. (Most chapters in the Bible are shorter than typical chapters in modern books.)

I type this encouragement especially to those who may have thought about reading the Bible through this year, and either failed to begin or have fallen behind.

Books Bought Yesterday

2012-01-07T08:59:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I spent the last of a gift card, used some exchange credit from Christian Book Nook, and a coupon from LifeWay, and bought three new books:

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

God's Indwelling Presence by Jim Hamilton;

A History of the Work of Redemption by Jonathan Edwards. [Thanks to my friend Mitch Chase, who helped me find this book.]

These books, plus those I mentioned yesterday, equal six of the eleven books from my Christmas Wish List. This is significant because, unlike many of my friends at Southern Seminary, who are seeking to basically reproduce Dr. Mohler's library in their own homes, I have a fairly limited number of books that I want to keep in my house.

I also bought some books for the Kosmosdale Baptist Church library as well. I've been given/taken the responsibility for our church library, and so, as different members have donated their old books, I have added some of them to the library, and have taken others to the Christian Book Nook and sold them in order for store credit in order to fill out sections of the library in need of more material. Right now, I am trying to get more Puritan works (we have a shelf set aside for the Puritans, but currently only about half-a-dozen books on that shelf), so yesterday I bought:

A Sure Guide to Heaven by Joseph Alleine;

The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen.

[The teachings found in both of these works are, somewhat remarkably, uncontroversial in our congregation.]

Books Received from My Christmas Wish List

2012-01-06T09:37:00.000-05:00

I am genuinely grateful for every single gift I receivedthis Christmas. I was blessed with clothes, gift cards, candy, etc. But since I placed some books on a “Wish List” before Christmas, I wanted to place a poston this blog mentioning the books I received.

From my wonderful Mother-in-law I received G.K. Beale’s New Testament Biblical Theology and JamesWhite’s Forgotten Trinity.

From my beloved sister Allison I received Dan Phillips’ God’s Wisdom in Proverbs and Bruce Ware’s Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It was interesting to compare the two books on the Trinity:White’s work focuses on the basics of Trinitarian doctrine in distinction fromerrors such as the modern Arianism taught by the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Whitegives a great exposition, for example, of some passages in John); Ware’s workseems to have the complementarian/egalitarian debate in view, demonstratingthat there are eternal roles of authority and submission within the essentiallyco-equal Persons of the Trinity (Ware gives special attention to passages suchas 1 Cor 15:24-28 [interested readers may wish to check that passage; I do nothave the book in front of me as I type this]).

At present, I am particularly excited about Phillips' workon Proverbs because we at Kosmosdale Baptist Church have been studying throughProverbs as part of our Wednesday night prayer meeting.

Outline of "Pilgrim's Progress," Chapter 9

2012-01-05T10:16:00.003-05:00

This spring, the 5th and 6th grade boys Writing & Literature class I am tutoring will be reading John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. In preparation for this class, I am re-re-reading the book and constructing a detailed outline for each chapter as I read. The following outline is for Chapter 9 (in the 1991 Tyndale House Edition).

I. Evangelist Encourages the Pilgrims

A. Christian and Faithful encounter Evangelist in the Wilderness.

B. Christian and Faithful recount their journeys to Evangelist.

C. Evangelist is blessed in hearing of their perseverance.

D. Evangelist encourages the pilgrims.

E. Christian asks what dangers lie ahead and how they might best overcome them.

F. Evangelist tells the pilgirms that they are coming to a town full of enemies, and that they will have to resist temptation to the point of shedding their blood.

G. The one who dies a martyr, though facing an agonizing death, is happiest, because:
1. He reaches the Celestial City soonest;
2. He escapes the further persecutions of this world.

II. Vanity Fair

A. Vanity Fair is a perpetual fair in a town called vanity; the town and fair are marked by meaninglessness.

B. Vanity Fair was established by Beelzebub, Apollyon, and Legion for the purpose of distracting pilgrims on the way to the Celestial City.

C. The rows within Vanity Fair are named after the countries and kingdoms where the "desired merchandise" can be found, such as:
1. British Row,
2. French Row,
3. Italian Row,
4. Spanish Row,
5. German Row.

D. The Wares of Rome are greatly promoted at Vanity Fair.

E. The way to the Celestial City passes right through Vanity Fair, and to avoid Vanity Fair a pilgrim would have to leave the world altogether.

F. The Prince of Princes Himself passed through Vanity Fair on the way to the Celestial City:
1. Beelzebub sought to persuade the Prince to buy merchadise from the Fair.
2. Beelzebub promised that he would make the Prince lord of the Fair, if He would pay Beelzebub homage.
3. The Prince triumphed over Beelzebub's temptations.

G. The people of Vanity Fair marvelled at the pilgrims in contempt, because:
1. The pilgrims did not dress in clothing such as that sold at the Fair;
2. The pilgrims did not speak the same language as the people of Vanity;
3. The pilgrims were entirely disinterested in the merchandise of the Fair.

III. The Pilgrims Cause a Commotion

A. A merchant asks the pilgrims what they will buy; they respond, "We will buy the truth," upon which:
1. The crowd taunts them and calls on others to beat them;
2. The manager of the Fair has the pilgrims taken into custody.

B. The pilgrims are interrogated:
1. The pilgrims truthfully answer all questions put to them,
2. But those conducting the investigation disbelieve them, and so they:
a) beat the pilgrims,
b) smear them with dirt,
c) place them in a cage in the midst of the Fair.

C. In the midst of great, prolonged ridicule from all at the Fair, the pilgrims return kind words for insults.

IV. The Conflict of Opposing Sides

A. Some "more observant and less prejudiced" people at the Fair begin to "correct and confront the more depraved types for their continual abuse of the two men."

B. And so an "angry argument" breaks out among the people of the Fair:
1. During the argument, the pilgrims continue "to conduct themselves wisely;"
2. Finally, the argument comes to blows.

C. The pilgrims are dragged before their examiners once again:
1. The pilgrims are blamed for the ruckus;
2. The pilgrims are beaten and then paraded through the streets in chains as a warning to others:
a) Not to defend the pilgrims;
b) Not to follow the pilgrims.

D. The pilgrims respond to their abuse with "meekness and patience," and so some few are won to their side.

E. Enraged, the pilgrims' accusers decide to insist that they be given the death penalty.

V. Christian and Faithful Stand Trial

A. The pilgrims take comfort in the words they remember from Evangelist.

B. The pilgrims are charged before the judge, Lord Hate-good, with:
1. Disturbing trade,
2. Causing a commotion and divisions in the town,
3. Winning a group to their dangerous opinions against the lord of the town.

C. Faithful testifies that:
1. He is only against those things opposed by the King of kings,
2. He is a man of peace,
3. He defies Beelzebub.

VI. False Witnesses Give Testimony

A. Envy testifies against Faithful, that:
1. Faithful diregards the prince, people, laws, and customs of Vanity;
2. Faithful constantly seeks to influence people toward disloyal notions;
3. Faithful has said that the principals of Christianity and Vanity are diatmetrically opposed and irreconcilable.

B. Superstition testifies that Faithful teaches that the religion of Vanity is false.

C. Talebearer testifies that Faithful slanders Lord Beelzebub and the aristocracy of Vanity.

VII. The Judge's Counsel: Based on the laws of Vanity, Faithful deserves to die.

VIII. The Jury Returns a Verdict: The jury unanimously finds Faifhul guilty, and they recommend the death penalty.

IX. Faithful's Martyrdom and Departure

A. Faithful is tortured to death:
1. Whipped,
2. Beaten,
3. Cut with daggers and swords,
4. Stoned,
5. Burned to death.

B. Faithful is taken by chariot to the Celestial City.

C. Christian is taken back to prison for a time, but his Sovereign provides him a means of escape.

Reflection on "The Prodigal God" for Dorothy Sayers Classical School

2012-01-04T07:27:00.002-05:00

[This year, tutors at Dorothy Sayers Classical School in Louisville, KY were required to read The Prodigal God by Tim Keller. We were then required to write a 2-3 page reflection paper on how this book can impact our school and the teaching in our particular classrooms. Below is my reflection.]

The mostobvious way that The Prodigal God may beapplied at Dorothy Sayers Classical School is in terms of classroom managementand student discipline. When it comes to student behavior, it is easy fortutors and administrators to focus on outward conformity. But, as we arereminded from the example of the elder son in the parable of the Two Lost Sonsfrom Luke 15, students can live as the very picture of moral uprightness, andyet miss the whole point of the true Christian faith. In all of ourrule-giving– an activity that is absolutely necessary for a school to runaccording to proper order– we must stress that our following guidelines neitherconstitutes the basis upon which we are accepted by God nor the goal to whichwe are striving as a school. Rather, our focus is (as Keller explains) faith inJesus, resting in His work, and receiving a new identity and relationship withGod. A sensitive conscience, and (in the case of our students) a propersubmission to authority, is to be an outworking of our identity in Christ, aswe, in gratitude for what He has done, seek to love God with all our heart,soul, and mind (Matt 22:37).

Inmany ways, I have seen the principals mentioned in this book already put intopractice at DSCS. In our tutor meetings, the concept of dealing graciously withstudents is commonly mentioned. However, The Prodigal God is a good reminder. Furthermore, Keller’sexploration of the parable of the Two Lost Sons is beneficial in that itconcretizes “grace,” which can tend to be an amorphous concept in our thinking.We can clearly imagine two students: one who tends to act like the younger son,and one who tends to act like the older. Part of our responsibility at DSCS isto realize the need for grace in the life of the “older son” as well as theyounger.

Inmy classroom, as a tutor, I can apply the content of The Prodigal God first through direct instruction. One blessing ofteaching at DSCS is that the students are expected to memorize Scripture aspart of their education. This year, the students are memorizing Matthew 5,which is the first part of the Sermon on the Mount. In this chapter, Jesus isconstantly pointing to heart issues in a similar way as He does in the parableof the Two Lost Sons. Through leading my students in discussing theimplications of Jesus’ words such as, “unless your righteousness surpasses thatof the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law, you will certainly not enter thekingdom of heaven” (Matt 5:20), I can (with the help of the Holy Spirit) pointmy students to their need for grace.

Inaddition to direct instruction, I can apply the content of The Prodigal God in my classroom by means of example. As I begin eachclass in prayer, I can model prayers that not only ask God to meet our temporalneeds (though such requests are important and necessary), but that also praiseGod for who He is as a gracious Father who has secured redemption for Hispeople in Christ.

Finally(at least, “finally” in terms of this reflection), I can apply the content of TheProdigal God in my classroom by challengingmy students to analyze their literature in terms of biblical categories ofthought. Keller provides a wonderful model of how to do this in the seventh chapter,as he examines the storyline of Babette’s Feast, and then he demonstrates some unresolved tensionsin the book: tensions that can only be resolved through the work of God’s gracein Christ. Much of the great literature that we examine at DSCS– such as thetales of Shakespeare, which my students are currently reading– contain similarunresolved tensions, drawing (at least partially) upon biblical categories, andshowing some of the confusion of this fallen world, but not pointing readersdirectly to the work of Christ. One of my responsibilities in teaching readingcomprehension is to help students understand what the author is conveying, andthen to help students understand what the author may leave out: the grandresolution that comes in Christ Jesus.

Critique of Father Stephen's "The Slow Work of Grace"

2012-01-02T07:32:00.001-05:00

Recently, one of my friends applauded a blogpost titled, "The Slow Work of Grace" by "Father Stephen."

I would argue that Stephen's post is not commendable, however, for a number of reasons:

Though the main subject of Stephen's blogpost is a corrective understanding of "grace," within the post, Stephen never offers a definition of grace.
I would assert that the definition of grace against which Stephen argues-- a "legal concept," which is instantaneous-- is not a definition held by *any* published theologian, and I would challenge anyone agreeing with Stephen to produce a work wherein grace is defined according to these terms.
Furthermore, Stephen confuses the concepts of "grace" and "salvation."

Now the Protestant tradition, building on Augustine's understanding of Paul's doctrine of grace, has commonly defined grace as God's "unmerited favor" toward sinners. As David Powlison has pointed out, rather than "unmerited favor," grace is better understood as God's "contramerited favor," i.e., instead of simply denoting God's unearned lovingkindness, "grace" actually signifies God's lovingkindness toward those who have, through our sins, earned the exact opposite of His favorable disposition. However it is stated, this understanding of "grace" makes grace a disposition within God: as Martin Luther also explains, "grace actually denotes God's kindness or favor which He has toward us..."

"Grace" should not be confused with "salvation," for we are saved by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). God's contramerited favor is the basis upon which He saves us through the instrumentality of faith.

Grace, thus properly understood, is no more a "life-long process" (as Stephen seeks to argue) than it is 'instantaneous.' Both of these terms are utterly irrelevant when speaking of grace, for grace is a disposition within the eternal God.

Confusion about grace leads to a multitude of errors. As seen in Stephen's blogpost, such confusion tends to depersonalize grace. Instead of being about God, glorifying God's lovingkindness to undeserving us, grace becomes about something that happens to us. Then, taking verses like Philippians 2:12 and James 1:4 out of context (the verses cited by Stephen), grace starts to look like something that we do. And so, through confusion about how grace is to be defined, the emphasis of grace is taken off of God and put onto Man. Furthermore, once grace is depersonalized, it can become treated as an impersonal force. Unchallenged, this confusion can lead to a system where men-- dressed in ostentatious clothing never imagined by simple Galilean fishermen, and insisting on being called "Father" in direct contradiction of Jesus' teaching (Matt 23:9)-- claim the right to parcel out grace through religious rituals.

Grace, properly understood should focus us on God, and should specifically lead us to consider Jesus, who-- as the ultimate expression of God's contamerited favor-- died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Rom 4:25).

Sermon Notes from "Finding Joy in a Cursed World." Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick.

2012-01-01T20:22:00.000-05:00

[The following notes were taken during the 10:45AM service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church. The sermon should soon be available to hear on-line HERE.]

Psalm 90.

I. Introduction. The abundance of dystopian tales in popular stories reflect an important truth about the world.

II. God is eternal; we long for stability.

III. The aim of sin is to become like God; the result of sin is to become dust.

IV. Due to sin, people are naturally like:
A. One swept away in a flood,
B. A dream,
C. Grass.

V. God's Wrath Against Sinners

VI. What are we to do?
A. Recognize the brevity of life.
B. Look to God for mercy.
C. Seek your satisfaction in God.
D. Seek to have an impact on following generations for God.

Outline of "Pilgrim's Progress," Chapter 8

2011-12-30T23:27:00.000-05:00

Outline of "Pilgrim's Progress," Chapter 7

2011-12-28T00:06:00.005-05:00

This spring, the 5th and 6th grade boys Writing & Literature class I am tutoring will be reading John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. In preparation for this class, I am re-re-reading the book and constructing a detailed outline for each chapter as I read. The following outline is for Chapter 7 (in the 1991 Tyndale House Edition).

I. Christian and Faithful Meet in the Way

A. Christian ascends a little Hill, which has been placed on the Way for the purpose of allowing pilgrims to see the path before them, and, from the Hill, he sees Faithful journeying ahead of him.

B. Christian calls out to Faithful to wait for him, but Faithful replies that he is running for his life from one pursuing him, so Christian runs to catch up with Faithful, and he even passes by Faithful on the Way.

C. Once Christian passes by Faithful, he begins to gloat, but then he stumbles, and Faithful must help him up.

D. Christian and Faithful continue on the Way together in fellowship, talking about their pilgrimages.

II. News from Home

A. Faithful says he has desired Christian's company since he [Faithful] left the City of Destruction, but since Christian had left ahead of him, Faithful had to travel alone.

B. Faithful says that many people in the City of Destruction had been talking about its impending doom since Christian left, but no one seemed to truly believe that the City of Destruction would fall.

C. Faithful, however, had believed that the City was doomed, and so he made his escape.

D. Christian asks about Pliable; Faithful says that Pliable had returned to the City covered in mud from the Slough of Despond.

E. Though the townspeople had no intention of leaving the City, they mocked, persecuted, and refused to employ Pliable, despising him as a turncoat.

F. Christian and Faithful mourn the apparent self-destruction of Pliable.

III. Faithful's Confrontations with Temptation

A. Wanton

1. Faithful tells Christian that he had escaped the Slough reached the Gate "without much danger."

2. Wanton-- the woman who had "severely tested" Joseph-- attempted to seduce Faithful with "all kinds of pleasure and contentment" coming "from the gratification of carnal and fleshly desires."

3. Faithful closes his eyes to avoid temptation and walks by Wanton, who curses at him.

B. The Old Man

1. An Old Man at the foot of the Hill of Difficulty asks Faithful if he will work for him, offering him his entire inheritance as a reward.

2. The Old Man says that he has three daughters-- the Lust of the Flesh, the Lust of the Eyes, and the Pride of Life-- and that Faithful may marry them if he desires to do so.

3. Faithful sees a verse written on the forehead of the Old Man-- "put off, concerning your former conduct, the Old Man"-- and he rejects the Old Man's offer.

4. The Old Man curses Faithful and says he will send someone to cause him bitterness of soul on his journey.

5. The Old Man takes hold of Faithful's flesh and sharply pulls him backwards; Faithful cries out, "What a wretched man I am!" then he continues up the Hill.

C. Moses

1. Faithful meets Moses at the Arbor; Moses beats Faithful, repeatedly knocking him out cold.

2. Moses says he is beating Faithful because Faithful is secretly inclined toward serving the Old Man; Moses says that he knows no mercy.

3. One comes by and orders Moses to stop; Faithful sees wounds in the hands and sides of the One and realizes it is his lord.

4. Faithful says he had previously encountered Moses in the City of Destruction, and that Moses had threatened to burn down his house if he did not escape the City.

D. Discontent

1. Faithful tells how Discontent had met him in the Valley of Humility and had tried to persuade Faithful to go back with him.

2. Discontent had said that Faithful's friends-- Pride, Arrogance, Self-conceit, Worldly glory, and others-- would be ashamed of him for being so foolish as to wade through the Valley.

3. Faithful had told Discontent that his former friends and family had already disowned him, and that "humility comes before honor," and, "a haughty spirit before a fall."

E. Shame

1. Faithful tells how Shame had tried to make him ashamed to be a pilgrim, by calling pilgrims anti-intellectual and speaking of how pilgrims are usually poor and despised people.

2. Faithful had realized that Shame was speaking worldly, rather than godly, wisdom, and that those who make themselves fools for the Kingdom of Heaven are wisest.

3. Faithful and Christian rejoice and resolve to continue resisting Shame.

IV. Christian Recounts His Troubles

Outline of "Pilgrim's Progress," Chapter 6

2011-12-26T14:24:00.000-05:00

B. Description of Apollyon: scales like a fish, wings like a dragon, feet like a bear, fire and smoke belching up from within his belly, mouth like a lion.
C. Apollyon demands that Christian tell him where he is from and where he is going; Christian answers.
D. Apollyon says he is lord of the City of Destruction, and that Christian was his subject, which Christian admits; Apollyon says Christian is a traitor for leaving him, and invites Christian to return with him, using seemingly gracious words.
E. Christian answers that he loves his new lord and that his lord has the power to free him from all claims made by Apollyon.
F. Apollyon attempts to discourage Christian by recounting Christian's sins since beginning his journey; Christian pleads the mercy of his new lord, and he says that now he regrets his sins, whereas previously he was captive to them.

II. The Inevitable Conflict
A. Apollyon drops all pretense of civility, rails against Christian's new Prince, and fiercely attacks Christian.
B. Apollyon battles Christian for half a day, Christian blocks Apollyon's blows with his shield, but is severely wounded in the battle; Christian is beaten to the ground and drops his sword.
C. Christian recovers his sword and gives Apollyon a deadly thrust; Christian strikes him again, and Apollyon flees.
D. Christian praises God, and a hand gives Christian leaves from the Tree of Life [perhaps the hand belongs to the archangel Michael, who Christian had just mentioned in a hymn: the text is unclear], which heal all of Christian's wounds; Christian eats some bread and drinks from the bottle that he had previously received.

III. The Valley of the Shadow of Death
A. Description of the Valley of the Shadow of Death: located on the only way to the Celestial City, the Valley is a solitary wilderness made up of deserts, pits, and shadows.
B. Additional description of the Valley of the Shadow of Death from two unfaithful spies fleeing the Valley: the Valley is populated by hobgoblins, sartyrs, and dragons of the Pit, death hovers over the valley, and there is continual howling and screaming in the Valley.
C. The path through the Valley of the Shadow of Death: a narrow, dark path with a quagmire on one side and a deadly ditch on the other; halfway though the Valley, the mouth of Hell stood open beside the path, continually belching out fire and smoke.
D. As the fire and smoke did not heed Christian's sword, he put the sword away and used a weapon called "All-prayer."
E. A band of Fiends approached Christian and greatly frightened him, but he called out, "I will walk in the strength of the Lord God!" and they fell back.
F. Christian became so confused that he could not discern his own voice; a wicked creature came out from the mouth of Hell and began whispering blasphemies in his ear, and he was sorely vexed because he thought that the thoughts originated in his own mind.

IV. Christian Is Encouraged
A. Christian hears a voice call out, "Even though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me;" this encourages Christian for three reasons:
1. It lets Christian know that other faithful ones are enduring the same trial he is facing;
2. It reminds Christian that God is with him;
3. It gives Christian hope that he may meet up with the other traveler, so that they can keep each other company (as it turns out, Christian never sees the other traveler).
B. The sun rises:
1. Christian turns, and he clearly sees the dangers through which he has passed, giving praise to God for his deliverance;
2. Christian sees that the way ahead is even more dangerous than the first part of his journey-- with traps, holes, cliffs, etc.-- but he is able to navigate to the end of the Valley due to the gracious light.

V. Christian Passes the Place of Martyrs
A. Christian passes by a place of bodies, bones, and ashes: all of pilgrims who had previously traveled the path to the Celestial City.
B. The martyrs had been killed by two giants, Pope and Pagan, but Christian does not fear them, because:
1. Pagan had been slain long ago;
2. Pope had become too old and feeble to be a threat.
C. Christian sings a hymn to Jesus.

When Christmas falls on the first day, Lord's Day worship takes precedent.

2011-12-25T07:24:00.000-05:00

Every few years (depending, I think, on leap year) Christmas falls on the first day of the week. Recently, at least, many churches in America have chosen to cancel their Lord's Day worship services, or move them to a different day, in order that families may stay home and celebrate Christmas. This year it seems that fewer churches have taken this option than the last time Christmas fell on Sunday-- in 2005-- because of the outcry at that time. Still, as Keith Whitney reports, "as many as one in 10 churches by some estimates will be empty this Christmas."

The common critique aimed at churches closing for Christmas is that, for Christians at least, Christmas is supposed to be centered on the celebration of Christ's birth, so failing to meet together with the body of Christ (Col 1:24), is a direct capitulation of the interests of the Church to the interests of pragmatism and convenience. This critique is on point, but I think that Christians may overlook another facet regarding this issue: to wit, Lord's Day worship takes precedence over Christmas celebration.

As mentioned in yesterday's post, the birth of Jesus was not celebrated on a particular day by the earliest Church: when the Church did begin setting aside a day of the year to reflect on Jesus' birth, the date for Christmas celebration was originally January 6, and some communions still celebrate Christmas on January 6. Furthermore, virtually no New Testament scholar today believes that Jesus was actually born on December 25 (it is clear that December 25 was established as Christmas for other historical reasons). And so celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25 is fairly arbitrary.

On the other hand, the worship of the Church on the Lord's Day was established directly by Christ and His apostles. As the Baptist Faith & Message confesses:

The first day of the week is the Lord's Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should include exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private. Activities on the Lord's Day should be commensurate with the Christian's conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Exodus 20:8-11; Matthew 12:1-12; 28:1ff.; Mark 2:27-28; 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-3,33-36; John 4:21-24; 20:1,19-28; Acts 20:7; Romans 14:5-10; I Corinthians 16:1-2; Colossians 2:16; 3:16; Revelation 1:10.

And so, I would argue, it is entirely appropriate to set aside a day, or a season, to specially focus on the Incarnation and birth of Jesus. It is entirely appropriate to give gifts and enjoy time with family during this season. But it is idolatry if we set aside worship on the Lord's Day, instituted by the resurrection of Christ Himself, in order to honor the arbitrary traditions of men.

R.C. Sproul on the History of Christmas Celebration

2011-12-24T12:39:00.005-05:00

This past Thursday (on December 22) the Renewing Your Mind radio broadcast aired a presentation from R.C. Sproul on the history of Christmas. I found this presentation to be very informative.

A few notes from the presentation:

In the first few centuries A.D., the Church established the celebration of Christ's birth on January 6th, a date which is still honored as Christmas in some Eastern communions. January 6th was originally celebrated to commemorate the day of Jesus' baptism, but the Church began to honor His birth on this day as well, and over time the celebration of His birth took precedence.
December 25th was established as the day to celebrate Christmas by a decree of Emperor Constantine, and he set Christmas on this day for the specific purpose of replacing existing pagan celebrations on the same day.
Sproul seems to view Christmas celebration not as an example of syncretism (a blending of pagan and Christian practices), but as an appropriate repudiation of the original pagan celebrations, based on mythology, in favor of honoring Christ, based on the saving work of God in history.

The entire presentation may be heard HERE.

An Inadvertent Argument Against Infant "Baptism" from the Episcopal "Bishop" of Washington

2011-12-23T06:49:00.000-05:00

Day before yesterday (on December 21st) Diane Rehm interviewed the Right Reverend Doctor Mariann Edgar Budde on her program. During the course of the show, Rehm asked Budde to address an email in which a listener expressed concern over the Episcopal Church turning its back on "traditional values," as exemplified in the fact that the listener's former church had appointed a lesbian to the role of rector. Budde responded, in part:

If we're not going to welcome gays and lesbians, we have to stop baptizing them. Children who are born and raised in our church who discern their sexual orientation as gay or lesbian want to know if the church is for them.

Notice:

1. From the liberal perspective, "welcome" = 'appoint to positions of leadership.' But this is a false identification. No one who has thought through the issue is arguing that homosexuals should not be welcomed into our churches to hear the gospel and receive ministry. As we have all sinned and fall short of God's glory (Rom 3:23), we must be willing to welcome all manner of sinners. And certainly most churches can do better at expressing this truth. But just as we would not appoint an alcoholic or a wife-abuser to a position of leadership without first calling him to repentance, we also should not contradict Scripture by failing to call homosexuals to repentance before installing them in leadership.

2. Budde's statement demonstrates a difficulty inherent in the practice of infant baptism. Once a person has been accepted into church membership through infant baptism, there is inherently a presumption that the "baptized" person has a right relationship with God-- in place of the teaching that we are naturally dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1)-- and this presumption provides an easy path for allowing anti-Christian values to infiltrate and dominate the church.

Open Letter to Nathan White

2011-12-19T14:47:00.001-05:00

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 employee 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

2011-12-17T06:42:00.004-05:00

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.

Outline of "Pilgrim's Progress," Chapter 5

2011-12-16T07:39:00.002-05:00

This fall, the 5th and 6th grade boys Writing & Literature class I am tutoring will be reading John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. In preparation for this class, I am re-re-reading the book and constructing a detailed outline for each chapter as I read. The following outline is for Chapter 5 (in the 1991 Tyndale House Edition).

I. Received at the Palace Beautiful

A. Christian arrives at a gate and encounters Watchful; Christian asks Watchful:
1. "[W]hat is this place?"
2. "May I sleep here tonight?"

B. Watchful explains that the place was built by the Lord of the Hill for the relief and security of pilgrims.

C. Watchful asks Christian why he is arriving at so late an hour, and Christian recounts his tale; the reader learns:
1. Christian's original name was Graceless.
2. He is from the family of Japheth, "whom God will persuade to dwell in the tents of Shem."

D. Christian encounters Discretion, to whom Watchful says he must recount his tale; Christian speaks with Discretion and, upon her acceptance of his tale, she introduces him to her sisters-- Piety, Prudence, and Charity-- and they invite Christian to dine with their family.

II. Conversation with Piety (Christian recounts his tale in more detail than previously in this chapter.)

III. Conversation with Prudence (Prudence asks Christian a series of questions about his present experience.)

A. Q: Do you think about the country from which you came? A: Yes, but with "much shame and abhorrence;" "now I desire a better Country."

B. Q: Do you "still waver sometimes when you think of the things you were accustomed to? A: Carnal thoughts are still a struggle, but they provide grief.

C. Q: "Do you find that sometimes it seems as though [carnal thoughts] have been subdued, but that at other times they are your greatest entanglement?" A: "Yes, but the former is seldom the case. The hours when I feel free are like gold to me."

D. Q: "Can you remember how at times these agitating thoughts seem to be conquered? A: Yes:
1. Remembering the Cross;
2. Gazing at the Coat [symbolic of imputed righteousness];
3. Reading the Scroll;
4. Meditating about the Mt. Zion.

E. Q: "What makes you so eager to reach Mt. Zion?" A: Longing:
1. To "see the One who hung dead on the Cross alive again;"
2. To be free of sin;
3. To have fellowship with "wonderful companions."

IV. Conversation with Charity

A. Charity asks Christian a series of questions about his family.

B. The purpose of these questions is to determine whether Christian gave proper consideration to his family before leaving them behind.

C. On learning the details of Christian's family rejecting him simply on the basis of his faith, Charity declares that he is not responsible for their blood.

V. Conversation at Dinner

A. Over dinner, the chief subject for discussion is the Lord of the Hill.

B. The members of the household speak to Christian concerning the great love and sacrifice of the Lord of the Hill.

C. The members of the household speak to Christian concerning the humiliation and redeeming work of the Lord of the Hill.

VI. The Room Called Peace (Christian sleeps peacefully, and awakens singing about Jesus.)

VII. The Study and the Armory

A. The Study
1. The Genealogy of the Lord of the Hill
2. Mighty Deeds of the Lord's Servants
3. Invitation, etc.

B. The Armory
1. Armor to Equip Pilgrims
2. Armor Used in the Past by the Lord's Servants

VIII. A Look at the Delectable Mountains
A. Emmanuel's Land
B. To Be Shared by All Pilgrims
C. Offering a View of the Gate of the Celestial City

IX. Resuming the Journey in the Valley of Humiliation
A. Christian Receives Armor from the Armory
B. The Sisters Accompany Christian to the Foot of the Hill
C. The Sisters Review Their Conversation With Christian

Christmas Wish List

2011-12-09T23:04:00.005-05:00

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

2011-12-07T23:51:00.002-05:00

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

2011-12-06T21:19:00.003-05:00

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

2011-12-03T06:18:00.004-05:00

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

2011-12-02T22:58:00.003-05:00

[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!

2011-12-01T16:28:00.003-05:00

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.

Newt Gingrich: Why I'll not vote for him in the Republican Primary

2011-11-29T21:06:00.004-05:00

As I write this, it appears that Newt Gingrich [?!] is the non-Romney frontrunner in the GOP Primary. But I won't be voting for him either. Because usually I wouldn't quote Ann Coultier-- although if her political positions were put on a checklist, I might agree with a good number of them-- because she regularly presents her points of view in a rude, uncharitable, fear-mongering manner, but in the following quote re: Newt Gingrich (given via Dan Phillips), I have to admit that she sums up conservative objections to Gingrich nicely:

In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton's impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts -- one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized 'poverty pimps,' and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros' candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan's plan to save Social Security 'right-wing social engineering,' we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.

The "affair" mentioned above led to Gingrich divorcing his second wife and marrying the younger woman, just as he had divorced his first wife after having an affair with a younger woman. Gingrich's third wife convinced him to convert to Roman Catholicism (Newt had been a lifelong Southern Baptist). Gingrich's marital and religious infidelity-- his unfaithfulness to the most sacred of relationships-- seem to mark him out as a fundamentally untrustworthy individual.

"Cobb Neighbor" Promotes Mormonism

2011-11-25T08:01:00.003-05:00

A week ago yesterday, the Cobb Neighbor, a newspaper in the Atlanta-metropolitan area, ran a full-page story about the "I'm a Mormon" advertisements being utilized by the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (the main denomination of Mormonism).

The story, written by Marcus E. Howard, lacks any sense of journalistic integrity, for it makes passing mention of "some Christian leaders who have questioned [Mormon] religious practices," but, without exception, all quotes in the article are from Mormons, who argue that Mormons "are Christians:" the other side of the story is not represented at all.

Without comment or rejoinder, Bishop Robert Walton is quoted as saying:

[Mormons] are Christians and members of the church have a devout belief in the Bible; we follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ and we accept him as our personal savior and redeemer.

Any Christian who has studied this issue at all could have easily given Howard a response to Bishop Walton's claims, pointing out that Mormons have historically re-defined ALL of the theological terms-- crucial terms such as "Bible," "Gospel," and "Jesus Christ"-- in the quote above.

Thankfully the Cobb Neighbor-- a popular publication-- is also a free publication, so that non-Mormon readers do not have to feel that they have paid to promote Mormonism. However, I wonder if the advertisers who do pay for the production of this publication would be comfortable with the thought that they are paying for the promotion of Mormonism.

Sermon Notes from "Hello, Goodbye, and What's in the Middle." Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick.

2011-11-23T10:50:00.003-05:00

[The following notes were taken during the 10:45AM service this past Lord's Day at Kosmosdale Baptist Church. The sermon should soon be available to hear on-line HERE.]

1 Thessalonians 5:26-28.

I. Intro.We should be intentional in our interactions with others.

II. Greeting
A. Christians ought to be friendly. (Matt 5:43ff.)
B. There is a special love we must have for Christian brothers.
C. "Holy kiss."
1. Greet one another warmly in a way that is culturally appropriate.
2. Appropriate physical touch can be tremendously meaningful.

III. What's in the Middle
A. Legal language is used to charge the Thessalonians to have the letter read.
B. We must give heed to the public reading of the word.

IV. Goodbye
A. We must be intentional with our speech.
B. Little things, like saying, "Have a blessed day," instead of , "Bye," can make a big difference.

Martin Luther Biography, Part 13: The Diet of Worms

2011-11-18T06:33:00.007-05:00

[Continued from Part 12.]

In 1521, Martin Luther faced the trial that became known as the most significant public test of his faith. Luther was summoned to appear before the Diet of Worms over which Charles V, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, presided. The Diet of Worms was convened by Charles V for the purpose of consolidating his power against his enemies: the governments of France and the Ottoman Empire. Charles V viewed the controversy over Luther's teachings as a threat to the unity of the Holy Roman Empire, and he wished to determine whether any agreement could be found between the Lutherans and the Romanists. No agreement would be reached at the Diet, however, because from the Roman point of view Luther needed to recant his teachings, whereas from Luther's point of view the pope and his followers needed to repent of their teachings. For Charles V, the Diet of Worms was a move in a political game; from the point of view of Luther and his opponents, the Diet of Worms was a battlefield for spiritual warfare.

Luther was scheduled to appear at 4PM on April 17, 1521 before a committee of the Diet. The streets of Worms were choked with crowds of both Luther's supporters and his opponents, and so the soldiers escorting Luther had to bring him to the Diet through a rear entrance. Luther then had to wait in a vestibule for about two hours as the committee considered other business. Finally appearing before the committee, Luther was confronted by a table on which his books were piled. Johan Eck, an official representing the Archbishop of Trier (no relation to the Eck of the Leipzig Disputation), addressed Luther as follows:

Dr. Martin Luther, you have been called before His Imperial Majesty in regard to certain doctrines that you have seen fit to propound and scatter; doctrines that have been judged to be heresy by His Holiness, the pope, the Most Blessed Father, Leo the Tenth. You have been called here to state whether these books arranged on this table were written by you, and whether you are prepared to recant the heresy they contain. [Robinson, 60]

Luther was about to answer when his counsel spoke:

Would it please you to have the titles of the books read in order that Dr. Luther might know whether or not he is the author of each? [Ibid.]

Eck agreed. As he picked up each book and read its title, Luther acknowledged by a nod of his head that he was the author. When all were read, Eck turned again and addressed Luther:

Having acknowledged that you are the author of all these books, you are now asked to declare whether you are ready to recant the heretical doctrines that they contain. What do you say? [Ibid.]

Luther reflected aloud:

This touches God and his Word. This affects the salvation of souls. Of this Christ said, "he who denies me before men, him I will deny before my father." To say too little or too much would be dangerous. I beg you, give me time to think it over. [Bainton, 141]

Bainton notes:

The emperor and the diet deliberated. Eck brought the answer. He expressed amazement that a theological professor should not be ready at once to defend his position, particularly since he had come for that very purpose. He deserved no consideration. Nevertheless, the emperor in his clemency would grant him until the morrow. [Ibid.]

Luther's delay in answering whether he would recant had the effect of allowing him to appear before a plenary session of the Diet rather than before a committee. On April 18 Luther was once again scheduled to appear before before the Diet at 4PM, and once again business of the Diet delayed his appearance for about two hours.

Eck asked Luther if he was ready to recant.

Luther responded:

Most serene emperor, most illustrious princes, most clement lords, if I have not given some of you your proper titles I beg you to forgive me. I am not a courtier, but a monk. You asked me yesterday whether [these books were all mine and whether] I would repudiate them. They are all mine, but as for the second question, they are not all of one sort... Some deal with faith and life so simply and evangelically that my very enemies are compelled to regard them as worthy of Christian reading. Even the bull itself does not treat all my books as of one kind. If I should renounce these, I would be the only man on earth to damn the truth confessed alike by my friends and foes. A second class of my works inveighs against the desolation of the Christian world by the evil lives and teachings of the papists. Who can deny this when the universal complaints testify that by the laws of the popes the consciences of men are racked? [Ibid., 142-143]

"No!" broke in the emperor.

But Luther continued:

Should I recant at this point, I would open the door to more tyranny and impiety, and it will be all the worse should it appear that I had done so at the instance of the Holy Roman Empire...

A third class contains attacks on private individuals. I confess that I have been more caustic than comports with my profession, but I am being judged, not on my life, but for the teaching of Christ, and I cannot renounce these works either, without increasing tyranny and impiety. When Christ stood before Ananias, he said, 'Produce witnesses.' If our Lord, who could not err, made this demand, why may not a worm like me ask to be convicted of error from the prophets and the Gospels? If I am shown my error, I will be first to throw my books into the fire. I have been reminded of the dissensions which my teaching engenders. I can answer only in the words of the Lord, 'I came not to bring peace but a sword.' If our God is so severe, let us beware lest we release a deluge of wars, lest the reign of this noble youth, Charles, be inauspicious. Take warning from the examples of Pharaoh, the king of Babylon, and the kings of Israel. God it is who confounds the wise. I must walk in the fear of the Lord. I say this not to chide but because I cannot escape my duty to my Germans. I commend myself to Your Majesty. May you not suffer my adversaries to make you ill-disposed to me without cause. I have spoken. [Ibid., 143.]

Eck replied:

Martin, you have not sufficiently distinguished your works. The earlier were bad and the latter worse. Your plea to be heard from Scripture is the one always made by heretics. You do nothing but renew the errors of Wyclif and Hus. How will the Jews, how will the Turks, exult to hear Christians discussing whether they have been wrong all these years! Martin, how can you assume that you are the only one to understand the sense of Scripture? Would you put your judgment above that of so many famous men and claim that you know more than they all? You have no right to call into question the most holy and orthodox faith, instituted by Christ the perfect lawgiver, proclaimed through the world by the apostles, sealed by the red blood of the martyrs, confirmed by the sacred councils, defined by the Church in which all our fathers believed until death and gave to us as an inheritance, and which now we are forbidden by the pope and the emperor to discuss lest there be no end of debate. I ask you, Martin– answer candidly and without horns– do you or do you not repudiate your books and the errors which they contain? [Ibid., 143-144]

Luther replied:

Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and by 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 will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe... Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise... God help me, Amen. [Ibid., 144]

Luther, who had been speaking in German, was asked to repeat what he had said in Latin, which he did, then he raised his arms victoriously and departed for his hotel.

Charles V was eager to be known as a just ruler, and so he honored his promise of Luther's safe passage and allowed him to depart for Wittenberg. But Charles V was also eager to be known as a faithful Roman Catholic, and he was greatly concerned that Luther's challenge of religious authority would result in a challenge to political authority as well, thus undermining his own rule. Therefore, Emperor Charles V issued the Edict of Worms, declaring Luther a "notorious heretic." The Edict of Worms called on the citizens of the Holy Roman Empire to both destroy all of Luther's works and to capture Luther himself so that he may be punished as a heretic (i.e., he was to be burned at the stake).

Now Luther had been declared a heretic by both the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

Help Mark Lamprecht Win a $10,000 Scholarship to Seminary!

2011-11-17T22:04:00.004-05:00

I don't know Mark Lamprecht as well as I'd like (maybe if I move back to GA we'll get to hang out), but I have interacted with him some over the Internet and we got to spend some time together at the John 3:16 Conference.

Anyway, from everything I know Mark is a strongly committed Christian, and he is currently attending seminary in preparation for vocational ministry.

Now Mark has an opportunity to win a $10,000 scholarship, but he needs your help. Anyone reading this should vote for Mark HERE and tell your friends to do the same. Voting ends November 30; you are allowed to vote once a day.

An Additional Critique of Jim Wallis

2011-11-15T21:09:00.006-05:00

In his recent debate with Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jim Wallis consistently compared his concern for the poor with the Abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights movement in previous generations; Wallis said that Christian leaders who worked for Abolition or Civil Rights were on the side of justice.

I wonder: what if a Christian leader during the Civil Rights era spent a great deal of time helping the poor in general, but refused to take a firm stand against racism? Would Jim Wallis say that Christian leader was on the side of justice? What if a Christian leader influenced other Christians to join the Democratic Party in the South during the era when the state Democratic Parties were institutionally racist due to the White Primary? Would that Christian leader be on the side of justice?

But now Wallis has influenced many Christians to vote Democrat because supposedly the Democrats care more about the poor. The main problem with voting for the Democratic Party in general is that their official party platform calls abortion a "right" and declares, "we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Certainly there are still some "blue dog" Democrats (especially in the South) and voting for such Democrats may, at times, be appropriate. But unless a Democratic candidate specifically repudiates the pro-abortion plank in his or her Party's platform, that candidate should be viewed in the same way that we would view a Dixiecrat. No matter how many other good programs a Democratic candidate may support, unless he or she both repudiates the pro-abortion plank in his or her Party's platform, and explicitly declares an intention to change that plank of the platform, that candidate is aligned with an ideology that runs contrary to the right to life for the unborn, which is the crucial social justice issue in America today.

If a person cared for the poor in the antebellum South, but did nothing to end slavery, then that person would not be considered 'on the side of social justice.' If that person claimed that, instead of focusing on the rights of African-Americans, he would focus on improving the economic system in the South so that slavery would be less necessary, then that person would not be considered 'on the side of social justice.' If that person helped pro-slavery candidates get elected for the end of accomplishing other (perhaps noble) political goals, then that person would not be considered 'on the side of social justice.'

Wallis wants to care for the poor, but has called the abortion debate "stale." Wallis wants to call Christians to care for those who are metaphorically without a voice and who are powerless, but his agenda would distract Christians from caring for those who are literally without a voice and powerless. Wallis, and those following his line of thinking, claim that by improving economic conditions of the poor (a goal that, they claim, will be accomplished by liberal economic policies), they will make abortion "less necessary," as if it is sufficient to make murder "less necessary" rather than illegal.

Though painful for the South, it was right for the United States to make chattel slavery illegal first-- recognizing the rights of African-Americans-- and then to work for an economic reconstruction of the South so that (as it was hoped) industry would come to the South, making slavery unnecessary. Though painful for the poor, it would be right for the United States to make abortion illegal first-- recognizing the right to life for the unborn-- and then to work to end any institutionalized injustice that may make the poor think that killing their unborn is the correct option.

Why Dr. Mohler won the recent debate (without Jim Wallis noticing).

2011-11-14T15:34:00.005-05:00

Recently, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary debated Jim Wallis, President of Sojourners. The topic for the debate, which can be heard on-line HERE, was, "Is Social Justice an Essential Part of the Mission of the Church?" Wallis answered "yes," and Dr. Mohler (somewhat reluctantly, due to the way the question was framed) answered "no." Wallis stated that care for the poor is "integral" to the gospel: basically, he wanted to argue that care for the poor is an essential part of the gospel message itself. Dr. Mohler stated that care for the poor is a necessary consequence of gospel work in someone's life, but the gospel message is distinct from a message about caring for the poor.

Dr. Mohler said that he was concerned that the way Wallis framed the issue would lead to a loss of the gospel message. Wallis conceded that this was a valid concern, but that he worked to make sure that personal salvation is central to the gospel proclamation at Sojourners.

When Wallis conceded that the possibility of losing the gospel was a valid concern, after having earlier stated that doctrines such as substitutionary atonement and the bodily resurrection were also essential to the gospel, he automatically lost the debate without knowing it. Because earlier in the debate, when listing his heroes (in terms of those whom he felt got it right in terms of preaching that social justice is integral to the gospel) he kept mentioning people like Charles Finney and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The reason that the mention of these men is such a problem is that Finney was a hyper-Pelagian arch-heretic and Dr. King, for all his admirable qualities, denied the resurrection. If Wallis, who attended Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and should know better, is so enamored with "social justice" that he cannot discern when his heroes are those who abandoned the biblical gospel, then there is something drastically wrong with the way he wishes to frame the argument.

Sermon Notes from "The Doctrine of Salvation: Limited Atonement, Part 1." Sermon by Dave Stephenson.

2011-11-13T15:52:00.004-05:00

[This morning, I had to miss worshiping with Kosmosdale Baptist Church because I was staying home with Christian, who has been sick. I decided to listen to the sermon mentioned in the title of this post. This sermon is from a pastor who has been greatly influential in my life, and is on a subject that I have studied in great detail. The sermon can be heard HERE.]

I. Defining the Controversy

A. The work of Jesus Christ on the Cross did not save every human being who ever lived, but salvation is limited to those who believe. The controversy is concerning the way in which the atonement is limited.

B. Did Jesus die to make salvation possible for every person without distinction? Or, did Jesus die to secure salvation for a particular people?

II. The Reformed Belief Concerning the Limit of the Atonement

A. We believe that the death of Jesus was sufficient for all, but effective only for the elect.

B. We believe that Jesus' death paid for all the sins of the elect, and none of the sins of the non-elect.

III. Passages Cited as Objections to Limited Atonement

A. "World" Passages (John 1:9, 29; 3:16-17; 4:42; 2 Cor 5:19; 1 John 2:2, 4:14)

1. None of these make the point that the Arminians want to make; none of them speak of human choice.

2. "Propitiation" = "appeasing sacrifice" or "satisfying payment;" this word carries no sense of potential or partial satisfaction. If 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation for every individual has ever lived, then the verse does not teach Arminianism, but Universalism.

B. "All" Passages (2 Cor 5:15; 1 Tim 2:6; Heb 2:9)

IV. Passages Concerning the Limit of the Atonement

A. Passages: (Matt 1:21; 20:28; John 10:11; Acts 20:28; Eph 5:25; Heb 9:15; Rev 5:9)

B. Terms: "His people," "the many," "His sheep," "the Church"

V. The Harmony of these Passages

A. The natural use of inclusive language:

1. The normal use of "all" does not indicate "each and every human being who ever lived."

2. The biblical use of the word "all" means "all kinds" as seen, for example, in Rev 5:9.

3. In normal use, when "all" means "all without qualification," more words are added to "all."

4. In the Bible, when "all" means "all without exception" [with the lone exception of Christ], more words are joined to all, as seen in the verses leading up to the statement that "all have sinned" in Romans 3.

B. The use of world in the New Testament context:

1. In the Church, when we say "the world," we often think, "the world as distinct from the Church;" in [New Testament-era] Jewish culture "the world" would have been understood as 'the world as distinct from the Jews.'

2. Acts 11:17-18, the Church seems shocked that the world outside Judaism would be saved.

A Prophecy of Jesus' Coming: Revelation 1:7-8

2011-11-11T23:42:00.002-05:00

Translation of Revelation 1:7-8

7 Look! He is coming with the clouds,

and every eye will see him,

and whoever pierced him,

and all the tribes of the earth

will anguish[1] over him.

–It is certain.[2]

8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,”[3] says the Lord God, “He who is and was and is coming, the Almighty.”

[1]kovyontai has been traditionally rendered “mourn;” after much prayer, study, and consideration, I have opted to translate this term as “anguish,” as the ‘mourning’ here does not seem to refer to the grief over losing a loved one, but rather it refers to a deeply painful sorrow over personal guilt.

[2]naiv, ajmhvn is a synonymia, “whose function is to strengthen the certainty of what has just been prophesied.” Thomas, Revelation 1-7, 79.

[3]There is no theological significance to the fact that the word for “Alpha” is spelled out in the Greek text, while “Omega” is given as a single letter; that is, the phrase to; “Alfa kaiv to;; W (to Alpha kai to O) appears uneven in the Greek text, but this is simply because Greek grammarians did not coin the word #Wmega until the 7^th century A.D. (Aune, Revelation 1-5, 57)

“The Alpha and the Omega” could reasonably be translated as “the A and the Z” so that the one reading in English could immediately see that the Lord God is using the first and last letter of the alphabet. The traditional anglicized forms of the Greek letter names– “Alpha and Omega”– is retained because the phrase “the A and the Z” is not commonly used in English and rendering reading “the A and the Z” may have an unintended comic effect.

Commentary on Revelation 1:7-8

Having referred to his writing as “the words of prophecy” in verse 3, John now prophesies to his readers.

The prophecy. =Idou; (idou), translated, “Look!” is characteristic in the book of Revelation as indicative of special divine intervention and should be understood in this case as introducing an oracle or prophecy. =Idou; has two related meanings: (1) “It functions as a marker of strong emphasis indicating the validation of the statement it introduces;” (2) “It functions as a marker to draw attention to that which it introduces.”[1]

The prophecy in Revelation 1:7 draws upon Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10: texts Jesus used to prophesy of His second coming, as recorded in Matthew 24:30. Whereas Zechariah 12 seems to be firmly centered upon Jerusalem, Revelation 1:7 speaks of “all the tribes of the earth.” Viewed through faith in Christ, texts with specific revelation to the Old Testament nation of Israel are now seen as universal.

Assurance the message will come to pass. The One from whom John had received the prophecy recorded in verse 7 announces Himself in verse 8. This declaration from the Lord God highlights His sovereignty over the course of history and thus serves as an assurance that the prophecy will come to pass.

In Revelation 1:8, the Lord God first refers to Himself as to; “Alfa kaiv to;; W (to Alpha kai to O) “the Alpha and the Omega.” This divine title emphasizes the sovereignty of God in a way similar to the titles “the beginning and the end” (Rev 21:6; 22:13) and “the first and the last” (Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:13).[2]

The Lord God next refers to Himself as oJ w[n kai; +o #hn kai; +o ejrcovmenoV (ho on kai ho en kai ho erchomenos) “He who is and was and is coming.” This phrase is repeated from verse 4. In the former verse, this phrase clearly referred to God the Father as the phrase occurred in the first section of a Trinitarian formula. In this verse, the reader may ask if the phrase is once again in reference to the Father, or if it is now specifically applied to the Son. But the Trinitarian distinction made a few verses earlier does not seem to be in view with this verse; rather, God in the fullness of His divine essence is being magnified. That this verse takes in a reference to the Son in His deity along with the Father is seen in that: (1) “He who… is coming” in this context most naturally includes the idea of the One who is said to be “coming” in the previous verse– that is, the One who was also said to be “pierced”– namely, Jesus; (2) oJ w[n (ho on) “He who is” is basically the third person form of =Egwv =ei;mi (Ego eimi) “I am,” and John consistently records Jesus referring to Himself as “I am;” (3) In Revelation 22:13, Jesus is clearly the speaker, and He refers to Himself using a title for the Lord God also found in this verse: to; “Alfa kaiv to;; W (to Alpha kai to O) “the Alpha and the Omega.”

The final title by which the Lord God refers to Himself in this verse is +o pantokravtwr (ho pantokrator) “the Almighty.” This divine title occurs eight other times in the book of Revelation (4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22).[3] In Revelation 1:8, “the Almighty” summarizes the two previous phrases by which the Lord God identifies Himself– phrases that were rather poetic– into a single term. The Lord God can and will bring His prophecy to pass because He is “the Almighty.”

[1]Aune, Revelation 1-5, 53.

[2]Ibid., 57.

[3]There is only one other verse in the New Testament in which the term “the Almighty” is used– 2 Corinthians 6:18– and this is an Old Testament quotation. (Thomas, Revelation 1-7, 81)

A New Book to Honor Tom Nettles

2011-11-10T21:09:00.006-05:00

Today during the chapel service at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS), the highly influential Baptist historian and theologian, Dr. Thomas J. Nettles was honored by being presented with a festschrift. I was not able to be present at the chapel service this morning due to work, but apparently Tom Ascol, Director of Founders Ministries, presented the work to Dr. Nettles.

I first learned of this book about a year ago when I had the privilege of chatting with Dr. Michael A.G. Haykin while I was doing some research at the SBTS library. I asked Dr. Haykin about the research he was doing, and he told me that he was preparing to write a chapter on John Gill for an upcoming festschrift for Dr. Nettles. (At that time, Dr. Haykin told me not to mention this to Dr. Nettles, as the festschrift was meant to be a surprise: I wonder if this work remained a surprise to Dr. Nettles until yesterday?) It was highly interesting that Dr. Haykin would write the chapter on Gill, since (unless their positions have changed) Dr. Nettles does not believe that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, while Dr. Haykin is convinced that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist. I am extremely interested to see how Dr. Haykin's chapter turned out.

The rest of the book-- with contributors such as Dr. Greg Wills, Dr. Russell Moore, Dr. Sam Waldron, and Dr. Fred Malone-- looks highly interesting as well, and I look forward to reading it. For those interested, information about the book and how to order it can be found HERE.

Herman Cain: Why I'll not vote for him in the Republican Primary

2011-11-09T21:05:00.003-05:00

Recently, Herman Cain's bid for the Republican nomination for President has come under fire due to allegations of sexual harassment. Four different women have made accusations against Cain, and the National Restaurant Association paid two of the women an out-of-court settlement. While Cain certainly has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty, conservatives should resist the temptation to completely turn a blind eye to these allegations. We should beware of showing favoritism or having a double standard; if liberals were wrong to downplay Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct, then, if it turns out that these allegations have against Cain have merit, we must consider that this moral failure indicates a lack of character, which would disqualify Cain from office.

But regardless of the truth or error concerning these allegations, I had already decided not to vote for Cain for two reasons: 1) the 9% federal income tax he has proposed; 2) his fuzzy statements regarding the right to life for the unborn [the second reason being much more important than the first].

1. 9% Federal Income Tax

Proposed as part of the 9-9-9 plan, the 9% federal sales tax would place an excessive burden on consumers. Also, I agree with the conservative opposition to granting the federal government another source of revenue, which would inevitably by expanded (a 9% federal sales tax today could be a 15% federal sales tax tomorrow).

2. Fuzzy Statements Regarding the Right to Life

Note the boldface statements HERE and Cain's answer under #3 HERE. Now, in other cases, Cain has given unequivocally pro-life answers, so I am not saying that Cain is pro-abortion. What I AM saying is [to borrow a quote from yesterday's blogpost by Dan Phillips] "he doesn't seem to have thought through even how to enunciate core principles." And this is especially troubling when it comes to a failure to enunciate a clear stand in regards to the chief issue of social justice in America today: the right to life for babies in the womb.

God's Love for the Non-Elect

2011-11-08T21:26:00.005-05:00

Previously on this blog, I have written about God's love for His enemies. Recently, there has been some conversation about God's love for the non-elect on the Reformed Baptist Discussion List. One of the contributors to that List, David Ponter, recently wrote the following re: God's love for the non-elect, and I commend it to anyone reading this blog:

Does Scripture speak of God having any volitional or emotional disposition of favor to any who we can identify as non-elect, or whom it is clear God has identified as sinners who shall never be saved? Yes: Rom 2:4-5, John 3:16 with John 12:47-47. Clearly in Romans 2:5 the subjects of the long-suffering, given to direct them to repentance, are the vessels of wrath, who have stored up wrath for themselves for the day of wrath. And John 3:16 (with John 12:47-47) by obvious implication, the world of apostate humanity is loved, including even ultimate 'rejectors.' This world is subject of Christ's redemptive activities. And we have the passages where God-incarnate speaks to sinners as desiring and seeking their salvation, sinners who finally reject Christ and were not saved (Matt 23:37 and Jn 5:34).

In reading the statement above, I was especially struck by the use of Romans 2:4-5. Those addressed in these verses are hypocrites who will NOT escape the judgment of God (verse 3); they will face God's wrath on the day of judgment (verse 5b). AND YET verse 4 speaks of God's kindness, forbearance, and patience toward these individuals, and these aspects of God's disposition toward those destined for wrath are intended (in some sense) to lead these people to repentance.

Kentucky Residents: Remember to Vote Williams for Governor Tomorrow

2011-11-07T23:52:00.002-05:00

Sermon Notes from "The Preservation of the Saints." Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick.

2011-11-06T16:14:00.002-05:00

[The following notes were taken during the 10:45AM service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church. The sermon should soon be available to hear on-line HERE.]

1 Thessalonians 5:23-24.

I. God
A. The God of Peace
1. There is only one God.
2. No other religion teaches about a god who has so humbled himself in the interest of peace.
B. Himself
1. The wonder of what God does
2. The effectiveness of what God does

II. What God is Doing and Will Continue to Do
A. Sanctification is being set apart for the pleasure of God
B. Sanctification will be complete at the return of the Lord

III. Our Confidence is in God's Faithfulness

Martin Luther Biography, Part 12: The Papal Bull

2011-11-04T15:36:00.002-04:00

[Continued from Part 11.]

In 1520, Martin Luther published five of his primary works: The Sermon on Good Works in May, The Papacy at Rome in June, The Address to the German Nobility in August, The Babylonian Captivity in September, and The Freedom of the Christian Man in November (Bainton, 105).

Pope Leo X, meanwhile, despairing of conciliation with Luther based on the account of the Leipzig Disputation, and emboldened by Luther's affirmation of Hus (whom the pope considered a heretic), issued a papal bull titled Exsurge Domine, saying that if Luther did not recant, he would be excommunicated. Whenever a copy of the papal bull reached a new town, those in the town who were faithful to the pope would hurl all of Luther's publications they could find into a bonfire.

Receiving reports concerning the contents of the bull, Luther eventually published two tracts in response: Against the Execrable Bull of the Antichrist and Assertion of all the Articles Wrongly Condemned in the Roman Bull.

At 10 A.M. on December 10, 1520, the faculty and students of the University of Wittenberg-- joined by many citizens from the town-- committed volumes of papal constitutions, canon law, and works of scholastic theology to a large bonfire. Luther himself flung a copy of the papal bull into the flames.

Martin Luther Biography, Part 11: The Leigzig Disputation

2011-11-03T22:25:00.003-04:00

For various political reasons, after Martin Luther's interview with Cardinal Cajetan, Pope Leo X sought a more conciliatory relationship with Luther. Leo X sent an emissary, Carl von Miltitz, to Frederick the Wise. Von Miltitz was a cousin of Frederick. Miltitz spoke with Luther, and secured Luther's promise that he would no longer engage in debate and publication regarding indulgences, if those within the Catholic church who had been opposing Luther would likewise refrain from attacking his position.

This "truce" was short-lived, however, due to the actions of John Eck. Eck, a professor at the University of Ingolstadt, had already engaged in public debate with Luther through a publication titled Obelisks, which was intended to refute the 95 Theses, and he persuaded Duke George the Bearded of Saxony to sponsor a debate between himself and Andreas Carlstadt-- a Wittenberg professor who had become convinced of Luther's teachings-- at the University of Leipzig. Luther desired to defend his own teachings, and so he arranged to debate Eck at Leipzig as well.

In July 1519, after Eck and Carlstadt debated for a week concerning the depravity of man [showing, incidentally, the centrality of this doctrine to Protestant Reformational teaching], Luther debated Eck on the question of whether the papacy was of divine or human institution. According to the terms of the debate, neither Luther nor Eck could bring books to the table, but they were dependent upon what they had memorized. The proof quoted by Eck consisted of canon law and selections from church history. Though Luther had studied vigorously for the debate, he was no match for Eck in regards to these types of documents. Luther instinctively turned to the writings that he had memorized for years as a monk and as a professor of theology; in response to Eck, Luther quoted the Bible.

Luther's quoting the Bible against canon law brought the charge from Eck that Luther was a Hussite, since Jan Hus, who had been burned as a heretic a century before, had similarly argued against the papacy on the basis of Scripture. Luther objected to the charge, saying that Huss should have kept to the unity of the Church, but it became apparent that he had only a vague knowledge concerning what Hus had actually taught. At the lunch break, Luther retreated to the library to study documents from the Council of Constance: the assembly at which Huss had been condemned. As Luther studied Hus's words from the Council of Constance, he was surprised at what he found. Luther was especially surprised to find that Hus, even in taking actions that seemed to (further) fragment the institutional Catholic Church, actually quoted Augustine in affirming that there is only one Church, spiritually speaking, i.e., "the company of the predestined." When the debate continued, Luther affirmed, "Among the articles of John Hus, I find many which are plainly Christian and evangelical, which the universal Church cannot condemn." This statement greatly troubled Duke George, who viewed the Hussites as political enemies of the Saxons.

The Leipzig Disputation helped Luther to refine his doctrine of sola Scriptura: the understanding of Scripture alone as the final and sufficient authority concerning matters of life and godliness for the individual believer and the church as a whole. During the debate, Luther asserted:

[A] council has sometimes erred and may sometimes err. Nor has a council authority to establish new articles of faith. A council cannot make divine right out of that which by nature is not divine right. Councils have contradicted each other, for the recent Lateran Council has reversed the claim of the councils of Constance and Basel that a council is above a pope. A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it. As for the pope's decretal on indulgences, I say that neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils. (Bainton, 90).

Martin Luther Biography, Part 10: Interview with Cardinal Cajetan

2011-11-02T23:23:00.002-04:00

As Luther's 95 Theses gained increasing popularity, the pope felt he must respond. His first response was to instruct the Augustinian order to deal with the matter, for Luther was one of its members. Gonzales recounts:

The Reformer was called to the next chapter meeting of the order, in Heidelberg. He went in fear for his life, for he expected to be condemned and burned as a heretic. But he was surprised to find that many of his fellow friars favored his teaching, and that some of the younger ones were even enthusiastic about it. Others saw the dispute between Luther and Tetzel as one more instance of the ancient rivalry between the Dominicans and Augustinians, and therefore refused to abandon their champion. Eventually, Luther was able to return to Wittenberg, strengthened by the support of his order, and encouraged by those whom he had won for his cause. (23)

The pope then attempted to summon Luther to Rome, but Frederick the Wise "wrote a calming letter to the pope, pointing out that it was right for German citizens to be tried in their own country" (Robinson, 43).

Gonzales continues:

The pope then took a different route. The Diet of the Empire-- the assembly of princes and nobles-- was scheduled to meet in Augsburg, under the presidence of Emperor Maximilian. As his legate to that gathering, Leo [X] sent Cardinal Cajetan, a man of vast erudition... (23-24)

The pope then sent a letter of safe passage for Luther, summoning for Luther to appear before Cardinal Cajetan at the Diet of Augsburg. Cardinal Cajetan was tasked with getting Luther to recant; if he would not recant, Cajetan was to have Luther bound and sent to Rome (since the days of Jan Hus, it had been understood that letters of safe passage were not valid in the case of notorious heretics).

When Luther came before Cardinal Cajetan, he followed the protocol of prostrating himself before the Cardinal. Cajetan then warmly bade Luther to rise; it seems that the Cardinal fully expected to hear Luther utter a single word, "Recanto," meaning, "I recant," after which Cajetan could offer Luther forgiveness. Instead, Luther asked to be instructed concerning his errors.

Bainton reports:

The cardinal replied that the chief [error] was the denial of the Church's treasury of merit clearly enunciated in the bull Unigenitus of Pope Clement VI in the year 1343, "Here," said Cajetan, "you have a statement by the pope that the merits of Christ are a treasure of indulgences." Luther, who knew the text well, answered that he would recant if it said so. Cajetan chuckled, leafed through the page to the spot where it said Christ by his sacrifice acquired a treasure. "Oh, yes," said Luther, "but you said that the merits of Christ are a treasure. This says he acquired a treasure. To be and to acquire do not mean the same thing. You need not think we Germans are ignorant of grammar." (72)

..."My son," [Cajetan] snapped, "I did not come to wrangle with you. I am ready to reconcile you with the Roman Church." But since reconciliation was possible only through recantation, Luther protested that he ought not be condemned unheard and unrefuted. "I am not conscious," said he, "of going against Scripture, the fathers, the decretals, or right reason." (73)

Luther asked for a council to be convened in order to determine whether his teaching was in line with Scripture.

Cardinal Cajetan replied, "The pope is above a council, above everything in the Church" (Bainton, 73).

"His Holiness abuses Scripture," retorted Luther, "I deny that he is above Scripture" (Bainton, 73)

Cajetan then angrily had Luther thrown out of his meeting-place, warning Luther not to come back until he was ready to recant.

That night, Luther's mentor-- Staupitz-- released Luther from his Augustinian vows. Staupitz apparently took this action both to protect the Augustinians from any reprisals by Rome and to guard Luther's conscience from the guilt of vow-breaking. Fearing that he would be bound and sent to Rome in order to be burned as a heretic (as he certainly would have been), Luther escaped from Augsburg in the middle of the night.

Martin Luther Biography, Part 9: The 95 Theses

2011-11-01T10:12:00.008-04:00

[Yesterday was "Reformation Day:" the annual remembrance of when Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. The following is an examination of the circumstances leading up to Luther's writing and posting the Theses, a short summary of the Theses, an analysis of the Theses in light of Roman doctrine, and a brief word concerning the consequences of Luther posting the 95 Theses.]

Precipitating Circumstances

When Luther began teaching against indulgences, many people who considered themselves faithful Catholics began listening to him. One reason that people thought that they could agree with Luther against the practices of the Catholic Church was that the doctrine taught by the Catholic Church concerning indulgences was extremely vague.

In 1423 Pope Clement VI had issued a papal bull that gave official teaching concerning the "treasury of merits." (The idea of this "treasury" is foundational to the development of the idea of indulgences.) Clement VI taught that Christ’s life and the lives of saints provided an “overflow of merits.” These merits by the saints that go beyond their own need are known as supererogation.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says concerning “Supererogation:”

The sum total of the merits of Christ was greater than was required for the salvation of man, and that the saints also had done more and suffered more than was absolutely required to insure their own salvation, that these superabundant merits were placed in the “spiritual treasury” of the Church, at the disposal of its visible head; that as the Church is one, in this world and the next, they may be applied to such of its members as are still lacking in the required amount of works necessary to satisfy the divine demands.

One way to access the "treasury of merits," according to the Catholic Church of Luther's day, was through indulgences granted in connection with gazing upon the relics of the saints. Luther's benefactor, Frederick the Wise, had amassed a huge collection of relics, and this collection was opened to the public on “the day of All Saints, whose merits provided the ground of the indulgences whose relics were then on display” (Bainton, 53). By paying a fee and seeing the relics, people were thought to be able to reduce their time in purgatory by thousands of years.

Another way to access the "treasury of merits" was through other indulgences, which were issued in order to help people meet the requirements of satisfaction when normal means could not be used. “An indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Indulgences”)

“At first indulgences were conferred on those who sacrificed or risked their lives in fighting against the infidel [that is, the Muslim people], and then were extended to those who, unable to go to the Holy Land [as Crusaders], made contributions to the enterprise. The device proved so lucrative that it was speedily extended to cover the construction of churches, monasteries, and hospitals.” (Bainton, 54)

Eventually, “The popes delegated to many churches in Christendom the privilege of dispensing indulgences, and the Castle Church at Wittenberg was the recipient of a very unusual concession granting full remission of all sins.” (Bainton, 53)

While Luther was a professor in Wittenberg, Leo X gave authority for a special indulgence in order to fund a third bishopric for Albert of Mainz. The special indulgence offered four benefits:

The plenary remission of sins

A confessional letter allowing the penitent to choose his confessor

A share for one and one’s family in all alms, fasts, prayers, and pilgrimages of every sort

The total remission of all sins for souls in purgatory

The most infamous of the sanctioned salesmen of indulgences in Luther's day was the Dominican priest, Johan Tetzel. Tetzel used tactics such as calling to mind the deceased family members of his hearers writhing in agony in purgatory while they held the money that could set them free. The following are quotes from Tetzel:

Listen to the voices of your dear dead relatives and friends, beseeching you and saying, ‘Pity us, pity us. We are in dire torment from which you can redeem us for a pittance.’ Do you not wish to? Open your ears. Hear the father saying to his son, the mother to her daughter, ‘We bore you, nourished you, brought you up, left you our fortunes, and you are so cruel and hard that now you are not willing for so little to set us free. Will you let us lie here in flames? Will you delay our promised glory? (Bainton, 59)

Remember that you are able to release them, for as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs. Will you not then for a quarter of a florin receive these letters of indulgence through which you are able to lead a divine and immortal soul into the fatherland of paradise? (Bainton, 60)

You priest, you nobleman, you merchant, you woman, you virgin, you married woman, you youth, you old man, go into your church, which, as I have said, is St. Peter’s, and visit the hallowed cross that has been put up for you, that incessantly calls you… You should know: whoever has confessed and is contrite and puts alms into the box, as his confessor counsels him, will have all of his sins forgiven, and even after confession and after the jubilee year will acquire and indulgence on every day that he visits the cross and the altars, as if he were visiting the seven altars in the Church of St. Peter, where the perfect indulgence is granted.” (Oberman, 188)

Indulgence preachers would often set up a replica of the papal seal as a symbol that they were under his authority. “A cartoon published…by one of Luther’s followers showed the cross in the center empty of all save the nail holes and the crown of thorns. More prominent beside it stood the papal arms with the balls of the Medici, while in the foreground the vendor hawked his wares.” (Bainton, 60)

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses against indulgences on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg.

A Short Summary of the 95 Theses

The 95 Theses may be understood according to three main points (Bainton 60-61):

“An objection to the avowed object of the expenditure”

“A denial of the powers of the pope over purgatory”

“A consideration of the welfare of the sinner”

Analysis of the 95 Theses

On some points in the 95 Theses, Luther seems yet to fall short of a Reformation view, as Heinrich Borkhamm observes: Luther, at this time upholds Roman authority in Thesis 7, "God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest."

Overall, the Theses seem to indicate that, when they were written, Luther still held to beliefs in:

1. Purgatory

2. Indulgences (in some sense)

3. The Pope

On the other hand, Borkhamm further observes that Luther does interpret penance biblically rather than sacramentally in Thesis 4, "The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven."

Furthermore, Bainton points out that the 95 Theses denied three main points of Roman doctrine:

“There is no such thing as supererogation”

“The pope has no jurisdiction over purgatory”

“Peace comes in the word of Christ through faith. He who does not have this is lost even though he is absolved a million times by the pope…”

Luther taught that repentance and faith are synonymous. Luther’s teaching of the superiority of repentance over indulgences was considered revolutionary, but this teaching was actually preceded by the Augustinian Gottschalk Hollen’s statement in c.1452, “Repentance is better than indulgences” (Oberman 74-75). In the background of the Theses, then, is the change in Luther’s theology gained from a study of Pauline and Augustinian theology.

It is interesting that indulgences are rarely mentioned in the theses, but when he does mention them, Luther clearly states that good works are better than indulgences (Theses 43 and 45). Concerning indulgences, Luther argues that Papal authority is not to the extent that the pope may dispense or withhold grace.

Consequences of Posting the 95 Theses

The 95 Theses were originally written in Latin; Luther seemed to think that they would only be debated by a few theologians. Two weeks after the 95 theses were posted they were translated into German and given to a printer. “Luther took no steps to spread his theses among the people. He was merely inviting scholars to dispute and dignitaries to define, but others surreptitiously translated the theses into German and gave them to the press. In short order they became the talk of Germany.” (Bainton, 63-64)

Luther was not meaning to attack papal authority in general, but the abuse of the doctrine of indulgences. But Luther's intention to discuss and debate was interpreted as an attack on the power of the papacy. For the Theses struck a blow at the misuse of indulgences and simultaneously called into question a central position of Catholic piety. Questioning the indulgences instituted by the popes lead others (and eventually Luther himself) to a question of the Pope’s authority in general.

Martin Luther Biography, Part 8: Evangelical Experience

2011-10-31T16:19:00.005-04:00

[Continued from Part 7.]

The exact time of Martin Luther's spiritual rebirth (John 3:3,7) is a matter of some scholarly debate. What is certain is that Luther experienced a fundamental transformation that was occasioned by his study of the book of Romans. Luther later described his Reformation breakthrough as follows:

I greatly longed to understand Paul's Epistle to the Romans and nothing stood in the way but that one expression, "the justice of God." because I took it to mean that justice by which God is just and deals justly in punishing the unjust. My situation was that, although an impeccable monk, I stood before God as a sinner troubled in conscience, and I had no confidence that my merit would assuage him. Therefore I did not love a just an angry God, but rather hated and murmured against him. Yet I clung to the dear Paul and had a great yearning to know what he meant.

Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that "the just shall live by faith." Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheer mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture tood on a new meaning, and whereas before the "justice of God" had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven...

Now this alone is the right Christian way, that I turn away from my sin and want nothing more to do with it, and turn alone to Christ's righteousness, so that I know for certain his goodness, merit, innocence, and holiness are mine, as surely as I know that this body is mine. In his name I live, die, and pass away, for he died for us and was resurrected for us. I am not good and just, but Christ is... he will embrace us if only we trust in him.

[Sources:

Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978), 48.
Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (Yale University Press, 2006), 153.]

Martin Luther Biography, Part 7: Professorship in Wittenberg

2011-10-29T16:22:00.000-04:00

[Continued from Part 6.]

Martin Luther first taught at the University of Wittenberg during the winter semester, 1508-9; he apparently took this teaching position at the urging of his mentor, Johann von Staupitz. In the spring of 1511, upon returning from Rome, Luther was called by the Elector of Saxony, Frederick the Wise, to a permanent teaching position at the University of Wittenberg. At first, Luther taught philosophy, then he transferred to teaching theology. In time, Luther began to lecture through various books of the Bible; it was through preparation for these lectures on Scripture that Luther eventually came to his breakthrough in regards to his understanding of justification.

[Sources:

Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978), 39.

Timothy Lull, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 3.
Virgil Robinson, Luther the Leader (Ithaca, MI: A.B. Publishing, 1997), 28-29.]

Martin Luther Biography, Part 6: Pilgrimage to Rome

2011-10-29T09:26:00.000-04:00

[Continued from Part 5.]

In 1510, Martin Luther and one other monk from Erfurt were chosen to transport letters to and from Rome. After a months-long journey by foot, Martin Luther finally stepped over the crest of the last hill prior to the "Eternal City." At the first sight of Rome, Luther fell to his knees and cried out, "Hail, holy Rome!"

Luther spent a month in Rome. Every moment that he was not engaged in business for the monastery in Erfurt or in the regular devotions of the Augustinian cloister in which he was lodged, Luther spent visiting the holy relics. Luther had been taught that saying a prayer before these relics would reduce the time in purgatory for a deceased relative. While in Rome, earning so much time off from purgatory for venerating the relics, Martin Luther regretted that his parents were not yet dead and in purgatory so that he could alleviate the years of suffering they might experience. Instead, Luther dedicated his pilgrimage to his grandparents.

Luther was distressed at the general immorality he saw in Rome, and he was especially distressed by the lack of spirituality in the clergy, who (to give one of many possible examples) rushed the people through their prayers in front of the shrines so that they could move as many people through-- and receive as many donations-- as possible.

A particular crisis of faith occurred for Luther upon his ascending the scala santa: the "sacred stairs," which were claimed to have been transported from Pilate's palace in Jerusalem to Rome. Martin Luther ascended these stairs upon his knees, in the prescribed manner. He repeated a Pater Noster for each stair and kissed each one, in the hope of delivering the souls of his grandparents from purgatory. Yet when he reached the top, his mind was filled with doubt. He rose, looked back down at the kneeling, earnest pilgrims, and said aloud to himself, "Who knows whether it is so?"

[Sources: Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978), 36-38.

Virgil Robinson, Luther the Leader (Ithaca, MI: A.B. Publishing, 1997), 29-38.]

Martin Luther Biography, Part 5: First Mass

2011-10-28T22:46:00.004-04:00

[Continued from Part 4.]

Only a few months after Martin Luther had entered the monastery and so angered his father, the plague had swept through Mansfield, and two of Luther's brothers had died as a result. Hans Luther's heart was nearly broken. Then someone came and reported that Martin, the monk in the Erfurt monastery, was dead also. Poor Hans was overwhelmed. "Surely now," his friends remonstrated with him, "you will forgive him from your heart." With bowed head, the father agreed. Nor did he withdraw his forgiveness when word came that Martin was not dead.

When an invitation arrived for Hans Luther to attend the first mass to be performed by Martin, Hans declared, "Martin shall have no cause to be ashamed of his father." With a company of twenty horsemen, Hans Luther came riding in, wearing his finest clothes, and made a handsome contribution to the monastery.

Martin Luther presided over the mass skillfully, with the greatest attention to every detail, and without any apparent nervousness, until he came to the words of consecration: those words by which Luther wholeheartedly believed that the bread and wine were transubstantiated into the actual body and blood of Christ. Luther later remarked:

At these words I was utterly stupefied and terror-stricken. I thought to myself, "With what tongue shall I address such Majesty, seeing that all men ought to tremble in the presence of even an earthly prince? Who am I, that I should lift up mine eyes or raise my hands to the divine Majesty? The angels surround him. At his nod the earth trembles. And shall I, a miserable little pygmy, say, 'I want this, I ask for that'? For I am dust and ashes and full of sin and I am speaking to the living, eternal, and the true God."

For Martin Luther, this feeling of terror before God during the Eucharist had as profound an effect upon his soul as his earlier crisis, when he had nearly been hit by lightning.

After the ceremony, there was a feast. Martin Luther, still full of great concern for his soul, asked Hans:

Dear father, why were you so contrary to my becoming a monk? and perhaps you are not satisfied even now. The life is so quiet and godly.

This was too much for old Hans, who had been doing his best to put aside his disappointment. He flared up before the monks and the guests, "You learned scholar, have you never read in the Bible that you should honor your father and mother? And here you have left me and your dear mother to look after ourselves in our old age."

"But father," Martin Luther replied, "I could do you more good by prayers than if I had stayed in the world." Then he related his calling by means of the lightning bolt that had almost struck him.

"God grant," said the old Hans, "it was not an apparition of the Devil."

[Sources:

Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978), 30-32.

Virgil Robinson, Luther the Leader (Ithaca, MI: A.B. Publishing, 1997), 26-27.]

T4G Early Registration Ends 10/31

2011-10-27T10:31:00.002-04:00

Early bird registration for the Together for the Gospel Conference ends this Monday, October 31. (After October 31, there is a $40 increase in price.)

I remember the first time my friend Jorge Ponce told me about the Together for the Gospel Conference. I was certain he must be mistaken. I honestly thought that he had just seen a list of the most excellent preachers currently speaking in America today and somehow had become confused, thinking that they were all speaking at the same place. (Sorry, Jorge!) Once I found out Jorge's information was accurate, I finally registered to go.

This Conference is sure to be a blessing.

Learn more about the Conference HERE.

Notes from Proverbs 4:23-27

2011-10-26T16:16:00.003-04:00

[Below are some of the notes I used this past Wednesday in leading the devotion for prayer meeting at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.]

23 Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.
24 Put away from you a deceitful mouth
And put devious speech far from you.
25 Let your eyes look directly ahead
And let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you.
26 Watch the path of your feet
And all your ways will be established.
27 Do not turn to the right nor to the left;
Turn your foot from evil. (NASB)

Intro.
Notice the similarity of the above passage with Romans 3:10-18. The description in that passage is of a people who have turned away from God, and the members of their bodies (with all the theological significance these bodily members hold) have become corrupted.

HEART
Pastors/theologians have equated this term with "mind" or "the seat of emotions." Jonathan Edwards defined the heart as the seat of desire. In his view (which I think is correct), we choose according to our greatest desire and our "heart" is what determines our desires. It is for this reason that the Holy Spirit must renew our heart before we will repent of sin and believe in Jesus.

Whatever the precise definition, it is clear that the "heart" is what is at the core of our being.

The believer must carefully guard his or her heart making sure that our awareness, attitudes, appetites, affections, and aspirations are being conformed to the Word of God.

MOUTH
What comes out of the mouth is seen as a direct reflection of what is in the heart.

So Jesus,

18 "But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. (Matt 15:18-19 NASB)

And in writing of the sinlessness of Jesus, Peter emphasizes that "no deceit was found in His mouth" (1 Pet 2:22).

EYES
I believe that in these verses, the "eyes" indicate our focus: in the sense of what we dwell upon or the goals that we strive after. So Hebrews 12:2 speaks of fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith.

FEET
As Dr. Orrick described when he preached from Galatians 5 on walking by the Spirit, the "feet" are indicative of a persons life. (So that the biblical expression of "walking with God" indicates living for God and in communion with Him.)

Proverbs 4:20-27 Initial Observations

2011-10-25T00:34:00.004-04:00

I have been asked to lead the prayer meeting tomorrow night at Kosmosdale Baptist Church. I will be leading the devotion for the meeting from Proverbs 4:20-27.

²⁰ My son, give attention to my words;
Incline your ear to my sayings.
²¹ Do not let them depart from your sight;
Keep them in the midst of your heart.
²² For they are life to those who find them
And health to all their body.
²³ Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.
²⁴ Put away from you a deceitful mouth
And put devious speech far from you.
²⁵ Let your eyes look directly ahead
And let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you.
²⁶ Watch the path of your feet
And all your ways will be established.
²⁷ Do not turn to the right nor to the left;

Turn your foot from evil. (NASB)

NOTES:

vv. 20-21. A progression: the son will listen to his father, the king, speak the words of wisdom, then he will read his father's words once they were written down; finally, the wise son will commit the words to memory (the words will be learned 'by heart').

v. 22. The words are both "life" and "health:" good for the soul and the body. Wisdom yields both eternal and temporal benefits.

vv. 23-27. The king/father instructs his son to give attention to four distinct parts of the body, each one full of biblical symbolism: the heart, the mouth, the eyes, and the feet.

3 Notes on Preaching from Dr. Russell Moore and Rev. David Prince

2011-10-24T06:59:00.003-04:00

Required to take a class on preaching for my Master of Divinity degree from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS), I waited a few semesters to be sure that I could take the class from Dr. Russell Moore, since God had used his preaching as a major factor in confirming my call to SBTS.

The class was co-taught by Dr. Moore's close friend, Rev. David Prince, who is the pastor of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church. Overall, the class certainly met (or exceeded!) my expectations.

Early on during the semester, students were given 3 notes, which we were told to place in our Bibles that we use for preaching. These notes are excellent reminders about what Christian preaching MUST be, and I think they will benefit any Christian preacher, so I want to record them here:

1. "I am an ambassador for Christ when preaching."

2. When preaching, the center of every sermon must be Christ.

3. The purpose of preaching is not [merely] the passing along of ideas, it is communicating the story of the kingdom of Christ.

Sermon Notes from "Hearing the Holy Spirit." Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick.

2011-10-23T21:57:00.003-04:00

[The following notes were taken by Abby during the 10:45AM service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church. The sermon is available to hear on-line HERE.]

1 Thessalonians 5:19-22.

I. Do not quench the Holy Spirit.
A. The Holy Spirit is a Person.
B. The Holy Spirit is compared to a fire, which:
1. enlightens.
2. warms.
3. burns away dross.
C. The Holy Spirit can be quenched:
1. though God is sovereign,
2. we may quench the Spirit, by ignoring Him, hardening our hearts.

II. Do not despise prophecies; we may despise prophecies through:
A. disinterest in God speaking.
B. uncritical acceptance of anyone claiming to speak for God.

III. Abstain from every form of evil.

Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin (Part 21)

2011-10-18T18:25:00.002-04:00

From The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended 2.2.b.

Old Testament Proof for Original Sin (cont'd)

Man is seen to be wicked from childhood: Proverbs 22:15, Genesis 8:21.

Man is seen to be wicked from birth (or even conception!): Job 15:14-16, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3.

Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin (Part 20)

2011-10-17T18:51:00.004-04:00

From The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended 2.2.a.
Old Testament Proof for Original Sin

I. Wickedness is often spoken of in Scripture as a thing "belonging to the race of mankind, and as if it were a property of the species."
A. Scripture Proofs:
1. Psalm 14:2-3.
2. Psalm 52:2-3.
B. Defense:
1. Concession: the psalmist also writes of the "righteous."
2. However, it is manifest that wickedness is spoken of as concerning Man's natural state, and there is no doubt that unrighteous men may be changed by God's grace.

II. Wickedness is spoken of as belonging "to men, as of the human race, as sons of men."
A. Some Examples:
1. Psalm 4:2.
2. Psalm 57:4.
3. Psalm 58:1-2.
4. Proverbs 21:8.
5. Jeremiah 17:9.
B. Defense:
1. It is objected that the above passages refer only to notorious sinners.
2. However, even if the above objection is correct, two questions remain:
a. Why does Scripture deem it fit to categorize notorious sinners in such general terms as "Man" or "sons of men"?
b. Why are there no verses that speak of Man in general in terms that would make the reader think that humankind is neutral or righteous? (i.e., there is no verse that states, "The heart of man is right and pure," or, "the Lord looked down from heaven on the sons of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and did seek after God; and they were all right, altogether pure, there was none inclined to do wickedness, no, not one."]

III. [Related to the above points, Edwards explores the way that the New Testament considers the "world" to be not neutral or righteous, but wicked: Edwards gives numerous quotes from John's writing to this effect.]

Sermon Notes from "A Simple Bouquet of Joy." Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick

2011-10-16T21:16:00.006-04:00

[The following notes were taken by Abby during the 10:45AM service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.]

1 Thessalonians 5:16-18.

I. Introduction

A. All of God's rules are indicative of His character.

B. With each of God's commands, we should ask what the command teaches us concerning God's character.

C. With each of God's commands, we should ask what the command teaches us concerning the character of God's people.
D. Our lives ought to be characterized by rejoicing, a sense of dependence on God, and thanksgiving.

II. Rejoice Always

A. The qualifier "always" makes the command seem more difficult, but it is intended to make the command even more of a blessing.

B. Our God is a joyful God.

C. Jesus is described in Scripture as having been anointed with the oil of joy.

D. God's people should be characterized by joy; though there is a place for mourning, there is no verse that says "mourn always."

E. "Emotions ARE important in the Christian life."

III. Pray Without Ceasing

A. God is concerned about relationships: "prayer is personal interaction with God."

B. God is intimately involved in His creation.

C. We must not let our confidence in God's sovereignty keep us from prayer.

D. "Without ceasing" means:

1. "Habitually:" acts-> habits-> character.

2. "Persistently" (i.e. The Parable of the Persistent Widow).

3. Constantly aware of God's presence

IV. In Everything Give Thanks

A. God teaches us to say "thank you" in a similar way to how we teach our children to give thanks.

B. "In all things" does not mean "for all things;" when bad things happen, we do not have to pretend that those bad things are good.

Martin Luther Biography, Part 4: Early Monastic Career

2011-10-15T07:28:00.005-04:00

[Continued from Part 3.]

For a year in the monastery, Martin Luther was considered a "novice." The novitiate was a probationary period during which the other monks determined whether the novice was sincere in his desire to be a monk. The days of a novice were filled with religious exercises designed to suffuse the soul with peace. Prayers were conducted at seven specific times each day. In between prayer times, the monks were engaged in chores or study around the monastery or begging for food in the town. Due to being plagued by doubts concerning whether his monastic endeavors were truly purging him from his sin, Martin Luther began to engage in severe practices in addition to the usual austerities faced by the monks. Luther would fast: sometimes three days in a row without a crumb. He would also refuse to sleep without any blankets in the cold, and he nearly froze himself to death. Luther later testified:

I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I. All my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had kept on any longer, I would have killed myself with vigils, prayers, readings, and other work.

[Sources:

Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978), 27, 34.
Justo Gonzales, The Story of Christianity, Volume 2 (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985), 16.

Virgil Robinson, Luther the Leader (Ithaca, MI: A.B. Publishing, 1997), 23.]

Martin Luther Biography, Part 3: "St. Anne help me! I will become a monk."

2011-10-14T22:38:00.006-04:00

[Continued from Part 2.]

In 1505, at the age of 21, Martin Luther had earned his Master of Arts degree at Erfurt, and he planned to enter law school, according to the wishes of his father. However, Martin Luther had become extremely concerned about the condition of his soul: whether he would be accepted or condemned before God on the Day of Judgment. In Martin Luther's view, the path that offered the greatest possible assurance of salvation would be to enter the monastery, but he knew that such a course would enrage his father, who had pinned the Luther family's financial security and increased social standing on the idea that Martin would become a lawyer.

In July of 1505, Martin Luther was returning to school in Erfurt after a visit with his parents. A sudden thunderstorm arose, and lightening struck the ground a short distance away from Luther, knocking him down. Martin called out to his father's saint, the patroness of miners, who was supposed to be the mother of the Virgin Mary: "St. Anne help me! I will become a monk." That month, without his father's knowledge, and against his father's wishes, Martin Luther joined the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt.

[Sources:

Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978), 25.
Justo Gonzales, The Story of Christianity, Volume 2 (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985), 16.

Timothy Lull, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 4.
Virgil Robinson, Luther the Leader (Ithaca, MI: A.B. Publishing, 1997), 17-20.]

Martin Luther Biography, Part 2: Early Education

2011-10-13T23:18:00.002-04:00

[Continued from Part 1.]

Young Martin Luther's childhood was not a happy one. His parents were extremely severe [even, it seems, by late medieval standards], and many years later he would still speak bitterly of some of the punishments he had suffered. His first experiences at school were no better, and he later spoke of having been whipped for not knowing the lessons.

Luther's grammar school education took place in Mansfeld. In 1497-98 Luther attended a school run by the Franciscan Brothers at Magdeburg; as typical at such a school, Luther was required to go into the town and beg for his food. In 1498-1501 Luther went to school in Eisenach, where he was cared for by the Cotta family.

[Sources:

Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1978), 18.
Justo Gonzales, The Story of Christianity, Volume 2 (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1985), 15.

Timothy Lull, Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005), 3.
Virgil Robinson, Luther the Leader (Ithaca, MI: A.B. Publishing, 1997), 8-12.]

Thabiti Anyabwile on Multi-Site/Multi-Campus Churches

2011-10-12T23:56:00.002-04:00

My last post on this blog was intended to point readers to articles exploring differences between Mormonism and Christianity. That post was about matters essential to the definition of the Christian faith. This post is about what may be termed a "second order" doctrine: a matter that is important, but about which well-meaning Christians may amicably disagree.

The mere existence of the distinction between "first order" and "second order" doctrines causes some [well meaning(?)] Christians to protest any attention given to "second order" doctrines: 'Why waste time' [the reasoning goes] 'debating secondary matters when people are going to Hell without hearing the gospel?' Certainly the primary emphasis in our lives must be the gospel itself, but because the Church-- the bride of Christ-- is so important to God and impacts the lives of so many, it seems

wise to give some sustained reflection on a proper understanding of the nature of the Church.

Near the end of last month, Thabiti Anyabwile, the senior pastor of First Baptist Church on Grand Cayman, wrote an excellent article on the danger of multi-site/multi-campus churches. (In the article, Anyabwile focused on the type of situation where a single pastor is broadcast to large television screens in many congregations, but he did mention other multi-site/multi-campus situations as well, both in the article and-- especially-- in the comments section.) A high point in this article [as pointed out in a related blogpost by Frank "centuri0n" Turk] was the following section:

A very thoughtful pastor pointed out this morning that we surely need a better theology of the unity of the church beyond the local church. But I think the multi-site, multi-campus strategy that is not speedily and intentionally moving to church planting unravels the local church with an absentee pastor model. Indeed, “church” becomes a strange moniker for this situation. A “church” is not just an assembly, it’s an assembly that is also a “family” where the members do all the one anothers and also a “body” where the joints are connected to supply to one another and a “flock” kept in a corral where the shepherds feed, bind, lead, and guide in personal relationship. Multi-site churches reduce the family, body, and flock to an anonymous assembly. In that way it trades in the lowest common denominator (assembling) while effectively mimicking “local.”

Within the blogpost, Anyabwile does not cite specific Scripture references (he composed the post in an airport, waiting for a plane), but in the comments he cites several, such as 2 Timothy 2:2, 1 Timothy 1:3-11, and Titus 1.

Again, I highly commend Anyabwile's post, which is found HERE.

Is Mormonism a Cult? 2 Excellent Posts

2011-10-10T19:38:00.002-04:00

The question of the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity was re-introduced last week due to Pastor Robert Jeffress labeling Mormonism a "cult" last week at the Value Voters Summit when he introduced Rick Perry.

Ed Stetzer of LifeWay Research wrote an excellent blogpost on this topic, which may be read HERE. After giving the results of some excellently-conducted research, Stetzer concluded:

There is no reason to be shocked that devout Christians consider those with a different view of Christ as non-Christians. In the current cultural climate it may be uncomfortable, but it is anything but shocking.

Even better is an article from Denny Burk of Boyce College, which may be found HERE; as usual, Dr. Burk focuses his post on the gospel.

Sermon Notes from "Purpose Driven Predestination." Sermon by Russell D. Moore.

2011-10-09T11:51:00.005-04:00

Today, I am home with my children, who are sick, and am therefore unable to meet with my church family at Kosmosdale Baptist Church. I am taking this opportunity to re-listen to one of the most powerful sermons I have ever heard. This sermon was originally preached at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary chapel on Thursday August 28, 2008 and can be heard on-line HERE. The preacher for this sermon is Dr. Russell D. Moore (BTW: today happens to be his birthday).

Romans 8:26-9:6a.

This is what I have always appreciated most about Dr. Moore’s preaching, and what I found true of his sermon on election as well: his preaching is always radically Christ-centered. The purpose of our predestination is the glory of God through conformity to the image of Christ.

A. Background:
1. In our contemporary situation:
a. There is often more consensus on the doctrine of election than we recognize, as seen in our songs and testimonies.
b. In other ways, the doctrine of election is not nearly controversial enough.
2. In the context of Romans: the situation with Israel, God's elect nation that had seemed to have fallen away, gave the Roman church a special concern for the doctrine of election.

B. Dr. Moore preached that God is actively working in the lives of the elect to bring us into conformity with Christ in the following ways:
1. In our prayer-life: that we would, like Christ, call out, “Abba, Father!” trusting in God’s sovereign, powerful hand.
2. In our peace: that we would trust God with our eternal destiny due to the work He has accomplished in Christ.
3. In our passion for evangelism: that we would be zealous to proclaim the Good News of Christ to others.
[Note: Dr. Moore did not alliterate the above points; that's just how they came out in the outline that I made while hearing him speak.]

C. Dr. Moore noted two reasons why people fear the doctrine of election:
1. They imagine that this doctrine will rob them of any assurance of salvation- they imagine that if this doctrine is true, then they may get to God’s throne earnestly desiring salvation and yet be turned away. Dr. Moore combated this fear by demonstrating the purpose for which Paul explained this doctrine: that he was writing to a church facing persecution and internal strife, facing their own doubts and hypocrisy, and that this doctrine of election is given for the assurance of those who have faith in Christ, that our salvation is God’s work, which will not fail.
2. They imagine that this doctrine will destroy zeal for evangelism. Dr. Moore combated this fear by demonstrating the connection that Paul makes between the doctrine of election and his own evangelistic passion- that it is due to the doctrine of election that Paul can be sure that the Word of God has not failed, in spite of the constant rejection Paul was facing from the Jews.

Dr. Moore then challenged his hearers: “If you are not more evangelistic now than you were when you came to understand the doctrine of election, you NEVER understood the doctrine of election.”

Dr. Moore closed with the following: “They tell me this [Southern Seminary] is ground zero for the doctrine of election; man, I hope they’re right.”

This post has barely scratched the surface of how exiting and challenging this sermon is. I cannot express how strongly I would urge readers to listen to this sermon and to send a link for this sermon to others. Again, the sermon can be heard HERE.

Cheering the Death Penalty: Some Thoughts

2011-10-08T11:45:00.003-04:00

For conservatives who believe that the death penalty is a just punishment, at least for the crime of murder, then it is somewhat understandable to applaud a state's willingness to refuse to bow to liberal objections against the death penalty.

The applause AFTER Rick Perry spoke was even more understandable, given the fact that he gave a fair summary of the conservative position on the matter.

From a Christian pro-life perspective, when someone unjustly takes away a person's life-- the most fundamental of human rights given by God-- that person forfeits his or her own right to life (Genesis 9:6) in the eyes of the law.

However, it is almost certainly inappropriate to applaud something like the death penalty. God Himself takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11) and the sheer amount of executions taking place in Texas points to the fact that there are some deep societal problems there that need to be addressed.

Mitt Romney: Why I'll not vote for him in the Republican Primary

2011-10-07T08:20:00.002-04:00

Because I think, in this case, the Daily Show is basically correct:

Though Rick Perry did such a terrible job articulating it in the recent debate, he was right to point out that Romney is a 'flip-flopper.' Especially troubling is Romney's inconsistent record concerning the most crucial issue of social justice in America today: the legal right to life for the unborn. [See more on Romney's sketchy- at best- pro-life record HERE.] I have no confidence that Romney will propose pro-life legislation, veto pro-abortion legislation, and appoint pro-life federal judges; therefore, Romney will not get my vote.

180 Movie

2011-09-30T14:02:00.002-04:00

"We're talking about a holocaust in America."

"Finish this sentence for me: 'It's OK to kill a baby in the womb when...'"

"Please never, ever give your vote to a politician who advocates the murder of a child in the womb."

Michele Bachmann's Response to a Question About "Gay Marriage" on Jay Leno

2011-09-21T05:54:00.003-04:00

Last week Michele Bachmann appeared on the Jay Leno Show. One question Leno asked was about "gay marriage;" you can see the question and Bachmann's response below:

I think Bachmann gave an adequate statement of her conservative position on the issue, especially considering the brief time involved in this exchange. So this is no criticism of Bachmann's answer, but it occurred to me that her answer was basically, 'We've done it this way for a long time, and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.' It seems that Jay was basically saying, 'Well, many of my friends think the traditional understanding of marriage IS broke.'

I don't think that I would be able to (nor would I necessarily want to) address the issue of "gay marriage" without citing the words of the Lord Jesus on this issue from Matthew 19. It seems to me that without an authoritative standard on what the word "marriage" means, that the conversation devolves into a matter of opinion (with opinion in America currently trending toward Leno's, rather than Bachmann's, view).

Times When a Christian MUST Drink Alcohol (3)

2011-09-19T23:42:00.002-04:00

[In this series, I am exploring the idea that there are times when a Christian MUST drink alcohol, not just merely as a choice, but as a positive moral necessity. (It is NOT my argument that these are the ONLY times in which a Christian MAY drink alcohol.) In my last post from this series, I explored the idea that there are times in which medical wisdom may make alcohol use a necessity; the idea of that post came from Paul's command to Timothy to stop drinking only water and to "use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments" (1 Tim 5:23 ESV). Since the apostle actually commanded the use of wine for a medicinal purpose, it seems a valid application of the text that people today may find themselves in medical situations in which the use of alcohol is necessary: total abstinence from alcohol in such situations would be foolish and therefore would be a bad witness to the world.]

The second situation in which a Christian MUST drink alcohol is when wine is used in communion.

Many evangelical congregations substitute grape juice for wine. I believe that this is an acceptable practice, due to the identification of "wine" with the "fruit of the vine" (Mark 14:25), and grapes themselves are near enough to wine to be included in proscribed foods/beverages for Nazarites (Numbers 6:3b-4). But notice that I did write "substitute grape juice for wine." It is clear that actual wine was used in the original Lord's Supper, and so a church cannot be faulted if they use actual wine in the ordinance today. (I would argue that, as the alcohol content of wine today seems to be higher than in Jesus' day, churches using actual wine in communion should consider diluting their wine with water.)

When fellowshiping with a congregation that uses wine in communion, a Christian has no right to abstain from the wine of the ordinance. We are under the command of the Lord to "do this in remembrance of Me" and therefore we cannot, in good conscience, excommunicate ourselves from the body of Christ. If a Christian has made a previous commitment to abstain from all alcohol, he or she should still partake of the Lord's Supper in obedience to Christ's command and be willing to explain this decision to anyone who asks. [For example, someone in a position of authority at a seminary or mission board may need to be informed if a Christian has signed a commitment to total abstinence from alcohol with such an agency.]

In the course of life, a Christian may find him- or herself in the position of participating in a church service in which it is unclear whether the congregation even believes the gospel: while in such a church service, the Christian may be invited to participate in a communion service. In such a situation, a Christian teetotaler must do his or her best to determine whether the congregation is even a "church" (according to the biblical definition) at all. If not, the Christian is under no obligation to drink wine.

Sermon Notes from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick.

2011-09-18T22:51:00.003-04:00

[The following notes were taken by Abby during the 10:45AM service this morning at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.]

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

I. Eschatology: the study of last things; what happens to people when they die, and what happens at the end of the world.

A. There is room for considerable disagreement concerning matters of eschatology within orthodox Christianity.

B. We must interpret the difficult in light of the simple; if you learn the simple things (for example, first grade math), you will eventually understand the more complex things (fourth grade math).

II. Comfort

A. There is no lasting comfort apart from God's Word.

B. What happens to Christians when they die?

1. We will continue to be conscious (as seen with Lazarus and the rich man).

2. We will be with Christ ('absent from the body... present with the Lord').

3. We will not be able to communicate with the 'awake' world (like 'sleepers').

4. What happened to Jesus (in being raised from the dead) will also happen to those united to Christ who die (we will be raised to be with him).

A Sampling of Scriptures Directly Violated by Pat Robertson's Advice re: Divorcing a Spouse With Alzheimer's

2011-09-17T08:55:00.005-04:00

On Wednesday on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson said that it would be permissible for a person to divorce a spouse who had Alzheimer's because Alzheimer's is a "kind of death" [view Robertson's statement HERE]. In his answer, Robertson directly contradicted a number of biblical passages. The three main groups of passages Robertson contradicted are: (1) verses against divorce, (2) verses against lying (these are relevant due to marriage vows typically containing the words, "in sickness and in health," and, "'til death do us part"), and (3) verses regarding the faithfulness of the LORD, as to be pictured in marriage. The following are a sampling from each of these groups of Bible verses [all verses are taken from the New American Standard Bible].

I. Verses Against Divorce

A. "I hate divorce," says the LORD, the God of Israel, (Malachi 2:16a)

B. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery. (Matthew 19:6,9)

C. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)

II. Verses Against Lying

[The verses against lying-- either directly or by implication-- are truly too numerous to list, and so the following are picked almost at random; all of the prohibitions against lying are based upon the character of the LORD, as Scripture says God cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6).]

A. You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. (Leviticus 19:11)

B. Lying lips are an abomination to the LORD, but those who deal faithfully are His delight. (Proverbs 12:22)

C. Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, (Colossians 3:9)

D. all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8b)

III. Verses re: The Faithfulness of the LORD, as to be Pictured in Marriage

A. [God] Himself has said, "I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you." (Hebrews 13:5)

B. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the Church. (Ephesians 5:25,31-32)

C. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:2-4)

[See more on this subject HERE and HERE.]

Ron Paul: Why I'll not vote for him in the Republican Primary

2011-09-14T23:03:00.004-04:00

I certainly think that the federal government is too large, that the military is overextended, and that the American people are "taxed enough already." For these reasons, I would seem an ideal supporter for Ron Paul, who is the most likely candidate to vigorously address the issues just mentioned, if installed in the role of President.

On the other hand, I am, at heart, a single-issue voter; on Facebook, I have my 'politic

al view' listed as "pro-life." And I believe that legalized child murder is, by far, the preeminent matter of social justice in American society today.

To be sure, there are many good features to Paul's pro-life record. To give only two examples: he says that he has personally delivered 4,000 babies, and he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act into Congress.

But Paul has been rated 56% by the National Right to Life Committee. Paul wants the federal government out of abortion decisions; he wants abortion laws to be decided by the states [one wonders if he would have wanted slavery laws decided only by the states, with no federal interference]. Paul voted NO on a law that would make it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime, he voted NO on a law restricting interstate transport of minors to get an abortion, and he voted NO on the related issue of banning human cloning.

In short, if there is a situation in which Ron Paul must make a decision between limiting the powers of federal government or making sure that pre-born lives are protected, it seems certain that he will choose limiting the powers of federal government every time.

Sermon Notes from 1 Thessalonians 4:1-12. Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick.

2011-09-13T22:35:00.003-04:00

[From the 10:45 AM service this past Lord's Day at Kosmosdale Baptist Church.]

1 Thessalonians 4:1-12.

Introduction: God is not unable to be pleased; Christians are able to please God in our sanctification.

2 ways in which we may please God: fleeing from sexual immorality and growing in brotherly love.

3 reasons to flee sexual immorality: consideration for who we are, consideration for our brothers in Christ, and consideration for the Lord.

3 ways to grow in brotherly love: seek to live a quiet life, mind your own affairs, and work diligently.

9/11: A Prayer

2011-09-11T16:02:00.002-04:00

Almighty God, our heavenly Father,

O Sovereign Lord: today we pray for those with whom 9/11 is much more than an annual remembrance; we pray for those who lost friends and family during the tragic events that transpired on that Tuesday ten years ago. We pray that the Holy Spirit would bring true comfort into the lives of those most directly effected by the terrorist attacks on 9/11; we pray that You would show yourself a parent to those who lost parents and a friend to those who lost friends.

We pray for our soldiers today: especially for those directly involved in fighting terrorist groups, or fighting against those who would protect terrorists; we pray that you would bring our loved ones who are deployed with the Armed Forces home safely.

We pray too for our enemies. We thank You that You saw fit to bring Osama bin Laden to justice: that You, to some degree, removed the direct threat to our nation that he personally represented (we pray for Your continued protection upon our nation, thanking You that no act of terrorism approaching the level of 9/11/01 has happened again on our soil during these ten years). And we pray for Your mercy upon our enemies; O Redeemer, we pray that even as You saw fit to work in the heart of Saul-- who participated in violence and who planned terroristic acts against the early Church-- transforming him into the Apostle Paul, we pray that you would bring al-Qaeda members out of their spiritual darkness and into the light of Christ so that You would once again receive glory as the One for whom nothing is impossible.

Finally, we pray for those who filled this nation's churches in the days and weeks after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. O Redeemer: I believe that you used the events of 9/11 to shake people out of a narrow-minded focus on immediate pleasures and to point people to Christ. But many called out to You, or made a commitment to You, on 9/11 and then quickly fell away, back into their old lifestyles. Others stayed with the Church for years, having their lives drastically changed and seeming to live for You, but today their lives look much more like they did on 9/10/01 than on 9/12/01. I pray that You would continue to strengthen those who came to faith in Christ on 9/11 and that You would restore those who have slid back into their old way of life as if 9/11 had never occurred.

I pray these things in the precious and powerful name of Your only begotten Son, Jesus: who was crucified, buried, raised, and now lives forever as the Conqueror of sin, death, and Hell,

-Amen.

The Importance of a Title

2011-09-10T22:13:00.002-04:00

This past Monday, I published a blogpost titled, "Beer: one glass a sin? (an open letter to Phil Johnson)." In some responses I've received to that post (including Mr. Johnson's initial response on this blog), it seems that people thought, since I was reacting to Mr. Johnson's statement, "I don't think it's a sin to drink a beer," that my position is that it IS a sin to drink a beer. To clarify: I DON'T think-- and didn't think when I wrote that post-- that it is either technically or necessarily a sin to drink a beer. I DID-- and still do-- think that there may be [many] times in which drinking a beer is a sin, especially due to particular circumstances in American culture, and THAT is what I was trying to argue.

But I think that I framed the argument wrong at the outset. In the initial part of my title-- "Beer: one glass a sin?"-- it seemed as if I were posing a simple yes/no question [with me as a "no"], when my whole position is that the issue has become too complex to give a simple yes/no answer. I should have just skipped that part of the title and gone straight to the "an open letter..." part.

Re: "ALL"

2011-09-09T11:05:00.002-04:00

In conversations/debates between Christians who believe a "Calvinistic" interpretation of Bible passages regarding salvation is essentially correct and those who hold to a more "Arminian" understanding, one group of Bible passages that regularly receives mention are the "all" passages (to give just one example: 1 Timothy 2:6).

Yesterday on the Pyromaniacs blog Phil Johnson re-posted an excellent discussion on the subject of "all," which he originally posted on December 16, 2008. Mr. Johnson's "all" post can be found HERE.

Readers may also be interested in a post I wrote regarding this subject for Strange BaptistFire, posted on August 2, 2006 (I mention the date just to demonstrate that I did not plagiarize from Mr. Johnson). My "all" post can be found HERE.

Times When a Christian MUST Drink Alcohol (2)

2011-09-08T20:34:00.005-04:00

[See introduction HERE.]

A Christian MUST drink alcohol when medical wisdom dictates alcohol should be ingested to prevent/cure certain ailments.

No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments (1 Tim 5:23 ESV)

Apparently Timothy had been refraining from drinking wine. Paul commands Timothy to stop this total abstinence policy in regards to wine because the wine would help his upset stomach and other [related] ailments. (One likely reason that wine would help Timothy's ailments is because the fermentation process helped to purify the drink, as I noted that Dr. Mohler mentioned in his talk about alcohol at Southern Seminary.) It seems that Timothy's decision to refrain from drinking wine in itself received no rebuke from Paul: it seems that Timothy was free to abstain. However, refraining from wine was no absolute necessity for Timothy, and when medical wisdom dictated that he should drink wine to prevent/cure his specific sickness, then it would have been foolish for him to practice total abstinence.

Christians in general should have no issue of conscience over taking medicine with an alcohol content when it is needed. (This seems obvious, but one occasionally hears snide remarks about NyQuil, etc., in fundamentalist circles.) In most cases involving stomach troubles or other ailments, we now have better medicines available that preclude the need for drinking wine or other beverage alcohol, but on the mission field (for example) a Christian may find him-/herself with alcoholic drink as the best medical option. The Christian MUST drink alcohol in this case, but he or she must do so neither getting drunk nor using medical necessity as an excuse for foolish or worldly behavior.

Times When a Christian MUST Drink Alcohol (1)

2011-09-07T21:05:00.003-04:00

Recently, I've outlined Southern Seminary's argument for why Christian communities may, in certain circumstances, adopt a total abstinence policy in regards to alcohol.

I've also sought to argue that the statement, "I don't think it's a sin to drink a beer," may be profoundly unhelpful in the context of current American society.

Tomorrow, I will seek to demonstrate somewhat the other side of this discussion. In particular, I will argue that there are at least three instances in which a Christian may find him-/herself in which he or she MUST drink alcohol, not merely as an option, but as a positive moral necessity. These instances will be examined in order of most easily discerned, yet least important to least easily discerned, yet most important. A Christian MUST drink alcohol when: 1. medical wisdom dictates alcohol should be ingested to prevent/cure certain ailments; 2. wine is used in communion; 3. an abstinence-only position regarding alcohol threatens to displace the gospel truth of justification by faith alone.

A Beatitude to Those Hearing and Heeding: Revelation 1:3b

2011-09-06T00:09:00.002-04:00

The original audience for Revelation would have had a lower literacy rate than that enjoyed by our current society. Furthermore, there would have been very few copies of Revelation until many years after John penned this book. Therefore, the main way that Christians would encounter Revelation is through hearing it read aloud when meeting together.

throu:nteV (terountes) is translated “heeding;” many could be within earshot of someone reading these verses aloud and yet miss the blessing indicated in this verse. It is not the one who merely hears Revelation who is “blessed,” but it is the one who hears and heeds–listening attentively to put the words into practice, upon whom the “chain of relation” (mentioned in previous posts) terminates– who receives the promised blessing.

Beer: one glass a sin? (an open letter to Phil Johnson)

2011-09-05T17:21:00.004-04:00

Dear Mr. Johnson,

It is a sad fact of our fallen world that we more easily tend to focus on disagreements rather than agreements and that “open letters” like this one are seldom prompted by thoughts of unequivocal appreciation. In this case, however, I do not feel too bad about sending you [in particular] an open letter with the intention of hopefully persuading you [and others] to re-think a certain issue regarding beverage alcohol, as I have, as far as I can remember, always spoken well of your writings (on your blog and in other Internet essays), and have recommended them to others; also, I do think that the issue addressed in this letter is becoming increasingly important as many evangelicals have been casting off some traditional mores.

This letter is occasioned by a statement that I heard you make on the 8/18/11 episode of Wretched radio:

"I don't think it's a sin to drink a beer."

When I heard you speak these words, I realized that you were trying to distance yourself from any trace of legalism, but I also realized that I cannot agree with your statement, at least not without a good deal of clarification. I would argue that in many instances, drinking a beer at least may be a sin, and therefore I would urge you against making unqualified statements like the one quoted above, which may provide encouragement for people to indulge in sin. Drinking a beer is a sin if: drinking that beer involves breaking one’s word, drinking that beer makes one drunk, and/or drinking that beer makes one a “friend of the world” (James 4:4).

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve heard (second-hand) that Grace Community Church’s bylaw requiring elders to be “not given to wine” is interpreted by the elder board as a requirement for elders to refrain from any beverage alcohol; if this is correct, then it is somewhat ironic that you would say, “I don’t think it’s a sin to drink a beer,” because for you drinking a beer is a sin, since by drinking a beer you would be breaking your word. Even if it turns out that this is not true in your particular case, there are certainly many people who heard your statement who have made a commitment (through their terms of enrollment to a Southern Baptist seminary, through their church covenant, etc.) to refrain from beverage alcohol, and so drinking a beer for them would be a sin: the sin of lying.

Very clearly, you affirm that drunkenness is a sin. But what is “drunkenness”? It seems rather hard to define. If we take the common U.S. legal definition, then it is certainly unlikely that drinking one beer will raise a person’s blood alcohol level to 0.08%. But is 0.08% BAC the best definition for us to take within the Church? What about the idea that “buzzed driving is drunk driving”? Under certain conditions, a person can definitely become buzzed by a single beer; I’ve seen it with my own eyes. After work one night at UPS, I went with a friend to Applebee’s, and he ordered a beer; this friend was not a Christian and he was used to getting drunk, and so he should have had a pretty high tolerance to alcohol. Yet before he finished his glass (the food had not arrived) his face was red and his attitude/speech had changed; he was clearly somewhat buzzed. Now, was his feeling of euphoria, brought about (in this case) by a single beer, a substitute in his life for the peace and joy that he should have sought from the Holy Spirit a la Ephesians 5:18? Does ‘buzzed’ equal ‘drunk’? I’m not answering ‘yes’ to these questions dogmatically, but I do think that these are valid questions, and that they should give us pause before saying, “I don’t think it’s a sin to drink a beer.”

In the recent talk giving the rationale for Southern Seminary’s policy of total abstinence toward alcohol, Dr. Russell Moore framed his consideration of the Southern Baptist Convention’s stance toward alcohol in terms of social justice. Unlike with the winemakers of Jesus’ day, alcohol today is being produced, advertised, and sold by multi-national corporations who have a vested interest in getting/keeping consumers addicted to their product. Also, as obvious by their advertisements, these corporations sell not only a drink, but a worldview/lifestyle. Is it possible that by having a ‘Bud’ or celebrating ‘Miller-time’ a person is actually investing in or voting for the kind of ungodliness we see in beer commercials? Again, this is a tricky question: in this fallen world association with worldliness is hard or impossible to avoid. But I think that the question must be raised.

In conclusion, I would ask you: if you were to see a fellow church member or one of your children out at a restaurant drinking a beer, would your [internal] reaction be the exact same as if he/she were drinking a glass of water? If not, why not? Is it possible that, at some level, you would have concerns similar to those expressed above? And, if so, is it really wise to say, “I don’t think it’s a sin to drink a beer”?

Sincerely, in Christ,

-Andrew Lindsey

Sermon Notes from Romans 8:18-30. Sermon by Jim Scott Orrick.

2011-09-04T20:13:00.003-04:00

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

Romans 8:18-30.

I. Three groanings in this passage:

A. The creation groans.

B. Christians groan.

C. The Holy Spirit groans.

II. The groaning of Christians is due to:

A. the Holy Spirit; Christians:

1. follow the Spirit.

2. are filled with the Spirit.

3. cry out to the Father by the Spirit.

B. our longing for the completion of our adoption process in the resurrection.

[On this last point, Dr. Orrick had some especially interesting comments; he noted that people, before coming to Christ, are often terrified by the thought of physical pain in Hell, but, upon coming to Christ, we become hyper-spiritual and no longer think about the physical. He also mentioned that we do not long for heaven as we ought: that many of us would be content-- barring illness, etc.-- to live forever here on earth just as things are.]

Proverbs 24:11-12 Notes

2011-09-03T06:26:00.001-04:00

¹¹ Deliver those who are being taken away to death,
And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.
¹² If you say, “See, we did not know this,”
Does He not consider it who weighs the hearts?
And does He not know it who keeps your soul?
And will He not render to man according to his work?

(Prov 24:11-12 NASB)

I. Deliver those in danger: when we see people being unjustly sentenced to death, forced into being slaughtered through no fault of their own, we are commanded to do whatever we have in our power to set them free. We must seek to overthrow false arguments on behalf of life. We are under the command of God to help deliver the innocent– even if we don’t personally know the parties involved– out of a zeal for justice.

Hold them back: we may picture a person being chased to a cliff, about to go over the edge, and being restrained at the last possible moment. This speaks to the fact that we must be energetic, passionate for the cause of life.

II. Do not deny that you see those in need: we cannot make excuses if we fail to “deliver those in danger.” Ignorance is no excuse. We have plenty of resources at our fingertips to investigate the facts of the case. It is no excuse if we allow some kind of political philosophy about ‘rights’ or ‘privacy’ to keep us from truly loving our neighbors– all our neighbors– as ourselves. God knows our hearts; He knows when we are making decisions based on selfish desires. God knows our souls; He knows every time when our conscience is stirred and we choose to ignore it, hardening our conscience, rather than heeding His voice.

III. Deal with the consequences: God is the Holy Lawgiver and Judge over His creation. This truth is a great comfort to those who are being oppressed; we can all be sure that those who are slaughtered unjustly will be vindicated before the throne of God. That God renders to each person according to His work is also a great warning, for we all know that our works have fallen short of God’s glory. It is a common saying that ‘nobody’s perfect.’ We have all done things that we know are wrong; we have all lied when we know we should tell the truth, we have all been selfish when we know we should be selfless and loving, we have all been envious of others or disobeyed parents, etc. If God repays us according to our works– as this, and many other passages, makes clear that He does– then there is no reason for us to expect that He will welcome us into kingdom, to live forever with Him, where all blessings are; instead, we will be kept on the outside, away from Him and His goodness, in the outer darkness of pain called Hell. The good news is that God has come, in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and has Himself performed the good works that we could not perform. Jesus was like us in all respects, yet without sin. He lived a perfect life, but then He was crucified– tortured to death on a Cross– experiencing the wrath of God against sin and dying the death that we deserved. Jesus was buried in the ground for three days– truly dead– in fulfillment of prophecy. Then He rose from the dead: showing Himself to be victorious over sin, death, and Hell. It is Jesus who truly delivers those who are being taken away to death; even now, He is holding us back from the destruction we deserve, and He offers eternal life to all who turn and believe in Him.

The Bible in 2 Peter 3:1-2, 15b-16

2011-08-31T14:35:00.005-04:00

This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.

[R]egard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable

distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. [NASB]

In closing his letter, Peter gives his purpose in writing the letter. As part of this purpose, Peter reminds his readers of the teaching they have received through the prophets and apostles. The words of the prophets and the apostles should be foremost in our minds; these words should stir up faith and faithfulness to our Lord and Savior.

In verses 15b-16, Peter commends the writings of the

Apostle Paul and refers to these writings as Scripture.

'There are many ways to God/Heaven.'

2011-08-30T16:56:00.003-04:00

The opinion expressed in the title of this post is often found alongside the statement examined in my last post. Again, there can be many good Christian responses to this opinion; and again, I would urge readers to consider how the idea of 'many paths to God' relates to the person and work of Christ. For the New Testament Scriptures declare that God Himself ordained the death of Jesus (Acts 4:27-28). The Lord Jesus-- true God and true Man-- was tortured to death according to the divine will (Luke 22:42). God the Father allowed His Son to suffer and die. And for what? If there are many ways to God-- if there are several alternative paths to Heaven-- then the Cross is the ultimate example of sadomasochistic cruelty; why would God allow/ordain Jesus to die if people can get to God without that death taking place? On the other hand, if God's righteous judgment against sin requires the penalty of death for any violation of His holy law, then the Cross is seen as the unique and necessary way for God to be known as both the just judge and the merciful justifier of sinners (Rom 3:26).

'All religions are basically the same.'

2011-08-29T22:33:00.003-04:00

Anyone who has spent much time at all seeking to tell people the Good News of who Jesus is and what He has done on behalf of sinners has almost certainly heard the assertion that serves as the title of this post. This assertion could be answered in many ways; certainly, for example, someone could carry a chart contrasting the different religions. My inclination, however, is to point people once again to the person and work of Christ. All religions are NOT basically the same, simply because they say different things about Jesus and the Cross. Christians believe in Jesus as the Son of God, who died on the Cross in the place of sinners and who was raised from the dead as the conqueror of sin, death, and Hell. Muslims (to give one example among many) specifically deny that Jesus is God's Son or that He was crucified.

Christians have long stressed the importance of doctrine, but this is because doctrine is meant to point us to Christ. Our great passion is for Jesus Himself. And this is the great difference that separates Christianity from all other religions. It is only Christianity that is centered upon the ever-living Lord Jesus, who is one God with the Father (and Holy Spirit) from eternity, who did the good works we have failed to do and died the death that we deserved, and who defeated the enemy we cannot defeat: namely, death. All other religions deny Jesus (properly understood), prescribe human effort as the way to salvation, and thus end in despair.

The Characteristics and Destiny of False Teachers from 2 Peter 2:1-10a

2011-08-27T06:36:00.005-04:00

1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the

ungodly; 6 and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7 and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men 8 (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed,

I. False teachers:
A. secretly introduce destructive heresies (v.1).

B. deny the Master who bought them (v.1).
C. gain many followers (v.2).
D. cause the way of truth to be maligned (v.2).
E. indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires (v.10).
F. despise authority (v.10).

II. False teachers DO the above things because false teachers ARE:
A. sensual (v.2).
B. greedy (v.2).
C. exploitative liars (v.2).
D. unrighteous (v.9).
E. reckless (v.10).
F. self-willed (v.10).

III. Because of what false teachers DO and who false teachers ARE, false teachers WILL:
A. bring swift destruction upon themselves (v.1).
B. face the long-established judgment of destruction (vv. 3-8).
C. be kept under punishment for the day of judgment (v. 9).

Gospel Foundations in 2 Peter 1:1

2011-08-26T07:51:00.003-04:00

Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: (2 Pet 1:1 NASB)

The Christians to whom Peter wrote are defined as those "who have received a faith of the same kind as ours." Their knowledge of the facts concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ, their belief regarding those facts as true, and their trust in Jesus: these things were not manufactured by their own will-power, but were gifts from God based on His free, favorable disposition toward us.

The Christians to whom Peter wrote had "received a faith" based upon "righteousness." But it was not their own righteousness that secured this faith, rather it was "the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Jesus always had and will ever have a right standing before God the Father. Jesus clothes us in His righteousness that we may stand before God without the terror of condemnation as we trust in Him.

Jesus-- the One anointed by God the Father as His special servant to triumph over sin, death, and Hell on behalf of His people-- is identified in this verse as "our God and Savior." Jesus is the all-powerful One; He is one in nature with God the Father. Through Jesus all things were created and by Him all things are held together. Jesus has become our Savior; when we had lived to serve ourselves rather than serving God-- when we had broken God's commandments-- Jesus lived out a life of perfect obedience on earth, perfectly obeying God's commands on our behalf, then He died in the place of sinner. Three days later, Jesus was raised from the dead, proving that He had conquered sin, death, and Hell.

Anyone reading this, I urge you-- if you have not already done so-- turn from your disobedience, turn from your self-reliance, and cast yourself upon Jesus to receive His mercy. See Jesus today as Your God and Savior.

Translation of Daniel 9:11-12

2011-08-25T17:24:00.000-04:00

[A couple of weeks ago, I did the morning Scripture reading at Kosmosdale Baptist Church from Daniel 9. I used this as an opportunity to review some Hebrew by doing my own translation of this chapter. I've been posting a few verses from my translation here so that any friends who know Hebrew can give input on the translation.]

11 And all Israel transgressed Your Law: turning away from heeding Your voice, so the oath and the curse that was written about in the Law of Moses the servant of God has been poured out upon us, because we sinned against Him. 12 And He confirmed the words that He spoke against us and against our judges who judged us, to bring a great calamity upon us; nothing has been done under all the heavens such as has been done against Jerusalem.

Alcohol (2)

2011-08-24T23:48:00.005-04:00

For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (Rom 14:17 ESV)

In the audio file found HERE, President Albert Mohler and Dean Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary give the rationale for why Southern Seminary (and, by extension, other Southern Baptist entities) exercise a total abstinence policy in regards to alcohol.

Before giving the rationale for Southern's total abstinence policy in regards to alcohol, President Mohler highlights two "really bad" arguments that should be avoided:

1. The Bible binds the Christian conscience to total abstinence from alcohol at all times, all places, and all circumstances; this argument is exegetically unsustainable.

2. Christian liberty is based upon subjective interpretation without respect to the body of Christ as expressed in convenanted communities.

Dr. Mohler then asserts that Southern Seminary's policy toward alcohol is produced by the Southern Baptist conviction that:

We should, for the glory of God, remove this temptation and remove this snare from the lives of families and churches because it is a small thing for us to remove this awful snare, and it would be a dangerous thing to allow it in place.

Dr. Moore frames the position of the Southern Baptist Convention toward alcohol in terms of social justice, in which there is an agenda being pushed by an industry: a particular lifestyle agenda in regards to alcohol, which is devastating lives; this agenda is now being put forth by multi-national corporations and was [in this form] absent in biblical times.

Dr. Mohler concedes that "wine" in the Bible was alcoholic (despite some bad arguments to the contrary), but notes:

1. Mass-produced alcohol is now intended to have an intoxicating effect, and getting people intoxicated is important to the bottom line of alcohol corporations.

2. Fermentation was necessary in biblical times, and was served to everyone in the family, and the Bible provides warnings in regards to more highly fermented beverages.

Some, seeking to prove that they understand Christian liberty better than their parents and elders, have given themselves to pride and immaturity.

[Again, hear the entire audio file HERE.]

Alcohol (1)

2011-08-23T11:32:00.010-04:00

On August 9, John MacArthur published a now-[in]famous blogpost cautioning us "Young, Restless, Reformed"-types that,

If everything you know about Christian living came from blogs and websites in the young-and-restless district of the Reformed community, you might have the impression that beer is the principal symbol of Christian liberty.

and that,

Real Christian liberty is not about flouting taboos and offending conventional notions of propriety.

Among the "Young, Restless, Reformed" crowd Dr. MacArthur's words on this subject have been controversial, to say the least.

In a follow-up post at the Grace-to-You blog, defending Dr. MacArthur's previous article, Travis Allen wrote,

[MacArthur] is expressing a perfectly legitimate pastoral concern, which is shared by Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, and many other faithful pastors.

As someone who agreed with Dr. MacArthur's point and who is genuinely thankful for my alma mater, I was glad to see President Mohler and Dean Moore cited in support of Dr. MacArthur's position. Tomorrow it is my hope to outline some thoughts from the audio file of Drs. Mohler and Moore, which is linked above, and which Allen linked again at the end of his post.

Mark Driscoll vs. Tim Challies: Discernment Definition

2011-08-22T22:28:00.004-04:00

Mark Driscoll is a continuationist rather than a cessationist. In itself, this is not such a big deal. Though I'm a convinced cessationist, I have had and still have Christian friends who take the other view. Driscoll's rejection of cessationism has become a very big deal, however, because: 1. He has been quoted as claiming "Cessationism is worldliness" [see HERE]; 2. He has claimed a special giftedness from the Holy Spirit, which allows him to see bizarre visions [see HERE].

Now, as I alluded to in a recent post, I believe that Driscoll's bizarre visions are especially problematic because: 1. These type of explicitly sexual visions regarding his own congregants-- visions that he encourages others to indulge-- seem very much out of step with the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit; 2. Driscoll identifies having bizarre visions as the "real gift of discernment."

I mention Tim Challies in the title of this post due to the second point just mentioned. Challies has written a book on discernment titled The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment. In this book, Challies defines discernment as "the skill of understanding and applying God's Word with the purpose of separating truth from error and right from wrong." Challies defined the gift of discernment as an unusual, Spirit-given ability "to compare ungodly words, deeds, and appearances with what God has revealed in Scripture and expose the fraudulent leaders and teachers for what they are."

Now, if Challies' definitions are correct, then what Driscoll has done is: 1. mis-defined a term in Scripture, a term which is meant to focus Christians on Scripture, and thus; 2. focused Christians on supposed personal revelations through bizarre visions, rather than on Scripture, therefore; 3. through a lack of valuing the gift of discernment (correctly defined) and through distracting people from Scripture, he has left Christians under his influence open to the persuasion of false prophets.

I urge anyone reading this post to explore Challies' book and see that he comes to his definitions for "discernment" and the "gift of discernment" after a careful study of the word "discernment" (and related terms) throughout all of Scripture in context. I further urge anyone reading this post to consider from where in Scripture (if anywhere) Driscoll derives his definition of the "gift of discernment."