Pyromaniacs

Weekend Bonus: a response to John Mark Reynolds

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:29:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

Welcome readers from First Things: Evangel. This may look like a ploy to draw readers from there over here in order to troll for hits, but since we don't do any advertising here I think that's not a very charitable thing to say.

Full-blown, full-contact, full-body Catholic apologetics have broken out in the comments of one of my posts (it was inevitable, I am sure), and what I have to say in response to John Mark Reynolds' defense of Indulgentiarum Doctrina as not a deal-breaker toward true faith in Christ will, frankly, not be suitable for a Catholic-run web site. This is the real thing in terms of exploring the Gospel, and in terms of why to reject Catholicism not only as a "choice" or "denomination" but as an actually-false church. So I have posted the response here where Dan and Phil and I are all in agreement on this matter.

Also of note: we commonly decorate the blog to keep it from being a massive and impenetrable wall of text. No offense is meant by any of the graphics you'll see below -- they are merely visual aids. This is the internet after all and not a meager newsgroup list.

For those of you who read here but not over there, here's the post which has spawned this extra-long response. All I ask from the regular readers here is that we refrain from the high-decibel thunder-clap of sound-byte apologetics which this discussion usually brings out. Avoid saying things you cannot cite from its original source. And do not engage people who want to call you bigots or other morally-biting remarks -- those are not arguments but insults, and there's no reason to do anything but to let them speak for themselves.

Welcome. Nice to see you. Pack a lunch.

JMR gave a hero's effort to responding so far, so big credit to him. And for the record, I mean that sincerely -- because I think his goal, which I read to be "including all who are rightly called brothers in Christ at the round-table of our faith" a wholly-commendable objective, especially regarding the question of whether any Catholics are in that number.

So before we follow his defense here, let me say it plainly again: I think that the problem is with what Roman Catholicism formally teaches, and that many Catholics rightly do not believe this stuff; many believe their own reinterpretation of this stuff to guard their own faith from superstition and folly. If they believed what JMR has expounded here, there would be no reason to object. But the places where Catholicism deviates from Scripture and from the historical proclamation of the faith (which I would contend is not the same as the "unanimous declaration of the fathers") are fatal errors.

That said, Quoth he:

It is a big cosmos and there are many jobs in it.

Only Jesus can do the saving job from hell-fire and nothing, nothing, nothing can add to the great work He has done. However, humans have problem other than the fact they are going to hell and there are consequences I have called “b-problems” that are not directly against His Majesty, but He allows others to cooperate with Him in doing other jobs (like saving babies from burning buildings or taking down the Taliban).

Why not allow that there are spiritual problems of this sort as well?

I'd put the brakes on there -- because I think you're mixing up your own metaphor for the document we are referencing. The fact of the declaration regarding Indulgences is that man has two problems: judicial-eternal and judicial-temporal. The judicial-eternal ('a' problems) are resolved by Christ -- as Jugulum and others have noted, it can be interpreted as the only "serious" problem as anyone on the other side of Christ is headed toward the Father, no matter how long it thereafter takes. It's sort of a statistical game -- even if you spend a billion years in Purgatory, 1000000000/eternity is still infinitesimal. It's only a temporal consequence.

The strange thing is that this argument really overlooks the fact that it is in fact due punishment for sin, and that somehow we ought to want to escape it.

You know: as we read the New Testament, we find a couple of signposts that are really helpful in understanding the problematic nature of this proposition. The first is that it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment (Heb 9). That is, the writer of Hebrews thinks that Christ doesn't have to suffer over and over again for man's sinning over and over again because there is only one judgment, not a temporal and then an eternal judgment. And it is John the Baptist who tells us that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 2). The sin is not taken away if there is still some sort of purgation due to those who made it, is there? And in the resurrection when we are given our bodies back, it's odd that the state of those who are dead in Christ is seen throughout that book as not is a state of purgation or temporal payment for their own misdeeds but before the throne of God, speaking to Him and in worship before Him.

I appreciate the generousity JMR is presenting toward the doctrines and views in this matter. However, if we have an obligation to let the promulgators of this doctrinal statement speak for themselves, we also have an obligation to read them as they present themselves and not to reinterpret them so that we find what they are saying more or less acceptable. It's just as erroneous to read excessively-generous interpretations into this stuff as it is to simply reduce it to some stupid idea that salvation is like a paycheck at the end of life.

Restoring my relationship with God does not (the way He has designed things) restore my relationship to the state, the community, the church, the individual, or the cosmos.

Unquestionably true. However, the problem being addressed is the problem of Purgatory and not the problem of prison time or tort compensation.

Listen: it's a foundational fact of the faith that someone who is guilty of theft (for example, the thief on the cross -- which is a great example for this matter) may be forgiven in full of his sin against God, but may and in fact ought to serve his full sentence in this world regarding the civil/political consequences of his actions. No one is denying that on either side.

But to equivocate on this point and say that there is temporal punishment still due the magistrate in the next life is to overlook the problem that the magistrate has no authority there. We shouldn't fear the one who can only destroy the body, but rather the one who can destroy both body and soul, yes? The implication there is that the (God-established) power of the Magistrate doesn't reach into the next life.

So as we consider the question of problems 'a' and 'b', we have to see the 'b' problem for what it is, and what it cannot be is some sort of carry-over from secular, temporal justice.

He gives humans and their institutions a great gift: the right to be offended! (Remarkable really how awesome the gift of personhood to mankind was!)

The saving problem is our offense against the King of Kings, but the Great King allows us to also offend against His minister our local king. If I read the document correctly, the Blessed Virgin can add nothing in dealing with our attempted Regicide, but she might be part of the comfort God allows as we face hanging for attempted regicide.

I would agree that the document says, effectively, that Christ's merit has an infinite value in solving the problem of man's sin against God, but it is of limited value in resolving the problem of man's sin against his fellow man.

That's another way of saying what you have said here, and I wonder how that affects your defense of this document. You see: the farther we detail this doctrine out, the more like a works added to Christ's work it is going to look.

One consequence of my sin has been continued personal pain, but God has used wise ministers to help bring wholeness to that pain. They did not “forgive my sin” against God, but they did help me process the vestiges and the OTHER consequences of my sin.

See: I don't find any therapeutic language in the document. A sin of the contemporary "evangelical" church is to replace the judicial and sovereign language of our faith with the language of diagnosis and recovery. One good attribute of the document we have in front of us is that it avoids this sin.

The problem, as you rightly stated above, is the problem of "offense" and not of "wellness". If we stick to that category, the problems of this doctrine become transparently clear.

Let me try a simple example. When I call you a name (say “Regicide Puritan”), I have sinned against God and against you. God may forgive me, but I still should ask for your forgiveness. When you forgive me, something good happens. Yes?

Yeah, hang on a second. Be careful that you don't confuse my right-minded forgiveness of your error in the light of your repentance for the blood of the martyrs and the prayers of the saints -- which are specifically the activities this document mentions as part of the "treasury of the church".

Yes: that is a good thing -- both your repentance and my forgiveness of you. That's not really what this document is talking about.

I have not added to God’s forgiveness, which is so awesome that next to it your forgiveness is trivial, but God has set up the cosmos such that I still have to ask for it.

He allows for you to have a real offense requiring relational healing between us.

There are hurts He has chosen to allow to be healed in no other way. God is sovereign!

What I find ironic here is that the example -- a person offending another person -- is exactly the kind of offense that your type 'b' offenses should be, but that you don't see that the remedy for type 'b' offenses (as promulgated in Indulgentiarum Doctrina -- which, I have to note, is a 20th century document and not an old form of a doctrine which has since developed into something more therapeutic and conciliatory) is instead Purgatory, and not "healing between us".

Here's what the document says:

In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those "who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments." This is also clearly evidenced in the liturgical prayers with which the Christian community admitted to Holy Communion has addressed God since most ancient times: "that we, who are justly subjected to afflictions because of our sins, may be mercifully set free from them for the glory of thy name."

The problem is not whether it's right or wrong to do unto others as you would have them do unto you: it is whether or not Christ covers these things for us before God and whether or not we must paid for them in full before we are justified before God.

Having lived a long and icky life, I have (at times) sinned against the Church. I did not just ask God’s pardon, but my community. I got it.

We are guilty of many things and all that guilt is (of course) before God, but it does not seem to me that the document (to which you refer) adds another ground to the salvation from damnation to which the gospel refers. It tries (however successfully) to deal with other guilt where the immediate offense is against cosmic order or the Church.

I wouldn't say otherwise. The problem is that this document is transparently clear that unless those temporal punishments are all completed, you cannot stand before God, except as one being punished.

I go back to my example of the guy who needs a billion years in Purgatory. That is truly an infinitesimal period of time on the scale of all eternity. But here's the thing: the document says this --

... there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated. God's mercy is thus led to forgiveness, so that sincerely repentant sinners may participate as soon as possible in the full enjoyment of the benefits of the family of God.

So in the first place, let's dispose of the idea that the document does not refer to the "Mystical Body" of Christ -- here the Church is called that explicitly. But second, note it clearly: it is an act of charity to placate God's wrath against those who still have temporal consequences for their sins, and we do it (through the Church, of course) by the exchange of some virtue overlaid on the penal consequences, mitigating the consequences.

It's the idea that this is an "act of charity" that intrigues me here and which I want to point you to. What is happening (allegedly) in Purgatory is an act of temporal punishment which those there deserve, and while it is for their own good, it is also a penal requirement. (see Chap. 1 part 2)

It may be good for them, but it is not good to them -- it is punishment on the scale of the wrath of God. So let's please dispense with the idea that what is being described and what it being mitigated is not something which the church has always believed is the work of Christ. Making it a short-term sentence rather than an eternal sentence doesn't make the problem go away: it makes it more glaring.

Here is how I read it:

The Blessed Virgin and Lady Theotokos cannot add a single thing to my salvation from the second death. Her merits are of no use there. However, like any mother (if I am reading the document correctly) correctly she can comfort me in the first death, which I will still face and in any post-death schooling in sanctification I still face.

That may not be right, but it is not a “different gospel.”

When you say it that way, it just sounds so much nicer. I'd almost be willing to go through it myself. The problem is that the document doesn't say that at all.

What it says instead is that there is punishment due to sinners who have either omitted penance or have incomplete penance. And as punishment goes, this is necessary payment for what one has done wrong as a recompense to those who were wronged. However, some have done a good job (through Christ, of course) of being fully sanctified, and they have something of value which can help those who are under this punishment in Purgatory. This "treasury of the church" is thereby able to be dispensed by the Church (specifically, the bishops) not to make the time in Purgatory more comforting, but to reduce or remove it entirely.

That's not hardly anything like Mary comforting you when you struggle through your sanctification. It is pretty clear that this is a power of the Church "by an authoritative intervention [to dispense] to the faithful suitably disposed the treasury of satisfaction which Christ and the saints won for the remission of temporal punishment."

The document accepts that though the Christian is no longer guilty and will not pay the price of sin (the death of damnation) there are still secondary consequences to that sin.

Being declared not guilty, does not make the shame (for example) vanish just the guilt.

Yes, I am sure that's true. The problem is that this document is not either about "daily life" as you will reference below. This is about something which stands in the gaps between the moment of death and the moment of glorification and welcome into the presence of God.

Good news: you're not in Hell. Bad news: you still have something which you personally must pay out before you can see God. You have work (in the form of punishment) to do.

The other good news, though, is that the Church can take the credits some have gathered up by prayer and personal holiness and apply them to you so your sentence is reduced.

And before anyone gets distracted by this, it's not about money or any other such thing -- anyone who makes this about the Catholic Church being a shill for phony forgiveness for the sake of a few bucks like some kind of prosperity gospel fakir is an ignoramous. This is about the teaching that your penalty for sin is not paid in full in Christ.

There is no question that this document asserts and requires that this is the case -- and that is an offense to the Gospel, a deal-breaker in the same vein as having to be circumcised in order to be a true follower of Christ or that there is no resurrection from the dead.

This happens all the time in daily life. Let me try another example. I am forgiven by you for calling you a Regicide Puritan, but the boo-boo I put on Russell Moore’s heart will have to heal as he witnessed my unfair attacks on his pal.

Our relationship (Moore and Reynolds) will be strained and to help restore community I will have to do acts befitting my repentance. (For example, I might put a picture of Al Mohler up in my office.) In this way, the secondary results of my sin in calling you a sin, the scandal caused to Moore ( the primary offense was against Turk by Reynolds) are healed. It is possible that Al Mohler, chock full of earned respect in the Reformed community, could intervene and speed up the process by telling Moore that really I am sorry and that he, Dr. Mohler, will vouch for me.

First of all, putting me in the company of Mohler and Moore is extraordinarily humbling, so thank you for that -- even in an example of people who ought to know each other and have a relational bond.

But your example simply doesn't take into account the basis for the doctrine explicitly spelled out in Chapter 1 of this document. The matter is the question of purgation of and reparations for sin and punishment in the life after death.

Though this is a bit tongue in cheek, it gets to the issue.

As for the “body of Christ,” I really think contextually it is an image. We are Christ’s body in one mystical sense (which is “real” though not material!), but not in the sense that I am literally an arm of Christ (material sense of body).

You have missed the point of the statement in context entirely, Dr. Reynolds. Here's the passage where it comes up:

Following in the footsteps of Christ, the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in his sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies. This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints, whereby the life of each individual son of God in Christ and through Christ is joined by a wonderful link to the life of all his other Christian brothers in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ till, as it were, a single mystical person is formed.

Thus is explained the "treasury of the Church" which should certainly not be imagined as the sum total of material goods accumulated in the course of the centuries, but the infinite and inexhaustible value the expiation and the merits of Christ Our Lord have before God, offered as they were so that all of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. It is Christ the Redeemer himself in whom the satisfactions and merits of his redemption exist and find their force. This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body..

The point of saying that the Church is "one mystical body" is so that one can say in some sensible (!) way that the spiritual goods of one can be transferred to another in order to save them from purgatorial punishment. It is to find a way to call the merits of the saints necessarily the merits of Christ, except in a way that makes them more or of another type.

I just think that you have misread the Papal piece which has problems (from my point of view), but not the one you suggest. I really wish a local Catholic would take up this argument and let us know if we are both misreading this complex and interesting piece!

I welcome anyone to link us to an authoritative document which decodes Indulgentiarum Doctrina to say either what you have said, or that says something else which would contradict what I have here exposited.

You're simply mistaken, Dr. Reynolds, in your reading. You have interposed a clinical/therapeutic grid where the document has plainly laid our a judicial/penal system in which there are kinds of remittence to be paid.

This is where I usually grand-stand for the Gospel, but let it be enough to say this: while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, so much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, so much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

It's a done deal -- and to say otherwise overturns the true goodness of the Good News.

Ironic mis-prioritizing

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:32:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

Many prepare assiduously for what may never happen,
But not at all for what will surely happen.

Come now!

Live now!

A Most Ingenious Paradox

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:01:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

ears ago I discovered (the hard way) that the Internet is not the friendliest place for anyone who wants to stand up for logic or defend the coherence of truth.

I've long been concerned about the erosion of rationality in postmodern culture. I've always known there are naive Christians who mindlessly parrot worldly values, and I've been concerned for years about the potential for mischief when spiritual-sounding Christian terminology gets blended with worldly irrationalism. But I had no clue how much and how far irrationalism had already infected the visible church when I posted this article on my website back in 1995.

The article is a defense of the principium contradictionis, or "the law of contradiction"—which says truth is by definition non-contradictory: "A is not non-A." (Some people prefer to speak of it as "the law of non-contradiction." Whatever.)

The law of contradiction is one of three principles classical logicians universally regard as foundational to all human thought. The other two are the law of identity, which states that an object is the same as itself: "A is A." Then there's the law of the excluded middle, meaning that when two propositions directly negate one another, one must be true and the other false; there is no third alternative: "Either A or non-A, but not both A and non-A."

The codification of those three principles is usually attributed to Aristotle. Most philosophers have regarded them as self-evident. (There have been exceptions. Hegel hated classical logic.) But those rather simple principles are the basis of formal logic and rational thought. Without them, rational discourse is simply not possible. In fact, to deny any of those principles is (by definition) irrational.

Anyway, almost 15 years ago I wrote this little essay on the law of contradiction, and it unleashed the fury of several hordes of budding "postmodern Christians." They filled my in-box with protests, solemnly assuring me that human logic is just that: "human," and therefore ungodly. To acknowledge the incomprehensibility of God is to embrace the incoherence of truth, they (illogically) insisted. Illogic? Who cares? They proudly and steadfastly embraced several contradictions in their own worldview. Their theology (early Emergent nonsense) seemed deliberately muddled. Contradictions in one's doctrine are more to be desired than gold, they seemed to be saying. Their whole idea of "faith" was a Kierkegaardian leap into dark nothingness, where (apparently) any and all biblical propositions are fair game for quacks and amateurs to question or contradict, depending on their personal whims.

But the principium contradictionis they could not tolerate, because it contradicted ideas that were frankly more basic to their worldview than the plain statements of Scripture.

So one of these guys—let's call him Daryl—was especially persistent. He e-mailed me again and again, and promised to supply me with "incontrovertible proof that the law of contradiction is false." The irony of his own boast escaped him, and it was clear from the start that his mouth was writing a check his mind could never cash. But he "stayed up half the night" noodling on the problem, then wrote me to say he had two propositions that debunked the principium contradictionis. Here's the salient part of his e-mail:

1. "This sentence is false."

2. And here's one I got from Bertrand Russell: Suppose X is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is the following proposition, "X is a member of itself." true, or false? If it's true, then it's also false. (I hope I'm saying that correctly. I got it from a book about logic.)

Anyway, there are two propositions that are both true and false.

My reply:

Daryl, I'm disappointed. This is old stuff.

Let's start with Bertrand Russell's "Set of all sets" paradox. You did state it correctly. It is a classic mathematical paradox (one of several.) Those not acquainted with it may have to think a few minutes to see the subtlety of this paradox:

Some sets are members of themselves (e.g., the set of all abstract concepts is itself an abstract concept. Therefore it is a member of the set of all abstract concepts.)
Some sets are not members of themselves. (e.g., the set of all colors is not itself a color.)
Think about the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is it a member of itself, or not? If yes, the answer is no, and vice versa.

But it reflects a very naive view of logic and math to assert that such paradoxes debunk the law of contradiction. Most of them actually involve the fallacy of equivocation and can be resolved by careful definition. Search and see.

The Russell paradox is based on incomplete and outdated set theory. Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZFC) set theory is a system of axioms that avoids the Russell paradox. Jensen, Quine, Hilbert, Frege, and even Russell himself all proposed other more or less successful theories to resolve the "set of all sets" paradox. I'm not much of a mathematician, so I won't attempt to explain all those theories. (But you can Google them.) They all attack the problem by restricting or stratifying the way sets are constructed. They suggest there is a logical gap that must be bridged between the definition of a set and the set's actual construction.

In layman's terms: "The set of all sets that are not members of themselves" does not exist. In the real world it reduces to nonsense. The fact that we can define a set does not mean it actually exists. So this involves no actual contradiction and therefore can't be used to disprove the law of contradiction.

Here: I'll give you a tougher puzzle. Think about the set of all things that have never been contemplated as a set. The moment you attempt to think of it, it disappears. So technically, you can't even think about such a set, and it can't possibly exist. (But, hey! weren't you in fact thinking about it when it went 'poof'?) Like Russell's "set of all sets" it is an absurdity that can be defined but cannot exist. Such absurdities pose no threat whatsoever to the law of contradiction.

Your other paradox, "This statement is false," is a classic conundrum on the order of God and the rock that's too big for him to lift. It doesn't disprove the law of contradiction for three reasons:

Statements with self-referent truth assertions are the only kind of statements that lead to such contradictions, because they involve a kind of recursive "logic" that is inherently absurd.
Again, the statement commits the fallacy of equivocation. The paradox in "This statement is false" hinges on an ambiguity that can be eliminated with a precise definition of false.
The law of the excluded middle means every proposition must be either true or false. That disqualifies "This statement is false" as a valid proposition, because it can't be either true or false. It is an absurd statement, not a real proposition.

So the bottom line is that both of your challenges to the law of contradiction boil down to sheer nonsense. And if I may make a friendly observation, Daryl, you are all too prone to assert that nonsense is truth and vice versa.

This is a mystery to me, by the way. In [another online forum] you doggedly defended Søren Kierkegaard against the charge that he is irrational. And yet you attack rationality. If you think logic is invalid anyway, why do you object to the assertion that Kierkegaard (or you) are irrational?

Far from debunking the law of contradiction, paradoxes such as "This statement is false" have actually elevated the status of the law of contradiction in the study of formal logic and math. Computer scientists, for example, have been forced to grapple with and resolve the absurdity of self-referent truth assertions. Metalanguage is employed precisely to avoid that problem in logic, linguistics and computer programming.

Here are a couple of Web sites that have interesting discussions of mathematical paradoxes and computer programming:

http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/metaknowledge.html
http://logic.stanford.edu/kif/Hypertext/node25.html

(The latter has to do specifically with set theory and its relationship to Russell's paradox.)

It is perhaps necessary to point out that all true paradoxes can be resolved. If they couldn't be, they would stand as contradictions, and truth itself would be an absurd concept. (That, sadly, is precisely the conclusion some have drawn, both in the secular world and in the visible church.) But while paradoxes are interesting logic puzzles, they do not negate the law of contradiction. Christians would do well to remember this. Too many Christians have fallen into the habit of using the word "paradox" in the neo-orthodox and Kierkegaardian sense of "a flat-out contradiction that we're going to affirm anyway, thus embracing nonsense as truth."

But Scripture teaches that God is truth, and He cannot deny himself. So the law of contradiction is established on biblical authority.

Yet mathematicians and computer scientists put most theologians to shame when it comes to resolving paradoxes like these. Russell first proposed his set theory paradox in 1901. Mathematicians worldwide—including Russell himself—immediately scrambled to find a way to resolve it. Why? Because they knew if it were irresolvable—if it really debunked the law of contradiction—then it would not only nullify all mathematical knowledge; it would also render truth itself moot.

Indeed, overthrow the law of contradiction and everything can be both true and false, thus demolishing the whole concept of truth.

In effect, this is precisely what the blending of postmodernism and theology is all about. But it's foolish in the extreme to use the language of "paradox" to make truth itself seem absurd. I'm concerned about Christians who blithely say they are happy to "live with paradox," when what they really mean is that it's OK to have an irrational worldview.

Gordon Clark used to define paradox as "a charlie horse between the ears." I don't agree with Clark about everything, but he was right to defend the coherence of truth. When faced with two difficult truths we find hard to reconcile, we ought to view it as an opportunity to work out the kinks in our thinking and try to gain a better understanding of truth. If two biblical truths seem to contradict, we need to take another look and be humble enough to acknowledge that perhaps we have misunderstood one or the other (or both) of the seemingly contradictory ideas. We need to understand—like those mathematicians did at the start of the 20th century—that if "truth" really contradicted itself, the very concept of truth would be moot. Christians of all people ought to stand firmly against every charge that truth is inherently self-contradictory.

Best of centuri0n: the filthy sheep-herd

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 08:30:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

[OK: that'll be 4 weeks off where you got to read my "best of", and I hope it didn;t bore you to death. We'll resume with the regularly-scheduled merciless beatings next week-ish.]

I was having a discussion with my pastor, and I related it to my wife (who is the greatest blogger who never typed 1K of bandwidth). The discussion was about church leadership, and whether the metaphor of the shepherd was useful in a society like America where 95% of the people have never seen one sheep, let alone a flock, let alone a person who was herding sheep.

Now, before any of you start the “perspicuity of scripture” organ up and set your monkey to dancing, this was not a discussion questioning the sufficiency of Scripture. Tad’s an inerrancy & sufficiency guy, and in case you haven’t noticed, so am I. The question was whether you could just open up this metaphor and have it stand up on its own in today’s society without a pretty significant amount of back-fill.

So, for example, is there a 21st century American equivalent to the shepherd which we could say, “look: most of you have never seen a shepherd, so rather than try to unpack what a shepherd does, let’s think about [Profession X] which is just like being a Shepherd.” My opinion is that there is no equivalent, and we have to unpack the metaphor Scripture has for us. But we took away the challenge to think about the matter and report back.

So, I took the matter to the Holy Spirit, which in my house is manifest most often in my wife. She slept on it, and she came up with two great conclusions.

CONCLUSION #1:

Men would probably like it if the Shepherd metaphor translated into “staff sergeant” or “General” or “CEO”. It would make Macho sense to them. But they would be wrong: a Shepherd is much more like a Kindergarten teacher than like a Sergeant or a CEO. Of course, you can’t sell a lot of books to men in business if your thesis is, “Jesus really is a lot more like a good Kindergarten teacher than a superhero or a king when it comes to dealing with us stupid sinners.”

CONCLUSION #2:

The biggest separation, however, between the good shepherd metaphor and the CEO is that the Shepherd lives with his sheep in every way. That is, the shepherd has to get dirty and do distasteful and even degrading things to make sure he takes proper care of his sheep. I don’t know a lot of CEOs who are ready to degrade themselves, for example, by working in the same conditions as the hourly single parent who has to work on the line. “But cent,” you might say, “the CEO does a pretty radically different kind of work than the hourly employee,” and I’d agree with you. Christ does a pretty radically different work than I do, but you know something: though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

If you are looking for the model of leadership demonstrated in Christ, look there at the dirty sheep-herd who lives with his sheep, and sleeps with his sheep, and has to personally stand between his sheep and the wolves.

Good luck with that this weekend.

BibleWorks 8 + module sale!

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:02:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

If you don't own BibleWorks, (A) you really should, particularly if you're a pastor; and (B) you should know they're having a sale for the next ten days Order BibleWorks for the first time, plus one module, and you receive $30 off.

Just buy it through their webstore and use the coupon code TENFRIEND, and Bob's your mother's brother.

As I confessed, I've an overdue review of BW8 in the works. The short version: I love it, I heartily recommend it, it simply is the most serious Bible tools you can get for the money.

Logos 4.0 launches today

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:36:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

[BTW: Last Saturday was Reformation Day, and Pyromaniacs had a post inspired by the event... in case you missed it]

Howdy boys and girls. For some time now, I've been confined in a super-secret location, beta-testing the Logos 4 software. Only now am I allowed to Go Public — and hey, look! You're the public!

Okay, the confinement part isn't true, but the rest is. The folks at Logos are unveiling their new software platform, and it boasts quite a quiver-full of changes and upgrades in performance and power. Go check it out, now.

This is not a full review, but a peek and a taste. I'm not light-speed in capturing these new applications. I still have a grossly-overdue review of BibleWorks 8 that should finally arrive this week or the next, and that's been around for a good while. But let me share some of what I am seeing about Logos 4.

All the changes I see reflect the fact that the Logos folks have been listening carefully to their customers, which is all-good. Two such specific factors may be controversial, but are clearly targeted at addressing long-standing complaints about Logos 3's speed: (1) indexing, and (2) server based operations.

Logos 4 will periodically want to perform full indexing of the product (i.e. when new databases are added). In the short run, of course, this has a significant impact on pc performance. A simple workaround Logos provides is to put off the indexing until a more convenient time.

The payoff is substantial. Because of the standing index, complex searches now take a moment or two. Example: my Logos library is very large. I did a whole-library search on propitiation. I received 4211 results in 2470 articles in 3.13 seconds, plus another 806 results in 452 new resources (not yet incorporated into the main index) in 2.48 seconds.

That same search in Logos 3 took nearly six minutes. That's a huge improvement.

Also, in ways I don't fully grasp yet, my resources are monitored on the Logos servers. That way, updates can take place overnight. But another payoff for me is that my iPhone can use the free Logos software app (that I mention here) to access — as far as I can tell — all of my Logos resources. This is really a staggering feature.

In fact, a Logos fact-sheet says that "all your documents—notes, clippings, and custom guides—are safely backed up on our servers. If your computer crashes, just reinstall Logos 4 and all your data will be restored." This also makes it possible to sync your Logos exactly with a second computer.

Logos 4 details 100 new features. Here are a few miscellaneous specifics.

Logos 4 can accommodate multiple monitors.
Logos 4 will read your selection aloud.
Put a Bible passage in the Go line on the home page, and both Passage and Exegetical searches are performed at the same time
The results that come up are more comprehensive and more usefully-displayed, including text-comparisons, cross-passages, and Information window activated by a mouse-over.

Many more facets are customizable, including layouts and tagging/rating of your favorite resources.

As I said, this is just a taste. When I'm able, I plan to do a more complete review. Go check it out yourself, compare packages — it's available to you today.

UPDATE: if all you want to do is upgrade your Logos engine, see here. I think it's certainly worth at least that.

Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:52:00 +0000

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The Following excerpt, chosen in honor of Reformation Day, is from "Reform," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 13 February 1859, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.

e want such an one as Martin Luther to rise from his tomb. If Martin Luther, were now to visit our so-called reformed churches, he would say with all his holy boldness "I was not half a reformer when I was alive before, now I will make thorough work of it."

How he would adjure you to cast away your superstitions, to abolish all the rites and forms and ceremonies that are not of divine appointment, and once more in the integrity of simple faith, to worship the Lord God alone, in that way alone, which the Lord God himself has ordained. Let all these, like those altars of Judaism, be cast down to the ground and utterly put away. I desire not only to be a Christian, but to be fully a Christian, walking in all the ways of my blessed Master, with a perfect heart, and I desire for all my brethren and sisters in Christ here, not only that they may have grace enough to save their souls, but grace enough to purify them from all the devices of men, from every false doctrine, from every false practice, and every evil thing.

Speak you now of doctrine? Are there not two kinds of doctrines professed among Christians, the one Arminian, and the other Calvinistic? We cannot be both right; it is impossible.

The Arminian says, "God loves all men alike."

"Not so," says the Calvinist. "He has proved to many of us by his free and distinguishing grace that he has given us more than others, not for the merit of our deservings, but according to the riches of his mercy, and the counsel of his own will."

The Arminian supposes, that Christ hath bought all men with his blood, and yet that multitudes of these redeemed ones perish. The Calvinist holds, that none can perish for whom Jesus died—that his blood was never shed in vain and that of all those whom he hath redeemed, none shall ever perish.

The Arminian teaches that though a man should be regenerated and become a child of God to-day, he may to-morrow be cast out of the covenant, and be as much a child of the devil as if no spiritual change had been wrought in him. "Not so," says the Calvinist, "Salvation is of God alone, and where once he begins he never leaves off, until he has finished the good work."

How obvious it is that we cannot both be right in matters about which we so widely differ. I exhort you, therefore, my brothers and sisters, after you have broken your images and cut down your groves, go a step further, and break down the false altars.

I can only say for myself, "If I be wrong, I desire to be set right," and for you I am solemnly concerned, "If you be wrong, may God help you to a right judgment, and bring you to see the truth, embrace it, and earnestly and valiantly maintain it. I like you to be charitable to others; but do not be too charitable to yourselves. Let others follow out their own conscientious convictions, but do you recollect, it is not your conscience that is to be your guide, but God's Word; and if your conscience is wrong, you are to bring it to God's Word that it may be reproved and "transformed by the renewing of your mind." It is for you to do what God tells you, as God tells you, when God tells you, and how God tells you.

Pardon me for a moment, if I should risk the displeasure of some I love by referring to an ordinance of the church about which we are likely to disagree. The sacred rite of baptism is administered in a great number of churches to little infants upon the sponsorship of their guardians or friends, while many of us consider that Holy Scripture teaches that believers only (without respect to their age at all) are the proper subjects of baptism, and that upon a personal profession of their faith in Christ.

I see a man take up an unconscious infant in his arms, and he says he baptizes it. When I turn to my Bible, I can see nothing whatever of this sort there. It is true I find the Lord Jesus saying, "Suffer little children to come unto me," but that affords no precedent for carrying a little child to the minister, that could not come, that was too young to walk, much less to think and understand the meaning of these things. Yet more, when Jesus said "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven"—they did come to him; but I do not find that he baptized or sprinkled them at all, he gave them his blessing and they went away.

I am sure he did not baptize them, for it is expressly said, "Jesus Christ baptized not, but his disciples" [John 4:2].

So, then, that passage does not favor the Paedobaptist, it is quite clear. I am informed however, that the reason why children are baptized is, that we are told in the Bible that Abraham's children were circumcised. This puzzles me. I cannot see any likeness at all between the two things. But who were the persons circumcised? They were Israelites. Why were they circumcised? Because they were Israelites. That is the reason; and I say I would not hesitate to baptize any Christian, though he be a babe in Christ, as soon as he knows the Lord Jesus Christ, were he only eight days old in the faith, if he proves that he is an Israelite in the spirit himself, I will baptize him.

I have nothing to do with his father or his mother in religion. Religion is a personal act all the way through; another man cannot believe for me, cannot repent for me; and another person cannot give for me the answer of a good conscience toward God in baptism and have it done in my name. We must act on our own individual responsibility in religion by the grace of God, or else the thing is virtually not done at all.

Now I believe many godly people do sincerely worship God at this altar of infant baptism; but I am equally clear that it is my duty to do my utmost to break it down, for it is not God's altar; God's altar is believers' baptism. What said Philip to the Eunuch? "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest."

"Lo! here is water," said the Eunuch.

Yes, but that was not all; there must be faith, as well as water, before there could be legitimate baptism; and every baptism that is administered to any man, except he asketh it himself, on profession of his faith in Christ, is an altar at which I could not worship, for I do not believe it to be the altar of God, but an altar originally built at Rome, the pattern of which has been adopted here, to the marring of the union of the church, and to the great injury of souls.

Now, all I ask from those who differ from me in opinion is, simply to look at the matter honestly and calmly. If they can find infant baptism in the Bible, then let them practice it and worship there; if they cannot, let them be honest, and come and worship at the altar of Jerusalem, and there alone.

An old woman was once promised a Bible, if she could find a text that sanctioned infant baptism. She could only find one, and that was, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake." The minister gave her the Bible for her ingenuity, admitting, that it was an ordinance of man, and no mistake.

I quote this instance of infant baptism, as only one out of many corruptions that have crept into our churches. It is quite clear that all sects cannot be right. They may be right as to the main points essential to salvation, though in their discrepancies with one another they betray errors. I do not want you to believe that I am right. Rather turn to Scripture, and see what is right.

The day must come when Episcopacy, Independency, Wesleyanism, and every other system, must be read by the Word of God, and every form given up that is not approved before the Most High. I hope I shall always be able to lift up my voice against that charity growing up in our midst, which is not only a charity towards persons, but a charity towards doctrines. I have fervent charity towards every brother in Christ who differs from me. I love him for Christ's sake, and hold fellowship with him for the truth's sake: but I can have no charity for his errors, nor do I wish him to have any for mine. I tell him straight to his face, "If your sentiments contradict mine, either I am right and you are wrong, or you are right and I am wrong; and it is time we should meet together and search the Word of God, to see what is right."

Talk of your Evangelical Alliances, and such like: they will never endure; they may effect many blessed purposes, but they are not the remedy that is wanted for our divisions. What is wanted is, for all of us to come to the model of the Word of God, and when we have come to that, we must come together. Let us all come "to the law and to the testimony." Let the Baptist, let the Independent, let the Churchman, lay aside his old thoughts, his old prejudices, and his old traditions, and let each man search for himself, as in the sight of Almighty God, and some of the altars must go down, for they cannot all be after the divine type, when their dissimilarity is so palpable.

Come!

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 00:27:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

Every now and then I remind myself that all sorts of people happen by this blog. For the most part, we address ourselves to folks within certain niche that, while broad, is nonetheless defined. It has edges. Yet we know we have visitors and lurkers from all across the spectrum.

That's who I'm talking to, today. I am addressing a certain group not in our normal collection of readers. There may be 500 of you, or 5, or 1. If only one, that's fine: you are who I'm talking to.

I'm supposing that you're an outsider, and that you know it. You know something about Christianity; maybe a little, maybe a lot. But you know you're not a Christian, and you're honest enough to admit it. I appreciate that.

You hear all this talk of "evangelicalism" and "election" and "sovereignty" and all that, and you're not sure what it all means. It seems pretty hard and heady. Don't feel bad about that. It's hard and heady to us, too.

But here's what you really need to know. You need to know that you should come to Jesus, right now. That's the most important thing I have to say to you. It's the only thing I have to say to you: you should come to Jesus.

There are countless reasons why you — whoever you are, wherever you are, whatever you've done — should come to Jesus. Let me give you five:

You really need Jesus. You've already begun to suspect as much. Let me earnestly assure you, you need Him far more than you know. So did I, and so do I! You need Him because you are far from God. God is not the shapeless, cuddly, Grampa in the Sky that some think. He is absolutely free from all that is wrong and wicked and sinful; He is bursting with life and purity and goodness and holiness. What is more, He cannot abide the contrary — crimes against His laws or His nature. You and I have committed those crimes. We've done it since we were old enough to do anything. We have lied, stolen, wanted things that weren't ours to have. We have lived for things or personal goals, rather than for God above all. Even one such crime makes us a criminal, and God must punish such crimes. There is no appeal beyond His court. His verdict is final, and it will be terrible.
Only Jesus meets your deepest needs. You are a criminal in God's eyes, and forgiveness is found in Jesus alone. You are spiritually dead, and headed for eternal horrors; and Jesus is the resurrection and the life. You are far from God; in Jesus alone, you will find God and know Him as your Father. You are a slave of sin, of Satan, of the world; in Jesus alone, you will be delivered.
Jesus Himself calls you to come. If He hadn't called you, I would have no right to do so now. But Jesus says, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30). That is a wide-open door, big enough for you to squeeze through. He says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst" (John 6:35). What's more, He says "whoever comes to me I will never cast out (John 6:37). To me, that is one of the most precious promises in all of Scripture. I cling to that like a drowning man to a life raft. What could possibly keep you from leaping to come, as Jesus calls you? It is a call, it is an invitation — and it is a command.
Jesus alone has the absolute right to call you and command you to come. Jesus was no mere sage nor philosopher. He was and is God in human nature, and He was and is Lord. He is not merely the king nor president of this nor that nation, of this nor that ethnicity — He is the head of the entire human race. He alone has the authority to call you and me, to command us, and He has the right to expect us to come — and to deal severely with us if we do not. That is, He has the right to make terrible and true threats to anyone who refuses to come. And He has the right to promise all the glorious, wonderful blessings which He gives as free gifts to all who do come.
When you do come, you will see that it was all a free gift of God, and that you have God alone to thank and credit for what He will do for you. Had He not drawn me, I never would have come. But because He drew me, I came. Had He not given me life, I never would have come. But He gave me life — freely! by grace! — and I came. I owe every bit of it, I must give every last ounce of credit for it, to God and to God alone. I cannot begin to tell you how much I owe Him, how much love and honor and credit and praise He deserves. For now, let me just say "ALL," and add "to Him ALONE."

No church can do this for you. No ritual can do this for you. No philosophy can do this for you. No self-improvement program can do this for you. In fact, no thing can do any of this for you. Only a person can do this for you, and only one Person can do this for you: Jesus Christ.

So, come to Him! Come now! Why ever would you not come? Now is the only time you know you have; tomorrow never comes. Many have died since you began reading this. Your need to come is urgent, your opportunity to come is fleeting

Come to Jesus!

Of course, much more should be said, and could be said. For instance:

If you want to read more about why it makes sense to believe Jesus, read this.
If you want to read more about why you need Jesus, and what He has done to meet the needs of people just like you, and what it means to believe in Jesus, read this.
If you do come, and believe in Jesus, and want to know where to go from here, read this.

And to all our readers:

Happy Reformation Day!

To God alone be all the glory!

Programming notes: Paul Edwards, and the Conference + notes

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:03:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

Two things, labeled "E" for Eminently Bumpable:

Brother Paul Edwards, having already talked to my better-two-thirds here at Pyro, finally reached bottom of the barrel. That's right, you can hear me, DJP, on his show today, Lord willing, at about 5:20pm ET / 2:20pm PT. It should be available streaming at the site, and then should be up after 8pm ET under the Audio Archive/Podcast heading. We talk mainly about the subject of this post, and this one. I think Ligon Duncan may be on the same show, so that's not to be missed.
All of the Sovereignty of God talks from the recent Bible Conference are now up on Sermon Audio, along with the detailed outlines I handed out.

That's all.

UPDATE: it isn't showing under Archives yet, but here is the show. (I geeked my way to it.)

A PS from Phil Johnson:

(Rather than bump Dan's post, I'll embellish it.)

Actually, owing to scheduling conflicts I have never been able to be a guest on the Paul Edwards Program. So DJP is only the second member of TeamPyro to have that honor. The "bottom of the barrel" has yet to be scraped.

Paul Edwards did ask me to come on earlier this month to discuss a post I wrote about Rob Bell, titled "Performance Artist." I was traveling that day and couldn't do it, but just a few days later, Lane Chaplin scheduled an interview via Skype where we had a similar discussion. Here is the result:

Book review: Death by Love, by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:30:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

I already shared what it has been like reading the Olive Tree software version of this book on my iPhone. Now to the contents of the book — though first, I will remark that a disadvantage of reading an iPhone version is that I can't easily refer to page numbers.

My reaction to this book is very varied, as I've come to expect from Driscoll. And that isn't, in itself, a good thing.

First, I think the premise is absolutely brilliant (and was supported by a terrific ad-campaign). Driscoll takes a pastoral approach to number of real-life counseling encounters, describes them, and then writes "letters from the cross." That is to say, in each situation, Driscoll takes an aspect of Christ's atonement and applies it to each situation, each human need or brokenness or sin.

In this, the book reminds me of a book I read years ago named Search for Significance, by Robert McGee. Without rabbit-trailing on that particular book, what I liked about it was that McGee took fundamental soteriological truths and applied them to human need — as opposed to saying, "Everyone wants to feel loved and lacks confidence, God loves you, just keep repeating Philippians 4:13 to yourself," as many do.

So I love where Driscoll and Breshears start with this book. It's exactly the sort of thing we all need to do. We say, "Preach the Gospel — not just to the unsaved, but to the church, and to yourself," and we insist that the Gospel bears on all of life. But then do we do it, do we work it out, do we bring the Gospel? Or do we content ourselves with moralizing advice? Driscoll makes a manly effort to do what we all say we should do.

Does he succeed? Largely, I'd say yes. Driscoll gets into a wide range of aspects of the Gospel, not in the least shrinking from controversial facets such as penal, subsitutionary atonement and propitiation. In issue after issue, he comes down on the Biblical side. With solid Biblical support, some good documentation, and earnest applications of the many facets of the one brilliant gem (such as Christus Victor, Christus Exemplar, etc.)

All this Driscoll and Breshears do well, forcefully, persuasively, wholesomely, and articulately.

And boy oh boy, you're just waiting for that "but," aren't you?

I'm genuinely sorry to have to say that there's more than one "but." The first, elephant-in-the-room "but" is Driscoll's deliberately-crafted image. By his own insistent and repeated behavior, Driscoll has put a pall over his ministry through his readiness to do anything for a laugh, for a shock, for being seen as "Reformed Theology's Bad Boy!" The way Driscoll has dealt with brotherly and fatherly reproof just can't be shrugged off, and that's a pity. It's a pity because this book shows Driscoll is capable of some truly good, effective work.

But that same baneful taint spills over into the book as well. Really, Mark, does everyone you meet have primarily sexual problems? Chapter after chapter, we have to read about naked bodies, fondling, and sex of various kinds. The word "sex" occurs 27X, "sexual" another 26X, along with other related terms and uncomfortable modifiers. It's not always graphic, it's just there... and there, and there, and there, and....

True: the chains and harm of sexual sin are out there. True: we must deal with it. True: the message of the Cross is needed and relevant. But really — is it that prevalent, requiring this degree of specificity? Two millennia of Christian pastoral writing, and only now it has to be gone into over and over?

Don't try putting the "prude" label on me. It won't fit. But I'm okay with the "not-everything-that-can-be-said-should-be-said," Ephesians 5:3-12 label.

Plus, there's Driscoll's obsession with being perceived as a big, tough, chest-thumping, manly-man. Why is it so important to Mark to convince everyone how tough and manly and rude and crude he is — so much tougher and manlier and ruder and cruder than all us pantywaists?

For instance, in chapter nine, Driscoll counsels a wicked, sinful old man who (Driscoll keeps impressing on us) really makes him angry. Driscoll hates this guy. He writes that "everything in me wanted to ...give him the beating of his life." Because, you know, beating up a dying old man is the manly thing to do.

Driscoll wants us to know that "I did my job and decided to assault the old man with my words instead of my fists." Driscoll metaphorically grabbed this old, dying man by the neck and rubbed his face in his own feces. (BTW, that isn't an exaggeration: Pastor Mark judged that the man "needed to sit in his own feces for a season until he smelled his filth.")

What's more, Driscoll wants us to know that he cussed at the old man and called him horrible names — employing, Driscoll adds coyly, "some other words I won't write because some good church folks could not handle it."

Got that? Nothing wrong with the words. Driscoll isn't apologetic about them. See, they're not a problem. We're the problem. Because, don't you know, we're not real, and gritty, and tough, and manly-men — like Driscoll is! He's real. He's 100% first-class male. We're just "good church folks" — girly-men? — who can't "handle" those big, bad manly words.

Manly words, by the way, that The Man never found the need to use.

So this (wretched, sinful, wicked, repellant — it's all true) old man breaks down and weeps. Does Pastor Mark apologize or soften? No, it just makes him mad. Because he's so tough! And manly! In fact, when Driscoll finally gets around to granting that the old sinner might find forgiveness in Christ, it seems to be with palpable reluctance.

In chapter six, Driscoll criticizes church guys who don't teach what he does (about anger) as "flaccid." In fact, Driscoll uses that word again and again in that chapter: "flaccid... flaccid... flaccid...." Huh, Mark; what are you trying to say about guys who don't teach what you teach? Maybe your point's just too subtle.

Also, Driscoll dabbles in trendy notions of doing battle with demons by seeing them behind some temptations, talking to demons, ordering them about and the like. His exegesis is weak, but he stays well-shy of obsession.

And hey, turns out Driscoll's an Amyraldian. His argument is made with great confidence, Driscoll calls it the "unlimited-limited-atonement" view, and he tries hard to distinguish it from your daddy's Amyraldianism — but his case falls far short of convincing. Driscoll provides no answer for the question of how people suffer eternally (as he affirms) because of sins for which Jesus already made full atonement. So for all his vaunted "Reformed" cred, Driscoll's yet another four-pointer.

Back to the positive. Driscoll goes toe to toe with universalism repeatedly. In his letter to his dearly-loved little son Gideon, Driscoll tells him that as much as he loves his son, he loves Jesus more. If his son grows and apostatizes, Driscoll pledges to oppose him. It's bracing and instructive, in this Franky-Schaeffer day, to see Driscoll's commitment to God's truth, to loving Jesus more than he clearly loves his son.

Driscoll also seriously smacks down nonsense such as finding self-esteem in the Gospel. This is also good.

So in sum: the book is like what I've heard of Driscoll's preaching. He communicates sharply and articulately. There's a lot of good, but it is marred by elements seemingly reflective of personal issues, and by the reputation Driscoll has crafted and earned and kept, and has chosen not to mortify.

The former simply renders the latter all the sadder.

Best of centuri0n: send out the weiner dogs

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:30:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

[This one is bound to make somebody mad. Glad I could help -- from the day after Christmas, 2006]

I just realized it was Wednesday, which is unofficially my day for occupying this space, and I realized I hadn't been preparing for it. I have been so engrossed by my Belkin TuneBase over the last two days, I'll be honest: I forgot about blogging. You can't imagine how entraced you can get listening to every frequency on the FM dial trying to find one with the appropriate level of stationlessness in order to broadcast a puny little peep from your iPod so you can listen to John Piper, Third Day and James White's rather hardscrabble free MP3s.

Anyway, as I found that 88.9 FM is the best for my little device, I was listening to Dr. Piper describe Christians as "task oriented" folk who frankly have let the arts slip through our fingers. There are a lot of reasons for that -- each could probably make a very keen blog post in and of itself -- but let me suggest one which Dr. Piper did not say in particular.

As a people, we Christians have adopted one of the worst attributes of the anabaptist tradition, and that is a rather sincere disdain for things which are true and beautiful. Here's what I mean by that: we have set up a false dichotomy between "true" and "beautiful" so that anything which is "true" must be plain or otherwise homely, and everything which is "beautiful" must be the work of the devil because it appeals to our eyes and ears. And we have also let the world dictate to us what is "beautiful" so that we don't even know it when we see it anymore.

So what we wind up with, for example, is the ocean of vacuous "worship" music in Christian bookstores which is neither true nor beautiful; we wind up with Christian "art" which is hardly suited for comic books let alone the walls of our homes; we wind up with t-shirts being the high fashion statement of our subculture; we wind up with literature-ignorant and theology-vacant "poetry" that neither moves emotionally or inspires intellectually.

And with these things, we want to have a culture war with New York, Los Angeles and Hollywood. Good grief, people: we might as well be sending weiner dogs out to defend us against an army of machette-weilding Haitian voodoo zombies. At least the weiner dogs would be able to smell the dead meat and run away from it, and we could follow them.

So what to do? I mean, isn't the right answer to study the culture and then try to co-opt its methods because obviously those methods are working on those people who we say we want to reach? It's that the missional thing to do -- especially in the arts?

Does that sound like a TeamPyro post to you?

Let me suggest something instead which I think many people probably have heard but no one has bothered to apply to this problem: all great art demonstrates the tension between love and death. That's not a Biblical proverb per se, but it is, in fact, true. All great poetry is about the tension between love and death -- even if it's not the love of another person or the death of a particular person. And one of the great failings of modern culture is its shallow vision of love (which is explicitly and almost exclusively sexual and sensual) and its obsession with death (either by avoidance in worshipping youth, or its glamorization of suicide).

Listen: if there's anything on Earth (or in the Heavens) which we Christians ought to know something about, it's Love and Death. In fact, we should be the ones who are exclaiming the fact of Love in Death. We shouldn't be establishing a suicide cult but extolling the fantastic fact that Christ died for our sins because God Loved, and Christ was resurrected in order that death would be destroyed.

There's more art to be made in that one sentence than all the movies Hollywod has ever turned out, and more than either NYC or LA could turn out in music and TV in 10,000 years. Why? Because there is Truth and Beauty in that statement, and it doesn't force us to make false moral choices or reduce our expressions to some gloomy, dismal, atonal text.

The great topic of art belongs to us. The great purpose of art is not, as someone once said, to frame a lie which seems pleasant, but to frame truth by analogy -- and the greatest truth-by-analogy of all time is the Bible.

So as we close out the season of meditation on that the incarnation of Christ means (or ought to mean) to us, the Christians, let us also think about how we tell others about this great gift. It's not enough to get it right in theory: we must also get it right in practice, which is to say, in the full-contact sport of real life.

Blessed is the one who finds wisdom,
and the one who gets understanding,
for the gain from her is better than gain from silver
and her profit better than gold.
She is more precious than jewels,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.
Long life is in her right hand;
in her left hand are riches and honor.
Her ways are ways of pleasantness,
and all her paths are peace.
She is a tree of life to those who lay hold of her;
those who hold her fast are called blessed.

Let us find her, and let us tell everyone how precious and rich she is indeed.

Open(ish) forum: Why are you where you are, churchwise?

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:28:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

I'm trying to finish up my reading of Mark Driscoll's Death by Love, and hope to have a review up here Thursday. In the meanwhile....

We've had vigorous discussion about church ministry, church attendance, staying in churches, and leaving church. Now I want to ask our august readership this question:

Why do you attend the church you attend?

Before you launch, read these explanations and limitations:

This is only for Christians whose church affiliation affirms the Biblical fundamentals of theology proper, Bibliology, and the Gospel. (That would exclude JWs, Roman Catholics, Hindus, Scientologists, Christian Scientists, Moslems, Mormons, Animists, Eastern/Greek Orthoborg, and anyone else I find I have to exclude as we go. But it would include pre/post/amill, pedos and credos, Arminians and Calvinists, dispies and CTers, charismatics and people who really do believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, and a thronging mass of others.)
It is also only for Christians who are not sinning against God by refusing to be involved in a local church.
[UPDATE] Please do not make disparaging remarks about identifiable ministries or pastors from your past.
I want to know any or all of the following:

Why are you in the denomination you're in? or
Why are you in an independent (i.e. non-denominational) church?
How did you find the church you attend?
What specifically led you to attach yourself to the church you attend?
Why do you stay?
Under what circumstances would you leave?

Have at it.

The Problem of Evil (Yes, it IS a Problem)

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:01:00 +0000

omeone somewhere recently must have broadcast one of my messages where I mentioned the problem of evil and the sovereignty of God. Because I have been besieged lately by e-mails, Facebook messages, and Tweets from a handful of gung-ho Calvinists (currently veering at breakneck speed into hyper-Calvinism) who want to take issue with something I said. What I said is that God is neither the author, the agent, nor the efficient cause of evil. Evil is not something He created; rather, when He finished creating, He pronounced everything good. Nor does evil in any way emanate from Him, because He is light in whom there is no darkness. The responsibility (as well as the blame) for evil belongs to fallen creatures, not the Creator.

Anyway, these young men (who have recently discovered the doctrines of grace and are evidently still in the cage stage) have been writing me to dispute that point. "There is no 'problem of evil,'" a typical correspondent wrote. "What's the problem? God, who is the Creator of all things and who uses all things in the outworking of His eternal plan, Created evil for His own purpose. That poses no problem because God is above His own law and outside of it. Because He is subject to no law Himself, whatever He does is good, period. He can do anything, and when He does it, it becomes good."

"Can God lie?" I asked?

"Of course," my correspondent replied, flatly contradicting Titus 1:2.

The view that fellow was espousing is the ex lex theodicy—the notion that God can actively and directly cause evil, and that He can violate the moral standards of His own law because he is outside the law (Latin: ex lex) and therefore subject to no law and no set of principles whatsoever.

Let's stipulate that God is subject to no law and is Himself the ultimate Lawgiver, responsible to no one but Himself. (That is, after all, what we mean when we affirm that God is absolutely sovereign.) Nevertheless, it is blasphemous folly to conclude that God can lie, or deny the truth, or otherwise be the agent and efficient cause of evil. He cannot (and will not) do those things because they are contrary to His character. The law forbids such things precisely because the moral standard of the law reflects His character. God may not be subject to the law, but He will not deny Himself or act in a way contrary to His character.

Here's an excerpt from something I wrote and posted on this subject at my original blog several years ago:

ordon Clark wrote a short but very thought-provoking work titled "God and Evil: The problem Solved" (originally a chapter in his book Religion, Reason and Revelation, now also published as a standalone work). The work itself is not on the Web, but a sympathetic review and summary by Gary Crampton may be found here. In some respects, Clark's work is helpful, explaining clearly (for example) the principle of secondary causation and how it relates to the issue of culpability. (This is an important point which, as noted below, Clark then unfortunately proceeds to make moot.)

Clark also gives several clear reasons why it's neither biblical nor rational to argue that God merely "permitted" evil without sovereignly decreeing it.

(Without getting sidetracked on a secondary issue, let me go on record as saying I believe there is a permissive element in God's decree with respect to evil. That is, His decree doesn't make him the author or efficient cause of evil. But, as Calvin said, God's role in the origin of evil is not bare permission. In other words, it's not permission against His will, but a positive decree. In that respect, I think Clark is absolutely right, and his arguments on this point are cogent and persuasive.)

But in the process, Clark makes much of the ex lex argument to absolve God from the charge that He is therefore culpable for the entry of evil into His creation. This, I believe, is not particularly helpful, and a lot of people who have been influenced by Clark and who think he has neatly and easily solved the problem of evil tend to fall into terribly sloppy thinking about divine holiness, God's instrumentality with respect to evil, and the relationship between causality and culpability.

Anyway, I think John Frame's assessment of Clark's famous theodicy is helpful. Here it is. Frame's own footnotes are included in braces {and faint type}:

[Clark's] argument is that God is ex lex, which means "outside of the law." The idea is that God is outside of or above the laws he prescribes for man. He tells us not to kill, yet he retains for himself the right to take human life. Thus, he is not himself bound to obey the Ten Commandments or any other law given to man in Scripture. Morally, he is on an entirely different level from us. Therefore, he has the right to do many things that seem evil to us, even things which contradict Scriptural norms. For a man to cause evil indirectly might very well be wrong, but it would not be wrong for God. {But on this basis, it would also not be wrong for God to cause evil directly. That is why I said this argument makes the indirect-cause argument beside the point.} Thus Clark neatly finesses any argument against God's justice or goodness.

There is some truth in this approach. As we shall see, Scripture does forbid human criticism of God's actions, and the reason is, as Clark implies, divine transcendence. It is also true that God has some prerogatives that he forbids to us, such as the freedom to take human life.

Clark forgets, however, or perhaps denies, the Reformed and biblical maxim that the law reflects God's own character. To obey the law is to imitate God, to be like him, to image him (Ex. 20:11; Lev. 11:44-45; Matt. 5:45; 1 Peter 1:15-16). There is in biblical ethics also an imitation of Christ, centered on the atonement (John 13:34-35; Eph. 4:32; 5:1; Phil. 2:3ff.; 1 John 3:16; 4:8-10). Obviously, there is much about God that we cannot imitate, including those prerogatives mentioned earlier. Satan tempted Eve into seeking to become "like God" in the sense of coveting His prerogatives (Gen. 3:5). {John Murray said that the difference between the two ways of seeking God's likeness appears to be a razor's edge, while there is actually a deep chasm between them.} But the overall holiness, justice, and goodness of God is something we can and must imitate on the human level.

So God does honor, in general, the same law that he gives to us. He rules out murder because he hates to see one human being murder another, and he intends to reserve for himself the right to control human death. He prohibits adultery because he hates adultery (which is a mirror of idolatry—see Hosea). We can be assured that God will behave according to the same standards of holiness that he prescribes for us, except insofar as Scripture declares a difference between his responsibilities and ours.

{Oddly, Clark, who is usually accused of being a Platonic realist, at this point veers into the opposite of realism, namely, nominalism. The extreme nominalists held that the biblical laws were not reflections of God's nature, but merely arbitrary requirements. God could have as easily commanded adultery as forbidden it. I mentioned this once in a letter to Clark, and he appreciated the irony, but did not provide an answer. Why, I wonder, didn't he deal with moral law the same way he dealt with reason and logic in, e.g., The Johannine Logos (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972)? There he argued that God's reason/logic was neither above God (Plato) nor below God (nominalism), but God's own rational nature. Why did he not take the same view of God's moral standards?}

[From: Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994), 166-68.]

Frame concludes that Clark's ex lex defense "simply is not biblical." I think he's right.

I hope that helps.

Be Bold

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:24:00 +0000

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Christ’s People—Imitators of Him," a sermon delivered Sunday morning, 29 April 1855, at Exeter Hall, in the Strand.

Christian should be like Christ in his boldness. This is a virtue nowadays called impudence, but the grace is equally valuable by whatever name it may be called. I suppose if the Scribes had given a definition of Peter and John, they would have called them impudent fellows.

Jesus Christ and his disciples were noted for their courage. "When they saw the boldness of Peter and John, they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus." Jesus Christ never fawned upon the rich; he stooped not to the great and noble, he stood erect, a man before men,—the prophet of the people, speaking out boldly and freely what he thought.

Have you never admired that mighty deed of his, when going to the city where he had lived and been brought up; knowing that a prophet had no honor in his own country, the book was put into his hands; he had but then commenced his ministry; yet without tremor he unrolled the sacred volume and what did he take for his text?

Most men, coming to their own neighborhood would have chosen a subject adapted to the taste, in order to earn fame. But what doctrine did Jesus preach that morning? One which in our age is scorned and hated—the doctrine of election. He opened the Scriptures, and began to read thus: "Many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land, but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none off them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian."

Then he began to tell, how God saveth whom he pleases, and rescues whom he chooses. Ah! how they gnashed their teeth upon him, dragged him out, and would have cast him from the brow of the hill.

Do you not admire his intrepidity? He saw their teeth gnashing; he knew their hearts were hot with enmity, while their mouths foamed with revenge and malice: still he stood like the angel who shut the lion's mouths; he feared them not; faithfully he proclaimed what he knew to be the truth of God, and still read on despite them all.

So in his discourses. If he saw a Scribe or a Pharisee in the congregation, he did not keep back part of the price, but pointing his finger, he said, "Woe Unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites;" and when a lawyer came, saying, "Master, in speaking thus, thou condemnest us also;" he turned round and said, "Woe unto you, lawyers, for ye bind heavy burdens upon men, while ye yourselves will not touch them with so much as one of your fingers."

He dealt out honest truth, he never knew the fear of man; he trembled at none; he stood as God's chosen, whom he had anointed above his fellows, careless of man's esteem. My friends, be like Christ in this. Have none of the time-serving religion of the present day, which is merely exhibited in evangelical drawing rooms—a religion which only flourishes in a hot-bed atmosphere, a religion which is only to be perceived in good company.

No, if ye are the servants of God, be like Jesus Christ, bold for your Master; never blush to own your religion; your profession will never disgrace you; take care you never disgrace that. Your love to Christ will never dishonor you, it may bring some temporary slight from your friends, or slanders from your enemies: but live on, and you shall; live down their calumnies; live on and ye shall stand amongst the glorified, honored even by those who hissed you when he shall come to be glorified by his angels, and admired by them that love him.

Be like Jesus, very valiant for your God; so that when they shall see your boldness, they may say, "He has been with Jesus."

25 things I've learned (un-requested classic re-post)

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:38:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

[In this thread I solicited requests for re-posts. One of them wasn't this one — but it is one of the most deeply-felt posts I've done here, I need a re-post today, and so... here it is, from over two years ago, very slightly edited.]

[(Original) Preface: for what it's worth, this is a compressed post. Its list-format may tempt readers to scan and be done with it — which, of course, is anyone's prerogative. However, it is meant to be read slowly, the verses looked up, and the thoughts reflected on. Kinda like Proverbs. Except without the deathless style and theopneustia.]

Here's how one grows:

acquired theory
encountered tests
enforced reflection
enlightened revision

Rinse, then repeat.

To elucidate: one is instructed in life-principles. At this point, they're just theories — at best. Then one goes out "into the field," and tests them. Experience tempers, and sometimes the theories are revised or refitted. (This is one reason why God gave you parents, etc.)

That process of principle + trial + reflection is how the Sage did it (Proverbs 24:32—"Then I saw and considered it; I looked and received instruction"), but we must do it without his inerrant inspiration.

Here, then, are some fruits of my own process and reflections. They cost you nothing. Some of them cost me a lot. Don't even bothering guessing a context. Having had experience as a 51-going-on-975-year-old Christian, a pastor, a husband, and a father, is context enough.

I hope you profit by them.

Experience may be the best teacher—but the tuition is mighty high. (Source: pastor Reddit Andrews, quoting another pastor; it's the difference between the petî [simple] and the `ārûm [shrewd] in Proverbs [cf. 14:15].)
Until they're tested, they're just opinions — not convictions (cf. John 13:17; James 1:22-25).
No matter how hard you try, you'll mess up (James 3:1a). So try a little harder, and don't wait for the mess-up to embrace and acknowledge the fact that the results are ultimately in God's hands (cf. Proverbs 16:1, 9; Jeremiah 10:23).
Sin only makes sense to itself (cf. Genesis 3), and to other apostates (Proverbs 28:4a).
Sin makes you irrational, insane, crazy, nuts (cf. Genesis 3—Revelation 22; especially, for instance, Genesis 3:8; Numbers 13-14; Matthew 12:24; Ephesians 4:17-19).
People locked into a sin are impervious to logic, facts and Scripture (cf. Genesis 3:9-10).
People locked into a sin always say it's someone else's fault (cf. Genesis 3:12-13).
People locked into a sin hate anyone who tries to tell them the truth, no matter how humbly nor lovingly (cf. 1 Kings 22:8; John 3:19-21; Proverbs 15:12).
People in love with a sin will always find dire and horrendous fault with anyone who tries to part them from it (cf. Proverbs 9:7-8a).
Sin destroys, ruins, kills. Its sales-line is a lie: it has nothing we really want (cp. Genesis 3:5 and 7; Romans 6:23).
Sin doesn't care who it hurts, nor how much, nor how devastatingly, as long as it gets its way (cf. Matthew 10:34-36).
There is no sin — no sin — that can't make an excuse for itself that makes sense to itself (cf. John 11:50; Philippians 3:19 ["they glory in their shame"]).
Every unrepentant sinner sees himself as noble (cf. John 16:2).
Every unrepentant sinner sees his sin as different (cf. Romans 2:3-5).
Everything a sinner does to "fix" his situation apart from repentance only serves to make it much, much worse (cf. the sad story of Saul)
You can't talk anyone out of sin (cf. 2 Timothy 2:24-26).
The only and sovereign cure for sin, still, is the blood of Christ, applied through humbled repentance (cf. Matthew 3:8; Luke 5:32; 15:7; 24:47; Acts 11:18; 17:31; 20:21; 26:20). There is no "therapy" for sin (cf. 1 John 1:8-10).
When Roman Catholics charge that Sola Scriptura makes everyone into a little pope, they're fundamentally wrong — yet they do point to a real and dire danger (cf. Proverbs 5:13; 13:1; 15:12; 19:20, etc.).
If only perfect, "arrived" men and women can hold out the Word to other men and women, nobody will ever be able to do so (cf. James 3:1-2). That is because....
What makes the Word of God the Word of God is that it is the Word of God, and not that it is perfectly handled by perfect people (cf. Numbers 24; 2 Peter 2:16; also Jeremiah 23:28-29).
That fact excuses nobody for striving to be perfect, as our Heavenly Father is perfect. It just puts first things first (cf. Matthew 5:48; 2 Timothy 4:1-4).
No matter how much you've learned, you're still pretty dim. So get the heck over yourself, and stay (or get) humble. Don't be a sucker, but keep your ears and mind open (cf. Proverbs 1:5; 9:8b-9; 12:1; ).
Complicating that last, everyone who disagrees with your Biblical stance will accuse you of arrogance (1 Kings 22:24). Assume they may be right, and do something about it (cf. Psalm 25:9; Proverbs 3:34; 11:2; 1 Peter 5:5).
You think you've experienced all the pain a human being can take? Wrong (cf. Psalm 88:15-16; Lamentations 3:54-55).
You'll never out-smart the Devil, you'll never wear him down, you'll never overpower him by your own strength, endurance, or smarts (cf. Ezekiel 28:12; 1 Peter 5:7; Revelation 12:10). Never. Only God can do all those things and more. Sticking to God's Word and looking to Him is not only the best thing you can do, it's the only thing you can do (cf. Ephesians 6:10-20; Revelation 12:11). Any suspicion to the contrary is stupid beyond the ability of mere words to express (cf. 1 Kings 20:11; Proverbs 11:2; 16:18).

Hear me now, and believe me later. Better still, believe it now, save yourself a lot of heartache later.

UPDATE: some of these were then woven into a sermon, to which I link in this post.

Best of centuri0n: Practical application

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:30:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

[This post when up 5 days before Christmas, 2006; it caused many people to be angered that I pointed out that living in a trailer park in Arkansas has a stigma attached to it. Listen: what I really mean was ... oh nevermind ...]

Let me tell you that you readers have greatly disappointed me this week – stats or not, I have to say that after last week's post and then Santa's stop by yesterday, I think we obviously still have some work to do on you via this blog.

The actual object of my disappointment is the trajectory we can plot between the points of two comments posted here – last week, in the demand for practical examples of loving your neighbor because that's what the Gospel yields, and this week the view rendered that somehow Dan and Santa wishing the members of TeamPyro a swell noel is somehow not substantive.

Listen: the latter is an example of the former. Yes: Dan and Santa do not usually have an open mutual admiration society here at the blog, but these are men with a Christian objective in mind – a Gospel objective. And in that, for them to offer encouragement to each other is an act of Godly and right-minded love. To overlook that is to demonstrate that it doesn't matter how often cent comes out and beats on the drum of “Christ died to make us new men right now”, and it doesn't matter if you read it: you have to “get it”, people.

You. Have to Get. It. You do. You.

If I was really in the right mood, we'd now tear into the parable of the good Samaritan. But I'm not in that mood. I'm in a Christmas mood even if Santa is not going to find that sweet, black Apple Intel for my stocking because he's got no sense of humor and this thing for Presbyterian baptism. So we're going to go instead to the book of Mark, and we're going to watch Jesus love somebody. Please forgive my vulgar use of the NIV here as I am composing off-line and the only Bible I have handy is my Zondervan Reformation Study Bible:

A man with leprosy came to [Jesus] and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.”

Filled with compassion, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said, “Be clean!” Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cured.

Now, the more-blog-asphyxiated among you will expect that I will at this point expound on the healing of one man who asked for the help, and how God was expending His omnipotence in such a mundane way, and blah blah blah reformed wonkery blah blah blah.

Forget it. There's no way I'm going to make this that boring and not-about-you-and-me on the Wednesday before Christmas. Instead, I'm going to ask you to jump back with me for a second to Leviticus and read with me what it says about the person with leprosy. I'm going to switch over to the KJV because that's the language the Levitical law was written in, right?

Lev 13:44He is a leprous man, he is unclean: the priest shall pronounce him utterly unclean ...

45And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.46All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.

Now, you see there? This person is not just in trouble ritually, but he's untouchable by other people – that is, for him to allow other people to touch him is a sin. There's no other thing a person can be where he or she is condemned to “dwell alone” and literally drive others away by crying out “UNCLEAN!” Literally, a leper was filthy by the practice of the Levitical law – unable to be clean. So the application of the Law for this person was, of course, that he was vile.

But Jesus touched this guy anyway – he touched him, and then he healed him. That is, he didn't just meet the ritual need. This Jesus – the one born in the stable, who slept in a feeding trough, but for whom the angels were singing, and whom the Angel said is the son of the most high God – touched a man who was ashamed to be touched. God came across the shame and the guilt to make this man whole.

Listen: if you want a lesson on how to love somebody, learn from this that the first boundary we have to cross to love other people is the boundary of how vile we think others are.This may shock many of you, but I live down the street from a trailer park. It doesn't have any vacancies as far as I can tell, so there's a problem over there: it's full of people. Now, regardless of where you live, that's not really a problem for them -- for many of them, owning a trailer is a step up from living in a rented quad-plex. Or an actual garbage dump. The trailer park is a problem for me.

Because people live there.

People who, btw, are not on any of the church rolls of the 60 churches in my backwater corner of the Earth. I know this because it's common knowledge in the local churches that “we” don't do evangelism there because “it doesn't make any difference”. And by we, folks, I mean “me”.

Somehow, I can write this giant pile of exhortation to you 5000 TeamPyro readers and my much more humble 500 Flame of Fire readers about the joy of the answer to God's wrath in Christmas, but I can't ride a bike over to the trailer park and find out if anyone there has ever heard of the man Christ Jesus.

Why? Because I am afraid to touch the lepers. That is, in my town, the people who live in the trailer park are the same socially as lepers, and to touch them is to touch something vile. It might get on me. I wish they'd say “UNCLEAN” as they shamble through WAL*MART because I'd cut them some space to avoid being mistaken as making eye contact with them. It would make me vile, and Leviticus notwithstanding, being socially vile will never do.

If you want an example of how to love, that's the example, folks: not filling a shoe box anonymously with some stuff for a kid who has a dad in prison (although, I admit, that's pretty good – it's a lot better than doing nothing), but finding that kid, or any of the people in your analogically-local trailer park, and doing something personally costly for them. Like being seen in public with them, and giving them a hug as if you mean it. You know: because you do it more than once to assuage your conscience at Christmas after charging up a bunch of junk that is bound for the next neighborhood garage sale, or after reading a crumby blog post – you love them into the Gospel and out of the leprosy of being a trailer park kid. To the Gospel, not warm fuzzies or some stupid therapudic transitional state, and out of leprosy, and not casually or inconsequentially, but at great cost.

If you want a practical example of how to love, find a person and do the thing for them which is Godly and right, which will shatter their view of how outcast and separated from others they are, and which you are most afraid to do. You do that, and keep doing it, and you are then a messenger for His name's sake.

Don't get snippy about substance if you can't do that. That's the meat and the bread and the glass of red wine of what the Gospel calls us to, and if you can't stomach it, be glad that Santa stops by to wish Dan and Phil and Pecadillo a happy Christmas. That's all you're ready for.

Happy Christmas and may God richly bless you so you can spend those blessing on others. Amen. You are dismissed.

Sovereignty of God conference in Rio Rico, AZ

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:29:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

I had the pleasure of being the speaker at the South Arizona Grace Bible Conference over the weekend. My host was Pastor Jim Kirby, of Sovereign Grace Baptist Church in Rio Rico, Arizona.

Every bit of it was a blessing of one kind or another. Being invited was a blessing, the hours of hard study and prep were a blessing, and the trials that constituted spiritual prep were a blessing.

I told Jim (not entirely joking) that I didn't think I wanted to do a conference on the sovereignty of God again. In addition to the reading and praying and thinking and writing, there was the suffering that God graciously saw fit to send as preparation. Some of it was in the form of heartaches on a personal level, some was in the form of a number of what a pagan would call "misfortunes" — things just going wrong for me and/or my family. The collateral damage even extended to poor Pastor Kirby, whose truck broke down as he came to pick me up at the airport.

It's the collateral damage that is the more painful, as any pastor who loves his family will attest. My dear wife sacrificially made sure I had time to study and prepare, but hardship came her way as well.

But seeing the good brothers and sisters again, and meeting new friends, was a joy; and bringing the messages was also a joy. As an added treat, pianist Sam Rotman gave his testimony, and a brief performance on the piano.

Old septic [sic] that I am, I greeted Sam's promise of a five-minute testimony with a raised eyebrow. But the man was every bit as good as his word, and it was a gripping testimony — as was his piano performance at the next session. (Further inevitable humbling came my way as I went 'way overtime in my own session; I knew I would on this one, though — it should have been two messages, but I felt compelled to give it all.)

The four messages I brought on Saturday had me so worn out that I asked the Kirbys if we were "still in California," as we drove to dinner. Oops. People who think preaching isn't hard work — well, I understand their thinking it, but I think they think it because they haven't done it.

Or if they've done it, and it wasn't hard work, they did it wrong.

My public thanks to Jim Kirby for inviting me yet again, to him and his wife Paulette (who the Lord has used to bring a number of sisters to Himself, though her personal Bible studies) for hosting me, and to the good folks of their church for making me feel welcome.

Jim is a fellow-Calvidispiebaptogelical, and so he also knows how it is sometimes to feel like a lonely sparrow on a rooftop.

In case anyone cares to hear them, the messages are online. Of course you're free to listen to none, any, or all, just as you wish. But there is a designed progression. Each is premised on what proceeds

Here you go:

“The Sovereign God and Creation”

“The Sovereign God and Free Will”

“The Sovereign God and Evil”

“The Sovereign God and the Plan of Redemption”

“The Sovereign God and Salvation”

“The Sovereign God and Christian Prayer and Endeavor”

Cussing Again

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 19:01:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

ussing is back on the table for debate again, it seems. Last week I was twitted by Twitterers, poked by Facebookers, IMed by chatmongers, and berated by bloggers on this subject. (Apparently there's a gang of angry people prepped and ready to throw down any time I breathe a sigh of disapproval about cussing—especially if some Christian celebrity is the one doing the cussing.)

Anyway, although we've dealt with that subject several times in the past, every time it comes up, the same tired arguments get trotted out to defend the casual use of crude slang, profane language, or perverse speech by Christians. The most popular arguments in favor of cussing seem to be 1) that to cuss or not to cuss is purely a matter of Christian liberty, not a biblical issue; 2) that cussing is necessary these days in order to contextualize our message and to prove to the world that we're not "legalistic"; 3) that compared to being disagreeable, cussing is practically a virtue; and 4) that a more lenient attitude toward cussing would prove we really do care that AIDS and hunger are killing large numbers of people in Africa.

That fourth argument is the one that baffles me most. I'm not sure why anyone would think liberalizing our tolerance for vile language and recreational profanity among Christians might ease the AIDS crisis or do more to cure poverty than recruiting more people to serve alongside the thousands of non-cussing evangelical missionaries and relief organizations who are already providing medical services, food, and clothing for sick and impoverished people worldwide. But evidently some very vocal people are convinced that liberal use of scatology is the only valid badge of authenticity for one's social concerns. Bono was a pioneer in the use of such verbal emblems, of course, but Tony Campolo is the one who brought it into the evangelical mainstream and made a whole generation of students think of cussing as practically a sacrament. Now Derek Webb has canonized the idea in a song.

We often hear people suggest that because the apostle Paul used the word skubalon, (translated fittingly as "dung" in the KJV), scatology has thereby been sanctified. Have at it. If Paul could say that, nothing should be taboo. Christians nowadays likewise try to justify even worse kinds of crudeness on the grounds that Paul spoke harshly and indelicately about the Judaizers in Galatians 5:12. (He hinted that since they believed circumcision makes a person holier, they ought to take their doctrine to the next level and emasculate themselves.) I've responded to those arguments—repeatedly.

But notice what Paul himself said about lewd and off-color language. He classifies it as impurity in Ephesians 5:3-6, where he treats indecent language as one of several worldly substitutes for love. The Greek term Paul uses is akatharsia, a word that refers to every kind of filth and pollution—"uncleanness" in the KJV. Paul is talking about real spiritual uncleanness, not ceremonial defilement, but moral filth.

And when he gives some specific examples of akatharsia in verse 4, all of them have to do with the misuse of language: "obscenity," "foolish talk," and "coarse jesting." He is talking about the words we use, the things we talk about, and the spirit of our conversation. He covers all the bases.

Now, you might well wonder, if the context is dealing with genuine love vs. counterfeit love, how do smutty words, base conversations, and vulgar jokes fit into any category of phony love?

Think about it; those are the peculiar characteristics of worldly companionship: "filthiness . . . foolish talking . . . coarse jesting." Those are the main emblems of membership in any carnal brotherhood. Look at any of Satan's strongholds; any place where wickedness operates unrestrained; wherever you find a band of thieves or a federation of scoundrels—from the juvenile gangs that roam our streets to the old-men's club that hangs out at the neighborhood tavern. "Filthiness . . . foolish talk [and] crude joking" are always their main stock in trade. That's what will consume the leisure time they spend together. Because those are the main badges of fleshly fellowship, and that is the glue that substitutes for authentic love virtually every worldly fraternity. That is exactly what Paul is describing, and he says, Don't let such things characterize your fellowship with one another.

In order to obey the principle Paul sets forth here, we you need to be intentionally counter-cultural, because our culture values evil companionship much more than wholesome love. Have you ever considered the degree to which this is true? "Filthiness . . . silly talk, [and] coarse jesting" are virtually the trademarks of secular society. Vile language, crude subject matter, silly talk, and sheer folly are the main currency of the contemporary entertainment industry. The corrupt notion of brotherhood Paul is attacking here is exactly what most of our culture has substituted in the place of real love.

That's why movies are filled with dirty words and smutty themes. That's why contemporary comedy is so dependent on vile language and filthy subject matter to get a laugh. Situation comedies on television used to feature families and plot lines. Now they are shows about nothing dealing mainly with relationships between friends who are unmarried, unattached, and lacking any discernible direction in their lives. "Filthiness . . . foolish talk[, and] crude joking" describes about 99 percent of the content of programs like that.

Our culture insists those things are perfectly benign, but Paul says they are not. Carnal camaraderie is practically the antithesis of true, godly love. Crude language, filthy joking, and risque entertainment are "not fitting" for Christians. They have no place in the Christian's walk. Verse 12: "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which [they do in secret]." Keep those things out of your life. More than that, keep references to things like that out of your conversation, Paul says.

And notice this: he categorizes spicy talk about frivolous subject matter along with some of the most serious of all sins. Don't get addicted to that brand of language and humor, and especially don't allow that kind of companionship to characterize your own life.

Out of the Mouths of Babesnot the Academic Elite

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:15:00 +0000

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following is an excerpt from the sermon "" God Glorified by Children’s Mouths," first preached Sunday morning, 27 June 1880, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.

have desired to be a little child again, and wished that I had never heard of the existence of a quibbler.

Those fine books of the broad school which came from Germany years ago, but which we now produce at home, it is a pity to have seen the binding of them. Even doctors of divinity favor us with denials of plenary inspiration, and aid in that form of undermining work: they may have all their books so long as we can keep our Bibles, and God gives us firm faith in himself.

Let us but know Jesus and lean our heads on his bosom, and the learned men may speculate as they please. Oh! when the church gets back to her simple faith in Jesus, she shall be qualified for victory; she shall vanquish the world when she has thrown away her wooden sword of carnal reason and has taken up the true Jerusalem blade of faith in God.

Then out of the mouths of babes and sucklings God will do what he never will do out of the months of Scribes and Pharisees and wise men. Out of the mouths of weak people, who believe what God tells them,—the mouths of weak people who have no capacity except the capacity of faith—out of these will God perfect praise and glorify himself.

2 things briefly

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:12:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

[1] Apparently the on-line presence for First Things has gotten a little skiddish about its rep as being pro-Catholic, and they have started a new group blog called "Evangel".

[2] They are in fact so urgently-interested in loosening up their collar (so to speak) they will let almost anyone in.

Enjoy.

Our Passion for God's Glory

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:01:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

On Monday I spoke at the West Coast Regional FIRE conference, where the theme was "Passion." I was asked to deal with God's glory. What follows is a transcript of some of my introductory remarks:

here's no shortage of passion in the world today—but for the most part it is utterly misplaced passion. Passion for all the wrong things. The wrong kind of passion.

The one pervasive passion that most seems to dominate the world today (especially in the realm of politics and power) is anger. It's a destructive anger, too, usually driven by greed, a lust for power, or some other self-interest. The postmodern world is full of "the wrath of man[, which] worketh not the righteousness of God" (James 1:20). That's why terrorism is one of the biggest threats in the world today.

The worldwide glut of anger also explains why (even in a democratic country like ours) the political process is so dysfunctional and divided. Despite all the talk we hear about peace and brotherhood, it often seems as if anger has become the main driving passion in the affairs of men and nations.

That's a disturbing example of the wrong kind of passion.

On the other hand, there's plenty of positive passion all around, but it seems like whatever good feelings there are in this world are mostly reserved for trivial things—sports, entertainment, recreation, and the pursuit of personal happiness.

It's one of the supreme ironies of our culture that we're expected to be deliriously excited about worldly trifles and passing fads, but we're generally discouraged from taking serious things seriously. Above all, serious devotion to God is generally seen as a sign of alarming imbalance. An earnest worshiper of God may even be regarded by society as a deranged person—especially if he declares his faith.

Yet you can be as fanatical as you like about your favorite sports team; you can be wholly obsessed with some celebrity or pop star you have never even met; or you can thoroughly immerse yourself in some mindless fantasy game—and no one bats an eye. Celebrity worship is the real religion of our culture. A handful of highly-revered dead celebrities have the very same status in our culture as the mythological Greek gods who filled the pantheon of Rome in the first century.

That's a sad example of passion for the wrong things.

If there's one thing we ought to be passionate about, it's the glory of God. There is no greater reality in all the universe. There is nothing more worthy of our deepest, most heartfelt emotion than God's glory. This is the very end for which we were created: to relish the glory of God, to reflect that glory, and to rejoice in the privilege of basking in and declaring that glory to the world.

God's glory is everything we ought to love. It summarizes and incorporates everything that really matters from eternity past to eternity future. It's the only thing that makes this world and all its evil worth enduring. It's the one thing that makes sense of everything else. It's what God created everything for in the first place, and its where all creatures find their true and ultimate purpose.

Why would we be more passionate about anything else?

Self-help, self-esteem, self-destruction, and large, irresponsible mouths

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:40:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

Rebekah Lawrence was a married woman whose husband did not share her desire for children. Troubled by that friction, and by another relatively minor issue or two, she attended a $600 four-day self-help course called Turning Point in Australia.

After the fourth and final session, with no history of serious mental health issues, Rebekah's thinking and behavior took a dramatic turn for the worse. Then suddenly, at work, she behaved in a deranged manner, murmured an affirmation and, with a song on her lips, jumped to her death.

Now officials are investigating as to whether the self-help course led to her death. The reporting notes that the program was run by people with no formal psychological training. The speculation is that it may have triggered a psychotic episode.

Now, let's duly note that the same people who'd criticize such courses would equally fault any pastor who tried to counsel anyone about anything. They would note that many pastors also lack "formal psychological training." As Jay Adams pointed out long ago, psychologists have become the new priesthood, unchallenged experts on the human soul. As Adams also rightly noted, this is far from a Biblical model.

Before coming to my point, let me add this: having said all that, I've said far from all that could or should be said about helping troubled people.

Now to my actual point. Here's where this story turns my mind: preaching and writing by folks like Joel Osteen, Robert Schuller, and teeming hordes of wannabes.

These men (and women) take on the mantel of authority, stand in the pulpit, and tell every last one of their hearers unconditionally and without qualification that God loves them, accepts them just as they are, approves of their hopes and dreams and aspirations, and wants nothing more than He wants for them to be happy and fulfill their desires. God will initial all their aspirations, and back them up all the way.

But who is in those audiences? How do the speakers know? They never even meet 0.001% of the people who hear them. Who are they cheering on, to whom are they promising God's unconditional approval? Unstable folks like Rebekah Lawrence? Pro-abort extremists like the late Dr. George Tiller? Who is listening? What nascent murderers, rapists, heretics, apostates, false teachers, false prophets, or other lost souls are being promised God's smile?

Nor does the preaching include any limits, provisos, warnings, nor conditions. God loves you just as you are, and He wants to fulfill your dearest dream — whoever you are, whatever you are, no matter what you're dreaming!

So let me just say right now, to every one of our readers: God may well not want you to fulfill your dreams and desires. He may well not approve of your plans and aspirations.

In fact — I have to say it; truth and love for God and you constrains me — He may well not accept you, just as you are, right now.

But you can't see His face just now. We can't hear His voice speaking individually to us, as if from mid-air. So how can you know? How can we tell?

First: you may not be accepted by God, but may instead be under His judgment and wrath. In terms of global population, it is likelier that this is true of you than that it is not. All of us rebel against the Godhood of God, as expressed in His revealed word, the Bible. We are rebels by nature and by choice. It isn't even in us to submit to God's law; we naturally hate both it and Him.

However, the great good news is that God has provided a wonderful way to reconcile us to Himself, forgiving all our sins and crediting the righteousness of His Son to us, as we do a 180 and believe in Christ. (Read more about how He does this, and how we must respond, HERE.)

This truth confronts you decisively. You cannot go on the way you naturally live, and be heading for God's kingdom. You must be born again to see the kingdom of God. You must do a radical, root-to-branch turnabout, trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Only thus can you be reconciled to God. Not to say "Yes" to Christ in faith, is to say "No" to God — and you must never expect His smile nor His blessing if you choose to say "No" to God's call and command.

Jesus said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6). If you would know God, you must know Him in Jesus Christ. There is no hope elsewhere nor otherwise.

Second: God may not approve of your plans. Hollywood is dead wrong. Our hearts are not always right. In fact, they are deceitful and incurably sick (Jeremiah 17:9). Not only must we be born again, and bow the knee to Jesus as Lord; but we must continually take His yoke on us and learn from Him, in a committed teacher-student relationship (Matthew 11:29). We must continue in His teaching (John 8:31-32), must have His word as the critic of the thoughts and feelings of our hearts (Hebrews 4:12).

Only by that Word can we know what delights and pleases God on the one hand, and what repels Him, on the other (Psalm 19:7-11; 119:9, 11; 2 Timothy 3:15-17). Only by that Word can we know God's will, and know what is pleasing to Him.

Do not slight your spouse and think that is the path to blessing (Ephesians 5:22-23). Do not shame your parents and expect a happy future (Ephesians 6:1-3); nor lie (Ephesians 4:25), nor re-shape His word like silly-putty (2 Corinthians 4:1-2), nor compromise the gospel to please men (Galatians 1:10). Neither the all-out pursuit of money (1 Timothy 6:9-10) nor of popularity (Proverbs 18:24) are the way of God.

You and I must not assume God wants us to do anything simply because we want to do it.

But if you are in God's will, though you may suffer terribly, you can be assured of His loving smile now, and His verdict of joy in eternity (Matthew 5:3-12; 2 Corinthians 4:7-18; 1 Peter 4:12-14).

The only way you know whether you are a child of God at all, and whether you are in the will of God, is the same way: by the Word of God.

Stay in it, and stay close to it. And stay in a church where the Word is taught and practiced, pedal to the metal; and where a pastor takes to heart the care of your soul (Hebrews 13:17).

It is the only way.

Best of centuri0n: Coleco vs. NFL

blog.centuri0n@gmail.com (Frank Turk) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:30:00 +0000

by Frank Turk

[Originally posted in 2007, this seems to fit in with the open discussion about "Deep Church". Enjoy.]

We have this funny word in our Christian vocabulary that appears in our Bibles – namely "church". Webster's dictionary says this about where we get that word:

Middle English chirche, from Old English cirice, ultimately from Late Greek kyriakon, from Greek, neuter of kyriakos of the lord, from kyrios lord, master

Which, you know, is interesting because we use "church" in the translations of the Bible in English to represent the word "ecclesia", not the word "kyriakon" – that is, it is possible that we mean the same thing by saying "church" when the NT says "ecclesia", but the word "church" doesn't come from the word "ecclesia".

Now, here's what I'm not equipped to do here: I'm not equipped to criticize guys (and women) who have spent their lives studying Greek who all agree that "church" is a fine word in English for the Greek word "ecclesia". I accept that this is the word we are going to use and, frankly, ought to use.

What I'm thinking about today is what we mean by using this word.

I realize, btw, that I am on something of a year-long rant about the church, off and on. But listen: Dan's experience last week (which he posted ~~yesterday~~here) is not just sort of disappointing: it's down-right appalling. It's like getting a coleco hand-held football game when you thought you bought tickets to see [insert your football team here to protect the meta from frivolous sports talk] – not only did you get cheated out of what would have been worth coming to, you also have to do all the work yourself now after investing all that time and cash.

The over-arching theme of this series, btw, is that the believer needs the church. You need it. Part of that, of course, is that it needs you, and I have beaten that almost to death. But I was reminded of this theme this weekend as I listened to Dr. MacArthur preach broadly and enthusiastically at DGM's national conference on the theme "Stand", meaning a call to the perseverance of the saints.

Part of "Standing" in the faith is, as the Spurgeon piece sketched out for us this week, not acting like the church is a Baskin Robbins of possibilities – that is, it's not about flavors or "style", and if you get hung up on "style" or flavor (even if it's to go back to some allegedly-ancient style which came into being and went out of being years before your grandparents where born), you're really not about what the church is for.

Let me context this for you – with Scripture, so those of you who don't recognize it will be able to follow me when I resort to God's word. At the end of his life, from a prison cell, probably through some kind of amanuensis, Paul wrote to his disciple Timothy a letter which we receive in Scripture as 2 Timothy. So this letter, whatever else we want to make of it, is Paul's last word to a young man he loved dearly and had discipled in the faith apparently from the start of the young man's faith.

Paul knew Timothy's family – his mother and grandmother, who were themselves Jewish women who had accepted Christ. And if we read Timothy at all, Paul has the highest confidence and love for Timothy – like Titus, Timothy is called Paul's "true son" in the faith.

And in that, Paul's last words to Timothy are important to us as we have to believe that he wrote these things as a farewell.

But as Paul writes, we find some very troubling things in his words. All of Asia, he says, has forsaken him for false teachers; Demas has decided that the world looks pretty good and the Gospel not so much. So in that environment, you'd think Paul would give Timothy the advice any wise man would give: run away from the bad guys and go find someplace else to start a new church – because we have to run away from false teachers, and a church with false teachers is a church where it is necessary to leave.

You'd think.

Instead, Paul says this – if the ESV can be considered Scripture:

do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.

And again he says this:

Remind them of these things, and charge them before God not to quarrel about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some. But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from iniquity."

Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

And again this:

You, however, have followed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness, my persecutions and sufferings that happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra—which persecutions I endured; yet from them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and [they] will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Even as he is ready to be "poured out as a drink offering", as he says himself, Paul calls Timothy to stand firm in the truth and preach and teach what is right in spite of fads and the tastes of men.

See: Paul didn't tell Timothy, "dude, my method landed me in jail, so you have to try something different. Check with Demas as he has found a nice job in the world -- obviously he knows something I don't." He told Timothy to not change and not adapt and not go his own way, but instead to "endure suffering" and "continue in what you have learned" and "depart from iniquity" and so on -- but not to leave the church.

This goes back to my Coleco vs. NFL analogy -- Paul isn't telling Timothy, "Son, just work on your passing game on that little hand-held, because that's what real football looks like. Nobody has to get hurt, right?" Paul is telling Timothy, "Son, I have taken real hits on the field of play, and you are going to take real hits on the field of play. But you are called out not to be a fan or even a mascot: you are called out to play in the majors. And when you play in the majors, you play until the game is over."

Here's why I bring it up: it's because we are not called out of the church to preach the Gospel – we are called out of the world and into the "ecclesia" to preach the Gospel. Standing firm for the truth is standing where? Whatever "ecclesia" means, and whatever "church" is supposed to mean in its place in English, it is something we are called into in order that we may demonstrate who God is and what He has done.

And this is where the football analogy really gets some legs. We're certainly not called out to play a little metaphorical LED version of the game where there's not even a real ball or real players, yes? If we're "ecclesia", I guess we can also admit that we're not just called to sit on the couch and watch the players on our really cool HDTV home theater unit -- we're not called out to be viewers from a distance, subject to blackouts when the stadium doesn't sell out -- because sitting on the couch doesn't qualify as "out". But let me suggest that we're also not just called out to be season-ticket holders who show up at every home-game, or true fanatics that have a ticket and a seat at every pre-season, regular-season and post-season -- because these people just come to the game no matter how personally they take it when their team loses.

We are called out to play on the team and be down on the field.

You think about that, and we'll come back to it.

Here's your problem: you really, really don't get Deuteronomy 29:29

filops@yahoo.com (DJP) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:20:00 +0000

by Dan Phillips

Moses writes, “The secret things belong to [Yahweh] our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29).

This revelatory nugget sets up two distinct, discrete categories.

Secret things, which (A) belong to Yahweh, and therefore (B) do not belong to us, and therefore (C) are neither our business to know, to do, nor even to be concerned about; and
Revealed things, which (A) belong to us and our children, and therefore (B) are not Yahweh's concern to do in our stead, and therefore (C) are our sole business and responsibility to know, to do, and to be concerned about.

I'm going to belabor those two points, then I'm going to apply them. (Note: the following assumes, rather than repeats, the Biblical case developed in previous posts and comments on this subject.)

Belaboring

God will not do Category 2 for you. That is, He will not love your wife in your stead. He will not raise your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord in your stead. He will not think about the Word in your stead. He will not go out and disciple the nations in your stead, hold out the Word of Life in your stead, shine in the darkness in your stead, nor be ready to give every man an answer for your hope in your stead.

He told you to do it. He told me to do it. We mustn't try to twit God — fool's errand! — by playing ultra-Calvinistically dumb.

Now, you cannot do it without His grace, His enabling, His Spirit. But do it you must. Do it you must. Do it you must. If you refuse — however complex, noble, nuanced and pious-sounding your ~~excuses~~ reasons — you are sinning, and you must repent.

Equally, you cannot do Category 1 for God. It isn't your responsibility. Look on the "Need-to-know" list, and you'll only find one name. It isn't yours, nor is it mine.

What's more, you cannot prevent God from doing Category 1. Unlike you and me, God always does what He sets out to do; and, also unlike us, nothing prevents Him from doing it. No matter how lazy or hyperactive, how wise or foolish, how stupid or bright, or how bold or timid you and I are, God can and will see to every last one of His "secret things." It is sheer unbelief to reason or act otherwise.

Applying

Now, just about every one of you thinks you believes those things. But dissonant strains in metas like this one really make me wonder.

If you believed Category 2, then you wouldn't worry about whether or not it is "doctrinally proper" to call people to come to Christ, to decide, to believe, to repent, to turn, to accept Christ, to get reconciled to God, or even to get saved. Because God issues all these commands, and authorizes us to echo them in His name (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:19-20).

We wouldn't waste our (and others') time, and embarrass ourselves, by trying to find longwinded ways of making the Word not say what it plainly does say. We wouldn't write 200-page essays on how the number 2, when doubled, actually equals Varfnod. We wouldn't get out our electromicroscopes and hyper-examine every possible implication of simply doing what God says to do, rather than simply doing it.

If you believed Category 1, then you wouldn't worry about whether or not you were issuing these invitations and commands to an elect person or a reprobate person. That's not your business! That's no part of your concern! If he's reprobate, he won't hear and respond anyway! If he's elect, he will! That's a secret thing. Let God worry about it.

That's it.

Maybe you expect another 2000 words, making this all nuanced and complex and deep.

But that's really all I have to say.

Except this: if the shoe doesn't fit, feel free to drive on.

But if it does... your issue's really not with me, now, is it?

Why Slaves to Mammon Cannot Find Peace

noreply@blogger.com (Phil Johnson) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:01:00 +0000

by Phil Johnson

The following post is from an article that was published earlier this year in GraceTrax, a publication of Riverbend Church, Ormond Beach, FL—Roy Hargrave, Pastor.

ife is harsh. Ponder our existence from a purely rationalistic, human perspective, and it's hard to see how anyone could ever be optimistic. Our lives on this cursed planet are headed toward no good end. Everyone has an appointment with death, and the journey to that engagement is impeded by unavoidable potholes of tragedy, misery, heartache, and pain.

Scripture acknowledges the futility and brevity of earthly life. Job 14:1: "Man, who is born of woman, is short-lived and full of turmoil." "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2). "You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away" (James 4:14). "All flesh is like grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off" (1 Peter 1:24).

Think that sounds bleak? From a strictly human perspective, that is not even the worst of it: "It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).

Those verses all sound a note that is prominent in Scripture. In stark contrast to the message that dominates some of the religious channels on television, the Bible never promises anyone health, material prosperity, freedom from strife, comfort, ease, or luxury in this life. On the contrary, those who are faithful are promised persecution (2 Timothy 3:12).

Sounds like a recipe for utter, hopeless pessimism, doesn't it? In reality, that is the necessary foundation of true peace and authentic hope. The innate despair of this present evil world ought to drive us to Christ, the only One who can deliver us from the bondage of sin's curse (Galatians 1:4). And those who do lay hold of Christ gain (through Him) a peace that "surpasses all comprehension" (Philippians 4:7). He grants freedom from the worries and cares of this dreary life—a real and palpable peace that is both incomprehensible and unattainable for those who are seeking fulfillment in earthly things.

It's a simple principle, really: if you set your heart on material goods and earthly pleasures, you are coveting things that are already set aside for destruction. You will therefore gain nothing but disappointment and everlasting misery. But "set your mind on the things above" (Colossians 3:2)—fix your heart on Christ; embrace the spiritual, eternal values of heaven—and you will have peace even in this life.

Therefore, right alongside Scripture's dismal assessment of the sheer hopelessness of this earthly life, we find Christ's simple command to His faithful followers: "Do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on" (Matthew 6:25). After all, "Which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?" (v. 27).

That, of course, is part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. In the immediate context (starting with verse 19) Christ is attacking the twin sins of greed and worry. Those are no misdemeanors, Jesus says; they are serious, soul-destroying sins that annihilate our peace and undermine righteousness at the most fundamental level. They are hostile to hope and antithetical to genuine faith, and they breed every other imaginable kind of wickedness.

In other words, "The love of money is a root of all sorts of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). Greed is a form of covetousness; and worry is an expression of unbelief. The two sins are always found in tandem, and they are the very essence of an earth-bound perspective—the polar opposite of a biblical world-view. In Jesus' own words, "You cannot serve God and [mammon]" (Matthew 6:24).

Therefore, Jesus says, we must let go of every vestige of mammon-worship. Stop hoarding earthly and material treasures, and invest our resources in heavenly things: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (vv. 19-21).

The key to Jesus' whole point is that last phrase. What you invest in is what you truly love. Where you put your treasure not only reflects where your heart is, but to a very large degree it determines what you think about, what you care about, and whom you serve. Invest your resources in earthly mammon, and you indenture yourself as a slave to a world-system that is hostile to God and exists under His condemnation. There is no more sure way to cut yourself off from God's blessing and incur His wrath (James 4:4; 1 John 2:15).

The love of material things further undermines peace because it foments another sin: worry. That's why immediately after saying we cannot serve both God and mammon, Jesus says, "For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on" (Matthew 6:25).

Worry is the natural and inevitable by-product of setting one's affections on earthly things. It ought to be obvious that the end of all earthly things is destruction, whether by the slow decay of moth and rust, or rapidly by sudden loss. In either case, the end will surely be the same.

How can anyone not worry who knows with absolute certainty that decay and ruin will be the inevitable finale of everything he holds most dear? Obviously, then, true peace is possible only for those whose driving affections are not worldly and materialistic, but spiritual, heavenly, and eternal.

Be sure you understand what is forbidden in Matthew 6:25-33. It's worry, not planning for the future per se. Some people misuse this passage to argue that it is sinful for Christians to buy insurance, or to have savings accounts, or take any measures whatsoever to build a hedge against future calamity. They would rule out all kinds of disaster preparation, earthquake readiness kits, or any kind of preparation for the future.

Can I be blunt? That's a foolish interpretation of this passage. Christ isn't forbidding normal, prudent, sensible, means of being prepared for possible future disaster. True biblical wisdom, not to mention common sense, teaches us that it is wrong and sinfully foolish not to make reasonable preparations for such contingencies. In some cases that is even the law of the land.

Remember that Joseph in the Old Testament rose to a position of prominence in Egypt because he led the nation to store enough grain to see them through seven years of famine. He was blessed by God with the foresight to prepare for hard times. God Himself revealed to Joseph that those years of famine were coming, and God through His providence gave him the wisdom to know how to prepare for it.

We're supposed to make reasonable preparations like that. In Proverbs 27:23-24, Solomon tells his son, "Pay attention to your herds; for riches are not forever, nor does a crown endure to all generations." He counsels him to plan and work diligently, to be prudent in his business dealings, to care for the welfare of his flocks and fields—so that he has food and sustenance for future contingencies. Proverbs 6:6-8 likewise tell us to take a lesson from the ant, who stores food in the summer to prepare for the harsh winter.

Those are common-sense, strategic preparations that insure us against disaster, and it is right for us to take such measures. It would be foolish to ignore the future so much that we neglect to prepare for it. Jesus said so Himself: "For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish'" (Luke 14:28-30). He went on to say that it would be foolishly imprudent for a king to go to war without having counted the cost.

So when Jesus says "do not be worried about your life" in the Sermon on the Mount, He is not instructing us to live with no hedge whatsoever against possible disaster. He's not forbidding us to take out insurance in case something goes wrong. He's not saying it is wrong to prepare for hard times. He's not ruling out wise provisions for possible disasters.

What Jesus forbids is the sort of worry that is rooted in a love of things. Don't get so caught up with hedging against future disaster that you pour all your energy and resources into an earthly storehouse. Don't fret about the future. Don't become preoccupied with what may go wrong tomorrow. And above all, do not cultivate a love of material things. Don't sell yourself into the service of mammon.

In other words, get your priorities straight, and you will have true peace. Heaven is also the storehouse where your best resources should be invested. You can have true peace if that is where you are keeping your treasure. And if it is not—if you are more concerned about preparing for your retirement or for next year's vacation than you are with preparing for heaven—then your heart is in the wrong place. "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also" (v. 21).

If your heart is in the right place, you will certainly have peace, because "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17).

Pyromaniacs

Weekend Bonus: a response to John Mark Reynolds

Ironic mis-prioritizing

A Most Ingenious Paradox

Best of centuri0n: the filthy sheep-herd

BibleWorks 8 + module sale!

Logos 4.0 launches today

Reform

Come!

Programming notes: Paul Edwards, and the Conference + notes

Book review: Death by Love, by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears

Best of centuri0n: send out the weiner dogs

Open(ish) forum: Why are you where you are, churchwise?

The Problem of Evil (Yes, it IS a Problem)

Be Bold

25 things I've learned (un-requested classic re-post)

Best of centuri0n: Practical application

Sovereignty of God conference in Rio Rico, AZ

Cussing Again

Out of the Mouths of Babesnot the Academic Elite

2 things briefly

Our Passion for God's Glory

Self-help, self-esteem, self-destruction, and large, irresponsible mouths

Best of centuri0n: Coleco vs. NFL

Here's your problem: you really, really don't get Deuteronomy 29:29

Why Slaves to Mammon Cannot Find Peace

Out of the Mouths of Babesnot the Academic Elite