Toward a Godward Passion

If We Really Are Spiritually Dead ...

2012-01-23T16:29:00.002-06:00

Anthony Hoekema (1913-1988) wrote, among other things, a helpful book called Saved by Grace [Eerdmans, 1989). In his sixth chapter (Effectual Calling), he wrote:

If our condition by nature is as described in the passages just quoted [1st Corinthians 2:14; Romans 8:7; Ephesians 2:1-2] it is obvious that we cannot in our own strength accept the gospel call. To ask people who are by nature spiritually dead, hostile to God, unable to understand the things of God's Spirit, and unable to submit to God's law, to respond favorably to his invitation to repent of sin and believe in Christ is like asking a totally deaf woman to answer your question or a totally blind man to read a note you have written. It is like standing on top of a roof and asking a man on the sidewalk below to fly up to join you.

Does the Bible teach that there is such a thing as an effectual call--one in which God efficaciously enables us to respond to the gospel call with a Yes? Indeed it does. (p. 82)

Quotes About Worship

2012-01-18T10:00:00.001-06:00

I am slowly working through Timothy Pierce's Enthroned on our Praise (B & H Academic, 2008). It is subtitled, An Old Testament Theology of Worship. Pierce currently pastors at this local church.

Overall it has been a helpful look at worship following the Jewish arrangement of the OT canon. The Jewish canon has caught my interest lately as I continue to work through Deuteronomy at our mid-week service.

Pierce makes some helpful observations throughout his book, including the following:

Worship as lifestyle and as event is an outgrowth of our response to God's mercy that helps us as faith descendants of Abraham find our place in God's activities of grace in a rebellious world. Indeed, this interplay of the worship of the true God, with His desire for us to serve as portals of grace, is the fount from which the essential element of missions in the Church flows. (p. 35)

If the events of Genesis 1-2 have demonstrated anything, it is that worship is not something that is demanded; it is something that grows out of the relationship between God and humans as our essential purpose. Worship cannot be a half-hearted experience. (p. 36)

The topic of revelation as a precursor to worship was and is a necessary acknowledgement if one is to hold a proper understanding of worship. God reveals Himself and invites the recipient of such a revelation to relate to Him in a special and distinct manner. This interaction is beyond that which is possible from a strictly general revelation evident to all of creation. (p. 65)

Idolatry is sometimes understood as the sin of setting out to replace God with an alien god, when in fact it seems that the starting place of physical idolatry is sometimes not the replacement of God but the need to see Him for ourselves. Indeed, one could argue that all physical idolatry first begins with psychological idolatry. (p. 121)

A person who does not set aside self in the presence of the Other will never find the ability to worship in any meaningful sense of the word. (p. 156)

Why does one worship God? Already we have seen in the words of Samuel that worship must arise from an attitude of selflessness and the recognition of our place of lowliness before an awesome God who demands much from us. (p. 159)

Ultimately, the conclusion must be that coming before God for any other reason than truly meeting Him is wasted energy and time--and God has no use for such worship. (p. 168)

When worship ceases to be about God, it ceases to be about anything and turns into a rebellious activity because there is no longer a place in the life of the individual for God to receive the honor due to Him. (p. 181)

Book Review "The World-Tilting Gospel" part 7

2011-12-12T17:00:00.003-06:00

In this post I want to wrap up my review of Dan Phillips' helpful book The World-Tilting Gospel (Kregel Publications, 2011).

Phillips' last chapter (# 14) is titled Culmination. As with the rest of this book, this is a carefully crafted title. Here we find the author's primary aim of his book: to gain strategic intelligence. (p. 276) He then proceeds to list nine ramifications of the Gospel. I'll not spoil it for you by repeating his list. However, here you will find some helpful statements, such as:

We don’t serve the world by joining it in its lie. We serve it by bringing it the truth of God. (p. 280)

The truth, however, is that reality is not what we make of it. Reality is what God already made of it. (p. 284).

The world has no “should” against which to measure itself. Its horizon is low and shifting: itself. It has no clue what a human being should be. It stares fixedly in a mirror and shrugs. It measures itself by itself. It has no authority, no basis, for any other standard, call, or pattern. (p. 291)

God leaves nothing to us, in and of ourselves. All we contribute to the whole is the sin, slavery, misery, and folly, from which we need saving. (p. 295)

However, to preach a message that offers hope anywhere but in Jesus Christ is to damn the world. It is to hold back the one truly distinctive gift we have to give, the one truth that they most desperately need to hear. (p. 297)

We need to expose our hearts to the true, howling darkness of our sin, and the blinding blaze of God’s holiness. We need to rivet our attention on the overflowing majesty of the person of Jesus Christ, then direct our gaze to the humbling of that majesty in the miserable death of the cross.

Thence we need to trace the path to the empty tomb, and upward to the occupied throne at the Father’s right hand. We need to see the glorified Lord pouring forth the Holy Spirit on all His children in extravagance. We need to take cheer at the endless catalog of graces and blessings that have been secured for us by Christ, and made ours in Him. (p. 300)

Phillips then concludes his book with an Afterward in which he drives home the personal application of these truths to both unbeliever and believer alike.

This is not a book about trendy evangelism techniques. This is not a book that will sooth your conscience in any way regarding the privilege and task of discipleship. It will challenge you to think in a Godward manner and to disciple in a Godward manner. I am only aware of one other book on the Gospel that challenged me as this book has done (Will Metzger's Tell the Truth).

This is a book that I will continue to recommend to the members of our congregation. This is a book that I will turn to again and again as the leading book on the Gospel message. This is one of the rare books that I can recommend without a caveat. This is a must read book, and you will do yourself a serious disservice for not reading it.

My prayer is that God will enable Phillips to continue writing and that his publications will be widespread.

Book Review "The World-Tilting Gospel" part 6

2011-12-06T17:15:00.001-06:00

Continuing in our review of Dan Phillips' "The World-Tilting Gospel" (Kregel Publications, 2011) leads us to part 4, "How Do We Get Going?" This is by far the largest section of Phillips book (6 chapters). Here we find the author addressing the matter of growth in the Christian life. Phillips weaves through the mine-field of Christian "solutions" to the perpetual battle between the flesh and the Spirit. He acknowledges both the struggle and the imperative (grow in holiness). Phillips repeats the traditional 3-fold aspect of Christian sanctification: positional, progressive, and perfect. He also helpfully reminds the reader of the distinction between justification and sanctification.

He is not justified because he grows in holiness; and when his growth has a setback, his justification is completely unaffected. But he will grow in holiness, because he has been justified. (p. 192)

Phillips next 2 chapters (10-11) cover his evaluation of 3 misguided approaches to sanctification that have dogged believers over the past 2 centuries: Gutless Gracers (no-lordship/free grace), Crisis Upgraders (2nd blessing/Keswick movement), Muzzy Mystics (Keswick movement/"Let God and Let God").

Concerning Gutless Gracers he writes: Grace is God’s dynamic, free, flowing gift of Himself that delivers us from the guilt and domain of sin (justification), and enables us to live lives that please Him (progressive sanctification). After we become recipients of justifying grace, we become participants in sanctifying grace. If the latter is not happening, then the former never happened. (p. 204)

Concerning Crisis Upgraders he writes: The Crisis Upgrader fails to see that when we encounter Christ, we come to possess all of God’s riches and wonders in Him. (p. 212)

Concerning Muzzy Mystics he writes: This teaching does not truly call me to look away from myself to Christ and His Word. Instead, it calls me to look within myself for Christ, apart from His Word, so I can hear His holy whispers in the stillness. (p. 222)

Chapters 12-13 address the problem of the Flesh and the God-ordained solution of walking in the Spirit. Phillips cogently handles the various nuances of the Greek term sarx as found throughout the New Testament. Consider his 4 key points on the Holy Spirit:

First, we must thank God for the sweeping and extraordinary work of the Spirit in us. (p. 268)
Second, we should trust—not seek—what God has given us in the Spirit. (p. 269)
Third, we must target the glory of Christ, not the Spirit Himself. (p. 271)
Fourthly, we need to toil in the Spirit’s power. The Spirit has given us much, and continues to give us much. We must do something with it. (p. 273)

My one complaint with Phillips in this section is that he wrote the book so long after I had to walk through this minefield myself in my early Christian walk. It would have been extremely helpful to have had such a resource in those early days to guide me through these dangers. Yet again, God is sovereign and brings us through in His time in spite of ourselves.

Book Review "The World-Tilting Gospel" part 5

2011-12-02T10:25:00.001-06:00

As we come to the third part of Dan Phillips' helpful "The World-Tilting Gospel," we would be wise to look back at the first 6 chapters and remember how the author has successfully woven together the doctrines of Theology Proper (God), Bibliology (Bible) Christology (Christ), Anthropology (man), Hamartiology (sin), Soteriology (salvation). What a Godward verbal tapestry!

In his chapter 7 Phillips addresses justification (being declared righteous before God) in which God deals with our record. Here the reader will find a detailed orthodox presentation of Reformed soteriology. Consider these comments:

Now, as the sin that Christ was made was alien to Him, was from outside of Him, so is this righteousness alien to us, coming from outside of us. (p. 142-143)

But these three will always be present in justification: hearing the Word, repentance, and vital faith. (p. 148)

The issue is seeking and finding God in Jesus Christ. We are heading in the wrong direction, so to seek Him we must turn to Him. In so doing, we must abandon our own self-absorbed, self-ruled lives; we must turn from our self-serving, self-centered thoughts. We must embrace God the Lord in Jesus Christ. Only in this way can we find Him and His rescue and forgiveness. (p. 159)

That is, if the “faith” we claim is not a repentant faith, it isn’t real faith; it’s merely a change of opinion. And if our “repentance” does not have faith at its heart, it is not real repentance; it’s merely a change of tactics. (p. 160)

He addresses the nature of genuine faith with 3 R's: recognizing the statements of truth; realizing that those essential, revealed facts are true; and resting, taking the truths to ourselves and resting our weight on them. (pp. 161-169)

In chapter 8 the author leads us to carefully consider regeneration, how God deals with our bad nature by causing us to be born from above. Phillips' discussion of the sequence of regeneration and faith is the weakest part of his book (while understanding that his weakest part is stronger than my strongest). While I may agree with the stated sequence, I think he could have supported his argument better. His reliance on 1st John 5:1 for his proof text is a tad misguided. I think he misses both context and telos. True, the present active participle is based on the perfect passive indicative, but John's letter is not addressing the sequence of regeneration and faith.

He concludes part 3 with this summary:

Given the world-tilting truth that our central problem is guilt before God, the world’s stabs at solutions involve schemes of evasion on the one hand, or programs of self-improvement on the other. All fall hopelessly short of dealing with the real problem.

The world-tilting truth is that God deals with our sin on His terms in Christ alone. We must abandon our own agendas and programs, and embrace Christ in His truth. We must bow to His lordship. In doing this, we do not realize the world’s dim notion of turning over a new leaf. Rather, we can do it only as God makes us new people, with new natures and imputed righteousness.

God’s Word shatters this illusion by identifying the source of our discomfort: We have been judged and condemned by His perfect standard.

We also saw how God’s Word shatters blurry sentimental notions of faith as a shapeless feeling, or of conversion as something we generate from within ourselves. We had to cast aside as well any delusions of contributing anything to our standing before God, of trying to make ourselves change by ourselves, or of controlling our relationship with God.

Instead, we saw that saving faith is a gift of God, a response of our whole beings to the revealed truths of Christ. We also saw that we only could respond that way by God’s transforming grace. Through this saving faith, God counts us eternally and perfectly righteous with Christ’s own righteousness. We stand before Him by grace alone, on the firmest of foundations. (p. 183)

Book Review "The World-Tilting Gospel" part 4

2011-12-01T15:24:00.001-06:00

I realize this review has be dragged out far longer than I anticipated. A variety of situations have transpired (conspired?) for a delay. I want to attempt to get back to Dan Phillips' helpful book, The World-Tilting Gospel, available here electronically and here in print.

We looked last time at chapters 2-3. This time I would like to look at his part two, in which he addresses "What Has God Done for Us? The Eternal Plan Conceived, Predicted, Executed". This covers the significant chapters 4-6.

Chapter 4 addresses God's attributes of holiness, love, and wisdom. I appreciated his balanced approach to God's love. Consider these points (from p. 88):

1. God can no more not love, than He can not be God; however, we must remember . . .

2. God’s love must be a holy love, since all of God’s attributes glow with His holiness; and

3. God’s love always and necessarily and rightly has Himself as its first object.

This is certainly not what one normally hears in modern Christianity.

In chapter 5 Phillips moves on to address God's eternal plan, what Phillips calls God's "rescue operation." After high-lighting 5 points of God's plan and the promised Seed, Phillips launches into a discussion of Penal Substitutionary Atonement by Blood. The author effectively guides the reader to work through the rich truths of Isaiah 52:13-53:12.

Chapter 6 demonstrates how God Enters Enemy Territory to Seek and to Save. Phillips reminds the reader that Jesus Christ accomplished the Father's plan by His life, His teaching, His atoning death, and His bodily resurrection. Significant quotes from section chapter include:

But God was unpropitious toward Jesus, that He might be propitious toward us. (p. 125)

A Man of infinite worth, offering a soul of infinite worth, to a God of infinite holiness, for rebels with infinite guilt—and bang! just like that, they are saved and reconciled and set apart to God by that one sacrifice. (p. 132)

Next time I hope to tackle the third part of his book: How Do We Get In?

Book Review "The World-Tilting Gospel" part 3

2011-10-06T17:15:00.001-05:00

Chapters 2 & 3 of Dan Phillips' The World-Tilting Gospel [Kregel Publications, 2010] address the issue of what happened to Adam and his descendants in light of the Fall. Here he addresses the purpose for which Adam was created, the commands God gave to Adam and Eve, and the consequences of their disobedience.

Regarding the probation of Adam and Eve in the Garden, Phillips writes: The tree represented autonomy, the illusion of self-rule. It represented knowledge falsely gained, on man’s own terms, born of rebellion. Had Adam and Eve walked with God in faith, they would have learned all they needed to know, under God’s lordship. But this tree held out a knowledge premised on rejection of God’s lordship, and specifically based on rejection of His word. [p. 44, Kindle Edition]

A page later he writes concerning the Satanic temptation: The young couple will be ultimate, not dependent (so goes the sales pitch). Their knowledge and values will not derive from God’s truth and laws. They will know on their own terms, set their own values independent of God, as liberated from God. They will be self-ruled, they will be a law unto themselves. [p. 45, Kindle Edition]

Concerning the consequence of Adam and Eve's self-consciousness: Before, being naked had not been a problem. They were naked, and not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). Suddenly, now, being naked is a bad thing. They feel guilty because they are guilty; they are ashamed, because they are shameful. So they patch together some leaves. [p. 49, Kindle Edition]

Chapter 3 addresses the fallenness and deadness of humanity. Here Phillips discusses a variety of OT and NT passages, settling for a time on Romans 5:12-21. Chapter 3 concludes with a summary of the first 3 chapters in a helpful chart detailing the opposing views of mankind. He reminds us that the world views our problems as being external and the answers to be internal. God reveals that our problems are internal, and the answers are external. [p. 72, Kindle Edition]

Book Review of "The World-Tilting Gospel" part 2

2011-10-04T15:01:00.000-05:00

Dan Phillips' first book, The World-Tilting Gospel, is an engaging book. I addressed this in the first post of my feeble book review. In this post I want to review chapter 1, Knowing God and Man. Here Phillips addresses a combination of the doctrines of man (anthropology) and sin (hamartiology) from a Godward perspective. The position set forth on this pages is rare these days. The author reminds us that one's presuppositions regarding self-awareness and self-image have consequences.

Phillips describes three common but deficient views of people and sin. He follows this section with the Biblical view that we are all Jacob at heart. His explanation of the text of Jeremiah 17:9 is helpful, handling the texts (both English and Hebrew) quite well. While doing so he warns the reader of the deleterious dangers of self-diagnosis.

With clarity, Phillips writes of the Bible: It is God’s unalloyed, inerrant disclosure of Himself, and His diagnosis of the human condition. What the Bible says, God says. [Dan Phillips (2011-07-14). The World-Tilting Gospel (p. 37). Kregel Publications. Kindle Edition.] He then pursues the Biblical data from both the Old and New Testament. Without this view of man and sin, we are left to our own subjective, erroneous, and dangerous opinions.

Thankfully the author does not drop the issue at this point. He explains how things got the way they are in chapter 2, What Happened in the Garden.

Book Review of "The World-Tilting Gospel" part 1

2011-10-03T10:48:00.004-05:00

A recent arrival to my reading pile is Dan Phillips' first book The World-Tilting Gospel [Kregel Publications, 2011]. I first read it in the Kindle version, and then received a complimentary print copy from Kregel to review. Some of you may already know of Dan Phillips from Pyromaniacs' blog. If so, you already know Phillips writing style is ... well, different than your average Christian blog. He writes conversationally, which can be helpful at times. Some purists may not enjoy that style when reading of theological matters. Yes, it can be distracting at times, but over all I have found it satisfactory. The subtitle (Embracing a Biblical Worldview and Hanging on Tight) gives you an appropriate glimpse of the style that is in store for the reader.

Rather unconventionally, Phillips' introduction actually introduces the rest of the book. Many modern introductions seem to be little more than filler material before the first chapter. Phillips lays out why he chose the title and where he intends to take his readers. I appreciate that approach. Even in these first pages you get an appropriate hint of his didactic style. Ever been involved in a personal discipleship Bible study in a coffee shop or fast-food restaurant? That's how I envision Phillips attempting to communicate. It's fresh and challenging, and full of helpful insights into the Word based on the author's many years of studying the Bible in the original languages and a solid conservative theological foundation. Phillips identifies himself as a CalviDispieBaptoGelical. I generally find myself appreciating the positions he sets forth, at times wishing I had a better ability to communicate.

In the posts to follow, I will attempt to review this helpful book. If you are looking for a new book on evangelism, this is certainly worthy of spending some of your book allowance. If you act today (10/3/11) it is available free on the Kindle site.

Thoughts on Numbers 11:14-15

2011-09-08T15:37:00.001-05:00

Working through some old computer files, I came across some thoughts I had jotted down many years ago related to Moses' statement in Numbers 11:14-15: "I alone am not able to carry all this people, because it is too burdensome for me. So if You are going to deal thus with me, please kill me at once, if I have found favor in Your sight, and do not let me see my wretchedness." (NAU) It was during one of those particularly dark times in my ministry that I came across those verses. My observations from that time were as follows:

The first half of 11:14 IS true--Moses can not do his work alone.
Moses is NOT alone, because God is with him.
The job Moses was attempting to do WAS tremendous--well over 1 million people.
The job was NOT too burdensome for God.
Moses' solution (his own death) would NOT solve the problem.
God provided FAR MORE for Moses then he had ever thought of. God gave him 70 men to assist him (11:16ff).

Admiration or Adoration of Christ?

2011-08-30T14:11:00.000-05:00

Church historian Philip Schaff (1819-1893) wrote the following helpful reminder:

From the earliest record Christ was the object not of admiration which is given to finite persons and things, and presupposes equality, but of prayer, praise and adoration which is due only to an infinite, uncreated, divine being. (History of the Christian Church, 2:545)

Truth in the NT is ...

2011-08-19T09:46:00.000-05:00

Douglas Moo (Romans, NICNT) wrote:

"Truth" in the NT is not simply something to which one must give mental assent; it is something to be done, to be obeyed. When people act sinfully, rebelling against God's just rule, they fail to embrace the truth and so suppress it. In this case, as Meyer says, they "do not let it develop itself into power and influence in their religious knowledge and moral condition." (p. 103)

John and Ephesians Outline Updates

2011-07-20T16:54:00.000-05:00

Finally updated our congregation's website with message outlines from John 1-6 and Ephesians 1-5. Hopefully these will be of some help to you. We have gratefully observed God at work in the listeners at each of these services.

Excellent Resource on Short Term Missions Trips

2011-06-10T10:16:00.003-05:00

I recently read through the latest addition to The John MacArthur Pastor's Library. This tetralogy includes: Preaching--How to Preach Biblically; Counseling--How to Counsel Biblically; Pastoral Ministry--How to Shepherd Biblically; and the latest volume, Evangelism--How to Share the Gospel Faithfully. Every pastor should have each of these resources in his library. They far outweigh what the vast majority of pastors receive in their college and seminary education in these four areas.

After giving four misconceptions of Short Term Missions trips [STMs], Clint Archer next identifies STMs in the Bible, and then details the proper goals of STMs. Perhaps if more pastors would read this section on the goals of STMs, we would see a significant positive change in how STMs are handled in churches. If you are planning such an event with your young people for this summer, may I encourage you to not leave home without having read this last chapter of a very helpful book.

Bavinck-ian Treasures

2011-06-09T19:52:00.000-05:00

One positive about recovering from surgery is that I finally finished the second of four volumes of Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics. Here are some quote-worthy tidbits from his final chapter on Providence.

With chance there would be variety without uniformity, with fate there would be uniformity without variety; but variety in uniformity is the demonstration of primal design and the seal of the creative mind. In the world as it exists, there is infinite variety and amazing uniformity. (p. 599)

Pantheism knows of no distinction between the being of God and the being of the world and --idealistically-- lets the world be swallowed up in God or -- materialistically-- lets God be swallowed up in the world. (p. 599)

A Deist is a person who in his short life has not found the time to become an atheist. (p. 603)

If God does not do anything, then nothing exists and nothing happens. (p. 606)

One who so preserves things that he not only, by his will and being, sustains existent beings but also even their powers and effects, is absolutely sovereign: a true king. (p. 615)

All sovereignty on earth is derivative, temporary, and limited, and in the case of abuse, more a curse than a blessing. But God is king in the absolute and true sense. The government of the universe is not democratic, nor aristocratic, nor republican, nor constitutional, but monarchical. To God belongs the one undivided legislative, judicial, and executive power. His sovereignty is original, eternal, unlimited, abundant in blessing. (p. 616)

For the providence of God encompasses all things, not only the good but also sin and suffering, sorrow and death. For if these realities were removed from God's guidance, then what in the world would there be left for him to rule? God's providence is manifest not only, nor primarily, in the extraordinary events of life and in miracles but equally as much in the stable order of nature and the ordinary occurrences of daily life. What an impoverished faith it would be if it saw God's hand and counsel from afar in a few momentous events but did not discern it in a person's own life and lot? It leads all these things toward their final goal, not against but agreeably to their nature, not apart from but through the regular means; for what power would there be in a faith that recommended stoical indifference or fatalistic acquiescence as true godliness? But so, as the almighty and everywhere present power of God, it makes us grateful when things go well and patient when things go against us, prompts us to rest with childlike submission in the guidance of the Lord and at the same time arouses us from our inertia to the highest levels of activity. In all circumstances of life, it gives us good confidence in our faithful God and Father that he will provide what we need for body and soul and that he will turn to our good whatever adversity he sends us in this sad world, since he is able to do this as almighty God and desires to do this as a faithful Father. (p. 619)

Summary of Calvinism

2011-06-07T09:09:00.001-05:00

Here are some thoughts on my understanding of the essence of the Doctrines of Grace (often referred to as Calvinism).

I believe in the ...

Absolute Sovereignty of God
Absolute Deadness (Inability and Unwillingness) of people
Absolute Freedom of God's choice of some
Absolute Application of God's salvation to His chosen
Absolute Certainty of God's purpose in His choice
Absolute Security of God's chosen

What is Your View of Family and What it Reflects

2011-05-24T14:11:00.002-05:00

One of the great joys of parenting has been to home educate our children. In a recent session with our youngest son, we were continuing through Christian Overman's helpful book Assumptions That Affect Our Lives (available here).

Overman points out four characteristics of the Hebrew family in contrast to the predominant Greek anti-family view (pp. 76-81). Those characteristics are:

Hebrew parents viewed children as entrusted to them by God, and received them as such into their households like divine appointments.
Hebrew parents accepted the idea that it was a father's duty to take an active role in the instruction of children in the home. See Genesis 18:19.
Hebrew parents understood that children were not the center of the home; God is.
Hebrew parents understood that the individual family was but a part of something much larger: a community with a common history, a joint destiny, and shared values mutually applied.

What a stark contrast to our degenerate Greek-like state (Sparta) or self-centered (Athens) culture of today, even in allegedly Christian homes.

Listen to how parents refer disparagingly to and about their children. Children are treasures of God's grace and wisdom. They are fallen creatures made in the image of God. Embrace and equip them to the glory of God.
Observe the shameful lack of influence both spiritually and intellectually of so many fathers. Dads, your time is so short. Make an positive Godward impact now!
Notice the hurried busy-ness of Christian families who are rushing hither-and-thither to keep their bored children occupied till the next activity (including some church functions). Children don't need to be kept busy; they need to be trained to focus on being holy before their Creator. Youth are not the focal point, nor are they the hope for the future. That is God's position.
Ponder the exclusive family-centered solutions of some that can result in elevating the family over the congregation or isolation from society. The congregation and family are not in competition. The three God-ordained institutions are family, government, and the congregation. We can't ignore any of them.

More on the Eternal Subordination of the Son of God

2011-05-06T09:52:00.000-05:00

Sometime back I taught at a pastors' fellowship on the necessity of making the Father the central figure in Bible interpretation. I referred to it as Patricentrism. (An outline is available for the asking.) Recently I came across a helpful supporting quote in Robert Duncan Culver's Systematic Theology on p. 456. He refers to Vincent Taylor's The Person of Christ in New Testament Teaching. I am grateful for the fine folks at Mentor/Christian Focus for making this volume of Culver's available to us. A "must have" for your library.

Where are the Loving Gatekeepers of Truth?

2011-05-06T08:23:00.000-05:00

You will want to read Michael Haykin's recent post on the importance of standing for truth in a loving, Godward manner.

And Sometimes We Bury Them to the Glory of God

2011-05-03T09:35:00.000-05:00

God, in His wise and loving sovereignty, does different things with our children when they are sick. Sometimes He heals them (John 4:43-54), and sometimes He does not. And in those times when He chooses no immediate healing for them, sometimes they remain in their illness for a longer time, and sometimes we bury them.

It certainly seems much easier to trust Him if and when the healing comes. But to stand in humble worship either alongside the hospital bed or at the side of a casket, genuine faith clings to the wise and loving sovereignty of our heavenly Father without knowing all the answers to the questions that flood our minds.

Over the years I have participated in at least 4 funerals for children age 6 and under. We have said our tearful good-byes to Rebekah, Katie, Luke, and Matthew. They were, without exception, painful times for all involved. I have urged each family to cling to the truth of Genesis 18:25, "Will not the Judge of the all the earth do what is right?" We must tenaciously cling to the revealed truth we possess regarding His character. And regardless of the outcome, we must seek to bring glory to His name.

Sometimes we welcome our children home to the glory of God. And sometimes we bury them to the glory of God.

What Does Walking in Love Really Look Like?

2011-04-29T13:59:00.000-05:00

I recently taught through Ephesians 5:1-2 at a mid-week service at Calvary. I diagrammed the verses on the marker board and filled in the blanks as we worked through it phrase by phrase. We learned there are two commands: be imitators of God as beloved children, and keep on walking in love. But what is the standard for walking in love? This is detailed in what the Spirit says through Paul in the rest of verse 2. Note how Christ loved us and gave Himself for us. What does His love look like?

Christ's love is Deliberate--He chose to yield Himself to the Father's authority; His death was no accident or mistake
Christ's love is Vicarious--He gave Himself on our behalf, indicating the nature of the atonement is substitutionary. This does not address the extent of the atonement.
Christ's love is Theo-centric--He gave Himself to God the Father
Christ's love is Sacrificial--He gave Himself as an offering and sacrifice; He gave His all
Christ's love is Acceptable--He gave Himself as an offering and a sacrifice for an aroma of fragrance; everything He did was pleasing to the Father

This is the absolute standard that our walk in love must be measured against. There is no room for our personal opinions of how we feel we are doing? So let us ask ourselves some challenging questions:

Do I love deliberately? Am I intentionally choosing to yield myself to the Father?
Do I love vicariously? Am I willing to give my life for the benefit of others?
Do I love Theo-centrically? Is God the focus of my love and life?
Do I love sacrificially? Is my life in line with Romans 12:1-2?
Do I love acceptably? Is my life pleasing to God?

I Agree With John Owen

2011-04-07T16:39:00.000-05:00

John Owen (English theologian and pastor) [1616-1683], wrote concerning the authority of the Bible:

The Scripture, the written Word, hath its infallible truth in itself ... (John xvii.17.) From whence it hath its verity, thence it hath its authority; for its whole authority is founded in its truth. ... And if this be not a bottom and foundation of faith, I here publicly profess that, for aught I know, I have no faith at all. (emphasis added) [The Works of John Owen, 16:329]

Understand what he's saying? If we do not believe that the Bible is authoritative because it is true, then we have no basis for faith at all. This is why so many in our day attack the accuracy of Scripture. To attack inerrancy is to attack authority is to attack faith. The Bible does not contain truth; it is truth.

How God Uses My Sins

2011-03-23T09:45:00.000-05:00

Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) wrote:

Sin is not itself a good. It only becomes a good inasmuch as, contrary to its own nature, it is compelled by God's omnipotence to advance his honor. It is good indirectly because, being subdued, constrained, and overcome, it brings out God's greatness, power, and justice. God's sovereignty is never more brilliantly manifested than when he manages to overrule evil for good (Gen. 50:20) and makes evil subservient to the salvation of the church (Rom. 8:28; 1 Cor. 3:21-23), the glory of Christ (1 Cor. 15:24ff; Eph. 1:21-22; Phil. 2:9; Col. 1:16), and the glory of God's name (Prov. 16:4; Ps. 51:4; Job 1:21; John 9:3; Rom. 9:17, 22-23; 11:36; 1 Cor. 15:28). [Reformed Dogmatics, 2:398-399]

Thought on John 3:27

2011-03-08T10:58:00.000-06:00

In John 3:27 we read: A person is able to receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. This is clearly teaching us that God alone determines what we receive and when and why. It would include our finances, our avenues of ministry, our friends, our supervisors, our church members, our pastors, our spouse, etc. It is parallel to God's Word through Paul in 1st Corinthians 4:7: For who differentiates you? And what do you possess that you did not receive? Now if indeed you received it, why are you boasting as if you did not receive it?

D. A. Carson's helpful commentary of John (Pillar NT Commentary) reminds us:

Deep discontent over God's wise, sovereign disposition of people and things would in that instance betray not only unbelief and [un]faithfulness, but the worth form of the perennial human sin, the arrogance that wants to be God and stand where God stands. (p. 211)

Is this not the essence of what Job humbly stated: Yahweh has given, Yahweh has taken; may the name of Yahweh be blessed. (1:21)

Evaluating Our Own Teaching and Preaching

2011-03-05T10:17:00.000-06:00

In a recent conversation with some men whom I respect, the topic of evaluating our own speaking opportunities arose. It was agreed that too often we think we have done a good job, only to have someone else ask us what we were really trying to say. And the converse of that is true is well. We often think we have failed to communicate well and yet we have been told that the message was exactly what was needed at that time. So much for accurate subjective evaluation.

The evaluation of our teaching and/or preaching must be rooted in the objective realities of God's Word. Were we faithful to the text? Did we handle the text accurately? Did we communicate the original meaning of the passage and apply it to the lives of our listeners? Did we make much of God during our speaking? Did we point people to Jesus Christ?

The subjective aspect is much harder to get right. Did we "preach our heart out"? Maybe, but then again maybe not. How would you know for sure? Was our goal to be God-honoring? If not, then we had the wrong motive for speaking in front of people. Too often we try to imitate the expectations of human authors such as Richard Baxter's famous quote, "As a dying man to dying men." I would ask, What exactly does that look like or sound like? How would you know if you accomplished it? And what if we did? Do we get a star for extra effort?

I realize that all sermon evaluation is subjective to some degree. What I am arguing for is this: we need to stick to the Word when we evaluate what we have spoken before the congregation. It will address our motives, our goals, and the accuracy of our teaching. If we simply want them to be impressed with our fine sermon performance, we already have our reward.

Remember that tomorrow as you stand before His flock and try to communicate His Word for His glory and their good.

The Dangers of Yonge Skolers Without Smoke Detectors

2011-02-28T16:45:00.001-06:00

Over the years one hears of a variety of difficult church situations that grip ones heart. Church conflict is rarely or simply one-sided. Certainly there are times when members of the flock are sinfully disruptive and bring dishonor to the name of Christ. Equally frequent are the times when shepherds of the flock are sinfully disruptive and bring dishonor to the name of Christ. Blame does not accrue on only one side of the equation.

Nor is blame in this area only for younger shepherds. Being a spiritual newborn is not a description limited to the chronologically immature. We all know of older men who have entered into pastoral ministry who could still be classified as novices.

First Timothy 3:6 speaks of this particular pastoral qualification, namely his not being a recent convert or, as Tyndale said, "He maye not be a yonge skoler." The Greek term here is neophutos [# 3504]. It is the root of our English word neophyte. It carries with it the concept of one who is newly planted in the soil of Christianity.

Apparently new converts to Christianity who are in positions of congregational leadership do battle with pride in a unique manner. Hence the warning in 3:6 about falling into the condemnation of the devil. This falling is preceded (note the aorist participle) by what various English translations read as being "puffed up."

The Greek word is tuphoo [# 5187]. The NET Bible opts for "arrogant," while the NASB95 opts for "conceited." tuphoo is also used as a perfect participle in 1st Timothy 6:4 and 2nd Timothy 3:4. The root word is tupho [# 5188] which is found only in Matthew 12:20. The main idea is that of enshrouding the surrounding objects with smoke.

A derivative of tuphoo [# 5187] is tuphlos [# 5185] which is usually translated blind (53 times). It refers to those who are unable to see, either physically or spiritually. The accompanying verb is tuphloo [# 5186], used of those who have been blinded concerning spiritual matters (John 12:40; 2nd Corinthians 4:4; 1st John 2:11).

It would appear that to translate tuphoo appropriately we must somehow capture both concepts of being so enshrouded in smoke that one does not see himself or others clearly or accurately, leading to what we call in American English an inflated view of oneself. This is what happened with Satan, which resulted in his being condemned and cast from his privileged position in heaven.

And so it remains a danger for novice pastors. Having the position of shepherd can "go to ones head." It can lead to not seeing either the shepherd himself or the flock clearly, resulting in damage to the shepherd, the flock among which he is to shepherd, and to the reputation of the flock's Owner.

One way in which we can become easily enshrouded with smoke is to naively believe the compliments that people give us. Beware of the particles of smoke that so quickly begin to ascend around us. Do not dwell long on well-intentioned remarks regarding your sermons. Just as we do wisely to have smoke detectors in our houses to warn us of physical dangers to our families, let us also be sensitive to the smoke that can easily enshroud us spiritually. Pray that God will give us friends (and even critics) who serve as our personal spiritual "smoke detectors." The consequences of not doing so are severe.

It's Our Own Fault

2011-02-23T10:05:00.003-06:00

In a society that delights in self-centeredness it is interesting that we also find many who claim to be hopeless. If self-centeredness was indeed good for us, we should be overflowing with hope. Even in our Christian sub-culture we find hopelessness abounding. "My circumstances are so dire. I just wish I could have just some tiny ray of hope."

It is an age-old problem. God addresses Jewish believers in difficult situations in the book of First Peter. After explaining the future, present, and past aspects of salvation (1:3-12), God, through Peter, commands his readers to set their hope on a guaranteed future event. To not obey this command of God is a sin.

Hope is a personal choice that places one's confidence in the wise and loving sovereign God who works all things after the counsel of His will in His own time for our good and His glory.

To be hopeless, then, is the fault of the believer who refuses to obey God's Word in this matter. It is a refusal to submit to the Master's command. Hope is your delightful duty (not merely your privilege) as a Christian. To be hopeless is a characteristic of an unbeliever (Ephesians 2:12). Is this really what you want to display to a watching world and to other believers?

If God's Word through Peter is not sufficient, read carefully His Word through Paul in Romans 5:1-6; 12:12; 15:4. Especially consider Romans 15:13: Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in trusting, so that you may abound in hope in the power of the Holy Spirit.

John 3:13 and The Preexistence of Human Souls

2011-02-18T11:06:00.000-06:00

Occasionally one encounters the odd belief of the preexistence of the human soul. Some teach that their god has generated souls that are waiting for the appropriate time to be sent to earth (sometimes as punishment) to inhabit a human body. Does the Bible address a false doctrine such as this? Yes. Consider Jesus' words to the well-known Jewish teacher Nicodemus in John 3:12:

And no one has ascended into heaven, except (or "but only") the One who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Jesus makes an exclusive claim here. No one has done (or will do) what He alone has done. He alone came from heaven to dwell on this earth. Jesus alone preexisted before His incarnation (Micah 5:2; Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1, 14; 8:58; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:17). This exclusivity is part of the reason Nicodemus should have listened to and trusted in Jesus.

The Significance of Language

2011-02-17T17:40:00.000-06:00

In this era of texting and other condensed communication, it would do us all well to remember the words of Presbyterian theologian and Greek instructor J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) in the introduction to his New Testament Greek for Beginners. Machen wrote:

Language is a reflection of the intellectual and spiritual habits of the people who use it. (p. 26)

Wonder what our modern American language says about our habits?

Characteristics of the Childish Christian

2011-02-16T14:19:00.000-06:00

John Eadie, Scottish pastor and commentator (1810-1876) made the following observation concerning Ephesians 4:14:

Some men have just enough of Christian intelligence to unsettle them, and make them the prey of every idle suggestion, the sport of every religious novelty. How many go the round of all sects, parties, and creeds, and never receive satisfaction.... Decision and firmness are indispensable to spiritual improvement. (A Commentary on the Greek Text of Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, p. 316)

The Great Mystery of Religion

2011-02-11T08:22:00.000-06:00

Brooke Foss Westcott (Anglican scholar; 1825-1901) wrote, among other things, a commentary on The Gospel According to St. John. This commentary was first published in 1881. In his remarks on chapter 3, Westcott makes the following observation:

The great mystery of religion is not the punishment, but the forgiveness of sin: not the natural permanence of character, but spiritual regeneration. (p. 49)

It seems that in our culture and Christian sub-culture, the great mystery today would be to hear someone even talk about sin at all, much less the punishment or forgiveness of it.

Self-Focus in Theology

2011-02-07T16:13:00.000-06:00

In the Student Workbook for the Self-Confrontation Bible Study, the co-writers make the following astute observation:

To remain focused on simply contemplating who we are in Christ may be a subtle way in which we deceive ourselves into maintaining a preoccupation with self. God has already told us who we are in Him, and He has already done all that is necessary for us to be members of His royal family, so we do not need to focus our attention on who we are in Christ. (p. 112)

A wise warning to us all as we struggle with the flesh's thirst for self-focus, even in theological matters.

BTW, the Self-Confrontation material is available here and is well worth the effort. The Manual alone is overwhelming, so the workbook is a must. Excellent resource for discipleship. Some use it in a class setting, while others in a 1-on-1 or 1-on-2 setting. You will need to adapt the material and assignments to your unique situation.

Unity

2011-01-26T09:08:00.000-06:00

Unity in a congregation is not to be characterized by monotony but harmony. See Ephesians 4:7-11. Looking forward to teaching on this concept next Wednesday evening.

Are You My Brother?

2011-01-21T09:50:00.000-06:00

My recent addition to the local paper's pastors' column is here. This is the red-letter edition. ;-)

- - - - - - -

Recently a politician was in some hot water over comments he made concerning who was his brother. The typical reaction was that because all people are already brothers and sisters, this man was causing division by claiming that only certain people were his brothers and sisters. Who is right in this argument?

On a broad scale, I am not every person’s brother. For instance, I am not considered a brother by certain black people. They limit their use of the term based upon skin color. Am I offended? No. Will I ever be a brother in that sense? No.

On a narrow scale, a brother is someone with whom I share a common parent, either as a brother or a half-brother. Jesus had 4 half brothers named Jacob (James), Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). These five men had shared the common womb of Mary, as had their sisters. Their limited brotherhood is based on a common parent. Am I offended? No. Will I ever be their brother in that sense? No. I have my own physical brothers and a sister.

There is one final sense in which I may be someone’s brother. This is limited to a common relationship with God the Father. Every genuine Christian is a brother or a sister to me. Not all people share this relationship to God. Jesus himself limited this use of the term in John 8:42-44, “If God were your Father, you would be loving me, because I came from God and am now here; nor have I come from myself, but He sent me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you are not able to listen to my word. You are from your father the devil, and you want to do what your father desires….” And again in John 8:47, “The one who is from God is listening to the words of God; therefore you are not listening because you are not from God.” Did this cause division among those who listened to Jesus? Yes it did. That's okay.

I remember well those late summer nights growing up in our small town. We would be playing “kick the can” in the deepening shadows. Someone’s father would step through the screen-door and begin calling, “Time to come home.” Usually no names were mentioned, but we all knew who was calling for whom. “Hey, your dad says it’s time to go home.” The rest of us were free to play until our Dad called us. We didn’t obey the neighbor’s father; we obeyed our own. Similarly, my true spiritual brothers are those who hear and obey the same Father.

God's Providence

2011-01-18T11:48:00.000-06:00

Hermann Bavinck (Dutch theologian, 1854-1921) reminds us:

God's good pleasure alone explains all being and all diversity of being. That things are and that they are as they are, is grounded solely in God. The existence of a thing and the specificity of a thing, the multiplicity of life and being, the infinite diversity among creatures in kind, gender, longevity, rank, social position, wealth, (etc.)--they all are attributable to God's good pleasure and God's good pleasure alone. [Reformed Dogmatics, 2:376)

Addressing Excuses for Allowing Resignation rather than Church Discipline

2011-01-14T15:42:00.000-06:00

Church discipline can be a difficult matter for a congregation to address. Usually a member's aversion to be obedient to the Scriptures is rooted in personal experience and not revelation.

John Owen (1616-1683) tackled the age-old issue of allowing disobedient church members to resign rather than face discipline from the body. The true nature of this misguided attempt at showing love is addressed by Owen in a five-fold response [Works, 16:175].

(1.) No man is to make an advantage unto himself, or to be freed from any disadvantage, censure, or spiritual penalty, by his own sin, such as is the voluntary relinquishment on the church by a person under admonition for scandalous offences. [Resigning often demonstrates self-centeredness]

(2.) It is necessary unto the church, both as unto the discharge of its duty and the vindication of its honour, as also from the benefit and edification it will receive by those duties of humiliation, mourning, and prayer, which are necessary unto the execution of this sentence. [Resigning often hinders the overall health of the congregation]

(3.) It is necessary for the good and benefit of him who so deserves to be excommunicated; for, --[1.] The end of the institution of the ordinance is his correction, not his destruction; and may be effectual unto his repentance and recovery. [2.] It is to be followed with sharp admonition and prayer; which in due time may reach the most profligate sinner. [Resigning often hinders the health of the offender]

(4.) It becomes not the wisdom and order of any society intrusted with authority for its own preservation, as the church is by Christ himself, to suffer persons obnoxious (liable) unto censure by the fundamental rules of that society to cast off all respect unto it, to break their order and relation, without animadverting (censuring) thereon, according to the authority wherewith they are intrusted. To do otherwise is to expose their order unto contempt, and proclaim a diffidence in their own authority for the spiritual punishment of offenders. [Resigning often hinders the testimony of the congregation's authority]

(5.) One end of the appointment of the power and sentence of excommunication in the church, is to give testimony unto the future final judgment of Christ against impenitent sinners, which none of them can run away from nor escape. [Resigning often hinders the testimony of Christ's authority]

Consider the words from Proverbs 18:1 "He who has separated himself seeks his own desire; he breaks out (in contempt) against all sound judgment."

Luther on Knowing Jesus Christ

2010-12-17T15:55:00.001-06:00

Swiss church historian J. H. Merle D'Aubigne (1794-1872) quotes from an early sermon of Luther on the Lord's Prayer.

But what, then, you ask, is it to know Jesus Christ, and what profit is gained by it? Answer: To learn to know Jesus Christ, is to comprehend what the apostle says : 'Christ has of God been made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.' Now, you comprehend this when you perceive that your wisdom is culpable folly, your righteousness damnable iniquity, your holiness damnable pollution, your redemption miserable condemnation—when you feel that, before God and all the creatures, you are truly a fool, a sinner, an impure and condemned man, —and when you shew, not only by your words, but from the bottom of your heart, and by your works, that there remains to you no comfort and no salvation, save Jesus Christ. To believe is nothing else than to eat this bread of heaven. [History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, p. 97]

Luther on Prayer

2010-12-17T15:46:00.001-06:00

Church historian J. H. Merle D'Aubigne ( 1794-1872) quotes Martin Luther as saying:

When you pray, have few words, but many thoughts and affections, and, above all, let these be profound. The less you speak the better you pray. Few words and many thoughts make the Christian; many words and few thoughts, the pagan. [History of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, p. 96]

Can you help me? Uh, no.

2010-12-15T15:46:00.000-06:00

Received another strange call asking for financial help. This one lacked a bit of preparation. It went something like this.

"Hi, is this the pastor of the church?"

"Yes it is."

"Hi, I need help with money so I can get to a job interview in _______. Could you give me some money to help with gas?"

"Well, what is the job interview for?"

"I applied to be a supervisor or manager or something like that at a restaurant in _______ and I have an interview there this afternoon."

"OK. What restaurant would that be in ________?"

"Oh, uh, well, uh, there's lots of restaurants in _______"

"Yes, that I know. But which one are you interviewing at?"

"Uh, well, um, I don't remember the name of it. But can you still help me with money? I really need to get to that job interview. No one else I know has a job right now. Could you give me some money?"

"No."

Some things you just don't need to pray much about before making a decision.

John 1:13 Revisited

2010-11-29T09:09:00.000-06:00

I have been teaching through the book of John on Sunday mornings for the past several weeks. A few weeks ago I taught on the section of John 1:12-13, addressing what a personal appropriation of Jesus Christ looks like. Having observed the negative response to Christ in 1:11, we looked at the positive response in these two verses.

God sovereignly gives the legal permission (exousia) to become a child of God (1:12). This right is given, not earned or deserved in any way. It is not an inherent capability (dunamis), but rather a spiritual birth that takes place at a point in time (as does a physical birth).

God grants this right to those who receive (aorist indicative) Him, who are further explained by the Spirit through John as those who are characterized by trusting (present participle) in His name. These two verbs indicated an embracing of all that Christ has revealed Himself to be. As Kostenberger wrote, "It is accepting Him to the full extent of His self-revelation." (John, p. 38) Thus, the rejection mentioned in 1:11 is, by God's grace, not permanently universal.

God sovereignly begets His children (1:13). This spiritual regeneration is described negatively and then positively. We see that this regeneration is not rooted in humanity in any manner. Three negatives are listed: it is not rooted in brutal violence, it is not rooted in sexual desire, neither is it rooted in a man's volitional desire. It is the first one I want to focus on here.

Often this expression "not of blood" is said to refer to human genealogies or some sort of mere physical relationships. (See, for example, the translator's note in the NET Bible.) Does that interpretation stand the test of Scripture? Let's find out. One first finds that the term "blood" is in the plural form here. It is the only use of the plural in the NT (in the Majority/Byzantine Text). Thus we should expand our search to the LXX (Septuagint) to see if it was used in the Greek OT. Sure enough. We find the plural use of blood numerous times, all in a context of violent bloodshed. This was evidently a common use of the plural. Not only do we learn that the human genealogy interpretation does not hold water, but also that some reference to violence is a more likely interpretation.

So, in contrast to some religions, violence is not a means of obtaining favor with God. One cannot secure the legal permission to become the child of another through violence. History is marked by relatives committing various acts of violence to secure legal standing with the hopes of obtaining an inheritance of power or wealth. No human effort can secure for the sinner a right standing with the Judge. This permission is sovereignly granted by God. The One who does the work gets the glory.

Salvation by Grace for His Glory

2010-11-12T09:28:00.000-06:00

A recent e-book (John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, Doxology) crossed my path. This quote encouraged me to think Biblically. Hope it will do the same for you.

If we view fallen man as merely disabled or sick, we will never understand the full riches of God's grace. When we see ourselves as God sees us, however, the truth of the matter is sobering. When we realize that we were spiritually stillborn, rebels against the Almighty and Most Holy God, the Creator of heaven and earth, wicked to our core, we will not have an overinflated sense of our own goodness and abilities. We will not delude ourselves into thinking that God chose us because of some innate goodness within us. We will not flatter ourselves in thinking that we are saved because we made the first move to come to God.

On the contrary, we will fall down on our knees and thank God for His amazing grace. We will thank God that He came to our tomb, when we were dead and helpless in sin, and cried out to us, "Come forth!" We will thank Him for giving us new life, for turning our wills from evil, for granting us faith and repentance, for bringing us out of the tomb and loosing us from the burial cloths in which we were bound. If we walked out of the tomb, it was not because of any power in us. It was not because we made a decision for Christ. Rather, it was solely because of the irresistible grace of God, the sovereign and mysterious work of the Holy Spirit, who gave us new life. When we finally learn this, we will, with Calvin and our Reformed forefathers, ascribe all glory to God alone for our salvation. (Chapter 14: Transforming Grace by Keith A. Mathison)

Witnessing God's Sovereignty

2010-11-08T08:50:00.000-06:00

Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) made the following observation:

Certainly, it cannot be denied that we witness God's sovereignty at its most brilliant when he magnifies his wisdom in human folly, his strength in human weakness, and his grace and righteousness in human sin. (2:245)

Thus, for the believer this means that we should glory in what humbles us because it magnifies Him. How contrary this is to our modern culture and to our flesh.

Why is it that when athletes are interviewed they thank God for playing well and winning, but rarely for playing poorly and losing. Cannot God be equally glorified in the loss as in the win? In the game-losing fumble as well as in the game-winning catch? How we respond to each can bring glory to His name and express our confidence in His sovereignty.

How about when the church you shepherd loses members instead of gaining some? Or your child fails to pass an important test in school after studying so hard? Or your "great idea" at work turns out to be a tremendous flop?

Does your failure mean God is not glorified or that He is not sovereign? Does your sin ultimately derail God's purpose of the ages? Does your inability limit God's working in a situation? Re-read the quote from Bavinck. It helps put things (and ourselves) in proper perspective.

Painful Reminders

2010-10-27T10:46:00.000-05:00

Some readers may remember James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) who shepherded God's flock at Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia from 1968-2000. In his commentary on the Minor Prophets, he makes the following observation:

I have known men who complained about how little their people cared about the church's work or services. But these same men skimped on the preparation of sermons and rushed through services as if the best blessing of a Sunday morning were to get out of church and go home. They did not seem to love God. They did not seem to love his Word, his people, or his work. (2:582)

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Electronic resources for First Peter

2010-09-28T09:38:00.000-05:00

I recently began a small-group discipleship study in First Peter with a number of young adults age 18-30. While searching for study resources, I came across the following e-resources that you may find helpful. Saved me a bunch of money. Might help you as well. Obviously I don't endorse every view of every one of those who are listed here.

J. N. D. Kelly [Black's NT Commentaries] Epistles of Peter and Jude

Peter H. Davids [NICNT] First Epistle of Peter

Wayne Grudem [Tyndale NT Commentaries] First Peter

Thomas R. Schreiner [New American Commentary, vol. 37] First & Second Peter, Jude

Galloping Subjectivity

2010-09-21T17:01:00.001-05:00

Recently finished the PDF version of Leland Ryken's The Word of God in English. Overall, a helpful book. I'm not here to critique it, however. I simply wanted to share a quote that I think you will find quite helpful.

There is today a general religious bias toward a galloping subjectivity. But our first obligation to a text is to let it hang there in celestial objectivity—not to ask what it means to us. . . . There’s something in the mood of our culture that hates that. . . . The text had a particular meaning before I saw it, and it will continue to mean that after I have seen it. (Joseph Sittler, “Provocations on the Church and the Arts,” Christian Century, March 19, 1986, 294. on p. 173 of Ryken's book)

How we need be reminded today of the authority of the Bible. God said it, and that settles it.

God's Focus and Goal

2010-09-18T10:21:00.000-05:00

Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) wrote:

He wills creatures, not for something they are or that is in them, but for his own sake. He remains his own goal. He never focuses on creatures as such, but through them he focuses on himself. Proceeding from himself, he returns to himself. It is one single propensity that drives him to himself as the ultimate end and to his creatures as the means to that end. His love for himself incorporates into itself the love he has for his creatures and through them returns to himself. (Reformed Dogmatics, 2:233)

So, if He is His own focus, on whom should we focus?

Are Good Works Good Enough?

2010-09-17T13:53:00.000-05:00

I recently wrote this for our local paper.

People have always made claims. Some claim to be athletes, some claim to be rich, while others claim to be poor. Some claim to be wise, while others claim to be, well, not so smart. Some people claim certain amounts on their tax return, when reality shows a different amount.

The wise person has learned not to trust everyone’s claim. Some people claim to be citizens of America when they are not. Some fraudulently claim to be a member of a particular organization. Fake driver’s licenses or other forms of personal ID are not unheard of. Ever had someone claim to be acting in your best interest, only to find out they weren’t doing so?

Likewise is the claim to be a Christian. Not everyone makes a legitimate claim, do they? This is not a judgmental concept, as Jesus himself addressed those who made fraudulent claims of being qualified to enter heaven.

Consider Matthew 7:21-23: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven, but the one characterized by doing the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and done many powerful works in Your name?’ And then I will acknowledge to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who are characterized by working lawlessness.’”

Strong words from the Lord, are they not? The invalid claims of religious people who have done good works do not fool Jesus. Good works have never gotten anyone into heaven, and they never will. Did you notice how Jesus evaluates their good works? He calls them “lawlessness”. How can that be? Doesn’t God always regard good works as morally good? No. Unless works are done in the right manner with the right motive according to the right standard for the right goal, they are lawlessness. Jesus says that the only people permitted entrance to heaven are those who are characterized by doing the will of His Father. This involves obedient (the manner) submission (the motive) to His will (the standard) for His glory (the goal). God considers anything less than that to be lawlessness, no matter what we claim. Any person who fraudulently claims to be going to heaven because of their good works will hear from the Lord, “Depart from Me, I never knew you.” Is your claim valid?

John Owen on Shepherding God's Flock

2010-09-09T08:50:00.000-05:00

John Owen [1616-1683] has become one of my favorite authors. Thanks to the fine folks at Banner of Truth Trust, we have the Works of John Owen. You may also find helpful this website that contains much of Owen's material in electronic format. In volume 16, The Church and the Bible, Owen details 5 qualities of a pastor who is pleasing to God (pp. 49-51).

He must be fitted by the Holy Spirit for the discharge of his office. "I only say, that no man can in an orderly way and manner be called or set apart unto this office in whom there are not some indications of God’s designation of him thereunto by his furniture with spiritual gifts, of knowledge, wisdom, understanding, and utterance for prayer and preaching, with other ministerial duties, in some competent measure."
"Compassion and love to the flock were gloriously eminent in this 'great Shepherd of the sheep.' ... Their entrance should be accompanied with love to the souls of men; and if the discharge of their office be not animated with love unto their flocks, wolves, or hirelings, or thieves, they may be, but shepherds they are not."
"There is and was in this great Shepherd a continual watchfulness over the whole flock, to keep it, to preserve it, to feed, to lead, and cherish it, to purify and cleanse it, until it be presented unspotted unto God." This will be marked by: 1) constant prayer for the flock; 2) Diligence in the dispensation of the word with wisdom....; 3) Personal admonition, exhortation, ...; 4) All with a design to keep them from evil, and to present them without blame before Christ Jesus at that great day.
Zeal for the glory of God, in his whole ministry and in all the ends of it....
Some eminent degree of holiness above that of others.

O that God would grant to myself and to others the grace to shepherd God's flock in such a manner.

It Would Seem Reasonable?

2010-08-03T15:06:00.000-05:00

While working in the book of Ephesians for our mid-week Bible study, I came across a unsettling statement by Robert L. Reymond in his "A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith." Now, let me hasten to say that I have found Reymond helpful in various points of theology. If you are looking for a theology in the Reformed and Covenant stream, he is a good choice.

However, on page 526, he writes concerning Ephesians 2:11-13:

Paul teaches here that the blessed state to which the Ephesians Gentiles (who formerly were "far away") have now been "brought near" includes Christ, from whom they had been separated, and hope, and God, which had not been their possessions before (the first, fourth, and fifth items in Paul's list). But Paul also says that they had been excluded from citizenship in Israel and that they have been foreigners to the covenants of the promise (the second and third items). Since Paul suggests that that the first, fourth, and fifth of their previous conditions had been reversed, it would seem reasonable that he also intends to teach [emphasis added] that the second and third conditions had been reversed as well. On what authority may one eliminate these two from Paul's list of five conditions which he says God addressed in Christ in behalf of Gentiles? Accordingly, I would urge that Paul is teaching here that Gentile Christians are now citizens of (the true) Israel and beneficiaries of the covenants of the promise. And he seems to say this very thing in 2:19 when, summing up, he writes: "Therefore you are no longer foreigners ... and aliens ... but fellow citizens of the saints and members of God's household ...."

Reymond asks: "On what authority may one eliminate these two from Paul's list?" The context is that authority, Mr. Reymond. The Spirit does not say we have become spiritual Jews. He does say that God makes Gentile believers, along with Jewish believers, into one new person. We are now, by God's grace, part of the body of Christ which is neither Gentile nor Jewish. I would suggest Reymond's Covenant Theology influences his assumption here.

Here is an example of where it is not for us to make such unwarranted assumptions when interpreting the text. It is for us to allow the context to determine the interpretation. We have no authority to read into the text what we think may be missing.

Removing Grains of Ignorance

2010-07-12T15:18:00.000-05:00

British pastor John Ryle (1816-1900) consistently demonstrated a deep love for God and for the inerrant Word of God. He wrote:

Ignorance of Scripture is the root of every error in religion, and the source of every heresy. To be allowed to remove a few grains of ignorance, and to throw a few rays of light on God's precious word, is, in my opinion, the greatest honour that can be put on a Christian. (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, 3:xiii)

Abounding Vagueness and Indistinctness

2010-07-12T15:02:00.000-05:00

British pastor John Ryle (1816-1900) made the following observation of his time. He wrote:

We live in a day of abounding vagueness and indistinctness on doctrinal subjects in religion. Now, if ever, it is the duty of all advocates of clear, well-defined, sharply-cut theology, to supply proof that their views are thoroughly borne out of Scripture. ... I hold that the Gospel of St. John, rightly interpreted, is the best and simplest answer to those who profess to admire a vague and indistinct Christianity. (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, 3:iv)

Make you wonder what he would say about our time.

Thoughts on Christian Proofs

2010-07-02T10:35:00.000-05:00

I recently finished Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith, which someone had given to me. The subtitle claims that he investigates the toughest objections to Christianity. Strobel writes well, I guess, but the book failed to impress me on a number of levels. One of which is the age-old discussion concerning the validity of the various proofs. Many are familiar with the "proofs" for God's existence, such as: cosmological (like "Intelligent Design"), teleological (also like "Intelligent Design"), ontological, moral, universal consent, and historical-theological.

We know that simply because something may be the logical conclusion to someone's syllogism, that argument alone does not prove the reality of its existence. As Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) once said, "The proofs, as proofs, are not the grounds but rather the products of faith." (Reformed Dogmatics, 2:90) It appears that Stroebel attempts to use similar proofs to argue against the tough objections of unbelievers regarding Christianity. It is true that the people he interviews throughout the book occasionally use the Bible. But the Word is not the primary foundation.

As already noted, genuine faith is based on the Word, not logical proofs. Faith comes from what is heard, and the thing heard through the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Luke reminds us in Acts 6:7 that as the Word of God spread, the number of disciples increased. It was the Word of the Lord that sounded forth from the congregation in Thessalonica (1st Thessalonians 1:8). Paul reminded Timothy of the importance of careful instruction in the Word which brings spiritual nourishment in the words of the faith and of the good teaching (1st Timothy 4:6).

Point is, logical proofs are never sufficient to bring about genuine faith. Let us, as teachers/preachers, not be tentative in our announcing the simple Word of God. Let us not question the sufficiency of the Word. Let us place our confidence in the God who revealed His Word that what He gave us is capable of accomplishing the task He has granted to us. We are not called to be creative or successful, but faithful. It is not our message to adapt, but His to articulate.

God's Immutability

2010-06-26T07:56:00.000-05:00

In part 2 of volume 2 of his Reformed Dogmatics, Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) addresses the living, acting God. Concerning His incommunicable (i.e. incapable of being shared) attribute of immutability, Bavinck writes:

There is change around, about, and outside of him, and there is change in people's relations to him, but there is no change in God himself. ...

In God's eternity there exists not a moment of time; in his immensity there is not a speck of space; in his being there is no sign of becoming. Conversely, it is God who posits (i.e. puts forth) the creature, eternity which posits time, immensity which posits space, being which posits becoming, immutability which posits change. (p. 158)

And this immutable God loves us, and pours out His grace upon us to the glory of His name and for our good. Is not this changeless God worthy of our trust?

The Sequence of Corruption and Grace

2010-06-24T09:16:00.001-05:00

John Eadie (1810-1876) ministered in the United Presbyterian Church in Scotland. On page 59 in his helpful commentary on Ephesians (Solid Ground Christian Books), he makes the following insightful observation:

Corruption runs in the blood, grace does not.

The maintaining of the proper sequence of corruption and graceHow quick we are to forget the significance of this Biblical truth. Fallen people like to reverse the thought so that it reads: ~~grace~~ goodness runs in the blood, corruption does not.

Diligently maintaining the Biblical sequence of corruption and grace is vital in God-centered ministry.

Why Holiness?

2010-06-15T11:39:00.000-05:00

English theologian and pastor John Owen (1616-1683) reminds us all concerning the importance of holiness when he writes:

If we had no other argument to prove the necessity of holiness, and that it is indispensably required of us, but only this, that the God whom we serve and worship is absolutely holy, that his being and nature is such as that he can have no delightful intercourse with any that are unholy, it were abundantly sufficient unto our purpose. (Works, 6:569)

Why Will God Judge Humanity?

2010-06-02T15:33:00.000-05:00

Working through Isaiah has shown me a holy, transcendent God who will bring judgment upon all those who reject Him and His Word. If there are any questions at all, slowly read through Isaiah 63:1-6.

It has been stated by John Oswalt in his commentary on Isaiah:

God is not the cool judge impartially handing down verdicts on people is whom he has no personal interest. God is a Father whose children have been abused and mutilated. He is a King whose subjects have revolted and tried to usurp the throne. He is the Creator whose creations have perverted themselves into the very opposite of the things for which they were created. (Oswalt, 2:597)

Brief Thought on Prayer

2010-05-28T09:21:00.000-05:00

Contemplating a passage in Isaiah (62:6-9) suggested the following possible definition of prayer:

Prayer is a matter of embracing the clearly revealed promises of God by faith and expressing one's desire to see those promises fulfilled to the glory of His name.

Works better for me than reducing the definition of prayer to be nothing more than "Asking and Receiving."

Wounded Victors

2010-05-18T09:25:00.000-05:00

The book of Jeremiah has been the focus of our recent reading as a family following our meals. We observed the following in 37:10: Even if you were to strike the entire army of the Kasdim fighting against you, to the degree that only their wounded were left, they would still rise up every man from his tent and burn this city to the ground. (CJB)

What impressed me was that even wounded Kasdim (Chaldeans) could be used of God to fully accomplish His purpose of bringing judgment upon Jerusalem because of Israel's sin. It wasn't because the Kasdim were super-warriors, or had super-weapons, or had super-strength even if wounded. Instead it rests in the truth that God will accomplish His purpose, no matter what. If God decreed judgment upon Israel, it would come to pass, no matter what. Even an army of wounded Kasdim could be victorious over Israel's capital city if God had determined the city's fall.

What a great God we serve, worship, and love. A God who is not limited by our health or wealth, our intelligence, or our abilities. Our confidence rests in a God who is working all things after the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1:11).

Some Thoughts from Psalm 90

2010-05-18T09:14:00.000-05:00

I spoke to a group of Christian school seniors and their parents recently for their senior banquet. (I know, they were scraping the bottom for speakers.) I chose to speak from Psalm 90. Here is what I tried to communicate to them from that psalm.

Who is God? 90:1-11

He is a place of timeless refuge to those who are in transition--90:1-2
He is a timeless God who brings us to brokenness--90:3-5
He is an active God who deals with successive generations of temporary mankind--90:5-7
He is a holy God who knows all our sins--90:8-10
He is a powerful God of limitless anger toward sin--90:11

Based upon who God is, what does Moses ask God to do? 90:12-17

Teach us because life is short and wisdom is necessary--90:12
Comfort us because life is difficult--90:13-15

Return and have compassion
Satisfy us with your loyal love
Gladden us proportionately to our affliction

Remind us because life is transitory--90:16-17

Concerning God's work and attractiveness--90:16-17a
Concerning our work--90:17b

Eroded Camels? Hmmmmm.....

2010-05-12T11:42:00.000-05:00

Today's (May 12, 2010) main photo on Bing is of a rock formation in Turkey. In the lower right-hand corner you will find an interesting caption. Now let me say right away that I normally enjoy Bing's photographic displays. It's just that the wording on this one could be ... well... better. It reads: "Eroded rock formations and camels in ...." So, my question is, are the camels also eroded? I've only seen one live camel so I don't have much to compare with these two, but they don't look eroded to me.

OK, so I'm making too much of this, I realize that. But haven't we all made similar statement from the pulpit that could be taken differently than we originally intended? (Alright, I won't speak for you then.) Still, either we could have spoken with greater clarity, or our listeners could have been more careful in how they interpreted what was spoken. Too often, however, the fault lies with the speaker.

I would encourage us to pray, and have others pray for us, that we would have clarity in our speech. Paul instructed the Ephesian believers to pray that he would be able to open his mouth with boldness or openness (Ephesians 6:19). Consider doing a word study on parresia [# 3954]. You will find the noun approximately 30 times. See how Jesus speaks (Mark 8:32; John 7:26; 11:24; 16:25, 29; 18:20), or the believers in Acts (2:29; 4:13, 29, 31; 28:31). Review also the teaching in the epistles (2nd Corinthians 3:12; 7:4; Philemon 1:8). Look also into the verb form parresiazomai [# 3955] which is found 9 times. Luke uses the word 7 times in Acts (9:27-28; 13:46; 14:3; 18:26; 19:8; 26:26). Paul uses the verb twice (Ephesians 6:20; 1st Thessalonians 2:2).

Granted, this word is not always used in a public speech context. Sometimes it pertains to prayer (Hebrews 4:16; 1st John 5:15), and sometimes to our waiting the imminent arrival of Jesus Christ (1st John 2:26). But it always carries with it the concept of freedom and openness. It suggests doing so with fearlessness, confidence, and courage. It includes frankness, plainness of speech, and being unreserved.

Sometimes our verbal mishaps are due to fear in our hears as speakers of the Word. We may be too concerned with how some people may react to what we are about to say. We may fear some backlash (which, interestingly enough, looks very similar to a tonguelashing). We need to check our motives for saying what we say. Are we really "truthing in love", or are we simply venting from a particular passage? There is a significant difference between harsh zeal springing from our flesh and Spirit-engendered plainness of speech. If you can't tell the difference, get some help.

Let us pray along with the early church in Acts 4:29: "Grant to Your bond-servants to be speaking Your Word with every kind of clarity."

Dangers of Subjective Christianity

2010-04-28T11:13:00.000-05:00

I have been consistently challenged by Herman Bavinck's first volume of Reformed Dogmatics (Baker Academic). I realize it is introduction (hence the volume's subtitle, Prolegomena), but how necessary it is to read these things.

In his discussion of faith and theological method (part 5, chapter 15), Bavinck expands on the distinction between objective revelation in the Word and subjective revelation in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. He wisely cautions his reader concerning too much emphasis on experience.

Experience by itself is not sufficient. Scripture is the norm also for our emotional life and tells us what we ought to experience. (p. 534)

Later he adds:

Religious experience is such a subjective and individualistic principle that it opens the door to all sorts of arbitrariness in religion and actually enthrones anarchism: religion is a private thing. (p. 535)

We see this, not only among our charismatic and pentecostal friends, but also among non-charismatics. How many times have people argued, "But God showed/told me ...."? Many pastors have had listeners say, "But I think it means ..." when confronted with exegetically sound exposition of the Word.

One of my favorite stories comes from a pastoral acquaintance who, when asked a question, simply read a Bible verse in response. The enquirer retorted, "But that's just your interpretation."

Baptists have been notorious for hiding behind certain misunderstood principles such as Individual Priesthood of the Believer. This is not an excuse for torturing Scripture in the name of alleged spirituality. Sometimes it is simply a demonstration of subjective Christianity that refuses to submit to Biblical, church, and pastoral authority. I firmly believe that each believer should be reading and studying God's Word, but one must do so according to orthodox principles and patterns. Don't most doctrinal statements normally read, "We believe ..." and not "I experienced ...." Ever wonder why?

Softball Update

2010-04-28T10:45:00.000-05:00

For those who are interested, our public school softball season has been going fairly well, at least compared to previous seasons. With yesterday's loss to one of the top-ranked teams in our class in the state, we slipped below .500 in the conference. We are a bit over halfway through the season now. We make our trip to the Metrodome in Minneapolis this coming Friday. If you have nothing else going on, and want free entrance to the Dome and good seats to pick from, come on up. We play Sibley East at 1 PM on April 30.

Bavinck on Teaching and Biblical Authority

2010-04-19T07:35:00.000-05:00

In Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, we find the following observation:

For if a minister is not convinced of the divine truth of the word he preaches, his preaching loses all authority, influence, and power. If he is not able to bring a message from God, who then gives him the right to act on behalf of people of like nature with himself? Who gives him the freedom to put himself on a pulpit [a few feet] above them, to speak to them about the highest interests of their soul and life and even to proclaim to them their eternal weal or woe? Who would declare, who would be able to do this, unless he has a word of God to proclaim? Both the Christian faith and Christian preaching require divine authority as their foundation. (1:461)

Busy Days

2010-04-15T14:20:00.000-05:00

As you have no doubt observed, my blogging has been considerably slower lately. I have been enveloped by the softball season. It is our youngest daughter's last season, since she plans to graduate this spring. Thus, it is also probably my last season of helping coach girls' high school fastpitch, at least for a while.

That being said, I do have some ideas on the back burner. For instance, how do we balance the "feet of clay" principle while at the same time acknowledge theological error. Consider Leon Morris' comment in his intro to his commentary on John's Gospel :

One must always regard with healthy respect the objection that says, "If Jesus was as he is depicted in Matthew and Mark and Luke, he cannot have been as he he is depicted in John. The two are incompatible." (NICNT, John, p. 38)

I won't buy that argument. The Gospels are not incompatible. But then what are we to do about Morris, et al? Am I saying Morris is erring here? Yes. I don't care how scholarly he may sound. He was wrong to encourage us to have healthy respect for such nonsense that presumes contradictions in the inerrant and inspired Word. But that is all for another time, isn't it?

So, until the first season is over in May, things will be a bit slow in the blogging department.

Thoughts on the Healthcare Debate

2010-04-02T09:26:00.000-05:00

Various people have made rather strong comments concerning the government's takeover of the healthcare system in America. Vibrant voices sound from both sides of the political aisle, attacking folks on the opposite side with great vehemence.

Here's a disclaimer, before someone accuses me of being just some angry, white, Republican guy. Those who know me recognize I am not a political type. My citizenship is in heaven, though I temporarily reside in the US. I would identify my status not as an American but as a Christian who seeks to minister God's grace in America. Those who know me well know that I struggle with saying the Pledge of Allegiance. I looked in vain on the Census form under the Race heading for a "Fallen" category. So please don't accuse me of having wrapped myself in some country's flag.

Having said that, I sincerely wonder what some folks are so upset about. So the government took over healthcare. Nothing new here, is there? Does this really surprise us? For instance, haven't Americans already given away the educational system to the government? Remember when schools were local with little, if any, governmental oversight? Consider what we do with our elderly. We put them in nursing homes and expect the government to pay for it till the day they die.

One could make a longer list, but the fact remains the US government has previously absorbed other aspects of life; so why not this one too? As someone else said: it would appear that Americans are shifting from being citizens to being subjects. If you don't want to be involved in your own government, then eventually you won't be involved in your own government. Someone else will do it for you. If you claim this is a republic, then do something about it or be quiet, thank you.

Someone recently made the comment: it would be nice if Christians talked about the dangers of sin and the wonders of Christ with the same passion they complain about Obama-care. We seem to care enough to "evangelize" about political things, but not spiritual matters. Where is our focus?

Let us strive to be people of mercy toward those in need. But let us also strive to be people who know that the eternal matters far more than the temporary. Are we simply known as angry Americans, frustrated with our government? Or are we known as genuinely passionate Christians seeking to put our faith into practice here in America?

Resources on James

2010-03-30T11:11:00.000-05:00

I am coming to the end of my study in James with a small group of mostly 20-somethings. I have thoroughly enjoyed working through this foundational book. I have used a variety of resources over the past months. Here is my annotated bibliographic summary.

Jay Adams (Victor)--An attempt by a counselor/pastor to make practical application of James. I would not purchase this again.
J. Ronald Blue (Bible Knowledge Commentary)--Not a necessary "go to" resource; similar to Kent in depth. Obviously part of a 2 volume set you don't purchase separately.
Peter Davids (Eerdman's NIGTC)--Disappointing academic attempt to explain James (or his alleged redactor). Sorry I spent the money on this book. For sale!
D. Edmond Hiebert (Moody)--Perhaps not as detailed as Moo, but more so than Kent. Certainly worth buying.
Homer Kent (BMH)--Good summary and overview of the theme and issues in James. Debatable purchase for me.
Thomas Manton (Crossway)--Excellent resource for interpretation and application. Probably # 2 on my list. There is a non-edited volume available you may want to consider.
Dan McCartney (Baker ECNT)--Relatively new on the scene. Similar in style to Moo, though a bit more academic (but not as much as Davids). I would certainly buy this again.
Douglas Moo (Eerdman's Pillar NTC)--Probably my favorite of this list. Handles the language well. Few eccentric interpretations.
J. A. Motyer (IVP Bible Speaks Today)--Covers the thought of James very well, and gives excellent application. Worthy of your money.
David Stern (Jewish NTC)--inconsistent in what he covers, but presents a helpful Jewish perspective on the book. Don't buy a paperback version if you can help it (poor binding)
Spiros Zodhiates (AMG)--Wordy and mostly stories; very light on interpretation. Wouldn't buy again.

The Anointed Sword of Reproof

2010-03-30T10:25:00.000-05:00

Crossway Books publish their Classic Commentary series, edited by Alister McGrath and J. I. Packer. I have the volume on James by Thomas Manton (1620-1677).

In his comments on James 5:19-20, Manton writes:

Truth is a good mother, but it often gives birth to a bad daughter: contempt and hatred.

He is referring to how sinning Christians often respond to being approached concerning their sin. He writes:

Error is touchy. Worldly affections are loath to have the judgment informed; they take away the light of reason and leave us only the pride of reason. There is no one as angry as those who are seduced or persuaded into an opinion; usually conviction and reproof give rise to hatred: "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?" (Galatians 4:16).

...

This should not be so! David regarded being struck by the righteous as "a kindness" (Psalm 141:5); faithful reproof and counsel are like a sword anointed with balsam--it wounds and heals at the same time.

New Worthwhile Song

2010-03-30T09:06:00.000-05:00

We recently found a helpful song "I Run to Christ" by Chris Anderson and Greg Habegger at this site. The tune is conservative, singable, plus easily learned and remembered. And the theology is sound. What more could you ask for in church music? We have used several of their pieces here at Calvary. I would encourage you to do the same.

Conversation with a Weary Pastor

2010-03-26T10:48:00.000-05:00

Recently I asked a vaguely familiar clergyman how long he had been at his current position. He responded with. "Well, it's been 2 1/2 years now, but it seems like 10 or 12." I've known other pastors from that same congregation, and have gotten similar responses from each of them over the years.

No doubt we all grow weary at one time or another in our ministries; I know I have. We know the reminders from Scripture not to grow weary (Galatians 6:9; 2nd Thessalonians 3:13; Hebrews 12:3). But sometimes we hear those reminders, sense our guilt before God, and then grow even more discouraged because of our disobedience. Sound familiar?

We can call weariness "depression" or "discouragement" if that helps, but it is the same thing as far as I can tell. Galatians 6:9 uses the term ekkakeo [# 1573], meaning "to lose heart". It is used in Luke 18:1; 2nd Corinthians 4:1, 16; Ephesians 3:13; and 2nd Thessalonians 3:13. Hebrews 12:3 uses the term kamno, which is also found in James 5:15 where it is translated "sick".

Consider just two passages a bit more carefully. Read 2nd Corinthians 4:1. From whence comes the ministry you are currently engaged in? Have you been mercied by God? Then do not lose heart. Read also Hebrews 12:3. Reflect upon [analogizomai] the suffering Christ, so that [hina] you may not grow weary [kamno] and grow slack in [ekluw] your souls. Keep your circumstances in proper perspective. Do they exceed what the Christ endured? I think not.

Conversation With A Catholic Priest

2010-03-26T09:47:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I had the opportunity to sit and chat with one of the priests from the 3,500 member RCC in our area. As we were discussing someone who had recently left their organization, he said, "As long as they are growing in their relationship with God, I'm all for it." My response was to say that the person was demonstrating a great hunger for the Word of God, and evidencing some serious spiritual maturity.

He then made this telling statement: "We like people to read the Bible too, but we go beyond the Bible." There you have it. Honesty. No pretending to be or to do something else. "We go beyond the Bible." I would agree with his frank assessment of the RCC.

But could that same statement be made of us as well? It summons us back to the regulative principle rather than the normative principle, does it not? Let us be careful we don't go beyond the Bible, and if we find ourselves beyond the limits, that we would quickly repent and return to the Standard.

Misleading Subjective Superlatives

2010-03-26T09:33:00.000-05:00

As one works their way through commentaries and other Christian study books, they will often encounter misleading superlatives. For instance, have you ever come across the phrase "the best Greek manuscripts" in your reading on a textual issue?

According to what criterion is that statement made? Do they mean the oldest manuscripts? Probably not. Perhaps the most numerous? Again, probably not. Or maybe it was simply based on a particular Greek student's opinion derived from a favorite Greek teacher. Ah, maybe so?

Whatever the standard, it is still misleading, in part because it is subjective. Is it deliberately misleading? I don't think so. But such subjective statements mislead nonetheless. It gives the reader the idea that certain Greek manuscripts have been so thoroughly examined and evaluated by some governing research body that they have been given a superior AAA rating over all lesser manuscripts. We know that such is not the case.

A similar observation can be made concerning Christian music. One writer declares his favorite style of music to be the best, while others subjectively state, "No, THIS style is best." One person likes all things contemporary, while another likes all ancient compositions, while yet another prefers some randomly picked date based on their own musicological research.

Is this not akin to what the KJVO crowd has done with the 1611? We may accuse them of heresy (and I think in some cases rightfully so), but we must be careful we don't fall into a similar trap with Greek manuscripts or music.

Wouldn't it be better to refer to "the older manuscripts" or "the majority of manuscripts" instead of "the best manuscripts"? Wouldn't it be better to simply admit our music choices are based largely on preferences (or what I am selling) rather than "the best music style"? Why not come right out and state, "I prefer this music style because of A, B, and C...." That's honest, and it's not misleading to anyone. To say, "I prefer manuscripts X, Y, and Z because...", is far better than saying, "Manuscripts X, Y, and Z are the best, and they teach...."

I may not like your preferences, and most likely you won't like mine, but at least it seems better than giving the misleading impression that you and I have painstakingly researched all music/manuscripts/etc. everywhere in all time periods and have arrived at an objective, verifiable conclusion in the matter. No one can do that. Let's just be straightforward with our audiences. Yes, by all means let's do our homework. But let us also be realistic in stating our preferential, subjective conclusions.

Thoughts on Worship and Religion

2010-03-17T11:40:00.001-05:00

As I have been working through the first volume of Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, I came across these helpful reminders. (1:244)

God alone determines how he wants to be served. And the rebirth of sin-corrupted subjective religion, of the religious predisposition, consists above all in that believers receive a sincere desire to live in perfection according not only to some but according to all God's commandments. It is their daily food to do the will of the Father....

And God regenerates human beings in order to restore in the depths of their beings those who are averse to his service to harmony with his will and law as these are laid down in objective religion....

Yet the essence of religion cannot consist in anything other than that in it God is glorified and acknowledged precisely as God. Every religion that falls short in this respect falls short of the glory of God and to that degree also ceases to be truly religious. True religion, on the other hand, consists in the kind of human disposition that on the one hand is rooted in a deep sense of one's absolute dependence on God as Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, etc., and on the other seeks in sincerity to live according to all God's commandments.

Cleansing from Sin

2010-03-12T10:36:00.000-06:00

Recently I had a column due for the local paper. Here's my submission to the publisher.

While driving around town the past few days, I have noticed how filthy the snow looks right now. What was once brilliant white has turned into taupe. Taupe is not necessarily a bad color, mind you, but that is not what snow is supposed to look like, is it? Remember how just weeks ago the sun would reflect off the pristine newly fallen snow? No doubt you remember shoveling day after day, until you had large piles of pearly flakes, pondering, “Where can I put it next time?”

And so it is with our conscience. What was once clean is now covered with spiritual filth. It is just like Adam and Eve who began this life pure and clean, but ended up filthy before God. It was really a simple choice for them: obey God or obey someone else. God had given them a super-abundant “yes” and a solitary “no”. And they chose the only tree that had been forbidden. With the choice to disobey came the consequence of being not only spiritually dead but also spiritually filthy.

Conceived into this world in the same condition, we are all born filthy before God. Then daily we make choices that further pollute our conscience. We are aware of our guilt before this pure and holy God, but we attempt to cover it, hoping it will go away on its own, or perhaps hoping no one will notice the stain. We act like Adam and Eve covering themselves with leaf-aprons. Yet deep down inside we know it hasn’t helped. Just as God knew what they had done, so He sees all and knows all about us as well. He knows exactly how the stain came upon our conscience.

But that is not the end, thankfully. God, being rich in mercy, provides a cleansing for our conscience. The stain of sin can be washed away, but only in the way God has determined. The blood of Jesus Christ is the cleaning agent. I love the words of Hebrews 9:14, “how much more will the blood of the Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

You see, you too have a choice: continue to try covering your sins, or call out to the One against whom you have sinned. The God whom you offended is the only source of forgiveness and cleansing. Listen to these marvelous words from the prophet Isaiah 55:6-7: “Seek the LORD while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked abandon his way, and the iniquitous man his plans; and let him return to the LORD, that He will have compassion on him, and to our God because He will abundantly pardon.” He’s ready to forgive and cleanse. What grace! What mercy! What hope!

Subjective and Objective Thinking

2010-03-05T14:02:00.000-06:00

Generally we use the two adjectives in the title of this post to refer to feelings vs. fact. It might help to view it from a slightly different angle. A brief consideration of grammar may help clarify things.

Subjective thinking means that I (the subject doing the action) am the focus (the object) of my thoughts. The subject has become the center of ones interest. Thus subjective thinking is really self-absorbed. It is usually anthropocentric in nature. The only exception to this would seem to be when we contemplate ourselves based upon God's revelation of who we really are in His eyes.

One hears subjective thinking in conversations such as: "No one understands what I'm going through." "I deserve to have some alone time." "This church didn't make me feel very welcome." Of course the self-hyphenated jargon of certain psychologies illustrate this as well. Self-worth, self-love, self-esteem, etc. are all examples of subjective thinking.

Objective thinking, on the other hand, means that I (the subject) am focusing my thoughts on someone or something (the object) outside of myself. The object has become the center of ones interest. Thus objective thinking is really others-absorbed.

Objective thinking, however, is not necessarily theocentric. Ideally it should be, but too often it is anthropocentric as well. It is an improvement of sorts to think of other creatures rather than yourself, but unless it becomes theocentric thinking, it still falls short.

How we think of God will determine how we think of other people. Accurate thoughts of God must come first to have accurate objective thinking. This is why loving God with our whole being is foundational to loving our neighbor as ourselves.

So, what is the default mode of your thinking: subjective or objective? Pastors battle with this as much as any. Do you find yourself dwelling on what people thought of your sermon, or how the deacons are treating/mistreating you? Or how the body rejected your suggestion at the latest business meeting? Do you find yourself selfishly licking your wounds on Monday after a "tough day at the office" on Sunday? Who is the focus of your thoughts? Who should be the focus of our thoughts?

Do a search on the various words for thoughts and thinking in the Greek NT. That will give you something to work with are you contemplate God's thoughts after Him.

The Man-Centeredness of Covenant Theology

2010-03-03T09:34:00.001-06:00

Among my current reading joys is Herman Bavinck's (1854-1921) Reformed Dogmatics. (I chose the 4-volume English edition, since my Dutch is, well..., non-existent.)

While still in the Prolegomena, I have found much that is helpful. Bavinck evaluates the position of Dutch theologian Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) on page 104. Cocceius was the initial systematizer of Covenant Theology.

Cocceius's novelty lay rather in the fact that he was the first to divide all the material of dogmatics in terms of the covenant idea and planned in this way to offer a more biblical-theological and antischolastic dogmatics. Furthermore, in arrangement of the material, he followed the historical order of the dispensations of the covenant and distinguished these dispensations so sharply that their unity was lost and could be preserved only by arbitrary typological exegesis. In addition, finally, he viewed the entire history of the covenant of grace from beginning to end as an abolition of the covenant of works. Sin, Christ, the new covenant, physical death, and resurrection are to him the five turning points by which the covenant of works is successively robbed of its power and effect.

This division is objectionable for a number of reasons. Its theological starting point is not God but the covenant between God and man. Given this position, he can treat the doctrines of God and man only in an introduction by way of presupposition. By its historical movement his perspective erases the boundary between the history of revelation and dogmatics and thereby undermines the latter. This approach is highly repetitious and tends automatically to exaggerate the analogies on the one hand and the distinctions between the various dispensations of the covenant on the other. (emphasis added)

Earlier, on page 61, Bavinck had this to say about Cocceius:

The analytic method, which is dominated by practical concerns of how to obtain salvation, as well as Cocceius's covenantal theology are problematic because their theological starting point is not God but humanity's need for covenantal fellowship, for salvation. (emphasis added)

Obviously your starting focus has a tremendous influence. Begin with God, or begin with man, but you must understand the consequences of your decision. Many alleged Dispensationalists will also say that salvation is the biggest issue. Not much different that these Covenant Theologians.

Tweaking Commnentaries Yet Again

2010-02-25T10:36:00.001-06:00

In 2009 Baker Academic published a helpful commentary on James by Dan G. McCartney (professor of NT interpretation at Redeemer Theological Seminary in Dallas) as part of their Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series. Overall the book has been a good addition to my resource pool.

In his comments on James 5:10-11 (p. 243), McCartney gives his readers a helpful remark:

James refers to these OT examples of faith to show not how extraordinary people of extraordinary power did marvels, but how ordinary people who shared the common human experience of suffering became extraordinary through their persevering faith in the face of adversity.

I would suggest the following tweak:

...but how ordinary people who shared the common human experience of suffering persevered in the face of adversity because of their faith in an extraordinary God.

To me it would shift the focus from man to God.

Thoughts on Machen from a Non-Christian

2010-02-25T09:49:00.000-06:00

You may want to read two posts (Part 1 and Part 2) about J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) from the perspective of a non-Christian man. For one enveloped in darkness, he seems quite perceptive. The liberal Presbyterians do not fare well with Mencken. One can easily make applications to our day.

Wisdom from Thomas Manton

2010-02-24T17:36:00.001-06:00

Thomas Manton (1620-1677) reminds us of the proper focus:

Why should we care about the scorn of an unthankful world when we have such a good Master? It is an honor for us to lose our name for God's, and it does not matter if we are nothing, so long as Christ is all in all. A minister should be like someone in a crowd lifting someone else up to be seen by everybody, the he himself is jostled and lost in the throng. If Christ is exalted, it does not matter if we suffer loss.

Cross Class Commentary on James, p. 316

Certain Aspects of Religion Are Tolerated by the World

2010-02-17T11:42:00.000-06:00

How curious no one in the media is screaming about religion being forced upon people when that particular religious practice actually encourages sin. What else is Mardi Gras? In our German-American culture it is referred to as Fasching. It would seem that if someone was publicly advocating genuine repentance and fasting, they wouldn't get the positive publicity. But then again, when was genuine self-denial every popular?

Still More Intolerant Tolerance

2010-02-13T09:56:00.000-06:00

Doesn't this sound familiar in our tolerant, enlightened age? Haven't read the man's pamphlet, but evaluating the response would seem to indicate he probably isn't too far off Biblically. Thank God for pastors who are willing to speak up and stand up. Of course one doesn't teach such truths simply because a culture is falling apart. One teaches the truth because God revealed it, regardless of the culture.

If the Bible is Inspired, Then...

2010-02-08T09:16:00.000-06:00

Thomas Watson (16??-1686), in his Body of Divinity, lists eight practical exhortations rooted in the inspiration of the Bible. (pp. 34-38)

Study the Scriptures. It is a copy of God's will. Be Scripture-men, Bible-Christians....
Prize the written Word. Job 23:12....
Believe it....
Love the Word written. Psalm 119:97....
Conform to Scripture. Let us lead Scripture lives. Oh that the Bible might be seen printed in our lives. Do what the Word commands. Obedience is an excellent way of commenting upon the Bible....
Contend for Scripture. Though we should not be of contentious spirits, yet we ought to contend for the Word of God. This jewel is too precious to be parted with....
Be thankful to God for the Scriptures. What a mercy is it that God ha not only acquainted us what his will is, but that he has made it known by writing!....
Adore God's distinguishing grace, if you have felt the power and authority of the Word upon your conscience... Christian, bless God that he has not only given thee his Word to be a rule of holiness, but his grace to be a principle of holiness....

Let us also be thankful to God for such places as The Banner of Truth Trust who make resources such as these available to us.

Watson on Reading the Bible

2010-02-08T09:04:00.000-06:00

Thomas Watson (16??-1686) instructs the readers of his Body of Divinity that the Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God. Among his practical uses of such a truth, he gives four suggestions for reading the Word. (p. 35)

Read the Bible with reverence. Think in every line you read that God is speaking to you....

Read with seriousness. It is a matter of life and death; by this Word you must be tried; conscience and Scripture are the jury God will proceed by, in judging you....

Read the Word with affection. Get your hearts quickened with the Word; go to it to fetch fire....

Read the Scripture, not only as history, but as a love letter sent you from God, which may affect your hearts....

Ways to Glorify God

2010-02-06T18:03:00.000-06:00

Thomas Watson's (16??-1686) Body of Divinity is a expansion of the Westminster Assembly's Shorter Catechism. Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) thought so highly of it that he had it reprinted for the students of his Pastors' College.

While discussing the first question concerning Man's Chief End, Watson lists 17 ways in which we can glorify God. (pp. 10-18)

When we aim purely at his glory
By an ingenuous (candid) confession of sin
By believing
By being tender of his glory
By fruitfulness
By being contented in that state in which Providence has placed us
By working out our own salvation
By living to God
By walking cheerfully
By standing up for his truths
By praising him
By being zealous for his name
By having an eye to God in our natural (eating & drinking) and civil (buying and selling) actions
By laboring to draw others to God; by seeking to convert others, and so make them instruments of glorifying God
By suffering for God, and sealing the gospel with our blood
By giving God the glory of all that we do
By a holy life

Consider # 10 once again. Watson continues with this point: Much of God's glory lies in his truth. God has entrusted us with his truth, as a master entrusts his servant with his purse to keep. We have not a richer jewel to trust God with than our souls, nor has God a richer jewel to trust us with than his truth. Truth is a beam that shines from God. Much of his glory lies in his truth. When we are advocates for truth we glorify God. (p. 15)

Let us thank God for men like Thomas Watson, and the wisdom God bestowed upon him for our good and His glory.

God's Grace in Sanctification

2010-02-05T09:46:00.000-06:00

In his helpful book on the Holy Spirit (Works, vol. 3), John Owen compares the Spirit's work of sanctification in the life of the genuine believer to the growth in trees and plants. (p. 396)

First, trees and plants have the principle of their growth in themselves. So also genuine believers have the principle of growth and increase in themselves. All grace is immortal seed, and contains in it a living, growing principle. ... It is, therefore, the nature of holiness to thrive and grow, as it is of trees or plants, that have their seminal virtue in themselves after their kind.

Second, he observed that both must be watered from above is that principle is to thrive.

Third, the growth of both is usually secret and imperceptible, nor is discerned but in the effects and consequences of it. ... It is not immediately discernible, either by themselves in whom it is, or by others that make observation of it. It lies only under the eye of him by whom it is wrought; only by the fruits and effects of it is it made manifest.

Owen goes on to comment that next to redemption, this ongoing sanctification is what he admires most of all the glorious works of God. (p. 397)

Fallen Man is Inverted Man

2010-02-01T18:31:00.001-06:00

If you have read any thing by Thomas Manton (1620-1677), you already know he has a way of making memorable statements. Consider these thoughts from his commentary on James 4:16.

Fallen man is inverted man, man turned upside-down. His love is where his hatred should be, and his hatred where his love should be; his glory is where his shame should be, and his shame is where his glory should be.

First we practice sin, then defend it, then boast of it. Sin is first our burden, then our custom, then our delight, then our excellence.

Keeping Priorities in Perspecitive

2010-01-28T11:56:00.000-06:00

When we think of priorities and success in our occupations, consider the words of astronaut Rick Husband (1958-2003). He had been rejected by NASA three times, but he continued to pursue his goal. of being an astronaut. By God's grace and wisdom, he became the pilot of the first space shuttle to dock with the International Space Station in 1999. Rick was the commander of the shuttle mission that ended with the death of all seven crew members on February 1, 2003.

In an interview following his second shuttle mission, he stated:

If I ended up at the end of my life having been an astronaut, but having sacrificed my family along the way or living my life in a way that didn't glorify God, then I would look back on it with great regret. Having become an astronaut would not really have mattered all that much."

May we all keep our priorities in such perspective.

A special thanks to Answers in Genesis science curriculum God's Design for Heaven and Earth "Our Universe" p. 140.

Correcting Commentaries

2010-01-27T13:52:00.000-06:00

As I've been working through the book of Isaiah, one of resources I normally use is John Oswalt's helpful 2-volume commentary. Occasionally one finds himself in disagreement with Oswalt, which is nothing new, right? We will always find areas in commentaries with which we disagree.

Today, while studying in 51:17-52:12, I found such a statement in Oswalt. Commenting on the plural form of adonai in 51:22, and arguing for his translation "husband" instead of "sovereign" he says this: This is the only time it is so used in Isaiah. That caused me to pause and reconsider how I had translated the word. So I went back to my trusty Bible Works 8 to see if Mr. Oswalt was correct.

What I found is this: Oswalt is sorta right, but mostly wrong. He is correct in that this is the only plural use of adonai with the feminine singular suffix. But, he is also wrong in that the plural use of adonai (but with masculine suffixes) is also found in Isaiah 22:15 and 36:12. Therefore, I conclude that his choice of "husband" is not standing on sound research.

Again, I'm not writing to blast Oswalt, but to warn us of taking such statements as absolute truth. What I am writing is this: when such statements are made, verify their validity. Don't simply say, "Wow, I didn't know that." Double check to see if what the commenter is saying is really true.

Why the Aversion?

2010-01-26T13:26:00.001-06:00

I often find myself chuckling over the interpretations set forth in some commentaries. There seems to be an unspoken rule that Jerusalem cannot mean Jerusalem, no matter what the context. John Gill (1697-1771) illustrates this point well. On Isaiah 51:17, he writes: ...for this respects a more glorious state of the church, the Jerusalem, the mother of us all.... Earlier, while commenting on 51:16, he wrote concerning the phrase "say to Zion, 'You are my people": the church of God, consisting whether of Jews or Gentiles, especially the latter.... So Zion is now to be understood as primarily Gentiles instead of future Jews. I confess I cannot be that creative, nor do I want to be.

This sort of interpretation is obviously driven, not by exegesis or the context, but by the presuppositions of one's theological framework. Why the aversion to letting Jerusalem be Jerusalem? Why can not Zion simply be Zion? Why must people attempt to force the NT concepts into OT passages? Let the Old speak for itself. Replacement Theology (i.e. exchanging church for ethnic Israel) has no exegetical root in Scripture.

If you have not done so, you need to read such helpful books as Barry Horner's Future Israel [ISBN: 978-080544627-2] and H. Wayne House's Israel: The Land and the People [ISBN: 0-8254-2879-3]. The church has no right to appropriate blessings promised to Israel.

Should I continue chuckling? Perhaps not, but I am beginning also to mourn that people who read such interpretations are often lead astray from the actual meaning of the text. That is something no interpreter should accomplish.

Idols of the Heart or Idols In the Heart?

2010-01-20T14:42:00.000-06:00

We often hear taught that the phrase "idols of the heart" addresses something akin to the root sins we as believers struggle with. It sounds good; in fact often we are referred to Ezekiel 14 as Biblical support for this phrase. But is that what it really says? Read Ezekiel 14:3 carefully. And then ask yourself: what does it say, what does it mean, and how does it apply to us?

What does it say? "These men have taken/brought their idols into their hearts, and stumbling block of iniquity they have set before their faces."

What does it mean? Some of the leaders of Israel had come to visit Ezekiel (14:1). Those who sat before Ezekiel were exposed by God Himself as being idolaters. The multiplicity of their idols permeated their lives, even to the very core of their being (14:4). These idols were stumbling blocks of iniquity/spiritual perversion. These leaders were called to repent, turn away from these idols, and turn away from all their abominations (14:6).

These were not root sins that they needed a counselor to expose for them. The idolatry that had been a common external sin before the exile was now deliberately internalized. Perhaps they assumed it was more subtle or secretive, but God still knows all things. No matter where you place your idol, God still sees it, and knows that there is competition.

How does it apply to us? These leaders gave the outward impression that they were seeking the Lord's direction in their lives. However, their inward allegiance to the idols prohibited their obedience to Yahweh. As Feinberg (Ezekiel, p. 78) explains, "Their thoughts were occupied with idol worship; they were enamored of idolatry, and their affections were centered on worthless vanities." It is evidence of a divided heart, and thus divided loyalty.

So, these are not idols of the heart, but idols in the heart, contra many within the Biblical counseling movement.

Excellent Biblical Resources

2010-01-20T12:10:00.000-06:00

If you are not familiar with Focus Publishing, you ought to be. We at Calvary have benefited greatly from the resources they make available to the public. Check them out soon.

Forty Years Ago

2010-01-20T09:27:00.000-06:00

It was forty years ago this month that my siblings and I buried our father in the southwest corner of that snow-covered cemetery up on the hill overlooking our little town. It was a cold and raw January day.

I also remember earlier in the week how the doorbell rang that Sunday morning as one of the deacons from church came to the parsonage to tell us our father had died at the hospital. We all knew that day would eventually come after Dad had battled cancer for several years. We just didn't want it to come.

This came to mind recently as my youngest son was reviewing the moon landing of Armstrong and the gang. I remember watching the landing on the old black-and-white that day in July of 1969. I raced to the room where Dad was sitting, engaged in conversation with his older brother. "Dad, they landed on the moon!" I announced. His response was, "Oh, okay." He returned to his conversation, seeming to ignore this momentous occasion.

How could he not care about the most important thing in this life, I questioned then. But I eventually came to understand that he was addressing eternal matters far more important than anything this life has to offer. He was a 41-year old father of 5 staring eternity in the face. Watching someone land on the moon just can't compare to knowing within a very short time you will be meeting the Creator of the moon.

Familiar English Words from the Greek Text of James

2010-01-19T16:10:00.000-06:00

As I was working through James 4:13-17 recently, I was struck by the number of Greek words from this passage that have come into modern English. Here is a list of those words.

4:13--spend--poieo [# 4160]--root of our English "poet"
4:13--buy and sell/trade--emporeuomai [#1710]--root of our English "emporium"
4:14--know--epistamai [#1987]--root of our English "epistem-ology" and "epistem-ic"
4:14--vapor/mist--atmis [#822]--root of our English "atmos-phere"
4:14--appears--phaino [#5316]--root of our English "pheno-menal"
4:14--vanishes--aphanizo [#853]--root of our English "phantasm" and "phantom"
4:15--instead--anti [# 473]--root of our English anti-septic
4:17--knows--eido [#1492]--root of our English "video"
4:17--good--kalos [#2570]--root of our English "calli-graphy" and "kal-eidoscope"
4:17--sin--hamartia [#266]--root of our English "hamarti-ology"

One recent book purchase of mine was English Derivatives from the Greek New Testament from Apostolic Press. I had started my own compilation years ago, but this book is extremely convenient.

What Teaching Through Isaiah Has Done For Me

2010-01-13T11:53:00.000-06:00

I have been teaching through Isaiah since, well, for awhile. I have thoroughly enjoyed working through this Old Testament theologian-prophet. As of today I am up to Isaiah 50:4-9. This study has benefited me in several ways.

It has given me a greater understanding of the majesty of my God.
It has given me a greater understanding of the attributes of my God.
It has given me a greater understanding of the eternal purpose of my God.
It has given me a great appreciation for the perfect accuracy of God's Word.
It has given me a greater understanding of my God's future plans for ethnic Israel.
It has demonstrated again and again that the Pre-Millennial position is the only position that takes the text in a straightforward manner. All others say, "We know what the text says, but...." Other positions are theology driven; Pre-Mill is text driven.
It has given me a greater understanding and appreciation for the deliberately suffering Messiah.
It has helped sharpen my overall Hebrew skills.

Mercy and Grace

2010-01-06T15:59:00.000-06:00

William G. T. Shedd explains the distinction between mercy and grace as follows (Dogmatic Theology, p. 307):

Grace is an aspect of mercy. It differs from mercy in that it has reference to sinful man as guilty, while mercy has respect to sinful man as miserable. The one refers to the culpability of sin, and the other to its wretchedness.... Grace, like mercy, is a variety of divine goodness. (emphasis added)

Shedd on the Incapacity of Happiness

2010-01-04T17:10:00.000-06:00

W. G. T. Shedd wrote in his Dogmatic Theology (p. 288)

The happiness of the creature cannot be the final end of God's action....Moreover, happiness from its very nature cannot be an ultimate end because to seek it is to fail of getting it: "He that finds his life shall lose it." To seek holiness as an ultimate end is to attain it. To seek holiness results in happiness, but not vice versa. Happiness is the effect, and holiness is the cause. Hence the command is "be holy"--not "be happy." Another proof that happiness is not an ultimate end like holiness is the fact that there are many kinds of happiness, but only one kind of holiness. Happiness depends upon the attainment of an object that is different from itself; and the objects are various: such as wealth, pleasure, fame in the lower eudemonism; and knowledge, culture, and virtue in the higher. But holiness does not depend upon securing an object different from itself. A man is happy only when he has obtained wealth or fame or culture or something that is other than happiness itself. But a man is holy, not by obtaining wealth, fame, culture, or something other than holiness, but by obtaining holiness itself. Consequently, holiness can be an ultimate end, but happiness cannot be.

Twenty-five Years Ago

2009-12-24T13:11:00.000-06:00

If I did the math correctly, yesterday was the 25th anniversary of our moving here to begin to attempt to shepherd the flock of God at Calvary Baptist. (As someone joked, it's been the best 23 years of my life!) I remember loading Van's 5th-wheel trailer/wagon to move us down in the bitter cold. We spent that first Christmas Eve evening with a family from church because we couldn't travel because of a snow storm. (Looking out the window today at the rapidly accumulating snow reminds me things haven't changed much!)

Moving down here to the western edge of south-central MN (or the eastern edge of southwestern MN) was not necessarily a culture shock for us, because I was raised about 1 hour east of here. However, having lived in Mpls. (just off of West Broadway on the north side) for 4 years prior, it took a while for us to get used to the slower pace once again. We thoroughly enjoy it now. Hard to imagine being anywhere else right now.

Would I do it again? Yes and no. I am thankful to God for the patience He consistently instills in His people toward their pastor. In retrospect, should they have selected a 25-year-old fresh out of seminary as their pastor? No. But, in spite of that imperfect decision, God has been gracious to us all. God knew what type of shepherd the flock needed, and He knew what type of flock the shepherd needed.

I have watched an assortment of folks come and go over the years. I have gained new friends and lost old ones. Things have changed. Hopefully I have. Hopefully I am not the same pastor I was 25 years ago.

The Use of the New Testament in the Old Testament

2009-12-18T08:53:00.000-06:00

No, I did not transpose anything. I typed this title deliberately. It springs from some thoughts regarding interpreting the OT. We have all heard people teach from the OT and listened as they disregarded the original context by forcing NT teaching back into the OT passage. We call that eisegesis (reading the meaning into the text) instead of exegesis (leading the meaning out of the text).

One for instance of this are those who tell us we need to see Jesus in every passage on every page of the Bible. We cannot do so, because not every passage talks about Jesus. It is wrong for us to force Jesus into passages that He was not originally part of when the Spirit revealed it. In addition, there are some who claim that the NT trumps the OT in all teachings, going so far as to say that we cannot teach a 6-day creation of the universe because that teaching is found only in the OT, not NT. That, my friends, is simply wrong.

I won't question the sincerity of people who do such things, but I do question the validity of their doing so. Apparently, I am not alone in this. Consider something from some of my recent bedtime reading. Walter Kaiser writes in Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics:

At best, this appeal to all texts, especially the New Testament, despite how and where they appear in the chronological order of revelation, is exactly what systematic or dogmatic theology does; and at worse, it is reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament and upgrading its meanings and values or merely replacing them with preferred New Testament meanings and values. Thus, it also makes the New Testament the coin of the realm for all interpretation. It is as if all that came before the Epistles (especially before the Pauline Epistles) was a prologue that was incapable of offering the gospel or of giving the real understanding mortals needed, which, it is said, could not come until after the resurrection of Jesus and the appearance of the New Testament. This not only makes a new canon within the canon of Scripture, but it also has the Holy Spirit stutter, as it were, until his revelatory work in the New Testament begins. How can we argue for the sufficiency and authority of the whole canon of the Bible on these grounds? (p. 76)

Let us not read the New into the Old, but rather interpret the New in light of the Old. Remember that the NT readers generally did have the OT as part of their background, but the OT readers never had the NT as part of their background. Attempt not to build the superstructure into the foundation, but rather build it on the foundation. Let us strive to keep things in their proper chronological and theological location.

Listening to Sermons

2009-12-15T16:58:00.000-06:00

Martin Bucer (1491-1551) wrote against thoughtless and wanton criticism of teaching in his book Concerning the True Care of Souls.

This is why Christians are first of all to ask the Lord with great earnestness to grant them faithful ministers, and to watch diligently in choosing them to see that they walk in accordance with their calling and serve faithfully; and when these ministers come to warn, punish, teach or exhort in the Lord's name, not to dismiss it thoughtlessly and despise this ministry, as sadly many are wont to do today. Such people are so kind as to object to and judge the sermons and all the church activities of their ministers, just as if they had been appointed to do so and the only reason for hearing sermons was so that they might in the most unfriendly way discuss, distort and run down what had been said in them, or anything else which had been done in the church. In such people you do not observe any thought of approaching sermons in such a way that they might in some way be moved by what they have heard in them to acknowledge their sins more fully, or to commit themselves more wholeheartedly to Christ and seek more earnestly to improve their ways; all they do is to judge and criticize anything which is said which applies to them, or which in some way they consider not to fit in with their carnal impudence (and not Christian freedom). And when they praise something in a sermon, it is generally because it applies to other people, whom they like to hear criticized; and they take from such sermons nothing beyond an excuse to run down those they do not like, and no so that they might be warned or built up. (p. 196)

Appears to me that Bucer understood people a sight better than some thought.

Already Gone? Thoughts on Ken Ham's Latest Book

2009-12-15T10:13:00.000-06:00

Over vacation I had the opportunity to read Ken Ham's latest book, Already Gone. There is nothing new or earth shaking in it, unless you are one of those impressed with stats and polls.

I found the basic premise for writing the book a bit unsettling. More than once Ham writes something to the effect (highly paraphrased), "Now that we have done our statistical research, we finally know what we need to be doing in church." I would counter that with, "So, for 2000 years we've been in the dark? Is this research akin to some new revelation from God that will finally enable us to set our course?" There is something about this approach that bothers me. While Ham does address some basic doctrinal concepts, the main thrust is not what the Scripture says, but what the stats say. (Obviously I wouldn't be a big Barna fan either, can you tell?)

Bottom line is that young people of all ages are depraved sinners, and will reject the teaching of the Word until the Spirit of God works in their heart. Pastors have dropped the ball in teaching the Word to the flock. I don't think there is any disagreement on that point. But I am not agreeing with Ham who says the solution is that we simply need to be more apologetic in our teaching. I am convinced that as we tackle the various books of the Bible verse by verse, God honors His Word and works in the hearts of people. We don't need to focus on creation itself, but on the Creator. Numerous times we find in Scripture that God introduces Himself as the One who made heaven and earth. God doesn't argue from His creation but from Himself as the Creator. I think therein lies the difference. Apologetics will not transform God's church, but the straightforward accurate handling of His Word empowered by the Spirit of God will.

One other weak spot in the book is Ham's concept of the local church. I don't have the page numbers, but I think his inadequate concept of church will itself lead to additional problems.

Having said all that, is Ham's book worth reading? Perhaps. It's a quick, easy read. Would I buy it? No. Would I borrow it from someone? Yes.

Specificity in Your Teaching

2009-12-12T15:55:00.000-06:00

I will be the first to admit that I am not the best example of what this post is about. Yet I do want to improve in how I handle the Word of God with His people. Martin Bucer (1491-1551) reminds us of the need for specificity when he writes:

But our treacherous and unruly flesh always wants to give the impression of also wanting to be a pupil of Christ, when in fact there is nothing it will tolerate less than Christ's doctrine. That is why it would be happy for Christ's doctrine to be left as a general statement which may or may not apply. (Concerning the True Care of Souls, p. 182)

As we stand among the flock of God tomorrow and feed them His Word, let us be as specific as we can be. Let us Biblically address our own flesh, and the flesh of the flock, wielding the sword with gracious precision to the glory of His name and the good of His people.