The Sane Asylum

On the 500th Anniversary of the Birth of John Calvin

2009-07-09T19:21:00.000-07:00

500 years ago, on July 10, 1509, a male child was born in France by the name of Jean Cauvin, or as it is in the anglicanized form, John Calvin.

Now, in the way we folks number things, 500 seems like a really cool number. If you were going to celebrate an anniversary that you normally wouldn't bother with, the 500th year would be a much more likely candidate than, to pick a number at random, 324th. So, all of this is to say that it is not unreasonable to celebrate the 500th birthday of any notable person.

For those of us who have an interest in church history, there is more reason to celebrate. Historians are just that sort of folk. Now, when the 500th birthday of a notable historical figure who happened to champion a lot of the beliefs that you hold comes along, well, then, all the more reason to skip work and eat some cake.

All of this is to say, that there is nothing idolatrous in celebrating John Calvin's 500th birthday. So let us celebrate! I'm not skipping work, though. And I probably won't have cake. But oh well.

Now I shouldn't have had to spend all of this space saying all of this except for the fact that I can't think of any person in church history or set of Christian beliefs that is more hated and reviled. People have an unreasoning hatred of anything associated with the name of Calvin, despite the fact that they usually know nothing about him or about "Calvinism".

I could spend some time explaining why I believe that this hatred comes from a supreme love of self, but I will not bother.

I will also forego explaining why "Calvinists" have no particular preference for that name (we normally refer to ourselves as "reformed" or holding to the "doctrines of grace"). I believe that I have written before on this blog that us reformed folk believe what we believe because we are convinced that it is what the Bible teaches, and that most of us believed these things before ever reading anything by Calvin (and many of us still have never read anything by him). Whether Calvin taught these doctrines or not is irrelevant--I believe them because the Bible teaches them. I am not a Calvinist, I am a Paulist, a Jesusist, a Mosesist.

But, since God did use John Calvin to bring back the truth of His Word in a time of great spiritual darkness and manmade traditions and doctrines, then we all can have some cake on this anniversary.

Being as it is this fantabulous number of 500, there are a lot of books and conferences and discussions of Calvin being put out right now. I haven't read or heard them all, but from what I have read and heard, I can tell you this. All of these point past Calvin to the God he believed in, and His glory. His biographers (of which there are many all of a sudden) all say that it is hard to get could first-hand accounts of his life because Calvin did not talk about himself. He talked about the triune God. Calvin's many commentaries and sermons are not filled with fun autobiographical anecdotes, but all stick to the inspired Scripture. He was consumed with a love for God and a desire that His name be hallowed. Calvin did not was his own name hallowed. He would be mortified if he knew there were celebrations of his birthday or books written about him. He even willed that he be buried in an unmarked grave. So all of the lectures I've heard about Calvin lately really focus very little on Calvin himself, but rather expound the Scriptural bases for the things that Calvin taught. And in all areas of theology and Christian living, Calvin always focused on one thing--not predestination as many would expect--but on the glory of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

As such, we should only thank God that he gifted His church with such a man to be an undershepherd in time of darkness. It is God alone that gave Calvin the grace to believe and teach the right things. Anything that Calvin taught that was wrong (and there is a fair share of that), is purely Calvin the man. All that he taught that was right was taken straight from the Bible. This, I am sure, is what Calvin would say.

Interestingly enough, while those who are "Calvinists" are celebrating by talking less about Calvin and more about God, those who are opposed to Calvinism, when speaking on the subject, spend little or no time in the Bible, but use all of their energies on a polemic against a mere man.

Oh, and don't say "happy birthday, John Calvin." He cannot (or at least would not) hear you because there are much better things to hear in heaven. Rather, praise God and pray that He send more reformers in our own day of darkness.

Oh, and according to something-or-other, this is my 100th blog post. How about that! Did my free will arrange for my 100th post to fall on Calvin's 500th birthday? Hmmm....

Calvin on Sola Scriptura vs. Sola Ecclessia

2009-06-18T15:32:00.000-07:00

Doubtless, were only the Scripture allowed its own authority, there are
none of these things respecting which our adversaries would not be
constrained to be mute. And this is what they by no means dissemble,
when they contend that owing to the ambiguous meaning of Scripture, we
ought to stand solely on the judgment of the Church. Who, I pray, does
not see, that by laying aside the word of God, the whole right of defining
things is thus transferred to them? Though they may kiss the closed copies
of the Scripture as a kind of worship, when yet they charge it with being
obscure and ambiguous, they allow it no more authority than if no part of
it existed in writing. Let them assume specious titles as they please, that
they may not appear to allege anything besides the dictates of the Spirit,
(as they are wont to boast,) yet it is a settled and fixed thing with them,
that all reasons being laid aside, their will alone ought to be believed.

--John Calvin, from the dedication to Edward VI, in the Commentary on the Catholic Epistles

The Expository Genius of John Calvin - a Review

2009-03-19T16:10:00.000-07:00

The Expository Genius of John Calvin by Steven J. Lawson, published by Reformation Trust (Lake Mary, FL: 2007), is part of Lawson's Long Line of Godly Men series. The main volumes are large works dealing with the Doctrines of Grace, one of which has been published so far (Volume One: Foundations of Grace). There are also smaller books looking at some particular aspect of a particular historical figure's life and/or ministry. There are two such books published so far, the one in question and also a book on Jonathan Edwards. This excellent little book is not another biography of John Calvin. Rather, it is study in homiletics, a text book for preachers, if you will. Dr. Lawson argues for our need of solid, biblical, expository preaching, and what such preaching should look like. It just so happens that John Calvin is a model example, and so this book examines the preaching of John Calvin.

Lawson does provide us with a brief biographical look at John Calvin. Of all his many titles and accomplishments, Calvin was primarily a teacher. He is often remembered for his theological precision, his polemics, and his weighty text books, but Calvin thought of himself simply as a preacher who must feed the flock entrusted to him with the Word of God. And this he did, day in and day out, as well as training other men to do the same.

To properly understand Calvin's sermons and preaching, we must first understand his foundations and presuppositions, which Steven Lawson lists as follows. First, Calvin's reliance upon the Bible as the sole authority in all matters. It is the preacher's duty to expound the Scripture, and to say nothing that is not within its pages. Secondly, God is present when His word is preached. Thirdly, preaching the pure Word is the main priority of the worship service. That is when God's people come to hear Him speak to them. Fourth, a verse-by-verse exposition of books of the Bible guarantees that the whole counsel of God will be preached.

Calvin prepared for his sermons by diligently studying and learning of the Scriptures. He lived and breathed the Bible. He devoted himself to godliness because he did not think that a preacher should ask anything of his congregation that he does not demand of himself. Also, he had a relentless will to preach and pastor continuously, all for the glory of God.

John Calvin began his sermons by diving directly into the text he was preaching from. No silly anecdotes preceded the word of God. He would briefly recap what had been previously preached to remind his listeners of the context of the whole argument of the author of the book he was preaching from. Calvin also delivered his sermons extemporaneously, without notes. This provided for a lively exposition rather than a dry reading of a manuscript, as was often done in those days. To make sure that his hearers knew what to expect, he would also start his sermon with a thesis statement for his sermon.

It was Calvin's method to preach from a specific text. He didn't pick a topic and then choose some various verses that might support his thesis. He had the text before him first, and he preached from that, never straying from it. He was careful in using the historical-grammatical method of interpretation; that is, he wanted to discern what the author meant when he wrote the book to his audience. There is only one true interpretation of any given passage of Scripture, and that is what the author intended it to mean. In line with this, Calvin also interpreted the text in the literal sense in which it was written. In determining the meaning of difficult texts, Calvin knew that Scripture is its own interpreter. Thus, he would bring in other, clearer passages of Scripture to explain his text. But even his use of cross-references was sparing, so that he would not stray too far from his initial text. Calvin reasoned persuasively, contrasting truth with error and making use of similes, etc. He also made applications from reasonable inferences of the text, thought he strove to never speculate beyond what Scripture says itself.

Although Calvin very strongly emphasized substance over style, he was nevertheless not without style in his preaching. Despite his incredible intelligence and knowledge Latin, French, and biblical Hebrew and Greek, he always preached in a simple, familiar language that could be easily understood by his audience. However, unlike many preachers today who attempt the same, he still used biblical language. Calvin would employ vivid expressions and ask thought-provoking questions to engage his listeners. He also would offer simple paraphrases of bible passages to explain them. “In other words, the apostle is saying...” as an example. Despite Calvin's being very well-read, he very rarely quoted outside authors. He did not want to obscure the Bible with the words of other men. Though Calvin gave no outline or clever alliteration in his sermons, his sermons still followed the logical flow of the text, with smooth transitions between points. Calvin was effective as a preacher because of his intensity of focus to the text of Scripture.

Mere impartation of knowledge did not constitute a sermon in Calvin's opinion, so he also applied his sermons to the everyday lives of the people in Geneva. Calvin also preached to himself and always included himself in the applications. When exhorting the people to live the truth that was just preached or to examine themselves in light of the truth, he would say, “We must look at ourselves,” or “we must strive,” etc. He did not believe himself to be above the common man in the struggle for sanctification. Calvin also lovingly rebuked the sins that beset the people of that time and place, and he argued polemically against the major heresies of the day, particularly of Roman Catholicism.

In concluding his sermon, Calvin would remind his listeners of the main points that he had provided and heartily appeal for them to be doers of the word. Finally, he offered prayer to God, bringing the congregation into the throne room of God and leaving them coram Deo.

Steven Lawson's concludes the book by urging preachers today to return to biblical, expository preaching. He compares modern evangelicalism to white-washed tombs, in need of reform just as badly as the medieval church did. The only cure today is the same cure that was needed then, and that is expository preaching.

I know that my summary of this book is rather long, but every point Lawson makes is an important one and there is nothing that I can really add. There are some thoughts that strike me and I will tell them now. First, as I said before, this is not a biography of Calvin. In fact, in a certain sense, this is not a book about Calvin at all. It could very well be a book on the principle of sola Scriptura as applied to preaching. “What?” saith you. “How can a book that focuses on a mere man from church history be about Scripture alone? That is contradictory.” Well, not really. That is why I urge you to read this book instead of just reading my summary. “Calvinists” are often accused of following a man, as opposed to following the Bible (though that accusation only works when our opponents are labeling us with a man's name and rejecting any label themselves, though they are just as guilty of following man-made traditions). One could look at the cover of this book, with John Calvin's name and picture on it, and assume that Steven J. Lawson is just some Calvin-follower, who is not so interested in what the Bible has to say. Such people need to read this book and they will quickly become disabused of such an idea. All of Calvin's preaching was aimed at taking peoples' focus off of the preacher and onto the glorious God being preached about. And this book functions in the same way. It points us to Calvin's preaching which itself points us to God and Christ as found in the Bible, and the Bible alone. With Calvin as his example, Lawson exhorts preachers to preach nothing but what is found in the Bible. They are not to waste time with extra-Biblical stories, philosophies, or speculations. If there is something that we wish to know but the Bible does not reveal, we are to not complain but to accept it, being content with what God does choose to reveal to us.

A second thought of mine (and I guess this is where my endorsement of this book really comes in) is that I really wish preachers would read this book. Well, everybody should read it, but preachers especially. There is a real crisis in worship in our day, exemplified in one way by the fact that we tend to use the word “worship” to refer to that part of the service that is not the preaching. But what is more worshipful than to humbly and obediently listen to God speak to us in His word, and to have His words explained to us? What we have to give to Him is nothing compared to what He has to give to us. And we are not going to get what He provides from sermons that expound nothing more than the preacher's sentiments on what is popular at the time. It is only God's word expounded that we get that nourishment that we need. The pulpit is the throne on which the Word of God sits, and we need to honor it. This book presses home this importance in every sentence.

One final thought, and that is about Steven Lawson himself. I have heard him preach a few times in person, and let me tell you, he practices what he writes about in this book. When he preaches, you really feel that you've been Preached at, with a capital “P”. It is not a lecture, a talk, a sharing, or a conversation. It is the words of God poured into and out from a heart set on fire for the zeal of God's glory. So read this book, then try to hear Steven Lawson preach in person, and you will know exactly what a sermon is supposed to be.

You can buy this book at Ligonier.org. As William Farel might say, “Buy this book, or else God will punish you.”

The Caterpillar's Bad Luck

2009-03-12T16:24:00.000-07:00

In a small town in northeast Kansas, in a maple tree, there lived a caterpillar. He was not one of those cute fuzzy caterpillars, but rather was an ugly, hairless, green thing. But this was nothing to be ashamed of because all of his brethren living in this tree were also ugly, hairless, green things. These caterpillars spent the whole day eating the wonderfully sweet maple leaves. They also fell out of the tree a lot. Not on purpose, of course. They just lost their grip a lot, is all. But they would crawl back up the tree and resume eating. No biggie.

But one day, our caterpillar fell and landed, not on the ground, but on a person who happened to be walking under the branches at that moment.

"Oh great," the caterpillar said in disgust, "now what?" He was a bit of a complainer.

The person he landed on continued walking, oblivious to this new presence on his shoulder. He walked for several blocks, with the caterpillar watching his tree (and therefore, his food) shrink in the distance, until it was out of sight.

"Cripes! I haven't eaten in ten minutes!" he thought. "I'm going to starve!"

Finally, the person entered a building. It was the town library.

"What?!" said Caterpillar. "There are no trees in here! I tell you, if I didn't have bad luck, I'd have no luck at all." The person he was riding pulled some books from the shelves and then sat at a table to read. "Now's my chance to escape," thought Caterpillar, and he crawled down the man's arm and onto the table.

"Ew! A worm!" shouted the man, and he then slammed a heavy book down on our unlucky friend.

The next to last thing to go through the caterpillar's head was, "I'm not a worm, I'm a caterpillar!" and the last thing to go through his head was his guts.

THE END

The Bed Who Was Afraid of Children -- a fictional story written by me

2009-02-26T19:38:00.001-08:00

Once upon a time, there was a bed named Zem that lived in a little boy's bedroom. Zem was a very troubled bed, and so was talking to his therapist, who happened to be the monster that lived in the closet. The therapist sat on his great hairy haunches, writing in a yellow legal pad. He pushed his glasses up his muzzle with a long, yellow claw.
“What is it that is troubling you so, Zem?” he asked in his deep growl, green ichor dripping off his crooked fangs.
“Oh, doctor,” said Zem, “I have a great fear, a phobia. It paralyzes me and consumes my life.”
The monster peered over his spectacles with his large, red eyes. “Oh yes? And what is it that you are afraid of.”
Zem glanced up at the therapist with an embarrassed look. “Children.”
“What, human children?” the monster asked.
“Yes.”
“Hm.”
“Every night that little boy comes and sleeps on me and it terrifies me something awful.” Zem said. “I think I'm getting an ulcer. I just wish something could be done about him.” Zem looked at his therapist with a hopeful look.
“Like what?” the monster asked, stroking his great horns with one clawed paw. “Perhaps you would like me to....eat him?”
Zem gave an excited twitch, but then settled back down into an embarrassed posture again. “Yes,” he said peevishly. “Would you?”
The monster let out a laugh as from the pits of hell, and then said, “No, I can't do that. You will never be able to overcome your fears if you let other people handle your problems for you. You cannot run away from what is bothering you. The best way of overcoming a phobia is to inundate yourself with what it is that you are scared of. In this case, you need to accept the child's presence and grit your teeth and bear it, and soon your phobia will fade away.”
Zem slumped in dejection. “Are you sure?” he asked.
“Of course I am sure,” his therapist replied, and then licked his nose with his forked tongue. “Just give it time.”
“Oh, okay,” said Zem, and braced himself for a fearful night.
That night, when the boy came to bed, Zem tried his hardest to keep from going into hysterics. But after some time, when the boy was asleep, Zem's fear overwhelmed him and he wet himself.

The next week, when Zem saw his therapist again, the great beast settled in with sulfurous grunts and asked, “So how are you doing today, Zem?”
“Oh, doctor,” Zem answered pathetically, “I am not doing very well at all. Every night I get so scared that I wet myself. I am so ashamed.”
“There is no reason to be ashamed,” the monster soothed with his demonic croak. “Uncontrolled micturation is a natural response to fear. In time, it will pass.”
Zem rumpled his blankest together in dejection and said, “I just don't know, doc. I think I'm getting worse, because the boy seems scarier every night. Ever since I started wetting myself, his appearance has been transforming into something even more terrifying! At once he was merely scarefyingly fair-skinned, but now he has developed large purple bruises and welts. Just the very thought of his appearance gives me the heebie-jeebies! And the terrible screaming and crying he does when his father pats him! The sound gives me nightmares! And water comes out of his eyes in a very frightening fashion. I can't handle it anymore.” Zem broke down in sad moans.
The therapist picked at his fangs in thought, and finally said, “Just give it a few more days. I know your fear is intense, but I believe that soon everything will be all right.”
“I hope you're right, doc,” sighed Zem. “I hope you're right.

Zem's fear never lessened, and so he kept wetting himself every night. But then, after a few more days of this, the boy was gone forever.
“So what happened?” the monster asked at their next therapy session.”
“I don't know, doc, but it sure is great!” Zem answered exuberantly. “All I know is that the boy's father kept telling him that if he didn't 'stop it', then he would be sent to a foster home. And now he's gone!”
“Ah, yes,” the monster said knowingly. “I told you it would be all right.”

Scandalous Professors Make Arminians

2009-02-23T19:14:00.000-08:00

The title of this post is a pithy little quote from the Commentary on Jude written by Puritan Thomas Manton (1620-1677), and it is a good work for Calvinists. Here is what it all means:

In good Puritan fashion, Manton spends about 60 pages on just verse 1 of Jude, with a good discussion of the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. Just as modern writers do when discussing this issue, he felt compelled to answer some of the questions raised by those who object to this doctrine, such as Bible passages that seem to speak of believers losing their salvation, and how this doctrine would lead to licentiousness. When making application, Manton writes that those of us who hold to this doctrine should live godly lives, for God does not only give us eternal life, but also a love for Him. We are Christians; so, live like one. Then he gets to the quote: "When our religious course is interrupted, and we give way to sin and folly, that is a seeming to come short, and so you bring a scandal upon the love of God, as if it were changeable; upon the merit of Christ, as if it were not a perfect merit. Scandalous professors make Arminians; in an age of defection, no wander if men plead for the apostasy of the saints."

In other words, when you profess Christ but live sinfully, you give weight to the argument than men can lose their salvation. If you don't want people to become Arminians, don't give them a good reason to with your life. Live what you believe. Good advice for me, and I am sure, for all of us.

Ruth and the Canaanite Woman of Matthew 15

2009-02-16T12:42:00.000-08:00

As I've been studying the glorious book of Ruth, I keep having my mind return to the account of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28. This first occurred when I read Ruth 2:10, where Ruth reveals her humble awareness of her outsider status: "Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground, and said to him, 'Why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?'" She knew that she had no right to Boaz's kindness, that she was not a rightful member of the covenant community. She could very well have described herself as a dog, like the account in Matthew: "And he answered, 'It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.' She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table'" (Matt. 15:26-27). Ruth knew her lowly estate, but she also knew the kindness of Boaz.

As a side note, I listened to a sermon by John Piper on Ruth 2 after I made this connection to Matthew 15 in my mind, and he made the same connection. It is always very affirming to hear or read a respected Bible teacher have the same thought that I had independently. Makes me feel that I'm not grasping at straws, interpretationally. That's cool. But I digress.

Anyway, now I've been in Ruth chapter 3, and again my mind was brought back to the Matthew 15 woman. This time it is in Ruth 3:12-13, where Boaz reveals that there is a nearer kinsman who has "first dibs" on Ruth. Now of course this comparison is not so identical, because with Ruth she has two possible Redeemers while in Matthew there is only one Redeemer with two groups of people needing redemption. But I still see similarity. The Canaanite woman knew that she had no claim on Jesus, especially not more claim than the Jews did, yet she was willing to wait and take what she could from Him. Likewise, Ruth has no direct claim on Boaz, but she is willing to wait and take what he will provide. And he is a faithful provider, promising that she will be taken care of either way. Whether he marries her, or the other kinsman marries her, he makes sure that she will be provided for. Just so, Jesus provided for the outsider with no claim on Him (Matt. 15:28).

Oh what a blessed message this is for miserable sinners such as us, who have no claim at all upon God's grace, but are nevertheless promised His grace. May we love Him and seek Him so as to be under that promise, never presuming that we deserve it, but always sure that He will give it.

John Piper: Fifteen Pro-Life Truths to Speak

2009-01-26T15:27:00.000-08:00

I am just copy-and-pasting this from Desiring God. But it is real good and needs to be copy-and-pasted all over the place.

Fifteen Pro-Life Truths to Speak
Download:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By John Piper January 24, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You will know the truth and the truth will set you free." - Jesus Christ

1. Existing fetal homicide laws make a man guilty of manslaughter if he kills the baby in a mother's womb (except in the case of abortion).

2. Fetal surgery is performed on babies in the womb to save them while another child the same age is being legally destroyed.

3. Babies can sometimes survive on their own at 23 or 24 weeks, but abortion is legal beyond this limit.

4. Living on its own is not the criterion of human personhood, as we know from the use of respirators and dialysis.

5. Size is irrelevant to human personhood, as we know from the difference between a one-week-old and a six-year-old.

6. Developed reasoning powers are not the criterion of personhood, as we know from the capacities of three-month-old babies.

7. Infants in the womb are human beings scientifically by virtue of their genetic make up.

8. Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at eight weeks sucking his thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. All the organs are present, the brain is functioning, the heart is pumping, the liver is making blood cells, the kidneys are cleaning fluids, and there is a fingerprint. Virtually all abortions happen later than this date.

9. Justice dictates that when two legitimate rights conflict, the limitation of rights that does the least harm is the most just. Bearing a child for adoption does less harm than killing him.

10. Justice dictates that when either of two people must be inconvenienced or hurt to alleviate their united predicament, the one who bore the greater responsibility for the predicament should bear more of the inconvenience or hurt to alleviate it.

11. Justice dictates that a person may not coerce harm on another person by threatening voluntary harm on themselves.

12. The outcast and the disadvantaged and exploited are to be cared for in a special way, especially those with no voice of their own.

13. What is happening in the womb is the unique person-nurturing work of God, who alone has the right to give and take life.

14. There are countless clinics that offer life and hope to both mother and child (and father and parents), with care of every kind lovingly provided by people who will meet every need they can.

15.Jesus Christ can forgive all sins, and will give all who trusts him the help they need to do everything that life requires.

Minnesota Abortion Clinics

Here are the places where most abortions are done in the Minnesota. Ask God how the gospel of Christ might be most fruitfully shared with those who work here, with a view to saving life now and for eternity. The one nearest the church (Meadowbrook) advertises on their website that they do abortions up to 21.6 weeks.

Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, Highland Park Clinic
1965 Ford Parkway, St. Paul, MN 55116; (651) 698-2406

Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, Minneapolis Clinic
1200 Lagoon Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55408, (612) 823-6300

Meadowbrook Women's Clinic, P.A.
825 South 8th Street, Suite 1018, Minneapolis, MN 55404, (612) 376-7708

The Robbinsdale Clinic
3819 West Broadway, Minneapolis, MN 55422; (763) 533-2534

Midwest Health Center for Women
33 South Fifth Street, Fourth Floor, Minneapolis, MN 55402; (612) 332-2311

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Desiring God

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

Let's Discuss: Ruth

2009-01-20T21:23:00.000-08:00

I have started a little personal in-depth study of the book of Ruth so I can create great notes to put into my Stephen Thomas study Bible (aka, ESV journaling Bible). But before I commit permanent ink to paper, I would like to work out what I actually believe about some things. So I have a few questions and I would like some discussion from anybody on what they think. The issues I am about to put forth are ones in which the sources I've been consulting are split just about down the middle on, opinion-wise. No majority to go with. Those resources are the Reformation Study Bible, the John MacArthur Study Bible, John Gill's commentary on Ruth, Iain Duguid's commentary, and Sinclair Ferguson's exposition called Faithful God. I've also listened (or am listening) to a sermon on Ruth by John MacArthur and a 4 sermon series by John Piper. Anyway, on to the questions.

1. In the opening verses of Ruth, when it tells of Elimelech and his family leaving famine-stricken Israel to sojourn awhile in Moab...was this sinful? Should they have stayed in the land of promise that God had given them instead of going to a country that had a long history of animosity towards God's people? Or was it okay since, after all, there was a famine in Israel?

2. And what about Naomi's strong urgings to Orpah and Ruth to stay in Moab? Although humanly speaking she gave very logical and sensible advice, she was in effect discouraging their conversion to the true God. Was this sinfulness on Naomi's part, perhaps springing from her bitterness, or was it more along the lines of Jesus' admonitions to count the cost before committing to follow Him? So was Naomi sinning in this case?

That is all my questions for now. I will have more later, I am sure. I sure would appreciate any input any of you may have. Let's discuss!

David Allen Answers Questions

2008-12-04T19:04:00.000-08:00

Today I got to go listen to David Allen field some questions from students over at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the fellow who falsely labels Dr. James White a hyper-Calvinist, and that accusation, along with other statements he made at the recent John 3:16 Conference, have caused all sorts of questions to be raised. He was gracious enough to allow studens to ask him those questions and he attempted to answer them. He was very gracious, humble, and charitable. I was trying to take notes, and sometimes when a person was asking a question, I could not figure out what the question was, because they were so convoluted with the "back story" to their questions. So I give him credit for trying to answer questions in which it was hard to figure out what the question actually was. I think only one questioner was not a Calvinist, so it was mostly Reformed folk who showed up. But, despite his charity, I must say that in the end, he gave a lot of double talk. Most of the questions had to do with his rather uncharitable past comments about Calvinists, and so the students were wondering how he reconciled that with his otherwise "can't we all just get along" attitude. And I could never really figure out his answers, because they came from both sides of his mouth. A step towards 5-point Calvinism is a step away from the gospel, but there is room for them in the SBC. How does that work out? Well...I couldn't tell from his answers.

Other thoughts, collected from my notes.

He told the story of town in which there was a non-Calvinist SBC church in the same area as two Calvinist SBC churches, and that the Calvinists were telling people at the first church that they should leave that church because it wasn't preaching the full gospel. Dr. Allen says this is wrong. Or, as I interpreted it, it is wrong to warn people to flee from a burning building. A student asked if such a nasty tactic by those Calvinists was any different than Dr. Allen's saying that a step toward 5-point Calvinism is a step away from the gospel. His answer is that it's not the same. We can all claim that another view-point is wrong (as Dr. Allen is doing), but it is wrong to tell people to leave the churches where that wrong view-point is being preached. Or, again in my interpretation, it is okay to tell people that their building is on fire, but it is wrong to warn them to escape from it. All this just amounts to double-talk to me.

Dr. Allen, while deploring the fact that many of his fellow non-Calvinists falsely equate 5-point Calvinism with hyper-Calvinism (they are not the same, he rightly says), he does point out that one cannot become a hyper-Calvinist without first being a 5-pointer. The one thing that links 5-pointers with hypers is the belief in limited atonement. And history has shown that hypers started out as regular 5-pointers. So a student said that hey, this can go the other way, too. You can't be a Univeralist without first being a non-Calvinist. The one thing that links regular non-Calvinists with Universalists is the belief in unlimited atonement. History has shown that all Universalists started out as non-Calvinists, and history has shown that there have been a lot more Universalists than hyper-Calvinists. So that nullifies Dr. Allen's silly point. No, Dr. Allen says, it doesn't because that's not really the same thing or something...I don't know...blah blah blah double talk. It's okay for him to make certain types of arguments, but not for Calvinists to do the same.

One more thing. You may have noticed that I have kept saying "non-Calvinist" rather than "Arminian". That is because David Allen says that he is not an Arminian. But he's not a Calvinist either. Fine. Though I wonder how it is that a "4-point Calvinist" is a "classical/moderate Calvinist" while a 4-point Arminian is not an Arminian at all. Just wondering.

Unfortunately, there was no real biblical discussion because most of the questions were of a "don't you think your comments are mean?" nature. So not really questions of biblical interpretation, you see.

But then again, if you have listened to David Allen's presentation at the John 3:16 conference, then you know there wasn't a lot of biblical discussion there, either.

Sola Conference and Other Random Ramblings

2008-11-23T18:20:00.000-08:00

Greetings, young and old. I am excited to learn that there is an annual conference held in the DFW area that talks about the Reformation "solas", and that the next one (in February 2009) will be featuring Dr. Stephen Lawson and Dr. James White. And it's free! So register now and be prepared to hear good stuff! I have met and listened to both men speak before (and I have their autographs of course), and I look forward to seeing them again. Dr. Lawson is a great preacher in the vein of John MacArthur, and Dr. White is probably the greatest theologian that Reformed Baptists have. Read all about it at solaconference.org

The wife and I seem to be getting sick. Sinus pressure and pain, sore throat, drainage, that sort of thing. And just in time for the busiest week ever for retail! Oh, the pain, the pain.

I really want a Gibson Les Paul robot guitar (the wine red one) and a Digitech RP500. Nay, I need them. For the Lord's work.

Autograph for the Day - John Piper

2008-10-24T12:49:00.000-07:00

If you have read the last couple of posts, then you will see how today's entry needs no explanation. By the way, the book that was signed, Spectacular Sins, is a great book and you all should read it.

Back from Desiring God

2008-10-18T19:51:00.000-07:00

Well, the Desiring God conference (see last blog post) went great. It was a real blessing. You know how lots of times most people refer to their church service schedule as "worship, and then the sermon", as if worship only consisted in singing songs and not in hearing the living and active Word of God preached? Well, as you can tell from the way I worded that last sentence, I hate that false dichotomy. It is all worship. There is worship in the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and then there is the worship of hearing the preaching of God's Word. Anyway, I say all of this because listening to John Piper's sermons this weekend in Austin was a very worshipful experience. As he talked about Job's suffering and God's sovereignty over all things, there were so many glorious truths brought out that made my soul shout within me "Thank you, Lord! Thank you for your mercy! Thank you for being so valuable! Thank you for your wisdom!"

All of the sessions from the conference are already available at DesiringGod.org in written, audio, and video formats. Check them out! It is all very encouraging to the soul.

Getting Ready for Desiring God

2008-10-17T09:50:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm excited as all get out because soon and very soon I will be leaving for Austin to go the the regional Desiring God conference. John Piper will be speaking on "Job: When the Righteous Suffer", which is a topic very near and dear to my heart. When it comes to Christians suffering from afflictions and depression and so forth, John Piper is the best at shepherding hearts. Other good conservative Christians either never address the topic in too much depth, or they generally chalk it up to faithlessness or unbelief. But not Piper. He fully recognizes the reality of the suffering of the righteous. He can reprove and rebuke when necessary, but he also knows that it is not always necessary. And the neat thing is that John Piper also seems to be the most joyous person there is! He is so joyful and has marked his ministry on joy, yet he also understands suffering so well. I am very excited about this conference.

I do pray, as we prepare to leave, that God will keep my focus on Him as my joy and as the only focus of my worship, and that I am not a man-worshipper. I am very excited about seeing John Piper in person, in a celebrity sort of way. I do not think that in itself there is anything wrong with that. But it can be very easy to focus my excitement on Piper himself, and not on the word of God that Piper will be speaking. Keep my heart pure, Lord.

Cigar Review: CAO America: Potomac

2008-10-09T18:18:00.000-07:00

I just had a cigar so good that I had to write about it. I used to be a regular cigar smoker but that sort of fell by the wayside. I have been trying to get back into the godly habit by having a cigar every month or so. And I just had a great one. It is a new cigar from CAO called America. The particular one I got was the Potomac, their name for the America that is 5 x 56 in size.

The look of this cigar is what made me want it. It is really neat looking. It is made with two different colored wrappers. The main one is a dark brown, but then there is a layering of a light brown that spirals around it. Just really neat. Just see the attached picture.

Now, the look alone wasn't the determining factor. If it had been a neat looking Helix, for example (which tastes terrible), I wouldn't have purchased it. But I like CAO and have never had a bad CAO cigar. But the neat look combined with the trustworthy name cinched the deal for me. And the price wasn't bad at all. I don't remember how much I paid, but I am sure it was less than $7. Maybe around $6. CAO has always been good on price. Other brands that taste as good are often much more expensive.

The CAO website describes this cigar as full-bodied. I've never been good at determining that sort of thing myself, because it is a rather subjective determination, but I will go with that. It was full-bodied (certainly full of flavor!) but it didn't make me sick to my stomach, as full-bodied cigars often do, especially if I haven't smoked any cigars in a while, which is the case now. But the flavor! Oh wow! It was very cedary and almost sweet. In fact, when the wind would blow the smoke back in my face, I thought it smelled like Drew Estate's Kahlua cigars. There was no harshness or bitterness to it at all. You know how good smelling things often smell better than they taste? For instance, I put sugar in my coffee to make it taste the way it smells. Candles taste terrible. And sometimes cigars just don't taste as great as they smell. But this tasted great in every way. Not a negative drop of smoke touched my tongue. And if you are patient and skinny-fingered enough to let it burn to the last half-inch, then you get the best taste. Pure, straight-on flavor. My my my.

I recommend that you buy yourselves a box of these cigars, invite me over and give me some, and we can smoke and talk theology. That is, after, what Heaven will be like.

Thank you.

Where Have I Been?

2008-08-21T16:07:00.000-07:00

I've been in internet limbo. Our apartment was robbed back at the beginning of June, and our computer was one of the things taken. But today I got it back, praise the Lord! So I'm back online. Yay.

Say, for you techie readers out there...Apparently the thief deleted all of my documents and pictures from my computer. I know that unless new stuff hasn't already been saved onto wherever those things were saved then they are still there. I have seen some programs online that allow you to recover those things, but they cost money and the free demos only allow you to restore files so small as to be useless demos. Do any of you know how I can restore anything that may still remain for free?

I will say that none of my music was erased and I am very glad for that because there was a lot of money and time put into that.

Win a Shopping Spree!

2008-05-21T05:39:00.000-07:00

Autograph for the Day - Fred Malone

2008-05-05T19:41:00.000-07:00

I met Fred Malone at one of the Southwest Founders Conferences. He was very nice and nicely autographed my copy of his excellent book on baptism. Paedobaptists hate this book and spew forth much vitriol against it without ever actually tackling the arguments. I think it's out of print now, but buy it if you can. You can't have mine, though.

Autograph for the Day - Ken Gentry

2008-05-03T21:23:00.000-07:00

Nothing fancy about this. I ordered the excellent book God Gave Wine by Ken Gentry from his website so he signed it. Nothing personal. Good book, though.

Autograph for the Day - John MacArthur

2008-05-02T15:13:00.001-07:00

I recently got to see John MacArthur preach here in the Arlington area. His sermons was a condensed version of his "Tale of Two Sons" sermon series, the book of which he was promoting. It was awesome. This man is a Preacher. My wife said it was the best sermon she'd heard in a long time. Anyway, the esteemed Dr. MacArthur signed my John MacArthur study Bible (in a way that makes it seem not like a blasphemous autograph in a Bible). Take a look!

Review of In Christ Alone: Living the Gospel Centered Life by Sinclair B. Ferguson

2008-04-27T18:26:00.001-07:00

In Christ Alone: Living the Gospel Centered Life by Sinclair B. Ferguson, published by Reformation Trust (Lake Mary, FL: 2007), is a collection of articles originally published in Table talk and Eternity Magazine. The central theme of these articles is, obviously, our Lord Jesus Christ. I could perhaps title this review as Meeting Christ…Again, because this book introduces us to Jesus all over again. The chapters are short, just about four pages each, and are rather introductory level, but they tell us words about Christ that we need to be reminded of over and over again, no matter how far along we are in our Christian development. The chapters are arranged in six sections, each dealing with a different aspect of Christology.

The first section, titled “The Word Became Flesh” deals with the questions of the deity and humanity of Christ, and of His role as servant and conqueror. Due to the shortness of the chapters, you will not find an exhaustive apologetic defending the deity of Christ, or like issues, but you will be provided with many Scripture references to support the orthodox position, which Ferguson takes. Ferguson briefly answers the question of why Jesus had to be a man. Short as the answer is, it is fully Scriptural and satisfying. He does not engage in philosophical speculation but always refers the reader back to the Scriptures. This section serves as an excellent Biblical introduction of just who Jesus really is.

Part two, “The Heart of the Matter” goes from telling us Who Christ is in an introductory manner to telling us what He has done. An overview of the book of Romans explains reconciliation and justification in very clear, well-defined terms, showing how all of it is through Christ alone. Ferguson walks us through Hebrews, pointing out its Christ-glorifying messages on how Jesus is central in the history of redemption. Exposition is given on Jesus’ roles as High Priest and King.

“The Spirit of Christ,“ the third section, moves to a discussion of the Holy Spirit, but in keeping with the Christological focus of the book, ties the Spirit to Christ. Dr. Ferguson explains about the Holy Spirit’s relation to Christ and how the Spirit is given from Christ. He also tells us why knowing about such things matters. He says, “it implies that Jesus bore the Spirit throughout His life in order to give us the same Spirit He bore. The Spirit He gives to us is the very same Spirit who accompanied and sustained our Lord Jesus throughout the whole of His ministry” (p. 78). In this section, we learn about revival and spiritual gifts, all the while keeping the focus on Jesus.

In part four, we are shown “The Privileges of Grace”. We learn of our union with Christ, and of the oft-neglected but very sweet doctrine of our adoptions as sons of God and co-heirs with Christ. We are pointed to Christ’s words on the sovereign and monergistic work of God in regenerating our hearts. Ferguson teaches us of Jesus’ fulfillment and perfection of all the Old Testament types and shadows. He instructs us on the nature and work of faith, and finally, of our total assurance which can only be gained by trusting in Christ alone.

Part five, “A Life of Wisdom,” begins to look more at our practice as Christians. Part of Biblical wisdom is to “be what we are”, that is, to live according to our professions and to be what God has turned us into. Ferguson shows us from the Bible how we are to live, to be discerning, and he tells us about our liberty in Christ, all of which are very practical issues. This section ends with an article on contentment, which is where wisdom leads us.

Finally, in section six, “Faithful to the End”, Ferguson continues with more practical articles on our lives with Christ. I hate to use the word “practical” because all of the Bible is practical. But I use it in the technical sense of “pertaining to our actual practice”. I am digressing from the summary a little bit to ride my own hobby-horse here, but I really, really refuse to say that any part of the Bible is not “relevant”. I hate that word. And I’m sure Dr. Ferguson does as well, because he shows how doctrine is important to all of life. I don’t know if that was his intention in what I’m referring to, but it came through nonetheless. After speaking of Satan’s tendency to whisper to us that God doesn’t really love us after all, he writes, “What is our defense? Here is Paul’s: ‘God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us’ (Rom. 5:8). Let the cross silence the Devil’s slanders and convince you of the wonder of God’s love” (p. 199). The cross is so important for every reason. We must not think that the cross is just an elementary level topic and that we move on from there to bigger and better doctrines like how to get healthy and wealthy. We must always come back to the cross. Elsewhere in this section, Ferguson writes, “Only an understanding of how the gospel method works can provide an adequate foundation and pattern for dealing with sin” (p. 218), and “when we understand the ’glorious exchange’ principle of the gospel of grace, then we begin to make some real advances in holiness” (p. 221). So we see that all doctrine is practical. And thus ends my digression. Back to the book (though my digression is a logical conclusion after reading this excellent work, so I wasn’t straying too off-topic). Ferguson writes of the place of suffering for Christ, of the need for leaders to first be servants, and the nature of temptation. In a chapter on apostasy (specifically dealing with the apostasy passages in the book of Hebrews) Ferguson miraculously manages to say in just a couple pages what it takes most people to say in whole volumes. Here is a writer who knows how to choose his words carefully. There are no wasted phrases here; all is of benefit to the reader.

The book concludes with Sinclair Ferguson’s account of a deceased friend of his who may or may not have inspired the title of this book with his life, which was lived in Christ alone. Thus Ferguson ends this excellent book with an encouragement to live our lives in Christ alone, in light of all that has been said.

For students of the Reformation, the title of this book is immediately recognized as being one of the five sola slogans, but this book is about more than just that one. All of the solas run throughout this work, and I would imagine that this was not intentional on Ferguson’s part, but was just a natural byproduct of him being so thoroughly biblical in thought. Where we glory in Christ alone, we must necessarily glory in God alone. Much of the book is given over to grace and faith. And sola Scriptura is seen in Ferguson’s constant use of and reliance on Scripture. And when speaking on mortification of sin, he writes, “ The first thing to do is to turn to the Scriptures. Yes, turn to John Owen (never a bad idea!) or to some other counselor dead or alive. But remember that we have not been left only to good human resources in this area. We need to be taught from ‘the mouth of God’ if the principles we are learning to apply are to carry with them both the authority of God and the promise of God to make them work” (p. 217). I would recommend that you read this book with the Bible in one hand so that you can look up and meditate upon all the references that he provides. I am sure that this will be a rewarding experience as you are reminded from Scripture of the gloriousness of Christ.

Speaking of that, this book would be excellent for a small group study, as I have recommended to my own Bible study group. A whole evening could easily be spent examining and discussing all of the Bible passages found in just one chapter.

The chapters of the book often end in applicatory questions or statements that cause the reader to think about what he has just read and apply it to himself. And these aren’t just missiles sent into the consciences of those outside “our camp.” These were written for Reformed audiences, so the questions zing at us. For instance: “Do you know the Christ of the Gospels? Or have you fallen into the trap to which Christians (especially, perhaps, Reformed Christians) who love doctrine and systematic theology are sometimes susceptible (unlike John Calvin, it should be said): fascination with dogmatic formula at the expense of love for the Savior’s person?” (p.67). This isn’t just choir preaching.

I can’t really think of anything negative to say. I found nothing in the theology to disagree with. The writing style is very interesting and engaging, much the way R. C. Sproul speaks. If I were to offer any negative criticisms, I guess it would be that the chapters are just too short. Now I understand that this was intentional, as the chapters were originally just little magazine articles. Nevertheless, perhaps a bibliography at the end to lead the reader to more literature on the topics talked about would be very useful. Ferguson whet my appetite for more on just about everything he wrote about. So yes, I would ask for some sort of recommended reading list. Also, this book uses end-notes instead of footnotes, and I hate that. But I guess that is the publisher’s fault and not the author’s.

In all, I must say, what an excellent book! I am now eager to look for other works written by Ferguson, as this was my first substantial exposure to him. As Dr. Ferguson says of the atonement, so all of this book “is theology of the most exalted and mind-stunning nature” (p. 55).

Heresy Row

2008-04-08T21:23:00.000-07:00

There is a certain part of Arlington that I used to live in that I noticed had more than its share of heretical congregations in a very small area. I present a map for you here.

1 = Unity church
2 = Unitarian
3 = Christian Science
4 = Mormon

There is also a Russellite Kingdom hall about a mile north of this map. And there is a Campbellite church of Christ in amongst the three-in-a-row, and you can consider them as part of the heretical mix, too, if you like. Fun, huh? Maybe it's some sort of zoning law. Cults have to stay in a certain area, or something. huh.

Notes to Galatians 1:6-10

2008-03-25T22:07:00.000-07:00

I now continue with my paraphrased notes to the book of Galatians. Again, these are gathered from Luther, Calvin, Gill, and MacArthur, with no attempt to say who said what since most of the time they said the same thing. Whoopee.

Galatians 1:6-10

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

1:6

that you are so quickly
That which takes long to build may be quickly undone.

deserting him
May be Christ or the Father. Luther prefers “Christ.”

a different gospel
The devil never calls his work error. He disguises it as truth. It is likely that the Judaizers said that Paul did not give the whole gospel and they were teaching the rest of it.

1:7

not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
The Judaizers were obviously not denying the gospel openly, but were subtly adding to it, which destroys it. This is more dangerous. Anything other than faith alone is a false gospel. Adding works is a perversion of the gospel. It is all Christ or nothing.

1:8

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.
We are all subject to the Word of God. Paul would rather curse himself, his co-workers, and the angels than let the gospel be overthrown. How should the false teachers escape the curse of God if even the angels would not?

1:9

now I say again:
He repeats this for the more solemn confirmation of it.

If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
If you do not accept the gospel, you will be cursed. The false teachers should be left to the judgment of God.

1:10

For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God?
Paul does not please men with his doctrine of depravity. He preaches to please God and ascribe to Him glory.

Or am I trying to please man?
By teaching the works of man, the false teachers please man.

If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.
Paul does not please man as he did before conversion. He was obviously not pleasing to the non-Christians who were persecuting him. To please man and be a servant of Christ is incompatible.

Personal Testimony

2008-03-15T20:58:00.000-07:00

Lately I've been thinking a lot of my "personal testimony", or the story of how I first came to Christ. Upon becoming Reformed, the idea of testimony has changed some. So instead of thinking of it all as my own subjective experience, I prefer now to talk about the objective reality of what happened some 2000 years ago in Israel. My testimony is that second person of the Trinity, very God, came down in human flesh and lived the perfect life I could not live, and paid the punishment of sin that I deserved. But I know that when you ask me for my personal testimony, you are already assuming that what I just said is true, so you want to know of the specific time in my life when the benefits of that death of Christ were applied to me.

Well, that is tricky, because I'm not really sure. I will give you the facts as I remember them. They are few. I am not sure exactly how they all piece together. I'm just saying what I know.

I will start of by saying that my parents were (and are) good and Godly parents. My father was a preacher, and the message of the need for salvation and the way of salvation through Christ alone was always preached, not only in the church, but in our home, too. My parents never assumed that us kids were saved by virtue of being their children. They always prayed for our salvation and preached about salvation to us.

Now then. We lived in Lubbock, TX, so I would have been five or younger. I recall that my sister was vacuuming and that she yelled at me for a reason that I do not remember, but I do remember thinking at the time that it was a very stupid reason, and so I got angry. So I went off into my bedroom alone to fume and be angry, and out of nowhere the thought popped into my head that I needed to pray to God for forgiveness of my sins and for Jesus to be my Savior.

And that's all I remember, really. I don't know if I told my parents about it. I don't think so, but probably not out of any embarrassment or anything like that. When I was a kid, I just kind of thought that my parents knew everything, whether I told them something or not, so I probably thought that they just knew I was a Christian now. But I don't really know. I was baptized when I was eight years old, so it took me that long to make a public profession of my faith.

Now when you look at some of these facts: that I was so young, that the day and time is not emblazoned in my memory as if a "Damascus Road" experience had happened to me, and that it took me at least three years to submit to baptism--you add all these up, and you may think that maybe I wasn't saved at all. I have often thought about this. I have decided two things. First, I do think that God saved me at that time. Secondly, even if that isn't the time that I was saved, I know I am saved now. And that is the important thing. I may not know when true faith first was implanted into my heart, but I know I have it now.

For many people, that would be the end of the personal testimony. But it is not for me. I think my testimony is more than just the account of when I was born again and first exercised faith. My testimony includes all of the highs and lows of sanctification along the way. I probably think this way because my testimony is rather short and unexciting (though it is exciting to me that God saved me!) But you know what I mean. I wasn't in a prison cell, strung out on drugs, with a bunch of illegitimate children. I was a little kid. A sinner, a sinning little kid. But I didn't have as many years to accumulate sins as a person who isn't converted until later in life. But that doesn't matter, because sin is sin. Sin against an infinite God is infinitely wicked, so I was deserving of infinite punishment. My salvation was just as miraculous as the salvation of a prisoner on death row.

But I have run out of time for now, so I will give the rest of my autobiography of faith at a later date.

More Photos of Our Covenant Children

2008-02-25T22:26:00.001-08:00

This is Isabella chatting in #prosapologian, Home of the Most Unique Christian Fellowship on Line Anywhere! http://www.aomin.org/articles/chat.html
Isabella is getting into vigorous debate on #prosapologian.
Here is Lilly, as sad as can be that she has to wear the halo thing until her stitches from her recent spaying are removed.

I Think You'll Like This One...

2008-02-21T19:55:00.000-08:00

This is a picture of me as a child, dressed up in my Ghostbuster gear. Except for the t-shirt and waiting-for-a-flood sweatpants, which is how I always dressed.

My Home Town Exploded Today

2008-02-18T18:27:00.000-08:00

The place that I lived in longer than any other place would be Big Spring, TX. I think the population is around 23,000. It's not very big, it is economically depressed, and really is a lame place to live. Anyway, they have a big oil refinery there, and it exploded today. Only 4 people were injured, but it was big. People all over town and even in towns many miles away heard and/or felt the explosion. It even made national news! We're famous now!

Watch and Discuss

2008-02-15T06:03:00.000-08:00

Check this out. It is a King James only preacher. But don't let that deter you from watching this video. You will laugh. You will cry. You will hurl. It will generate discussion. Enjoy!

DVD Giveaway

2008-02-13T12:40:00.001-08:00

Challies.com is offering another DVD giveaway contest. If you enter the contest through the link below, it will automatically re-enter me! So do us both a favor by entering the contest by clicking the link below. Thank you!

Notes to Galatians 1:1-5

2008-02-11T17:54:00.001-08:00

As I mentioned a few days ago, my Bible study group has started an examination of Paul's letter to the Galatians. In preparation for these studies, I have been reading four commentaries on Galatians. These are by Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Gill, and John MacArthur. I have been taking notes as I read. I present the fruit of my notetaking here. Unless I use direct quotes, I have not written down who says what. That is mostly because most of the time they are all saying the same thing, so my paraphrases speak for more than one of them. Sometimes I do use direct quotes because it just seemed better than to come up with a paraphrase. There will be a repetitive feel to this because, as I said, most of the time they all say pretty much the same thing. But I just wanted to present all that I noted. Here we go.

Galatians 1:1-5

Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—and all the brothers who are with me,

To the churches of Galatia:

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

1:1

Paul, an apostle—Paul asserts his apostleship, which was probably under attack by the false teachers. They were apparently insinuating that Paul was not a true apostle. Paul’s purpose in declaring his apostleship is to enforce his doctrine.

not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—Paul’s apostleship rests on a higher title than the calling of man. It was given to him by the Father and the risen and exalted Christ, Who gives us righteousness and victory. The same God Who raised Christ from the dead commanded Paul to make known that exertion of His power.

1:2

and all the brothers who are with me,
Paul writes not on his own, but on behalf of the brethren with him. He was not alone in his defense of the gospel. Perhaps the concurrence of so many brethren might soften the Galatians to instruction.

To the churches of Galatia:
Though false teachers were present, he still refers to the “churches” of Galatia--there were still godly men there. Though swerving from the faith, they were still honored with the name of “churches”. From this we learn that we must not imagine that churches will be perfect.

1:3

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,
Only God gives grace and peace, which comes not through the law, which only condemns us. Jesus is the only way to God, grace, and peace. He is very God. MacArthur writes, “Since it offered no grace and provided no peace, the law system being taught by the lying Judaizers is attacked even in this simple greeting.” Without Christ, neither grace, nor any real prosperity, can be obtained.

1:4

who gave himself for our sins
No merit of ours is enough to save us. Only the blood of Christ is sufficient, and so sufficient that it covers the worst of sinners. In Christ alone, atonement for sin and perfect righteousness must be sought. MacArthur: “The heart of the gospel is Christ’s willing sacrifice of Himself for our sins.” Jesus did not give possessions, but Himself.

to deliver us from the present evil age,
All of our good works cannot save us out of this evil world. Only God can do that, praise be to Him. MacArthur: “Jesus’ death was a rescue operation.” Christ gave Himself as a sacrifice to save His people from the damning power of this world. The “world” refers to men separated from the kingdom of God and the grace of Christ. Christ died for our sins, in order to redeem us from the world.

according to the will of our God
This salvation is of God’s will, not our own free will. It is God Who mercifully willed this. MacArthur: “Salvation is thus removed from the will of man and is buried deep in the sovereign decree of God (John 1:12-13).” The original fountain of grace is the purpose of God, not anything in us or done by us.

and Father,
He is our Father through Christ.

1:5

to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
We should always give thanks to God when speaking of Him. Every memory of the mercy of God ought to cause us to ascribe to Him glory. Paul was writing this epistle to acknowledge that God is worthy of glory forevermore. The “to whom” that we give glory is both the Father and Christ.

New Blogger

2008-02-10T13:08:00.001-08:00

My brother-in-law has just started a blog, so please go visit it at http://biblicaldebates.blogspot.com

What joy!

Lilly, the Newest Addition to the Family.

2008-02-06T21:23:00.000-08:00

An Introduction to Galatians

2008-01-30T16:10:00.000-08:00

In the Bible study group that I attend, we recently started a series on Galatians. At the last meeting, I delivered an overview of the book, which I present to you now. In coming sessions we will be going through the epistle, passage by passage. To bone up for those studies, I have been reading commentaries on Galatians and taking notes. In future posts I will provide the fruit of my note-taking. In the meantime, here is my overview of Galatians.

When you read the book of Galatians, one impression that is quickly made is that Paul is angry with the Galatians. He expresses frustration with the churches in some of the other epistles, but he seems much angry when writing to the Galatians. For on thing, there are no complements in this letter as there are in his other letters. He has a brief greeting, and then gets on the business of castigating his readers. We must ask ourselves why Paul was so angry. What would get this saint so upset? The answer, as we see in 1:6-7, is that the gospel was being perverted. There is nothing more important than the gospel, which is the matter of the salvation of our souls. As Jesus asked in Matthew 16:26: “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?” False teachers, called Judaizers, had come into the churches of Galatia telling them that faith alone in Christ alone was not enough to be justified, but that one also had to be circumcised and follow the Old Testament ceremonial laws. This was an undoing of the gospel of grace. Paul offers some very strong statements that reveal the seriousness of this issue. We will look at four of those statements.

First, Paul says that those who would preach such a false gospel should be damned, or accursed (1:8). He would say such a thing because the gospel is a matter of life or death. Should anybody accept the false teaching of the Judaizers, they would be damned because they would be rejecting Christ alone as their salvation. It would be better, Paul is saying, that the false teachers should be damned than should the Galatians. We also see that these false teachers should be regarded as unbelievers, that they should be excommunicated from the church. Again, this is because they are teaching a soul-damning heresy.

The second strong statement that we will look at is in 3:1, where Paul refers to his readers as foolish. Strong words coming from an apostle! I would not want to be called a fool by such a great man of God. The Galatians were being foolish because they were rejecting that which is a matter of objective fact. He says, “It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.” As Peter says in 2 Peter 1:16, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” But the Galatians were rejecting the facts of the gospel. They were being ignorant of gospel doctrines. Such ignorance, such foolishness, leads to the ready acceptance of heresies. We learn from this that doctrine isn’t just for theologians and preachers. It is incumbent upon all Christians to learn the doctrines of the Christian faith, or else they will be “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes“ (Ephesians 4:14). We must know what we believe and why we believe it, or else we are fools.

The third strong statement is the most shocking, for it is very graphic. After discussing the Judaizers insistence on circumcision as being necessary for salvation, Paul wishes that “those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves” (5:12)! He is saying, in essence, “You want to cut off that foreskin? I wish that you would go all the way and cut the whole thing off!” This is about the worst thing that you can say to a man. Why would Paul use such language? Because adding any works to our justification emasculates Christ. By adding to His work on the cross, it is as if we were saying that His work was insufficient. The Judaizers would agree that Christ was necessary for salvation, but not sufficient. We must add our work to His. But as Paul says in 5:2, accepting circumcision as a prerequisite for justification makes Christ valueless. What was the need for Christ to humble Himself and came in human flesh and die on the cross if we can be saved by keeping the law? We make a mockery of Christ and His death.

Finally, Paul says that those who walk after the flesh will not inherit the kingdom of God (5:21). To say that anybody will not go to Heaven is a very unpopular thing to say, especially in our present day and age. After hammering home the point that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone, Paul then goes on to talk about how we ought to live in 5:13-6:10. He had been saying that good works add nothing to our salvation, but then he tells us to do good works. He says that those who live wickedly, as in the descriptions in verses 19-22, will go to hell. Is he contradicting himself? Is he undoing all that he had said before? No, he is not. He is merely showing us what a justified person looks like. We must remember the old Reformation formula: it is not that faith plus works equals salvation, but that faith equals salvation plus works. Notice that Paul says that all of the good works are fruits of the Spirit (v.22). The Spirit indwells us at the moment of our justification and afterwards--not before. The word “fruit” signifies that something comes before it. In this case, our justification precedes the fruit, the good works. But if you do not produce this fruit in your life, if instead you demonstrate that you are walking by the flesh, then that is an indication that you are not justified. For a justified person--one who is saved by faith alone and not by works--will inevitably produce good works. A lack of good works indicates a lack of faith. So Paul is not contradicting himself. He is merely showing us what a person who is justified by faith alone looks like. And those who do not look like that, he sternly reminds us, will not inherit the kingdom of God.

What can we learn from these four strong statements? First, knowing that the gospel is a matter of life or death, we should endeavor to understand it and get it straight as soon as possible. This is not an issue we could postpone until a later date because we never know when death will come for us. We must believe in Christ for salvation now. It is the number one priority of our lives.

Secondly, to avoid being foolish, we should read and meditate upon the Scriptures daily, for doing so will “make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:15). We need to know the doctrines that the Bible teaches and believe them.

Third, we must be careful to add nothing to the work of Christ for our justification. We must be able to always honestly give glory to God alone. I say “honestly” because no Christian would ever say that his salvation is not wholly from God, but when pressed on the details you will find that some form of human work gets squeezed in. No Christian would ever say, “My salvation was 95% God’s work and 5% mine” but their actual beliefs would suggest otherwise. Many attribute their salvation, not to the predetermined plan of God, but to their own free-will decision. This would suggest that perhaps they are smarter or more receptive to spiritual things than their neighbor who has heard the same gospel but has rejected it. This allows for pride to creep in and rob God of the glory that is rightly His. After all, John 1:13 says that those who are saved “were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” Even our faith, which we exercise, is not of us, but from God: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this [your faith] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). Anything that would add to this grace of God is an affront to Him and to His Christ.

Our final application is that we should examine our lives to see if the fruits of the Spirit are present. Do we have “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (5:22-23)? If not, then we should seriously question whether or not we have placed true faith in Christ. If our lives are characterized by “sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these” (5:19-21), then we need to repent and run to Christ in faith, trusting Him alone to save us from these sins. Living a good life and avoiding these listed sins will not save us. Only Christ can save us. But if we live wickedly then we demonstrate that our faith in Christ is not true faith. Having walked down and aisle or being a member of a church does not save you. Only faith in Christ. And having saved you, Jesus will transform your life so that you have the fruit of the Spirit. Look for this fruit in your life.

Album of the Year for 2007

2008-01-30T15:13:00.001-08:00

Wow, it's been a whole year since I last posted. But now I'm back, baby, ready to rock and roll!

Well, 2007 over and it is time to name the album of the year. Five great albums were released this year.

Megadeth released United Abominations, which is more of Dave Mustaine's riff-writing genius. This album is in the same vein as The System Has Failed, though I don't think it is quite as good. But a great album nonetheless. Get your head banging.

Velvet Revolver put out their second CD, Libertad. The band sounds more cohesive than on their first album. The CD kicks of with "Let it Roll", a great rocker. The songs are rather eclectic, with a hidden track at the end that is good old saloon country music. Also this year, Slash released an autobiography, which is excellent. All guitar players will love it, especially. I got to see Velvet Revolver in Dallas a few months ago, as they tour for this album. A great show. That was my second time to see them, and they are great. They played "Patience" and I nearly cried. A great band. Slash is awesome. A great album.

Jonny Greenwood scored the soundtrack to the movie There Will Be Blood. I have not seen the movie, but I understand it to be one of the worst anti-Christian stereotypes of the year. Oh well. The music is great. Jonny Greenwood is a genius. It is what you might call "classical" music, chamber music. But it is very beautiful and haunting. That the guitar player from Radiohead who almost wasn't allowed in the band could turn around and write such great music is amazing. This is pretty music. Great to fall asleep to.

I really wanted this next album to be the album of the year. Unfortunately, the actual album of the year, to be revealed below, came out the same year. But a very close second place goes to The Good Life's Help Wanted Nights, the follow-up to 2004's appropriately titled Album of the Year. This is probably The Good Life's best release so far. Singer/songwriter Tim Kasher is just beautiful. Man, I wanted this to be album of the year. My only complaint is that this CD is too short. I want it to go on for hours and hours. The first song, "On the Picket Fence", I heard played live a few years ago. During a break in their sets, the band would leave the stage while frontman Tim Kasher played a few songs all by himself. Sometimes he played songs he'd just written. This was one of them. It's good to hear it again.

But The Good Life's Help Wanted Nights just didn't get to be 2007's best album. Unfortunately, some band decided to give a big middle finger to the record industry by releasing their new album in download form online for a price of the buyer's choosing. They later released the album in physical CD form, and it didn't come out in the US until January 1, 2008. So I thought of considering this a 2008 release just so The Good Life could be the winners. But that would be cheating because the music was released online, and on CD in other countries, in 2007. This band is, of course, Radiohead. In Rainbows is their 7th full-length LP, and I have been unable to stop listening to it. It is just awesome. Guitar seems a bit more prevalent on this album than on their past few, so that is pleasing to us guitar players. There is actually very little artificial drum beats (except for the first song), and more of actual drumming by Phil Selway. Thom Yorke's voice is as beautiful as ever. This is just a brilliant album. To be listened to over and over again. It is the best album of 2007. And maybe it will be the best album of 2008 as well.

John Calvin's Sermons on Job #2

2007-01-28T00:26:00.000-08:00

Here is the continuation of my work of transcribing John Calvin's Sermons on Job from the 1574 English translation into modern spelling, with my own summary statements in italics.

The Second Sermon upon the first Chapter.

2. And he had seven sons born unto him, and three daughters.
3. And he had a great substance of Cattle: to wit, seven thousand Sheep, three thousand Camels, five hundred yoke of Oxen, five hundred she-Asses, and a great household insomuch that he surmounted all them of the East.
4. And his Sons went and made feasts at their houses, every man his day, and they called their three Sisters also to eat and drink with them.
5. When they had made an end of the feasting, Job sent for his children and sanctified them: and rising up betimes in the morning, offered sacrifices according to the number of them: for he said, It may be that my children have sinned, and have not blessed the Lord in their hearts. And thus did Job every day.

(There were born to him seven sons and three daughters. He possessed 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, and 500 female donkeys, and very many servants, so that this man was the greatest of all the people of the east. His sons used to go and hold a feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. And when the days of the feast had run their course, Job would send and consecrate them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, "It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts." Thus Job did continually. Job 1:2-5, ESV)

---------------

Review: like Job, we should walk in singleness of heart, fear God, and withdraw ourselves from evil.

Yesterday we heard the praise which the Holy Ghost gave unto Job, not so much for himself as for our instruction, to the end we should know how we ought to rule our life: namely that we walk in singleness of heart, so as there be no piece of counterfeitness in us, and that therewithal our works also may yield witness of the same singleness. And moreover, that we fear God, knowing how it is He to whom we must refer our whole life, and that His honor is the thing that we must give ourselves unto. And further, that forasmuch as we be continually beset with many stumblingblocks, and the Devil practices to thrust us out of the right way: we should stand upon our guard to withdraw ourselves from evil, and to recover ourselves unto God, until such time as we be quite dispatched from all the defilements of the world by death.

Job was incredibly rich, yet when he lost all he did not act as if he had lost much.

And now it ensues in the text, That Job was an exceeding rich man: and a great part of his possessions is especially recited to us here. It is no small thing to have Seven thousand head of small Cattle, five hundred yoke of Oxen, as many she-Asses, and as many Camels. Lo here a great substance for one man. And therefore it is said, He surmounted all them of the East. But anon we shall see wherefore this is rehearsed unto us. For his patience was so much the more praiseworthy, for that he being bereft of so great goods, and brought to extreme poverty, did notwithstanding continue quiet, as if he had lost little or nothing: See then how God has so much the better tried him.

Job did not let his riches keep him from serving God with a singleness of heart.

But herewithall we have to consider, what a virtuous mind was in Job, seeing his riches had not blinded him with pride, nor caused him to set so much by the world, or to discharge himself of the serving of God, as we commonly see that many men by reason of their great riches, become so lofty, that it is impossible to tame them, abusing their credit to the oppressing of poor folk: and besides that they be full of cruelty, they be also stately and full of pomp: So that riches are accompanied with many inconveniences. Therefore it is not in vain that it is told us here, that Job being so rich, had nevertheless always persisted in the serving of God, and held himself in the said singleness whereof mention is made here.

A warning to the rich: do not trust in your riches.

For by his example the rich men of this world are warned of their duty, which is, to take good heed that when God has put abundance into their hands, they be not entangled by them, according also as the Psalm exhorts them. And further (according as Saint Paul speaks to Timothy in 1 Timothy 6:17) that they be not puffed up with pride, nor put their trust in the transitory things of this world, wherein there is no certainty: for he that is rich today, may become poor by tomorrow, whensoever it pleases God. So then, seeing that the goods of this world are fickle, and that we may soon be bereft of them: rich men (says Saint Paul) ought to take good heed, that they rest not themselves upon them, nor make an idol of them, as though they were sure to possess them, and enjoy them ever, but must be ready to yield them up. And to be short (according as it is said in 1 Corinthians 7:29) such as have fields and vineyards, meadows and corn ground, money and wares, must have a care to use them in such sort, as if they had none at all, so as they may be poor in heart.

Job serves as an example to condemn all rich men who do not serve God. Though it may seem hard for a rich man to serve God, Job proves that it can be done.

Thus then we see what we have to note upon this sentence. For lest any man might allege, that it is very hard to behave himself so purely in the midst of so great riches, considering how Christ himself calls them thorns (Matthew 13:22): therefore the example of Job shall condemn all such as keep not themselves undefiled, how hardly soever it be to be done. It is very certain, that a rich man shall have more ado to walk in the fear of God, than shall a poor man.

Poverty also has temptations, such as murmuring against God and doubting Him.

And true it is also, that poverty of itself brings store of temptations. For when a man is in necessity, he falls to thinking in himself, what shall become of me? And the Devil thrusts him forward to distrust. Hereupon he shall be induced to murmur against God, according as we see that many fall into a rage, and it seems to them that God does them wrong, and they wot not on which side to turn themselves: whereupon they conclude thus: Since I cannot get my living by my labor without doing other men wrong: I must take another way to the wood. Hereupon they take leave to rob and reeve, and they do many shrewd turns, harms and damages to their neighbors. Behold (I pray you) the temptations which poverty brings.

Nevertheless, the rich face greater temptations.

But if a man make comparison between it and riches: it is certain that the richer sort have far greater assaults, forasmuch as Satan is ever at their elbow, to blindfold their eyes, to the end they should overshoot themselves, and forgetting their state, lift up themselves against God, tie themselves wholly to the world, make a mock of the heavenly life, bear themselves in hand that nothing can hurt them, abuse their credit in sundry wise, have regard of nothing, be loathe to bear any yoke, be unwilling to yield to any reason, and think all other men too base to be in their company, in so much that if it were possible for them, they would pluck away the light of the Sun from the poor, so that finally they bear themselves in hand, that they deserve of good right to be shoaled out, and to be set aside, as it were on a row by themselves.

There is no excuse for the rich to be corrupted, because Job stayed pure.

We see now the corruptions and other infinite miseries that riches bring: and yet there is no excuse for them that be rich. Wherefore? For here shall Job be made their judge before God, forasmuch as he was not corrupted nor perverted by the great abundance and quantity of goods that he had, but always served God in singleness of heart.

If the rich, whose temptations are so much the greater than that of the poor, are inexcusable, so are the poor also inexcusable.

But if the rich men be made inexcusable: let the poorer sort also look well to themselves. For I have told you already: that it is easier for a man to walk simply, to whom GOD has not given so great abundance, than for such as have a great range. The case is like as if a man were in some little boat and in some small river. It is like enough that he might be tossed, and it is like enough that he might rush against some stub, or against some bank of the river: but he is not in such danger, as he that is in a ship on the midst of the sea, where the waves and storms are far more violent. Even so (say I) stands the case between the poor and the rich. For surely so long as woe be in this world, we row upon the water, where we may be tossed with tempests, and rush against some thing, and evermore be in danger. Thus are the poor as it were on a little river: but the rich are as it were on the midst of the sea, so as they hardly can escape sinking in some whirlpool or another. Now then if there be no excuse for the rich sort: what shall become of those to whom God gives the mean to hold themselves in simplicity? We see therefore that here is a general lesson to serve for all men, as well great as small, and that it behooves each man to benefit himself by the example that is set here before our eyes.

Riches are not evil in and of themselves, but our own inner corruption causes us to abuse riches.

But yet herewithall the virtue of Job is right commendable: for we hear the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, how it is right hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Not for that riches do of themselves hinder us from serving God as I have said: but it happens through our naughtiness and corruption, that where as it becomes us to take occasion to be drawn unto God by the benefits which he bestows upon us, we be the further drawn back from him. Wherefore we see that Job was a man of wonderful virtue: seeing that in the midst of such riches, he had not his eyes blindfolded to conceive any pride in his heart, so as he should tread other folks under his feet, or forget God, or become a dissolute, vain, and pompous person: but held on his race which he had begun. Lo here the virtue that was commendable in him. And this is done, to the end that if we cannot attain to be full equal with him, yet every one of us should look to himself and go on forward to the mark that is set before him.

We should not condemn riches; to do so would be to condemn God, who gives riches.

Furthermore we see also, that riches of themselves are not to be condemned, as some fantastical persons surmise, who hold opinion, that a rich man cannot be a Christian. For let them find me any of the poor that may be compared to Job in this virtue, and then let them condemn riches. But when a man shall have sought throughout all the poor men in the world: hardly shall he find one that shall come anything near this man. Seeing then that the case is so, let us mark that riches of themselves and of their own nature are not to be condemned, and especially that it is a great blasphemy against God, if a man find such fault with riches, that he thinks the party which possesses them, to be utterly marred. For from whence come riches but from God? Therefore when a man condemns them, he sets himself against God.

A mightier work of God is needed in saving a rich man than in a poor man.

And further, it behooves us to mark, that God must needs work far more marvelously in a rich man than in a poor man, as I have said before. For I have already shown the difficulty that a man has to maintain himself in simplicity and uprightness, when he has abundance of goods. Then had God need to utter a singular force of his Holy Spirit to preserve rich men from corrupting of themselves. But if a man despise such a grace of God, does he not lift up himself against God?

God saves both the poor and the rich.

Hereby then we be warned, not to condemn riches in themselves, like also as we see how our Lord Jesus Christ has shown us, by matching the poor and the rich together in the kingdom of heaven, when he speaks of Lazarus in Saint Luke 16:19 ff. He says there, that the Angels carried Lazarus: For albeit that he was an outcast among men, and a poor creature of whom no account was made, insomuch that he was forsaken of all men: yet nevertheless behold how the Angels carry his soul into Abraham’s bosom. And what was this Abraham? A man rich both in cattle and in money, and in household (Genesis 13:6, 24:45), and in all other things saving houses and lands, for those were not lawful for him to have, because it behooved him to tarry God’s leisure, till he gave him the land of Canaan to inherit (Acts 7:5). True it is, that he purchased a burying place, but he had not any inheritance, notwithstanding that his movables were very great. Therefore when we see the soul of Lazarus carried by Angels into the bosom of Abraham, who is the father of the faithful: we perceive that God of his infinite grace and goodness calls both rich and poor to salvation. And unto this purpose makes that also which St. Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:4: namely that God will have all men to be saved. For he speaks of kings and princes, who of ordinary do misbehave themselves in their greatness, and cannot find in their hearts to stoop unto God: yea it seems to themselves that they be no mortal men: and yet God picks out some of them to himself, and will not have all to be lost and to perish. Thus you see what we have to mark. Yet for all this, the rich men must not flatter themselves, but rather know how they stand as it were upon ice, where they may soon slide, and that they be as it were among thorns, so as it behooves them to look diligently to themselves for being pricked. Lo how each one of us ought to be touched with carefulness to commend ourselves unto God, that we may walk according to his will.

Given all that Job had and lost, his patience is especially remarkable.

And upon this saying, That Job had seven sons, and three daughters, I note how it does us to wit, that God had sent his blessing upon him, to make him prosper by all means. And (as I have touched heretofore) we shall hereafter better see the cause why all this is expressed, and the intent of the Holy Ghost: that is to wit, that it was an incomparable virtue in Job, to bear patiently God’s taking away of all the things which he had put into his hand.

God righteously causes whatever happens according to His good pleasure.

And it is very well declared also, how his children behaved themselves, and how he himself also on his part governed them in the fear of God. And this is done to the end that we should understand, that when God afflicts us, he shows by effect, that he can dispose of his creatures at his own pleasure, and that although we be at our wit’s end, and see not the reason why God handles men so roughly: yet it becomes us to cast down our eyes, and to confess that He is righteous, and to wait His leisure, until He discovers unto us the cause why He disposes things so.

Though most people do not love their brothers as they should, Job’s children serve as a Godly example of brotherly love.

But now let us proceed with that which is rehearsed to us here. It is said, That Job’s children feasted one another day by day, every one in his turn, and that they called their sisters to bear them company. True it is, that nature may well stir up brethren to love one another: but yet are men become so evil, as there be very few that consider what brotherhood imports. For the proof hereof we shall see many brethren that agree like cats and dogs. They be brethren, and yet for all that, they cease not to spite and malice one another, as if one of them would eat another. We see then by such (according as men grow out of kind into cruelty) that brethren are acquainted with concord and lovingness: and although it be not so with all of them: yet is every man so addicted to himself, as there be very few that love one another in such wise as God teaches. Thus does the Holy Ghost set a looking glass before our eyes, to make us to behold the good agreement and love that was among Job’s children, and especially how they exercised themselves continually therein, to the end they would not give any occasion of evil mistrust one to another. For the feasts that they made, were to none other end, but to yield record of their brotherliness and agreement. And see how it is said precisely, that they went to seek their sisters, to the intent that their friendship might utter itself in all points.

Job knew that man’s nature tended to taint even his good deeds with evil, so he feared that his children might accidentally offend God in their otherwise innocent feasts.

Behold here a great virtue. Albeit a man may perceive that Job feared not that there was any fault in the thing that was ordained for a good purpose, and to a good end: yet nevertheless we see how he thought in himself even then that God might be offended in it. Surely this is a very notable example.

Brotherly fellowship is commended by God as a good thing.

And out of all doubt, good agreement and friendship among men, and especially among brethren, is as pleasant a thing unto God as any can be. We hear how it is said in the Psalm (133): It is a joyful thing when brethren agree in one: It is like the dew that falls down to give nourishment to the ground, and like the oil that drops down from Aaron’s beard, so as the scent of it was shed out over all his raiment. Lo what two similitudes here be to show how God loves peace and amity among men, and above all things among brethren. They do us to understand, that when men embrace one another with hearty love, it is all one as when the fields and herbs receive nourishment by the dew of heaven: and also that it is a thing that yields a very sweet savor before God, as a good and acceptable sacrifice unto Him, even like the scent of the holy oil that was poured upon Aaron’s head.

Out of the corruption of our hearts, even our good deeds are tainted with evil.

Neverthelater: this is spoken of such as embrace one another after a godly manner. For it may well be, that wicked men shall bear an affection of love one towards another, and they may peradventure link themselves together to accomplish their appointments: but all this is naught: friendship must come from God, and go to God. And mark here how the name of brotherhood is set down, to the end we should be taught to lift up our eyes unto God, and to look unto Him as oft as there is any question of loving one another. Furthermore we see here, that the best things in the world may soon be corrupted by the naughtiness of men: and hereby we see also what our nature is, ever since Adam sinned: that is to say, that ever since he overshot himself: hitherto good has been turned into evil, notwithstanding that our intent or meaning be good. As for example: When a husband loves his wife, or when a father loves his children, they be good, holy, and commendable things: and yet nevertheless there is not a man to be found in the whole world that loves his wife in such measure, as nothing may be found fault with in his love. Or that loves his children with so pure and hearty love: but that there shall always be some medley of corruption. And why so? For seeing that God has ordained, that the man shall love his wife, and that it is precisely said, Love your wives as your own bodies (Eph. 6, Col. 3:19, 1 Pet. 3:7): shall their so doing be imputed to them for a fault? Can the good be turned into evil? Doubtless that comes of our cursed nature: like as one grain of salt, or one drop of vinegar fails not to mar a great deal of wine: Even so is it with men, for holding themselves in measure, they have not their affections so well ruled, as there may no fault be found in them, or not to be condemned in many respects.

Therefore, it is not strange that Job should fear that his children may be sinning.

Then is it no strange case, that Job thought in himself, that his children might have offended God in the thing that of itself was good and commendable. Not for that he condemned the feasting of brethren together, especially since their making of good cheer one with another, was to maintain themselves in mutual amity. That was not the thing that Job found fault with: But forasmuch as he was thoroughly acquainted with man’s infirmity: he knew it was very hard to keep measure, so as no vice should be intermeddled with it by the way. And therefore he took good heed to himself, and sanctified his children.

There is always some disorder in even good feasts. Even the best men can get carried away with eating and drinking, etc.

But yet nevertheless we have further to note, that Job had well marked and born away the thing, which experience shows unto us: namely that in all feasts and banquets there is some disorder, wherethrough God is not so well honored as he ought to be. First of all, in such meetings there will be always some superfluity of meats, and they that come thither, do for company sake eat and drink more than their ordinary. And hardly could a man think of the excess that is there: in so much that even the holiest men that fear God best, are overseen there. True it is that they play not the gluttons in stuffing of the paunch, nor in cramming themselves like swine, and much less will they be so drunken as to be out of their wits like beasts: no not so: but so much may be done as they may somewhat pass measure. And how so? For we see that a man overshoots himself in that case ere he be aware. So then we see that some inconvenience happens in feasts, notwithstanding that they be made for a good cause, and that the intent as well of him that bids his friends, as of those that come to keep him company, be good. For hardly can it be escaped, but that there shall be some fault, whereof the very doer himself shall not be privy. And furthermore when a man is there, what a deal of vain and fond talk shall he have to hold him withal? Where a man ought to eat as in the presence of God, and to be merry as it were with the Angels: there shall be store of vanities, which shall carry men in such wise, as many of them (yea even of the good men themselves) shall think, that they make no good cheer, except they disguise themselves I can not tell how: There are yet many other evil inconveniences, whereby we see that God is offended divers ways, according as men find in themselves afterward. So then, let us mark well, that Job did not without cause mistrust and doubt lest his children had sinned against God, seeing they made feasts in such wise, notwithstanding that they were of the faithful sort, as I have said before.

If sin (albeit usually unintentional) is found in even the godliest of feasts, then how utter sinful are the feasts of those who care not for God.

Now if it so be, that where feasts and banquets are best ruled, yet there is some fault that God dislikes: how is it with them that drive God out of their company, and from their table, as men are commonly wont to do? For if we shall speak of feasting: whereat do men begin? At calling upon the name of God? Nay, that would be thought too sad a matter. Therefore the name of God must be buried. Has a man well sufficed his appetite? Then is it no time to say grace. For it behooves them to remember the good cheer that they have made, that is to say, that they be swine. For if a man make mention of God, it will be thought, that all the pleasure which they have taken in their feasting, is turned into sorrow. And afterward all must run riot, in such sort as there shall be no talk, but of ribaldry and wantonness, or rather of treachery and malice, so as there shall be none other news, but of backbiting their neighbor, and of practicing devises against this man or that man. See what banqueting breeds. Now then since that men are so inclined to vice, it is not possible but there must be some fault, notwithstanding that they give not themselves the bridle in all points. I pray you then, must it not needs be as it were a gulf of hell, where they meet together to make compacts of wickedness and treason?

We should always ask God for forgiveness for unintentional sins that we may not know about, but this does not mean that everything we do is sinful.

Therefore let us mark well this sentence, to the end that since we know men to be so much inclined to vices, that they mar the thing that is good, and turn it into evil: we may take the more heed to ourselves, that when we eat and drink one with another, we confess ourselves always sinners, for offending God thereby. True it is indeed, that we must not be scrupulous and superstitious, as some be which eat not a bit of bread with quietness of conscience: If a man tell them, that they ought to advise themselves what they do: thereupon they conclude that men can neither eat nor drink without offending God. And when they are once come to such scrupulousness, as to think that they sin in all things that they do: they fall to concluding: Well, then let us set all at random: I say, there are such as these to be found. But this is not as we ought to do, this is not as the Scripture leads us. Therefore let us wake and keep sure watch, that we be not taken unawares. When we be set at the table to drink and to eat, let us pray unto God, beseeching Him of His gracious goodness, to keep us in such sobriety, that being nourished by His gifts, we may be the better disposed to serve Him: so as our meats may not serve to overcharge us, but to sustain us, and to give us strength, that we may be the better able to occupy our selves in the service of our God. And that He will grant us the grace so to pass through these corruptible things, as we may always labor for the heavenly life, whereunto He calls us by His word. For God maintains us not in this world to live for a day, or for ten, or for fifty years: but to the intent we should come to the said heavenly glory.

When we eat, we should eat as if God were feeding us, and so do all to the glory of God.

Let us then consider how we ought to behave ourselves: and when we be at the table, let us feed for our repast in such wise, as if God Himself dieted us. And although we be in this world taking our nourishment of the food that we know: let us look up unto God, Who shows Himself a father towards us, and has witnessed unto us that we be His children, in so much as He hath a care of these our poor bodies here, and will have His love extend even unto them, notwithstanding that they be but rottenness. Therefore when we see that God does so nourish and sustain us, we may be the merrier and the better assured of His goodness and fatherly love towards us. And hereby we see why St Paul says, that whither we drink or whither we eat, we must do it altogether in the name of God (1 Cor. 10:31, Coloss. 3:17). There are many which suppose that there should be no thinking upon God when men come to eating and drinking: whereas in very deed we should therefore think so much the more of God. Seeing that God gives such virtue unto bread by His word, that we be sustained by it, will He not have us to acknowledge His presence, and how He hath His hand stretched out over us? So then is it rather a cause that we should think the more upon God. For we see that our eating and drinking are sanctified by yielding all honor to His name (1 Tim. 4:5). And therefore when it comes to saying of grace, let us acknowledge that some fault may have escaped us: and then will God surely forgive us all our misdoing, if so be that we repair unto Him.

Job asked for forgiveness for his children out of faith that God would be merciful to him and his children.

Thus you see the cause why it is said here precisely, that when Job’s children had made an end of feasting each other by turns, Job commanded them to sanctify themselves, and afterward offered a solemn sacrifice for each one of them, saying: It may be that my children have sinned, and that they have not blessed God. But we will speak of this whole matter in the end. We see then that Job was none of that sort, which after they have made niceness for a while, do finally conclude to set all at random. But he goes to the remedy: that is to say, that God will bear with us in our infirmities. Albeit (says he) that my children have not done their duty in all points: yet am I sure that God will have pity both upon them and upon me. And therefore let us ask Him forgiveness.

Job’s sacrifices for his children reveal that his children were not intentionally sinning, for it would have been an abuse of God’s name to continually make sacrifices for continual intentional sins.

But yet for all this, Job forbade not his children use their accustomed feasting: And wherefore? For the thing of itself was good, as I have said before. If Job had said, I see here a lewd matter: truly he had not made sacrifice: for that had been to abuse God’s name, and to make it a cloak of evil. Sacrifices were not ordained to maintain us in evil, nor that any man should flatter himself in his sins, so as he should say, I may do sacrifice and then God will be contented. Job therefore sacrificed not to have it said that he maintained an evil thing: but he knew that his children did well in giving such entertainment one to another, and that it was a commendable thing so to do. Forasmuch as he knew that, he meant not to find fault with the thing that was good, but sought for the remedy, that if any fault lay hid under it, it might please God to amend it: as if he should say, Of good reason ought we to crave pardon at God’s hand, to the end He may supply our infirmity. We see then after what manner Job proceeds here, and also after what manner we must proceed.

Job raised his children to serve God.

And furthermore let us mark, that Job in commanding his children to sanctify themselves, has shown the manner of the bringing up which he gave them in their childhood, that is to wit, to serve God. If it had been simply said, that Job had sanctified the Lord: a man might say, Very well, he was a good man for his own behalf, but he had no great regard of his children: he did enough for the discharging of himself to Godward, but he has laid the bridle in the neck of others. But contrarily it is said, that he commanded them to sanctify themselves: which thing it had been in vain and unavailable for him to do, had they not been taught long before how they ought to walk in the fear of God. And although they were as then grown men, and every of them had a house of his own, and kept a table by himself; Yet notwithstanding, Job ceased not to keep them continually under some awe.

All parents should raise their children to serve and honor God, even after they are grown.

Behold here a doctrine very profitable for us, which is, that parents must so guide their children, as God may be honored of them all. And it behooves us to mark this doctrine the better, forasmuch as we see it is so ill put in use. For in these days they that have children, could well find in their hearts to have them taught: but hardly shall you find one among a hundred, that is led with a zeal and affection to Godward. How are they led then? Every man minds his own profit. He may well say, I would fain have my son taught: but what? That if he be of a good wit, he may come forward, that he may make himself brave, that he may gather goods, that he may come to credit and honor. Lo here the respects that fathers have in their desire to have their children brought up. But where is there a man to be found so well advised or bent to such simplicity, as to say, It is enough for me that my child serve God, for I am sure that God will bless him, and make him to prosper, and although he be poor to the worldward, it is enough for me that God is his father? And God also will render such rewards unto the fathers, as they have deserved. For they imagine that they have done very much for their children, when they have advanced them: and God suffers their children to put out their eyes, and to be as hangmen to torment them. We see it to be so before our eyes: and yet they perceive not how it is God that chastises them, and that justly. And therefore so much the more behooves it us to mark well the doctrine which the Holy Ghost shows us here under the example of Job, that is to wit, that fathers and mothers should hold their children in such awe, as they may cause them to serve God. And especially this circumstance is not to be forgotten: namely, that although Job’s children were grown to full years of discretion: yet nevertheless their father held them always as it were under awe, warning them to ask forgiveness of God when they had offended Him, and to purify themselves.

In order to raise Godly children, we must be godly parents.

But nowadays as soon as children be ten years old, by and by they think themselves men: when notwithstanding it were meet to give them the rod fifteen years after that they wear the furniture of a man, and seem to themselves to be marvelous fellows, for they be no better but silly offscourings: and as for to suffer any correction or any instruction, it is very strange with them: yea they would think they had great wrong and injury offered them. Contrariwise we see what is said here. But what? The fathers are worthy to have their children disobedient and stubborn against them, why so? For meet it is that he which will be honored should be honorable: that is to wit, it is requisite that he should show cause why to be honored. How then shall a father purchase himself authority towards his children, to be obeyed of them to keep them in fear? Even by having such a gravity and staidness in himself, as his children ought to be ashamed to gainsay him or to stand against him in any thing. But if the fathers shake off the fear of God: how can it be that their children should obey them, since that they themselves yield not God the honor that belongs unto Him? Lo here the cause why children show themselves so loathe to be corrected, and why they cannot be kept in awe: namely for that their fathers are disobedient unto God. And so it is, that both the fathers and the children are condemned here: the fathers for their negligence in not taking heed to bring up their children in the fear of God, and the children for not suffering themselves to be governed by their fathers.

Job’s children are good examples of those who still live under their parents’ guidance even after they are grown.

And here they have a goodly example: for it is spoken of such as may say, My father hath held me in awe as long as I was young, and yet must I still be always under the rod? Job’s children might have said so. But we see that although they be come to have households of their own: yet are they still under the governance of their father: for in the text it is not said that they gainsaid any thing that he commanded them, as it is reported of the children of Hely (1 Sam. 2:25): but rather that they obeyed him to the end they might be partakers of the sacrifices which he offered for them. This that we hear then, is enough to condemn all these petty roisters, which make such a bravery, and carry their crest so high. They know not what this awfulness in any wise means: they are but offscourings, and yet nevertheless they will bear the countenance of men. But we see here how those that are of age and discretion to guide a household orderly, be held still under the government and obedience of their fathers.

Job offered sacrifices that God commanded to all men, even before the writing of the Mosaic law, so purify us to enter His presence.

Furthermore as concerning this word Sacrifice, it is meant according to the ordinary custom of the law, whereby, (to the intent a man might be partaker of the sacrifices) it behooved him to be purified, that he might be duly disposed thereunto. And albeit that Job was not of the country where the law of Moses was written, but rather (by all likelihood) was before Moses was born: yet notwithstanding it hath always been a custom among the faithful, that when they should sacrifice unto God, they had some sign of cleansing, that is to wit, of purging themselves from the filthiness wherewith they had been imbrued and defiled. And this was not invented by man: we must not think all this to have been devised as a trifling toy by men: but it was God’s will it should be so. And wherefore? For his meaning was to put men in remembrance, that they are not worthy to approach unto Him.

Though we do now have the ceremonial sacrifices any more, we still need to come to God purified by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

When we come unto God, it behooves us to acknowledge our own poorness, and to be ashamed of it and to say: How dare I press before the majesty of my God? What favor shall I find there? God’s will is to have this known in all ages: and now although we have not the said Ceremony of cleansing ourselves: yet it behooves us to have the meaning of it in us: that is to wit, that at all times, and as oft as we come unto God to make our prayers and petitions unto Him, we must acknowledge that we be unworthy, saving that we know the mean whereby He receives us, that is to wit, to cleanse ourselves by believing in our Lord Jesus Christ, knowing that He is the only washing whereby all our spots may be made clean. Will we then be acceptable unto God? It behooves us to attain to it by the means of our Lord Jesus Christ, shrouding us under the grace which He hath purchased us by His death and Passion, as Who is the full perfection and accomplishment of the things that have been given forth in old time in figures and shadows.

Closing prayer.

Therefore let us cast ourselves flat before the face of our good God, with acknowledgement of our offences, beseeching Him to make us know better what we have left undone: and that as long as we live in this corruptible world, we acknowledging ourselves to be wrapped in many sins, may resist the temptations of our flesh, and buckle ourselves to battle against all things that may turn us aside from the obeying of our God. And although we fail in diverse sorts, yet nevertheless let us pray that we may walk in such soundness before Him, as we may desire nothing but to dedicate ourselves wholly unto Him, and that it may please Him to accept the service that we offer unto Him in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, notwithstanding that it be imperfect, until such time as His glory shall shine fully in us. That it may please Him to bestow His benefit and grace, not only upon us, but also upon all people and Nations of the Earth: etc.

Lookie What I Got!

2007-01-07T21:30:00.000-08:00

As I am sure most of you are, I am a rabid bibliophile. I don't just like to read books; I like to hold them and smell them and look at them sitting prettily on my bookshelves. So the other day I was at Half-Price bookstore, and I was walking by the rare book section and a book caught my eye just because it was so old and nifty looking. I like old and nifty looking books. So I picked it up and saw that it was the [i]Complete Works of Cowper[/i]. I thought to myself, "Could this be [i]the[/i] William Cowper, famously depressed Christian poet and hymn-writer, friend of John Newton? Nah, it can't be. Nobody cares about him. At best you will find maybe two of his hymns in a hymnal and that is it." But I looked inside, and sure enough, it is [i]the[/i] William Cowper. Now just a few weeks ago I was looking to see if there were any collections of his in print because I wanted to buy something like that, but to no avail. But here was this really nifty looking old book (printed in 1857 and in very good condition), and it was a book that I actually really wanted to read! Awesome!

Anyways, I was so excited, I just thought I'd share my news with someone.

John MacArthur's "Burden of Proof"

2007-01-02T02:21:00.000-08:00

On a recent broadcast of Grace To You, John MacArthur answered a question about dispensationalism. He claimed that the burden of proof lied with covenant theologians to explain exegetically how the verse in the Old Testemant that promises a kingdom to Israel really means "the church". Now a whole eschatology cannot be explained in one single verse, so I will not do that. However, all of the Bible as a whole, especially the New Testament, explains that the "true Israel" is not physical Jews nor the church, but is Jesus Christ Himself. He is the seed of Abraham. And therefore all who are in Him are part of the true Israel. Now, I think rather that the burden of proof lies on John MacArthur to explain why his view, which is identical with that of the Pharisees in Jesus' day, is not fulfilled in the spiritual realities of Christ, and His blessings. When Paul speaks of the promise to Abraham in Romans, he makes it clear that the promise concerns Christ in His first coming, and all who are in Him, regardless of their natural descent. The burden of proof lies with Dr. MacArthur to explain why the blessings of Christ in salvation, and of His bringing in people into union with Himself and the Father, is not enough. How is a physical kingdom, which the first century Jews ERRONEOUSLY expected (as made clear by Jesus), a better fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy than acutally being lifted up into Heavenly places with Jesus Christ Himself, which is what salvation, of Jew and Gentile alike, is? Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with Dr. MacArthur to explain how 1830 years of Christians were wrong. How is that everbody was wrong until a Charismatic Scottish girl came along and set everybody right? I think it was Dr. Lloyd-Jones who once boasted that he never preached anything new. That is a very good statement, one that I think John MacArthur would agree with wholeheartedly. Except for the fact that he does preach something new, relatively speaking. For 1830 years, all Christians preached that Jesus Christ is king TODAY. If the Jews want a physical kingdom, they can have it. I have something much better--Christ's acutal kingdom.

John Calvin's Sermons on Job #1

2006-12-30T21:28:00.000-08:00

I recently required a facsimile edition of the 1574 English translation of John Calvin's Sermons on Job. This means that everything is spelled really silly-like, so I have "translated" the old-style English into modern spelling. I left the weird words and Yoda-like word order as it was, though. But if you're used to reading the Puritans and what-not, then this should be no problem. I have added paragraph summaries of my own devising in italics. Anyway, I thought that I would gradually post my slow progress (this is going to take a while). And so, here is sermon number 1.

The first Sermon upon the first Chapter.

There was in the land of Hus a man named Job, sound and upright, fearing God, and withdrawing himself from evil.

(There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil. Job 1:1, ESV)

---------------

God disposes of us as He will according to his own good pleasure, which though we may not understand it, we know he is just and righteous.

The better to profit ourselves by that which is contained in this present book, first and foremost it behooves us to understand the sum of it. For the story here written, shows us how we be in God’s hand, and that it lies in Him to determine of our life, and to dispose of the same according to His good pleasure: and that it is our duty to submit ourselves unto Him with all humbleness and obedience: and that it is good reason, that we should be wholly His, both to live and die: and specially that when it pleases Him to lay His hand upon us, although we perceive not for what cause He does it, yet we should glorify Him continually, acknowledging Him to be just and upright, and not to grudge against Him, nor fall to striving with Him, assuring ourselves that we shall always be vanquished in pleading against Him. So then, the thing that we have briefly to bear in mind in this story, is, that God has such a sovereignty over His creatures, as He may dispose of them at His pleasure: and that when He shows any rigor which we think strange at the first blush, yet notwithstanding we must hold our peace, and not grudge, but rather confess that He is righteous, and wait till He shows us wherefore he chastises us.

Job is an example of patience under God’s unfavorable Providences.
And herewithal we have to behold the patience of the man that is set here before our eyes, according as Saint James exhorts us (James 5:11). For when God shows us that we ought to bear all the miseries that He shall send upon us: we can well afford to confess that it is our duty so to do: but yet therewithal we allege our own frailty, and we bear ourselves in hand, that that ought to serve for our excuse. Wherefore it is good for us to have such examples, as show unto us how there have been other men as frail as we, who nevertheless have resisted temptations, and continued steadfastly in obedience unto God, although He has scourged them even with extremity. Thus have we here an excellent mirror. Moreover, we have to consider not only the patience of Job: but also the issue of it, as Saint James says. For had Job continued in misery: albeit that he had had more than an Angelical strength in himself, yet had that been no happy issue. But when we see he was not disappointed of his hope, and that he found grace, because he humbled himself before God: Upon the sight of such an issue we may conclude, that there is nothing better, than to submit ourselves unto God, and to suffer peaceably whatsoever He sends us, until He deliver us of His own mere goodness.

The doctrine: the spiritual temptations of Job’s friends were worse than his physical afflictions.

And herewithal (besides the story) we have to consider the doctrine comprised in this book That is to wit, concerning those that came unto Job under pretence to comfort him, and yet tormented him much more than did his own miseries: and concerning the answers that he used to repulse their checks, wherewith it seemed they would have daunted him. But first of all, as in respect of our afflictions, we have to note, that although God send them, and that they proceed from Him: yet notwithstanding the devil also stirs them up in us, according as St. Paul tells us, that we have war against the spiritual powers (Eph. 6:12). For when the devil has once kindled the fire, he has also his bellows: that is to say, he finds men that are fit to prick us always forward, both to feed the evil, and to increase it. So then we shall see how Job (besides the misery that he endured) was also tormented both by his friends and by his wife, and (above all) by such as came to tempt him spiritually. For I call it a spiritual temptation, not only when we be smitten and afflicted in our bodies: but also when the devil comes to put a toy in our head, that God is our deadly enemy, and that it is not for us to resort any more unto Him, but rather to assure ourselves, that henceforth He will not show us any mercy. See whereunto all the discourse tended which Job’s friends laid before him. It was to make him believe, that he was a man forsaken of God, and that he deceived himself in imagining that God would be merciful unto him. Surely these spiritual battles are far more harder to be born, than all the miseries and adversities that we can suffer by any persecution. And yet does God let Satan run so far upon the bridle, that he also brings his servants with him, who give us such assaults, as we see Job has endured. Mark well this for a special point.

The key to understanding the book of Job: Job had a good case that he argued poorly, and his friends had a bad case that they argued well.

But wherewithal we have further to mark, that in all this disputation, Job maintains a good case, and contrariwise his adversaries maintain an evil case. And yet it is more, that Job maintaining a good quarrel, did handle it ill, and that the other setting forth an unjust matter, did convey it well. The understanding of this, will be as a key to open unto this whole book.

Job’s case: God does not always punish men according to the measure of their sins, so he need not despair that God has cast him off.

How is it that Job maintains the good case? It is in that he knows, that God does not ever punish men according to the measure of their sins, but has His secret judgments, whereof He makes us not privy, and therefore that it behooves us to wait till he reveal unto us for what cause He does this or that. Thus is he in this whole discourse persuaded, that God does not always punish men according the measure of their sins: and thereupon assures himself, that he is not a man rejected of God, as they would make him to believe. Behold here a good and true case, notwithstanding that it be ill handled. For Job ranges here out of his bounds, and uses such excessive and outrageous talk, than in many points he seems a desperate person. And especially he so chafes, as it seems that he would even resist God. Thus may you see a good case mishandled.

The friends’ case is well argued and speaks of many right things, but ultimately they labor to cast Job into despair.

But on the contrary part, they that undertake the evil case (that is to wit, that God does always punish men according the measure of their sins) have goodly and holy sentences, and there is nothing in their whole talk which would not entice us to receive it as if the Holy Ghost Himself had uttered it. For it is plain truth: they be the grounds of religion: they treat of God’s Providence: they treat of His justice: they treat of men’s sins. Thus we see a doctrine which we must receive without gainsaying: and yet the drift of it is evil, namely for that these men labor thereby to cast Job into despair, and to drown him altogether.

Therefore we should be sure to build our cases on firm foundations.

But hereby we see, that when we have a sure ground, it behooves us to look that we build upon it in such wise, as all things be answerable thereunto according as Saint Paul says of himself, that he built well, forasmuch as he founded the Church upon the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, and therefore that it has such a conformity in it, as those that came after him, shall not make any other foundation, either of chaff, or stubble, or of any other brittle stuff: but have a good foundation, steadfast, and substantial, ready laid to their hand. Likewise in our whole life we have to look unto this point: namely that if we be grounded upon good and rightful reason, it behooves each one of us to stand upon his guard, that he reel not, that he waver not one way or the other. For there is nothing easier than to mar a good and rightful matter, so sinful is our nature, as we find by experience at all times. God of His grace may give us a good case: and yet we may be so stung by our enemies, that we cannot hold ourselves within our bounds, nor simply follow that which God has enjoined us, without adding of some trick of our own. Seeing then that we be so easily carried away: we ought the rather to pray unto God, that when we have a good case, He Himself will vouchsafe to guide us in all singleness by His Holy Spirit, so as we may not pass the bounds, which He has set us by His word.

Let us never apply God’s truth to any evil use, as Job’s friends did.

Herewithal also we be put in mind, not to apply God’s truth to any evil use. For in so doing we dishonor it: like as these men do here, who although they speak holily (as we have shown already, and as we shall see more fully hereafter) are notwithstanding but traitors to God. For they corrupt God’s truth, and abuse it falsely, applying that thing to an evil end, which of itself is good and rightful. So then, whensoever God gives us the knowledge of His word, let us learn to receive it with such reverence, as our receiving of it may not be to deface good things, nor to set a color upon evil things, as oftentimes those that be most sharp witted and cunning, do overshoot themselves, and abuse the knowledge that God has given them, unto deceit and naughtiness, turning all things topsy-turvy, in such wise as they do nothing but ensnarl themselves. Considering therefore how all men are given to such infirmity: it stands us so much the more on hand, to pray God to give us the grace to apply His word to such use as He has ordained it: that is to wit, to pureness and simplicity. And thus you see what we ought to consider in effect.

Job lived in antiquity in a land outside of Israel, but he was well known by the Jews.

But now that we understand what is in this book: we must lay forth these matters more at length, in such sort as the things that we have but lightly touched, may be laid forth at large according to the process of the history. It is said, that There was a man in the land of Hus, named Job, a sound and upright man, and fearing God, and withdrawing himself from evil. We know not, neither can we guess in what time Job lived: saving that a man may perceive he was of great antiquity: howbeit that some of the Jews have been of opinion, that Moses was the author of this book: and that he did set it as a looking glass before the people, to the intent that the children of Abraham (of whose race he himself came) might know that God had shown favor to others that were not of the same line, and thereupon be ashamed if they themselves walked not purely in the fear of God, seeing that this man (which had not the mark of God’s covenant, nor was circumcised, but was a Pagan) had behaved himself so well. But forasmuch as this is not certain: we must leave it in suspense. Nevertheless let us take that which is out of all doubt: that is to wit, that the Holy Ghost has indicted this book, to the end that the Jews should know how God has had people to serve Him, albeit that they have not been separated out from the rest of the world: and that although they had not the sign of circumcision, yet notwithstanding they walked in all pureness of conversation. By the knowledge whereof, the Jews have had occasion to be so much the more diligent to keep the law of God: and since He had vouchsafed them such favor and prerogative, as to gather them out from among all other strange nations, they ought to dedicate themselves wholly unto Him. Also a man may perceive by the book of Ezekiel, that the name of Job was renowned among the people of Israel (Ezekiel 14). For in his fourteenth chapter we see it is said, that if Noah, Job, and Daniel were among the people that should perish, they should save no men’s lives but their own, and all the rest of the people should be destroyed. See how the Prophet speaks of these three men, as of such as were known and renowned among the Jews, as I have touched already. And thereby we see what the intent of the Holy Ghost is: namely that the Jews should have a mirror and pattern whereby to know, how they ought to keep the doctrine of salvation that was given unto them, seeing that this man which was of a strange nation, had so kept himself in such purity.

Job may have been of the Edomites, but was still a part of God’s church.

And that is the chief thing that we have to remember concerning the name that is set down here, when he says that he was of the land of Hus. True it is, that some men do place this land far eastward. Nevertheless in the fourth chapter of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, the same word Hus is put for a part of Edom. We know that the Edomites are descended of Esau: and true it is that they also had circumcision. Howbeit forasmuch as they were strayed away from God’s church, they had it no more as the sign of his covenant. Therefore if we take Job to have been of this land of Hus, then was he an Edomite, that is to say, of the line of Esau. And we know how the Prophet said, that although Jacob and Esau were natural brethren, both born at one burden: yet God of His mere goodness chose Jacob, rejecting Esau, and cursing him with all his whole lineage (Malachi 1:2, 3). Lo how the Prophet in speaking to magnify God’s mercy toward the Jews, tells them that He chose them not for any worthiness that was in their persons, considering that He had rejected Jacob’s eldest brother, to whom the birthright belonged, and had chosen him that was the younger and inferior. So then, although that this man was born of Esau’s line: yet notwithstanding we see how soundly he lived, and how he served God not only by upright conversation and equity among men: but also in pure religion, which he defiled not with the idolatries and superstitions of the infidels.

Job’s name.

As touching the name of Job, some interpret it to signify weeping or wailing. And other some take it for an utter enemy, not such a one as he hates, but such a one as is as it were a white for men to shoot at.

Other Scripture makes it certain that Job was a real person and that these events really happened.

There is no cause why we should doubt whether this man (whose country is so marked out, and whose name is expressed) were or no, or lived or no, or whether the things that are written here, did come to pass or no: so we should think it to be but a tale contrived, as if a man should under a counterfeit name set out some thing unto us that was never done. For I have already alleged the records of Ezekiel, and also of Saint James who showed right well that there was a Job indeed. And further, seeing that the story itself declares it, we cannot in any wise deface the thing which the Holy Ghost meant to utter so precisely.

There was still more soundness in religion in the world at than time than there is now.

As for the residue, we have to mark, that in that time, although the world was fallen away from the true serving of God, and from pure Religion: yet notwithstanding there was still far more soundness by a great deal, than there is at this day, especially in the Papacy. And indeed we see, that in Abraham’s time Melchizedek had God’s church and sacrifices which were without any defilement (Genesis 14:18).

Though full of error, the world still contained some reserved by God to worship Him.

And so albeit that the more part of the world was wrapped in manifold errors, and false and wicked imaginations: yet notwithstanding, God had reserved some little seed to Himself, and He had always some that were still under the pure truth, yea and which awaited continually when God should establish His church, and choose out one people, (that is to wit the offspring of Abraham) to the end they might know that they were picked out from the rest of the whole world. But very true it is, that Job lived after this time, howbeit that the Church of God was not then so well established as it was afterward. For we know that while the children of Israel lived in Egypt, it was like that all should have come to naught. And especially we see to what an afterdeal they were come in the end when Pharaoh commanded that their menchildren should be killed (Ex. 1:16): and in the wilderness where it seemed that God had rejected them. When they were come into the country of Canaan, they had great battles against their enemies, and especially the service of God and His tabernacle were not yet there so well appointed as was requisite. God therefore having not yet settled an apparent state of the Church, would there should always remain some final seeds of it among the Pagans, to the intent he might be worshipped: and that was also to convince those that are turned aside out of the right way like Pagans: for Job alone was enough to condemn a whole country. Noah also condemned the whole world (as the Scripture says, Hebrews 11:6, 7) because he held himself always in pureness, and walked as before God, at such time as every man had forgotten Him, and all men were gone astray in their own superstitions. Here then is Noah judge of the whole world, to condemn the unbelievers and rebels. As much is to be said of Job, who has condemned all the people of that country: in that he has served God purely, and the residue were full of idolatry, shameful deeds, and many errors. And this came to pass, because they held scorn to know the true and living God, and how and after what sort it was His will to be honored. So great regard has God always had (as I have said) to make the wicked and the unbelievers always inexcusable. And for this cause it was His will, that there should always be some men that should follow the things that He had shown to the ancient fathers. Such a one was Job, as the scripture tells us, and as this present story shows full well, who served God purely, and lived uprightly among men.

Job was a sound man.

It is said, that He was a sound man. This word Sound in the scripture is taken for a plainness, when there is no point of feigning, counterfeiting, or hypocrisy in a man, but that he shows himself the same outwardly that he is inwardly, and especially when he has no starting holes to shift himself from God, but lays open his heart, and all his thoughts and affections, so as he desires nothing but to consecrate and dedicate himself wholly unto God. The said word has also been translated perfect, as well by the Greeks as by the Latins. But for as much as the word perfect, has afterward been misconstrued: it is much better for us to use the word Sound. For many ignorant persons, not knowing how the said perfection is to be taken, have thoughts thus: Behold here is a man that is called perfect, and therefore it follows, that it is possible for us to have perfection in ourselves, even during the time that we walk in this present life. But they deface the grace of God, whereof we have need continually. For even they that have lived most uprightly, must have recourse to God’s mercy: and except their sins be forgiven them, and that God uphold them, they must needs all perish. So then, although that they which have used the word perfect, have meant well: yet notwithstanding for as much as there have been some that have wrested it to a contrary sense, (as I have said) let us keep still the word Sound. Then look upon Job, who is called Sound.

Job was sound because he was not a hypocrite.

And how so? It is because there was no hypocrisy nor dissimulation, nor any doubleness of heart in him. For when the scripture means to set down the vice that is contrary to this virtue of Soundness: it says, Heart and Heart, meaning thereby a double heart. Let us mark then, that first of all this title is attributed unto Job, to show that he had a pure and simple mind, that he bare not two faces in one wood, nor served God by halves, but labored to give himself wholly unto Him. True it is that as now we cannot be so sound as to attain to the mark as were to be wished. For as touching those that follow the right way, although they go on forward limping: yet are they so lame, that they drag their legs and their wings after them. The case then stands so with us, so long as we be wrapped in this mortal body, that until such time as God has quite discharged us of all the miseries whereunto we be subject: there shall never be any perfect soundness in us, as I have said before. But yet for all that, it behooves us nevertheless to come to the said plainness, and to give over all counterfeitness and leasing. And further, let us note, that the true holiness begins within us, insomuch that if we show all the fairest countenances in the world before men, and that our life be so well guided that every man shall commend us: yet if we have not this plainness and soundness before God, all is right naught. For it behooves that the fountain be first pure, and afterward that the streams that run out of it be pure also. Otherwise the water may well be clear: and yet nevertheless be bitter, or else have some other filthy corruption in it. Therefore it behooves us to begin always with this text, That God will be served in spirit, and in truth (John 4:24): for He is a spirit, and He regards the truth of the heart, as it is said in the fifth of Jeremiah. Then ought we to learn first and foremost, to frame our hearts to the obeying of God.

Job was upright.

For after that Job has been reported to have been sound, it is also said of him that He was upright. This uprightness is meant of the life that he led, which is as it were the fruit of the said root which the Holy Ghost had planted before. Job then had an upright and sound heart. For his life was simple, that is to say, he walked and lived among his neighbors, without hurting of any person, without doing any wrong or trouble to anybody, without setting of his mind to any guile or naughtiness, and without seeking his own profit by the hindrance of other folks. We see now what this uprightness imports, which is added in this place.

We should be upright in all ways before God and men.

And hereby we be admonished, to have an agreeableness between our heart and our outward senses. True it is (as I have said before) that we may well withhold ourselves ill-doing, and that we may well have a fair show before men: but that shall be nothing, if there by any hypocrisy or covert dissimulation before God, when it comes to the root that is within the heart. What must we do then? We must begin at the foresaid point, as I have told you before: and then to have perfect soundness, it behooves that our eyes, our hands, our feet, our arms, and our legs be answering thereunto: so as in our whole life we may show that our will is to serve God, and how that it is not in vain that we pretend a meaning to keep the same soundness within. And here you may see why Saint Paul also exhorts the Galatians to walk after the Spirit, if they live after the Spirit: as if he should say (Galatians 5). Verily it behooves that the Spirit of God dwell in us and govern us. For it is of no purpose to have a gay life that pleases men, and is had in great estimation, unless we be renewed by the grace of God. But what? It behooves us to walk: that is to say, it behooves us to show in effect, and by our work, how the Spirit of God reigns in our minds. For if our hands be stained with robbery, with cruelty, or with other annoyances: if the eyes be carried with lewd and unchaste looks, with coveting other men’s goods, with pride, or with vanity: or if the feet (as the scripture says) be swift to do evil: thereby we will declare, that our heart is full of naughtiness and corruption. For it is neither the feet nor the hands, nor the eyes that guide themselves: the guiding of them comes of the mind and the heart. Wherefore let us endeavor to have the said agreeableness which the scripture shows us, when it says, that Job having this soundness and plain meaning, did also live uprightly, that is to say was conversant among his neighbors without any annoying of them, and without seeking of his own peculiar profit, and kept an even hand with all the world. Also you see the reason why God proves whether we serve Him faithfully or no: It is not for that He has need or our service, or of anything that we can do: Because that when we deal well with our neighbors, so as we keep our faithfulness toward all men, according as nature itself teaches us: in so doing we yield assurance that we fear God. We see many which bear the face of very zealous Christians, so long as it is but to dispute, and to hold long talk, and to bear men in hand that they study to serve God, and to honor Him: and yet for all that, as soon as they have to do with their neighbors, a man shall perceive what they have in their hearts. For they seek their own advantage, and make no conscience to rake to themselves, and to beguile folk when they have them in their danger, by what means so ever it be. Now then there is no doubt, but that those which seek their own advantage and profit, are hypocrites, and that their heart is corrupt: and how earnest Christians so ever they seem outwardly, God bewrays that they have nothing but dung and poison in their hearts: And why for? For look where soundness is, there must needs be uprightness also: That is to say, If the affection be pure within, then will it follow, that when we have to deal with men, we shall procure the welfare of every man, in such wise as we shall not be given to ourselves and to our private commodity, but shall have that indifference which Jesus Christ avouches to be the rule of life, and the whole sum of the law and the prophets: namely that we do not that thing to any other man, which we would not have done to ourselves. So then, we perceive that by this commendation of Job many men are condemned, forasmuch as the Holy Ghost declares, that this man had not only a soundness before God, but also an uprightness and plain dealing among men. This plain dealing which he speaks of, shall serve to give sentence of damnation upon all such as are full of maliciousness, and upon all such as pass not to snatch and rake to themselves the goods of other men, or which pass not to spoil other men of their livings. This sort of men are condemned by this present text.

Job feared God, which is necessary for being upright.

For it follows, that He feared God, yea, that he was a man which feared God, and withdrew himself from evil. Now seeing that Job had had the praise of keeping right and equity among men: it behooved him also to walk before God: for without that, the rest is nothing worth. True it is (as I have said before) that we can not live with our neighbors to do harm to none, and to do good to all: unless we have an eye unto God. For as for them that follow their own nature, albeit that they be endued with goodly virtues, (for so will it seem) yet are they overtaken with self love, and it is nothing else but vaingloriousness, or some other such respect which thrusts them forward: in so much that all the show of virtue which appeared in them is marred thereby. But although we cannot have the said uprightness without the fearing of God, yet notwithstanding, the serving of God, and the regarding of our neighbors are two several things, in likewise as God has distinguished them in His law, at such time as it pleased Him to have them written out in the two tables. Then let us bear in mind, that like as heretofore under the words uprightness, the Holy Ghost meant to show after what manner Job lived among men: so also when he says that Job feared God, he means to set out the religion that was in him. And hereby we be warned, that if we will frame our life aright, we must first have an eye unto God, and then to our neighbors. I say we must have an eye unto God, to give ourselves over unto Him, and to yield Him His due honor. And we must have an eye to our neighbors, to discharge ourselves or our duty towards them, according to that we be commanded to help them, and to live in equity and uprightness: and finally (forasmuch as God has knit us each to other) that every man study to employ his whole ability to the common commodity of all. Thus we see how the case stands with us in having of an eye both to God and men, for the well ordering of our life: for he that looks on himself, is sure that he has nothing but vanity in him. For if a man were able to order his life in such wise, as he might seem faultless to the world, and yet notwithstanding, God disliked him: what shall he gain by his overlaboring of himself to walk in such wise as all men might magnify him? As to Godward he is nothing else but uncleanness, and needs must this sentence which is written in St. Luke (16:15) be verified, namely that the thing which is most high and excellent before men, is abominable before God. Then let us bear in mind, that we can never order our life as we ought to do, except we have our eyes fastened upon God and our neighbor. Upon God? And wherefore? To the end we may know, that we be created to His glory, to serve Him and to worship Him. For although He has no need of us as our neighbors have, nor is either the better or the worse for our service: yet it is His will to have reasonable creatures which should know Him, and in knowing Him, yield Him that which belongs unto Him.

This fear of God is the respect and honor due to Him as our Creator and Father.

Furthermore, whereas he speaks of the fear of God: we have to understand, that it is not a slavish fear (as men term it): but it is so termed in respect of the honor which we owe Him, for that He is our father and master: Do we fear God? Then is it certain that we desire nothing but to honor Him and to be wholly His. Do we know Him? That must be in such wise as He has uttered Himself: that is to wit, that He is our maker, our maintainer, and one that has shown such fatherly goodness towards us, that we of duty ought to be as children towards Him, if we will not be utterly unthankful. Also it behooves us to acknowledge His dominion and superiority over us, to the end that every of us yielding Him His due honor, may learn to please Him in all respects. Thus you see, how that under this fearing of God, here is comprehended all religion: that is to wit, all the service and honor which the creature owes unto their God.

We should fear God even when we are surrounded by people who do not, and especially when we are blessed to hear His word.

And surely it was a right excellent virtue in Job to fear God after that manner, considering how the whole world was turned aside from the right way. When we hear this, we perceive that although we live among the very naughtiest packs in the whole world, we shall be utterly inexcusable, if we be not given to the serving of God as we ought to be: And this is well to be marked, because many men are of opinion, that when they are among the thorns, God will hold them acquit and excused: and that if afterward they corrupt themselves, (or as the Proverb says) hold with the Hare, and hunt with the Hound, (which is all one) God will pardon them. But contrariwise look upon Job, who is called a man that feared God. In what country? It was not in Jewry, it was not in the city of Jerusalem, it was not in the Temple: but it was in a defiled place, in the midst of such as were utterly perverted. Albeit then that he were among such people, yet had he such stay of himself, and lived in such wise, that he walked purely among his neighbors, notwithstanding that at that time all was full of cruelty, of outrage, of robbery, and of such other like enormities in that place. Whereupon we have to consider, that it shall turn so much to our great shame, if we on our behalf have not a care to keep ourselves pure in the service of God, and of our neighbors, seeing He gives us such occasion as we have, that is to wit, that God’s word is continually preached unto us, that we be exhorted unto it, and that He reforms us when we have done amiss. It stands us on hand then to give ear to that which is shown us here.

Job withdrew himself from evil.

And therefore in conclusion let us mark that which is added here in the text: namely that he withdrew himself from evil. For we see that the cause why Job overcame all let and encounters that might hinder him from the serving of God, and from living uprightly among men, was for that he had a stay of himself: for he knew right well, that if he had taken liberty to do like other men, he should have been given to all vices, so as he should have been the enemy of God. Job then walked not so in the fear of God and in such plain dealing and soundness, without great store of encounters, or without the Devils heaving at him to overthrow him and to cast him into the filthiness of the whole world: but he withdrew himself from evil, that is to say, he withheld himself.

Though surrounded by evil, we must not participate in it.

What must we do then? Although we be in the church of God, yet we see great abundance of evils, and (howsoever it happens) there shall never be such plainness and pureness, but we shall be mingled with store of scorners and unthrifts which are firebrands of hell and deadly plagues to infect all men. Therefore it behooves us to be very wary, seeing there are so many stumblingblocks and so great looseness, whereby to train us forthwith unto unthriftiness. What remedy then? Let us withdraw ourselves from evil: that is to say, let us fight against such assaults after the example of Job: and when we see abundances of vices and corruptions reign in the world, albeit that we be fain to be intermeddled with them, yet let us not be defiled with them, nor say as commonly men are wont, namely that we must needs do as other men do: but rather let us take counsel by Job’s example to withdraw ourselves from evil, and to retire in such sort, as Satan may not be able to make us to yield for all the temptations that he shall cast before us: but that we may suffer God to cleanse us from all our filthiness and infection (according as He has promised us in the name of Jesus Christ), until he has pulled us quite out of the soil and uncleanness of this world, to match us with His Angels, and to make us partakers of that endless felicity, for the which we must labor here continually.

Closing prayer.

Therefore let us present ourselves before the face of our good God, with acknowledgment of our sins, praying Him to give us such feeling, that in acknowledging our own poorness, we may always have recourse to the remedy that He gives us: which is, that He pardoning all our offenses, will so govern us by His Holy Spirit, that although Satan be named the Prince of the world, and have such a scope among men, that the more part of them are so perverted as we see: yet notwithstanding we may not be harried away with them: but rather that our good God will hold us back under His obeisance, and that we may know the thing whereunto we be called, so as we may follow it, and maintain the brotherliness which He has ordained among us, so linking ourselves one with another, as we may desire nothing but to procure the welfare of our neighbors, to the end we may be settled more and more in His grace which He has granted us by our Lord Jesus Christ, until He make us to receive the fruit of it in His heavenly glory: and that it may please Him to bestow this benefit and grace not only upon us, but also upon all people and nations of the earth: etc.

Gerald Ford, 1913-2006

2006-12-26T23:02:00.000-08:00

Another ex-president has passed away, so let us all please lower our flags to half mast. I would like to remember President Ford with those quote from...a reputable soruce:

First things first: Gerald Rudolph Ford was probably the greatest natural athlete who ever assumed the Presidency. Yes, he tripped on the Air Force One staircase in Salzburg, Austria. Everyone knows he tumbled down the stairs in full view of press and local dignitaries. What most people forget is that Ford managed to land on his feet and shake the hands of the reception committee without missing a beat. Try doing that when you're 64 years old.

Right on.

Study Bibles and Theology

2006-12-01T01:18:00.000-08:00

The other day I was in either a Mardel or Lifeway bookstore (I don't remember which), and I was looking at the the theology section. Now despite there being a separate section containing only Bibles, the theology section had three Bibles on its shelves. Those three Bibles just happened to be the Reformation Study Bible, the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, and the John MacArthur Study Bible.

I just thought that was kind of funny.

The stockers apparently didn't think that any of the other study Bibles contained any theology.

And they'd probably be right (concerning the study notes).

Now that I think of it, I probably find something to laught at every time I'm in a Christian book store. Unfortunately, I also always find something to get mad at. And unless it is a big store like Mardel, I almost never find anything I actually want to read. Le sigh.

While I'm thinking up random stuff, here's another one for you: Last Sunday as I was driving to my church's new building for the first time, I saw another church whose name caught my eye. It was "St. Jude's Baptist Church". I have NEVER in all my years seen a Baptist church named after a saint. Isn't that weird? I wonder how they were able to name their church that without all of the other Baptists stoning them.

Here's a question for you, the reader. That's right, all...zero of you. Have any of you ever seen a Baptist church named after a saint?

Thanks For the Memes

2006-08-16T20:59:00.000-07:00

Recently I have been seeing some silly questionaires at various Christian blogs, and I thought I'd join in, despite the fact that nobody knows who I am or reads my blog. I have seen two different versions of the questionaire, so I am combining them into one.

I have decided to impose some rules on myself, just for the fun of it. For one thing, I am not going to use the Bible as any of my answers, because that is cheating. Most of the questions could be answered with "the Bible." I am not relagating the Bible to less importance--I am merely going to assume that my readers (if there be any) themselves will assume that I would answer "the Bible" for most of the questions.

Another rule is that I am not going to name the same book twice, though in many cases I very well could. Sort of like the Bible rule.

Also, I will add that in many cases there are lots of books that I could name, and so the answers I come up with may not be my favorites. For one thing, if I did that, I would be violating my first and second rules. For another thing, I simply may not be able to decide or remember what would be my favorite book for a particular question, so I'm just sort of going with what first comes to mind.

And finally, as some other bloggers have disclaimed, my answers do not necessarily indicate an endorsement for the idealogies of the books and/or authors.

Okay, let's begin.

1. One book that has changed my life: The Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul
2. One book I have read more than once: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
3. One book I would want with me on a deserted island: This is tough without violating my self-imposed rules. Let me say, one book besides the Bible...um...The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien.
4. One book that has made me laugh: Apathy and Other Small Victories by Paul Neilan
5. One book that has made me cry: I don't know if that has ever happened, but the closest that I can think of in recent memory would be Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said by Philip K. Dick
6. One book I wish had been written: A chronicle of all my dad's childhood stories.
7. One book I wish had never been written: Holy Blood, Holy Grail
8. One book I am currently reading: The Roots of Endurance by John Piper
9. One book I have been meaning to read: Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin
10. One book that has scared me: I don't know that a book has ever scared me, but I have been given a creepy feeling after reading various stories in Best Ghost Stories of Algernon Blackwood by...uh...Algernon Blackwood.
11. One book that has disgusted me: Well, not to jump on any bandwagons, but Haunted by Chuck Palahniuk.
12. One book that I loved in elementary school: Anything by Lloyd Alexander, particularly the Prydain chronicles.
13. One book that I loved in middle school: Despite my having been very critical of this book in the comments of another blog, at the time I loved The Sword of Shannara by Terry Brooks. In middle school, yes. I somehow was able to read much larger books in much shorter time back then than I can now.
14. One book that I loved in high school: Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams. I never made a rule against using the same author twice.
15. One book that I loved in college: Well, I guess that would still be right now but...um...Lolita by Vladimir Nabakov.
16. One book that challenged my identity or my faith: I hate to copy off of Charles Sebold at Talking Out of Turn, but really he read my mind. The Potter's Freedom by James White. Sproul got the ball rolling, but this book is the one that really made me uncomfortable. Thank God for uncomfortable books.
17. A series that you love: Okay, I am going to have to sort of break my own rule (sort of) by saying the Hitchhiker's series by Douglas Adams. As much as Adams and I were diametrically opposed in our personal beliefs, as much as it breaks my heart to be convinced that (unless God stepped in at the last moment) Douglas Adams is now writhing in the hottest part of hell, I am a giant fan of his books. No, that is an understatement. I can recite long portions of the series from memory (mostly thanks to the radio show). And now that I'm being so open about all of this, I will go ahead and say that I could have used any one of his books to answer questions 1, 3, 4, 13, 14, 15. Also, the book that was posthumously released, A Salmon of Doubt, could be an answer for 9 because I have never read the whole thing, mostly because it depresses me because of the parts that I have read (concerning his hyper-atheism), so therefore I could also use that book to answer numbers 7 and 11. And finally, I could answer number 6 with something along the lines of How God Saved Even a Militant Atheist as I Was by Douglas Adams. Oh, how my heart hurts me to type that as a book I wish had been written instead it being a book that had been written. When I learned that he died 5 years ago, it hurt me hard. Not only for the selfish reason that I would never have any great new Douglas Adams books to read, not only because the way I learned was a very bad way to learn that one of your favorite persons has died (it was a question and answer on a radio game show--"What famous author of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy died this week at the age of 50?"--That was a harsh way to learn)--not only those reasons, but because last I knew he was a fierce God-hater, and was now dead with no further opportunity for salvation. Let this be a lesson for us to witness like the dickens, for though we may not be able to communicate with our favorite celebrities, everybody around us is just as precious and in need of salvation, and who knows, they may become the next big thing and then be out of the reach our our witness. Anyway, back to the questions.
18. My favorite horror book: Well, I don't think of him as a horror writer, but the horror section is where his books are found, so anything by H.P. Lovecraft, particularly The Strange Case of Charles Dexter Ward.
19. My favorite science fiction book: *cough* See number 17....But besides that, I would probably have to say....Actually, I don't think I can say definately. But one that really comes to mind right now is Time Out of Joint by Philip K. Dick. Or anything by PKD, actually.
20. My favorite fantasy book: Another hard one. I might have to break my rule again and say Lord of the Rings. I used to read a lot of fantasy until I read Tolkien, and then I realized that everybody since him just copies him. I will give mention to David Eddings--I read some of his books many years ago, and I remember enjoying them and thinking that the characters were pretty original in the sense that they were so...I don't know...goofy. Not like dorky, but they just weren't your normal serious fantasy characters, but nor were they the type you find in a the sort of books that are intentionally humor-fantasy. Also, I love everything that I have read by Lord Dunsany. I guess that is considered fantasy.
21. My favorite mystery book: I have never read a mystery book. So I guess I would just say the ratiocination stories by Edgar Allen Poe.
22. My favorite biography: Lovecraft by L. Sprague de Camp. That was almost more interesting the Lovecraft's actual writings.
23. My favorite coming of age book: I don't know if anybody else would consider this a coming of age book, but I would have to say All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque. Here you see people coming of age in a whole new world.
24. My favorite book not on this list: The Mystery Science Theater 3000 Amazing Colossal Episode Guide. I have already worn out one copy and am on work wearing out the second.

Roger Keith Barrett - January 6, 1946 – July 7, 2006

2006-07-12T01:48:00.000-07:00

Syd Barrett, the incredibly creative, intriguing, and other-minded musician, has died at the age of 60. Best known as the founder of Pink Floyd, Barrett is probably the most mythic figure in music history since Robert Johnson. So bizarre and often garbled is his story, that most people assume he died years ago. I will not eulogize on his brilliance because so many others have already done so. But I do recommend for any who may be reading this, to listen to Syd's solo albums. Pink Floyd's Piper at the Gates of Dawn is fine and good, but you really must listen to The Madcap Laughs. I also recommend that you read Nick Mason's book Inside Out: A Personal History of Pink Floyd. And if you feel like setting up an eternal flame somewhere, dedicate to Syd Barrett.

Dallas Mavericks Lose NBA Finals

2006-06-20T21:08:00.000-07:00

Those of you who really know me will be really surprised that I'm writing a post about sports because I have long been completely ignorant and uncaring of all things sporting. But my wife has always liked basketball and when the NBA playoffs started, she began watching. And so I did, too. And living right next door to Dallas, I have turned into a big Mavericks fan. So I was disappointed to see the Mavs just lose the final by, I think, three points.

The Mavericks' team chaplain is Dr. Tony Evans, who is broadcast on NRB, right before RC Sproul. I only watch that channel for Sproul, so I often catch the end of Tony Evans, and though I don't know anything else about him, I have liked what I've heard. He seems to preach the Bible and not just fluff.

Anyway, Dwayne Wade of the Miami Heat deserves their victory. Admittedly I have only watched basketball for a few weeks, plus some as a kid, but I have never seen anybody score as often as Wade, especially in very difficult circumstances. That guy just can't miss, and the Mavs kept fouling him. Silly people! Don't foul Wade! I bet that about 1/3 of Miami's score was from free throws, and most of those from Wade.

I hope he gets MVP.

SBC Passes Resolution to Add to Christ's Yoke

2006-06-15T13:46:00.000-07:00

At the recent Convention, Southern Baptists passed a resolution to ban all use of alcohol. You can read the article at http://www.timellsworth.com/?p=1041. When trying to find more information about this resolution, I found this article at http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23481. I will now give you the opportunity to read both pages.

Okay. I'll start off with some positive things to say. The resolution is not binding on individual churches. So if any individual SBC-affiliated church decides to allow its members to drink in moderation, there will be no punishment visited upon that church or its drinking members. Secondly, the Baptist Press article mentions my man Tom Ascol of the Founders Ministries speaking against the resolution, and that is just grand. I refer to him as "my man" because I have decided that Dr. Ascol is one of my favorite people. His blog is probably my favorite to read, and his theology is always spot on. And whereas he may not go as deep as often as people like Dr. James White, he has such a gracious personality that I can't help but regard him as my favorite Reformed Baptist theologian. But I digress.

Now what can I say negatively about this resolution? Probably a lot.

To begin with, the powers that be in the SBC make the common mistake of not differentiating between using alcohol and abusing alcohol.

WHEREAS, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damage (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35)

Provers 23:30 says that "They that tarry long at the wine" are the ones who suffer. Admittedly, how long "long" is is somewhat subjective, but anybody (at least when talking about any other topic) would agree that there is a difference between "tarrying long" at something and using it in moderation. As some of the commentators at Tim Ellsworth's blog pointed out, the same Proverb speaks against gluttony and adultery, but that doesn't mean that we should completely abstain from food and women.

The simple truth is that every time the Bible speaks against alcohol is when it is speaking against drunkenness. "Oh, well," says the ignorant objector, "nobody knows how much alcohol it takes to make a person drunk, so it is bes to avoid it all together." "Oh, well," I could just as easily retort, "nobody knows how much food it takes to make them a glutton, so we should just starve to death." "Now Stephen," you may say, "you're just being difficult. There is a huge different between the two!" Oh really? How so? How are the Biblical injuctions against drunkenness any different than the injunctions against gluttony? They are almost always in the same context and usually in the same verses! "Well," you say, "it is different because the Bible obviously expects us to eat." It also expects us to enjoy wine now and then. I could give all the examples in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, that give examples of wine being called a blessing from God (if you deny that then you're no longer an inerrantist, Mr. Fundy), or of Jesus drinking wine, or of Paul recommending wine to Timothy. And here is where the real ignorance comes in. "But," you say, "that wasn't wine like we know it. It was so watered down so as to be only 1% alcoholic." How do you know that? 'Cause your pastor told you so? Because you read it in a pamphlet and just accepted the author's word for it? Or because you've done a word study of the Hebrew and Greek words used for wine? It's obviously not the latter or else you would have discovered that there IS NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between the wine mentioned postively in the Bible and the wine mentioned negatively. Even the wine that silly people say was barely alcoholic still made people drunk! If the wine in Jesus' time was just grape juice, then how did so many people get drunk off of it? If it was just grape juice then all of the Biblical commands against drunkenness would be silly! No, that wine that Jesus drank was probably around 13% alcoholic and made people drunk when they drank too much. You see, back in those days they didn't have pasteurization or refrigeration or other of the modern preservative techniques that we have to give us nice grape juice. Unless they drank all of the juice as soon as it was squeezed out (unlikely because then they'd have nothing to drink during the non-growing months), the juice either quickly fermented or turned into vinegar. And the fermentation process could not be stopped except by the natural way of when the alcohol content reaches a certain point that it begins killing the yeast that causes fermentation, and that point is about 12-17%.

Now then, what about this statement in the resolution that "some religious leaders...are now advocating the consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of 'our freedom in Christ'"? How is this a misinterpretation? I'd like some exposition on this. Unfortunately, I'm looking in the wrong place. Does now our freedom in Christ allow us to exercise our own judgment on matters not prohibited by the Bible? Would that not be an accurate interpretation? And is that not an accurate assessment of the alcohol issue? The moderate use of alcohol is not prohibited by the Bible, therefore Christians are free to drink or abstain as they wish?

Finally, we are told that "Also added to this resolution was an amendment urging the SBC to disallow anyone who drinks alcohol from serving as an entity/agency trustee or an SBC committee member." I do not consider myself a drinker because having a glass of wine every 3 months or so just doesn't seem to cut it. Nevertheless, since that is not complete abstinence, I'm sure that the bigwigs in the SBC would consider me as a person who drinks alcohol. I'm sure that they would consider a person such as Dr. Kenneth Gentry, who does not drink at all but nevertheless writes in favor of moderate drinking, a drinker. Because the facts don't really matter, it's just whose side you're on. Anyway, I guess it is a good thing that I would never be able to serve as an entity/agency trustee or an SBC committee member anyway because I'm not one of the "good ol' boys." After all, I would need Paige Patterson's endoresment to get a job anywhere high up in the SBC, and since I'm a Calvinist, that would never happen.

By the way, good ol' boy Paige mentioned this issue during his "discussion" about Calvinist with Dr. Al Mohler, Patterson said something to the effect that Calvinism concerns him because in some Calvinistic circles there is a tendency towards antinomianism-even saying that Christians are allowed to drink alcohol!

Now look here, Paige Patterson, the proper definition of an antinomian is a person who does not believe that God's law is binding on a believer. God's law, not your law, Mr. Patterson. It is true that many Calvinists do believe that Christians may drink in moderation freely, but I have yet to meet an antinomian Calvinist. As Patterson said earlier in his speech, when saying some positive traits of Calvinists, they are often lead lives of extreme holiness and piety. Which is it, Paige? Do Calvinists advocate holiness or antinomianism? You can't have it both ways. If you want to root out antinomianism in the SBC, then go after your Dispensational friends. That is where that brand of error thrives the most today. I would say that the majority of Southern Baptists are practical antinomians, and where you find the minority that are not is in the Calvinistic churches.

But of course, I am speaking as if being holy meant being faithful to God's law and obeying His precepts. Paige Patterson and the other fundamentalists are more concernted with obeying man's law. Too bad that such issues as the inerrancy of Scripture and the literal blood atonement of Christ are no longer "fundamentals" of the faith. I think persons such as myself should be called fundamentalists and the others should be called peripheralists. And just in case any of you should think that I'm a liberal because of my denunciation of fundamentalism, let me tell you what I think of liberals--I think they should be called "none-of-the-above-ists." That is, they don't believe in the fundamentals or the peripherals. They don't believe in anything that is Christianity. I agree with J. Gresham Machen that the struggle with liberalism isn't a struggle within the church, it is a struggle against the church. It isn't "Conservatism vs. Liberalism", it is "Christianity vs. Liberalism."

And so I have ended on another digression (I do that a lot).

6-6-06

2006-06-06T16:14:00.000-07:00

Well, the clock on the wall says that today is 6-6-06, and dumb people are getting dumber. I just want to remind all of my gentle readers of what the Bible actually says: "This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666" (emphasis mine). So you see, the number refers to a man, and not to a date or UPC or anything else. Also, the number 666 is perhaps better translated as "six hundred sixty-six." What is the difference, you may ask? Simple. The number is not merely a set of three sixes, but is a whole number made up of six hundred sixty-six smaller numbers. So John the Revelator wasn't telling us to look for a series of sixes, but the actual number 666. But it's so fun to turn Christianity into just another kook superstition, isn't it? Rather than paying attention to what was actually written in the Bible, let's make up all sorts of silly things to go along with it and start getting spooked by every little thing that comes our way. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

The Resurrection Conspiracy

2006-04-28T02:26:00.000-07:00

I realize that this post is a bit behind the times, what with it being Easter related and all, and Easter is now past, but oh well. Back during the Easter week, I listened to a sermon by John MacArthur at www.gty.org from his series called The Murder of Jesus. It was about the Resurrection, and how Matthew seemed to be offering an apologetic for the resurrection using negative testimony. That is to say, rather than quoting everybody who did see the resurrected Christ, Matthew wrote about the Jewish leaders' conspiracy to make it appear that Christ's body had been stolen. It is as if Matthew was saying, "Look, you know Jesus rose from the dead because even His enemies tacitly acknowledged His resurrection by knowingly crafting a lie." The lie that the Jewish leaders concocted was that the disciples stole Jesus' body. That way, their beloved friend won't have looked like an idiot for predicting His resurrection. That, said MacArthur, was the only other explanation that could possibly be believed by anyone. I started thinking about all this, and I had a thought. Dr. MacArthur didn't mention this, it was must me going off on a tangent. Here is my thought:

Over and over again in the Gospels, we read of Jesus making comments about His impending death and resurrection, and we always then read of how His disciples had no idea what He was talking about. By the time you're done reading it all, one fact is firmly implanted into your brain: the disciples were absolutely clueless about Jesus' death and resurrection. His crucifixion came as a complete surprise to them, and it obviously left them very disappointed and disillusioned men. So then I thought this: If the disciples had no idea that Jesus was going to come back to life, it would never have occurred to them to steal Jesus' body! If we can accept the Scriptural testimony that the disciples were completely ignorant of Jesus' return to life, then that blows another hole in the anti-resurrection conspiracy.

The Interconnectedness of All Things

2006-04-15T00:21:00.000-07:00

Lately I've been in a big George Harrison mood. I've been listening to all of his albums (or all of that I've got, anyway) over and over again. Keep that in mind.

I've also been on a bit of a Peter Sellers kick. I've been watching the Pink Panther movies, and I decided to listen to one of the discs from my Celebration of Sellers boxed set, a collection of his comedy albums. One lady that Sellers collaborated with on some tracks was a comedienne named Irene Handl. She seems pretty funny, so I thought I'd look up some information on her. It turns out that she was in the movie Wonderwall, with music by George Harrison (that soundtrack is one of the two George Harrison albums that I do not yet have). I noticed that the screenplay for this movie was written by G. Cabrera Infante, an author of Cuban birth who writes beautiful (though often smutty) prose. One of his cleaner books, Holy Smoke, is a beautifully written book, clever and funny, as well as informative. It is about cigars, one of my other great passions. That book is one of my favorites. But I didn't know that he wrote screenplays. I looked to see what other screenplays he had done, and one is Vanishing Point. Well, this movie features a line quoted by Axl Rose in the Guns 'N' Roses song "Breakdown." GNR is one of my favorite bands. Vanishing Point also features "Delaney & Bonnie and Friends", a group that George Harrison played around with, and most of which backed him up on his smash album All Things Must Pass.

Isn't it fun how all these things just connect together? Dirk Gently would be proud.

Beatlemania

2006-03-16T22:28:00.000-08:00

I am a Beatles fan. The Beatles were the ones who made me want to play guitar. All my life consisted of for my teenage years was just The Beatles. As I got older I developed interest into other bands that took up more of my time and album-collecting energy, but the Beatles still hold that special spot in my heart as the Honorary Best Band Ever. Tonight I watched my DVD of their first film, A Hard Day's Night, plus one of the documentaries included. As I watched the documentary and they talked about the opening showings in London and Liverpool and whatnot, I had a thought. Which was this: Imagine how aggravating it would have been to not be a Beatles fan and trying to enjoy an evening in London's West End on the opening day of that film. Teenagers everywhere. I found London to be a little too crowded as it is. Can you imagine trying in to take in a little bit of the theater while all of that was going on next door? Criminy. Of course, only a fool would not be a Beatles fan, so I have no sympathy. Another thought that I've had for years is how it would have been to be a male teenage fan during Beatlemania. All of the media focus was on all the screaming girls, so male fans would probably have been perceived as a little gay. Oh well. I would have tried to get into a concert, too.

Inerrant Revelation

2006-02-24T13:48:00.000-08:00

When it comes to eschatology, I am a partial preterist. Being a partial preterist, I like to think that I interpret the Bible sensus literalis, that is, in the literal sense in which it was written. In other words, poetry is interpreted as poetry, historical narrative is interpreted as historical narrative, etc. And first and foremost, I believe that Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. If I come across a passage that is hard to understand, I compare it to similar passages that are more easily understood. Despite all of this, your average Dispensationalist (like the guys who write for Jerry Falwell's newspaper) will accuse my kind of not taking Scripture literally, and will perhaps slip in the accusation of liberalism somewhere (especially towards those of us who are Postmillennial). Which is all very odd. There are many different examples of how this can be proved false, some of which I may have posted in the past (I'm too old to remember what I've written, and too lazy to check). Today, I will provide just one or two examples of why partial-preterism is more literal in its hermeneutic than is Dispensationalism, and why it allows less leeway for liberalism.

My example comes from the book of Revelation, chapter 6, verses 12-17:

12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. 14 The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”

Many people look at this and say, "Here, now, this must be about the end of all things, and not just the destruction of Jerusalem, as you preterist say. You're just not interpreting it literally!"

Well, I am interpreting it in the sense it which it was written, which is apocalyptic literature, which is full of symbols and imagery. This can be seen by looking at all the Old Testament prophecies which have all been fulfilled but not in woodenly "literal" ways. And I'll get to some of those in just a moment.

But before I get to my Scriptural argument, I will use an argument from God-given reason. If these verses describe the destruction of all creation as we know it, then how is that people are able to call upon the mountains and rocks to cover them? The mountains and rocks will be destroyed, so they are no help! Unless perhaps this isn't a reference to the end of creation...

But on a more Biblical note, I can live with being accused of not taking the passage literally if that means that I am interpreting Scripture with Scripture, because that is a much better method than any man-made method of interpretation. First of all, if we've been comparing Revelation with Jesus' Olivet Discourse in the Gospels, (as most schools of eschatological thought do), then we see that this coincides with the Great Tribulation that Jesus spoke of, for instance, in Luke 21:25-27. But when does Jesus say that this will occur? Luke 21:32 says that it would all occur before the generation to whom Jesus spoke would pass away. Forget Tim LaHaye, let Jesus interpret this passage for us! He states clearly that it would happen within one generation's time.

Now at this point your futurist (among whom the Dispensationalists are the most numerous and vehement) will do all sorts of flip-flops to make "this generation" mean anything but what it literally means!

What's more, the imagery of Revelation 6:12-17 is also seen in many other places. Let's look. There is Joseph’s dream in Genesis 37 showing the tribes of Israel as being stars and sun and moon. Judges 5:19-20 represents warring nations as stars. In Isaiah 13:10, we see the apocalyptic stellar imagery used to predict the judgement that came on Babylon. See similar instances of this imagery used about judgements that occurred before the time of Christ in Isaiah 34:4, Ezekial 32:7, Amos 8:9, Joel 2:10, and Joel 2:28-32. This last passage is particularly interesting because, just in case it should be stubbornly denied that the other prophecies have already found completion, the Bible makes it clear that Joel 2:28-32 has already come to pass.

In Acts chapter 2, Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32 (which mentions the sun being turned to darkness and the moon turning to blood) right after saying that it applies to their day. There can be no denying that the sun did not literally go dark nor the moon turn to blood at Pentecost! Rather, the only possible explanation after viewing all of these Scripture passages in their proper contexts, is to believe that the cosmic imagery refers to the overturning of the old ways to make room for the new. Revelation 6 is telling of how the Jewish way of life with the temple and the offering of blood sacrifices, etc, was coming to an end. A new way of life, a new creation was being inaugurated. That is what Peter meant. To continue to believe in a dramatic Dispensational futurist model is to kick against the goads.

Which, as much as I hate to say it because I respect this man greatly, John MacArthur does. He does this in an otherwise excellent chapter on the speaking of tongues in his book Charismatic Chaos. Dr. MacArthur takes the cessationist point of view, which says that the miraculous gifts ceased with the end of the Apostles. To which I agree. He then goes on to say, however, that these gifts will resume at the end-times, because they are mentioned in Joel 2:28, and Joel 2:28 is referring to the end-times. But Peter says that Joel 2:28 was referring to Pentecost in the first century! As much as I love Dr. John MacArthur, I am going to have to side with the Apostle Peter on this one. I'd rather interpret the Bible with the Bible than with the traditions of even well-loved men.

Thus far I have demonstrated with an example that partial-preterists are much more Bible-honoring in that they interpret Scripture with Scripture rather than with the imaginations of men, as futurists do. I have also shown, with the "this generation" bit, that preterists really do interpret the Bible more literally than Dispensationalists. But now I have one final thing to say. It is in regard to the charge of liberalism.

First of all, R.C. Sproul gives an excellent reason why partial-preterism is a great apologetic against liberalism in his book and series, The Last Days According to Jesus. To summarize his argument, it goes something like this. The critic says: "Jesus says that the end of the world would come within His generation. This, obviously, did not happen. Therefore Jesus was a false prophet. Therefore the whole Christian religion is false."

Now the Christian has two options open to him. He can, as the futurists do, say that Jesus was talking about the end of the world, but that "this generation" does not mean "this generation." As I have already shown, this does much dishonor to the text of Scripture.

The second option would be to say that Jesus was talking about a judgement that was not the end of the world, and that "this generation" does mean "this generation." And when you compare the historical accounts of the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem with the Olivet discourse, you discover that Jesus was indeed correct in his prediction, and in very great detail, at that (not some sort of vague prophecy which anything could fulfill). Thus, the truthfulness of Jesus is more prominent than ever.

So which is it? The approach that leaves the skeptic saying, "I still believe Jesus was a false prophet because your "this generation does not mean this generation" ploy is just ridiculous and stupid, or the approach that silences the skeptic because it demonstrated Jesus to have been absolutely correct? Who opens the door for liberalism now?

Finally, I will talk about liberalism regarding a topic that drives me nuts. I have had heard many a preacher who confesses the Bible to be inerrant, to say something like this: "It is obvious that the apostles believed in a soon return of Christ, but they were wrong." They may even say, "Jesus thought He would return soon, but was mistaken. And that's okay because He said He didn't know the day or the hour." It's not okay. If you make statements like these, then you are throwing out inerrancy. I agree that the apostles may have mistaken ideas, but God would not have allowed them to write those mistaken ideas into Scripture. Everything that has been providentially preserved for us is without the error of merely human authors. The Bible was breathed out by God, and since He is perfect, then His Word is perfect. If Jesus was not sure about something, He would have not offered His guess. That was not the way respectable rabbis taught, and it is not the way that the Lord of all truth would have taught. Everything that Jesus said would happen has happened or will happen exactly when He said they would happen. We cannot, as responsible Christians, claim otherwise. If there is a mistake, it is not with the Biblical authors. It must be with the reader. If you read the Olivet discourse and decide that Jesus made a mistake, then you can be sure that it is your interpretation that is in error.

That's all I've got to say about that.

Hippity Hoppity Crappity

2006-01-18T00:26:00.000-08:00

"Hip-hop has what all corporate America wants--18-35-year-old employed adults with growing families. That's why you see Russell Simmons producing clothes, Snoop Dogg hawking Chrysler. Everyone wants us. Why not the church?"

Tommy Kyllonen
Senior pastor of hip-hip Crossover Community Church in Tampa, Fla. (USA Today/RNS)

A: Because what the world wants is not the same thing as what God wants. The Bible is a much better mouthpiece for God than is Russell Simmons or Snoop Dogg.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. --Romans 12:2

Legalism in Our Midst

2005-12-20T12:23:00.000-08:00

As much as I respect Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and admire his stand on Calvinism despite the fact that so many of his peers are dead-set against it, I have to admit that I think that he can be a legalist. I'm sure some of my Moderate Baptist brethren would say, "Duh, we could have told you that," but I am not concerned with all of those debates. No, the matter that I have in mind is the forcing of parenthood upon married couples. Dr. Mohler recently appeared on CNN to push his legalistic views on the nation. Read his own account of it at http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=416. He has also talked about this sort of thing in the past. A few articles can be found here and here.

For Dr. Mohler, intentional childlessness on the part of married couples is sin. Why? Because children are a gift from God. We are commanded to receive gifts from God with joy. But does this mean that we must demand this gift? Does the word "gift" imply that we must demand it? It does not. For some gifts, we are commanded to seek after them, such as the grace of salvation. But the Bible does not command that all couples in all generations until the end of the world are to procreate. The Bible says that a good wife is far more precious than jewels (Proverbs 31:10), but Paul says that it is better not to marry (1 Corinthians 7:8). Being as Dr. Mohler is an avid defender of the expositional style of preaching (for which I am grateful), it is surprising to see that this is all the Scripture that Mohler uses to defend his case, and he doesn't even exegete it.

What about the command to Adam and Eve and Noah to go forth and multiply? Does that apply to everybody? Obviously not, and on this Dr. Mohler would agree. Since Paul writes of the preference for the single life over married life, it is obvious that God does not intend everybody to marry. And it is also very obvious from God's law that only married people should procreate. So no, as Dr. Mohler would agree with me, the multiplication mandate given to Adam is not for everybody, just for those who marry. How are we to infer this from the text? I believe that it is reading the Bible through the lenses of tradition. God is speaking to Adam and Eve. And though I agree that the command probably includes future generations, we cannot dogmatically say so. He was speaking to specific people, and the command He gave them had a specific purpose. Christ was to come in to the world so that Adam and Eve could be saved. Therefore, they had to procreate so that Christ would come. Same for Noah, of course. But does this mean that everybody should procreate? I don't think that there is enough evidence in the Bible to dogmatically affirm that to choose childlessness is to sin.

Personally, I think that the multiplication mandate was for the old covenant only. It finds its new covenant fulfillment in the Great Commission. And besides, how full does the earth have to be until the mandate is fulfilled? How are we to judge? I could imagine a paedobaptist being keen on this mandatory procreation idea, because that would mean filling the earth up with more Christians that way. But for a credobaptist to take this position is just silly. The main priority for Christian couples is to help each other in bring the Gospel to the lost. Children are secondary.

But ultimately, what does Scripture say is the purpose of marriage? We find it in Genesis 2:18-25. God decided to give Adam a "fit helper." It does not say that Adam needed fit helpers. It does not say that Adam needed someone who would help him create even more helpers. Adam just needed one. And in verse 24 we find a Biblical command for marriage: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife and they shall become one flesh." That is all you will find regarding dogmatic commands for all married couples.

Now don't get me wrong; I am not saying that people should not have children. I am just saying that it is not a sin if they choose not to. If it was, then we would have it listed in Leviticus with some sort of punishment involved for violating it. There is no such law. We should not impose upon believers what God does not impose. That is the very definition of legalism.

I am certain that the matter of procreation falls under the same category as Paul's instructions concerning marriage. Just as it is better to not marry but it is certainly not wrong to marry, so it may be better to have children, but it is not wrong to not have children by choice. Speaking of this particular passage in 1 Corinthians, after Paul gives his instructions to single people, he has specific instructions for married people (7:10-11). Not one word is said about procreation. In the preceding paragraphs, Paul speaks of marriage as a means to avoid fornication. So there he speaks explicitly about marriage and sex, but he does not talk about procreation.

If you want to believe that you should have children lest you sin, fine. It is just like abstaining from food offered to idols. That is your perogative, and your duty if you really believe it. But you cannot force a concept that is nowhere found in Scripture upon other believers. That is extra-biblical, which is legalism.

I know that this idea of mandatory procreation is popular among Reformed folk, and I might even be in the minority. But I feel convinced that such a concept cannot be supported by Scripture either explicity or by necessary inference. I think the only thing that can be inferred from Scripture is that children are a blessing and yahoo for those who get them, and that specific people such as Adam, Eve, Noah, and the ancestors of Christ and the Jewish people, were to multiply. But that is all that can be deduced from Scripture. To add more than that to the consciences of men is to bind them with legalism.

2005-12-14T15:26:00.000-08:00

A sign for the Parenthetical Baptist Church...

2005-12-10T16:01:00.000-08:00

When I lived in Lawrence, KS back in 2000, I lived at the Boardwalk apartments. Back in When I lived in Lawrence, KS in 2000, I lived at the Boardwalk apartments. Back in October of this year, one of the buildings burned down. It was pretty close to mine. In the diagram, I circled the building that I lived in.

2005-12-10T16:00:00.000-08:00

2005-12-10T15:59:00.001-08:00

2005-12-10T15:59:00.000-08:00

2005-12-10T15:55:00.000-08:00

2005-11-29T21:17:00.000-08:00

Scene from MST3K -- Overdrawn at the Memory Bank

The Real Cinderella.

2005-11-26T01:06:00.000-08:00

Over the past few weeks, the grocery store that I work at has had a display back near the deli of a TV and a DVD player. They've been playing Cinderella, recently released on DVD by Disney. As I've been stocking the lunch meats, I've listen to the movie play over and over again. Finally it affected my mind so that I developed my own Cinderella story. I present it to you now.

The Real Cinderella

Once upon a time there was an evil witch named Cinderella. Her mother died during childbirth, and her godly father never realized that his child was a witch. He eventually remarried a widow who had two daughters, both of whom were about the same age as Cinderella. It was not long, however, that Cinderella’s father also died. Now Cinderella’s step-mother knew that she was a witch, but had never told Cinderella’s father, for she knew how much he loved his daughter, and she did not want to upset him. But now that he was dead, the step-mother could do something about Cinderella’s sinful lifestyle. But what should she do? The best thing to do regarding the safety of all the souls in the village was to put Cinderella to death, or at least to turn her in to the chief magistrate. But the step-mother, a godly woman, was too kind-hearted to do such a thing to any person, even an evil witch like Cinderella.

“Now Cinderella,” said the step-mother, “I know that you are a witch. I have seen you commune with the animals such as birds and mice, and such sorcery is evil and is an abomination before the Lord. In order to prevent you from practicing your wicked witchcraft around other people, I am going to keep you confined to our house. Until you repent of your evil ways, you will serve your sisters and myself at all times.”

When Cinderella and her step-sisters had reached marrying age, the king made a proclamation across the land. His son the Prince was also of marrying age, and the king greatly desired that a wife be found for the Prince. A ball was to be held, and the Prince would choose that woman whom he desired to be his wife. Cinderella’s step-sisters were holy and God-fearing young women, but bless their hearts, they were just plain ugly. Nevertheless, their mother saw to it that they had dresses for the ball so that they could attend and attempt to win the Prince’s heart.

Sinful jealousy festered in the wicked heart of Cinderella. She used her sorcery to cause the mice in the house to steal articles of cloth from the dresses of the step-sisters. These enchanted mice then made a beautiful dress from the pilfered cloths. The rodents even stole a pearl necklace from one of the step-sisters. In her wicked vanity, Cinderella paraded herself in her new dress in front of the step-sisters. This was a mistake on her part, for the sisters recognized the stolen pieces of clothing, and took them back.

Cinderella was not to be stopped, however. She went back to the seclusion of her room, and called upon all her powers of necromancy to raise up a spirit of an old woman. This shade then used the powers of the grave to give Cinderella a beautiful dress, a carriage with a team of horses, and a pair of glass slippers. However, as demonic power always falls short of the perfect power of righteousness, these gifts would not last long. At the stroke of midnight, the gifts would return to the base elements from which they were made.

Cinderella went to the royal ball and there she put an enchantment upon the Prince, causing him to fall in love with her. But when midnight approached, she was forced to flee back to her house. In her haste, she left behind one of her glass slippers.

The Prince was determined that he would have no other person for his bride but the girl who owned the glass slipper. He sent his servants throughout the land to search for the girl whose foot fit the slipper that had been left behind. They searched and searched, but all in vain. Nobody’s foot fit. Finally they arrived at Cinderella’s house. After failing to get the slipper to fit either of the step-sisters, the servants were in despair. But then Cinderella appeared and they knew that they must try the slipper on her foot. The step-mother, suspecting that sorcery was at play, attempted to foil to servants from applying the slipper to Cinderella’s foot. But alack! Cinderella had the other glass slipper, which fit perfectly. She was rushed back to the Palace and a wedding was held at once.

The unsuspecting people of the land assumed that all was happily ever after. But they were wrong. Soon Cinderella turned the heart of the king away from God so that he too followed in her wicked ways. Cinderella had Asherah poles raised in the high places, and altars to Baal were built. She had the priests of God all put to death, accept for those that hid. Soon after she had ordered a man to be killed so that the Prince (now the King, since his father had died by this time) could own the man’s vineyard, a prophet of the Lord came out of hiding and boldly approached Cinderella and the king.

The prophet spake, “The Lord has said that the dogs shall eat Cinderella within the walls of the land.” And so it came to pass, many years later, after Cinderella’s husband the king had died, that a man claiming right to the throne rode into town. Cinderella made herself up so as to wickedly seduce this man. But he would not be tricked by her cunning wiles. Instead, he called to those who sided with him to turn against Cinderella. Some servants of hers did so, and defenestrated her. When she hit the ground, some of her blood spattered on the wall and on the horses, and they trampled on her. The claimant to the throne went in and ate and drank. And he said, “See now to this cursed woman and bury her, for she was the Queen..” But when they went to bury her, they found no more of her than the skull and the feet and the palms of her hands. They reported this to the man, and he said, “Thus it is as the Lord spoke through the prophet, “In the land the dogs shall eat the flesh of Cinderella, and the corpse of Cinderella shall be as dung on the face of the field in the territory, so that not one can say, ‘This is Cinderella.’”

And then everyone lived happily ever after.

Thomas Watson on The Right Understanding of the Law

2005-10-05T16:07:00.000-07:00

One of the issues that differentiates Covenant theology from Dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology is that of the place of law in the life of the Christian. By declaring that the moral law is still essential to Christian living, Covenant theologians are often looked upon as being legalistic. The Puritans, especially, have been accused of being too works-oriented. These misconceptions usually come about because of ignorance or misrepresentations of the Covenantal, Puritan position. Seventeenth-century Puritan Thomas Watson wrote a very clear and concise statement on the right understanding of the law in the second volume of his Body of Practical Divinity.

Watson begins by naming the differences between the law and the gospel. First, “the law requires that we worship God as our Creator; the gospel, that we worship Him in and through Christ.” Secondly, the law requires obedience but gives no strength to obey. The gospel gives us the strength to obey God’s law.

The question then arises, “Of what use is the moral law to us?” Watson answers that it allows us to see our sin and our need for Christ. He quotes Galatians 3:24, “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.”

Is this moral law still in force for believers? Watson tells us that the law has been abolished in certain ways. The first (and it is the ignorance of this fact that causes others to view Covenantalists as legalists) is that law has been abolished in respect of justification. Watson stresses (as did all the Puritans) that obedience to the moral law does not justify anybody. The second way in which the law has been abolished for believes is in respect to its curse. Christians are no longer under the curse of the law because Christ became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13).

This leads to the question of how was Christ made a curse for us. As a surety, Christ was made a curse. The curse was placed upon His manhood, thus taking away the curse to do the elect. However, though the law is not our savior, Watson says, it is our guide. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid.” (Romans 3:31). Watson warns against antinomianism, which teaches that the moral law is completely abrogated to believers, because it leads to a sinful life. He says, “They who will not have the law to rule them, shall never have the gospel to save them.” If a person was to reject one thing that God says (the law), why are we to believe that they would accept the other (the gospel)?

Then follows some rules that Watson gives concerning the Ten Commandments.

Rule 1. The commands and prohibitions of the moral law reach the heart.

Rule 2. In the commandments, more is intended than is spoken.
(1) Where any duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden.
(2) Where any sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded.

Rule 3. For any sin forbidden, the occasion for that sin is also forbidden. For example, if adultery is forbidden, then ogling is also forbidden.

Rule 4. Where one relation is named, another relation is included. If a child is commanded to honor his parents, then the parents are commanded to love the child.

Rule 5. Where greater sins are forbidden, lesser sins are forbidden. If idolatry is forbidden, then so is superstition.

Rule 6. The law of God is entire. The duties to God go hand in hand with our duties to our fellow man.

Rule 7. We are also forbidden to being accessory to the sins of others.
(1) By imposing sinful laws on others, or forcing them to sin.
(2) By not hindering others from sinning when we have the chance to do so.
(3) By counseling, abetting, or provoking others to sin.
(4) By consenting to another’s sin.
(5) By our sinful example.

Rule 8. Though we are unable to fulfill the law perfectly by our own strength, God has provided encouragement to fulfill what we can.
(1) God has promised to work in us to obey and to love Him.
(2) God for Christ’s sake will accept our less-than-perfect works.
(3) Though our works be imperfect, God will accept us in Christ because of his perfect obedience.

I hope this summary has clearly explained the role of the law in a Christian’s life. If this whets your appetite for more on this sort of topic, then read the whole book. All of my quotes and paraphrases and whatnot are taken from it. Here it is: Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments, The Banner of Truth Trust. If you’re going to read that, then you should probably also read Watson’s Body of Divinity and The Lord’s Prayer, both of which are also published by the Banner of Truth. The Ten Commandments belongs in between those two in order. It was all originally one volume, but was split into three separate volumes later on. Soli Deo gloria.

The Church and Post-Weimar Germany

2005-09-24T00:08:00.000-07:00

Wow, it's been a long time since I've written anything here. But I guess we're all used to that by now, hm? Well, anyway, I've been reading a wonderful book by German historian Joachim Fest titled Plotting Hitler's Death: The Story of the German Resistance. The opening chapter attempts to answer the question of how the German people could allow somebody like Hitler and his Nazi party to gain so much control? As I read through Fest's analyses of the general feelings of the German populace, I couldn't help but think of modern Christendom.

One reason why Hitler was allowed to gain so much power was pragmatism. Many people really were uncomfortable with much of Hitler's views and methods, and many were even vocally opposed to him. But in the end, they allowed him take over more and more governmental functions simply because they thought that some good might come of it, despite the bad. You see, Germany just wasn't a great place to live at this time. After their defeat in World War I and all the humiliations placed upon them by the Treaty of Versailles, Germans were left with a nation that they just couldn't have pride in. And national pride was a very deeply ingrained trait in Germans. Also, following WWI, they went through an incredible inflation period and then the Great Depression. Joblessness was at an all-time high. Things just really stunk. The government that was created after WWI, the Weimar Republic, just never seemed to do anything that actually benefited anybody or helped to restore the national pride. All Germans knew that some sort of change was needed. They were not all agreed on what sort of change, but they knew that something needed to happen to better their existence. Along came Hitler who promised change. He promised to restore national pride to Germans. He promised to repudiate the humiliating articles of the Treaty of Versailles. He promised financial prosperity. Now whether you were right or left-wing, socialist or democrat, that all sounded really good. However, there were the downsides to Hitler. For the right, he was too radical. For the left, he was too conservative. For the socialists, he was...well, too anti-socialist. To the democrats, he was too authoritarian. But most of them decided that perhaps much of the stuff the disagreed with about Hitler was just bluster on his part, and as crazy or evil as he may have seemed, perhaps it was worth it to let him have more power if he would bring about all those positive changes that he promised. They were being pragmatic. They were allowing positive change to occur by whatever means, regardless if evil changes also occurred.

How does this apply to the church? First of all, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am comparing nobody to Hitler or to the Nazis. My comparison is with the apathetic German populace. So, to the church. Today's Christians are very pragmatic. They perceive that worship and the Christian religion had become stale and cold and that it was just not gaining any new converts. So change was needed. It is true that the church must always be reforming, but not just any change will do. But for many people today, any change will do. Worship services have been altered so that the preaching of the word has taken a secondary role behind music and drama and puppet shows. False teachers are allowed to speak in our churches because they attract such large followings. Doctrine is no longer important--instead all we want is something or somebody who can draw a crowd. No matter if this speaker fills his listeners with distortions of the truth, or with nothing at all--just ear-tickling about how you can be healthy and wealthy. Just so long as he carries a Bible (no matter whether he actually opens it or not) and drops the name of Christ now and then (no matter if his Christ matches up with the one described in Scripture), and that's good enough. Some people recognize the error in these persons or methods, but they decide that the good outweighs the bad. "Sure," they may say, "our means of getting people into the church are not Scriptural, and may even be anti-Scriptural, but at least we're getting people into the church, where we can then teach them the Gospel." It seems as if many of these people are trying to "trick" people into church--they lure them in with promises of relevance and great music and drama, and then later, when they feel that the new converts are ready for it, then they'll teach them real doctrine. Unfortunately, they never seem to decide that the people are ready for the real doctrine, so they continue in the unScriptural frivolities indefinitely, despite the promise that such methods were only going to be temporary. Which leads to my next point...

Many of the political, governmental, and military leaders of Germany allowed Hitler to gain power because they felt assured that they would be able to "tame" him. After he had served their purposes, they would rein him in and prevent him from doing the things that they disagreed with. But Hitler was clever. He was able to work his way up into power in such ways so that by the time anyone would want to reign him in, they would be unable to.

As I said, many people recognize the errors and dangers of some of the things coming into the church, but they allow it anyway because they figure that after they have exhausted the usefulness of the method or ideology of person, then they could step back in and put a halt to any extreme errors. But this just doesn't happen. Error is like leaven--it spreads quickly throughout the whole of the dough and then you can't separate it from the rest of the dough. All erroneous teachings must be nipped in the bud. Once you allow an error to come into the church, you will not be able to just take it away once you feel like. Pastor Gregory N. Barkman, in a sermon from Galatians about Paul's confronting Peter for his hypocrisy, asks what it would be like if Paul had just been nice and had been more interested in unity than in doctrine. What if Paul had decided to wait before speaking up? What if he went to the church in Jerusalem 25 years later and tried to put a stop to their segregating practices? It would have been a lot harder. By then it would have been an ingrained tradition. There would be young people who had been raised that way. And many of them could have said, "Hey, Peter did it, so it must be right!" This argument would have been particularly forceful if they had already started thinking that Peter was the infallible head of the church. This error of Jewish Christians not eating with Gentile Christians might have spread to other churches, making Paul's task of correction even harder. Thankfully, Paul did not wait 25 years, but he addressed the problem as soon as he became aware of it. Had the Germans done this in 1933, a lot of hardship could have been spared. And so it is for the church today.

Steve Lemke's paper

2005-08-01T22:04:00.000-07:00

In my last post I talked about SBC president Bobby Welch's article againts the Founders, and his use of a paper by Steve Lemke. Well, I was looking at a blog (http://www.joethorn.net/?p=141) about the same thing, and Lemke himself made a response. Well, I responded to that. I thought I would copy my comment there and paste it here. For all of you. Enjoy!

Lemke writes: “Fourth, I also included an extended section in which I emphasized that there are many varieties of Calvinism, and distinguished a sofer “ROSES” version of Calvinism (i.e., Timothy George) from a harder line “TULIP” kind of Calvinism. My concerns were voiced not about Calvinism in general, but a trend line toward a particular kind of Calvinism.”

This is one of the problems with the paper, however. Are George’s “ROSES” softer than “TULIP”, or is it a restatement of the exact same doctrines in phrases that are less likely to lend themselves to misinterpretation? For instance, R.C. Sproul changes the phrases so that he ends up with RSDEP or something like that, which is completely useless as a memorable acrostic. Which is why TULIP uses the phrases it does; TULIP is easier to remember that RSDEP (or whatever it is). For instance, take the “T”, total depravity. Adrian Rogers tells us that this means that Calvinists teach that man is as depraved as he can be. But if you read anything by any Calvinist (even the “harder line”) who affirm TULIP, they will start out the discussion by saying that this is NOT what total depravity means. So a rephrasing of TULIP doesn’t necessarily make it any “softer”. It just may make it more understandable.

In his paper, Lemke goes through Timothy George’s ROSES and contrasts it with TULIP. But the contrast seems to be with something that doesn’t exist. For instance, “Compared with total depravity, radical depravity agrees that we can do nothing to save ourselves, but affirms that humans are not totally evil because we treatin the image of God despite our fallennes.” What 5-point TULIPer believes otherwise? All of the definitions for the terms in ROSES are the same definitons for the phrases in TULIP. So it is no softer. And by saying “in contrast to” Lemke suggests that TULIPers do believe that humans are totally evil, or that election is mechanistic that doesn’t “allow for human responsiveness.” In fact, Unconditional Election is what insures human responsiveness!

Another thing that has gotten people riled up is this comment in Lemke’s paper: “One stream is what we might call hard hyper-Calvinism (often associated with the Founder’s Movement)…” I do not know anybody associated with the Founders ministry who denies the duty of man to repent and believe or who denies the need for holy living in believers (the two major tenets of hyper-Calvinism). I’m not saying for certain that these people dont’ exist. But they are few, and the majority of the people involved in the Founders ministry would be quick to object to that person’s hyper-Calvinism. But, since Lemke associates the Synod of Dort (where Calvinism was really first systematized into points) as hyper-Calvinism, then this discussion is meaningless. We are working with two different definitions. With this line of thinking, Calvin was a hyper-Calvinist! That somebody can believe more than he believes is nonsense. And this is not taking into account the question of whether or not Calvin believed in particular redemption. Even if he didn’t, (though i think he did), he still definately affirmed the other four points, which is more than Lemke is allowing to belong to regular Calvinism. This all reminds me of people like Norman Geisler who calls himself a Calvinist by redefining all the points of doctrine. But what does the history of Calvinism say a Calvinist is? I think the answer would be at least someone who holds to TUIP, but for most people in church history, the answer would be someone who affirms TULIP. Lemke can redefine that to mean “hyper-Calvinist” but he has no historical precedent for doing so.

Tom Ascol Speaks

2005-07-27T19:02:00.000-07:00

Over at the Founders blog Tom Ascol has started to respond to the Bobby Welch issue that I just posted about. Nice to see that my guesses are justified...When I made my comment about the number of attendees-to-members, I just guessed the numbers. Well, Tom Ascol is more responsible than I am and actually did some research to show that of the 4000 people who are on the membership rolls of Bobby Welch's church, only 2000 show up on an average Sunday. That makes 2000 baptised people who do not care about Christ's church. I dare Welch to produce that kind of number regarding Founders churches.

Oh Boy

2005-07-27T00:14:00.000-07:00

I just wrote a really long post and then lost it. Aye carumba. That exasperates me too much to get mad about it. So I guess I'll just rewrite the whole dang thing. I'll make it shorter this time because I don't feel like rewriting all of my great arguments.

SBC president Bobby Welch has written an article concerning Founders-friendly churches. That article is here. He believes that these Calvinistic churches just aren't as evangelistic as Arminian SBC churches because they have fewer baptisms and fewer members. He says, "In 2004, not a single one of the 233 self-identified Founder's Fellowship Southern Baptist Churches had 40 or more baptisms. Their baptism to member ration was 1:62; it was 1:42 in the rest of the Southern Baptist Convention." Also, "Only eleven of the 233 churches had more than 1,000 members in 2004, and only one had a regular worship attendance of 1,000 or more."

Here we see the ungodly philosophy of pragmatism rearing its ugly head at the very top of the SBC heirarchy. Welch seems to be suggesting that good evangelism is that which produces the most visible results. This is not the Biblical concept of evangelism, however. I would argue that Founders churches are the most evangelistic because they do real evangelism--that is, they preach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27). They do not ignore important doctrines just so as not to offend people. That is how most of these 1,000+ member churches get so big! Take Joel Osteen as an example. Why does he have the biggest church in all time and space? Because his congregants get to hear about how great they can feel and how peachy things can be and how materially blessed they can get without ever having to hear about the fact that their sin is infinitaly heinous and is sending them to eternal torments in hell. I believe that this is how so many large SBC churches get large--they ignore the tougher doctrines and just tickle ears. They replace sound doctrinal preaching with extra vacuous chorus chanting, puppet shows, and dramas. But Founders churches know that faith comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10:17). The churches that pound out such a large rate do so only because they will baptise and make members of anybody who repeats a prayer. Founders churches do not want unchristian baptisms or unregenerate members. They examine people to see if they exhibit any real fruit of repentance. This is the biblical method, but it is not a popular method.

I know that not all megachurches are only large because they neglect sound teaching. Spurgeon's church is an example of that. But I believe that to be an exception and not the rule. I would love to see the Lord create a large revival in Reformed Baptist churches. But I would rather not see an explosion of numbers rather than to see the gospel of God laid aside for ear-tickling trivialities and falsehoods. Bobby Welch can have those churches. We don't want them.

There is one statistic that I didn't see Bobby Welch talk about. I saw his concern that Founders churches' baptisms-to-member ratio was lower than other SBC churches. But how about the ratio of regular attenders-to-members? Oh, so we don't have many 1,000+ member churches. But for non-reformed churches in the SBC, what is the ratio? I bet that in these large churches, it could be as low as 50%. That is, there are half as many people regularly attending as there are people on the membership rolls. I dare Bobby Welch to find that to be the case in Founders churches. I'd says it would be over 90%. Because Reformed folk take church membership seriously. To my great shame, that is why I haven't joined my church yet. I have been a sloppy attender, and I don't want to waste their time in admitting me as a member until I can show that I am dedicated to the church enough to actually go all the time.

One last thing about Founders churches. They are mostly concerned with discipleship. Evangelism is important, but it is mostly the job of the individual. The church isn't for the lost. It is for the saved. I know the Founders church I go to regularly and emphatically emphasises us to evangelize the people around us, and the elders are constantly teaching us the Biblical method of doing so. But if every Sunday's sermon was simply about what words to say to accept Jesus into my heart, then I would never ever grow as a Christian. I need to be fed, and not just milk for the rest of my life. Founders churches are concerned with nurturing Christians into maturity. But the average man doesn't care about being a mature Christian. He wants his ears tickled with fluff. So he will only join and be baptised into a church that tickles his "felt needs." But that is not Christian baptism. So Bobby Welch can have his churches that dip unregenerate people into water. I know that God wants me to choose a church that teaches the whole of His truths, and not just one that makes a lot of people wet.

Death By Laughing

2005-07-09T21:44:00.000-07:00

Last night I watched one of my favorite comedies ever, so I thought I'd talk about it. Murder By Death. Buy it. Watch it. Love it. Live it. I laugh my socks of watching this movie. It was written by Neil Simon and it features an all-star cast of some of my favorites: Peter Sellers, Alec Guinness, Eileen Brennan, Peter Falk, David Niven, and Estelle Winwood (Estelle--she's swell!). This is one of the few good moves to come out of the seventies (1976), and this movie will keep me laughing until I die. I suppose a reasonable knowledge of old detective novels and films is necessary to get some of the humor. So come on, people, go rent some film noir from the old days, and then watch this movie. Each of the five detectives is a take on some famed fictional detective. Milo Perrier (James Coco)=Hercule Pirot, Sam Diamond (Peter Falk)=Sam Spade, Jessica Marbles (Elsa Lanchester)=Miss Marple, Dick Charleston (David Niven)=The Thin Man, Sidney Wang (Peter Sellers)=Charlie Chan. Great, okay, we have that settled, now add in some of the greatest quotes of all time. You know how Napolean Dynamite seems great for quotes? It's nothing compared to this movie. Goodness gracious me. Let me think of a few examples:

Sam Diamond: The last time that I trusted a dame was in Paris in 1940. She said she was going out to get a bottle of wine. Two hours later, the Germans marched into France.

Tess Skeffington: There's nothing on him 'til '46, when he was picked up in El Paso, Texas, for trying to smuggle a truckload of rich white Americans across the border into Mexico to pick melons.

Sam Diamond: Now, if one of you gentlemen would be so kind as to give my lady friend here a glass of cheap white wine, I'm going down the hall to find the can. I talk so much sometimes, I forget to go.

Sam Diamond: Look all over him.
Dick Charleston: All over his body?
Sam Diamond: Well, somebody's gotta do it. I'm busy standing guard.
Dick Charleston: Why don't I stand guard? You look all over the body.
Sam Diamond: All right, we'll take turns. You look over the first dead, naked body that we find and I'll look over the second.

Willie Wang: Why do I do all the dirty work, Pop?
Sidney Wang: 'Cause your mother not here to do it.

Sidney Wang: Someone just put deadly snake in room. Wake me when it come near bed.

Well, that's enough for now. Just thought that I'd say that I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!! Murder By Death. Buy it today, folks.

What I'm Doing Now Update

2005-06-11T21:05:00.000-07:00

In the short time between my last post, I have finished reading Chuck Palahniuk's Stranger Than Fiction, and then read all of his novel Diary. Right now I'm on the road so I just brought the Kornbluth book with me.

It is hot, hot, hot in Texas right now. I'd love to go someplace nice and cold.

James White recently conducted a Great Debate with a Roman Catholic, which sends their nuttier apologists into a frenzy. Art Sippo, in particular. He loves to spew out all sorts of nasty things about Dr. White, and I can't see any sort of proof or documentation for the things he says. He accuses Dr. White of being abusive, but I have never seen any such thing. James White can be very blunt and he doesn't allow himself to be pushed around, but he never says anything beyond what is true. I have never seen him try to bully people around, like Sippo claims. However, White doesn't allow himself to be bullied around, either, and this may be what the Catholics don't like. But really, and I think this is true for any group that disagrees with truth, what the Romanists are really upset about, and what they perceive as being abuse, is the fact that he believes that many of their tenants are anti-Gospel. So when White says that, for example, the Roman concept of justification goes against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Sippo believes that this sort of comment is abusive. But that's just my opinion. Like a Catholic, I am full of them.

What Am I Doing Now?

2005-06-09T00:28:00.000-07:00

Since I've been so silent lately, I thought I should let you all know what I'm doing. So you can know I'm still alive and all that. Of course, my existence is defined by my recreational activities, so that is what I'm going to list for you.

Currently reading:
Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will
Chuck Palahniuk, Stranger Than Fiction
C. M. Kornbluth, His Share of the Glory

Currently listening to:
AC/DC, Stiff Upper Lip

Currently watching:
Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode 408, Hercules Unchained

Keep circulating the tapes!

If Only Arminians Were So Honest...

2005-06-09T00:06:00.000-07:00

"God is not willing to do everything, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us." -- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 26.

"So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." -- Romans 9:16.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." -- Ephesians 2:8, 9.

"But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." -- John 1:12, 13.

Lately I've been reading Jonathan Edwards' Freedom of the Will, and so this sort of thing has been on my mind lately. When I came across the Machiavelli quote, I thought it was very appropriate. Most Arminians are not willing (if I may so pun) to completely disregard phrases such as "no man may boast," so they still pay lip service to it while contradicting it in their doctrine (such as by affirming that it is their own pre-regenerate will that decides their soul's fate). This sort of contradiction and inconsistency just boils my potato, so it is refreshing to see someone honestly declare that he believes that a share of the glory is owed to man, despite the words of St. Paul.

2005-05-09T20:05:00.000-07:00

I found this picture on the internet and thought it was too cute to not show it around.

New Drawing

2005-05-09T11:01:00.000-07:00

Well, Challies.com is doing a new drawing. This time you can win the Amazing Grace: the History and Theology of Calvinism DVD set and the movie Luther on DVD. Enter here:

The Good Life

2005-05-06T15:37:00.000-07:00

Wowzee wow wow, where can I begin?! I have just returned from a fantastical trip throughout the great state of Texas following around a Nebraskan band called The Good Life. This is headed up by Tim Kasher, also the leader of Cursive. Kasher is one of the greatest songwriters of all-time. I am a total fan. Like complete crazy. I don't get this way about bands often. Radiohead is one example of my raving lunatic fanaticalness. Love 'em. And now...Tim Kasher. Anything he touches is gold. Since being in love with him means I'm in love with whichever of his two bands he currently is recording/touring with, I usually just refer to him personally rather than either one of the bands singly. So if you asked me, "Who are some of your favorite bands?" I would just say, "Tim Kasher" instead of "Cursive" or "The Good Life", because I can't have one without the other. It's all good, baby. Well anyway, he is now touring with The Good Life, and he made three stops in Texas, so I had to go to all three of them. Of course. With my wife Stephanie, and our good friend Jane. We are all three of us rabid Kasherites, and it was Jane who introduced us to such wonderful music.

For the uninitiated, I suppose I should explain a few things. Tim Kasher is part of the Indie scene, that is, he records for independent record labels. No big time labels for him like Capitol or Sony. It's all pretty much a small-time thing. His current label is Saddle Creek. This is basically a group of friends and like-minded individuals who like to make music and need it put out some way. It doesn't work like the big labels, where basically executives own the bands and force them to work within the labels' specifications. No, these guys can do whatever they want. Saddle Creek just sort of puts it out for them. There is no big money promotions or anything. It's all pretty much just word of mouth. So of course, the shows are not big. No sold out arenas here. No, they just play at little clubs for something like $10 a ticket. Just bar bands that happen to tour the country or even the world. These bands cannot be really considered famous. At a big place like Best Buy you may find the latest CDs from Cursive and The Good Life, but usually none of their older stuff. A place like Wal-Mart is out of the question. The best places to find CDs by these type of bands is online or at weird CD stores that cater to indie kids. These stores are usually only found in the bigger cities, like Good Records in Dallas or Waterloo in Austin.

The darling of the indie scene right now is Conor Oberst, a complete moron whose leftist views have so completely softened his brain so as to be utterly useless, is gaining some sort of fame right now with his band Bright Eyes. They seem to be featured in every music or entertainment magazine and are appearing on every late night talk show. His music stinks, and he recently sold one of his most completely retarded songs ever to Sesame Street for $1.5 million. So, for those real indie kids who aren't so enamored with Conor that they can take an honest look at things from a historical indie perspective (which is the grandchild of the punk perspective), he is a total sell-out. He is quickly becoming one of those famous bands that supposedly represent the indie scene, but because of his rising fame, is automatically disqualified from being considered indie anymore. For those of you who are familiar with none of these things, don't worry; you're not missing much. The historical school of Indie thought is to say that anybody who becomes even remotely famous is now a sell-out, is no longer meaningful, and isn't "indie". I think this is complete nonsense. Why shouldn't talented bands become famous? And can they really help it if all of a sudden people like them? No, I only consider a person a true sell-out only if he compromises his original artistic and musical principles in order to sell more records. Now, I am not in a position to judge if whether or not Conor Oberst is a sell-out according to my definition because I don't know his intentions. Maybe he is just getting famous accidentally, as it were. But I will call him a sell-out for two reasons. One is that he sold a song to SESAME STREET! For $1.5 MILLION! I mean, COME ON! Secondly, I call him a sell-out because I know it will infuriate all of his silly little teeny-bopper fans and all those who like him mostly because of his retarded politics. Stephanie and Jane used to be big fans of his and were able to tolerate his stupid political views until a recent tour of Texas. At the show they attended, he said that he hated Texas and that all Texans did was rape Indians and rope steers. There he goes, biting the hand that feeds him. Let's not mention that Nebraska (where Oberst hails from) has a much more politically incorrect history with Native Americans than Texas does. It just goes to show what a completely small, closed-minded bigot he is. Now I use these phrases on purpose. Being some sort of bleeding-heart liberal, Oberst is exactly the kind of person that likes to accuse others of being closed-minded and bigoted. That is the way of the political left. Oh, you think abortion is murder? Well, you're just a small-minded bigot. But making a baseless caricature of over 22 million people is a-okay. Moron. I guess Stephanie and Jane still listen to his music, but that have agreed with me that personally, he is a big stinker. I always thought his music sucked even before I knew what an idiot he was, but now I have more reason to heap scorn on him.

Why did I mention Conor? I don't remember. I think it was probably to help explain to any of you not familiar with this aspect of the music scene what the Indie scene is all about, and since he is starting to appear on television, you may have actually heard of him. So I bring him up to give you a concrete example of all this stuff that I'm talking about.

Well, back to my boyfriend, Tim Kasher. He is probably an idiot, too, but he doesn't bash us over the head with it at concerts. So hoorah for him.

So the first Texas stop is in Austin at Emo's, then onto Denton where they played at Haileys', and finally Houston, at Mary Jane's Fat Cat. There were three other acts performing before the Good Life at each show. The first was Consafos. This is a delightful band that turned us into instant fans. Stephanie bought their new LP. This band is led by Stefanie Drootin, who plays bass for The Good Life and sometimes for Bright Eyes (the afore-mentioned band led by Conor Oberst). I guess you could say that she is an all-around handy bass player for the Saddle Creek stable of bands. I am glad to see her going out front with her own band and singing prettily after playing second banana to all these other guys. She deserves her own spotlight. She's awesome.

A second band playing is called Bella Lea. This band is also awesome. Stephanie and Jane weren't too keen on them at first, but they came around by the third show. For one thing, the singer, Maura Davis, is freaking HOT. Now, I know this has nothing to do with their talents, and that they would probably not be pleased at all if her hotness was the only reason to like them, but I can't help but mention it. Dang, she's hot! But the main reason I like these folks is that they play real rock and roll with real guitar solos and stuff. This is not very common in the Indie scene at all. As I have suggested earlier, the Indie scene and "emo" music (as it is often called) is a direct descendent of punk music. One of the hallmarks of the punk scene was its stripping from rock music all showiness. And this usually included guitar solos. For punk, it was usually considered a very bad thing if you could actually play guitar well. The Indie/Emo scene is similar. They may not be consciously anti-guitar solo, but I think it is a subconscious left-over. A lot of the music is also derived from folk music, which is also not very solo-y. Just basic chords on an acoustic guitar. Remember the uproar that occurred when Bob Dylan went electric and had Robbie Robertson play lead guitar for him? Scandalous! Well, it's kind of like that today. But not this band! For one thing, Maura Davis is a very good rhythm guitar player. From watching her, I could tell that she knew more than just the basic Mel Bay chords. She was playing figures all over the neck with weird fingerings that I couldn't recognize. And Matt Clark is an excellent guitarist. He wears his Jimmy Page influence on his sleeve with his bluesy guitar licks and, most notably, with his use of violin bow. I asked him about this after a show, and he said that of course Jimmy Page was an influence. Then seeing my AC/DC shirt, he cited them as an influence as well. Awesome! This band is good. They have a bluesy quality that I love. If you haven't noticed from my generally negative remarks, I am not a big fan of the Indie/Emo style of music. I love Tim Kasher, and I like a few others okay, but most of the scene is just not my bag. I'm a guitar player, I'm a rock 'n' roller, and I love the blues. So Bella Lea appeals to me in those ways. Yet they also have the sort of Emo sadness that I do like. It's the beautifully sung sadness of Tim Kasher that makes him appeal to me, and this is also one of the major appeals of Radiohead. Bella Lea's slower songs have this sadness that is sung so beautifully that just tears at the heart-strings. Lovely. If you click on the link I provided above for Bella Lea, you should start hearing one of these songs immediately. Beautiful.

The third band, Make Believe, just plain stunk. Oh my gosh, they were like the male Yoko Ono. Need I say more? If you like Yoko Ono, then knock yourself out and check this band out. If not, then I suggest that you leave this band alone. Man. They're the suckiest sucks that ever sucked.

And finally...The Good Life. And man, are they good. Let me tell you the story of Tim Kasher, as I have been told it. This may not be all true, but it sounds good. He used to make music, got married, and then stopped making music because his wife wanted him to get a real job. So there you see, he's a nice guy, changing his plans for the woman he loves. But it didn't work. She left him anyway. So, even though his songs were all sad before this point in his life, now they got really sad. The album that the Good Life is currently touring for, the aptly titled Album of the Year, chronicles a relationship through the course of a year. Kasher says that some is autobiographical, some is fictional, but it is all good. This is the album that I heard that turned me into an instant Tim Kasher fan. For one thing, the music is beautiful. I could be a fan no matter what the lyrical content was (well, except unless it was bigoted anti-Texas crap). His singing is so full of emotion so that you can't take your attention away. But the lyrics are what jumped out at me. This album pretty much describes word-for-word a previous relationship I was once in. Well, except for the bits about bars and drinking. I thought that I could have written this album. Except, of course, that I met my wife. This made me very happy, and so I could no longer write sad poems. Or any poems. I seem to be one of those guys (probably like Tim Kasher) who is creative when I am sad. When I am sad, I could put out great poems, and sometimes great songs. But happiness is a writer's block to me. Since I've been happy since December of 2000, I haven't had any real creative output since then. Darn you, Stephanie, for ruining my musical career! I kid her, of course.

Now then. As I said, these venues that the Good Life played at are small. Just little clubs. Bars, really. And again, these bands aren't really famous at all. So, you put these two facts together, and what you get is a bunch of awesome musicians wandering around the club with us regular folks when they're not needed on stage. Which means that I could, say, walk right up to my hero Tim Kasher and say, Hello, Mr. Kasher. Which I did. To my great embarrassment, I was so star struck on the first night that I just sort of blubbered at him and barely spit out what I was trying to say. He was probably very amused. He probably doesn't have grown men go a big gooey wet one on him very often. I think he was also amused by the fact that I called him "Mr. Kasher" instead of acting all cool like the other people there and just saying, "Hey, Tim, great to see you," as if they know him, which they don't. I got to talk to a lot of people in these bands. There are all cool and awesome. Especially when engaging in guitar talk with the guitarists. And even though Tim Kasher is my hero and I was there only for him, I think the most celebrity moment for me was meeting Stefanie Drootin, his bass player. As I have said, she also plays bass for Conor Oberst, and because of that fact, I have seen her on TV when Bright Eyes played on the Late Late Show with Colin Ferguson. So even though I am in love with Tim Kasher, I have never actually seen him on TV. Stefanie, I have seen on TV. So meeting her was, as I said, my most celebrity moment. It made me think of seeing wax figures at museums. I always see them and think, "This is way too small to be built to scale." But then you meet a famous person and discover that they are, in fact small. Other than that, they look just like they do on TV. Well, that was how I felt meeting Stefanie Drootin. Fortunately, I didn't go all gooey on her like I did on Tim Kasher. I was able to play it cool around her. I have a crush on her now, I've decided. Yes, I am in love. Stephanie (my wife) is cool with it because she has a crush on Tim Kasher. It all works out.

The first night, in Austin, we're watching the show and I had forgotten to bring my camera. Well, actually, I had remembered to bring my camera, but I had forgotten to put batteries in it. So I'm standing there thinking that I need to take pictures at the next show in Denton. And then I get a marvelous idea. Keep in mind that all previous concerts that I've been to were big famous ones. AC/DC, Radiohead, Velvet Revolver...that sort of thing. All these places are full of security guards and metal detectors. So I always had to smuggle cameras in my rectum and so forth. But not these shows. So I have this great idea. Nuts to my camera, why not bring a video camera to the next show? I asked my fine ladies with me, and they said that Haileys (the club in Denton that was next on the itinerary and with which they are very familiar) would have no objection to my bringing a video camera. I just needed to get permission from Tim Kasher. So I did! After the show. Well, actually, I got Jane to ask for me. Remember, I'm too star-struck to speak intelligible phrases at this point. Tim says sure, he doesn't care. So the next day I take my video camera with me.

Before the show I went up to my good friend Tim Kasher and asked him if he could manage to play my favorite song for me, "October Leaves". He said, "Oh, I'm sorry, we didn't learn that for the tour." I don't know if this is a cock-and-bull story or not. I see no reason why he should lie, because he takes lots of requests. Unless he thought maybe I was coming on to him. I suppose normally that it is girls who come up to him to request songs. Not some huge guy. But that's probably me just being paranoid. Maybe he honestly didn't remember how to play it.

And then I film the show. No tripod. Too short. Can't rest the camera on my shoulder. Too short. So I have to hold it up. For an hour and a half. Let me tell you, that is freaking hard work. Jane asked me if I'd film the Houston show, too, and I said no way. My shoulder is still sore. But it was worth it. Now I can see The Good Life live every night! Wee ha! And the fact that I got the blessing for its filming straight from Tim Kasher himself, well, that just makes it extra special.

But the absolute highlight of the whole experience came on the last day, in Houston. At every show, after about an hour, Tim would announce that it was the end of the "set proper." So all the other musicians would leave the stage, and he'd stand up there with his acoustic guitar and play a brand new song. Each night was a different new song. After that, the band would rejoin him and they'd play a few more songs. Anyway, he would always introduce the new song in some way, or dedicate it to somebody. So that last night, he's about to play his new song, and he stands there thinking of something to say. Then he points straight at me and says, "I dedicate the song to that guy, because he's been coming to all our shows. Following us around. But in a good way, not in a bad way. He hasn't been showing up at my doorstep." Well, I had an emotional orgasm right then and there, I can tell you that. Stephanie and Jane felt a bit slighted because they were sitting right next to me and had also been to every show, but he didn't mention them. Ha! So I am very special. I can die now. Just make sure you bury me with my recording of the Denton show.

Civil War Crimes

2005-04-27T01:50:00.000-07:00

I just thought that I would remind everybody that on this day in history, April 27, 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. This was, of course, very unconstitutional. At that time, this act pertained only to a section between Washington, DC and Philadelphia. The entire nation was affected by it a year and a half later, again by an act of Lincoln. Again, this was very unconstitutional. What all this meant was that people could be arrested and held indefinitely without ever being tried for a crime. Pity those who ever tried to point out the unconstitutionality of this act. If this fact makes you curious as to what other crimes against freedom that Lincoln committed, I suggest that you read the book When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession by Charles Adams. Now I understand that a lot of people get very upset when ever any question of Abraham Lincoln's character or presidency is questioned. Even when presented with irrefutable facts, they will plug their ears and refuse to listen. I say, beware idolizing any man. Read the facts first.

2005-04-17T00:25:00.000-07:00

I just thought that I'd fiddle around with Paint just to imitate my good friend, Josh.

Long Time No Speak

2005-04-17T00:00:00.000-07:00

Well well well, it has been an awful long time since I've last uttered a peep on this blog. Over a month, it looks like. My how time flies! I've been kind of busy with school so I haven't given much thought to internet rantings. Not that there hasn't been anything to rant about! The Pope died, for goodness' sake! Well, what can be said about that? Apparently, much of what calls itself Protestant Evangelicalism can say a great deal of good things about the Pope. What a great number of good deeds he performed. But unfortunately, if John Paul II was still adhering to the doctrines of the church that he led when he died, then sadly, he was relying partly upon these own good works to get him to heaven. That's what his fellow Catholics believe! Some say that he was so good and meritorious, that he has been able to skip purgatory and go straight to heaven! Unfortunately, the true Gospel has no such place for works. Only the work of Christ can get a man into heaven. Salvation comes wholly by God's grace. Now, I can't say where the soul of Pope John Paul II is at this moment because I cannot say to whom God has or has not been gracious to. If He can save me, then He could save John Paul II. If He could save Paul, the chief of sinners, then God could save this good-working Pope. On the other hand, God is true to His Word, which states that His graceful salvation comes through faith alone in Christ alone. Those who do not accept this Gospel are under condemnation. Now, though we cannot say what went on in the heart of the Pope in his last hours, we can see that his ministry has been one of rejecting this Gospel and replacing it with another (which is not really another). The true Gospel can say, as the Pope's motto, "totus tuus" (totally yours), but only to Jesus Christ; not, as the Pope's motto meant, to Mary. That so many "evangelicals" and "protestant leaders" are remaining completely silent on the issue of the gospel and instead just praise the late Pope's works is very sad and is, it would appear, a return to Rome.

SOLA GRATIA
SOLA FIDE
SOLUS CHRISTUS
SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLI DEO GLORIA
ECCLESIA REFORMATA ET SEMPER REFORMANDA

King James Onlyism

2005-03-02T15:30:00.000-08:00

Out of all the controversies and debates that can arise in Christiandom, there is none that aggravates me more than KJV-onlyism. I will debate with Arminians, paedobaptists, Catholics, cults, or what have you, but I have no patience for KJV-onlyists. I would get more benefit from arguing with a brick wall. There is a slight chance that a brick wall could be reasonable. These people are so legalistic and smug and prideful. They have the special gnosis that lets them know that the KJV is the only completely inerrant translations of the Scriptures. Full of hateful pride, they will accuse all others of heresy, or at least being close to it. And they have absolutely nothing to prove their point. There is nothing in the Scripture that allows for only one inerrant translation, and even if there was, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that this one translation is the KJV. And of course the big problem for KJV-onlyists that they can never fully address is which KJV? There have been many different versions with different changes throughout the years. If given an original, first printing of the KJV, most KJV-onlyists wouldn't be able to make heads or tails of it. It's be all Greek to them, as they saying goes. They try to make some sort of Scriptural argument by bringing up a verse that says something about God presevering His word for all time. Case closed, they say. Point proven, they say. I agree fully that God's Word will be preserved for all generations. BUT HOW DOES THIS PROVE THAT THE ONLY PERFECT TRANSLATION IS THE KJV?!!! It doesn't! But to point out the obvious is to use reason, and KJV-onlyists will have nothing to do with reason. They argue in circles and have absolutely no proof for their claims. They start with the assumption that the KJV is the only perfect version. Then they show where another translation differs from the KJV. Thus proving, they say, that this new translation is aberrant. NO IT DOESN'T. It only proves that it says something different than the KJV. It doesn't prove which one is correct. By examining the oldest original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts is the best way to determine which is correct. Often times, the KJV fails pitifully compared to such translations as the NASB or the ESV. Again, this is a use of God-given reason and logic. Reason and logic are anathema to a KJV-onlyist, so again, I might as well go talk with my friend the brick wall. After all, they say, those old Greek and Hebrew manuscripts have been corrupted. Only the KJV is pure. How do we know this? Just because. Special gnosis. Because if this wasn't the case, I'd have to find something else to be legalistic about.

And then they say that we reasonable people don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture as we claim, because we cannot claim any one translation as being inerrant. This is ridiculous. We believe that the words spoken of God and written by his apostles, prophets, etc. are inerrant. That which the translations translate are inerrant. The word of God is presevered inerrantly for us. perhaps not in any one translation, but by His Spirit guiding our reading through these manmade translations. I can read the KJV and the NASB and get the exact same truths from both. They are worded differently, but the same inerrant truth is in both. Perhaps I will admit that there is no one single compilation of Scriptural texts that is completely word-for-word exactly as that penned by the original authors. But I do believe that in all the disparate elements that exist, we have access to the inerrant word of God. Maybe we need to read more than one translation. Maybe we need to take advantage of the benefits of manuscript research. But in the end, the entire inerrant truth is there for us. But there is no proof that all this inerrancy is solely contained in the KJV. There is nothing in the Scripture to indicate this, and there is nothing in logic or reason to indicate this, and there is nothing in history to indicate this. The spirit behind KJV-onlyism is itself a heresy. it is a legalistic and devisive spirit. It is a form of gnosticism, one of the oldest of the Christian heresies.

Final note: I have no problem with people who use only the KJV, as such. It is the person who says that all others MUST also use only this translation that I am in sharp disagreement with. It is the person who idolizes a translation that I disagree with. It is a person who regards a certain translation of Scripture as being more important than Scripture itself that I regard as a heretic. There will be many people who will be surprised when they come before the throne of God and He doesn't speak ye olde English.

Praise the Lord for giving us His inerrant Word without that inerrant Word being confined to a single bulky translation that most of the world can't even read.

Hunter S. Thompson Dead

2005-02-21T20:31:00.000-08:00

Well, I guess you've all heard the big news. The famed gonzo journalist who authored the classic Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, has committed suicide. Though I think it is impossible that any one person could have agreed with everything Thompson said, it should be agreed that he was a very interesting character who wrote like nobody else. He was truly one of the great innovators in 20th century literature.

"There he goes...one of God's own prototypes. A high-powered mutant of some kind never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die."

More on Calvin and Servetus

2005-02-17T03:47:00.000-08:00

Check out this webpage: http://www.doctrine.org/history/HPv2b14.htm#2-14-19-15

This is a history written in the late 19th century that describes the Servetus issue in great detail in chapters 19-22. It would probably be best to read some of the chapters preceding those to get an idea of what Calvin's Geneva was like. It is shown that Calvin's influence was very much on the wane during the time of the Servetus episode. In fact, Calvin was on the verge of being kicked out of the city. Calvin let the council know that Servetus had entered the city, in accordance with Genevan law. He wrote up the articles against Servetus. After that, Calvin had very little involvement.

"Therefore, without consulting Calvin, without even thinking of him, and viewing the question as a social rather than a theological one, and dealing with it as sedition rather than heresy...the magistrates of Geneva closed their Diet of the 26th of October with a decree condemning Servetus to death."

Straw Man Brutally Murdered

2005-02-15T21:07:00.000-08:00

I don't remember how, but I managed to come across one of the worse webpages I've ever seen. http://www.ritualabusefree.org/Calvinism.htm I couldn't even read the whole thing, it was just so ridiculous. The misrepresentations on this page are of such magnitude that I can't help but think that they must be purposely false and malicious. The reason I believes this is, although I believe in the total depravity of all men, I still hold out some hope that nobody is actually so stupid as to believe what is presented on this webpage.

The page starts out by using the good old tactic of attacking Calvinism by attacking the character of John Calvin. And what do all of us Calvinists say in response? "WHO CARES?!" I could care less about Calvin when it comes down to it. I believe in the doctrines known as Calvinism, not because of the the name attatched to it, but because they are found in the Bible. Perhaps a more accurate name would be Paulism, or, as CH Spurgeon says, Christianity. However, I will provide a brief defense of Calvin because a man of such sterling Christian character ought not be maligned in this fashion.

First of all, I must dispel the myth that the Genevan government was a dictatorship run wholly by one man--Calvin. There was a council of rulers. They were the ones who asked (demanded, actually) that Calvin come there to be their church leader. Calvin was not some lone judge before whom every case was presented and he was not the lone executioner. He probably wasn't even involved at all with most cases. The most famous case involves Michael Servetus. He was a heretic who was executed in Calvin's Geneva. Poor Servetus. Big, bad Calvin. Actually, Calvin warned Servetus not to come to Geneva. He warned him that if he came and still held to his heretical beliefs, he would be put to death. This was not a threat. It was a warning. This what the whole government of Geneva dictated. Calvin could not change their rules whenever he wanted to.

Secondly, does not the civil government have the right to administer its laws? Yes, you may say, unless those laws go against the laws of God. Well then, where did the Genevan government err? Their law codes were the most Biblical out of any nation since Old Testament Israel. Do I agree that it was the best thing that they made heresy a capital offense? I do not. Do I agree that they were within the bounds set for government in the Bible? I do.

And remember, Servetus was not coerced into this government. He freely chose to come, even after Calvin warned him that Geneva's laws would effect him if he lived within it. Servetus, knowingly and willingly came to a city that made it clear that heresy was a capital crime and that violators would be prosecuted. This is clearly a case of divisive rabble-rousing on his part. Consider it a 21st century-style crusade against another government's laws that he didn't like. So in that respect he was not innocent. Furthermore, Servetus was not innocent of the crime of heresy. He was what we would call a unitarian universalist. He denied the Trinity. He denied the gospel in all of its essences. And he sought to propogate this false teaching among a people that chose to live in a city that would protect them from such falsehood. Do I agree that he should have been put to death? No. Do I agree that he deserved to die? Absolutely. By entering into the outward covenant of the church, he was under the duty to preach the truth. As a human being, it was his duty to reject all falsehood. Had he lived in Old Testament Israel, he would have been put to death. But in that case you wouldn't be able to blame big bad John Calvin. You would have to blame big bad God. So before you start offering honor and praise to Servetus and before you start burning Calvin in effigy, you must ask yourself: Am I mad at teachings of Calvin that are not found in the Bible, or am I mad at God and His holy and righteous justice that says that the wages of sin is death? I am convinced that the only honest answer is the latter one. I will stay convinced of this until someone presents me solid biblical arguments against the actions of the Genevan government. And "do not kill" is not sufficient because this is a case of civil government and government is given the right to enforce capital punishment by the Bible. Calvin is no more a murderer than the executioners at our prisons.

I must again say, that as for as the doctrines of Calvinism go, this is all besides the point. If Calvin was some sort of sodomizing vampire abortionist with horns growing out of his head, it wouldn't change the fact that the doctrines popularly known as Calvinism are found in the Bible. It doesn't change the fact that the doctrines known as Calvinism were taught before Calvin ever taught them by such men as Martin Luther, Gottschalk, and Augustine. The doctrines as presented in the acrostic known as TULIP were not systematized until after Calvin. But none of this matters. The doctrines are found in the Bible, and that is all that true Calvinists care about.

Here's a stupid quote from this site:

"Christians should be outraged that Calvin persecuted and killed so many people because of his religious goals and beliefs. However the Calvinists we have met will defend these murderous practices saying that we need to understand the times Calvin was living in. There is no time in our history that this type of behavior was right.

"We must remember this when we are dealing with Calvinists and other cults. However, the time is now upon us to be concerned about what people believe as it could cost you your life! There are many people today who still uphold the doctrines of Calvinism and as we show below, those doctrines do not line up with the word of God.

"Here is the Mission statement from one group:

""The Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics (CRTA) is dedicated to providing biblically sound online resources for the edification of God's people. The Center is committed to the system of doctrine known as Calvinism, which we see to be the most biblically faithful systematization of the Bible's teachings. The Owner is a Reformed Christian committed to a strict subscriptionist view of the Westminster Standards, yet many of the articles on this site represent a wider view of the Faith. Please use discretion in all that you read here -- and everywhere else too." (http://www.reformed.org/index.html)

"Many of these people are just as zealous as Calvin and would consider taking a person's life if they did not agree with Calvin's doctrines thinking they are doing the right thing and doing it on behalf of Christianity."

Now, I don't know anything about the CRTA, but I feel pretty confident that they would NEVER consider taking a person's life if they did not agree with Calvin's doctrines. I guess this website cannot be considered to be slandering the CRTA because they don't directly say that the CRTA contains the people mentioned in the paragraph following the CRTA quote. However, anybody can see the sort of manipulation that is going on here. This website author takes some Calvinist ministry that has probably never even heard of the author and gives a quote that has nothing at all to do with the discussion (Calvinists being murderous) and then intimating that such people are murderers. You know, if Calvinists really believed in killing non-Calvinists, then there would be a lot of dead people right now. Reformed, Calvinist churches aren't exactly bursting full of people. Calvinism is a minority within evangelicalism. "Many of these people are just as zealous as Calvin and would consider taking a person's life if they did not agree with Calvin's doctrines..." THEN WHERE ARE ALL THE MURDERS?! Does this author actually believe that people are stupid enough to think that "many" Calvinists would consider killing non-Calvinists when in fact they never, ever, ever hear of such a killing taking place? One last thing..."However the Calvinists we have met will defend these murderous practices saying that we need to understand the times Calvin was living in. There is no time in our history that this type of behavior was right..." Somebody tell Moses! That was a time in our history, right? And that behavior was commanded and enforced by GOD. Therefore, the God of the Bible must not be right. That is the only logical conclusion that this website's author can come to.

Now this post of mine is getting way to big for my average reader, so I will not refute all the arguments for the five points of Calvinism that this website offers. Another reason I will not refute them all is because I couldn't read past the first couple of sentences talking about the first point--total depravity. I was laughing too hard to read. Now, either this author is purposely deceptive, or he has really never ever read anything by a Calvinist (except for the quotes from Schaff's History). What am I talking about? Here's the quote: "In this passage we see how one person can be more depraved than others. If depravity is "total" than how could one person be more depraved than the others? "More" speaks of quantity. If one can have "more" than someone else, then the others cannot have "total". Yet, Calvin believed that all of humanity was "totally depraved." What this author doesn't seem to understand (again, because it appears he has never read anything by a Calvinist), is that the phrases given in tulip are imperfect phrases that were devised to make an easy acrostic. Most Calvinists would put the five points in a manner like this: Radical depravity, Sovereign election, Definite atonement, Effecual grace, and Perseverance of the Saints (see R.C. Sproul, Chosen By God). This makes the acrostic say RSDEP. Well who can remember that? So, some less accurate phrases were thought up to make an acrostic that everybody could remember. I should also point something else out: Calvin did not devise these phrases. I have read very little of Calvin's writings (because my Calvinism doesn't depend on him), but I feel confident that he probably never used the phrase "total depravity." Now, what made me decide that I could read no more of this garbage was the statement that it is obvious that no man is as depraved as he could be. Some men are more depraved than others, therefore nobody can be totally depraved! Well, if that is what total depravity meant, then you would have a point. But since it doesn't, we will have to discard this straw man. To quote an expert on Calvinism, R.C. Sproul: "Total depravity is not utter depravity. Utter depravity would mean that we are all as sinful as we possibly could be" (Chosen By God, p. 104.) If the author of this website had bothered to flip through this basic primer on Calvinism, then he would know that his argument is against a non-existent opponent.

I've glanced over some of the other arguments, and they are just about the dumbest ones I've ever seen. Any self-respecting Arminian who reads this article against Calvinism must groan and slap his forehead. "I'm opposed to Calvinism," he would say, "but even I can disprove these weak arguments!" I recommend to anybody that should read this silly page and would like to know what Calvinism actually teaches, and how the verses offered either (1) have nothing to do with, (2) do not disprove, (3) or actually support the doctrines of Calvinism, I suggest that you read any book on Calvinism by a Calvinist. Anything. That is how basic the errors on this webpage are--You don't need to read something that deals with the hard questions of Calvinism; anything basic will do it! The reason is because this webpage doesn't address the hard questions of Calvinism--it doesn't address Calvinism at all! It address a fabricated system that was born in the imagination of the author and who decided to call it Calvinism.

Some reading suggestions (and the author of the webpage should read these, too, so he can see what ridiculous article he has written):
R. C. Sproul, Chosen By God
R. C. Sproul, Grace Unknown
James White, The Potter's Freedom
Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn, The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented

Now here's the funny part...I just now checked out that CRTA website...The one cited in the the webpage and right before the paragraph about Calvinists wanting to kill people... It's a great site! Go there! It will teach you about Calvinism! If the author of this unChristian article had actually looked at the CRTA's definition of the points of Calvinism, then he would have seen that he was arguing against a fantasy--That his own definitions of the points of Calvinism were completely different from the definitions given by Calvinists that he cited! Good grief! I hate to keep on throwing less-than-Christian words around like "stupid", but I can't help it! But while I'm at it, I can call this article and its reasonings more words than stupid. I can also call it blasphemous, lying, heretical, malicious, slanderous, lying, ill-researched, divisive, and lying. No, I didn't must make a typo. I stress the lying aspect because I really don't believe the author is that stupid. I think he has an agenda to purposefully deceive other Christians about the the truth of God's sovereignty and God's godness, and to purposefully malign the characters of anyone who is labeled a Calvinist.

No, sir, I am not one of those imaginary Calvinists that you say exists, I do not think you should be put to death. But I do think that if you persist twisting the Scriptures to support your man-centered theology, and to blatantly misrepresent the Biblical doctrines of Calvinism, then you should have whatever ordination you have revoked. No pulpit should ever have the dishonor of being filled by a person who so flagrantly lies and misrepresents others.

Enter Now to Win Total Awesomeness!

2005-02-07T14:19:00.000-08:00

Some great website is having a drawing for an opportunity to win an autographed copy of the Holiness of God by R.C. Sproul and the Reformation Study Bible, English Standard Version. Now the former is one of the greatest books every written outside of the inspired canon, and the former is some inspired canon that is on my birthday list! So enter in the link posted below so you can win! And so I can win, too! Yay!

link text

Support Your Local Blogger

2005-02-02T01:51:00.000-08:00

Just in case one of you hundreds of my faithful blog readers suddenly come into a great deal of money and just don't know what to do with it, I have a suggestion for you. Buy me an expensive present! I am currently reading The Mystery of Providence by 17th century Puritan John Flavel, and I love it so much that I want the 6 volume set of his works put out by Banner of Truth Trust! I think the cheapest price is to be found at http://www.trinitybookservice.org/10604.html If I had that and read it all, then I could condense it for you into little blog postings! So it would be the gift that keeps on giving.

Decisions Decide Destiny

2005-02-01T07:59:00.000-08:00

That was the title of a sermon I heard on the radio today by Adrian Rogers. Our decisions decide our destinies. He said that in one sentence, and then in the next says that we are saved by grace. Well, which is it? There seems to be some confusion here. Certainly my destiny was determined by a decision. Thankfully, it wasn't mine. It was God's decision. God decided my destiny. His grace is all that saved me. I would have only decided against myself had He not already decided in my favor. This is not to say that our decision for Christ is unimportant. Indeed, it is the means that God uses for our salvation. But even our deciding to accept Jesus is a gift of God, for He gives the faith that empowers that decision (Eph. 2:8). But the decision is still ours, and the responsibility still lays with the sinner (see my last post). But though my decision was instrumental in my salvation, it wasn't what decided my destiny. God and his electing love and grace did that. Once again, I am merely trying to teach you, my beloved blog readers, that our confession that salvation is by grace alone is to have actual meaning, and not be just a fancy statement to make ourselves feel better after having given ourselves the glory for our own salvation.

Soli Deo gloria.

Human Responsibility and Ability

2005-01-26T13:58:00.000-08:00

One of the most common errors of Arminianism is that it assumes that since humans are responsible for their souls, then they have the ability to choose salvation or damnation. Tied in with this assumption is the assumption that Calvinists deny human responsibility. They do not. They recognize that human beings are completely responsible for their sinful states. Calvinists affirm that men have wills and have a responsibility to choose Christ. However, Calvinists take seriously the numerous Biblical passages that speak of man's enslavement to sin. The notion of a libertarian free will is nowhere found in the Bible. The Bible repeatedly speaks of the will being enslaved to sin. There was freedom. Man was free in his original state. But he freely chose to become enslaved to sin. But Arminians think that humans have a libertarian free will simply because the Bible commands men to choose Christ. They argue thus: "God wouldn't command men to do something that they can't do, would He? That wouldn't be fair." It is completely fair because it is man's own fault that he is unable! The relationship between human responsibility and human ability is this: humans are responsible for not being able! But if you were to say that this matter of ability is not clear enough (because words like dead and enlsaved are just too ambiguous for you), then I would ask you this question from a matter that is more clear to us. The Isrealites were commanded to obey every single law given by God (Deuteronomy 28:15). Now the question must be raised: Were the Israelites able to do so? We must say no, unless we decide to abandon even what orthodoxy remains in Arminianism and become full-out Pelagians. If man is able to keep all the commands of God, then why do we need a Savior?

Now this is where grace comes in. If man were able to achieve his salvation, even just a tiny part of it, then he could boast. Salvation is wholly of grace.

The First Sin

2005-01-23T20:00:00.000-08:00

So I was at my place of work the other day, and this fellow came in who comes in now and again. He's a complete freak of the vegan type. Shaved bald, including his brow. No eyebrows. That's new, actually. He used to have eyebrows. But he has those big huge ear hole things, you know, those piercings that they make big like them people in Africa. And he has whole sentences tattooed on his body, sentences that spew forth liberal tree-hugger crap. So, you know, a freak. Anyway, he had a shirt on this last time that had a liberal message on it. It said, "Living your life for God? Live your life for yourself." Which immediately brought to my mind the very first temptation given by Satan to our parents in the Garden of Eden: "You will be like God" Genesis 3:5. The living of life for self is the most basic form of idolatry and is the root for all sins. It is precisely this that Jesus commanded people to reject if they wanted to follow Him (Luke 14:26-27).

As a side note, I should mention one other thing. There are many people who have dedicated their lives to follow Christ and are true believers, and may even with their mouths claim that all of salvation is of the grace of God alone, yet in their theology that manage to retain some of the glory for themselves. They see that to be a Christian you must reject your self, and so they believe that their work (rejection of self to follow Christ) is what allows them to be Christians. Oh, they'll say that salvation is not of works, yet a simple examination of how their beliefs work out in practice will show that they manage to claim some glory for themselves by claiming the work of self-denial. But even this work is of God. No work of man can get him into heaven because then he would have room to boast, and this is impossible (Ephesians 2:8-9). Jesus told the rich young man to reject himself by giving up all that was precious to him, but this was too hard for the man. Then Jesus tells the disciples that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to be saved. The disciples, exhibiting a rare astuteness, realized that it would be hard for anybody, rich or poor, to be saved, so they asked Jesus, "'Who then can be saved?' But Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.'" (Matthew 19:21-26) This is a familiar verse to us. Whenever something looks impossible, such as paying the bills, we say, "With God all things are possible!" Or maybe we think we'll never get to work on time today, but "with God all things are possible!" Now this is all very fine and good and is true, but the exact context in which Jesus speaks these words is the matter of salvation. With man, salvation is impossible. With man, self-denial is impossible. With man, following Christ is impossible. But with God, this is possible. So next time you judge the man who is honest enough to speak of his rejection of God and love of self plainly, and you begin to pat yourself on the back for not being like him and choosing to follow Christ, stop yourself. The pat doesn't belong on your back. God did it all. Glory to God in the highest, who chose to save a wretched sinner like myself whose only desire was to sin continually (Genesis 6:5).

Paige Patterson

2004-12-17T01:02:00.000-08:00

I've been listening to James White review a lecture given by Paige Patterson on Calvinism. Well, it is sad that someone who has such a complete disregard for serious exegesis of Scripture, and a complete disregard for the hermeneutic of allowing Scripture to interpret itself, and who completely ignores all the Scriptural arguments that have been made against his position and never responds to them with any meaningful exegesis--it is sad that such a person is teaching future pastors and is even the president of a seminary.

First, Dr. Patterson gives a list of Scripture that seems to support Calvinism. Then he gives a list of Scripture that he says seems to support Arminianism. How does one overcome such a contradiction? By sacrificing the sovereignty of God in favor or the sovereignty of man. Oh, he wouldn't call it that. He would never say that man's supposed free will is sovereign. But then, Catholics say that they don't worship Mary and the saints, the only venerate them. They give dulia to saints and latria to God. But as Calvin said, that is a distinction without a difference.

Anyway, Dr. White gives quick and basic responses to most of what Paige Patterson had to say. Patterson did a lot of spoof-texting, that technique common to dispensationalists in particular, where they just throw out a bunch of verses without ever examining the context or the original languages. For instance, he gave a lot of "whosoever believes" verses. For one thing, Dr. White points out that this is the KJV that Patterson was using. If you look at different translations, the phrase is often rendered as "he that believes" or something like that. But the main point is that these verses, without their context, does not say who "whosoever" is. All Calvinists agree that all who believe will be saved. But Calvinists argue that man is incapable of himself to believe. Only God can grant it to a man to believe, and therefore there is absolutely no contradiction between verses such as "No man can come unto me unless the Father draw him" and "anyone who comes unto Me will not be cast out." But Paige Patterson just works on his man-made tradition that says that "whosoever" must mean anybody in the whole world. Dr. White points out that many of the arguments that Patterson makes can just as easily be made by universalists. For instance, one verse says that Jesus paid for the sins of all men. Well, without looking at the context or giving any exegesis whatsoever, Patterson tells us that this must mean that every person in all of time and space had his sins paid for by Jesus Christ. WELL THEN WHY IS THERE ANYBODY IN HELL?!!! If we're going to use Patterson's hermeneutic, then the only logical conclusion is that everybody will be saved. Patterson would of course deny that everybody will be saved, but that is just because he is being happily inconsistent. If everybody isn't going to be saved, then there is only one other logical conclusion. That would be that Jesus was a failure. Metallica can now be justified in writing a song called "The God Who Failed." Of course, I'm not saying anything new. I am just pretty much rehashing the arguments made by John Owen in his irrefutable work entitled The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It would be nice if persons such as Dr. Patterson would respond to the Scripturally-based arguments of people like Owen before teaching students their hogwash. Of course, they can't respond to Owen. If Dr. Patterson read quotes from John Owen, including Owen's Scripture references, the students would immediately see how flatly Patterson's arguments fall. So he ignores such Scripturally-based arguments and hopes his listeners will ignore them, too, and just accept his word for it. So what do those verses mean, if it would be unacceptable to say that they support universalism or a failure redeemer? Well, a look at context would help. I am not responding to any verse in particular, so I am not being specific. Many verses don't have the words "died for all men". Instead, they say "died for all." At this point, the Arminian like Dr. Patterson eisegetes the word "men" in there to fit his tradition. But a serious student of Scripture should be more hesitant to throw in a word and instead stop and say, "All what?" That is where context comes in. More often than not, the discussion has to do with God no longer dealing exclusively with the Jews but now including the Gentiles. In such a case, it is very reasonable to assume that "died for all" means "died for all nations". This doesn't have to mean every individual ever. It just means that the work of God has spread geographically. Sometimes the verse will say something like "died for you". Here the Arminians say that "you" equals "everybody". James White says that so far nobody has been able to answer his question as to why the particular epistle this verse is found in was written to everybody and not just the church. You get the point. When Peter starts out a letter (1 Peter) with the greeting to those who "are chosen" (1:1), and refers to his readers as being "born again" (1:3, 23), as those who "love Him" (1:8), as those who are "believers in God" (1:21), "a chosen race" (2:9), "the people of God" (2:10) -- why should we assume that when Peter says "He Himself bore our sins" (2:24) that Peter is suddenly, without warning, talking about everybody? Why should not "our" refer to the same people that Peter has been talking about this whole time? Why the sudden switch? Perhaps because we're imposing our traditions on the text and making Peter switch topics when we need him to in order to fuel our tradition?

Which leads to the last thing. Patterson ends his lecture by saying that many people force their grid onto Scripture. The Calvinist sees verses that don't fit his grid, so he just cuts them out. Well. James White commends him for warning against forcing a grid on Scripture, but then points out that such a grid-forcing is what we've been listening to throughout the entire lecture. I should mention that Patterson also accuses Arminians of doing the same thing, speaking as if he wasn't an Arminian himself. He must be like Norm Geisler in that respect--he accepts 90% of the tenets of Arminianism but says he's not an Arminian. Again, a distinction without a difference.

Oh well. You can listen to this stuff yourself at http://aomin.org/dividingline.html. The shows in question are 10/28/04 and 12/14/04.

Hometown Boy Makes Good, Gets Killed

2004-12-10T20:11:00.000-08:00

I am a guitar player. I live in Arlington, TX. This gives me two things in common with "Dimebag" Darrell. This awesome guitar player was shot and killed while performing onstage in Ohio with his band Damageplan. If you've never heard of Damageplan, perhaps you've heard of Dimebag's former band, Pantera. I've never been a fan of their music, but I am very familiar with Dimebag Darrell via guitar magazines. I always noticed a complete sincerity in his appreciation of his fans. He seemed very humble, and always acted very honored about the status of guitar hero given him by his fans and peers. I will miss the down-to-earthiness that he brought to the guitar world that so many others just don't bring. Guitar magazines just won't be the same without interviews with him. Let us pray for his family and friends and fans. Though Dimebag Darrell's music and lifestyle were very ungodly, the Lord can use this tragic death to give glory to Himself. Let us pray that His will be done.

My Turn to Post About Discerning Reader

2004-12-01T19:08:00.000-08:00

Like many others, I have had a bad experience ordering from DiscerningReader.com, although i was fortunate enough to not receive any of the abuse and comments questioning my salvation like many other people who innocently inquire why their credit card has been charged but their ordered books haven't arrived after weeks and weeks. Now while I'm not going to question anybody's salvation, I am going to cut and paste for you a comment by DR owner Rob Schlapfer, which can be found at http://blog.peteweb.com/index.php?p=207&c=1

"GO [CENSORED] YOURSELVES — ALL YOU [CENSORED] CALVINISTS."

I'll let you formulate your own thoughts on this.

Another John Gill Post

2004-11-28T01:35:00.000-08:00

Gee, this will be my third post about John Gill. I seem to have taken a shining to him, haven't I? At this point, many people would probably say to me, "Oh, Stephen, be careful reading Gill. He was a hyper-Calvinist!" Oh yeah? I disagree. I am willing to admit that Gill may have been a high Calvinist, but I do not think that he was a hyper-Calvinist at all. Tom Nettles seems to agree with me in his section on Gill in By His Grace and For his Glory.

I think the main reason people think Gill was a hyper-Calvinist is because that's what they were told. If someone has listened to Dr. Curt Daniel's 75-part series on the History and Theology of Calvinism, they will believe that Gill was the embodiment of hyper-Calvinism. I have enjoyed listing to this series by Curt Daniel very much, but I believe he is wrong on this point. In the aforementioned piece, Nettles says that Daniel started with the assumption that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist, and then defined hyper-Calvinism from Gill. For ages, people have said that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist without offering any proof from the writings or sermons of Gill (or at least not in context), and people simply accept what they are told.

Another reason people mistakenly believe that Gill was a hyper-Calvinist is they do not read his supposed anti-free offer comments in the context in which they were written. Usually, in these cases, he was writing against universal salvation. He did not deny that ministers should urge sinners to believe. He simply said that this external call in and of itself can do nothing. There must also be the irresistable internal call of the Holy Spirit as well.

Now, go read some of Gill's sermons, particarly ones preached on the occasion of the ordination of another pastor, and you will see that he DOES preach that it is the duty of sinners to believe, and he exhorts sinners to believe. Then you will see that he was definately not a hyper-Calvinist.

For a nifty article that goes into more article, go "http://www.evangelica.de/John_Gill_and_Hyper-Calvinism.htm">here.

John Gill (1697-1771) on Matthew 24

2004-11-24T01:26:00.000-08:00

I just read something that I had never thought of. I was looking through my John Gill CD-ROM, and I decided to see what he had to say about Matthew 24, so I went to his commentary on Matthew to see. There I found something interesting. In verse 3 when the disciples ask Jesus, "When shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Well, most commentators, even dispensational ones, will admit that the first part of the question refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. However, the second half has been given all sorts of different interptretations. Some say that the disciples confused the destruction of Jerusalem with the end of the world and Jesus sets them straight, some say that this was all one question, and that they were referring to the OT language of God "coming" in judgement, and that the end of the world really means end of the age, because that is the better translation. Well, I tend to agree with the second interpretation, but John Gill points out something I had never heard anybody else say. He says that when the disciples asked about Christ's return, they did not have in mind Him being gone in the first place. Remember that they just couldn't get it through their heads that Jesus was going to go back to Heaven. They thought he would always be with them. And though they may have figured out that He was going away, they still probably thought that He meant He was leaving their presence temporarily but would still be on Earth. Like, "I'm going to Dallas for a few days, and you can't follow me there, but I'll be back." He says:

That he was come in the flesh, and was the true Messiah, they firmly believed: he was with them, and they expected he would continue with them, for they had no notion of his leaving them, and coming again. When he at any time spake of his dying and rising from the dead, they seemed not to understand it: wherefore this coming of his, the sign of which, they inquire, is not to be understood of his coming a second time to judge the world, at the last day; but of his coming in his kingdom and glory, which they had observed him some little time before to speak of; declaring that some present should not die, till they saw it: wherefore they wanted to be informed, by what sign they might know, when he would set up his temporal kingdom; for since the temple was to be destroyed, they might hope a new one would be built, much more magnificent than this, and which is a Jewish notion; and that a new state of things would commence; the present world, or age, would be at a period; and the world to come, they had so often heard of from the Jewish doctors, would take place; and therefore they ask also, of the sign of the end of the world, or present state of things in the Jewish economy: to this Christ answers, in the latter part of this chapter, though not to the sense in which they put the questions; yet in the true sense of the coming of the son of man, and the end of the world; and in such a manner, as might be very instructive to them, and is to us.

Gill then goes on to give a very preteristic interpretation of Matthew 24. It is as if it were written by Gary DeMar or Ken Gentry. And Tim LaHaye says that partial-preterism doesn't have history on its side! If all we had was John Gill, that would be enough to provide partial-preterism with more history than dispensationalism. He believes that "this generation" that Jesus says his words apply to literally meant the generation of men He was talking to. In verse 29 ("Immediately after the tribulation in those days..."), Gill says that this still must have been in the first century and,

"therefore cannot be referred to the last judgment, or what should befall the church, or world, a little before that time, or should be accomplished in the whole intermediate time, between the destruction of Jerusalem, and the last judgment: for all that is said to account for such a sense, as that it was usual with the prophets to speak of judgments afar off as near; and that the apostles often speak of the coming of Christ, the last judgment, and the end of the world, as just at hand; and that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, will not answer to the word “immediately”, or show that that should be understood of two thousand years after: besides, all the following things were to be fulfilled before that present generation, in which Christ lived, passed away, (Matthew 24:34) and therefore must be understood of things that should directly, and immediately take place upon, or at the destruction of the city and temple."

John Gill then explains the astronomical language (sun and moon darkened) in the same manner as modern day preterists. This is not literal language but, again using OT prophetic language, refers to the shekinah glory of God leaving Israel, the disappearing of the old covenant form, etc. Concerning verse 30, he says,

"And then shall appear the sign of the son of man in heaven, etc. Not the sound of the great trumpet, mentioned in the following verse; nor the clouds of heaven in this; nor the sign of the cross appearing in the air, as it is said to do in the times of Constantine: not the former; for though to blow a trumpet is sometimes to give a sign, and is an alarm; and the feast which the Jews call the day of blowing the trumpets, (Numbers 29:1) is, by the Septuagint, rendered hmera shmasiav, “the day of signification”; yet this sign is not said to be sounded, but to appear, or to be seen, which does not agree with the sounding of a trumpet: much less can this design the last trumpet at the day of judgment, since of that the text does not speak; and, for the same reason, the clouds cannot be meant in which Christ will come to judgment, nor are clouds in themselves any sign of it: nor the latter, of which there is no hint in the word of God, nor any reason to expect it, nor any foundation for it; nor is any miraculous star intended, such as appeared at Christ’s first coming, but the son of man himself: just as circumcision is called the sign of circumcision, (Romans 4:11) and Christ is sometimes called a sign, (Luke 2:34) as is his resurrection from the dead, (Matthew 12:39) and here the glory and majesty in which he shall come: and it may be observed, that the other evangelists make no mention of the sign, only speak of the son of man, (Mark 13:26, Luke 21:27) and he shall appear, not in person, but in the power of his wrath and vengeance, on the Jewish nation which will be a full sign and proof of his being come: for the sense is, that when the above calamities shall be upon the civil state of that people, and there will be such changes in their ecclesiastical state it will be as clear a point, that Christ is come in the flesh, and that he is also come in his vengeance on that nation, for their rejection and crucifixion him, as if they had seen him appear in person in the heavens. They had been always seeking a sign, and were continually asking one of him; and now they will have a sign with a witness; as they had accordingly."

And further on he states,

"and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. The Arabic version reads it, “ye shall see”, as is expressed by Christ, in (Matthew 26:64). Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here as there; so the same coming of the son of man is intended; not his coming at the last day to judgment; though that will be in the clouds of heaven, and with great power and glory; but his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people, which was a dark and cloudy dispensation to them: and when they felt the power of his arm, might, if not blind and stupid to the last degree, see the glory of his person, that he was more than a mere man, and no other than the Son of God, whom they had despised, rejected, and crucified; and who came to set up his kingdom and glory in a more visible and peculiar manner, among the Gentiles."

The angels in v. 31 are, as literally translated, "messengers." That is, they are men--ministers who spread the Gospel. The Gospel is the sound of the trumpet that is mentioned. As these men spread out into the world with the Gospel, they gather the elect into the kingdom of God. Thus, the gathering of the elect is not the rapture into heaven, but the delivering of souls from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God, which now happens every day.

Many people see v. 36 as the beginning of Jesus' discourse of the ultimate second coming. They say that Jesus moved to a different topic by ending the first topic in the same way He began it (i.e., "this generation shall not pass..." v. 34). For instance, J. Marcellus Kik, a postmillennial partial-preterist, took this view. Gill did not see this as the beginning of a different subject. He thought that Jesus was still talking about the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish age. In vv 40 and 41, where one person is taken and another left behind, Gill says that this is not a rapture but is the taking of one by the Roman armies to be killed, and another spared by Providence.

Gill doesn't leave Matthew 24 bereft of any meaning pertaining to the ultimate return of Christ. He says that some of what is said in chapter 24 of the end of the Jewish age refers to the end of all things, such as the unexpectedness of Christ's return.

Of interest, Gill at one point makes the comments that all of creation will not be destroyed at the return of Christ. It will merely be changed. I have been of this persuasion for a while, though I hardly ever speak of it because it seems so radical. Gill doesn't give reason for his assertion, but I would imagine that it has to do with the fact that when Paul speaks of the New Jerusalem in Galations, it is obviously not a literal new heavens and new earth, but is rather a way of referring to the Gospel age. Another reason I don't believe that heaven and earth will be completely done away with is because the Bible says that all of creation groans in anticipation of being redeemed. What sort of looked-forward-to redemption is complete annihilation? "that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." -- Romans 8:21

All that is mere sidenote. I'm too tired to read Gill's commentary on chapter 25, so I can't say where he goes from there, but I did see that he begins saying that the kingdom of heaven is the gospel church state.

Gill was one of the most influential Baptist pastors, yet his influence is very obviously not felt so much today. For shame.

A Simple Question from a Credobaptist

2004-10-26T13:56:00.000-07:00

I know that probably half of the few people who read this blog are paedobaptists, and I do not intend any offense for this post. I just have a simple question is all.

R. C. Sproul has a little story that he sometimes relates involving the late Dr. John Gerstner. It goes something like this: Dr. Gerstner is visiting a small country church where he is asked to perform the sacrament of baptism for an infant that day. He says sure, and so they give him a white rose to pin to the baby. He asks what the rose symbolizes. They say that it symbolizes the baby's innocents. Dr. Gerstner then asks, "Oh, I see. Well, what does the water symbolize then?" And then we all laugh at his cutting down of this original sin-denying symbol of the white rose.

But I have a question. Yeah, I say, What does the water symbolize? Does this mean that a baptized infant is now innocent? I direct this question to paedobaptists who reject baptismal regeneration and reject NPism and Federal Visionism. I just don't get it. Baptismal regeneration, though grossly unBiblical, at least has some logic to it. When David says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me," can we assume that he could also add "And eight days later when I was circumcised I was no longer in sin"?

Though, as a credobaptist I must think that the New covenant is newer than paedobaptists reckon it, I do agree that baptism is, like circumcision, the sign of entrance into the covenant people. However, I understand the Old Testament Jewish nation to be but a type and shadow to the invisible church of the elect. In the Old Covenant typology, God's elect people was represented by a visible group of people who were visibly set apart from the rest of the world (ie, being their own ethnicity and nation). In the New Testament anti-typology it is a spiritual people that are God's people. His chosen are no longer recognizable by who their ancestors were or where they live. The members of God's covenant are those who are co-heirs with the Seed of Israel, Jesus Christ. There is all this talk of covenant blessings and curses for the children of believers, but that is exactly the same error of the Pharisees who claimed Abraham as their father. But Jesus is the seed to whom all blessings of the covenant go, and these blessings are shared with His children, His co-heirs. These children are not children by birth but children by election to be justified through faith alone. Believers are the true children of God, and therefore the baptism of believers only is the proper anti-type to the typology of OT circumcision.

But if not, then well....What does the water symbolize?

Southwest Founders Conference mp3

2004-10-03T23:43:00.000-07:00

Alrighty then, if you'd like to hear the mp3s of the Southern Baptist Founders Conference Southwest 2004, here they are.

Rev. Leslie Smith - Prayer Life
Rev. Bob Selph - The Man in Romans 7
Dr. James White - Justification & Sanctification
Rev. Jarrett Downs - Preaching That Sanctifies
Dr. James White - New Perspectives on Paul
Rev. Bob Selph - Q & A
Dr. James White - Suffering & Sanctification
Dr. James White - Knowing God's Will
Rev. Steve Garrick - Responsibility in Sanctification

A Baptist Declaration of Faith from History...

2004-09-28T01:32:00.000-07:00

My last few posts have been about the Southern Baptist Founders Conference. What be the Founders, you ask? Well, the idea is not that they are trying to introduce doctrines foreign to Baptist theology. Rather, they are attempting to restore doctrines that were present in Baptist theology from the very beginning. Hence, the Founders moniker. They promote the doctrines taught by the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention. The doctrines of the Founders that are mostly missing from Baptist teaching today are the Doctrines of Grace. Aka, Calvinism. Now, for those of you who are certain that Baptists have always rejected the Calvinist doctrine of election, and that people like me are just making all this up, there is a plethora of examples from history to back me up. Today I offer you one. It is a declaration of faith drawn up by Dr. John Gill, who was a predecessor to Charles Spurgeon.

1729 Goat Yard Declaration of Faith

A Declaration of the Faith and Practice of the Church of Christ at Horsely-down,under the Pastoral Care of Mr. John Gill, &c.

Having been enabled, through divine grace, to give up ourselves to the Lord, and likewise to one another by the will of God; we account it a duty incumbent upon us to make a declaration of our faith and practice, to the honour of Christ, and the glory of his name; knowing, that as with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, so with the mouth confession is made unto salvation--our declaration is as follows:

I. We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the word of God, and the only rule of faith and practice.

II. We believe that there is but one only living and true God; that there are three Persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are equal in nature, power, and glory; and that the Son and the Holy Ghost are as truly and as properly God as the Father.

III. We believe that, before the world began, God did elect a certain number of men unto everlasting salvation, whom he did predestinate to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ, of his own free grace, and according to the good pleasure of his will: and that, in pursuance of this gracious design, he did contrive and make a covenant of grace and peace with his Son Jesus Christ, on the behalf of those persons, wherein a Saviour was appointed, and all spiritual blessings provided for them; as also that their persons, with all their grace and glory, were put into the hands of Christ, and made his care and charge.

IV. We believe that God created the first man, Adam, after his own image, and in his likeness; an upright, holy, and innocent creature, capable of serving and glorifying him; but, he sinning, all his posterity sinned in him, and came short of the glory of God: the guilt of whose sin is imputed, and a corrupt nature derived, to all his offspring, descending from him by ordinary and natural generation: that they are by their first birth carnal and unclean, averse to all that is good, uncapable of doing any and prone to every sin; and are also by nature children of wrath, and under a sentence of condemnation, and so are subject not only to a corporal death, and involved in a moral one, commonly called spiritual, but are also liable to an eternal death, as considered in the first Adam, fallen and sinners; from all which there is no deliverance but by Christ, the second Adam.

V. We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, being set up from everlasting as the Mediator of the new covenant, and he, having engaged to be the surety of his people, did, in the fulness of time, really assume human nature, and not before, neither in whole nor in part; his human soul, being a creature, existed not from eternity, but was created and formed in his body by him that forms the spirit of man within him, when that was conceived in the womb of the virgin; and so his human nature consists of a true body and a reasonable soul; both which, together, and at once, the Son of God assumed into union with his divine Person, when made of a woman, and not before; in which nature he really suffered and died as their substitute, in their room and stead, whereby he made all that satisfaction for their sins, which the law and justice of God could require, as well as made way for all those blessings, which are needful for them both for time and eternity.

VI. We believe that that eternal redemption which Christ has obtained, by the shedding of his blood, is special and particular, that is to say, that it was only intentionally designed for the elect of God, and sheep of Christ, who only share the special and peculiar blessings of it.

VII. We believe that the justification of God's elect is only by the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, without the consideration of any works of righteousness done by them; and that the full and free pardon of all their sins and transgressions, past, present, and to come, is only through the blood of Christ, according to the riches of his grace.

VIII. We believe that the work of regeneration, conversion, sanctification, and faith, is not an act of man's free will and power, but of the mighty, efficacious, and irresistible grace of God.

IX. We believe that all those who are chosen by the Father, redeemed by the Son, and sanctified by the Spirit, shall certainly and finally persevere, so that not one of them shall ever perish, but shall have everlasting life.

X. We believe that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust; and that Christ will come a second time to judge both quick and dead, when he will take vengeance on the wicked, and introduce his own people into his kingdom and glory, where they shall be for ever with him.

XI. We believe that Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of Christ, to be continued until his second coming; and that the former is absolutely requisite to the latter; that is to say, that those only are to be admitted into the communion of the church, and to participate of all ordinances in it, who upon profession of their faith, have been baptized by immersion, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

XII. We also believe that singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, vocally, is an ordinance of the Gospel to be performed by believers; but that as to time, place, and manner, every one ought to be left to their liberty in using it.

Now all, and each of these doctrines and ordinances, we look upon ourselves under the greatest obligations to embrace, maintain, and defend; believing it to be our duty to stand fast, in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel.

And whereas we are very sensible, that our conversation, both in the world and in the church, ought to be as becometh the Gospel of Christ, we judge it our incumbent duty to walk in wisdom towards them that are without, to exercise a conscience void of offence towards God and men, by living soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.

And as to our regards to each other, in our church-communion, we esteem it our duty to walk with each other in all humility and brotherly love: to watch over each other's conversation; to stir up one another to love and good works; not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as we have opportunity, to worship God according to his revealed will; and, when the case requires, to warn, rebuke, and admonish one another, according to the rules of the Gospel.

Moreover, we think ourselves obliged to sympathize with each other, in all conditions, both inward and outward, which God, in his providence, may bring us into; as also to bear with one another's weaknesses, failings, and infirmities, and particularly to pray for one another, and that the Gospel and the ordinances thereof might be blessed to the edification and comfort of each other's souls, and for the gathering in of others to Christ, besides those who are already gathered--all which duties we desire to be found in the performance of, through the gracious assistance of the Holy Spirit, whilst we both admire and adore the grace which has given us a place and a name in God's house, better than that of sons and daughters.

James White Messages Available

2004-09-27T21:29:00.000-07:00

On Sunday, September 26, 2004, Dr. James White delivered two messages at Heritage Baptist Church, which happens to be the church I attend. If you would like to hear these great messages, well, now you can.

Unity Through Humility (Phil. 2:1-11) http://65.71.233.194/mp3_hbc/040905am.mp3
Mormonism http://65.71.233.194/mp3_hbc/040926pm.mp3

Southern Baptist Founders Conference SW 2004 - Days 2, 3, and following

2004-09-26T21:01:00.000-07:00

Well, I ended spending most of the night after Day 1 nursing a headache, and then the rest of Day 2 as well, so I didn't go. Arg! So I can't report on the busiest day of the conference. But it will be online soon so we can all hear the speachings. Still, it's not the same as physical fellowship. But I did go on Day 3, and it was good. It started off with Dr. James White speaking on "Knowing God's Will." It was excellent, of course. This was followed by Pastor Steve Garrick filling in for an absent Fred Malone. He spoke on "Responsibility in Sanctification." Also excellent. That marked the end of the conference, but Dr. White stuck around to preach on Sunday. His sermon was on Philippians 2:1-11. I guess the main theme was on our duty to be humble with Christ as our example. However, a lot of time was spent on Christ's deity and the difference between the orthodox Christian view of this passage and the heretical views of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Arians. The outcome is that the Arian view of Christ's humiliation isn't really humility at all. A mere creature does not grasp for godhood? Well, the only creature who has done that is Satan, so that makes Jesus as humble as...everybody else except Satan. Then Dr. White taught the afternoon service. He spoke on Mormonism, and wow did I not want him to stop. He helped to explain the communication problem that exists between Christians and Mormons--how they will use the same terminology as Christians, but mean entirely different things. And we learned, among other things, that Mormons wrote Battlestar Galactica. And that show pretty much explains their beliefs. Not as a clever metaphor, but literally. Pray that the Lord gives sight to these blind people and removes the hardness of their hearts. We too were once blind and hardened and showed no more righteousness or intelligence than they, yet God had mercy on us and graciously changed our hearts. If God is able to do that with me, then He can do that to the most die-hard Mormon. Let us pray that His will be done.

Southern Baptist Founders Conference SW 2004 - Day 1

2004-09-23T18:58:00.000-07:00

I'm reporting to you here from Arlington, TX where I have just returned from neighboring Mansfield. Mansfield is home of Heritage Baptist Church, and Heritage Baptist Church is home of the Southern Baptist Founders Conference SW 2004. I showed up in plenty of time, got a nifty name badge that states my name, church, and city of residence, and then I walked around a bit looking at other name tags. Then things start sounding a little musical so I went to the auditorium and sat down. Ken Puls from Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, FL came to lead the music. The first speaker for the day was Rev. Leslie Smith, an elderly man from the United Kingdom. He gave an excellent sermon on prayer and its importance in our lives. Next was Rev. Bob Selph from Carlisle, PA, coordinator of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America. He spoke on "The Man in Romans 7." Pastor Larry Vincent of Heritage said that it was the clearest expounding of Romans 7 that he had ever heard. Then we break for dinner. It was during this time that I got to meet Dr. James White. I hope I didn't gush at him too much. I'm a huge fanboy. It's quite embarrassing, really. Then after dinner I met a fellow chatter from Dr. White's chat room who goes by the nickname of Shamgar. He looks like Ed from Radiohead! Then we all sat down to hear a marvelously wonderful discussion on Justification and Sanctification by Dr. White. Again I quote Pastor Larry, when after it was over said that he doesn't believe in clapping in church but this time he was really tempted. So good is Dr. White at getting at the heart of things and letting you know what is really important! And then the day was over. Stay tuned for Day 2!

Some links pertaining to this article:
http://www.aomin.org James White's webpage.
http://www.reformedbaptist.org Heritage Baptist Church's webpage
http://www.founders.org Southern Baptist Founders webpage

Google: Don't Be Evil

2004-08-24T18:58:00.000-07:00

I hate to steal Dr. James White's blog ideas (http://www.aomin.org), but I will anyway. Google has taken down an ad from a Christian organization website for promoting "hate speech". In other words, the ad had a link to an article that weighed in on a popular political issue, i.e., same-sex marriages. Of course we all know that this "hate speech" shinola goes way too far in its definitions, but I mention that it is a popular political issue to make a point, which is this: Does a news program engage in "hate speech" any time it spotlights a political rally on the issue? If a bunch of people go to city hall and protest same-sex marriages, is the news program that covers the story engaging in hate speech? And how are we to define hate? I know of many liberal groups, including homosexual groups, who are rabidly anti-conservative, anti-moral. When they write an article advocating that religious issues stay out of politics, is that not hate-speech as well? IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING AS AN ARTICLE AGAINST SODOMITE MARRIAGE! It's just the other side of the issue. It's not about "hate" speech at all. It's about moral speech. The culture of today is so anti-moral and so completely backwards that they call evil good and good evil. Read the whole story here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39992

A few items of interest from the article...

Penner said she asked Google what specifically it thought was "hate speech."
"The things they cited were all moral judgments from our religious perspective about homosexuality, that it's wrong," she explained.
"The irony is that in one of the articles they cited, we have an admonition that one of our moral perspective is that we treat homosexuals respectfully and kindly."

Penner noted that Google, which is in the midst of an IPO, or Initial Public Offering of stock, takes pride in its company motto: "Don't be evil."
"If that's your company motto then there must be some things that you don't want to do," she told WND, "and if your definition of 'hate' is calling something 'evil,' then aren't you a hate group?"

Google's online guidelines for AdWord advertisers say nothing about homosexuality or protected classes of people.

Rockers Against Morality

2004-08-17T22:52:00.000-07:00

So I'm sure you're all aware of the big campaign by many rock n roll stars to get Bush out of office and Kerry voted in. Bruce Springsteen wrote a touching piece about how Bush has only lowered taxes for the rich. Because Kerry is scraping the bottom of the economic barrel along with the rest of his impoverished working-class Democrats, just trying to earn a break in this world full of rich, fat-cat Republicans. Oh wait, I'm thinking of the wrong Kerry! The presidential candidate Kerry is in fact not a working-class poor man, but is in fact one of the richest men in the world! And I'm sure Springsteen isn't far behind on the list! So cut the crap about all those pitiful poor people who are left in the dirt by the Republicans. If your heart is so bleeding, why don't you leave your ivory mansions and get in the welfare line! Effing hypocrites.

So I'm reading about all this in Rolling Stone, that venerable hack rag that suckles at the teat of Yellow Dog and hates anything upright and after several pages praising the degenerate rockers who want to keep their immoral interests protected by electing a Democrat, they did offer a small sidebar of three musicians who support Bush. One of whom, Jessica Simpson, isn't even actually an avowed Bush supporter. The other two are Ted Nugent and Gene Simmons. Now I can't say much for the morality of Gene Simmons (there isn't much to speak of), but I'll accept his support nonetheless. And Ted Nugent? Well, he's my hero. Nevermind the fact that his guitar playing outstrips any of his political opponents in talent. He rocks! So I'm going to get together a big concert to rival the Rockers Against Bush tour, and I'm going to have Ted Nugent, and Gene Simmons, and me and my trusty Les Paul, and we're going to take back the rock world! HOOOOOAAWWWW!!!!

Guess What I Got!

2004-08-11T14:52:00.000-07:00

Being a good ol' Reformed Southern Baptist, it was only fitting and proper that I should very much want to own James Petigru Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology. This thing is extremely hard to find. From my searching on the internet, it even seems impossible to find. I can find it listed at stores, such as the Discerning Reader, but it is out of print and therefore there are no actual copies for sale. There are a couple of copies at the book room of my church, but I never have that kind of loose money hanging around me...I'm a debit card kind of guy and very rarely have cash or a checkbook on my person. But it turns out my dad has a copy. It was his systematic theology textbook when he went to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in the seventies. And he was kind enough to let me have it, and I got it in the mail today! Hooray! Now, this is all very fine and good but isn't really blog-material. I mean, who cares, right? But here's the neat part. This copy of my dad's (now mine) has a publisher's preface thingy in it that was written by the fellows who got this book re-published. One of those fellows only happens to be the founder of my church! My church is Heritage Baptist Church in Mansfield, TX, and the fellow in question is Dr. Fred Malone, currently a pastor at First Baptist Church in Clinton, LA. Isn't Providence neat? Incidentally, the other preface author was Ernie Reisinger, who just recently passed away. But yeah, I just thought the whole "it's a small world that goes round" idea was neat. The guy who was indirectly instrumental in my dad's theological education (by helping to republish a long forgotten textbook) is also indirectly instrumental in my theological education (by founding the church I attend). Let's all give Dr. Malone a big thanks by buying his excellent book The Baptism of Disciples Alone. Of course, all glory goes to God alone. Soli Deo gloria!

Jonathan Edwards in the Hands of Angry Sinners

2004-08-02T00:17:00.000-07:00

So I just happened to stumble upon some Christian message board the other day, and found some comments about the great Puritan Jonathan Edwards. I think the message board belonged to the website of some Christian rock group, so I am guessing that the speakers are "youth". Oh, and they were talking about school, too. So, uh, yeah, I guess they were probably teenagers. Anyway, here are some quotes:

"J. Edwards was not cool in my mind- i dont think God is sitting there waiting to drop us off a waterfall or something...and if we were all that bad, then we would all be drowning by now and no one would be here. And i guess that it does imply that God is merciful, but does Edwards have to make Him sound like such a meanie?"

"i dont like J. Edwards either. God is cool."

" He wrote Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God... projecting God as angry, mad, merciless, fire and brimstone, etc. This was in the first Great Awakening. The second Great Awakening was the reversal; it portrayed God as loving and full of mercy."

"Thank God for the Second Great Awakening!!"

Okay, where do we begin with how INCREDIBLY WRONG this all is? I guess we should say that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of three things: Edwards, God, and sin/man.

First, Edwards. Let's be very generous and assume that these people actually have read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." If you read this one sermon without reading any other sermon by Edwards, you are going to develop a lopsided view of the man. The God of Jonathan Edwards is indeed very merciful. Edwards often preached of the mercy of God; perhaps even more than he wrote of God's anger. In the collection of sermons put out by Banner of Truth entitled Jonathan Edwards on Knowing Christ, the "Sinners" sermon is sandwiched right between two great sermons on the mercies and goodness of God. One speaks of Christ being a rock of shade for those in the hot desert, a river of cool water to the thirsty, etc. The second sermon lists the great benefits of being a part of God's people. If just these three sermons were read together, a much better understanding of Edwards' theology would result.

Also, we must note that Edwards always refers to the wrath of God as falling on impenitant sinners. Those who, in this life, repent of their sins and fall upon Christ will indeed receive God's mercy. It is those who die in their sins that do not receive mercy from God because they rejected Him.

But all this is less important. How "cool" Jonathan Edwards is doesn't really matter. How "cool" is God?

This leads to the second misunderstanding: the character of God. It is very sad how many professing Christians don't even have a basic kindergarten knowledge of Who God is. I don't mean to sound boastful and suggest that I am a genius on the character of God, but I am saying READ YOUR BIBLES! Read all of it! Remember that the Old Testament God is also the God of the New Testament because He never changes (Malachi 3:6)!

Now, if we are to believe what the Bible says about God, and if we are to call ourselves Christians we must do this, we should see what it says regarding God and wrath. The OT is full of examples of God's wrath burning against a rebellious mankind. See Isaiah 59:18, 63:3, 66:15; Ezekiel 8:18; etc. Now suppose you just can't get it out of your system that God never changes, and that somehow God is kinder in the NT, there are verses there to confound you. God is ready to dispose of the sinful, as seen in Luke 13:7. God is the One Who sends men to hell (Luke 12:4-5). He does possess wrath that will be poured at (Rev 19:15).

Logic also speaks of the reality of God's wrath. Think for a second--if God is just some lovey-dovey guy who wishes love and goodness on everybody, then why does anybody go to Hell? You may say that men send themselves to hell by their rejection of Christ. But, I say to you, who created hell? God did, for He created all things. He created all things for a purpose. He intended from eternity past to punish sinners. He did not intend this against His own will, a sad will that was sorry to see sinners burn, because God always executes His will. He created hell because he was angry with sinners.

Another logical problem: If God is not angry, then what is mercy? By definition mercy is that which we do NOT deserve. Mercy is non-justice. We all deserve justice. Justice demands damnation. As R.C. Sproul often has to argue, God is not obligated to deal out mercy because then it wouldn't be mercy. Mercy, by definition, is NOT required. Mercy is the absence of wrath, but for mercy to exist, wrath must exist before it.

Man is a sinner. We must understand this. And sin is ultimate rebellion. It is cosmic rebellion. God is unable to look at sin. That is why Jesus could cry out "My God why have you forsaken me?" He had all of the elect's sin put into His account, so much so that He is said to have become sin Himself. He was forsaken because God could not look upon Him. Hey, that's another thought--If God is not angry, then why did Jesus suffer? The crucifixion wasn't man's idea, it was God's--see Acts 2:23. We must ask ourselves, if God is holy, just, and perfect, how could He not be angry with sinners? If being holy, just, and perfect are part of what makes God God, then He must be angry with sinners, or else He wouldn't be God.

Let us look again at one of the quotes from a professing Christian: "if we were all that bad, then we would all be drowning by now and no one would be here." Here we see the denial of real sin. oh, I'm sure this person would admit to being a sinner, after all, "all have sinned". But this person fails to see how sinful sin is. The Bible says that men are continuously wicked (Gen. 6:5), that men are at enmity against God (Rom. 8:7). The truth is, natural man hates God. He may not think so, but by the fact that he even sins ONCE is proof of that. Any "bad" is "that bad". Any sin deserves hell. If not, then why do even the most upright need a saviour? If you're not "that bad", then why do you need Jesus Christ? Apparently God isn't concerned with those who aren't "that bad", so He can let you into heaven without you believing in His Son. The only problem with this idea is that it is unBiblical and unChristian. But why aren't we all "drowning by now"? The only reason is that God is merciful, and that is precisely one of Jonathan Edwards' points in "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". That we aren't all crushed immediately is because of the mercy of God. We are "that bad" and we all deserve to have been destroyed. To deny this is to deny the Bible. But God is a merciful God who delays his wrath and bestows mercies upon those who do not deserve it. This is especially seen in the the fact that God saves people from eternal damnation, but also from the fact that even those who eventually are eternally punished receive blessings on earth.

So is God cool? Oh yes, He is very cool in that despite the fact that He ordinarily is wrathful towards sin, he nonetheless chose to love some and not feel wrath towards them and offer them the penultimate in mercy. Is He "cool" in that He lets sinners walk all over Him and He'd love to save them from their sins if they'd just let Him but He's just too darn impotent and weak and not possessed of the sovereign right and power that logically belongs to deity? Is God "cool" in the sense that, even though He's not mad at anybody, people still end up in hell for eternity? If that's God being sweet, then I'd hate to see what it would be like if He was really angry! Wow!

As I wind down my rantings, I thought I'd remark on the Second Great Awakening. Charles G. Finney was the main character in the Second Great Awakening, and he was an out-and-out heretic (see http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/finney.htm) . He had many professions of faith, but most of those were not true conversions. He even admitted himself that most of his "converts" never followed up their profession. This is in contrast to the first Great Awakening featuring Jonathan Edwards, where most of those who professed Christ also lived out that profession. And not all Second Great Awakening evangelists differed from Edwards. Asahel Nettleton did not diverge from the Gospel that Edwards preached, and he also saw many professions of faith that proved true. Whereas the majority of those "converted" under Finney never attended church again, the opposite was true for Nettleton. And so it is with all preaching of the true Gospel, the Gospel of the Puritans. For the true Gospel falls on good soil that produces good fruit. The gospel of the likes of Finney is like the seed that fell on rocky, shallow soil.

Why I'm a Reverse-Yellow Dog

2004-07-31T18:12:00.000-07:00

I used to be the sort of person that said that I didn't vote along party lines, that I was concerned with individual candidates and their positions regardless of their party. This is still sort of true. But basically I have turned into a rabid anti-democrat. I've always been rabidly anti-liberal, and I know that not all democrats are liberal, but nonetheless, I just can't vote for them anymore. We are all familiar with the term "yellow dog democrat," as in, "I'd vote for Yellow Dog if he was a democrat." Well, I'm not a yellow dog voter of any particular party. I will vote for libertarian as well as republican. I may even go for "other". But I cannot vote democrat anymore. Why? Why have I become so rabid? Two words: Michael Moore. That's right. Oh, I've voted democrat before. There are two individual democrats that I have in my mind that I know I voted for. I liked their personal stands, despite their party. But I just don't think I can do that anymore because I can't vote for anybody who is in any way affiliated with Michael Moore. He takes deception to a new level. He makes it an art. That's why he's won awards. I mean, the blank spot on the Nixon tapes is just plain amateur. Michael Moore is an expert at cut 'n paste. If I were a democrat who wasn't ultra-liberal who wanted to perhaps gain the votes of people who aren't yellow dog republicans, I would leave the democratic party because of Moore. It would be the "We're Democrats, but not like Michael Moore, Party". That way, they could retain the votes of their democrat constituents, and possibly get a vote from somebody like me.

One last thing. For all you ultra-conservative kooks out there who insist on murdering the Great Deceiver (which I do not condone, but hey, if it's gonna happen...), please do not use a gun. Then his followers might be able to claim some sort of justification on their "guns kill" theory.

I didn't say it. You liberal whackos may think I said it, but I didn't say it.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

2004-07-30T16:39:00.000-07:00

So at the Democratic National Convention, Jimmy Carter pointed out the differences between the military services of George W. Bush and John Kerry. The idea is that since Kerry actually served in Vietnam while Bush kind of got the pampered version of the army (no offense to the National Guard, but I'm just giving the gist of Democrat spew), then Kerry is the better man for our military. Weeeeeeeeeellllllllllll.....IF MILITARY SERVICE IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE DEMOCRATS, WHY DID CLINTON GET ELECTED OVER BOB DOLE (injured in war, just like Kerry) AND GHW BUSH?! The answer? Military service isn't important. They'll just pick and chose what qualities are important based upon what qualities their candidate actually possesses. They knew that there was no way they could gain acceptance for Clinton from true vets, so they downplayed the importance of military service. But now that they got a real war hero on their hands, it is suddenly important. What really needs to be important is the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of marriage, etc. But then, if that was important to the citizens of this country, we wouldn't have to worry about getting a Democrat into office.