To My Friends Who Make No Claim to Being Christians

Greetings. Every day I see some sort of post or comment or article about homosexuality, with regard to its moral rightness or wrongness, and the moral rightness or wrongness of weighing in on the matter. Much of what is said is in little combox snipes, drive-by commenting, little barbed sound bites tweeted with no substantive argument given, whether pro or con. I do not like that. It is in my own unwritten code of conduct that I shall try to refrain from such. Well, I violated my code of conduct earlier today, and that prompted me to write something lengthy, hopefully with substance and logic. That way, when I am tempted to give a snide drive-by comment I can say to myself, “No, I have said my piece and I have posted it in the place where the only people I actually care about (and not just random strangers) read it. I need not enter the fray again.”

                My purpose in this little letter is not to argue about the morality or immorality of homosexuality, but to argue for the morality of being able to argue for the morality or immorality of homosexuality. Or I might title my argument “You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too.” And I figure I had better do this now because I fear that before too long it will not only be considered immoral for me to express my thoughts, but also illegal. By the way, when I use the word “argue” or “argument” I am not referring to passionate verbal warfare. I am using those words in the technical sense used when discussing logic or debate.

                I shall begin by honestly stating my presuppositions. I believe that the Christian Bible is true and authoritative. Therefore, I believe that homosexual behavior is sin (along with certain heterosexual, gastronomical, economical, etc. sins—I am equal opportunity in reading the Bible). That is my position. Your position may be that I am a bigot in saying this, and I would assume that you would define bigotry as a moral evil. Or to put it another way, you believe that my belief about homosexuality is a sin. Fine and good. We each believe something. The problem arises when you claim that it is intolerant for a person to say that something is a sin. Do you see the problem? Let me diagram it for you, in case you can’t see it.

Statement A: x is a sin.

Statement B: It is a sin to say that something is a sin.

Statement C: Saying Statement A is a sin.

Conclusion: Statement C is in violation of Statement B. This amounts to saying that Statement B is itself a contradictory nonsense statement.

                All I want you to see is that this accusatory knife cuts both ways. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. At this point I am not concerned with whether Statements A or C are right or wrong. What I am stressing is that Statement B is total rubbish and will carry no weight with me if you ever try to use it against me in argument.

                Now let us get back to our specific point of conflict. I do not expect you to agree with me on homosexuality because you do not agree with me on the authoritativeness of the Bible. You do not believe that the Bible is true and authoritative, so why should you care what it says about any number of issues? I understand that. I wouldn’t necessarily believe something from a source that I don’t consider authoritative, either. And I can’t get too upset if you call me slanderous names like “bigot,” “moron,” “Neanderthal,” “hate-speaker,” etc. After all, that Bible that I believe in promised me that I would be reviled for Jesus’ name sake. Indeed, it even commands me to rejoice when this happens. But being the sort of fellow who is more on the logical, bookish side, I get frustrated when reason lies slain in the street and people can boldly proclaim without any sense of irony, “I can’t tolerate intolerance,” and, “It is hateful to denounce anybody or their behavior, and I denounce you,” thinking all the while that you are the paragon of loving-kindness. The knife cuts both ways, you see.

                Let’s summarize: If you declare that it is morally wrong for someone else to declare their belief that something is morally wrong, you are being hypocritical and illogical. If you can, like a certain CBS sportswriter, accuse the pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas of being “monstrous,” a “cretin,” and full of “hate-speech”, then you are being hypocritical and illogical. If you can’t see words such as “monstrous” and “cretin” as being hateful, then you are also illiterate. If you call me a hypocrite then (guess what?) you are a hypocrite. This accusatory knife cuts both ways. You can’t have your cake and it, too. I am not saying it is hypocritical to say that my beliefs are wrong, but it is hypocritical to try to silence me.

                But let’s suppose for a moment that you are Post-modern. You don’t care if I say that your statements are illogical because logic is just a false construct of Modernity. There is no such thing as true Truth because all truths are equally valid and there are no moral absolutes. Alrighty then. If there is no Truth, then what you have to say doesn’t make any difference. For you to say that I am wrong and that you are right is, by your own admission, not the truth. Or are all truths equally valid? Then that means that nothing you or I say can be considered hateful or untrue. You should be able to live and let live with us “gay-bashers.” Oops, I guess you don’t believe that tenant of postmodernity either. How about your truth that there are no moral absolutes? Well I guess that means that it is not immoral to say that homosexuality is a sin because there is no such thing as immorality!

                Well, I suppose that none of you truly embrace those postmodern tenants because when somebody robs or rapes you, or proclaims something you like to be sin, you suddenly believe in objective, moral truth. After all, you know that the violation of your person was objectively, truly, wrong. Even Yoko Ono protests the parole of her husband’s killer. She’s not singing “Attica” anymore.

                So let’s go back to the issue of authority for a moment. By what authority is my speech to be declared hateful? Why are you right and I am wrong? Further, why is it wrong for me to declare my wrong belief? It is not my opinion that certain things are sins. This is the word of that which I and many others believe to be authoritative. In other words, my authority is outside of myself. What about you? Who is your authority? Who determines so dogmatically that what I believe or say is wrong? Is it yourself? Why should I or anybody else bow before you? I appeal to the One who created all, and in whom we all live and move and have our being. I don’t have my being in you.  Is it popular opinion that you appeal to? That won’t work. Only a few states have voted to redefine marriage. Most of the eastern world is anti-homosexuality, even considering it to be criminal. But of course they are bigots, too. So now it is not only Christians that are morally primitive. That disgrace belongs to Jews, Muslims, and Communists as well. That just leaves the few, the righteous elite. Perhaps it is social progress that you appeal to. Of course the majority of people in the past disagreed with you, but that is because they were backwards. We are so much more sophisticated now. Good luck with that argument. I guess that means nuclear bombs and world wars are much better than tribal conflicts with spears. And please don’t tell me that your authority is the opinion of Hollywood celebrities or I will just have to check out of this conversation right now, having concluded that you have gone quite insane.

                So what do you appeal to? Apparently to yourself, who is so righteous as to be able to define right and wrong, or to your little group of like-minded westerners, who are so righteous as to defame everybody else as bigoted cavemen. At least, as I had said, my authority is outside of myself. That also means that my righteousness is from outside myself. There is another who is righteous enough to declare what is or is not sinful, and He also loves enough to forgive those who are sinners, of whom I am the chief. All this leads to another slice of cake that you cannot have and eat simultaneously. You can no longer call me self-righteous in an accusatory manner without being guilty of the same, for it is yourself that is so righteous as to accuse me.

                Well, in this little letter, I have made no effort to prove that the Bible is true or that you should believe its testimony. What I have striven for is to convince you of the hypocrisy of calling those like myself slanderous names like “bigot,” and of the illogic of declaring in a public forum  your belief that my belief ought not to be allowed in a public forum.

                As a postscript, I have not, as I said, made any effort to convince you of the Bible’s authority, only that I hold to it. But I would urge you to just read it. And especially, do not dare to quote it to me, thinking you can score some sort of rhetorical points, until you have actually read the whole thing. Oh, I know it is fun to say, “Well, the Bible also says to stone so-and-so, and that we shouldn’t wear polyester, etc.” But until you have read the whole book from cover to cover and can tell me the difference between moral law based upon God’s unchanging nature and the theocratic law given only to ancient Israel, and how to know that difference, as well as other principles of textual interpretation, do not quote the Bible to me.

                Thank you for your time.

On the 500th Anniversary of the Birth of John Calvin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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!

Autograph for the Day - Fred Malone

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

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.