f The Wittenberg Door: June 2011

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
My Photo
Name:

Commenting on Christendom, culture, history, and other oddities of life from an historic Protestant perspective.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Is God a Christian?

Attacking historic Christianity sells a lot of books. Just ask Sam Harris, Brian McLaren, and Rob Bell. No stranger to attacking Christianity is Southern-Baptist-turned-pluralist R. Kirby Godsey. This book should be noted because, although the author repudiates about every Christian doctrine, he is still a major player in moderate Baptistdom. For this reason I recommend Albert Mohler’s review of Mr. Godsey’s new book, Is God a Christian?, at AlbertMohler.com. Here’s how the review begins:

“Most Christians assume that Christianity is the one and only religion that is God-inspired and that carries the imprimatur of God’s blessing,” laments R. Kirby Godsey. In his new book, Is God a Christian?, Godsey sets out to oppose that assumption and to argue that “the stakes for mankind have grown too high for any of us to engage our faith as if our understanding of God represents the only way God’s presence may be known in the world.”

The great question of the exclusivity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is necessarily bound up with the most central teachings of the Christian faith, which is why an argument like this must be considered so carefully. A closer look reveals that Godsey is not merely calling upon Christians to reconsider how we define and defend the Gospel — he is calling for a total reconstruction of everything that Christianity represents.

You can read the rest of the review here.

HT: Contemporary Calvinist

Labels:

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

How Much Does the Soul Weigh?

In case your subscription to the American Medicine journal has lapsed, you’ve missed the findings of Dr. Duncan MacDougall regarding the weight of the soul.

Published in 1907 (I’m a little behind in my reading), the journal records that Dr. MacDougall, son of a mortician, was able to measure weight change upon death. He did so by building a bed that doubled as a scale, and then by successively tucking-in six terminally ill patients.

By measuring their weight before, during, and after death, and by accounting for air, bodily fluids, etc, the good doctor was able to record a decrease in body weight of 21 grams. (He performed the same test on dogs, but recorded no such weight change—sorry Lassie.)

There you have it: the soul weighs 21 grams.

Modern Soul-Weighers

Dr. MacDougall’s study, and his subsequent attempt to X-Ray the soul, strikes us as silly today. It’s silly to the Christian because the category error is obvious: the soul can’t weigh anything because it isn’t physical (and it can’t be photographed because it’s shy). To the modern skeptic, the soul can’t weigh anything because it doesn’t exist—nothing immaterial exists.

The interesting thing is that today’s skeptics have more in common with Dr. MacDougall than they think.

Whatcha Talkn Bout, Willis?

Consider the following from mathematical physicist Casey Blood, Ph.D (no relation to the Errol Flynn character). . . .

. . . we need to sketch how the brain works. For our purposes, it consists of long nerve cells called neurons. Each neuron has a long branch on one end that receives electrochemical signals from other neurons, a cell body in the middle, and a second long branch on the other end that passes electrochemical signals on to other neurons. If the receiving end of a neuron receives enough input from other neurons, an electrochemical wave runs the length of the cell. In that case, the neuron is said to be “firing.” Each thought (or emotion or perception or initiation of a bodily action) corresponds to a particular set of firing neurons. So from a materialist’s point of view, we essentially are our pattern of firing neurons. (Emphasis in original.)

A key word in the explanation is “corresponds.” To the materialist, thoughts, emotions, intuitions, etc, are the firing neurons. But for those who believe in the existence of the soul, like Dr. Blood, “corresponds” is much more accurate. To put it another way, to the materialist there is only the brain. To those believing in an immaterial self, there is the mind and the brain, which work hand-in-hand; hence the use of “corresponds”: thoughts (produced by the mind) correspond with the firing synapses, but are not themselves the firing synapses or caused by the firing synapses.

What Does This Have to do With the Price of Butter?

There are a few problems with the “soul-weighing” being done by modern skeptics regarding thoughts. The first problem has to do with a reductive fallacy known as “Nothing-Buttery.” This fallacy is committed when you reduce something to one of its parts. For example, if I refer to my truck as “nothing but a bunch of nuts and bolts” I would be committing this fallacy, for my truck is much more than that.

Here’s another problem: If your thoughts are nothing but firing synapses, how could you know that without transcending it? For example, if I was a fish in a bowl, how would I know that without somehow transcending the bowl?

Also, if only material things exist, then our thoughts are material (i.e., extended into space). This brings us to another problem: Imagine a gold fish swimming in a fish bowl. How much does that thought weigh? How long is it? Moreover, if we cracked open your head, would we find the gold fish? If the materialists are right, we should find Mr. Limpet swimming around in there.

Conclusion

Thoughts are information, and information isn’t physical. If you grabbed today’s San Antonio Express-News and took it to the lab, you could determine all of the chemical and organic compounds that make up the paper—but none of that would ever tell you what it says. The information transcends the paper’s material constituents. Likewise, thoughts—and souls, for that matter—transcend our physical selves. Otherwise you might find Mr. Limpet hiding behind your Occipital Lobe.

Labels:

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Today in History: Ben Franklin Calls for Prayer

In the summer of 1787, the Constitutional Convention met at Independence Hall in Philadelphia to decide how to set up a new government. At times the arguments grew bitter, and tempers flared in the summer heat. Some delegates verged on quitting when they reached an impasse over whether representation was to be based on the population of each state or if each state should be given one vote. Historians have called this period the “critical juncture” in the Convention. The country was brand-new, and already it looked as though it might fall apart.

On June 28, 1787, eighty-one-year old Benjamin Franklin, the oldest delegate, rose from his seat and made a simple but profound suggestion: they should pray for guidance. He reminded the others that the Continental Congress had asked for divine aid at the start of the Revolutionary War.

“Our prayers, sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered,” he said. “And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, sire, a long time, and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?”

The delegates did not follow Franklin’s suggestion to begin each session with prayer—-for one thing, they had no funds to hire a clergyman. But his words helped calm the Convention, which soon began to make progress, and that answered Franklin’s fervent prayer.

American History Parade

1776 - In Charleston, South Carolina, Patriot troops manning a fort of sand and palmetto logs repulse a British sea attack.

1778 - In the Battle of Monmouth, New Jersey, George Washington’s Continental Army battles the British to a draw.

1914 - A Serb nationalist assassinates Austrian archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, sophie, an event that triggers World War I.

1919 - The Treaty of Versailles is signed in France, formally ending World War I.

1939 - Regular transatlantic passenger air service begins when Pan Am’s Dixie Clipper leaves Port Washington, New York, for Lisbon, Portugal, with 22 passengers.

The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America

Labels:

Monday, June 27, 2011

The Problem of the Virtuous Pagan

We have as our lawgiver the true God, who teaches us to practice righteousness, to be pious, and to do good.

Theophilus
(385-412)

What about non-Christians who display virtue? Do their “good works” earn any merit before God? To answer this question we must first discover what God considers a "good" work.

According to the Scriptures, for any work to be considered good (morally right before God), the person committing the act must be doing so with the right goal in mind, with the right motive, and according to the right standard.

The right goal

The act must be done to God’s glory.

Q. What is the chief end of man?

A. The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.

Westminster Shorter Catechism (1642-1647)

Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

1 Cor. 10:31

And it must be done in service to the Lord.

Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men

Col. 3:23

The Right Motive

The act must be done in true faith.

Q. What is true faith?

A. True faith is not only a sure knowledge whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty trust, which the Holy Ghost works in me by the Gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.

Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

Rom. 14:23

And it must be done in love.

If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

1 Cor. 13:2-3

The Right Standard

It must be according the right standard—God’s law.

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law

Rom. 7:7

Conclusion

My best work on my best day is defiled by sin. It's only because I stand in the shadow of the cross that I am able to bring anything before the Lord. It’s only because I'm clothed in a righteousness not my own.

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction

Rom. 3:21-22

Q. But why cannot our good works be the whole or part of our righteousness before God?

A. Because the righteousness which can stand before the judgment seat of God, must be perfect throughout and entirely conformable to the divine law, but even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.

Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

This is the answer to the Problem of the Virtuous Pagan: Neither his works nor mine are acceptable apart from Christ. For it is only in Christ that those works can be considered good—being done towards the right goal, for the right reasons, and according to the right standard.

Labels:

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Notable Quotes: John Calvin and Albert Wolters


On redeeming culture . . .

The liberal arts and sciences have descended to us from the heathen. We are, indeed, compelled to acknowledge that we have received astronomy, and the other parts of philosophy, medicine, and the order of the civil government, from them. Nor is it to be doubted that God has thus liberally enriched them with excellent favors that their impiety might have the less excuse. But, while we admire the riches of his favor which he has bestowed on them, let us still value far more highly that grace of regeneration with which he peculiarly sanctifies his elect unto himself.

John Calvin


The new humanity, God’s people, is called to promote renewal in every department of creation. If Christ is the reconciler of all things, and if we have been entrusted with the ministry of reconciliation on his behalf, then we have a redemptive task wherever our vocation places us in his world. . . . In the name of Christ, [the] distortion [of sin] must be opposed everywhere—in the kitchen and bedroom, in city councils and corporate boardrooms, on the stage, [on the silver screen], and on the air, in the classroom, and in the workshop. Everywhere humanity’s sinfulness disrupts and deforms. Everywhere Christ’s victory is pregnant with the defeat of sin and the recovery of creation.

Albert Wolters

Labels: ,

Saturday, June 25, 2011

The Wit and Wisdom of C. H. Spurgeon

From Christian History magazine . . .

The preaching of Christ is the whip that flogs the devil. The preaching of Christ is the thunderbolt, the sound which makes all hell shake.

The heaviest end of the cross lies ever on His shoulders. If He bids us carry a burden, He carries it also.

As well might a gnat seek to drink in the ocean, as a finite creature to comprehend the Eternal God.

Few preachers of religion do believe thoroughly the doctrine of the Fall, or else they think that when Adam fell down he broke his little finger, and did not break his neck and ruin his race.

I am certain that I never did grow in grace one-half so much anywhere as I have upon the bed of pain.

The heart of Christ became like a reservoir in the midst of the mountains. All the tributary streams of iniquity, and every drop of the sins of his people, ran down and gathered into one vast lake, deep as hell and shoreless as eternity. All these met, as it were, in Christ’s heart, and he endured them all.

I would rather lay my soul asoak in half a dozen verses [of the Bible] all day than rinse my hand in several chapters.

There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write damnation with your fingers.

It is a grand thing to see a man dying full of life . . . God makes his dying people to be like the sun, which never seems so large as when it sets.

A sermon wept over is more acceptable with God than one gloried over.

On Acts 26:28—Almost persuaded to be a Christian is like a man who was almost pardoned, but he was hanged; like the man who was almost rescued, but he was burned in the house. A man that is almost saved is damned.

The most useful members of a church are usually those who would be doing harm if they were not doing good.

Labels:

Friday, June 24, 2011

Come, Eat and Drink Judgment Upon Yourself!

Over at Christianity Today’s Web site (subscription required), popular pastor Jack Hayford of The Church on the Way fame offers a few ideas on how to make unbelievers feel more comfortable in church . . .

We invite all the people to gather around the Lord's Table and partake in small groups. We believe it is the Lord's Table we are invited to, the Lord is doing the inviting, and no one is excluded. To us that means unbelievers are invited, as well . . . we want people to know that they are welcome. For example, I might say, "If you are visiting with us today, you are not only welcome to participate, you are urged to. If you were at my house and it came dinnertime, I wouldn't leave you sitting in the other room while I went to the dining room . . .

It sounds as if pastor Hayford desires to be a good host. I’m sure that if I were invited to his dinner table he wouldn’t want to make me feel uncomfortable by telling me that there’s arsenic in the food and that I might get sick and/or die if I partake. No, that would be rude.

Unfortunately, not everyone is as thoughtful as pastor Hayford. Here’s two noted examples of inhospitality:

John Calvin

A man in Calvin’s congregation refused to repent of his sins and was consequently denied the Table of the Lord. Not feeling “welcomed,” the man complained to the Genevean Council. Ruling in the man’s favor, the council ordered Calvin to grant him the supper.

As the man, and his sword-bearing friends, began to approach the table on the following Lord’s Day, Calvin threw his arms over the table and proclaimed, “These hands you may crush, these arms you may lop off, my life you may take, my blood is yours, you may shed it; but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profaned, and dishonor the table of my God.”

How rude!

Apostle Paul

The Apostle Paul was definitely not very welcoming when it came to granting access to the Lord’s Table to those in sin. In the later portion of 1 Corinthians 11, Paul explains the significance of the occasion (vs. 23-26). He also explains the consequence of partaking in an unworthy manner, or not exercising proper discernment—the possibility of sickness and death ( vs. 27, 29, 30). For this reason, Paul tells us to examine ourselves (vs. 28). “But if we judge ourselves rightly, we would not be judged” (vs. 31).

Furthermore, Paul tells us that if we exercise proper discernment that we (believers) will not be “condemned along with the world” (unbelievers, vs. 32). Paul also points out that this simply isn’t another meal: “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, so that you will not come together for judgment . . .” Paul is certainly excluding unbelievers here. Ms. Manners would be scandalized!

Good Host/Bad Host?

So there you have it. You can follow Calvin’s and Paul’s example and guard the Table of the Lord, or you can follow pastor Hayford’s example and open the gates wide. A word of caution, though: If you decide to follow pastor Hayford’s example, I’d recommend that your church purchase extra insurance.

To gain a proper understanding of the Lord’s Supper, including who should and should not partake, I recommend reading questions and answers 75 through 82 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Is Sanctification By Faith Alone?


We contribute nothing, save sin, to our justification. We do, however, contribute to our sanctification. Unlike justification, sanctification is not by faith alone. Kevin DeYoung reminds us of this distinction in a post over at the Gospel Coalition site. He begins his piece by answering the question, Is sanctification by faith alone?

The short answer is no. Though it sounds very Protestant, it is not correct to say “sanctification is by faith alone.”

That requires some explanation.

In saying sanctification is not by faith alone, I’m not saying the work we do is somehow owing to us and not to God. He works in and we work out. But if we say sanctification is by faith alone, aren’t we severely reducing what we mean by saying justification is by faith alone? It was the mistake of Catholics to inadequately distinguish between justification and sanctification. If in trying to honor justification by faith alone we provide the same formula for sanctification, we are destroying the former as much as the latter.

You can read the entire post here.

Labels:

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Today in History: John Witherspoon, Parson and Patriot

"There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved entire.” So warned Presbyterian minister John Witherspoon, who on June 22, 1776, was elected to represent New Jersey in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.

Witherspoon had emigrated from Scotland to take the post as president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). Arriving in 1768 with his family and three hundred books for the college library, he threw himself into the task of building up the young school. “He laid the foundation of a course of history in the college, and the principles of taste an the rules of good writing were both happily explained by him, and exemplified in his manner,” a colleague said.

As the Revolution approached, Witherspoon’s Presbyterian belief that people should choose their own government put him firmly on the Patriot side. He realized the colonies would have to fight Britain. “If your cause is just, if your principles are pure, and if your conduct is prudent, you need not fear the multitude of opposing hosts,” he preached.

In the Continental Congress, some delegates worried the country was not yet ripe for independence. “The country is not only ripe for the measure, but in danger of rotting for the want if it!” Witherspoon retorted. He became the only minister to sign the Declaration of Independence.

He lost a son in the Revolution, which also left the college in dire straits. After the war he tackled the job of rebuilding the school. “Do not live useless and die contemptible,” he exhorted his students, who included 9 future cabinet officers, 21 senators, 39 congressmen, 3 Supreme Court justices, 12 governors, a vice president, and a president--James Madison, who was also one of 5 Witherspoon students at the Constitutional Convention.

American History Parade

1793 - One of the nation’s first important canals, the Middlesex Canal, connecting the Merrimack River and the port of Boston, is chartered.

1944 - President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the G.I. Bill of Rights, offering educational opportunities for World War II vets.

1945 - The Battle of Okinawa ends with an Allied victory.

1870 - President Richard Nixon signs a bill lowering the voting age to 18.

The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America

Labels:

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

A little Levity: Church Bulletin Bloopers

The following actually appeared in church bulletins, or were announced in church services:

The Fasting & Prayer Conference includes meals.

The sermon this morning: "Jesus Walks on the Water." The sermon tonight: "Searching for Jesus."

Our youth basketball team is back in action Wednesday at 8 PM in the recreation hall. Come out and watch us kill Christ the King.

Ladies, don't forget the rummage sale. It's a chance to get rid of those things not worth keeping around the house. Don't forget your husbands.

The peacemaking meeting scheduled for today has been canceled due to a conflict.

Remember in prayer the many who are sick of our community.

Smile at someone who is hard to love. Say "Hell" to someone who doesn't care much about you.

Don't let worry kill you off -- let the Church help.

Miss Charlene Mason sang "I will not pass this way again," giving obvious pleasure to the congregation.

For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs.

Next Thursday there will be tryouts for the choir. They need all the help they can get.

Irving Benson and Jessie Carter were married on October 24 in the church. So ends a friendship that began in their school days.

At the evening service tonight, the sermon topic will be "What Is HELL"? Come early and listen to our choir.

Scouts are saving aluminum cans, bottles and other items to be recycled. Proceeds will be used to cripple children.

Please place your donation in the envelope along with the deceased person you want remembered.

The church will host an evening of fine dining, super entertainment, and gracious hostility.

Potluck supper Sunday at 5:00 PM - prayer and medication to follow.

The ladies of the Church have cast off clothing of every kind. They may be seen in the basement on Friday afternoon.

This evening at 7 PM there will be a hymn singing in the park across from the Church. Bring a blanket and come prepared to sin.

Ladies Bible Study will be held Thursday morning at 10 AM. All ladies are invited to lunch in the Fellowship Hall after the B.S. is done.

The pastor would appreciate it if the ladies of the congregation would lend him their electric girdles for the pancake breakfast next Sunday.

Low Self Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday at 7 PM. Please use the back door.

The eighth-graders will be presenting Shakespeare's Hamlet in the Church basement Friday at 7 PM . The congregation is invited to attend this tragedy.

Weight Watchers will meet at 7 PM at the First Presbyterian Church. Please use large double door at the side entrance.

The Associate Minister unveiled the church's new tithing campaigns slogan last Sunday: "I Upped My Pledge - Up Yours."

The Men's Fellowship will gather at 7pm for a baked bean supper; Music will follow.

Labels:

Monday, June 20, 2011

Ethnicity vs. Homosexuality


HOUSTON — A judge in Texas paved the way for a court battle over the state’s ban on same-sex marriage when she ruled this week that two men married in another state can get divorced in Dallas.

New York Times

Even more interesting than the claim that the greatest state in the Union is denying folks their “Constitutional right” to marry (and, it seems, to divorce) is the following:

“The bottom line is, just as in the ’50s, when the Supreme Court of the United States had enough guts to say no more on segregation, this present Supreme Court ought to do the same thing on this issue,” said Jonathan D. F. Nelson, a Fort Worth lawyer.

The idea expressed by the Stockyard pettifogger is apparently shared by the court: ethnicity and homosexuality are on the same moral plain. But are the gentlepersons of the law correct?

Ethnicity Equal to Homosexuality?

Captain Kangaroo’s ethnicity was white (caucasion). He was born that way and could do nothing to change it. His ethnicity was intrinsic to him. Consequently he had no choice in the matter. Those with homosexual desires, on the other hand, have a choice as to whether or not to act upon those desires. The latter is morally relevant, while the former is not. Thus ethnicity and homosexuality are not on the same moral plain (one involves choice and the other does not—one is intrinsic and the other a behavior). And since the state should only treat equals equally, it is in fact immoral to judicially conflate the two.

State Interest

The State should only have an interest in two types of contractual relationships: corporations and heterosexual marriages. The first because the State is required to regulate commerce (section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution); and the second because it is the best way for it, the State, to perpetuate itself.

Mommies and daddies are from where the next generation of citizens will come. And the best environment for the raising of responsible citizens is a married, monogamist, heterosexual household. Married and monogamist because that brings stability to the home; heterosexual because both the mother and the father bring something in particular to the childrearing enterprise.

This unit is the best way to secure society’s future. Therefore, the State has an interest in favoring and protecting marriage between a man and a woman. It has no such interest in same-sex unions—I bet even Mr. Green Jeans understood this.

Labels:

Sunday, June 19, 2011

Today in History: Father’s Day


Sonora Louise Smart Dood of Spokane, Washington, came up with the idea of a day to honor fathers in 1909. Her own father, William Smart, was a Civil War veteran whose wife had died in childbirth. Dodd thought about the difficulties her father had faced as he struggled to raise his six motherless children on a farm in eastern Washington, and se set her mind to honoring all fathers. She approached local churches, and on Sunday, June 19, 1910, Spokane ministers celebrated the first Father’s Day by reminding their congregations of the appreciation fathers deserve and the duties fathers owe to their families.

In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson took part in a Father’s Day celebration by pressing a button in the White House that unfurled a flag in Spokane. In 1924 Calvin Coolidge recommended the widespread observance of the holiday to honor dads and “impress upon fathers the full measure of their obligations.”

The idea of a nation Father’s Day was slow to catch on, but communities and states gradually joined the observance. During the Depression, in an effort to boost sales, retailers began encouraging the holiday with “Give Dad Something to Wear” campaigns.

In 1972 President Richard Nixon signed a law officially recognizing the third Sunday in June as Father’s Day. Each year, the president issues a proclamation urging Americans to remember all that their fathers have given to family and country.

American History Parade

1754 - The first colonial congress, the Albany Conference, meets in Albany, New York, to discuss better relations with the Iroquois.

1778 - George Washington’s army leaves its encampment at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.

1846 - The first recorded baseball game between two organized teams takes place in Hoboken, New Jersey (New York Knickerbockers beat the New York Nine, 23-1).

1862 - Slavery is outlawed in the U.S. territories.

1905 - The world’s first Nickelodeon opens in Pittsburgh.

1910 - Father’s Day is celebrated for the first time in Spokane, Washington.

The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America

Labels:

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Notable Quote: C. S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis (1898 – 1963) on the problem of forgiveness:

. . . you must make every effort to kill every taste of resentment in your own heart—every wish to humiliate or hurt him or to pay him out. The difference between this situation and the one in such you are asking God’s forgiveness is this. In our own case we accept excuses too easily; in other people’s we do not accept them easily enough.

As regards my own sin it is a safe bet (though not a certainty) that the excuses are not really so good as I think; as regards other men’s sins against me it is a safe bet (though not a certainty) that the excuses are better than I think. One must therefore begin by attending to everything which may show that the other man was not so much to blame as we thought.

But even if he is absolutely fully to blame we still have to forgive him; and even if ninety-nine percent of his apparent guilt can be explained away by really good excuses, the problem of forgiveness begins with the one percent guilt which is left over. To excuse what can really produce good excuses is not Christian character; it is only fairness. To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable, because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.

This is hard. It is perhaps not so hard to forgive a single great injury. But to forgive the incessant provocations of daily life—to keep on forgiving the bossy mother-in-law, the bullying husband, the nagging wife, the selfish daughter, the deceitful son—how can we do it? Only, I think, by remembering where we stand, by meaning our words when we say in our prayers each night ‘forgive our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us.’ We are offered forgiveness on no other terms. To refuse it is to refuse God’s mercy for ourselves. There is no hint of exceptions and God means what He says.

The Weight of Glory, 181-183

HT: Desiring God

Labels: ,

Friday, June 17, 2011

God’s Aseity, Self-sufficiency, and Love—A Contradiction?

Two of God’s incommunicable attributes (belonging to God alone) are His aseity (self-existence, John 5:26) and His self-sufficiency (Psm. 50:12-13). His name “El Shaddai” (God all-sufficient, Gen. 17:1, 2) signifies these attributes. Being the great “I Am” (Ex. 3:14), God’s existence is not dependent on anything or anyone, nor does He need anything or anyone.

We also find in Scripture that God is love (1 John 4:8), meaning that He is characterized by love. This poses an interesting question when the previous two perfections are considered. Here’s what I mean: Love requires an object. It’s not possible to love something or someone unless there is something or someone to love. Let’s put this in a simple syllogism (a deductive argument where the conclusion is inferred from the supporting propositions):

God is love. Love needs an object. Therefore, God needs an object for His love.

The argument is valid (it's structured properly) and sound (the premises—supporting propositions—are true). Therefore, by force of logic, the conclusion is inescapable: God needs something. So how does this square with His aseity and self-sufficiency?

The Trinity

The Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Spirit, and vise versa all around, and this from all eternity. This cannot be said of anything else, for all else is created by God (Gen. 1:1). Hence, the doctrine of the Trinity is the only explanation that avoids contradiction.

So next time you speak with a Jehovah’s Witness, Oneness Pentecostal, or anyone else of the non-Trinitarian stripe, give this line of reasoning a whirl.

Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Fighting Sexual Temptation

Martin Luther said, “You cannot keep birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair.” Temptations of all types will be with us during our sojourn in this life, and sexual ones often seem the most sweet. Too many times, though, we dwell on fighting these desires instead of focusing upon the desires that we should have. In Kevin DeYoung’s fine book on the Heidelberg Catechism, The Good News We Almost Forgot, he has this to say in his discussion on the seventh commandment . . .

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” (Matt. 5:8). This has been the most helpful verse for me in fighting lust and the temptation to sexual immorality. We need to fight desires with desires. Satan tempts us by holding out something that will be pleasurable to us. We aren’t tempted to gorge ourselves on liverwurst, because for most it doesn’t hold out the promise of great pleasure. But sex does. Pornography does. A second look does. The Bible gives us many weapons to fight temptation. We need to fight the fleeting pleasure of sexual sin with the far greater, more abiding pleasure of knowing God.

The fight for sexual purity is the fight of faith. It may sound like nothing but hard work and gritting your teeth, the very opposite of faith. But faith is at the heart of this struggle. Do we believe that a glimpse of God is better than a glimpse of skin? Do we believe that God’s steadfast love is better than life. (Psalm 63:3). We’d probably sin less if we spent less time thinking about our sins, sexual or otherwise, and more time meditating on the love and holiness of God.

Labels:

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Rene Descartes, Charlie Brown, and The Red Pill

Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real? What if you were unable to wake from that dream? How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?

Morpheus, The Matrix

Are you really reading this post? Or are you dreaming that you're reading this post? How can you tell the difference?

Suddenly I woke up and I was indeed Chuang Tzu. Did Chuang Tzu dream he was a butterfly, or did the butterfly dream that he was Chuang Tzu?

Chuang Tzu (4th century B.C.)

17th century philosopher Rene Descartes grappled with this very issue: How does one distinguish dreams from reality? Doubt was not new to Descartes. Indeed, it was the very foundation of his philosophical system: Doubt everything that can be doubted to find what cannot be doubted.

With his system, Descartes found himself in the quandary of quandaries: an infinite regression of doubts. However, one thing offered a glimmer of hope—he doubted. He had to first exist in order to doubt that he exists—cogito ergo sum—I think therefore I am!

However, like a pebble in a shoe, one nagging question remained: How do we differentiate dreams from reality? Descartes brings this problem to light:

[Surely I] cannot reasonably . . . doubt . . . that I am here, seated by the fire, attired in a dressing gown, having this paper in my hands and other similar matters. And how can I deny that these hands and this body are mine, were it not perhaps that I compare myself to certain persons, devoid of sense, whose cerebella are so troubled and clouded by violent vapors of black bile, that they constantly assure us that they are kings when they are really quite poor, or that they are clothed in purple when they are really without covering . . . .

At the same time I must remember that I am . . . in the habit of sleeping, and in my dreams representing to myself the same things or sometimes even less probable things, than do those who are insane in their waking moments. How often has it happened to me that in the night I dreamt that I found myself in this particular place, that I was dressed and seated near the fire, whilst in reality I was lying undressed in bed! . . . On . . . reflection I see . . . manifestly that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep . . .

Descartes argues, “that there are no certain indications by which we may clearly distinguish wakefulness from sleep . . .” It seems a forgone conclusion that anything that can take place in reality can also take place in a dream, thus causing the deception. But what if there is something that can take place in reality but cannot take place in a dream? Then there would be a clear distinction—a roadmap to reality.

Does Charlie Brown Know that He is a Fictional Character?

Does he know that he only “exists” in the mind of Charles Schulz, conveyed through quill and ink? No, he does not. For Charlie Brown does not actually exist; he is not capable of independent thought. He “knows” nothing.

Imagine for a moment Charlie Brown’s dog, Snoopy, atop his red-roofed dog house. If we take another person who is imagining the same thing, and open his head, do you think we will find Snoopy, atop his red-roofed dog house, inside the person’s brain? Probably not. This is because, like his master, Snoopy is not really there; he was only an image produced by the person’s mind.

Now we'll look again at dreams. The “actors” (or projections, as called in the movie Inception) inside of dreams are produced by the mind. They do not really exist. If we opened the skull of someone who is in the REM stage of sleep (where dreams are said to occur), like Snoopy, we wouldn’t find anyone there.

An independent thought may only be produced by a mind. One must exist in order to have a mind. Therefore, one must exist in order to have an independent thought. The actors in the dream do not exist; therefore, they cannot produce independent thought. Conclusion: Independent thought cannot take place inside of a dream, only in reality.

Conclusion

Once someone presented me with a refutation: A mathematician was once trying to solve a difficult problem; he labored for quite some time, but to no avail. Then one night, while dreaming, he saw himself write down the answer to this math problem. The conclusion drawn by this person was that the “actor” solved the problem. The problem is, as we saw earlier, that the actor does not exist, so he could not solve the problem. The mathematician solved the problem. The dream was just a vehicle of his subconscious to convey the answer to his consciousness.

Dreams will continue to puzzle us. The mind and the brain are amazing and wondrous things. The subconscious aspect of our life will always present riddles that seem to have no answer. But one thing is clear: dreams can be distinguished from reality. The “actors” produced by the mind do not exist, and are not capable of independent thought. Only we, the sentient, are the true actors upon the existential stage—just ask Charlie Brown.

Labels:

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Notable Quote: Charles Spurgeon

Charles Spurgeon (1834 – 1892) on evangelism:

If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our dead bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms wrapped about their knees, imploring them to stay. If Hell must be filled, let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go unwarned and unprayed for.

HT: Arminian Today

Labels:

Monday, June 13, 2011

Christianese

In The Unlikely Disciple, Brown student and unbeliever Kevin Roose spends a semester at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University. As part of his immersion into the Liberty experience, the author attends a spring-break missionary trip to Daytona Beach, Florida, where he records the following conversation . . .

Claire’s [his evangelism mentor] other problem is total linguistic isolation. She, like many other Liberty students, speaks in long, flowery strings of opaque Christian speak. When a twenty-something guy named Rick tells Claire he doesn’t believe in God, Claire sighs and says, “Listen, Rick. There’s a man named Jesus Christ, and he came into my heart and changed me radically. And there’s a God who loves you, and who sent his son to die on the cross for you, to take away your sins and my sins, and God shows himself to me everyday. When I don’t have hope for tomorrow, Jesus never fails. His love is never ending.”

While she’s speaking, my eyes never leave Rick. I recognize his confused expression as what mine must have been on my first ever visit to Thomas Road [Baptist Church]—the same sense that two people, both speaking English, are not exactly communicating. Rick listens to her prattle on for several minutes, and then apologizes.

“Not interested,” he says. “But thanks.”

Claire thanks Rick and walks away downtrodden, kicking up sand with each step.

Claire’s lingo, and her hearers’ subsequent befuddlement, is all-to-common. Often the words and phrases that we use are unintelligible to the un-churched, causing our message to fall upon deaf ears. Since we are called to be ambassadors of Christ (2 Cor. 5:20), we must take great care to represent Him well; this includes our verbal representation—especially when communicating the gospel.

Biblical Example

  • Acts 7
    Acts 7 records Stephen’s defense (apology) before the Sanhedrin. Stephen is brought before the council due to a charge of blasphemy (Acts 6:11). But instead of answering the charge, Stephan rehearses Israel’s history from Abraham to Christ. The reason he argued this way was not to acquit himself, but to show them their sin, especially the sin of betraying and murdering the Righteous One (vrs. 52), and the sins of their fathers.

  • Acts 17
    In Acts 17 we find Paul in Athens being provoked by the Spirit because the city was given over to idols. Paul responded by . . .

. . . reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.
(vrs. 17)

Some of those with whom he was reasoning (arguing) were Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. They invited him to the Areopagus (Mars Hill) to hear him further. Seizing the opportunity, Paul, beginning with creation, provides a step-by-step argument for Christ and the coming judgment.

Consider Your Audience

In Acts 7, Stephen is providing an argument to the biblically informed. While in the Areopagus address of Acts 17, Paul is providing an argument to the uninformed. The manor in which they argue differs because the audience differs.

  • The Churched
    In Acts 7, Stephen is talking to those who have been brought-up in the teaching of the Old Testament their whole lives. Therefore, it was appropriate for him to use the language of the “church.” When Stephan spoke of the promise to Abraham, or the covenant of circumcision, or of the Angel of the Lord, they understood what he meant—they spoke the same “language.”

  • The Unchurched
    When addressing the Athenians, if Paul would have started with Abraham and then moved on to covenants and sacrifices, he would have lost his audience—the message would not have gotten through. Instead, because of the audience, Paul established a point of contact (TO THE UNKNOWN GOD). Then, beginning with God’s creation of heaven and earth, he proclaimed the true God and the upcoming judgment (i.e., here’s who God is, and here’s where you stand).

Conclusion

The Western World today is very different from what is was in the past. Preachers of old could rely on the fact that just about everyone had some experience with the church. We cannot make that assumption today. Therefore, we must tailor—not water down—our message, and present it in a way that is understandable to our audience.

Labels:

Sunday, June 12, 2011

Roman Catholic Exodus

According to the Catholic National Reporter, 1 in 10 Catholics are leaving Rome for Protestantism:

People are not becoming Protestants because they disagree with specific Catholic teachings; people are leaving because the church does not meet their spiritual needs and they find Protestant worship service better.

Nor are the people becoming Protestants lazy or lax Christians. In fact, they attend worship services at a higher rate than those who remain Catholic.

Thus, both as believers and as worshipers, Catholics who become Protestants are statistically better Christians than those who stay Catholic. We are losing the best, not the worst.

Pastor Chris Castaldo, a former Roman Catholic, offers some insight as to why (as well as some warnings for Protestants) over at the Gospel Coalition site:

Father Reese’s observations are noteworthy. For instance, he contrasts the reasons why there are more Catholics migrating in an evangelical direction than toward Protestant liberalism. Reese also sets the record straight in explaining the disconnect between the commonly cited reasons for these departures by Catholic clergy—e.g., disagreement with moral stipulations such as contraception, women priests, or divorce—versus actual reasons based on data from the Pew Forum, which indicate that it is something closer to spiritual renewal and attraction to dynamic forms of worship.

You can read the entire post here.

Labels:

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Today in Church History: J. Gresham Machen and the Formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

On June 11, 1936, at the meeting of the Presbyterian Constitutional Covenant Union in the New Century Club in Philadelphia, the Presbyterian Church of America was formed. (In 1939, its name was changed to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.)

Convening shortly after the 148th General Assembly denied J. Gresham Machen's appeal and upheld the verdict of the Presbytery of New Brunswick which suspended him from the ministry, the Covenant Union passed an Act of Association to establish the new church. The first article read:

In order to continue what we believe to be the true spiritual succession of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., which we hold to have been abandoned by the present organization of that body, and to make clear to all the world that we have no connection with the organization bearing that name, we a company of ministers and ruling elders, having been removed from that organization in contravention (as we believe) of its constitution, or having severed our connection with it, or coming as ministers or ruling elders from other ecclesiastical bodies holding the Reformed Faith, do hereby associate ourselves together with all Christian people who do and will adhere to us, in a body to be known and styled as the Presbyterian Church of America.

Machen reported on the inaugural General Assembly in the Presbyterian Guardian: "On Thursday, June 11, 1936, the hopes of many long years were realized. We became members, at last, of a true Presbyterian Church; we recovered, at last, the blessing of true Christian fellowship. What a joyous moment it was! How the long years of struggle seemed to sink into nothingness compared with the peace and joy that filled our hearts!"

- John Muether

Labels:

Friday, June 10, 2011

The Puritans, Work, and You

It seems easy to fall prey to our culture’s negative attitude towards work. We say that we’re “off to the salt mines,” or we claim to be “working for the weekends.”

The Puritans, however, held a very different view. They believed that work should be kept in high esteem. They believed this because they were theologically committed to an integrated view of life: all was spiritual; all was worship; all was service unto the Lord.

A true believing Christian . . . lives in his vocation by his faith. Not only my spiritual life but even my civil life in this world, and all the life I live, is by the faith of the Son of God; He exempts no life from the agency of his faith.

John Cotton (1584–1652)

Work was also a way for Christians to obey God by fulfilling the Cultural Mandate, which is found in Gen. 1:28. In that passage God tells us, via our first parents, to “be fruitful and multiply” and to subdue the earth. The first is a command to create cultures; the second is a command to build civilizations.

God hath made man a societal creature. We expect benefits from human society. It is but equal that human society should receive benefits from us.

Cotton Mather (1663-1728)

The Cultural Mandate was given prior to the Fall. Man was created to work with joy and with satisfaction. It was only after the Fall that weeds entered the garden, that work became toil.

I believe we modern Christians would do well to recover the Puritan view of work as service unto God, and also as service unto men. This is not only good, but good for us—for great joy is found therein.

The main end of our lives . . . is to serve God in the serving of men in the works of our callings. . . . Some man will say perchance: What, must we not labor in our callings to maintain our families? I answer: this must be done: but his is not the scope and end of our lives. The true end of our lives is to do service to God in serving of man.

William Perkins (1558-1602)

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 08, 2011

What About the Heathen Who Hasn’t Heard?

Conversation with an unbeliever: Ever feel guilty? Of course you do. Why? Because you are guilty. Guilty of what? Of breaking God’s law.

It would be rare indeed to find someone in this country who has not heard the summary of God’s law—the Ten Commandments. But what of those in somewhere like deepest, darkest Africa who have not heard? Are they off the hook? Do they receive a cosmic “Get Out of Jail Free” card? Many Evangelicals would say yes. Many would say that surly God would not find someone guilty of breaking a law that he did not know.

But is this the case? Is one excused from the law’s requirements simply because he’s never heard them? Paul addresses this issue in Romans, stating “for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law . . . show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them” (Romans 2:14-15). In his commentary on Romans, John Calvin speaks of men being “blind,” but “not so blind that we can plead ignorance without being convicted of perversity.”

The Experience of God’s Law

The actual hearing of the law does not determine the lawbreakers ultimate guilt; for all men know the law of God innately, since all men bear the image of God (Genesis 1:26-28). Thus when men reason morally, experience a crises of conscience, or suffer from guilty feelings, they are actually reflecting the stamp of the law, which each man by nature bears.

All men of sound judgment will therefore hold, that a sense of Deity is indelibly engraven on the human heart. And that this belief is naturally engendered in all, and thoroughly fixed as it were in our very bones, is strikingly attested by the contumacy of the wicked, who, though they struggle furiously, are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God . . . for the worm of conscience, keener than burning steel, is gnawing them within.

John Calvin (1509-1564)

Conclusion

As we have seen, the heathen-who-hasn’t-heard in deepest, darkest Africa is just as guilty and as the heathen-who-hasn’t-heard in deepest, darkest Texas: both contend with the law of God written on their hearts, and both live in open rebellion against their holy Creator.

Labels:

Monday, June 06, 2011

Brian McLaren and the Judgment of Men

Here’s an interesting article from Baptist Press, SBTS Prof: McLaren 'Serpent-Sensitive,’ regarding comments made by Emerging Church guru Brian McLaren. The comments, made at the stick-your-finger-in-the-air-and-see-which-way-the-cultural-winds-are-blowing Willow Creek Community Church, pertained to hell and the second coming. Not surprisingly, McLaren doesn’t fancy these doctrines.

In the article, Southern Baptist theologian Russell D. Moore makes short-work of McLaren’s nonsense. “When McLaren questions the existence of hell and the hope of the second coming, he is not a 'new kind of Christian’ [title of McLaren’s book]. Such things are neither new nor Christian.”

Preach it, brother! (See, I can sound like a Baptist.)

Is God Just in Punishing?

Simply put, if we believe that God will ultimately enforce his will by forceful domination, and will eternally torture all who resist that domination, then torture and domination become not only permissible but in some way godly.

Brian McLaren

In the article, Professor Moore does a great job revealing McLaren’s folly by shining the light of Scripture upon those doctrines, so I won’t repeat that case here. I will, however, comment on a common claim by those on the theological left: God would be unjust and/or unloving if He punished men.

The Back-story

When God created man, he created him “good, and after His own image, that is, in righteousness and true holiness”; however, after succumbing to the temptation of the devil, our first parents rebelled against our creator. Because of this disobedience, “our nature became so corrupt, that we are all conceived and born in sin.” Furthermore, because of our corrupt nature, “we are wholly unapt to any good and prone to all evil.” This means that we are not only born with Adam’s guilt (because he represented us all before God), but we also “daily increase our guilt” through our own sins.

Although God is merciful, He is also just, and will not allow our sins (i.e., not conforming to, or acting against, His law) to go unpunished. How can mortal man escape this just judgment? How can we sinful mortals repay a debt owed stemming from crimes committed against an infinitely holy God? How can we “escape this punishment and be again received into favor?” Answer: Satisfaction must be made “either by ourselves or by another.”

But, because we “daily increase our guilt,” we ourselves cannot make such satisfaction. Furthermore, no “mere creature can sustain the burden of God’s eternal wrath against sin.” It seems hopeless. The only way to bridge the chasm separating us and God is to have a mediator and redeemer “who is a true and sinless man, and yet more powerful than all creatures, that is, one who is at the same time true God.” But who is such a mediator and redeemer? “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is freely given us for complete redemption and righteousness.”

(All quotes taken from the Heidelberg Catechism, Q and A 6 – 18.)

God as Judge

As seen above, mankind has rebelled, and continues to rebel, against his God and has earned the Creator’s wrath. God, however, has made a way of escape—faith in Jesus Christ. By rejecting that way of escape, men will stand before the Just Judge of the Universe and give an account. Their punishment will fit their crimes; since these men can never repay the dept owed, they will bare God’s wrath for eternity. This is just. It also matches their desire—they wanted nothing to do with God, and they’ll get their wish, forever.

It would be unjust for God to simply say, “Hey, no problem. I’m a loving God. Here’s your Get Out of Jail Free card.” For example, if Mr. McLaren was robbed and assaulted, and went to the police to swear out a complaint, would he be satisfied if they said, “We caught the guy, but let him go because we’re a loving police station”? Do you think Mr. McLaren would respond, “Great! I’m so glad that there was no forceful domination.” On the contrary, I bet he would rail against such an injustice.

The truth is, if you sacrifice justice for love, you have likewise sacrificed love—for love demands justice. Thankfully, this is a false dilemma—one does not have to be sacrificed for the other. God is both loving and just—and we see both God’s love and His justice in the doing and dying of Christ.

Conclusion

Mr. McLaren’s complaint falls on its face because it would be unjust and immoral for God not to render just judgment—of course, the criminal always complains about the judgment against him.

PS. Mr. McLaren, I recommend The American Heritage Dictionary. By looking up the definition of words such as “torture” and “punishment” you’ll take the first step in learning the difference between the two.

Labels:

Sunday, June 05, 2011

Today in Church History: Old School-New School Division

On June 5, 1837, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. separated into Old School and New School divisions.

The split involved a series of issues related to theology, polity, and social reform (especially debate on the Presbyterian response to slavery). The Old School consisted of doctrinal conservatives mainly in the Mid-Atlantic states and the South; the New Schoolers were progressives concentrated in New York, New England, and the western frontier. The 1837 General Assembly, meeting with an Old School majority, abrogated its 1801 Plan of Union with the Congregationalists, it pronounced that action retroactive, and it thereby declared that four New School Presbyterian synods brought in by that plan “to be out of the ecclesiastical connection of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America.”

This Assembly action launched a 32-year division between Old School and New School Presbyterians. In 1869, the two parties were united in the North, soon after the end of the Civil War. In the words of Princeton historian Lefferts Loetscher, the reunion of 1869 resulted in a “broadening church,” where organizational efficiency eclipsed theological precision. By the close of the nineteenth century, northern Presbyterians would experience both significant growth and advancing secularization.

- John Muether

Labels:

Saturday, June 04, 2011

Apocalypse Rescheduled—Again


In case you missed Harold Camping’s May 21 doomsday prediction, never fear: He’s offering a reunion tour this coming October. I’m sure that he and his followers believe that three times will be the charm. Back when Camping’s first prediction failed in 1994, Dr. Gregg Bahnsen wrote the following for Penpoint (Vol. V:9) . . .

As I write (at the beginning of September, 1994) I am anticipating that this issue of Penpoint will be printed, processed and delivered to you. By the time you are reading it, the month of September will have come and gone―which means the world, after all, did not end according to the timetable and prediction of radio broadcaster, Harold Camping. This really isn't much of a surprise.

Two years ago Camping published a convoluted and dense study of Biblical chronology and prophecy, entitled 1994?, suggesting (or "proving," according to his followers) that Christ will return, and the world as we know it will end, sometime during September of this year―and most likely between September 6 and 15. A Camping follower and chemist from Delaware was quoted (Knight-Ridder Newspapers) as saying: "I will be absolutely shocked if this doesn't happen on September 6." Camping declared that "some kind of sign" would occur on that date, one which will create worldwide consternation, fear, and bewilderment. Another Camping disciple, a Reformed Episcopalian from Philadelphia, said: "nothing, absolutely nothing, can change my mind." Except maybe the course of recent history.

Camping's meandering and misguided sojourn into chronology, symbolism, arbitrary numerology, and eschatological date-setting, along with his subsequent book Are You Ready?, have sold between 60-100 thousand copies, thus securing a tidy financial gain for the prognosticator, along with his ruined reputation. Some months ago he was even willing to appear on the Larry King call-in show on television (CNN) to present and defend his views to millions of viewers in this nation and around the world.

Because of the tremendous reproach he has brought on the name of Christ and the trustworthiness of Scripture, I trust Camping will now leave the radio, stop presenting himself as a reliable teacher of God's holy word, and publicly repent of his brazen attempt to do what Christ Himself declared no man could do―not even Jesus Himself with respect to His human nature! "But of that day and hour knows no one, not even the angels of heaven neither the Son, but the Father only" (Matthew 24:36; cf. 24:36, 42; 25:13). "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has placed under His own authority" (Acts 1:7).

We've Been There, Done That

Camping has acted contrary to the Savior's own words and brought embarrassment upon the cause of His kingdom, but Camping's faux pas is anything but unique.[Note: It is unusual to have a date-setter be an amillennialist like Camping; most turn out to hold a premillennial (and dispensationalist) perspective. However, I even know one postmillennialist who predicts the beginning of "the latter day glory" of Christ's kingdom to be around the year 2000. The infection of a date-setting mentality can afflict adherents of any millennial viewpoint, even though the best representatives of all three (or four) schools vaccinate against it.] God's people have been scandalized by date-setters throughout the New Testament era. There have been dozens in our own generation.

In 1970 Hal Lindsey published The Late Great Planet Earth, which went on to sell millions of copies. He predicted that Christ would return within forty years ("a generation") of the re-establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948. Heading an Arab-African alliance, Egypt was supposed to attack Israel, with the Soviet Union subsequently entering the fray. His predictions caused enough hoopla that even Time magazine covered it (Jan. 8, 1973: "Is the End Near?"). Lindsey later wrote: "unmistakably... this generation is the one that will see the end of the present world and the return of Christ" (The 1980's: Countdown to Armageddon, 1981).

In 1981 Bill Maupin, leader of the Lighthouse Gospel Tract Foundation (Tucson), declared that "there isn't any chance" that the rapture would not take place on June 28 of that year. His followers quit their jobs and gave away their cars. Six weeks later he had revised his calculations, and his followers again gathered at his house, waiting to be lifted off the face of the earth. But his was a small flock.

Not so for Chuck Smith, founder of the Calvary Chapel network of huge worship centers (first in Costa Mesa, CA). In "Future Survival" (1978) he said: "From my understanding of biblical prophesies, I'm convinced that the Lord is coming for His Church before the end of 1981."

In 1986 Charles Taylor (Anaheim, CA), the editor of Bible Prophecy News published the startling calculation (about which he claimed to be "89 percent sure"!) that Jesus Christ would return on September 24, 1987. "All signs point to it," he assured readers, based on a complex formula he extrapolated from Leviticus and Daniel. "The majority of Christians," according to him, knew that the rapture would take place within the next couple of years.

Edgar C. Whisenant (Little Rock, AR) could prove it with mathematical precision; he was, after all, a rocket scientist. So he set out to demonstrate how "all the 886 end-time Bible prophecies" coalesced to make Rosh Hashanah of 1988 the exact date of Christ's return to rapture the saints. He published 88 Reasons Why the Rapture is in 1988. Whisenant was anything but humble: "Only if the Bible is in error am I wrong, and I say that unequivocally."

Jesus' Own Words About the Time of His Return

What should faithful followers of the Lord Jesus believe about the time when He will return to end history (1 Cor. 15:24), physically raise all the dead (John 5:28-29), separate the sheep from goats into eternal life and eternal punishment (Matt. 25:31-46), establish a new earth wherein righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:7-13) and wipe every tear from our eyes (Rev. 21:4)? Clearly these things have not happened yet in history.[Note: The fact of Christ's yet future, visible and glorious return should be conspicuous to those who study their Bibles. Readers should be warned against the heretical view (a radical or extreme preterism) which holds that all Biblical prophecy was fulfilled by the time of (and in) the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.―a view popularized in our day by J. Stuart Russell, Max King, Edward Stevens (cf. the periodical, Kingdom Counsel), and others.]

Jesus indicated that there were two errors which men could make about His return, stemming from the same false presupposition. First, there is the foolish error of thinking that Christ is returning very soon (Matt. 25:1-12), against which Christ taught His disciples instead simply to live in preparation "for you do not know the day nor hour" (v. 13). Second, there is the deadly error of presuming Christ will take a long time to return (Matt. 24:37-51, esp. v. 48), against which Christ taught His disciples instead to live in preparation, "for you do not know on what day your Lord comes" (v. 42; cf. vv. 44, 46).

The false presupposition common to both these opposite errors is presuming that we have any right to calculate, speculate, or set the date of Christ's return. Even though the Bible gives us certain "signs of times" in the form of things which God promises to accomplish prior to the end of history, nobody knows how long the time will be after the fulfillment of those conditions when Christ will consummate the kingdom and deliver it up to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). Just because we do not and cannot know the time, the one and only thing Christ requires of His followers in this regard is simply faithful living in preparation for His coming at whatever time the Father has determined. If we constantly live in obedience to His word, serving Him and watching for Him at all times, then that day will not overtake us "as a thief in the night" (1 Thess. 5:4-6).

Courtesy of Covenant Media Foundation

Labels:

Friday, June 03, 2011

David Wilkerson: The God Whisperer

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men . . .

Westminster Confession, chapter 1, article 6

One of the issues resolved by the Reformers was that of final authority, i.e., Are the Scriptures sufficient for doctrine and life? The Reformers, of course, answered in the affirmative. Louis Berkhof summarized their case as follows:

In Scripture each succeeding book connects up with the proceeding (except in contemporary narratives), and is based on it. The Psalms and the Prophets presuppose the Law and appeal to it, and to it only. The New Testament comes to us as the fulfillment of the Old and refers back to nothing else. Oral traditions current in the time of Jesus are rejected as human inventions, Matt. 5:21–28; 15:4, 9; I Cor. 4:6. Christ is presented to us as the acme of the divine revelation, the highest and the last, Matt. 11:27; John 1:18; 17:4, 6; Heb. 1:1. For the knowledge of the way of salvation we are referred to Scripture only, to the word of Christ, and the apostles, John 17:20; I John 1:3 . . .

Both Rome and the Anabaptists rejected the sufficiency of Scripture. Rome put as Scripture’s rival her church councils and traditions, with the ultimate authority residing in the pope. The Anabaptists, however, had a low view of Scripture for other reasons: they sought guidance from an “inner light” and direct revelations from God, resolving that the Spirit worked apart from the Word because the Word was dead.

Swarmers

Renting the Spirit from the Word by claiming direct revelations from God was something the Reformers could not abide. For that reason, Martin Luther derisively referred to them as “swarmers” because they were “swarming everywhere, deranged by the devil, regarding Scripture as a dead letter, extolling nothing but the Spirit and yet keeping neither the Word nor the Spirit.”

Likewise, in speaking of the link between the Spirit and the Word, John Calvin wrote . . .

Two things are connected here, the Word and the Spirit of God, in opposition to the fanatics, who aim at oracles and hidden revelations apart from the Word.

David Wilkerson and the Modern Swarmers

For ten years I have been warning about a thousand fires coming to New York City. It will engulf the whole megaplex, including areas of New Jersey and Connecticut. Major cities all across America will experience riots and blazing fires—such as we saw in Watts, Los Angeles, years ago . . .

Note: I do not know when these things will come to pass, but I know it is not far off. I have unburdened my soul to you. Do with the message as you choose.

David Wilkerson, pastor of Times Square Church in New York and president of World Challenge

In my years as a Pentecostal I saw the shipped-wrecked lives of those who listened to the modern swarmers. I’ve also experienced (and sill experience) the derision of unbelievers as they scoff at Christ and His followers because of those who claim that God is whispering in their ear. Worst of all, these false prophets blaspheme our God by taking His name in vain. This crime of speaking when God has not spoken is so heinous that, in Old Testament times, God commanded that these offenders be put to death (Deut. 13, 18:20-22, 13:12-13; Ez. 13:1-9; Zech. 13:3).

A Plea

I call on David Wilkerson and other Pentecostals to stop trying to find a back door to God (or, as Martin Luther put it, stop trying to view God in the nude). God has spoken, and still speaks, through the bible—and those same Scriptures remain sufficient for doctrine and life. Not the Spirit working apart from the Word, but the Spirit working through the Word.

The Bible is something more than a body of revealed truths, a collection of books verbally inspired of God. It is also the living voice of God. The living God speaks through its pages. Therefore, it is not to be valued as a sacred object to be placed on a shelf and neglected, but as holy ground, where people’s hearts and minds may come into vital contact with the living, gracious and disturbing God.

James Montgomery Boice

Labels: ,

Thursday, June 02, 2011

John Wycliffe – Part 2 (Conclusion)

The Great Schism

Continued from Part 1 . . .

What is known as the "Great Schism" began in 1309 when Pope Clement V moved his papacy to a city, Avignon, just outside of French territory. The papacy remained there until 1377 when Pope Gregory XI returned it to Rome. Although the papacy was back in Rome, it still had a Frenchman at the helm.

Upon Gregory's death, a Roman pope was elected. This, of course, didn't sit well with the French bishops, so, in 1378, they elected their own pope who would rule in Avignon. Europe was now divided between the two popes. How did the two pontifs respond to the crises? They excommunicated each other. The schism lasted until 1415.

In Wycliffe's mind, this comedy of errors could not illustrate his message of reform any better. The excommunications added flames to his pen and feet to his message. Wycliffe was now a "radical" for reform.

The English Bible

Wycliffe knew that the only way to achieve true reform was to put God's word into the hands of the people. This of course was forbidden by the Roman Catholic church. In 1382, upon peril of his life, Wycliffe completed his English translation of the bible. He and his followers, known as Lollards, began distributing it to the English-speaking people. This was the first European translation of scripture in more than 1,000 years.

The Archbishop of Canterbury responded by having Wycliffe and his writings condemned. Wycliffe, however, remained undaunted and continued writing until his death (of natural causes) in 1384.

Rome's Response

Rome was detemined to stamp out the Lollards and Wycliffe's memory. A law was passed which condemned Wycliffe and his followers as heretics. The sentence was burning. Across Europe, the flames were ignited and the Lollards were all but destroyed. Those who survived the wrath of Rome operated in secret until the Reformation.

Rome was not finished with Wycliffe either: 44 years after his death, the pope ordered Wycliffe's bones exhumed, burned, and his ashes scattered.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 01, 2011

John Wycliffe – Part 1

John Wycliffe was one of the firebrands of Church history. Known as the “morning star of the Reformation," John Wycliff preceded Luther, Calvin, and Knox by almost two hundred years.

The Youthful Wycliffe

Except for the year of his birth, 1320, not much is known of the young Englishman until he received his doctorate from Oxford in 1372. After receiving his degree, Wycliffe was thrust into prominence by being granted a professorship and becoming a leading scholar at the university.

The Salad Days End

Any quiet scholastic days he might have had were short lived. A debate erupted regarding who had God given the right to rule over men, and how is that right to be exercised. Wycliffe dove headfirst into the debate by arguing that the civil government had the divine right to correct the abuses of sinful church leaders. According to Wycliffe, the civil magistrate even had the right to seize the corrupt churchmen's property.

Wycliffe, though, was just getting started. His message of reform included the following:

  • Wealth had corrupted the church; he called for a return to the poverty and simplicity of Apostolic times

  • The pope was the antichrist and should not have the temporal (i.e., political) power to rule over men

    With regard to the aforementioned Wycliffe wrote, “Christ is truth, the pope is the principle of falsehood. Christ lived in poverty, the pope labors for worldly magnificence. Christ refused temporal dominion, the pope seeks it.”

  • Transubstantiation (i.e., the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ) was a false doctrine

  • The Bible, not the church, is the only rule for faith

As a consequence of his calls for reform, Wycliffe was expelled from his teaching post. Then, in 1377, Pope Gregory XI condemned Wycliffe’s doctrines and writings and called for his arrest. Wycliffe, however, remained unmolested due to the protection of influential friends.

To be continued . . .

Labels: ,