Fear and Trembling

God: Three in One - Another Article for my Local Paper

2012-01-05T19:00:00.002-06:00

[This is the full text of an article that I recently wrote for our local paper.]

We will look at the Apostle's Creed in more detail this week in our series on the Heidelberg Catechism. From a close look at the outline of the creed, we can see the doctrine of the Trinity clearly displayed.

Question and answer 24 read, “How are these articles divided? Into three parts: God the Father and our creation; God the Son and our deliverance; and God the Holy Spirit and our sanctification.”

The catechism introduces us to the three Persons of the Trinity and their role in our salvation when we have true faith. Almighty God, the Father of all Christians, creates us and sends the Son and the Spirit. God the Son, Jesus Christ, delivers us from our sin and misery by His life and death. In addition, God the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, empowers us for the Christian life and makes us holy.

Question and answer 25 clearly state the nature of the Trinity, “Since there is only one divine being (Deut. 6:4; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6), why do you speak of three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Because that is how God has revealed himself in his Word: (Matt. 3:16-17; 28:18-19; Luke 4:18 (Isa. 61:1); John 14:26; 15:26; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 4:6; Tit. 3:5-6) these three distinct persons are one, true, eternal God.”

In the words of another famous catechism, “God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.” Does that sound like anyone you have ever met? There is only one Being like this, and it is awesome to think about Him.

Why should we expect Him to be just like us, having one person in one being? Should we not expect Him to be so much more? God is, as C. S. Lewis put it, “beyond personality.”

There is nothing like God, and there are no good examples that help explain this doctrine. As I know from trying to explain the Trinity to my eight-year-old daughter, it is very hard to describe. That is why the catechism carefully states the doctrine and does not try to explain it.

God is one in Being or Essence, but three in Person. His being is what He is. His person is who He is. He is not one in being and three in being; that explanation would be nonsense. It would be like saying it is raining outside and not raining outside at the same time. He is not one in person and three in person; that would be nonsense too.

God is one in one way and three in another, one in being and three in person. It is like saying it is raining outside in one place and not raining outside in another place across town. That description is not nonsense. It seems strange, but it can be true.

It is fitting that we begin our journey through the Apostle’s Creed with this doctrine because it humbles us and makes us see the limits of our own thinking. Next week, we will begin to explore what the doctrine of God the Father means to us.

2012 Bible Reading Plan

2012-01-03T19:00:00.001-06:00

Having accomplished much of what I had planned to do in 2011, I have now turned to the Bible reading plan I will use in 2012. I hope to get back on track with a regular, through-the-Bible reading plan. My sporadic reading of the Bible in 2011 left me unsatisfied.

My plans are to tackle Reading God's Story: A Chronological Daily Bible arranged and authored by George Guthrie. The organization of the Scripture text in this book’s format intrigues me. It claims to have a memorable format organized by acts and scenes like an unfolding play.

It will be interesting to see how this organization plays out, and especially what the over-arching theme of the “play” will be. I may abandon it if the theme does not prove to be the story of Jesus.

I also wish Reading God's Story was available in something other than the Holman Christian Standard Bible translation. It will also be interesting to see how this translation compares to the ESV that I normally use for detailed study and close reading.

I am reading through The Jesus Storybook Bible: Every Story Whispers His Name by Sally Lloyd-Jones with my eight-year-old daughter. This book has reinforced my thinking on the story of Jesus Christ as the main theme of the Bible. I hope to read through The Jesus Storybook Bible with her several times this year.

Please see last year’s post at this link to find other reading plans that are available on the web. God bless the time you spend in His Word in 2012.

True Faith: Another Article for My Local Paper

2012-01-02T09:32:00.000-06:00

[This is the full text of an article I was able to publish in the local paper.]

I hope you have been following Soli Deo Gloria’s series on the Heidelberg Catechism. The Heidelberg Catechism is a collection of questions and answers written in 1563 and used to instruct children and adults in the faith.

As we continue the articles, we approach Lord’s Day 7, which contains four questions and answers. These four questions and answers reference 27 passages of the Bible in the original catechism.

Question and Answer 20 reads, “Are all people then saved through Christ just as they were lost through Adam? No. Only those are saved who through true faith are grafted into Christ and accept all his benefits.”

We must hold this truth near and dear to our hearts. Some teachers say that people can be saved without conscious faith in Christ, or even without direct knowledge of what Christ did in His perfect life and sacrificial death. It is an awful sin to fail to tell someone the gospel because we incorrectly assume he is saved based on the way he lives his life. We must call others to “true faith.”

Question and Answer 21 define the “true faith” mentioned in 21, “What is true faith? True faith is not only a sure knowledge by which I hold as true all that God has revealed to us in Scripture; it is also a wholehearted trust, which the Holy Spirit creates in me by the gospel, that God has freely granted, not only to others but to me also, forgiveness of sins, eternal righteousness, and salvation. These are gifts of sheer grace, granted solely by Christ’s merit.”

“True faith” is a “sure knowledge.” It holds the facts the Bible teaches to be certainly true, including facts about how to live one’s life. “True faith” goes beyond mere head knowledge, however. It moves into the area of “wholehearted trust.” Belief in certain facts is not enough; one must trust that “God has freely granted…forgiveness of sins, eternal righteousness and salvation” not just to people in general, but “to me” in particular.

“True faith” is to depend on Christ alone, to depend on what He earned for us in His perfect life and sacrificial death. It is to trust in Christ “solely.” That is, to trust what He did without trusting in anything or anyone else; not my good works, not my baptism, not the Lord’s Supper, and certainly not some aisle that I walked down or some insincere prayer that I said.

“True faith” is to acknowledge that only God’s grace can save me. Grace is completely unearned favor. Grace can be explained with an acrostic: G-R-A-C-E, God’s Riches at Christ’s Expense. It can be explained in Latin, “De Favor Dei Propter Christum,” the favor of God on account of Christ.

“True faith” and all it entails are “gifts of sheer grace.” Faith is a free gift of God’s grace alone, and it is not dependent on my own reasoning that helped me make a good decision. Faith is something that the Holy Spirit “creates in me.”

Question and answer 22 says, “What then must a Christian believe? All that is promised us in the gospel, a summary of which is taught us in the articles of our universal and undisputed Christian faith.”

The Heidelberg Catechism will have none of the modern Christian notion that only a few minimal facts must be known and believed in order to be saved. A person must understand the Christian faith and trust in what it reveals before they can be a Christian.

People express these facts in many ways, but The Apostle's Creed is probably the oldest short statement of them. The catechism gives that creed as the answer to question twenty-three.

Question and answer 23 read, “What are these articles?

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic [ or universal] church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.”

The next set of questions and answers in the catechism will explain the words of the Apostle’s Creed in more detail. Please continue to read these Soli Deo Gloria articles because there are several parts of the creed that many have misunderstood.

Merry Christmas Star Trek Style

2011-12-24T13:00:00.002-06:00

One of the most underrated benefits Christ brought to us during His earthly life is communication of God’s character and intentions.

Some quotes from Jesus:

“… I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.” John 8:28

“I speak of what I have seen with my Father…” John 8:38

“For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak.” John 12:49

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. “ John 14:10

Christ came to tell us some important things. Now for a story.

I sat downstairs in the University of Tennessee’s Student Center in a little café called “The Rafters.” I often went there to study. I find it easier to study with a lot of commotion around me. I don’t know why, I just do.

I could not help but overhear a lively conversation going on at the table next to mine. Several students were rather loudly discussing how space aliens might be able to communicate with us. It seemed funny to me that the science-fiction crazed undergraduates were spending so much time on the topic. Anything to avoid studying the calculus books that lay open on their table, I guess.

One student proclaimed to the others that the best way would be to do as the Federation had done in several episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation: make themselves look like the alien species in order to walk among them, learn their customs, and discover a way to accurately and easily communicate.

(I know many consider Star Trek examples to be in poor taste, but it is my blog and I will do what I want to. Besides, I am here quoting a bunch of undergraduates, and many of us know from our undergrad. years just how weird some of those conversations can get.)

I could not help but recall some of the things I had recently heard about Jesus, how He came to tell us of what God had done, what God would do, what God was like, and what God requires of us. I turned around and joined the conversation.

“What if God wanted to communicate with us? How would He do it?” I asked. Two of the five students rater loudly exclaimed that they did not believe God existed. The others just sat there, trying to determine why this strange person was butting in on their friendly talk with such a strange series of questions.

“But what if God existed and wanted to communicate with us?” I pressed. Some of the students almost mockingly chimed in with the standard voice from above or writing on the clouds.

“What if God used the same basic approach that the Federation used as you were just discussing? What if He became a man like us? Someone who looked like an ‘ordinary Joe’ and walked and talked like a common place human?” I was starting to enjoy this.

One guy spoke up,”That just might work.” This encouraged me to press on. I asked, “How would he prove to us that he was God in the flesh?” The same guy got a strange, excited look on his face. “By doing things only God could do,” he exclaimed.

I asked if I could join them at the table and was invited to come over. I began to talk to them about their church and religious backgrounds. I found that the group had by and larger rejected the Christianity they had grown up hearing about. I also learned that most of that Christianity was of a liberal, ‘warm and fuzzy’ variety that was almost antithetical to the fundamentalist Christianity of my raising.

Most seemed genuinely surprised as I explained to them that orthodox Christianity had taught for hundreds of years that God had done precisely that. God had become a man in the Person of Jesus Christ in order to communicate with us. The eternal Second Person of the Trinity had assumed human form.

In the Person of Christ, God had done things only God could do. He worked miracles, not the ‘touchy feely,’ Guideposts sort of miracles, but acts that worked completely contrary to nature. We discussed a few of those stories from their youth.

It turned into a 45-minute discussion of the basics of the Christian faith, from Christ’s birth to His perfect life lived for us, to His infinite suffering on our behalf on the cross. After three or four more conversations, one of those five people professed his faith in Christ. The last I heard of him, he had surrendered to the call to full time Christian ministry. This is one of my happier stories from my graduate school days.

So, I wish a merry Christmas to you and yours. May the joy that comes from Christ’s words flood your heart and soul.

And, “Live long and prosper.”

Presbyterian

2011-12-20T18:00:00.002-06:00

I have just read a post over at Kevin DeYoung’s blog that I find interesting. He laments some of the things that have bothered me most about the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” (YRR) movement. He takes careful aim at the one item that has bothered me most of late: the fact that many in this movement seem to downplay denominational ties. DeYoung writes:

…it’s better to live in a specific ecclesiastical room instead of in the hallway of evangelicalism…We need to learn to be good churchmen, investing time in the committees, assemblies, and machinery of the church. We need to publicly celebrate and defend important doctrinal distinctives (e.g., baptism, the millennium, liturgical norms) even as we love and respect those who disagree. We should delight in our own histories and confessions, while still rejoicing that our different vehicles are ultimately powered by the same engines of the Christian faith–justification, the authority of Scripture, substitutionary atonement, and the glory of our sovereign God.

I have found myself comfortable in the Presbyterian church, specifically the Presbyterian Church in America. I define Presbyterian as one who believes and follows the Westminster Standards.

Why did I settle here? I have always had a degree of respect for the Westminster Confession, from the first day I read it. Even when I disagreed with their answers, I liked the questions that they asked.

I have read the Bible through several times. I have read the Standards and their Scripture proofs many times over. The Standards make more sense of the Bible than anything I have ever read. I have respect for many for the other reformed confessions and catechisms, but I choose to make Westminster my own.

Does this mean that I will not participate with some of the inter-denominational efforts? Of course not. I have benefited greatly from The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Together for the Gospel, The White Horse Inn, and especially Ligonier Ministries.

I do not want to do without those ministries, but I do not rely upon then for expositional Bible teaching, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline. For those things, I turn to my local PCA congregation. I cannot do without those things.

I hope that everyone within the YRR movement takes the step to join a church and actively participate in its life. Of course, I hope they join the PCA (That is the correct church after all.). But at least display colors and stand on a detailed confession (Please, not a confession that can be written upon a single sheet of double-spaced, 8.5 by 11 piece of paper. Get a real confession.).

Will I ever change denominations again? Possibly. I will follow the Bible’s teaching wherever it leads me. The Bible is my ultimate authority. Here I stand; I can do no other. But, I don’t think I’ll ever move again.

Join a particular church and submit to its authority. Support a particular denomination and follow its direction.

I pray YRR people will make the right choices.

Plantinga on Evolution in Christianity Today

2011-12-19T19:00:00.002-06:00

A recent Christianity Today article gives this quote from Alvin Plantinga:

…if you are a naturalist and think that we have come to be by evolutionary processes, then you will think that the main purpose of our cognitive processes, our mental faculties, is survival and reproductive fitness, not the production of true belief. Evolution doesn't give a rip about whether your beliefs are true. It only cares whether or not your actions are adaptive, whether they contribute to your fitness. From the point of view of evolution together with naturalism, you wouldn't expect that our faculties would be really adjusted to truth or aimed at truth. They would just be aimed at fitness.

But if this is true, if our minds are aimed at mere survival, not at truth, then it's not probable that our minds should be reliable—that is, produce an appropriate preponderance of true over false beliefs; and if that is so, then one who believes both naturalism and evolution should reject the thought that our minds are reliable. But that's a crippling position to be in. Nietzsche is among the people who have suggested this problem. Some contemporary philosophers—Thomas Nagel, for example—have voiced the same worry, and so did Darwin himself.

This is not the first time Plantinga has addressed evolution in Christianity Today. Other articles can be found here.

What I find most interesting about Plantinga’s argument is the way it reduces evolutionary naturalism to it logical end: the deconstruction of the human intellect.

Evolutionary naturalism is the belief that a natural process not guided by any outside personal force produced life in all its complexity. Naturalism is worth attacking on several fronts (see articles here, here and here), but Plantinga may have the best approach.

Without God we are truly lost.

(Other takes on the relevant arguments can be found here and here.)

The Canons of Dort

2011-11-21T19:00:00.001-06:00

I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort.

[This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.]

Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below:

This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world… This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is--as was necessary to be our Savior--not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved… Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life… all who are called through the gospel are called seriously.

There is nothing lacking in the payment Christ made for sin. Therefore, when a person tells you that you can be assured of heaven if you repent of your sins and have faith in Christ, he is making a real offer on God’s behalf. There is nothing outside you that keeps you from repenting. If you turn from your sins and trust Christ’s sacrifice to pay for them, you can be saved (John 3:16). It is, in this sense, your choice, and it is a real choice.

This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

We do not look for evidence of seeking or evidence of a changed heart before we share the gospel. Everywhere we go we should share the good news of the kingdom (Mathew 28:18-20), and we should make special trips to as many places as possible (Acts 1:8).

…many who have been called through the gospel do not repent or believe in Christ but perish in unbelief is not because the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is deficient or insufficient, but because they themselves are at fault…But all who genuinely believe and are delivered and saved by Christ's death from their sins and from destruction receive this favor solely from God's grace--which he owes to no one--given to them in Christ from eternity… Therefore, all people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform…There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in man after the fall, by virtue of which he retains some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrates a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling man to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him--so far, in fact, that man does not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways he completely distorts this light, whatever its precise character, and suppresses it in unrighteousness. In doing so he renders himself without excuse before God.

God elects, but men are responsible. All of us would reject God’s command to repent and believe if God did not do a special work in our hearts. We need new hearts to repent, but when we do not repent, we are doing exactly what we want to do. We do what we want to do, and we are responsible for our choice.

What, therefore, neither the light of nature nor the law can do, God accomplishes by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the Word or the ministry of reconciliation. This is the gospel about the Messiah, through which it has pleased God to save believers, in both the Old and the New Testament.

God’s saves the elect through the preaching of the word (Romans 10:14-15). The Holy Spirit does not act to give men new hearts without this preaching.

In this life believers cannot fully understand the way [God’s giving of a new heart] occurs… this divine grace of [God’s giving of a new heart] does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and--in a manner at once pleasing and powerful--bends it back.

The Canons of Dort allow for a doctrine of persuasive action. God does in some sense persuade men to embrace the truth. God does not coerce the will from outside a person. How this is done cannot be fully understood in this life.

...a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright.

God gives some people a new heart. Those people repent of their sins and believe the gospel. Those people also do good works as naturally as sparks fly upward. They are not perfect, but there is a change of heart that results in a new, better life (James 2:14-26).

This is not an exhaustive list of the finer points of the Synod of Dort, but it is a start. I encourage you to study and approve this great statement of faith.

The five points of Calvinism communicate truth, but that truth is incomplete without a careful explanation. All who discuss Calvinism, friend and foe alike, should remember this.

Reformed?

2011-11-18T19:00:00.000-06:00

Part of the problem is that the current revival in reformed theology is not actually a revival in Reformed theology. Adherence to five or, more frequently, four points of Calvinism is that which qualifies one as reformed these days and thus as part of the movement. Yet such adherence leaves massive and important areas of theology and church life undecided. A movement built on such minimal agreement is a movement whose strength and unity depends to a large degree on sleight of hand or at least on pretending that much else can be filed under `Agree to differ.' - Carl Trueman

I believe in the system of religion outlined in the Westminster Standards, the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Those detailed statements of the Christian faith ask and answer many questions about the Bible and theology. All of the things mentioned in them are important.

Relatively few of the so-called “new Calvinists” hold to a robust statement of faith such as this one. Some “new Calvinists’” statement of faith can be written on one double-spaced, 8.5 by 11 sheet of paper.

I do not believe that a person with a simplified statement of faith is truly "reformed."

Another Article for My Local Paper

2011-11-17T19:00:00.002-06:00

This is the third in a series of articles I have written for our local paper.

The Heidelberg Catechism: Question One and Two

In the last two weeks, our articles introduced the idea of a catechism and introduced The Heidelberg Catechism. This week, we will discuss the first of the fifty-two sections of the catechism. This section contains questions one and two.

The first question reads:

“What is your only comfort in life and in death? That I am not my own, but belong—body and soul, in life and in death—to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven: in fact, all things must work together for my salvation. Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.”

Christians belong to Christ, whose kingdom knows no end (1 Corinthians 6:19-20, Romans 14:7-9, Titus 2:14). Christ has saved His people by dying for their sins (1 Peter 1:18-19, I John 1:7-9). Christ makes it so Christians do not have to live in sin any longer (John 8:34-36, Hebrews 2:14-15, I John 3:1-11). Nothing that happens to us is outside of the care of Christ, our friend (Matthew 10:29-31, Luke 21:16-18). Christ ensures the Christian that everything he or she goes through ultimately leads only to salvation and joy (Romans 8:28). Christ makes us want to follow Him with joy in our hearts (Romans 8:15-16, 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, 2 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14). Christ Himself is our great comfort (Romans 8:1-17).

This answer is a great summary of the entire catechism. This answer is great comfort for a Christian facing persecution, suffering, or death.

Question two gives us the outline of the catechism: “What must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort? Three things: first, how great my sin and misery are; second, how I am set free from all my sins and misery; third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance.” In three words, the three sections of the catechism are guilt, grace, and gratitude.

As Kevin DeYoung says in his book The Good News We Almost Forgot, “The rest of the catechism will follow this three-fold outline. First, we understand our sin. Then we understand salvation. And finally we understand how we are sanctified to serve.” That is a great summary of the Christian faith.

Join us next week as we continue to look at The Heidelberg Catechism.

Another Article for My Local Paper

2011-11-11T19:27:00.003-06:00

What is The Heidelberg Catechism?

Last week’s article gave a brief definition of a catechism and an introduction to a catechism’s use in the church. We learned that catechisms are “structure statements of faith written in the form of questions and answers.” This week we will look at the background and history of a reformation catechism respected by several different denominations, The Heidelberg Catechism.

The Heidelberg Catechism was composed in Heidelberg, Germany, in the late 1500’s. Elector Frederick III, who ruled the German province, which contained the city of Heidelberg, had the catechism written in order to bring unity between the various religious groups under his rule.

Many believe Zacharius Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus were coauthors of the new catechism, but the Elector wrote that the catechism was written “with the advice and cooperation of our entire theological faculty in this place, and of all superintendents and distinguished servants of the church." It was most certainly a group effort.

The church in Heidelberg approved and adopted the catechism at a meeting in January of 1563. The churches soon divided the catechism into fifty-two sections, called “Lord’s Days.” This was so one Lord's Day could be explained in preaching and teaching each Sunday of the year.

Why should we take the time to study something written so long ago? Mark Noll, in his excellent work, Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation, puts it like this: “…prospects for thoughtful Christian faith …are seriously damaged if in the confusions of our own day we refuse to listen to these voices from the past.” We suffer greatly when we ignore great thinkers from the past.

The Heidelberg Catechism is divided into three sections: guilt, grace and gratitude. These three sections outline the Christian faith.

All men and women are guilty of sinning against a Holy God and stand condemned by Him. This does not refer to feelings of guilt, but to real guilt. We feel guilty because we are guilty.

God’s grace can save us through the Person and work of our Lord Jesus Christ if we have faith in Him. Christ’s perfect life and death for our sins on the cross purchase a place in heaven for those who trust Him.

Those who have true faith then live holy lives out of gratitude for what Christ has done for them. We do good works because we have eternal life, not to earn eternal life.

The catechism explains The Apostle’s Creed, the Ten Commandments, and The Lord’s Prayer, in that order. Following God’s commands and praying as our Lord taught us come in the section on gratitude. Placing the commandments and the prayer in the last section emphasizes the fact that God’s laws apply to the Christian. Christians are still obligated to follow them.

Protestants wrote this great catechism. It is a product of the Protestant Reformation in all its glory. It tells of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, as described in Scripture alone, and to the glory of God alone. The many Scripture references contained in The Heidelberg Catechism point to the Bible as our authority.

Next week we will turn our attention to the first question and answer of The Heidelberg Catechism. Join us on our journey through this great work.

Two books that will be helpful in our journey include The Good News We Almost Forgot by Kevin DeYoung and The Heidelberg Catechism: A Study Guide by G. I. Williamson. The catechism itself can be found at either this link or this one.

Grace Presbyterian In The News

2011-11-09T19:22:00.002-06:00

Our church has been running a series of newpaper articles in our local paper that I have mentioned here before. We now have a web page where people can leave comments on those articles. Just follow this link.

Another Article for my Local Paper

2011-11-09T18:00:00.003-06:00

Below is a re-print of an article I wrote recently for our local paper. It is an intorduction to a series our church and some special guests are doing on the Heidelburg Catechim.

What is a Catechism?

Last week’s article finished Soli Deo Gloria’s look at J. I. Packer’s book Knowing God. We will now begin our next series of articles dealing with The Heidelberg Catechism. This week’s article will define the word “catechism” (pronounced ka-tə-ki-zəm) and look at how the modern Christian church can use catechisms for education in Christian doctrine.

Almost all Christian denominations have developed written statements of faith to express what they believe the Bible teaches to be true. These statements of faith have included The Apostle’s Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Westminster Confession of Faith, The Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church, The New Hampshire Baptist Statement of Faith, The Declaration of Faith of The Church of God, and the modern Baptist Faith and Message. These written documents have played a vital role in defining and explaining the facts a denomination believes.

Mark Noll, in his book Confessions and Catechisms of the Reformation, defines catechisms as “structured statements of faith written in the form of questions and answers.” This question and answer format makes a catechism easy to remember and easy to learn.

Children and adults can learn the answers to common questions by reading a catechism. Authors of catechisms try to pick the questions people ask about the Christian faith that are most important. The authors then write the answers to these questions in memorable form so that a person can learn them either by content or by heart. Scripture references are placed in the answers to each question.

The best catechisms have the most memorable wording. Many can quote the first question and answer from the Westminster Shorter Catechism: “What is the chief end of man? Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” This is a valuable truth to learn to find purpose and meaning in life, and the catechism states it simply and memorably.

Typically, the questions and answers are learned and discussed a few at a time. This process can be over a period of weeks, months, or years. Christians for centuries have called this process “catechesis” or being “catechized.”

Many current-day pastors and teachers lament the fact that children raised in the Christian church leave the faith behind after high school. The eighteen-year-old turns his or her back on the faith and never looks over his shoulder.

But what if that faith has been drilled into the mind of a child from a very early age by both parents and preachers? What if they had a firm grasp of the basic beliefs of Christianity and the basics of Christian ethics?

Adults need to be well grounded in the truths of the Bible to face the many challenges and temptations our modern world brings. They too must know right beliefs and the difference between right and wrong. Besides, adults who love their children cannot teach them what they do not already know.

Catechisms typically contain questions and answers about who Christ is, what He did, and how we can be united to Him in faith. They also contain explanations of the Ten Commandments and Christian standards of right and wrong. This doctrine is solid information that the Holy Spirit can use to change the hearts and minds of young people who face life on their own. This sound truth can give an adult something to shape the remainder of his or her life.

Next week we will read about the history of one of the most beloved catechisms written by reformation-era Protestantism: The Heidelberg Catechism. Please join us as we read and discuss each question of this time-honored catechism

More to come here.

Write to Understand

2011-11-09T16:09:00.000-06:00

Folow this link to a great post containing quotes from famous theologians on writing.

Write to Understand

Do Our Worship Songs Have Room for Lament?

2011-10-28T19:00:00.001-05:00

Every person who is responsible to pick songs for corporate worship should read the essay that Justin Taylor quotes at his blog. I reprint Taylor’s quote below.

From Carl Trueman, “What Can Miserable Christians Sing?” in The Wages of Spin (pp. 159-160):

Perhaps . . . [the Western church] has drunk so deeply at the well of modern Western materialism that it simply does not know what to do with such cries and regards them as little short of embarrassing.

A diet of unremittingly jolly choruses and hymns inevitably creates an unrealistic horizon of expectation which sees the normative Christian life as one long triumphalist street party—a theologically incorrect and a pastorally disastrous scenario in a world of broken individuals.

Has an unconscious belief that Christianity is—or at least should be—all about health, wealth, and happiness corrupted the content of our worship?

. . . In the psalms, God has given the church a language which allows it to express even the deepest agonies of the human soul in the context of worship.

Does our contemporary language of worship reflect the horizon of the expectation regarding the believer’s experience which the psalter proposes as normative?

If not, why not?

Is it because the comfortable values of Western middle-class consumerism have silently infiltrated the church and made us consider such cries irrelevant, embarrassing, and signs of abject failure?

Christians are often required to suffer pain for the sake of the glory of God. I can see this pain on the faces of people in our corporate worship times at Grace Presbyterian Church. As a person tasked with the selection of hymns and songs for our congregation, I try to pick songs that allow for lament and provide encouragement in pain. For example, “God Moves In a Mysterious Way.” I find most songs like this to have been written long ago.

However, as Trueman suggests above, the Psalms are the best way to express all of the emotions God’s people have, the highs and the lows, the negatives and the positives. I hope to introduce the singing of the Psalms in our formal worship over the next few months

Who Dies in the Faith?

2011-10-20T07:39:00.001-05:00

Craig Blomberg over at the Denver Seminary web page has an interesting article at the link below on the one statistic churches never seem to track: how many die in their faith. If we believe in the old-fashioned doctrine of perseverance of the saints, we know that only those who carry on to the end truly prove their salvation to be genuine. So how many converts leave the faith before they die? Those who do prove their salvation was not real in the first place.

Denver Seminary Blog

What is my blog’s rating?

2011-10-16T13:58:00.000-05:00

I found out from this link that my blog is rated PG. It seems I mentioned hell and abortion. Oh heavens, we must not talk about those things. We might offend someone.

I was actually hoping for the R rating. Most of us need a rated R Christianity because the G-rated version will not pull the weight. Christ had to die a bloody death for our sins, and the Bible is filled with other examples of things that would certainly obtain an R-rating if properly depicted in the theater.

Could Business Be The Solution To Poverty?

2011-10-07T19:49:00.000-05:00

Check out this link.

Study Finds: Homosexuals Can Change Their Orientation

2011-10-03T14:58:00.001-05:00

The study at this link should generate some conversation around the web.

Courageous

2011-09-29T14:38:00.000-05:00

I read the book. I think this movie will be great.

Courageous

A Hymn That Would Not Be Written Today - Reformation21 Blog

2011-09-28T08:48:00.000-05:00

A hymn for those who know what pain is:

A Hymn That Would Not Be Written Today - Reformation21 Blog

Is the Reformation nearly over? Perhaps, but maybe not for the reason you think, - Reformation21 Blog

2011-09-26T12:49:00.000-05:00

Follow the following link to an article on the reformed (little “r” on purpose) ‘mega-church’ movement.

Is the Reformation nearly over? Perhaps, but maybe not for the reason you think, - Reformation21 Blog

New Media, Old Bias

2011-09-26T12:14:00.000-05:00

Please see this link: New Media, Old Bias.

It is an interesting short article on bias in social media.

The Last Two Articles I Published On "Knowing God"

2011-09-22T19:00:00.002-05:00

These are the last two articles I wrote for my local paper on J. I. Packer's book Knowing God. These were written for a series of articles on Packer's book by members of my church. The other articles can be found at this link.

Knowing God, Chapter Nineteen: Sons of God, Part One by John K. Jones

Last week we looked at what J. I. Packer calls the heart of the gospel, propitiation. Propitiation is the fact that “The wrath of God against us, both present and to come, has been quenched.” In essence, this Scripture means that the wrath we deserve due to our sin was transferred to Christ. If you have repented of your sin and placed your faith in Christ, God is not mad at you anymore.

This week we will briefly look at one outcome related to propitiation: adoption. The idea here is that God has become the Father of those who place their trust in Him. As John 1:12 says, “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.”

Packer defines the very essence of the message of the New Testament in three words: “adoption through propitiation.” He says, “…I do not expect ever to meet a richer or more pregnant summary of the gospel than that.” In “adoption through propitiation,” not only is God no longer angry with us, God has given us a place in the family. We are children of God if we have trusted Christ to pay the penalty for our sins.

Even though, as Packer says, “We are not fit for a place in God’s family; the idea of his loving and exalting us sinners as he loves and has exalted the Lord Jesus sound ludicrous and wild,” Yet, God brings us into his family anyway.

I am an adoptive parent. A teacher in a Sunday School class asked me one time whether God could love us as much as he loves Christ. I responded by telling them of my love for my adopted daughter. “Her birth certificate has mine and my wife’s name on it. She is my child, and nothing will ever change that.”

Our spiritual birth certificate has God the Father’s name on it. We are his children. Let us never forget, and let us live to honor our Father.

Byline: John K. Jones is a Deacon at Grace Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Troy where he attends with his family.

Knowing God, Chapter Nineteen: Sons of God, Part Two by John K. Jones

In our last article, we looked at the reason for and the permanence of our adoption in Christ. If we have true faith in Christ, God is our Father in heaven. This week we will look briefly at some of what that means.

As J. I. Packer says in Chapter Nineteen of Knowing God, The prospect before the adopted children of God is an eternity of love.” Our adoption is permanent, and it depends on the love of God for us and the grace of God to save us. God will not let us go. We are his children.

We can also have hope. Christianity is “a faith that looks forward.” For Christians, “the best is always yet to be.” We have the hope of an everlasting inheritance in Christ. During the time Christ was alive, parents adopted children to obtain an heir to whom parents could bequeath their earthly goods. In the same way, our adoption as God’s children guarantees our inheritance from him (Romans 8:16-17).

God’s wealth is immeasurable. As his adoptive children, we have limitless hope in an ideal heavenly Father.

Certain prominent atheists have ridiculed Christianity for being ‘pie in the sky by and by.’ Their idea is that Christianity is mere “wish fulfillment.” We could ask them if they wish that there were no God who would judge them. We could point out that their approach could be wish fulfillment just as they accuse ours of being. The idea cuts both ways. But Christianity is ‘pie in the sky by and by,’ and the ‘pie’ tastes great.

The Holy Spirit is given to us as “the Spirit of adoption” (Romans 8:15). The Spirit comes into our lives at the moment we trust Jesus, and there is nothing more of his presence that we can expect to get in a later second blessing or acceptance of Christ as Lord.

The Holy Spirit also helps us understand and learn about our relationship with God in Christ. This realization leads to true holiness of life. We have “an abiding obligation to keep the law, as the means of pleasing [our] newfound Father.” As his children, we feel joy when we please our Father.

Packer tells us to think often of the facts: “I am a child of God. God is my Father; Heaven is my home; every day is one day nearer. My Savior is my brother; every Christian is my brother too.” Packer tells us to repeat these things to ourselves “over and over.”

What joy the Father has given to us! We can be sons and daughters of God.

Do we help or hurt?

2011-09-19T23:34:00.000-05:00

Steve Saint, of “End of The Spear” fame, has written a thought-provoking article for “Mission Frontiers” magazine this month that is found at this link. The article questions some approaches used to aid the “poor.”

Here is a section of the article:

Financial help that does not develop sustainable, local, financial self-sufficiency is much more likely to create poverty than it is to meet real needs. Until we realize that we can’t overcome poverty with handouts, we will never be much help in completing Christ’s Great Commission.

Can we do more damage by “helping” than by leaving alone?

The Next Article for My Local Paper on "Knowing God"

2011-09-15T19:00:00.002-05:00

This is the next article amoung four I have recently written for my local paper.

Knowing God, Chapter Fourteen: God the Judge by John K. Jones

Over the last two articles, we have looked in turn on God’s love and His grace. We have seen the beauty of Exodus 34:6-7: "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.” This article turns to the second part of verse 7: “Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished.” We too often revel in God’s love and grace while giving no thought to His justice.

However, the Bible shows everywhere the terrible face of God as judge. As J. I. Packer notes in Chapter 14 of Knowing God, God judged Adam and Eve (Genesis 3), the entire world in Noah’s day (Genesis 6-8), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18-19), Egypt (Exodus 7-12), those who worshiped the golden calf (Leviticus 10:1-3), and even His chosen people, Israel (Judges 2:1-15, 3:5-8, 4:1-3; 2 Kings 17, 32:15-17, 23:26-27). The Bible gives many more examples.

God is serious about judgment. No one ‘gets a pass.’ As Packer says, “…the heart of the justice which expresses God’s nature is retribution, the rendering to persons what they have deserved; for this is the essence of the judge’s task.” This judgment is “a revelation of the moral character of God, and an imparting of moral significance to human life.” As even Immanuel Kant admitted, we see in God’s judgment the eternal value of moral choices because of the punishments and rewards that God gives.

We all, in ourselves, are without hope. God’s standard for right behavior is perfection. Jesus said, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48). And we all fall far short of this standard (Romans 3:9-20). But there is hope from outside of us, from someone else.

But God, the just judge, became a man in the Person of Jesus Christ (John 1:1-13). He came to earth, lived a perfect life, and died a death He did not deserve on the cross for the sins of His people. In the clearest example of God’s judgment in the Bible, Christ was judged for sin (Galatians 3:10-14). Christ was judged for those who place their faith in Him. He is our hope.

What are we to do since we are faced with God’s judgment? Packer writes, ”Call on the coming Judge to be your present Savior…Run from him now and you will meet him as Judge then-and without hope. Seek him now, and you will find him … and you will then discover that you are looking forward to that future meeting with joy, knowing that there is now “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus “ (Romans 8:1).”

Flee to Christ! Turn from your sin and turn to Him in simple trust that He paid the penalty for your sin. Turn the face of your Judge into the face of your Savior (John 5: 22-23).

[This is part of a series of acrticles the members of my church are publishing on Packer's famous book. The other articles in this series can be found at this link.]

An Article for my Local Paper - "Knowing God," Chapter Five

2011-09-12T19:00:00.010-05:00

I have been helping the members of my church write a series of articles for our local paper on J. I. Packer's Knowing God. I thought I would post the articles I have written here on "Fear and Trembling."

Knowing God, Chapter Five: God Incarnate by John K. Jones

What is light? What is matter? Science has long been puzzled by questions like these because, when we perform experiments, both light and the constituencies of matter behave like a particle some of the time and a wave some of the time. Particles are things that move in a straight line like small billiard balls. Waves are spread-out things that expand like ripples in a pond. In theory, something cannot be both. Science has its mysteries.

As J. I. Packer points out in Chapter 5 of Knowing God, Christianity has mysteries too. The supreme mystery of Christianity is the idea that God became a man to walk, talk, eat, sleep, hunger, thirst, hurt, and be all that it means to be human on this earth (Hebrews 2:17-18, 4:15-16).

Some try to deny that the Bible teaches that Christ was God and man, but they ‘run up against a brick wall’ erected by the First Chapter of John’s Gospel. Packer outlines seven things this chapter teaches us about Christ (The passages from the Bible are in italics.):

1.

Christ is eternal. “In the beginning was the Word…” Packer says Christ did not have a beginning, that, “when other things began, he – was.”

2. Christ is a personality separate from God the Father. “And the Word was with God…” Christ has his own distinct personality.

3. Christ possessed deity. “And the Word was God…” Christ is one with God the Father in being. Packer writes, “The mystery with which this verse confronts us is thus the mystery of personal distinctions within the unity of the Godhead.” God is one in being, but three in Persons.

4. Christ created. “Through him all things were made…” Packer writes, “All that was made was made through him.”

5. Christ is animating. “In him was life…” Packer states, “Here is the Bible answer to the problem of the origin and continuance of life, in all its forms: life is given and maintained by the Word.”

6. Christ was revealing. “And that life was the light of men…” All of us learn of God from the life and teachings of Christ.

7. Christ was the Word incarnate. “The Word became flesh…” Packer says the Christian’s message “rests on the staggering fact that the child in the manger was God.”

Christ laid aside his glory and submitted himself to God the Father ultimately so that he could die on the cross for our sins and rise from the dead (Philippians 2:5-11). Christ’s resurrection shows us that God accepted his death on our behalf.

Packer says Christ did not lay aside his “power and attributes” as God, instead he laid aside his “divine glory and dignity.” Yet Christ submitted to his Father’s will so perfectly that he did not “do all the things he could have done, because certain things were not his father’s will,” nor did he consciously know all the he might have known,” but only what the Father “willed him to know” (Matthew 26:53-54; Mark 5:30, 13:32).

This is the true spirit of Christmas: that we should lay aside our own glory for the good of others. “ You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, that you through his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9, NIV).

[The other articles in this series can be found at this link.]

9/11

2011-09-10T14:12:00.000-05:00

I wanted to say something about the 9/11 tragedy, but I realized that I had already said everything I wanted to at this post.

Almost Done With My MBA

2011-08-30T18:35:00.002-05:00

I have one last class to go to earn my MBA from Union University, but this last class is very difficult. Hence, I have not posted much lately. It will be a few weeks before I post again.

Here are some links of interest:

A prayer of repentance I have had to pray allot lately can be found here. I have had some battles with some old habits I thought I had broken.

A long debate between a Muslim apologist and myself can be found here (Warning: It is a long debate.).

Justin Taylor posts some parables here that I had previously posted here. Nice to know I have good taste.

A friend of mine talks about his journey from atheism to Christianity here.

Norman Geisler comments on what it would be like to have loved ones in hell at this link.

A good reminder that some powerful truths can be contained in part of a verse at this link (when taken in context, of course).

Follow a link here to see John H. Gerstner remind us of the necessity of justification by faith alone for the individual as well as the church.

I will see you all soon.

Tchividjian on Vocation

2011-08-09T17:30:00.003-05:00

Tullian Tchividjian has a great article on “Staying Where You Are” in relation to a Christian’s vocation here.

Some Quotes Deserve a Post of Their Own

2011-07-23T17:07:00.000-05:00

“If God had perceived that our greatest need was economic, he would have sent an economist. If he had perceived that our greatest need was entertainment, he would have sent us a comedian or an artist. If God had perceived that our greatest need was political stability, he would have sent us a politician. If he had perceived that our greatest need was health, he would have sent us a doctor.

But he perceived that our greatest need involved our sin, our alienation from him, our profound rebellion, our death; and he sent us a Savior.” — D. A. Carson, A Call to Spiritual Reformation (Grand Rapids, Mi.:Baker Books, 1992)

Bad Things and Good People

2011-07-16T11:58:00.000-05:00

"Why do bad things happen to good people? That only happened once, and He volunteered." - R.C. Sproul

“Why do bad things happen to good people” as a philosophical problem for Christianity assumes the presence of “good people.” There simply are none in the world today. Only Jesus Christ was a truly good person, and, as Sproul points out above, He volunteered for the duty.

Like it or not, no one is free from sin (Romans 5:12-21). Since we are not, we should suffer. As R. C. Sproul points out above and John Gerstner pointed out in “The Problem of Pleasure,” we do not deserve anything but punishment. Earthquakes, tornados, floods, tsunamis, and other natural disasters are what we deserve.

[This is a brief note on one approach to the philosophical problem of natural evil. This kind of thinking does no good to persons who are wrestling with the personal problem of evil. The personal problem of evil is what you experience when you go through it yourself. Please see this post and this post for some different approaches if you find yourself suffering.]

Christ: Revealing God and Reconciling His People to Him

2011-05-28T21:34:00.000-05:00

One problem in theology especially confuses me. This is not a big surprise. I am not a professional theologian and have no formal seminary training. Yet, theology is a passion for me because I know a little of what God is like, and I know how little of God’s character I reflect. In this post, I will set up the problem and suggest one possible solution.

God is holy. This means He is separate and different from me, primarily in the fact that He is completely without sin or sinful desires. My understanding of God’s holiness comes mainly from reading and studying the life of Jesus.

I can see out into the expanse of Christ’s life by looking through the window provided in the New Testament of the Bible. I have read this collection of 27 books many times.

I have rarely questioned whether these records were true, at first because of the fact that the people I respected held the New Testament to be God’s Word and without error. Later I had the opportunity to explore the evidence for the basic truthfulness of the New Testament documents for myself. I accepted The New Testament as true for my own reasons without depending on the testimony of others. (For a summary of some of that evidence, please see this link.)

The New Testament presents a terrifying picture of what holiness because it shows us the Person of Christ. Christ shows knowledge beyond that expected of a human (John 1:48-49). He heals the sick (Matt. 15:29-31). He stops the wind and the waves (Mark 4:35-41). He raises the dead (John 11:38-44). He teaches the most strict version of morality I have seen, including actions and attitudes of the heart (Matt. 5-7, Mark 7:14-23). He accepts worship (Matt. 16:16-17, Luke 5:8, John 9:38, John 20:28-29). Moreover, and certainly not least, He rose from the dead Himself (1 Cor. 15:1-8). (For scholars' defenses of the resurrection, please see this link.)

Christ claimed to be God (John 8:58, John 10:30). He convinced a group of Jewish monotheists that He was God in the Flesh (Phil. 2:5-11). (For a scholar’s view of reasons to believe Jesus is God, see this link.)

Why is this so scary? He created the world (John 1:1-5) and holds it together (Col. 1:16-17). As my creator, He has the right to tell me what to do, and He requires perfect obedience (Matt. 5:48). He teaches that sin requires an eternal punishment (Mark 9:42-50).

In the words of Phillip Yancey, He is resurrected and “out there running around loose somewhere,” capable of upending all of my plans and dreams at any time. And He has reason to do exactly that in view of my sin.

However, the story does not end there. We see Christ promising to reconcile people to God by taking away their sins (Matt. 20:28, Luke 24:46-49, John 3:10-21, John 14:6-7). We learn of the marvelous chance to take credit for what He has done for us by placing our trust in Him (Luke 18:9-14). We see the picture of God’s action: “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them” by making “[Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor. 5:21).

I am confused about this one thing: How could a God so perfect and holy love me, a professional sinner?

The atonement, what Christ did for us on the cross, is a partial explanation for that love. The idea is that God could love His people because He sees their sin as paid for by Christ's suffering on the cross. He sees them as having Christ’s righteousness credited to their account.

Many within the church obscure this marvelous, incomprehensible love of a holy God. I read books that treat the atonement as a kind of overarching story without explaining any of the particulars. I read and hear sermons that hide God’s holiness, His requirements, and man’s sinfulness under a mountain of practical advice and modern psychological methods. I find Sunday School materials that omit God’s requirements and holy nature while pointing to the example of God’s love, leaving much of God’s character unexpressed. I find intellectuals who bury the simplicity of the gospel under a mountain of technical jargon and obtuse arguments over fine points of archaic “theories” that have often been rejected by the church in most of history.

Only Christianity even begins to explain God’s holiness and God’s love at the same time. Why do we hide our uniqueness under the mundane?

We see a light that blinds us in its intensity and permanently changes the way we see. Why do we hide this light, the very light of the world, under a bushel? Why do we hide the very words that could gain a hearing from the world and the cultures we live in?

God, have mercy on us because of Christ. Grant that we would be overwhelmed with your claims and your actions. Give us a change of heart that overflows into the lives of those around us.

The Face of Terror

2011-05-03T19:00:00.000-05:00

Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in.

First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head.

Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists. To tell a story I have told here before:

Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder one of the leading Baptist preachers.

Pistols in their hands, the assassins waited in the dark outside a country church where their target was preaching. The evangelist spoke with burning intensity about heaven and hell, his voice ringing out into the night. When everyone had gone, he turned out the church lights and stepped outside. The killers approached him, pistols in hand.

But instead of shooting the evangelist, they handed him their guns. “We came here to kill you, but we couldn’t,” they said. “We heard your preaching and we believed it. We’re now on the same side.”

That story was told to me years ago by a pastor in Alabama. The Baptist evangelist was his grandfather. The story stayed with me. It is compelling drama and a parable of our position in an increasingly dangerous and demoralized world. Either we evangelize our generation with new power or its members are going to kill us. The bad guys are waiting for us ‘out there,’ and intend to do us in … We need an evangelism with enough strength to get the bad guys before they get us. – C. John Miller (Powerful Evangelism for the Powerless, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1997, p. 1-2.)

Certain societies produce terrorists. If we want to do away with the terrorists, we must convert those who make up the groups that produce them. Either we reach them, or they will kill us. (I am not saying that only Islam produces terrorists. We ‘grow a few of our own’ here in the U. S. There are other groups to reach.)

Islam has made many in-roads to into the Western countries, and life under Muslim rule can be difficult for non-adherents. We should keep these things in mind.

Two of the best missions agencies reaching out to Muslims right now are Frontiers and Arab World Ministries. Please join them with prayer, financial support, or by going as a missionary with those agencies. You may be part of our only hope.

May Jesus’ message of tolerance and non-violence win out in the hearts of all peoples in our world! "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

A Side Note to Certain Visitors:

If you are Islamic and are reading this blog, I invite you to read some of my posts on Islam and the Christian doctrines Islam repudiates. Please start with the posts here, here, and here. I have also presented positive evidence for the truths of Christianity in many places in this blog. A good place to start for a Muslim would be the search label “Argument from Scripture.”

Good Friday and Easter Links

2011-04-22T19:00:00.003-05:00

I wanted to put up a few links to resources on the meaning of the Good Friday and Easter holidays.

Some good books on historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection can be found here, here, and here.

William Lane Craig gives a tight argument for the resurrection on video here.

Some good books on the meaning of the cross are here, here, and here.

Some good books on the applications of the cross and the resurrection to our lives are here and here.

A post on what to preach about on Easter Morning is here. Russell Moore laments the standard far of church pulpits and calls us back to preaching the cross.

J. I. Packer comments on the Cross and Christ’s love here.

Happy Easter everyone!

Obama Gets It Right

2011-04-21T19:00:00.001-05:00

Thanks to Ed Stetzer for posting some of President Obama’s comments at the National Prayer Breakfast (There is a video posted at Ed's place too.)

Obama got this part right. Here is what the President said:

We all live in the hustle and bustle of our work. And everybody in this room has weighty responsibilities, from leading churches and denominations, to helping to administer important government programs, to shaping our culture in various ways. And I admit that my plate has been full as well. (Laughter.) The inbox keeps on accumulating. (Laughter.)

But then comes Holy Week. The triumph of Palm Sunday. The humility of Jesus washing the disciples' feet. His slow march up that hill, and the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross.

And we're reminded that in that moment, he took on the sins of the world -- past, present and future -- and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection.

In the words of the book Isaiah: 'But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.'

This magnificent grace, this expansive grace, this 'Amazing Grace' calls me to reflect. And it calls me to pray. It calls me to ask God for forgiveness for the times that I've not shown grace to others, those times that I've fallen short. It calls me to praise God for the gift of our son -- his Son and our Savior.

We agree on that part, now if we could just agree on some other things…

Under the Category of “I’m Glad I Don’t Have to Read That Book…”

2011-04-15T15:40:00.000-05:00

Michael Scott Horton reviews Rob Bell’s Love Wins at this link.

Mike Licona reviews Forged by Bart Ehrman at this link.

Thank you Mike and Mike for reading those books and reviewing them for the rest of us.

Lewis and Earthly Christians

2011-03-23T22:54:00.002-05:00

“If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. . . . It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this one." - C. S. Lewis (Mere Christianity, chapter 10)

How Rob Bell Drove Me To Repentance – A Quote from Another Blog

2011-03-16T19:56:00.001-05:00

Reformation Theology quotes a pastor on the reality of hell at this link. Here’s the quote:

A very good friend of mine, Pastor Graeme Adams, from Dundee, Scotland writes, "“Are you orthodox on the issue of hell? Good! Does it cause you to pray and weep for the lost and actively seek ways to reach them with the good news of Jesus, or be smug or worse because you know something Rob Bell doesn’t? It’s incredibly sad and harmful when high profile leaders propagate heresy, AND when millions of Christians profess faith, historical biblical faith, and yet don’t live it. Heresy and Cold lifeless heartless Orthodoxy are partners in crime against humanity and God. May God use this issue to break our hearts.”

All Things Are Not Equal

2011-03-12T19:00:00.001-06:00

“All things being equal, God does desire that no one should perish. But all things are not equal. Sin is real. Sin violates God’s holiness and righteousness. God also is not willing that sin should go unpunished. He desires as well that His holiness should be vindicated…. When the preceptive will is violated, things are no longer equal.” – R. C. Sproul, From Can I Know God’s Will? pp. 22-23.

We no longer have a right to claim God’s favor when we violate His commands. We forfeit all claims on His love and mercy.

As the highest and best being in the universe, God has the right to demand of us whatever He desires. God’s desires are always in accordance with His nature, and He is wholly good. He can no more command something that is evil than He can cease to be God. He cannot because He will not, and His essential desires never change.

God, in some sense, takes “no pleasure in the death of anyone” (Ezekiel 18:32) and does not desire “that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). However, He is “of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong” (Habakkuk 1:13). Moreover, He “will by no means clear the guilty” (Exodus 34:7).

God’s nature has both aspects. God has love for all men in some sense, but the sinner is under His wrath.

All things are not equal.

But God gave His Only Son, and Christ has paid the penalty for our sins (2 Corinthians 5:21). If we trust that what Christ did on the cross, He did for us, then our sins are paid for by Christ. We need not fear the wrath of God when we are in Christ by faith.

All things are not equal.

Some Quotes Deserve a Post of Their Own: The Bad News and The Good News

2011-03-10T19:00:00.001-06:00

“The bad news is far worse than making mistakes or failing to live up to the legalistic standards of fundamentalism. It is that the best efforts of the best Christians, on the best days, in the best frame of heart and mind, with the best motives fall short of that true righteousness and holiness that God requires.

Our best efforts cannot satisfy God’s justice. Yet the good news is that God has satisfied his own justice and reconciled us to himself through the life, death, and resurrection of his Son. God’s holy law can no longer condemn us because we are in Christ.” — Michael Horton, Christless Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Books, 2008), 91.

There is nothing in us or done by us…

2011-03-08T20:35:00.000-06:00

“There is nothing in us or done by us, at any stage of our earthly development, because of which we are acceptable to God. We must always be accepted for Christ’s sake, or we cannot ever be accepted at all. This is not true of us only when we believe. It is just as true after we have believed. It will continue to be true as long as we live. Our need of Christ does not cease with our believing; nor does the nature of our relation to Him or to God through Him ever alter, no matter what our attainments in Christian graces or our achievements in behavior may be. It is always on His “blood and righteousness” alone that we can rest.” - B. B. Warfield

I have had many times of doubt in my life. I have convinced myself I was on the way to hell because of my mediocre Christian life, my personal suffering, and my doubts.

In my times of despair, I have learned to look to three things:

Look to my attitude toward God. "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (Gal. 5:6). Do you love the God of the Bible? Not do I love Him perfectly. Not do I love Him enough. But do I love Him at all? If I really love the God of the Bible, then I am saved because the unsaved hate Him (Ro. 8:7).

Look to Christ. He has accomplished your salvation for you. Christ has paid the penalty for my sins. Christ said, “It is finished” (John 19:30). It is over. I must trust that it is. That is the essence of Warfield’s quote above.

Look to the promises of the Word of God. Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life” (John 6:47). If I have looked to Christ, I am saved.

Saving faith and true repentance are never perfect in this life. There are times of doubt. There are always sins left to repent of (Romans 7). But we look to Christ.

R. C. Sproul - Free Audio Book

2011-03-04T18:04:00.000-06:00

The audit version of The Holiness of God by R. C. Sproul is available as a free download at this link for this month.

This is my favorite book outside the Bible.

Do Christians Divorce More Often than Non-Christians?

2011-02-28T19:18:00.002-06:00

How many times have you heard that the divorce rate among Christians is higher than the divorce rates among the general population? Research revealed at this link says that this is wrong. Conservative religious practice yields lower divorce rates.

[Thanks to Trevin Wax for the link.]

[3/22/11 - More on the issue from Gene Edward Veith at this link.]

Hitler Never Existed?

2011-02-26T19:11:00.000-06:00

A wonderful, tongue-in-check piece about revisionist history is at this link. I cannot help but think about those people who say Jesus Christ never existed as I read this.

Rob Bell and Hell

2011-02-26T16:56:00.006-06:00

I agree with Justin Taylor that Rob Bell now seems to have outwardly embraced universalism. He seems to be teaching that all people ultimately go to heaven. Taylor provides Bell’s video at this link, and Bell’s own words condemn him. (If this turns out to be some kind of publicity stunt, then woe to Bell for taking liberties with his message.)

I have written about Bell’s dangerous theological leanings before (see the links here and here), but this new teaching takes him far outside orthodox Christianity. Jesus is the figure from the Bible who says the most about hell. He describes it as eternal (Mt. 25:41, 46; Mk. 9:43, 48) and as a place of torment (Mt. 25:30). To venture outside these teachings is to find oneself arrayed against the Lord of Glory Himself. (I recommend an audio presentation by R. C. Sproul on hell at this link.)

I do not relish the idea of anyone going to hell, and I find it encouraging that God does not either (Ezek. 33:11, Mt. 23:37-38). Yet God’s justice requires eternal punishment when it is affronted. Perfect righteousness requires perfect punishment to those that offend it. Perfect innocence requires infinite punishment when injured. Absolute authority demands overwhelming retribution when rebelled against.

Kevin DeYoung gives eight reasons why we need a doctrine of hell on his blog at this link. They are excerpted from his excellent book Why We Are Not Emergent.

The most compelling reason DeYoung gives is that “we need God’s wrath in order to understand what [God’s] mercy means.”

Divine mercy without divine wrath is meaningless. Only when we know that we were objects of wrath(Ep. 2:3), stood condemned already (John 3:18), and would have faced hell as God’s enemies were it not for undeserved mercy (Rom. 5:10), can we sing from the heart “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me!”

May we all throw ourselves on the mercy of God in order to escape the coming wrath.

May Rob Bell take the chance to repent.

[3/2/11: Please see more thoughts from Kevin DeYoung at this link.]

[3/9/11: Tim Challies reviews the entire book at this link. I have more questions than answers.]

[3/15: Follow this link for a parody of the Rob Bell video that makes a great point.]

[3/16/11: Dr. Jeremy Evans of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary discusses differing views concerning the nature of hell held by Christians and how a good and loving God could send people there at this link.]

[3/22/11: See Mike Horton's review at this link.]

The Bible’s Big Picture

2011-02-24T19:07:00.001-06:00

Ligonier Ministries blog shares a helpful list from R. C. Sproul. R. C. has listed various books of the Bible to read in order to get the overall story of Scripture at this link. It is a helpful list for ‘big picture’ people.

How about it all you Myers-Briggs intuitives? Let’s read some Scripture together.

Are all objections to the Christian Faith based on reason?

2011-02-12T18:52:00.003-06:00

Christianity Today says "no" at this link.

I Need a Real Chaplain Who Believes in a Real Hell

2011-02-07T11:09:00.002-06:00

Trevin Wax posts a great scene from the TV show ER. Every liberal Christian theologian should watch the video at this link.

Two great resources on Bart Erhman

2011-01-24T06:00:00.000-06:00

The Erhman Project – A huge collection of resources.

A summary of Dr. William Lane Craig’s recent lecture on some of Ehrman’s latest work.

Abortion: Stem the Tide

2011-01-22T13:05:00.000-06:00

On this 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade I felt it was important to post on the topic.

First, I would like to provide some links on the subject:

Greg Lucas: Four Women I Would Like to Thank on the 38th Anniversary of Roe vs Wade (Best blog post I have read on the subject!)

R. C. Sproul on: Experiencing God’s Forgiveness from Guilt Connected with Abortion (Important for all of us to remember: God’s grace is bigger than all of our sins.)

Justin Taylor: The Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, and Abortion Law

George Grant’s comments and statistics passed on by Ligonier.

Kevin DeYoung: Jesus Loves The Little Children (a startling look at the similarities between our culture and ancient ones)

Scott Klusendorf: Clarity Not Gadgetry: Pro-Life Apologetics for the Next Generation

Justin Taylor: This is Abortion (Warning: the video on this page is extremely graphic and not for the faith of heart.)

A book by Francis J. Beckwith: Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice

A book by R. C. Sproul: Abortion: A Rational Look at an Emotional Issue (Ligonier mailed a copy to every member of Congress this year.)

Second, I like to briefly share my opinion on the matter:

As an adoptive parent, I have a young woman to thank for the greatest blessing that has come into my life since Christ as my Savior and Katherine as my wife: a daughter. My daughter’s birth mother faced one of the most difficult decisions a person could ever face, and she made a good one.

She gave life to a child and placed her into a home where she could be loved and cared for. She named our child Elizabeth Hope, her gift to her daughter by birth.

I once heard John Wood at Cedar Springs Presbyterian Church in Knoxville give a short summary of a National Prayer Breakfast he had attended during the Clinton Administration. Mother Teresa spoke at the breakfast. Her comments during part of her speech turned to abortion. She said, “If you do not want your children, then give them to me and I will raise them.” She may be the only person in our generation with enough moral authority to make a statement like that in a context like that.

As my wife and I begin to make financial arrangements to adopt again, I would like to echo her words, even though it is a faint echo. If you do not want your child, then give her to us and we will raise her.

Motivation for World Missions

2011-01-13T18:52:00.000-06:00

Gospel for Asia has two wonderful videos on their web site promoting world missions. I recommend them. They can be found here.

[Thanks to Desiring God for the link.]

Over 400 Posts

2011-01-08T18:00:00.000-06:00

This is my 401st post at Fear and Trembling. I wanted to give links to some significant posts and some brief thoughts on the blog.

Links to the most popular posts since I installed Google Analytics in late March of 2007:

Some quotes from the Koran.

A disturbing set of quotes from George W. Bush.

A post on the theology of N. T. Wright.

A post on Paley’s teleological argument (argument from design for God’s existence) with links to more resources.

A post on a hymn-writer who suffered from major depression for most of his life, even as a Christian.

A search label of a series of posts I did on why I am a Christian as opposed to other faiths or worldviews.

Some posts I wish people would visit more often:

A post on why we need salvation and why we cannot provide it for ourselves.

My slightly irreverent personal testimony (somewhat ‘tongue in cheek’).

A post on faith and good works.

A search label that gives succinct reasons to accept God’s Existence.

A post that gives a self-serving motivation for missionary activity in the modern world.

My first post on 3/7/2007:

Rob Bell and the gospel.

The blog has changed names twice since inception. It was first “Fear and Trembling: A Baptist Layman Looks At Life.” Then it became “Fear and Trembling: A Presbyterian Layman Looks at Life” when I changed denominations from SBC to PCA. Then I shortened it to just “Fear and Trembling.” This was an effort to shorten the name so Networked Blogs on Facebook would pick up more words from my posts.

Some statistics:

10,973 unique visits. (Analytics kicks out the visits from people who transfer from one blog page to another within the blog for this metric.)

17,634 pageviews. (Yes, my ‘bounce rate’ is often quite high. Hopefully it is from people who have me on feed readers. I may never know.)

Over 830 comments. (Many from me.)

1:34 average time on site. (I don’t have much time to make a good first impression. Quite a few visits are much longer.)

Visits from 111 countries.

Visits from all 50 U. S. states and two U. S. territories.

I have enjoyed my time blogging and especially those people who have stopped by to leave comments. Those who agree with me have affirmed my efforts. Those that disagree with me have taught me something; I learn from arguments.

I am well-aware that my style of writing is gleaned for the most part from college and professional experience in technical writing. It is almost mechanical. I am, after all, an engineer. I am also well aware that my choice of topics is leaned toward philosophy and hard-core theology. Therefore, this blog is not for everybody.

Here’s to more posts! I plan to keep it up until I get no more hits.

Ingratitude

2011-01-07T18:54:00.000-06:00

Russell Moore has a post up over at The Resurgence that convicts me for ingratitude (follow this link). His post really hits home for an adoptive parent like me.

[Side note: This is my 400th post. Blogging has been fun so far.]

Over 70 Christians Have Been Arrested in Iran

2011-01-06T08:21:00.000-06:00

Please see the post and links here.

New Year’s Resolutions, 2011

2011-01-03T17:30:00.001-06:00

After considerable thought, I resolve to:

Spend more time with my family.

Lose 50 pounds.

Read through Operation World.

Teach through The Good News We Almost Forgot in a Sunday, 06:30, Bible Study.

Make straight A’s in my MBA program at Union University.

Some of these might be mutually exclusive, but I hope not.

Bible Reading in 2011 and Operation World

2010-12-31T07:00:00.004-06:00

Reading through the Bible is a great way to learn more about the Christian faith. I used the One Year Bible to read it through in 2010, and it was unforgettable and humbling.

I have explored several Bible Reading plans for 2011. Some of the more intriguing printable pdf file plans are here, here, here, here, here, and here. An interactive approach to developing your own plan is here. I dare you to pick one and try it.

One simple checklist that allows for reading at your own pace and in the place you want to start is here. I think that is going to be my approach this year.

The reason for the truncated Bible reading plan is that I am going to follow David Platt’s suggestion in Radical. I am going to pray through the newly published Seventh Edition of Operation World.

Operation World is basically a book of prayer requests that cover missions in the whole world, country by country. I used the Fifth Edition for a while, and I miss the prayerful interaction with global concerns. Try it yourself. You might like it as much as me.

And Happy New Year!

[1/3/11: Two great posts on Bible reading plans are here and here.]

Quote of the Day – John Newton on Humility

2010-12-28T17:00:00.002-06:00

“Whoever is truly humbled — will not be easily angry, nor harsh or critical of others. He will be compassionate and tender to the infirmities of his fellow-sinners, knowing that if there is a difference — it is grace alone which has made it! He knows that he has the seeds of every evil in his own heart. And under all trials and afflictions — he will look to the hand of the Lord, and lay his mouth in the dust, acknowledging that he suffers much less than his iniquities have deserved.” – John Newton

What do you think of a ceramic piece that shows Santa kneeling in front of a manger?

2010-12-25T06:00:00.001-06:00

Here’s what Kevin DeYoung thinks, and I like what he says. He covers the legend of St. Nicholas.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Rosenbladt Sings O Holy Night

2010-12-24T14:28:00.000-06:00

Rod Rosenbladt sings O Holy Night here. Great job for a professional theologian.

I had the chance to sing this song at our church a few days ago. I did not do nearly this well.

It’s my favorite song of the Christmas Season.

North Korean Assassin turns into a Minister

2010-12-22T13:06:00.001-06:00

Thanks to Brandywine Books for the link to a New York Times story about a North Korean assassin who became a South Korean citizen and a Presbyterian minister (A minister to the largest Presbyterian church in the world no less.). Follow the link here.

More Education Leads to More Church Attendance

2010-12-20T19:00:00.000-06:00

It seems the more education we have, the more likely we are to attend church and have strong families. (See the post here.) Who would have thought?

Dorothy Sayers on Doctrine

2010-12-18T19:00:00.003-06:00

Dorothy Sayers authored one of my favorite essays of all time. The essay is available here. It drives home the point that doctrine is not boring after all. Here’s an excerpt:

So that is the outline of the official story—the tale of the time when God was the under-dog and got beaten, when He submitted to the conditions He had laid down and became a man like the men He had made, and the men He had made broke Him and killed Him. This is the dogma we find so dull—this terrifying drama of which God is the victim and hero.

If this is dull, then what, in Heaven's name, is worthy to be called exciting? The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused Him of being a bore—on the contrary; they thought Him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround Him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified Him "meek and mild," and recommended Him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies. To those who knew Him, however, He in no way suggested a milk-and-water person; they objected to Him as a dangerous firebrand... He was emphatically not a dull man in His human lifetime, and if He was God, there can be nothing dull about God either. But He had "a daily beauty in His life that made us ugly," and officialdom felt that the established order of things would be more secure without Him. So they did away with God in the name of peace and quietness.

Thanks to Justin Taylor for the link.

Jesus vs. Paul?

2010-12-16T19:00:00.000-06:00

Scot McNight writes on the differences between Jesus’ and Paul’s emphasis here.

Michael S. Horton answers him here.

Do atheists ever become Christians?

2010-12-15T06:00:00.002-06:00

Yes they do. See the link here.

Rosenbladt Talks About a Gift

2010-12-13T06:00:00.001-06:00

Quote from a Rod Rosenbladt sermon I found here:

God: I told you. I hate religion. Religion was your idea – not Mine. You have forgotten what Anselm said: “You have not yet considered the depth of your sin.”

Sinner: But I want to show you I have. I really have. I know it is really deep. Talk to me. Teach me sanctification.

God: I told you. You aren’t ready for sanctification yet. You just imagine that you are ready. You are arrogant and you don’t know it.

Sinner: What do you mean? I am ready.

God: You are not. If you were, you wouldn’t be talking like you are talking.

Sinner: Well, what then?

God: Just sit there. Sit there for a long while.

Sinner: And do what?

God: Consider the shed blood. Consider that the blood was enough. Think about the fact that it isn’t your repenting that has saved you. Think about the fact that it isn’t your faith that is saving you.

Sinner: Can’t I just, as you said, just think about my sin and the depth of it?

God: That is a start. But you like doing that. You like it too much.

Sinner: This makes no sense. What are you saying?

God: I am saying that you like atoning for yourself by feeling guilty. And you like atoning for yourself by thinking about your faith.

Sinner: Well, what else is there?

God: There is Jesus Christ – but you don’t consider Him. You are not used to gifts. You don’t think much about them. Gifts make you nervous and tense. You don’t know what to do, so you jump to trying to impress Me. I am not impressible.

Adrian Warnock on the spectrum of Calvinism and Arminianism

2010-12-11T11:14:00.000-06:00

Adrain Warnock has a great post on the fact that Calvinism and Arminianism run across a spectrum.

I find myself residing somewhere between the Moderate and Strong Calvinist positions as listed. Personal responsibility is important to me, and I believe it to be important to all biblically consistent five point Calvinists.

An Evangelical Hypocrite

2010-12-11T06:00:00.001-06:00

Josh Harris cites the following poem:

Of all hypocrites, grant that I may not be an evangelical hypocrite,

who sins more safely because grace abounds,

who tells his lusts that Christ's blood cleanseth them,

who reasons that God cannot cast him into hell,

for he is saved, who loves evangelical preaching, churches,

Christians, but lives unholily.

A Puritan prayer from the book Valley of Vision.

The thing is, if I am honest, I am exactly that kind of hypocrite. Only the perfect Christian could be immune to the charge, and, alas, I am not him.

I look to Christ to save me. He's my only hope.

Calvinism Simply Put

2010-12-10T06:00:00.009-06:00

Justin Taylor’s blog reprinted one of my favorite quotes on Calvinism:

Some readers will recall the conversation between Calvinist Charles Simeon (1759-1836) and Arminian John Wesley (1703-1791) about their commonality amidst the controversy:

[Simeon] Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

[Wesley] Yes, I do indeed.

[Simeon] And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

[Wesley] Yes, solely through Christ.

[Simeon] But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

[Wesley] No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

[Simeon] Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

[Wesley] No.

[Simeon] What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

[Wesley] Yes, altogether.

[Simeon] And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

[Wesley] Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

[Simeon] Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

Cited in Handley Carr Glyn Moule’s 1892 biography, Charles Simeon, p. 79f.

Those of us who argue over the issues would do well to remember that exchange.

[1/3/11: More information on Simeon can be found here.]

Do You Have Doubts?

2010-12-08T19:00:00.000-06:00

"The only way to doubt Christianity rightly and fairly is to discern the alternate belief under each of your doubts and then ask yourself what reasons you have for believing it. How do you know your belief is true? It would be inconsistent to require more justification for Christian belief than you do for your own, but that is frequently what happens. In fairness you must doubt your doubts. My thesis is that if you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs – you will discover that your doubts are not as solid as they first appeared. “ - Tim Keller, The Reason for God, pg. xix

Tim Keller Comments on the Parable of the Prodigal Son

2010-12-03T19:00:00.001-06:00

A prominent Christian minister comments on the Parable of the Prodigal Son:

What must we do, then, to be saved? To find God we must repent of the things we have done wrong, but if that is all you do, you may remain just an elder brother. To truly become a Christian we must also repent of the reasons we ever did anything right. Pharisees only repent of their sins, but Christians repent for the very roots of their righteousness, too. We must learn how to repent of the sin under all our other sins and under all our righteousness – the sin of seeking to be our own Savior and Lord. We must admit that we’ve put our ultimate hope in both our wrongdoing and right doing we have been seeking to get around God or get control of God in order to get hold of those things.

It is only when you see the desire to be your own Savior and Lord—lying beneath both your sins and your moral goodness—that you are on the verge of becoming a Christian indeed. When you realize that the antidote to being bad is not just being good, you are on the brink. If you follow through, it will change everything—how you relate to God, self, others, the world, your work, you sins, your virtue. It’s called the new birth because its so radical” - Tim Keller, The Prodigal God, as quoted here.

God and Politics

2010-12-01T06:00:00.000-06:00

R. C. Sproul has this to say to us as we approach politics:

Yes, we must always work for social reform. Yes, we must be “profane’ in Martin Luther’s sense of going out of the temple and into the world. We do not despise the country of our birth. But in what do we invest our hope? The state is not God. The nation is not the Promised Land. The president is not our King. The Congress is not our Savior. Our welfare can never be found in the city of man. The federal government is not sovereign.

Read the whole thing for R. C.’s take on America’s future.

Responses to Some Common Questions on The Gospel

2010-11-29T22:00:00.002-06:00

I find a particular set of questions show up when I share the gospel with atheists on the internet. I want to adapt some of those questions as given here and give my answer and / or explanation. The objections are boldface. My comments are regular script.

“God has no right to impose punishment on me because he is the one who made his laws so I could not follow them. The God who makes the laws, decides if you broke the law or not and determines the punishment.”

You assume that the law of God is arbitrary, that God could choose to make the law be whatever He wanted it to be.

God could no more make the moral law in a different way than he could make the laws of mathematics a different way. All of these abstract laws are an expression of His nature and character.

God’s character is the basis for good attitudes. God’s actions are the basis for good behavior. God’s character and morality cannot change because His being cannot change.

God’s knowledge is the basis for the laws of logic, and by consequence the laws of mathematics. He cannot learn or forget. His knowledge is unchanging, and everything He knows must fit together into a coherent account. Logic helps us spot inconsistencies in our own views, the places where our knowledge does not fit together coherently.

God could not make the laws of morality or the laws of logic differently than what they are. God, being who He is, must create as an expression of Himself.

Things being what they are, the laws of morality cannot be any different. We know this intuitively whether we admit it or not. We know some things are right and some things are wrong. That is the way the universe works. We know it full well.

“When a law is created that nobody can follow, it’s a bad law… Violating an impossible law incurs no debt and any punishment is unjustified... a tyrannical king.”

Your argument depends on something forcing you to behave in the way you do, to violate your freedom of choice.

No one or nothing can force you to make any choice. You always choose the very thing you desire most at the time you make a decision in the situation you find yourself in. Your choices in a given situation can be limited, but I cannot ultimately make you do anything.

You always do what you want to do. Your actions are freely chosen according to your most pressing desire at the time you make your choices.

There is nothing outside of us forcing us to sin against our will. It’s not that we cannot keep God’s law; it’s that we will not because we do not want to.

”A gift is something that is freely given with no obligation or conditions upon the recipient… When you put conditions like “faith” on your "gift" it's not one.”

I can buy you a brand new BMW 7 Series luxury car. I can make arrangements with an insurance company to pay the insurance for the next five years. I can make all of the appropriate car tax and licensing fees.

I can then present you the keys. If I hold the keys out in front of you, and you do not take them, you will never drive the car. The gift of the BMW must be received, but it is no less a gift.

Eternal life, unhindered fellowship with God in this life and the next, is a gift freely given. But any gift must be received to be of benefit. That’s the way a gift works.

”How does Christ’s sacrifice pay for my sins, what is it giving up to itself for the payment to have any meaning?”

Anytime someone sins against me, they owe me a debt. Anytime someone sins against me, they break a law and should be punished. It is that way in all human relationships because we are made in the image of God.

If you purposely drive your aforementioned BMW (if I can ever get you to take the keys to the darn thing) into my house, you will damage my house. You owe me for the damage (and probably for emotional suffering). You are ethically obligated to repair the damage to my home.

If I chose to forgive you freely and completely, I have to incur the costs of repairing my home. I must, in effect, pay the penalty for the damage.

If you did purposely drive your BWM into my house you have caused me pain. You should have to suffer yourself for the pain you have inflicted. Almost everyone who has been severely sinned against has felt the right to inflict punishment on the one who has offended him or her.

This right to vengeance is a real moral right. We are just when we require it.

If I choose to forgive you, I choose to experience this pain while giving up my right to vengeance. I suffer the pain your actions have caused me without requiring appropriate pain from you.

God must both pay sin’s penalty and suffer sin’s punishment. Our universe being the kind of universe it is there could be no other way. God just did it by suffering on the cross in the Person of Jesus Christ as a kind of object lesson.

There’s a book on this subject that I would like to recommend: The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. He does a much better job on this topic than me, and much of my answer is borrowed from him.

”Paying for a debt that wouldn't have been incurred had they not inflicted that debt on you in the first place is not a gift…”

Again, this line of thinking depends on the law of God being completely arbitrary and capricious. It assumes things could be different in this universe when those things cannot in fact be different.

It also indirectly assumes that we are not fully aware of this law as we violate it. A person is only responsible for what they know to do. While our awareness of the moral law is never perfect, we have not followed the morality we do in fact admit.

"The one that created the law, decides that it didn't break the law, and uses that decision to pay itself for the debt it claims that you incurred… It just paid itself for the debt/punishment it decided you owe it.”

The law is not arbitrary. It is an unchanging standard that finds its logical ground in the unchanging character of God.

“…the one that is throwing you the life preserver [paying for your sins] is the same one that caused you (and everyone) to start drowning and says you need faith to use it. I would say the person that put you in danger is morally obligated to save you. They have committed a crime...”

Again, nothing outside of us forces us to make any of the choices we make. We are fully and completely responsible for our own actions given the knowledge we have. God can send us all to the hell we so richly deserve and still be fair. He didn’t make us sin.

“Something created us, and you will have faith in it or you will suffer forever. This is motivation by fear.”

You have nothing to fear if you have not freely chosen to sin against God’s law, insofar as you know it to be. But I bet you have done things you know in your heart to be wrong. We all have.

You only have to fear God if you freely choose to reject the gift of salvation He offers you in Christ. No one or nothing can force your rejection. If you reject that offer, you have no one to blame but yourself.

The good news of the gospel destroys the basis for servile fear of God.

Prayer changes things-including your mind.

2010-11-25T19:00:00.000-06:00

I received some mass e-mail communication from The Colson Center today regarding a new book by Dr. Curt Thompson, a Psychiatrist who is certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Dr. Thompson has an interesting hypothesis that he says is born out by experimentation: prayer and other spiritual disciplines affect the mind itself.

Here is an excerpt from Dr. Thompson's article over at the Colson Center:

…consider one of the features of the brain that neuroscientists call neuroplasticity. This refers to the capacity for the brain to do three things: (1) produce new neurons; (2) to increase the speed and efficiency of neurons by increasing their length and diameter and (3) increase or decrease the level of connections between neurons, depending on how often they are used—those neuron patterns that are fired more frequently make greater attachments, and those that are used less frequently are pruned away….

Current neuroscience supports the idea that spiritual disciplines line us up to allow God to change us in ways for which we hunger and thirst. As we meditate, pray (especially contemplatively), fast, seek proper solitude, confess, submit, study, and engage in other such disciplines, we create space for change. In this sense, when Paul writes in Romans 12:2 to no longer “be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect,” he’s not kidding. This transformation of which he speaks is not metaphor.

Although Paul was no neuroscientist, he wrote that which neuroscience would now confirm: that the transformation that God began with the resurrection of Jesus is now being extended and grounded in our very brains…

Seems Paul was right in Romans 12-1-2. We can be transformed by the renewing of our minds.

It also bears out the idea that prayer primarily changes us. Prayer is not about changing the situations we find ourselves in as it is about changing our response to those situations.

N. T. Wright and the Evangelical Theological Society

2010-11-24T19:00:00.000-06:00

The debate on justification between the New Perspective on Paul and the traditional reformation view at the recent Evangelical Theological Society meeting. My personal views are here and here.

Ligonier Ministries’ opinion is linked to here, with some more helpful links here.

The Heidelblog weighs in here.

Trevin Wax has some helpful links here.

Collin Hansen weighs in with a particularly helpful post here.

I can’t believe anyone would do this – vote for birth?

2010-11-22T19:00:00.002-06:00

A couple has placed their decision to birth or abort a baby up for vote on the internet.

I found this out from an atheist web site. It’s been making the rounds. They are talking about a very large swing in the voting toward pro-abortion since the posts on the atheist web.

I am hoping that this is some sort of stunt, and that they will not go through with it.

I would also think that, since most pro-choice people claim to be anti-abortion, that the votes would come out in favor of birth by the end.

Vote today.

Christian Vocation - A Paper for my Management Ethics Class at Union University

2010-11-13T19:45:00.001-06:00

Developing a mental model that enables an effective approach to work is one of the most important activities that a person can engage in. The approach taken is dependent on one’s overall thoughts about the world around him. My way of thinking about the world is distinctly Christian, and my faith informs my outlook on the work that I do. I am a Safety and Environmental Manager for a fireplace manufacturer. I see my work as a vocation, a distinct calling that God has extended to me. My work is not just a “job,” something I do to make money so I can support my true interests and enjoyments. Aside from the Bible itself, Martin Luther, a leader of church reform in the 16th Century, has done more to shape my approach than any other, and this paper will clearly reveal dependence on him.

The Bible exhorts us to work diligently. God’s original command to people is “fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over [it]” (Genesis 1:28, ESV). How could this be done without engaging in work of benefit to mankind? Work is elsewhere demanded in harsh tones: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10, ESV). Caring for one’s own family is directly commanded: “if anyone does not provide for his relatives … he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Timothy 5:8, ESV). Paul and those who worked with him are given as examples of those who did not “eat anyone’s bread without paying for it … that [they] might not be a burden” (2Thes. 3:8 ESV).

Some Christians belittle work for profit, but this concept is utterly foreign to the Bible. Abraham is cited as an example of a rich man (Genesis 13:5). King Solomon, another hero, is rich enough to greatly impress another prominent queen (1 Kings 10:4-5). Jesus himself commended the accumulation of riches through entrepreneurial endeavors in two famous parables (Matthew 21:33-43, Luke 19:11-27). Of course, when we have done our best, we are exhorted to avoid greed and “be content with what we have” (Hebrews 13:5, ESV). We turn now to Luther.

Martin Luther’s approach destroys the distinction between ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ vocations. In the movement Luther led, “Every kind of work, including what had heretofore been looked down upon – the work of peasants and craftsmen – is an occasion for priesthood, for exercising a holy service to God and to one’s neighbor”(Vieth 2002). When secular vocation had begun to be treated as a mere job, Luther’s own words were “An official who governs well pleases God. A mother who cares for her children, a father who goes to work, and a student who studies diligently are all servants of God” (Luther 1998 November 11). Each and every morally upright activity engaged in is an honor of God through service to our fellow men, whether for profit or not.

Each act of work is engaged in for the benefit of other people. God does not need our help, so our service is to others (Psalm 50:12). As Gene Edward Vieth, a Lutheran author, says:

God healed me. I was not feeling well, so I went to the doctor…in no time I was a lot better. But it was still God who healed me. He did it through the medical vocations…God fed me…with what the teenager working at the fast-food joint gave me…God clothed and sheltered me, with the help of my employer. God protected me, though I wish the highway patrolman hadn’t pulled me over. God gave me pleasure, thanks to the talents He gave that musician playing on my new CD. (Vieth 2002)

God works through us to serve others, and all work done for the benefit of others can be for God’s glory and for his pleasure. Of course, business must be engaged in honestly (Leviticus 19:36).

God does not guaranteeing our success in business. Luther wrote: “God tells us to do the best we can and leave the rest to him. He didn’t promise that everything we do would be successful” (Luther 1998). God is not a vending machine who automatically delivers to us what we pay for. Our true benefits are guaranteed in the world to come, heaven (Matthew 25:40, 46).

As for me, my true calling is to support manufacturing operations in the role of a Safety and Environmental Manager. The night before my last final exam in industrial engineering I was praying about what I would do after earning my undergraduate degree. I was reading through 1 Corinthians 15 as part of my prayer and devotional time when I ran across verse 26: “The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” For the next few days, I could not get the verse out of my mind. How does an industrial engineer combat death?

I had taken and enjoyed a course in industrial safety in my undergraduate curriculum. I had been the financial means to go on to graduate school, and I took coursework in human factors engineering (ergonomics) to prepare for the role I felt called to. I have spent some time in the field of quality engineering, but my primary calling is safety and health.

To summarize my philosophy, we are to engage in honest work for the benefit of others and in obedience to God’s command. This honest, ordinary work is honored, and we are to be rewarded for our efforts. Profits earned through business that serves others are ours to enjoy. Meaningful work that benefits others is ours to pursue.

Reference List

Luther, M. (1998). In J. C. Galvin (Ed.) By faith alone: 365 devotional readings updated in today’s language (p. November 11, April 10).Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers.

Vieth, Jr. G. E. (2002). God at work: your Christian vocation in all of life, kindle edition (position 111, position 163-165). Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) (2001), Wheaton, Illinois: Good News Publishers.

Election Day

2010-11-02T09:25:00.000-05:00

Chuck Colson with some pointed words on today’s election:

So, have you voted yet? If so, well done. If not, as soon as this broadcast is over—or as soon as you’re off work—I want you to go and fulfill your Christian duty to be a good citizen and go vote.

And while you’re at it, call a few of your Christian friends. Find out if they have voted yet. If not, tell them you’re going, and you’ll be glad to stop by to pick them up…

And let me say this. The next time you hear someone tell you that Christians ought to take a vacation from politics, tell them to go fly a kite!

Listen, its our duty, as citizens of the Kingdom of God to be the best citizens in the society we live in. If your pastor no longer has the energy or courage to motivate his flock to speak out on public issues, maybe you can lovingly “buck him up.” Remind him or her that God’s people are to love their neighbors, to desire the best for them, to pursue the common good. And we can’t do that on the political sidelines.

And when a rabid secularist tells you to stop forcing your religion down his throat—simply correct him. You might say, “Excuse me, but who is suing the government to remove crosses from cemeteries? Who has filed lawsuits to remove ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegience? Who’s trying to tell doctors and nurses and pharmacists that they have to participate in medical procedures that violate their religious conscience? Who’s banning Bibles from schools?

In other words, who is forcing their point of view on whom?

Read the whole thing here. And go vote today! I just did.

Reformation Day (One Day Late)

2010-11-01T13:24:00.001-05:00

We celebrated Reformation Day yesterday at our church. Some helpful links:

Justin Taylor's take on the subject is here.

Ligonier Ministries offers some great free resources here.

Desiring God points to Luther’s First Thesis and very last words here.

John Piper offers lessons from Martin Luther’s life and labor here.

Scotty Smith offers up a great Reformation Day prayer for “the gospel plus nothing” here.

It is Okay to Pass This Test

2010-10-23T19:27:00.000-05:00

Kevin DeYoung shares that we can “examine [ourselves] to see if we are in the faith” and conclude that we are. An excerpt:

The thing we often miss with 2 Corinthians 13:5 is that Paul expects the Corinthians to pass the test…So go ahead and encourage one another to examine the heart. Let’s be honest and see if we are in the faith. Let’s test whether or not Christ is in us. But as we put our “in-Christness” to the test let’s not forget it’s okay to give ourselves a passing grade. To God be the glory.

J. P. Moreland on Hawking and Mlodinow’s The Grand Design

2010-10-12T20:35:00.002-05:00

J. P. Moreland quickly and concisely refutes Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow here. A taste:

The fact that many people have been influenced by the claims of Hawking and Mlodinow is sad to me. Here’s why. In previous times when average people knew more philosophy, these claims would simply be laughable…

Are you sure Spurgeon is not alive today?

2010-10-10T21:04:00.000-05:00

“[This] age extols no virtue so much as “liberality,” and condemns no vice so fiercely as bigotry, alas honesty. If you believe anything and hold it firmly, all the dogs will bark at you. Let them bark: they will have done when they are tired! You are responsible to God, and not to mortal men. Christ came into the world to bear witness to the truth, and he has sent you to do the same; take care that you do it, offend or please; for it is only by this process that the kingdom of Christ is to be set up in the world.” – C. H. Spurgeon

William Lane Craig’s Videos

2010-10-09T20:13:00.002-05:00

Someone has a helpful index of Dr. Craig’s videos here. Craig is one of the foremost Christian philosophers of our time, and an index of many of his video appearances is a great thing.

Faith and Good Works

2010-10-09T19:45:00.001-05:00

I have often struggled with the relationship between faith and works in my own life. I can go from one extreme to the other. At one moment, I think I can live in sin and still expect to go to heaven. At another moment, I think I have to be good to earn God’s favor.

I have been helped by good teachers like John Gerstner, whose teaching is summarized in “A Primer on Roman Catholicism,” a short 44-page introduction to the topic.

Gerstner is very helpful in stating the distinction between reformation (read: Biblical) Christianity and Roman Catholicism. Gerstner’s basic explanation is given below in three formulas. The first two are wrong-headed. The last one is spot on. I have taken some liberties with the explanations.

Formula of Antinomianism (that means anti-law): FAITH – WORKS = JUSTIFICATION . This is often called ‘easy-believism.’ Walk forward at the invitation, mouth a prayer you don’t mean, and never doubt your salvation ever again despite the fact that there is no change whatsoever in your attitude toward sin. This idea is not Biblical. See James 1:22-27, 2:14-26.

Formula of Rome: FAITH + WORKS = JUSTIFICATION. Works are infused righteousness in the believer that are meritorious. These works, a result of God’s grace, earn salvation in a sense. God saves by faith, but he does not save those who are not inherently righteous. See Romans 4:1-8.

Formula of Reformers and the Bible: FAITH = JUSTIFICATION + WORKS. The faith that saves results in a heart set free from the guilt of sin. Guilt is what gives sin the power to rule our lives. When that guilt is removed, our hearts are motivated by gratitude and love to do good works. Good works do not play a part in earning justification, only Christ’s work does. Faith alone saves, but not a faith that is alone. See Romans 6, noting that the chapter is about things that are true, not things we are to make true.

The bottom line is: “Flee to Christ.” We are to abandon all hope in our works and run to Christ, Who is our righteousness. This kind of faith saves and gives hope. I abandon all hope in myself and rely completely on what Christ has done.

(See Dr. Gerstner explain part of this on a uTube video here.)

The Beginning

2010-10-04T22:14:00.001-05:00

I have followed with interest much of what Paul Davies has written on the subject of science and the origins of the universe. He certainly writes many things which I do not agree with, but he is often eloquent and intelligent. Here’s a sample of him confronting the notion of an eternal universe:

One evasive tactic is to claim that the universe didn't have a beginning, that it has existed for all eternity. Unfortunately, there are many scientific reasons why this obvious idea is unsound. For starters, given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen will already have happened, for if a physical process is likely to occur with a certain nonzero probability-however small-then given an infinite amount of time the process must occur, with probability one. By now, the universe should have reached some sort of final state in which all possible physical processes have run their course. Furthermore, you don't explain the existence of the universe by asserting that it has always existed. That is rather like saying that nobody wrote the Bible: it was just copied from earlier versions. Quite apart from all this, there is very good evidence that the universe did come into existence in a big bang, about fifteen billion years ago. The effects of that primeval explosion are clearly detectable today-in the fact that the universe is still expanding, and is filled with an afterglow of radiant heat.

I have found this line of reasoning to be good reason for faith. There are scientific and philosophical reasons to believe in a beginning and a Personal Creator.

It is not possible to move through an infinite series of moments of time. For example, if time extends forward out to infinity then it is obvious we will never reach the end of it. Reversing the process, if time extends infinitely into the past, we could never have moved through time from the past to get to this moment.

(For an physicists reading this: the common understanding of time is used here as an analogy. The line of reasoning in the next paragraph follows no matter how you see time.)

Similarly, we cannot expect that an infinite regress of finite causes exists either. That is, if we move backward from ourselves to the things that caused us, then backward to the things that caused them and so on, we must find something that did not have a beginning. Otherwise, we would never have moved through the infinite series of finite causes to get to ourselves. The infinite regression of discrete, physical things cannot exist in reality.

Whatever the first cause in the chain was, it must have always been (it is “eternal”) and it must have the power to bring about all we see in the universe (a part of “omnipotence”). We know something of God’s “eternal power and divine nature” from the world we live in.

We can know more than that from the line of argument. This eternal cause existed when nothing else did. Nothing outside of this first cause caused it to act or influenced it’s action. It had to have the power to act in and of itself. Only a being with the power of choice fits this picture. The power to choose without any outside influence is the hallmark of a Personal Being. This cause must have a personality in the primary sense of the word.

Evidence of rational design provides the rest of the picture of a Personal God. Further, we have historically reliable accounts of Christ’s life found in the New Testament that provide evidence that this Personal God is not adverse to interaction with His creation.

These chains of evidence and argument are enough to convince any unbiased person of the Christian God’s existence. The problem is that we are not, when left to ourselves, unbiased.

Faith and Reason

2010-10-01T22:05:00.001-05:00

I heard some testimonies the other day that really stressed me out. Several people shared that Christianity implies the need for a “leap of faith,” or that “God’s existence cannot be proved because then faith would not be faith.” These ideas will not strengthen faith when Christians are confronted by worldly philosophy.

God's existence is as plain as the nose on our faces (Romans 1:18-19). Many, from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas to John Gerstner to Greg Bahnsen, have proven the faith beyond reasonable doubt. The problem is not the lack of evidence, but the suppression of it. The unbeliever does not want to submit to God, so he or she refuses to acknowledge the truth that is plain (Romans 1:21-23).

There is no need to fall back on a position that says God's existence is to be taken on faith, as if faith is something that goes beyond reason. The Christian faith is the wisdom of God that makes foolish the wisdom of this world (1 Corinthians 1:18-25). The Christian faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Heb 11:1, ESV, emphasis mine).

My faith is something I am sure of, convinced of beyond any doubt.

Hawking and The Grand Design

2010-10-01T14:56:00.001-05:00

There is a helpful set of links discussing Hawking and Mlondinow's The Grand Design here.

A Puritan Prayer - Repentance

2010-09-28T21:04:00.000-05:00

Tim Challies posted the following prayer here.

O God of Grace,

You have imputed my sin to my substitute, and have imputed his righteousness to my soul, clothing me with a bridegroom’s robe, decking me with jewels of holiness. But in my Christian walk I am still in rags; my best prayers are stained with sin; my penitential tears are so much impurity; my confessions of wrong are so many aggravations of sin; my receiving the Spirit is tinctured with selfishness.

I need to repent of my repentance; I need my tears to be washed; I have no robe to bring to cover my sins, no loom to weave my own righteousness; I am always standing clothed in filthy garments, and by grace am always receiving change of raiment, for you always justify the ungodly; I am always going into the far country, and always returning home as a prodigal, always saying, “Father, forgive me,” and you are always bringing forth the best robe.

Every morning let me wear it, every evening return in it, go out to the day’s work in it, be married in it, be wound in death in it, stand before the great white throne in it, enter heaven in it shining as the sun.

Grant me never to lose sight of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, the exceeding righteousness of salvation, the exceeding glory of Christ, the exceeding beauty of holiness, the exceeding wonder of grace.

The Bible as God's Word

2010-09-21T21:58:00.003-05:00

Some internet debate opponents accuse me of circular reasoning. The statement I am accused of making goes like this: The Bible claims to be God’s Word so it is God’s Word. That is “begging the question,” where the conclusion is true only if the premise is true. However, the actual argument put forth by Christians is linear and logical. In bullet point form, it goes like this:

• The Bible is good history (The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell).

• We can trust what the Bible says about Jesus because it is based on eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:1-4, 2 Peter 1:16, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Baukham). The lives of these eyewitnesses were radically changed by what they saw (Jesus and the Victory of God by N, T,. Wright).

• Jesus claimed to be God. He said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Thomas said, “My Lord and my God,” and Jesus did not correct him (John 20:26-31).

• Jesus worked miracles and proved Himself to be God (John 14: 9-11).

• Jesus affirmed the truth of God’s Word. He said, “Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). He said, in prayer to God, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17).

• Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to help the apostles remember and truthfully relate the events in the Bible (John 16:13-15).

• We have a Bible we can trust. It gives us God’s truth and equips us for faith and service (2 Tim. 3:15-17).

The basic tenor of this argument is taken from two sources, When Skeptics Ask by Norman Geisler and Reason to Believe by R. C. Sproul.

As R. C. Sproul pointed out in a recent lecture, if we have established that the Bible is God’s Word, every other issue becomes a matter of “exegesis,” deciding what the Bible says on the issue at hand.

I would love to see your comments on the general approach, the specific points, or the things I have undoubtedly left out.

Thought Processes

2010-09-13T07:00:00.001-05:00

How do we know what we know? How do we know what is true? How do we evaluate one idea against another? How do we interpret the information our senses provide us? What do we see? Hear? Touch? Smell? Taste?

These questions fascinate me. I first began to ask questions like this as I studied Human Factors Engineering (HFE) in graduate school. HFE is a branch of engineering that studies how a human being interacts with their environment, usually with respect to how we obtain information and how we perform work. We looked at basic types of mistakes that people make, the way we obtain information from our senses, the way we process that information, the way we decide to act, and the way we activate machine controls to act on that processed information. The field includes ergonomics, but it includes much more than that.

One of the things we learned right off the bat was that the way we interact with our environment is a process. Think of a black box with arrows going into the left side for what goes into the process (inputs) and arrows coming out of the right side for what comes out of the process (outputs). The box itself is a set of steps that are followed in sequence on the inputs to reach the outputs.

I had never thought of knowledge being the result, or output, of a process until those classes. I began to read widely on the subject, both within my field and outside it. I came across the branch of philosophy know as epistemology very quickly. According to Wikipedia, epistemology is “the branch of philosophy that studies the nature, methods, limitations, and validity of knowledge and belief.” This field fascinates me, and I plan to pursue an education in philosophy as my time and resources allow.

The thing that interests me at this point is the skepticism many philosophers have with regard to knowledge. Wikipedia defines philosophical skepticism as a field that “poses the question of whether knowledge, in the first place, is possible.” I find it amazing how many modern or post-modern philosophers do not believe we can find knowledge about the outside world at all. From Hume’s skepticism with regard to sense perception and empirical knowledge to Reid’s reaction to Hume, the field is amazing to me.

I do not want to go too far into the issue, but I do want to point out something. I have been taught to see knowledge and rational thought as processes, and I believe that they are. Any process that reaches an organized output requires someone to set it up and keep it going. From assembly lines to creation itself, processes require a processor. A process must be designed, or it does not lead to purposeful outcomes. That includes the process of knowledge and the process of thought.

As John M. Frame puts it here:

Apologists have often noted that we could not know the world at all unless it had been designed for knowledge. If the world were nothing but matter, motion, time, and chance, we would have no reason to think that the ideas in our heads told us anything about the real world. Only if a person had designed
the world to be known, and the human mind to know it, could knowledge be possible…without God the data of our experience suggesting order and causality are unintelligible…So if creation presupposes God, even the denial of creation presupposes him …

We cannot deny that logic reflects reality or that knowledge is possible. Any such denials are forced and temporary. R. C. Sproul and Norman Geisler both argue this persuasively, as if it needs to be argued. Frame puts it this way: “You can’t question logic without presupposing it; you can’t argue against the primacy of logic without presupposing it as primary.”

The process of logical thinking and the process of arriving at knowledge from our senses both require a designer. We need a designer who possesses creativity and intention. We need a designer that does not change his thinking himself. If his thinking process changed, then our process of logical thinking would change as well. Going back to Frame’s writings: “Logic, the laws of nature, and the laws of morality make no sense unless God is presupposed.”

We are left with what one internet apologist states well: “The Absolute God with an absolute mind, has conceived of the logical absolutes. They are a reflection of His mind.”

May we stand in awe of the unchanging, clear-thinking, purposeful, powerful God of the Bible!

Logic, Thought and Steven Hawking

2010-09-06T21:04:00.002-05:00

Hawking and Mlodinow’s book The Grand Design is fascinating. It is a look into theoretical physics that I appreciate.

One comment on page 180 seems to be getting all of the press: “Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to envoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” This problimatic statement is seen as a major victory for atheism. But, I note the comment on page 181: “…perhaps the true miracle is that abstract considerations of logic lead to a unique theory that predicts and describes [the universe].”

Note the reference to logic. The abstract laws of logic shape the way all of us think. Take one for instance: the law of non-contradiction.

It says that something can not be both A and Non-A at the same time, in the same relationship, and in the same sense.

This law cannot be denied. To deny it is to affirm it. If you say, “The law of non-contradiction does not apply,” you could mean, “The law of non-contradiction does indeed apply.” The meanings would be the same. Gordon H. Clark explains:

If the law of [non] contradiction is curbed, then a collection of letters, w-a-t-e-r, can mean not only sulfuric acid, but also at the same time and in the same sentence, tree, stone, Arcturus, the preposition because, and the cow jumped over the moon, ad infinitum…A word that means everything means nothing. (as quoted here)

This law of logic, which leads to all the others, is undeniable because to question it is to invoke it. That is the only way we can think.

How would an atheist account for these laws?

These abstract laws are not the result of observable behavior of objects or actions. We do not observe the laws of logic occurring in nature. They are not open for scientific exploration and study. We assume that logic’s laws work in order to evaluate scientific evidence. Using science to prove that logic works would be viciously circular.

They are not evolutionary in origin, either. Evolutionary processes governed by natural selection would not necessarily lead to the truth about our world. Natural selection would only encourage behavior that would lead to survival. We could not be certain our beliefs about the world were true, only that they let us live in any given situation. It does not matter whether we believe the tiger could eat us or that we believe that tigers look better from a distance, as long as we run fast, we live.

A Christian can account for the laws of logic by stating that they come from God. God has originated the laws of logic because He thinks logically. The laws of logic are a reflection of God’s mind. They do not change because the God whose thinking they reflect does not change. As Michael Butler puts it:

…the atheistic worldview does not comport with the principles of logic. If atheists were consistent with their worldview, they would give up on logic and rationality altogether. But since they do behave rationally (at least some of the time) this shows that they are borrowing capital from another worldview…Christianity allows for abstract and universal laws. Abstract because the Christian worldview teaches that more things exist than material objects. Thus it makes sense for there to be abstractions. Moreover, the universality of logic is possible because it is grounded in the character of God. God is by nature logical. And this all-powerful, all-knowing God orders all things…

I do not find an adequate explanation for logic and rational thought outside God. Literally, logical thinking drives me inescapably to God’s existence.
Hawking and Mlodinow also employ the laws of science to develop M-theory. The basic uniformity of nature, that things in the future will happen as they have in the past, is a requirement for any kind of knowledge based on scientific experimentation. But how can we be sure?

I know the future will be basically consistent with the past with respect to physical laws because the God who upholds those laws does not change.

To return to Michael Butler:

That the uniformity of nature is compatible with the Christian worldview is easily proven ... God, who is providentially in control of all events, has revealed to us that we can count on regularities in the natural world. The Bible teaches that God providentially causes the harvest to come in due season, for example. Because of this regularity, we can be assured that scientific endeavors will be fruitful. Thus, far from presupposing the falsity of Christianity, science would be impossible without the truth of the Christian worldview.

How could an athiest be sure that nature will behave the same in the future as it has in the past? I have no idea.
Hawking and Mlodinow, with their insistence on the use of the laws of logic and their mention of universal physical laws, have not weakened my faith in God. They have affirmed it.

Hawking and God

2010-09-04T13:03:00.003-05:00

I checked a copy of The Grand Design by Hawking and Mlodinow out of the library yesterday. After all of the fuss around the internet and in the media, I had to have a look. (See articles here, here, here, and here.

From what I have read on the subject so far, I have two basic questions for Hawking and his proponents.

You have said that something comes from nothing. The cat is out of the bag. You have finally admitted your position. This is a violation of the most fundamental law of science: “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” Positing that the universe follows certain laws does not help because those laws describe the way the universe behaves. How do you have laws to describe what does not exist?

What if we grant your argument? What if the universe came into being because it follows strict natural laws? Where did those laws come from? The best explanation for laws like that is design. The universe behaves in a predictable fashion because God designed it that way.

It seems Hawking is left with more questions unanswered than answered.

Dort and Evangelism

2010-08-26T10:41:00.000-05:00

I had occasion last night to read through parts of the Cannons of Dort for a Bible study class at my church. The Cannons of Dort were written by the Synod of Dort in 1618-19. They lay out the system of doctrine that has been known as ‘Five-point Calvinism’ ever since.

We are doing the Amazing Grace study, and one of the sections is Calvinism vs. Arminianism, which concentrates on the Synod of Dort (see here, here and here for information on this synod). I was once again struck by the way in which Dort defined the issues.

One of the bitterest criticisms of Five-point Calvinism that has been leveled has been the idea that it undermines evangelism. I find this criticism hard to justify in view of these statements:

Cannons of the Synod of Dort:

The First Main Point of Doctrine, Article 3: The Preaching of the Gospel

In order that people may be brought to faith, God mercifully sends proclaimers of this very joyful message to the people he wishes and at the time he wishes. By this ministry people are called to repentance and faith in Christ crucified. For how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without someone preaching? And how shall they preach unless they have been sent? (Rom. 10:14-15).

The Second Main Point of Doctrine, Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All

Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.

God sends messengers to share the gospel, and we should be involved in that endeavor (Matthew 28:16-20). This gospel is to be shared to all without playing favorites or looking for the work of the Spirit in their hearts. Dort would have us to know that God regenerates the heart through the Word of God, through means.

The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine, Article 17: God's Use of Means in Regeneration

Just as the almighty work of God by which he brings forth and sustains our natural life does not rule out but requires the use of means, by which God, according to his infinite wisdom and goodness, has wished to exercise his power, so also the aforementioned supernatural work of God by which he regenerates us in no way rules out or cancels the use of the gospel, which God in his great wisdom has appointed to be the seed of regeneration and the food of the soul...

Does Dort answer all of our questions? No, and they admit as much. But their statements should at least leave us with a question of our own.

Why do some insist that Calvinism stifles evangelism?

It cannot be from the statements or actions of Calvinists themselves (excluding the hyper-Calvinists). We have held the central role of evangelism since Calvin himself. A look at church history and the work of George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, William Cary and the like gives lie to the notion. And think of the work of modern Calvinists like John Piper and D. James Kennedy.

I, for one, would like to hear the case against Calvinists’ evangelism laid out carefully and critically in their own words. Do not tell me what the system supposedly requires. Tell me what the Calvinists have actually said or did.

Law and Gospel

2010-08-17T12:08:00.000-05:00

Someone told me recently that the law is like a set of railroad tracks. The tracks provide no power for the train but the train must stay on the tracks in order to function. The law never gives any power to do what it commands. Only the gospel has power, as it were, to move the train. - Tullian Tchividjian

I have a hard time understanding the role of the gospel in my sanctification sometimes. I treat it like a safety net. When I fall, the gospel catches me and allows me the chance to try again. There is value in an approach like that, but I know there is more.

I am grateful for what Christ has done for me. This is a motive for good works. In that sense, the gospel provides motivation (power) to live the Christian life. But I have the feeling that there is more to it than that.

I have some more thinking to do…

Are Christians free to teach that homosexuality is wrong?

2010-08-16T13:48:00.000-05:00

Today’s BreakPoint commentary from Chuck Colson describes an alarming situation:

When we wrote the Manhattan Declaration last fall, we warned about “the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership.”

An example of this decline is on display currently in Georgia. Jennifer Keeton, who is a 24-year-old studying for a master’s degree in counseling at Augusta State University, has been threatened with expulsion. The grounds for the threatened expulsion are not poor grades or misconduct – they are Keeton’s beliefs.

Specifically, they are Keeton’s beliefs about the morality of homosexuality. In written assignments and classroom discussions, Keeton has said that people’s sexual conduct is “the result of accountable, personal choices,” and not “a state of being.”

These statements caused officials to question “her ability,” I’m quoting now, “to provide competent counseling to gay men and lesbians.” So they gave her a choice: participation in a re-education plan or expulsion.

Since when does a person have to agree with all points of particular psychological theories to work in the field of psychology? It is ridiculous to require blind obedience to theories of human development and behavior. The theories are wide and varied. The research is often incomplete. This is a travesty of justice and a violation of common sense.

Further information can be found here, here and here.

Incidentally, I had chosen not to sign the Manhattan Declaration earlier because it reminded me so much of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document which I could not sign out of conscience. Catholics and Presbyterians differ too much on important doctrines like justification by faith alone for me to sign. I have now re-read the Manhattan Declaration and have signed the document. I commend it for your signature.

Real Evil

2010-08-13T21:50:00.000-05:00

Evil is all around us. Some even try to use the existence of evil as an argument against God's existence.

I am not about to try to give a comprehensive explanation for how evil came to be. I do not claim to be the kind of person who can mount a theodicy of any consequence. God created men with the ability to sin and the ability not to sin, but I cannot reason beyond that. I do not know the “how”; I just know the “is.” I know that evil exists. I know evil is present. I know evil is real.

What must exist in order for evil and suffering to be truly wrong? Does not the existence of evil itself require a standard of good?

Should I just accept evil as a part of the way the universe works? Should I accept a view of evil based on social convention, or the DNA encoded in my cells? These things vary from one person to the next, but we do not find a definition of evil that changes greatly from person to person, place to place, or time to time. We always seem to have a notion of the way things ought to be.

I want a worldview that accounts for the reality of evil and suffering. I want it to be called evil, not just the absence of happiness that is a social construct of mere men. I know that this standard of good and evil must be real. Life makes no intuitive sense without it. The denial of it is impossible in view of the pain and suffering we see around us. I want cruelty to be profoundly wrong. For this, I need an absolute standard for what is right.

Christianity allows for this standard. It allows evil to be “evil.” Non-Christian views of the world do not allow for this. From Greg Bahnsen:

… it is crucial to the unbeliever's case against Christianity to be in a position to assert that there is evil in the world -- to point to something and have the right to evaluate it as an instance of evil … the problem of evil turns out to be, therefore, a problem for the unbeliever himself. In order to use the argument from evil against the Christian worldview, he must first be able to show that his judgments about the existence of evil are meaningful -- which is precisely what his unbelieving worldview is unable to do.

Knowing that evil “is,” that it exists, is enough to convince me that there is a God. We cannot define evil without defining good. Evil is in some way good’s opposite, a falling short of the good. Knowing that evil “is” leads us relentlessly to a God who is the definition of the good. Without Him, we would not know evil when we saw it.

Of course, Christianity does not stop there. It also offers hope for deliverance from evil. In the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ we find ultimate deliverance from “the last enemy,” death. (1 Corinthians 15:25-28). In Christ, we find deliverance from the power of evil and the forces that bring it about (Colossians 2:8-15). I have found Christ to be my life and my hope in the face of real, tangible evil I find all around me.

The Problem of Pain is Not the Problem

2010-08-10T19:03:00.000-05:00

Ligonier Ministries is highlighting a primer by John H. Gerstner titled “The Problem of Pleasure” here. I am looking forward to the series.

Gerstner is quoted in the first article:

As long as there is sin, there can be no problem of pain. A good God, if He is omnipotent, would have to make the sinner suffer. … Troubled by the non-problem of pain, most people do not feel the real problem. The real difficulty is the problem of pleasure. While in a sinful world, pain is to be expected, and pleasure is not to be expected. We should be constantly amazed at the presence of pleasure in a world such as ours.

The problem is not, “Why do good people suffer?” There are no good people. The problem is “Why do bad people experience pleasure?” The old problem is turned on its ear.

Time Away

2010-06-08T21:27:00.000-05:00

I’m taking some time off from blogging for a while. I am enrolled in a very demanding school. I’ll be back when I finish my next MBA class.
Here are some links to past posts that may prove to be helpful.

Apologetics

My favorite philosophical arguments for God’s existence are summarized here, here and here.

A series that features both philosophical arguments and personal anecdote is here. The are many reasons to accept Christianity which are personal and not philosophical.

Richard Dawkins’ arguments are treated here, here and here.

Christopher Hitchens’ argument from wish fulfillment is treated here.

Some of Victor Stenger’s arguments are treated here and here.

My personal testimony is told here and here.

The problem of evil is treated here, here and here.

The veracity of the Bible is partly addressed here.

Theology

Christ’s sacrifice and salvation are treated in many places, but the posts here, here and here are a start.

Good works are a necessary outcome of salvation, and this topic is treated here.

Rob Bell and parts of Velvet Elvis are addressed here and here.

Free will and Calvinism are addressed here and here.

N. T. Wright’s doctrine of salvation is discussed at length here.

A Noted Theologian Responds to a Caricature

2010-05-24T19:57:00.000-05:00

"I once heard the president of a Presbyterian seminary declare, 'I am not a Calvinist because I do not believe that God brings some people, kicking and screaming against their wills, into the kingdom, while he excludes others from his kingdom who desperately want to be there.'

I was astonished when I heard these words. I did not think it possible that the president of a Presbyterian seminary could have such a gross misconception of his own church's theology. He was reciting a caricature which was as far away from Calvinism as one could get.

Calvinism does not teach and never has taught that God bring people kicking and screaming into the kingdom or has ever excluded anyone who wanted to be there. Remember that the cardinal point of the Reformed doctrine of predestination rests on the biblical teaching of man's spiritual death. Natural man does not want Christ. He will only want Christ if God plants a desire for Christ in his heart. Once that desire is planted, those who come to Christ do not come kicking and screaming against their wills. They come because they want to come. They now desire Jesus. They rush to the Saviour. The whole point of irresistible grace is that rebirth quickens someone to spiritual life in such a way that Jesus is now seen n his irresistible sweetness. Jesus is irresistible to those who have been made alive to the things of God. Every soul whose heart beats with the life of God within it longs for the living Christ. All whom the Father gives to Christ come to Christ (John 6:37)."

—R.C. Sproul

The Second Law of Thermo and Evolution

2010-05-22T13:03:00.000-05:00

Great book and article here.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics,that entropy is increasing, points to increases in disorganization and decreases in usable energy in the universe. How does evolution explain that organized entities arise from disorganized matter? The arguments at the link are detailed and show that evolutionary explanations are inadequate.

Yes, Beer Can Change the World

2010-05-21T19:38:00.000-05:00

See the video here.