The Best Thing

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 52, sermon number 3,002, "The best thing in the best place." 

"If young men would read their Bibles more, they would not be so easily turned aside as they now are."

“The law of his God is in his heart.” Take this expression as referring to the whole of Scripture, and I may truly say that it is the best thing. O my brethren, what can be better for informing the
understanding than the Word of God? Would you know God? Would you know yourself? Then search this Book. Would you know time, and how to spend it? Would you know eternity, and how to be prepared for it? Then, search ye this Book. Would you know the evil of sin, and how to be delivered from it? Would you know the plan of salvation, and how you can have a share in it? This is the Book which will instruct you in all these matters. There is nothing which a man needs to know for the affairs of his soul, between here and heaven, of which this Book will not tell him. Blessed are they that read it both day and night; and especially blessed are they who read it with their eyes opened and illuminated by the Divine Spirit. If you want to be wise unto salvation, select the Word of God, and especially the Spirit of God, as your Teacher. There is nothing else that is equal to the Bible for inflaming, sanctifying, and turning in the right direction, all the passions of the soul.

And if you want something more than enlightenment for the understanding, and fulness of love to satisfy the heart,—if you need practical directions for your every-day life,—this Book will supply you with them. In every part of the sea of life in which a man may be, if this be his chart, he will not miss his way, or suffer spiritual shipwreck. If you were a king, you might learn your duty here; and if you are a beggar, or the poorest of the poor, you may find comfort and instruction here. Fathers, you may here learn how to manage your households. Children, you may learn here the duties of your position in your various relationships. Servants, masters, husbands, wives, sick folk, people in robust health, ye who are poor, and ye who are rich,—this Book is for you all, and when you consult it in the right spirit, it will talk with you all. Into whatsoever condition you may happen to be cast, this Book will follow you. It is such a wonderful Book that it adapts itself to all sorts and conditions of men. It whispers softly by the sick man’s bedside, and it has often called aloud, as with a trumpet voice, amidst the fury of the storm. It has a message for you while you are yet in the heyday of your youth, and a promise for you when you lean upon your staff, and totter to your grave. It is Biblos, the Book, the everyday book, full of wisdom for every day in the week, all the year round; and when the circle of life is complete, you will see how the Book was equally adapted to the children and to the aged man whose life is just closing.

---

Even Greater Weight

To commemorate the stellar contributions to internet apologetics and punditry made by our founder and benefactor, Phil Johnson, the unpaid and overworked staff at TeamPyro is posting a "best of Phil" post to give your weekend that necessary kick.

This excerpt is from this blog back in Feb 2011.  Phil reflects on the goodness of God.

As usual, the comments are closed.

But let's not miss the point: God did not afflict Job in order to punish him for his sin. God was testing him, proving him, and strengthening his faith. God's ultimate purpose for Job was good,even though the immediate effect was calamity. This was not punishment for his sin.

Bear in mind on the other hand, however, that Job, as a sinful creature, knew he had no claim on any blessing of any kind. God could justly afflict him, because Job needed to be refined and strengthened. And God's ultimate purpose, as James 5:11 says, was compassion and mercy.

Consider this: Job's loss was temporary. All his afflictions were transient, passing tribulations that would eventually give way to an even greater weight of eternal glory. As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:17, Our "light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison."

Suffering is the price and prelude of glory. For Christians, the suffering is always temporary, and the glory is eternal, and infinitely greater. That is our hope in times of trouble.

---

Book review — The Doctrine of the Word of God, by John Frame

by Dan Phillips

---

NOTE: in case you're interested, I reviewed the NICOT/NT in Olive Tree software at my site, yesterday.

---

The Doctrine of the Word of God
by John Frame

(Presbyterian & Reformed, 2010)

Professor John Frame is a professor and a prodigious author of books on apologetics, theology, music in worship, ethical issues, and much else. Frame is, I know, a controversial figure in some circles. You'd think that a CalviDispieBaptoGelical such as I would be among his critics. Yet the truth is, I've profited from Frame's lectures and writings time and time again. My reading of The Doctrine of the Word of God was no exception.

An aside: seriously, pastordude, studentdude — you really ought to read out of your own little parochial circles. Sure, many writers (::cough::McLarenBellCampoloEtc::cough::) may be a pure and utter waste of time, but you really should let your thinking be stretched and challenged among Biblically faithful, godly, deeply thoughtful writers.

Such as John Frame.

The accolades from men such as Carson, Piper, Mayhue, Pratt, and Kelly are well-deserved. J. I. Packer calls the volume both "magisterial" (xxiii) and "pastoral" (xxiv) in the Foreword, and both are appropriate.

Let's take an overview. Imagine this — a book on Scripture that begins with two pages of Scripture lauding the excellencies of Scripture, which then is crowned by the simple profundity of the well-known song that begins, "Jesus loves me, this I know, For the Bible tells me so."

Then Frame provides a ten-page outline of the entire book, minus appendices (xiii-xxii). This is a helpful aid in keeping the shape of the forest in mind, whilst wandering amid the trees Prof. Frame points out for us. It is a singular feature; more authors should follow suit.

The next actually caught me by surprise. In the Table of Contents, one notices that Frame provides appendices. A lot of appendices. They run the alphabet from A to Q. How much of the book does that end up involving? This much:

That's right: on the left is the text, on the right, the rest. In a 684-page book, the text ends on p. 334. The rest is comprised of appendices, bibliography, and three indices. (No endnotes! Footnotes! Frame and P&R love and respect their readers!)

This is not a criticism, as the appendices provide worthwhile interaction with books, articles and movements, applying Frame's perspective to specifics such as issues of antithesis and rationality, charges of Biblicism, questions of the place of Christ and the Spirit, matters of worship and traditionalism, Dooyeweerdianism, and particular influential authors such as John Wenham, Peter Enns, and N. T. Wright.

As to the text itself, I was informed, challenged, and greatly helped. Several of Frame's insights had an impact on the way I presented the word of God in my first sermon series at CBC.

For readers new to Frame, here's what you can expect: he is (I'd say) a brilliant man who constantly interacts with Scripture in a very lively, thoughtful, probing manner. He is deep, yet readable, and he's greatly helped me think through some issues.

My favorite Frame anecdote was actually supplied by a friend, who shared about his father visiting him at seminary. One of my friend's roommates asked his father, “Were you in the same class as John Frame?”

My friend's dad paused a moment, then responded, “No one was in the same class as John Frame.”

Back to the book.

Frame treats of Scripture's self-testimony well and at length. He identifies the "main contention" of his book thus:

God's speech to man is real speech. It is very much like one person speaking to another. God speaks so that we can understand him and respond appropriately. Appropriate responses are of many kinds: belief, obedience, affection, repentance, laughter, pain, sadness and so on. God's speech is often propositional: God's conveying information to us. But it is far more than that. It includes all the features, functions, beauty, and richness of language that we see in human communication, and more. ...My thesis is that God's word, in all its qualities and aspects, is a personal communication from him to us. (3)

He develops Scripture as necessarily evocative of a wide variety of responses as befitting the individual texts, including belief, obedience, delight, repentance mourning (4). Scripture has inherent authority, which he defines as a "capacity to create an obligation in the hearer" (5)

So in Scripture God speaks, He speaks to us, and He speaks as Lord. His word is authoritative, and we are obliged by a wide variety of genera to respond in a wide variety of ways. God's whole word engages the whole man.

Frame then moves to identify the shocking defection of scholars and (then) pastors from that Biblical position. I've never seen a fresher, better analysis and representation of the Academy's betrayal. He says it began with the assertion of "intellectual autonomy" or "autonomous reasoning," with the corollary assumption that "anyone who disagreed was simply not a scholar, not qualified to do serious research" (19).

The effects of this seismic shift came quickly and suddenly into the church:

It all happened very quickly. There was no academic debate on whether it is right for human beings to exercise reason without the authority of God's revelation. There was not much argument about whether the universities should change their time-honored commitments to divine revelation. Rather, major figures simply began teaching from the new point of view, and there was no significant resistance. They accepted the assumption of autonomy and saw to it that their successors accepted it, too. ...The conservatives did not know what hit them. (19)

Further:

This change was astonishing. The adoption of intellectual autonomy as a theological principle was certainly at least as important as the church's adoption of the doctrine of the Trinity in 381, or the doctrine of the two natures of Christ in 451. Yet without any council, without any significant debate, much of the church during the period 1650 to the present came to adopt the principle of intellectual autonomy in place of the authority of God's personal words. But this new doctrine changed everything. Given intellectual autonomy, there is no reason to accept supernatural biblical teachings such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. The virgin birth, miracles, atonement, resurrection, and glorious return of Jesus are on this basis no longer defensible. (20)

One more:

...if human reason is autonomous, the God of the Bible does not exist, for his very nature as the Creator excludes the autonomy of his creatures. And in fact nothing at all can be validated by autonomous reason, for...such reasoning leads to a rationalist-irrationalist dialectic, which destroys all knowledge. For that pottage, much of the church has forsaken its birthright, God's personal word. (20)

The rest of the book proves this from Scripture, develops it, and applies it.

In the course of this feast, Frame deals with propositional truth, authority, inerrancy, sufficiency, transmission, and translations. Let me just single out two more favorite points from the book, and finish by (surprise) recommending it heartily.

Frame faces head-on the charge that, since we don't have the autographa, inerrancy is irrelevant. He explains that inerrancy does not adhere to a particular sheet of papyrus, but to the text written on that sheet. From this, he argues that, while we do not possess the autographic manuscripts, we do indeed present the autographic (and therefore inerrant) text of Scripture.

Quoting Greg Bahnsen with approval, Frame notes that the autograph is "the first completed, personal, or approved transcription of a unique word-group composed by its author," certified by the author in some way, such as sending an epistle to a church  (241). Again, "The autographic text has been almost entirely preserved, accessible through manuscripts available to us and through the science of textual criticism" (252, emphasis original). What is more, "The distinctive teaching of the Scriptures has been entirely preserved, given the beneficial redundancy of doctrinal teaching in Scripture" (ibid, emphasis original).

That thought was immensely helpful to me. The other particular emphasis that stayed with me is found throughout the book, not easily reducible to one quotation. It is that God is present to me (and to His people) in His word. In His word He draws near, He speaks personally, and He exercises His Lordship. Tis affects me as a Christian, and as a preacher of God's Word.

The only disappointment I had was in his chapter on the Canon (133-139). It isn't that Frame's work is not helpful; it is. But my unreasonable expectation was that Frame would answer all my questions, but instead he understandably notes that "The present volume cannot enter into the details of this debate," and since this volume "is a systematic theological treatment, not a historical study" (135), he doesn't get fully into the issue. I would say that in this, Frame is a victim of my high estimation of him.

John Frame's The Doctrine of the Word of God is a challenging, informative, forceful and helpful book. I highly recommend it.

NOTE: this book was provided by P&R as a review copy.

---

I Feel Sorry for God

by Frank Turk

So look: in Jonah I see a guy who is like me. He wants to be a minister to God the way he wants to minister to people and not necessarily the way God wants him to minister to people, and not necessarily to the people God wants him to minister to. And he's serious about it. He's a prophet to Israel, darn it! He's not going to Nineveh -- Nineveh?! where the King of Assyria lives?!? -- and tell them that God is planning to judge them! God ought to judge them! They're sinners! Let them die in their sin! Look at all the beer cans in their trash, and can't you smell that cigarette smoke?

And look at how Jonah preaches to the Ninevites when he actually goes: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" Jonah does not say, "Judgment is coming so repent", but only, "Judgment is coming". God's judgment. Because He didn't want the Ninevites to get any bright ideas. God told him to tell them they are under judgment, and that's it: that's all he’s going to do. "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" That way he can be faithful, and he doesn’t have to worry because God going to deliver judgment. He said so.

But God does something else here which Jonah says he knew all along was God’s intention: God spares the Ninevites.

In that is Jonah's complaint to God: "Let me die, because I know you show steadfast love." Listen: Jonah's complaint was not, "God, you promised to smite the evildoer, and you squelched -- you broke your promise! Now that I know God is a promise breaker to Israel, I just want to die!" It was, "I knew it—when I was back home, I knew this was going to happen! That's why I ran off to Tarshish! I knew you were full of love, and grace, and mercy, and patience, and ready to forgive!"

4 And the LORD said, “Do you do well to be angry?”

The Hebrew there is, “It is right that this burns you?”  And that’s a fair question: how is it, exactly, that Jonah is grieved because God loves sinners?

You know, this problem comes up in other places in the Bible.  In Malachi, God chastises Israel because Israel has given up all hope that God will judge the wicked – because he shows patience with the wicked.  They think God is a slacker because the wicked are not judged immediately.  Mal 2:17 says,

“You have wearied the LORD with your words. But you say, “How have we wearied him?” By saying, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and he delights in them.” Or by asking, “Where is the God of justice?”

And then it comes up again in Luke 18, phrased a different way:

The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.

It’s sort of darkly-funny that a people who are themselves so unable, unwilling to keep the Law can be also so intent on making sure God is judging other people.  And that is God’s point in questioning Jonah: I had not idea that Me loving Sinners was so deeply horrible to YOU.
Jonah, unfortunately, doesn’t get it.

5 Jonah went out of the city and sat to the east of the city and made a booth for himself there. He sat under it in the shade, till he should see what would become of the city. 6 Now the LORD God appointed a plant and made it come up over Jonah, that it might be a shade over his head, to save him from his discomfort. So Jonah was exceedingly glad because of the plant. 7 But when dawn came up the next day, God appointed a worm that attacked the plant, so that it withered. 8 When the sun rose, God appointed a scorching east wind, and the sun beat down on the head of Jonah so that he was faint. 

And then [Jonah] asked that he might die and said, “It is better for me to die than to live.” 9 But God said to Jonah, “Do you do well to be angry for the plant?” And he said, “Yes, I do well to be angry, angry enough to die.” 10 And the LORD said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night and perished in a night. 11 And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”

Jonah was mad at God for sparing Nineveh, and God said to him, "Jonah: Doest thou well to be angry?" That is, "Jonah: is that the right thing to do? Is that what this is all about?"

Jonah, apparently, knew that when God is calling forth judgment, He is also extending an offer of clemency -- that is, the willingness to forgive for the repentant. In Jonah's words, He's a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster. And that has Jonah in a bunch -- in fact, he'd rather die than think about it any more.

And God, sparing the Ninevites after He has also spared the disobedient Jonah from the belly of the big fish,  says to the prophet, "Is that being angry good for you?" Really, I'd feel sorry for God if He wasn't the Universal Creator and Sustainer, the Sovereign of all things -- because He's always got to explain himself to people like Jonah. And Us.

---

The "God and evil" dodge (NEXT! #30)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge Version A: Why does God permit evil?

Response: Good thing He does, eh?

Challenge Version B: Can God be good and all-powerful, and permit evil?

Response: [Eyeing challenger.] Evidently.

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

Our Unhurried God

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 22, sermon number 1,323, "And Why Not?"

"It is clear that any act of power can be performed by the Lord at once."

“Ah,” says one, “I wish he would come now and divide the sheep from the goats.” Why? Are not the sinners better among the saints for awhile, that the gospel may the more easily reach them? Remember, also, that the husbandman would not have the tares divided from the wheat till the harvest came. “Oh, but we wish the Lord would come and put an end to sin.” Is it not better that his longsuffering should patiently wait, calling men to repentance and culling out his own elect from the sons of men throughout many a generation? The waiting is dreary to you, but it is not long nor dreary to his infinite patience. “Oh, but this delay is tedious, and infidels are demanding, ‘Where is the promise of his coming?’” Brethren, of what consequence is it what unbelievers say? Are heaven’s affairs to be arranged to meet their foolish gibes? “He that sitteth in the heavens doth laugh; the Lord doth have them in derision.” Would it not be better for you also to scorn their scorning? Who are they that we should be afraid of their revilings? “Ah,” say you, “but error has so long prevailed, and it grows worse and worse.” What if it does? It shall still be overruled for the Lord’s glory. God is on the throne yet. He is in no hurry. Remember the infinite leisure of the Eternal. What would a million million ages be to him? Truly he comes quickly, but you must not read that “quickly” after your rendering, for “quickly” with him may be slowly enough for us. We cannot measure the paces of the Infinite, for the whole history of man is but a pin’s point to his eternity.

Our judgments of Jehovah’s going forth are sure to err: he walketh, we are told, upon the wings of the wind,—he is only walking when he moves as swiftly as the tempest. We may as readily err upon the other side, and think him slow when in reality he rideth upon a cherub and doth fly. A thousand years to him are as one day, and one day with him is as a thousand years. No, we will not beseech the Lord as yet to divide the sinners from the saints by his infallible voice: we will not expect him yet to say, “Depart, ye cursed,” and, “Come, ye blessed”: we will not beg him at once to display his great power, and to put down all the principalities of evil with his rod of iron. We will wait on, and fear not. Faith is now the watchword and the order of the day. Sight is for unbelievers, but patient trust is for the saints. This is the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith. This it is which glorifieth God, and overthroweth the powers of evil. Believe, and so shall you wax valiant in fight and put to flight the armies of the aliens. Believe, and so shall you be established. Ask not to see, for sight is wisely denied you. Heaven will be the brighter, and eternity the more glorious, because we hope for that we see not, and do with patience wait for it.

---

Created an Appetite

Every Friday, to commemorate the stellar contributions to internet apologetics and punditry made by our founder and benefactor, Phil Johnson, the unpaid and overworked staff at TeamPyro is posting a "best of Phil" post to give your weekend that necessary kick.

This excerpt is from the original PyroManiac blog back in July 2005.  Phil deals with the fleeting fads of evangelicalism as a warning to remember what is really happening when a "movement" starts.

As usual, the comments are closed.

Virtually all the people on Time magazine's list of "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals" share at least one glaringly significant trait:

For the most part, these are the fadmakers. They are the cheerleaders for whatever is fashionable. They are the designers of the programs that are peddled by the out-of-control Christian publishing industry and purchased and implemented with little critical thought or concern by hundreds of thousands of people in the movement that calls itself "evangelical."

• Rick Warren, who heads the list, is the chief architect of the currently-dominant fad, "Forty Days of Purpose" and all the other Purpose-Driven® spinoffs.
• Tim Lahaye is the "theological" mind behind the best-selling fad of all time—the "Left Behind" series.
• J. I. Packer and Richard John Neuhaus have been the prime movers in the ecumenical fad—probably the last bandwagon we would have expected evangelicals to jump aboard 20 years ago.
• Bill Hybels masterminded the "seeker-sensitive" fad.
• Brian McLaren basically took Hybels' strategy ("contextualizing" the message for the extant culture) to the next level. McLaren is the leading figure in the "emergent church" fad.
• James Dobson is the most powerful figure in the "culture war" fad.

Too bad for Bruce Wilkinson that Time didn't do this piece two years ago when the "Jabez" fad was still hot, or he would have almost certainly been near the top of this list. The fact that he didn't even get mentioned is a testimony to how fleeting the fads can be.

Fifteen minutes of fame

Someone will almost certainly challenge whether it's right to label all those trends and programs "fads." But that is exactly what they are. They are popular for the moment, but they have nothing to do with historic evangelicalism or the biblical principles that made evangelicalism an important idea.

Not one of those movements or programs even existed 35 years ago. Most of them would not have been dreamed of by evangelicals merely a generation ago. And, frankly, most of them will not last another generation. Some will last a few short months (like the Jabez phenomenon did); others may seem to dominate for several years but then die lingering deaths (like Bill Gothard's movement is doing). But they will all eventually fade and fall from significance. And some poor wholesale distributor will be left with warehouses full of Jabez junk, Weigh-Down Workshop paraphernalia, "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets, Purpose-Driven® merchandise, and stacks and stacks of "emerging church" resources.

...

How post-evangelicalism gave birth to the Fad-Driven® Church

So why has the recent culture of American evangelicalism—a movement supposedly based on a commitment to timeless truths—been so susceptible to fads? Why are evangelical churches so keen to jump on every bandwagon? Why do our people so eagerly rush to buy the latest book, CD, or cheap bit of knockoff merchandise concocted by the marketing geniuses who have taken over the Christian publishing industry?

To borrow and paraphrase something the enigmatic Dissidens recently blogged (see "Remonstrans"), evangelicals and fundamentalists alike "have a genuine affection for the ugly and the superficial, whether in their art, their preaching, or their devotion." A few years ago, marketing experts learned how to tap into evangelicals' infatuation with the cheap and tawdry and turn it into cash.

Some of the beginner-level fads have seemed harmless enough—evangelical kitsch like Kinkade paintings, Precious Moments® collectibles, singing songbooks, moralizing vegetables, bumper stickers, Naugahyde® Bible covers, and whatnot. Such fads themselves, taken individually, may not seem worth complaining about at all. But collectively, they have created an appetite for "the ugly and the superficial." They have spawned more and more fads. Somewhere along the line, evangelicals got the notion that all the fads were good, because the relentless parade of bandwagons gave the illusion that evangelicals were gaining significant influence and visibility. No bandwagon was too weird to get in the parade. And the bigger, the better.

As a result, several of the more recent fads have been downright destructive to the core distinctives of evangelical doctrine, because most of them (Promise Keepers, Willow Creek, and the various political and ecumenical movements) have taken a deliberately minimalistic approach to doctrine, discarding key evangelical distinctives or labeling them nonessential. All of them adhered to a deliberate strategy that was designed to broaden the movement and make each successive bandwagon bigger and easier to climb onto.

"Bandwagons"? Somewhere along the line, the bandwagons morphed into Trojan horses.

---

Pyro brain trust forum: evangelistic tracts

by Dan Phillips

Howdy hi there, friends and neighbors. The topic of our little confab today is: evangelistic tracts.

Many tracts are overly simplistic; and yet, on the other hand, it defeats the purpose of a tract to hand someone the Collected Works of John Owen.

Apart from being overly simplistic, most rub me the wrong way as a Bibley person, which is to say, a Calvinist. I know that good Calvinists folks disagree with me on this, but as I've explained a number of times, I don't find it apostolically precedented or necessary to tell unbelievers "Jesus died for your sins." The apostles evidently didn't feel they had to say it, and neither do I. To me, as I've explained, assuring an unrepentant unbeliever that Jesus died for his sins is tantamount to saying "You're saved and have nothing to worry about from God: He accepts and forgives you just as you are."

So, having said that: What tracts have you found useful?

1. Please explain how and why.
2. Evaluation from a Biblical (and therefore) Calvinistic perspective would be terrific.
3. Anecdotes would be terrific.
4. Links to where they can be bought would also be terrific.

Have at it!

---

Not My Way

by Frank Turk

For those of you who would rather hear the whole Sunday School lesson as one 47 minute lecture, you can find it at my home church's web site.  FWIW, I commend all the sermons there for your edification.

What I first realized about me as a Christian was that I am still afraid of God. Think about that: here I am, a guy who has received only blessing and mercy from the Almighty Creator of all things, and I am still afraid of Him. Now, in some respects, many people would rightly say, "Hey Frank: the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, so good on you." But that's not what I mean at all.

Sure: I have a healthy fear of the Lord in terms of His right and ability to judge me, and in that I know I am still without any merit before Him as a sinner. But what's actually really scary, really gut-turning to me about God is that He's going to ask me to do something which I will hate to do and would refuse to do because it offends me.

You know: it would be great if God would ask me to write a book.  God can’t offend me by asking me to write a book.  But what if God asks me to evangelize someone at work – a client, for example, who leads a godless lifestyle – and give him the Gospel whether or not I get to keep my job after I do it?  What if God asks me to make friends with people who live in the trailer park near my house because they are all lost, all people too lowly to be reached out to because frankly, they are messy?

So look: in Jonah I see a guy who is like me. He wants to be a minister to God the way he wants to minister to people and not necessarily the way God wants him to minister to people, and not necessarily to the people God wants him to minister to. And he's serious about it. He's a prophet to Israel, darn it! He's not going to Nineveh -- Nineveh?! where the King of Assyria lives?!? -- and tell them that God is planning to judge them! God ought to judge them! They're sinners! Let them die in their sin! Look at all the beer cans in their trash, and can't you smell that cigarette smoke?

But there’s more to it than this.  It is not only that God may ask me to do something which offends me: God himself may do something that offends me.  That is: His way will not be my way.  What God intends to do probably doesn’t look like what I have planned in my Outlook calendar.  And the problem comes to a head when there has to be a reconciliation.

It’s easy to teach our children the words, “Jesus loves me, this I know.  The Bible tells me so.”  It’s another thing entirely to remember that God’s love is not like my native idea of love which has a very small circle, and lets very few people in.

That speaks to how Jonah preaches to the Ninevites when he actually goes: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" Jonah does not say, "Judgment is coming so repent", but only, "Judgment is coming". God's judgment. Because He didn't want the Ninevites to get any bright ideas. God told him to tell them they are under judgment, and that's it: that's all he’s going to do. "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" That way he can be faithful, and he doesn’t have to worry because God going to deliver judgment. He said so.

But God does something else here which Jonah says he knew all along was God’s intention: God spares the Ninevites.

That’s Jonah's complaint to God: "Let me die, because I know you show steadfast love." Listen: Jonah's complaint was not, "God, you promised to smite the evildoer, and you squelched -- you broke your promise! Now that I know God is a promise breaker to Israel, I just want to die!" It was, "I knew it—when I was back home, I knew this was going to happen! That's why I ran off to Tarshish! I knew you were full of love, and grace, and mercy, and patience, and ready to forgive!"

Jonah’s complaint is not about the lack of God’s justice.  It’s about the overwhelming size of His love, and to whom He is willing to show it.

---

The pseudo-sufficiency Pushmi-pullyu

by Dan Phillips

In sum, it goes like this:

Of course I believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. It's just that we need to hear things from God that aren't in Scripture, and Scripture doesn't tell Christians how to get them.

So I'll tell you how to get them.

Just like that.

---

"Feed My Lambs"

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from the book "Come Ye Children," Pilgrim Publications, page 5.

"Whether we teach young Christians truth or not, the devil will be sure to teach them error."

To all of us this message comes: “Feed my lambs.” To the minister, and to all who have any knowledge of the things of God, the commission is given. See to it that you look after the children that are in Christ Jesus. Peter was a leader among believers, yet he must feed the lambs.

The lambs are the young of the flock. So, then, we ought to look specially and carefully after those who are young in grace. They may be old in years, and yet they may be mere babes in grace as to the length of their spiritual life, and therefore they need to be under a good shepherd. As soon as a person is converted and added to the church, he should become the object of the care and kindness of his fellow-members. He has but newly come among us, and has no familiar friends among the saints, therefore let us all be friendly to him. Even should we leave our older comrades, we must be doubly kind towards those who are newly escaped from the world, and have come to find a refuge with the Almighty and His people. Watch with ceaseless care over those new-born babes who are strong in desires, but strong in nothing else. They have but just crept out of darkness, and their eyes can scarcely bear the light; let us be a shade to them until they grow accustomed to the blaze of gospel day. Addict yourselves to the holy work of caring for the feeble and despondent. Peter himself that morning must have felt like a newly-enlisted soldier, for he had in a sense ended his public Christian life by denying his Lord, and he had begun it again when “he went out and wept bitterly.” He was now making a new confession of his faith before his Lord and his brethren, and, therefore, because he was thus made to sympathise with recruits he is commissioned to act as a guardian to them. Young converts are too timid to ask our help, and so our Lord introduces them to us, and with an emphatic word of command He says, “Feed my lambs.” This shall be our reward: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto Me.”

---

A Better Indication

To commemorate the stellar contributions to internet apologetics and punditry made by our founder and benefactor, Phil Johnson, the unpaid and overworked staff at TeamPyro is posting a "best of Phil" post to give your weekend that necessary kick.

This excerpt is from The PyroManiacs blog back in 27 March 2008, wherein Phil introduces his response to people who use Acts 17 as a justification for excessive "contextualization".

As usual, the comments are closed.

People who are enthralled with style-driven missional strategies almost always single out this famous account [in Acts 17]. "Paul blended into the culture," they say. "He adopted the worldview and communications style of his hearers. He observed their religion and listened to their beliefs and learned from them before he tried to teach them. And he didn't step on their toes by refuting what they believed. Instead, he took their idea of the unknown god, embraced that, and used it as the starting point for his message about Christ. And there you have some of the major elements of postmodern missional ministry: culture, contextualization, conversation, and charitableness.

I think if we look at this passage carefully in its context, what we'll see is that Paul used none of those strategies— -- at least not in the way they have been defined and packaged by most today's postmodern, Emergent, and missional trend-setters.

Paul was bold and plain-spoken. He was counter-cultural, confrontive, confident, and (by Athenian standards, much less today's standards) closed-minded. He offended a significant number of Athens's intellectual elite, and he walked away from that encounter without winning the admiration of society at large, but with just a small group of converts who followed him.

That is the biblical approach to ministry. You don't measure its success or failure by how pleased the crowd is at the end of the meeting. Our first concern ought to be the clarity and power with which the message is delivered. The right question to ask is not how many people received the message warmly. (It's nice if they do, but that's not usually the majority response.) The right question to ask is whether the signs of conviction are seen in those who have heard. And sometimes a forceful negative reaction is the result of the gospel's convicting aspects. In fact, when unbelievers walk away without repenting of sin and embracing Christ, an overtly hostile reaction is a much better indication that the message was delivered clearly and accurately than a round of applause and an outpouring of good feeling from a crowd of appreciative worldlings.

We need to remember that. We're tempted to think that when people reject the gospel it's because we have done a poor job of presenting it. Sometimes that may be true, but it's not necessarily true. Of course, our job is to be as clear and accurate as possible, and not to be a stumbling-block that keeps people from hearing the gospel. But the gospel itself is a stumbling-block for unbelievers, so people will stumble and even get angry when they are presented with it. And we have no right to try to reshape the gospel so that it's no longer a stumbling-block. You can't proclaim the gospel faithfully if your goal is for no one ever to be offended or upset by it.

---

Gullibility versus Biblical faith: three vignettes

by Dan Phillips

I used to drive a dear lady, an older sister in the Lord, to a chiropractor. It was a long drive, and my opinions about chiropractics were irrelevant and secondary to the opportunity for fellowship.

But she became a bit concerned because she wasn't seeing any progress, after many months of visits. So she went in to the chiropractor to question him. She shared her concerns, he looked at the X-rays.

And this was the upshot: though she felt no difference, and though the X-rays showed no difference, she was making progress.

Because he said so.

Just "progress" that could not be seen, felt, nor detected by instruments.

Fast-forward a couple of decades later, to Just The Other Day.

As I drove my wife to the airport the other day, we passed a Palm Reader, so advertised by signs which blared out many claims of wonderful mysteries awaiting within.

You just have to marvel. I thought (partly aloud, to my family), "How does that person stay in business? Obviously he or she makes enough income to rent a house, have signs, keep a location on a busy street... but how? Do people really think that someone has those kinds of powers, yet all they can do is run a little shop in a little town in a little corner of the world, in total anonymity. That makes sense to people? To a lot of people?"

(I also noted that one of the claims on the advertising was "Returned loved ones." I wondered if that required a receipt. But I digress.)

And then, having delivered Valerie to her point of departure, as we journeyed home, the boys and I spotted another... well, place of business.

This time, the sign said "APOSTOLIC SIGNS AND WONDERS."

And again, I marveled.

I exploded to the boys, "Really? People who own Bibles go to a place like that? 'Signs and wonders' — so that means they're raising the dead, healing the congenitally blind and the congenitally paralyzed, parting water, making the sun stand still, stopping and starting rain at a word... all the time! Because that's the main thing they say on the sign: not that they preach the Gospel, not that they preach the Word, but that they do apostolic — not just garden-variety, mind you, but apostolic — signs and wonders. And with all that going on, they're just a never-heard-of group in a tiny building 'way off the side of the road."

So... what's the difference?

Here's the irony, the truth I keep hacking away at from every angle I can find.

Many so-called "continuationists" (Reformed!) would shake their heads and cluck their tongues right along with every one of us — even while they enable this sort of thing. Because obviously, the only reason such follies can survive is that people have given the charlatans a bye on the whole Biblical issue of falsifiability.

How so?

All the Biblical tests of genuinely revelatory/attesting events are explained away by modern hucksters or their enablers. They either die the death of a thousand qualifications, or are radically Clintoned down. "You see these tongues are... are... they're a different kind of tongues than Pentecost! Yeah, that's the ticket. So you can't test them or identify them. You just have to believe! And the prophecy, it's... it's... it's not like the entire Bible explicitly defines prophecy. No no, it's a special kind of non-inerrant non-binding low-octane objectively unverifiable prophecy for the glorious New Covenant! Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket! And these porn pictures I get in my head, they're actually..."

You see?

And what does all that leave us with?

Pious gullibility masquerading as faith. With the charlatans in charge.

---

Whatever He Pleases

by Frank Turk

For those of you who would rather hear the whole Sunday School lesson as one 47 minute lecture, you can find it at my home church's web site.  FWIW, I commend all the sermons there for your edification.

There is nothing wrong with making children’s songs up for the rudimentary doctrines of the faith, is there?  Of course not.  I think the danger is in whether or not we assign a doctrine as foundational and necessary as this one only to the children’s catechism and hymnal.  Is this a doctrine that we know all the words for, but somehow they are only words to us?

We’re going to rethink this today in through Scripture, from the book of Jonah, and then in the first letter of John.

Let’s open to the end of the book of Jonah, the end of Chapter 3, and then into chapter 4.  Let me just put you in context quickly.  The city of Nineveh is the enemy of Israel.  It was in Assyria, and it was the center of worship for the idol Ishtar as well as a capital for their empire for a time.  And the Assyrians were, of course, enemies of Israel – they worshipped Ishtar, after all, and not Yahweh.

So God calls Jonah to Nineveh, and Jonah does what?  He runs the other way.  He catches a boat in the opposite direction, causes the ship to nearly sink, is cast overboard, and swallowed by a great fish.  After three days in the belly of the fish, Jonah gets spit out on dry land, and God tells him again, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you.”

 And Jonah goes and declares the word of the Lord to the city, and that’s where we’ll pick up the text, Chapter 3, verse 6

6 The word reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, 8 but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9  Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish.”

Listen: if I was the king of Assyria, the things I could understand would be war and judgment -- because I am good at war, and I run a tight ship. What I say goes, and what I expect is that I'm going to do what I said I was going to do. We don't read the Five Disfunctions of a Team in my court -- I killed that guy because he was boring me to death with his blah blah blah about "trust". You know what I trust? I trust that when I tell my executioner here to cut your head off, he'll do it and not ask me about whether to use the big axe or the small one for your scrawny little MBA neck. And then everyone will trust me to do what I say.

But in that, the king of Assyria knows that God will do what He pleases. All the pomp of his court will not impress God anymore than the pomp of the house of David impressed him, the Assyrian king, when he came and plundered those so-called sons of Abraham. So if God is going to render judgment on Nineveh, what's the only course of action?

If I were the king of Assyria, I'd do what I expect the weak and puny kings around me to do when I come with my army and send in the messenger that I am here to clean house: I expect them to beg. If they want to keep anything at all, and not pay a dear price for resisting me, I expect that they treat me like I can do what I say I can do. So listen: you people remember that 5 Disfunctions guy? If you don't want to end up like him, beginning right now, do as I do and beg God to spare us. He's sent this messenger to us who says we have 40 days, and we have already lost 3 days because this guy walked from front to back, so close the businesses, close the market, and get out the sack cloth and ashes. And to show I'm serious, I'm going to do it too -- because if God is coming to judge us, the only thing we have to show is our plea for mercy. He can do whatever he pleases.

10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.
4 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was angry. 2 And he prayed to the LORD and said, “O LORD, is not this what I said when I was yet in my country? That is why I made haste to flee to Tarshish; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disaster. 3 Therefore now, O YAHWEH, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live.”

In case you didn’t understand this part, Jonah hated the Ninevites.  They hated Israel. They were enemies of Israel, and made war on Israel. But when God said to Jonah, "you're my prophet -- go tell Nineveh that their time of judgment is at hand," what did Jonah do?  You'd think that Jonah, having heard from God that Nineveh was up for review, would have gone to tell the Ninevites that their day is done. Ladies and Gentlemen: your day is over!  You and Ishtar are about to meet the Holy and Living God, and He is not happy!

That's what I'd think if I heard the words from God, "Arise, go to Las Vegas, or Washington, or New York, that great city, and call out against it, for their evil has come up before me." Yes! Thank you, God! The battle belongs to the Lord! Let's go and make a footstool of your enemies, Lord!

But that's not what Jonah thinks. See: when God tells Jonah, "Go tell Nineveh that their evil deeds are on my list," Jonah goes to other way. And here in what we call Chapter 4, Jonah explicitly says it is because he knows God.  It’s not that He knows God is Just, or that God is Holy, or that God is a Jealous God and can stand no other gods before Himself.  Jonah says God has this thing that He does -- being gracious and merciful, slow to anger and ... steadfast in love. That’s what the ESV says – the NASB says “abundant in Lovingkindness”. Jonah ran away from what God told him to do, and away from the Ninevites, not because God is known to be triumphant over His enemies: he ran because Jonah didn't want them to hear or experience the steadfast love of God.

And let's be as clear as possible: he didn't preach to them the steadfast love of God, did he? "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" was what he preached, according to 3:4 -- only the judgment. But what he feared was that God would love them and show them love because that's what He does. That's who He is. The King of Nineveh declared a fast and repentance, and he even demanded the animals somehow participate (according to 3:8), and when God saw them repent, He spared their destruction.

Think about that: God loved these sinners. Jonah was angry because he knew God loves sinners. God loved them and spared them, even though eventually the Assyrians would again turn to persecuting Israel. Jonah disobeyed God because he knew God was going to show love to sinners.

Now, there’s a reason I chose this passage rather than the prodigal son, or 1 Cor 13, or John’s first letter, or John 3:16.  I admit that I love the New Testament, and Paul who was wrote most of it – especially when you understand the Luke was Pauls’ disciple – and I empathize with Paul.  Who is it that studies theology who doesn't want to someday be considered like Paul, the chief of sinners.  But here’s the thing: I am probably more like Jonah.

I think my first real spiritual insight into myself after being saved was when I realized that I am almost exactly like Jonah.

---

Leaky Canons and moralizing Gospel misfires: an analogy

by Dan Phillips

On the way to this piece's point, two things must be made very clear:

First: every unglorified saint has doctrinal blind spots and inconsistencies. You do, I do. There's no helping it. You credobaptists see it clearly in your pedobaptist brothers, and they see it clearly in their Arminian brothers, and on it goes. And if you ask me what my blind spots are, I'll be forced to ask in reply what it is about "blind spots" you don't understand. We all have them, and that's what that Remedial Theology 101 class is all about.

Second: some Leaky Canon brothers are splendid preachers of the Gospel, and of a great many other solid-gold Biblical truths. They are as sound on the issue of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to the glory of God alone, as any man ever has been since Paul wrote Romans and Galatians. The parallel I'm going to suggest is not in any way meant eo ipso to impugn the Gospel soundness of a Leaky Canoneer simply because he is a Leaky Canoneer.

Having said that, then...

It struck me forcefully, as I was praying today, that there is a parallel between the Leaky Canon position and the false gospel of moralism.

What is that false gospel? It is the idea that we need more and/or better rules. It sees Jesus as a great teacher, a great enabler, a great example. It brings in Biblical imperatives as laws we must keep to win God's favors, and then moves perhaps to improve on those laws for that same reason. It's similar to the classmate at seminary who, when I suggested that the student handbook's section on conduct just single out directly-Biblical issues such as lying and stealing and immorality, replied that all that just "isn't specific enough."

To that, Biblical Christians reply that more rules would just damn us more. We're sinners. We don't live up to the light we have. More light just means more condemnation, more rules means more guilt. If the problem were lack of guidance, they might help. But the problem is sin, and rules simply serve to stir sin up (cf. Rom. 7:5-11, etc.). That is why we need sovereign grace to save us. Not more rules.

What does that possibly have to do with the Leaky Canon error?

We have sixty-six books full of the inerrant, sufficient, and morally-binding revelation of God's heart. It claims to impart absolutely everything we need to know in order to know and serve God.

So let me ask:

Is there any sane, rational, even-marginally-sentient being who would claim that the professing Christian church as a whole is doing a very good job of teaching and preaching the contents of those sixty-six books?

No.

Then let me ask this:

Is there any sane, rational, even-marginally-sentient being who would claim that professing Christians as a whole are doing a very good job of studying and learning and practicing (let alone even working to support churches that teach and preach) the contents of those sixty-six books?

No.

Leading us inexorably to ask: 

That being the case, how can anyone argue that what we really need is more words from God?

But wait, it gets even worse!

Given that 106 years of Leaky Canon errorism has not yet produced even one universally-acknowledged syllable of prophetic-level revelation from God, and given that in the light of that 100% failure they have worked hard so to lower the bar and redefine what they promise so as to remove it from the arena of falsifiability, we must reword that question:

How can anyone argue that what we really need is more semi-sorta hazy mumbly jumbly foggy indistinct words from God at several degrees of removal?

More words from God, given our failure to be faithful to what we already have, and absent repentance, would simply mean more failure and more faithlessness.

But more words from God that really aren't necessarily words from God, but that maybe might kinda be words from God, and that claim to be essential for a real and vital and living relationship with God, though they require 1000 time-and-focus-devouring-and-diverting qualifications...?

Yikes!

All of which takes us right back to the sufficiency challenge, and leaves Leaky Canonism as exposed and repugnant (— in its distinctives!) as it should have been all along.

---

Abundant Pardon

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 20, sermon number 1,195, "Abundant Pardon."

“When the whole earth shall be filled with His glory, in the multitude of repentant and forgiven sinners of the golden age men shall see that God does ‘abundantly pardon.’”

Oh, what a subject I have now before me! Here is a river for depth unfathomable, and for breadth a river which cannot be passed over; it is a river to swim in! I must correct myself, and call it an ocean. Indeed, what shall I say of this sea of sin? Therein are creeping things innumerable, both small and great beasts; there is that leviathan who doth mightily disport himself, and there are fierce tempests and horrible storms, which well may sink the barque which tempts them. I am overwhelmed with the thought of the abundance of transgression. Sin! From thy fruitful womb what myriads of ills proceed! What countless hosts of evils are the fruits of sin! How many are the sins themselves! Sins of thought —rebellious thoughts, proud thoughts, blasphemous thoughts, atheistical thoughts, covetous thoughts, lustful thoughts, impatient thoughts, cruel thoughts, false thoughts, thoughts of ill memory, and dreams of an unholy future; what swarms are there! Moreover, the omission of thoughts which should have been, such as thoughts of repentance, gratitude, reverence, faith, and the like, these are equally numerous: with the double list my roll is written within and without with a hideous catalogue. As the gnats which swarm the air at eventide, so numerous are the transgressions of the mind. Then there are sins of word. I should have to repeat the list again. What words have vexed the pure and holy ear of God! Words against himself, against his Son, against his law and gospel, against our neighbour, against everything that is good and true! Words proud and hectoring, words defiant and obstinate, words untruthful, words lascivious, words of vanity, and words of wilful unbelief. Oh God! how many are our sinful words. The sins of our tongue—what man is there who is able to reckon them up? Then come the sins of deed, which in very truth are but the fruits which grow out of sins of thought. Can any man here estimate the number of his own sins from the first transgression of his childhood until grey old age, or to his present period of life? “Who can understand his errors? Cleanse thou me from secret faults.” Perhaps the sins we do not know are more numerous than the sins we are conscious of. Conscience may not be properly enlightened, and hence many a thing may not seem to be sinful which really is so; but God’s clear eye perceiveth everything that is obnoxious to his holy law; and all our errors are written down against us until the whole is wiped away by an abundant pardon through the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Our sins are as the countless horde of locusts which descend upon the fertile land and devour everything, leaving nothing for man but famine and despair. But as it was in Egypt so it is at this day; the Lord commands the wind of mercy to blow every locust from off the face of the land, and as they all depart at once our hearts rejoice and are glad. Our sins are countless as the drops of dew in these autumn mornings when every leaf is wet, for every tree is weeping tears of sorrow over the dying year; and yet when the sun has risen, with a little of his heat the moisture is gone, the dews are all exhaled, they are as if they had never been. So countless are our sins, and so complete is the removal of our transgressions when the infinite love of Jesus shines upon us, and God in his Son has reconciled us by his atoning blood. Innumerable sins are forgiven by one word from the life of divine love.

Don't Miss the Point

by Frank Turk

For those of you who would rather hear the whole Sunday School lesson as one 47 minute lecture, you can find it at my home church's web site.  FWIW, I commend all the sermons there for your edification.

You’ll remember that we have been talking about the Goodness of God as demonstrated by the Psalmist in Ps 34, having done a quick sprint through the life of David.  We talked about how the Goodness of God is not a childish piece of theology but a core piece of understanding how God Comforts us, and God Counsels us, and Covers us in Christ.  When I taught this stuff live, we demonstrated the goodness of God by getting out of class early.

Now: the reason we got out early, in discussing the Goodness of God, is that we either had to stop where we were, or dive head-long into another hour at least on the principle example of the goodness of God.  Louis Berkhof says this about the Goodness of God:

When the goodness of God is exercised toward his rational creatures, it assumes the higher character of Love, and this Love may again be distinguished according to the objects upon which it terminates.  In distinction from the goodness of God in general, [the love of God] may be defined as that perfection of God by which he is eternally moved to self-communication.  … He does not even withdraw his love completely from the sinner in his present sinful state, though the sinner’s sin is an abomination.  … At the same time, he loves believers with a special love, since he contemplates them as his spiritual children in Christ.  (P 71)

We respect our theologians for their precise language, and we agree with Berkoff’s definitions.  What he says here is utterly true, and completely orthodox.  But consider this:  what if a man approached a young woman and said to her, “I am moved eternally to self-communicate to you, and make you the object of termination from me of any and all of the goodness I have – because you are certainly a rational creature.”  I think it is unlikely that she would be influenced in any positive way toward him – whether she was a good reformed girl or not.  The reason, I think, is because such an expression, falls short of the declaration and command Paul makes in Ephesians,  “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church.”

It is certainly right, in the case of systematic theology, to examine the point that the goodness of God gets serious, and specific, and somehow specialized, when God deals with mankind, and with particular men and women.  But somehow it also seems to miss the point to say that this is only about God expressing Himself.  It is not merely that God is eternally moved to self expression, and terminates his goodness on the rational objects in His created order.  Somehow, we have to get it right, as the apostle John expressed it:

Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

The topic today is the Love of God.   It seemed really obvious to me when Paul asked me to teach a little this summer that if I were to cover the Goodness of God, I would also have to cover the Love of God – because, as Berkhof says, it is Goodness’ higher character.  And as we covered last time, it is the ultimate expression of God’s goodness that he loves us somehow, in such a perfect and final way, according to the Psalmist, that it must lead us to the purpose in the work of Christ.

But think about this for a second:  I was able to find over 200 essays on the Providence of God, and over 150 essays on the Sovereignty of God, and 125 essays on the Glory of God – but less than a few dozen on the Love of God.  Most systematic theologies spend less than a full page on the topic, preferring to spell out Justice, Holiness and so on.  These are the grown-up topics of theology – the ones that really engage us and make us feel like we are in big church.

Just as with God’s goodness, we again sort of classify as one of the rudimentary parts of theology and faith.  We make up a child’s prayer to express Gods goodness –“God is Great, God is Good, let us Thank him,” – and we make up preschool songs for the sake of God’s love.  “Jesus loves me, this I know – for the Bible tells me so.  Little ones to Him belong.  They are weak, but He is strong.  Yes: Jesus loves me.  The Bible tells me so.”

There is nothing wrong with making children’s songs up for the rudimentary doctrines of the faith, is there?  Of course not.  I think the danger is in whether or not we assign a doctrine as foundational and necessary as this one only to the children’s catechism and hymnal.  Is this a doctrine that we know all the words for, but somehow they are only words to us?

---

Untangling a (too) terse word about affirming sufficiency and meaning it

by Dan Phillips

First, please read this post about James MacDonald's five ways of hearing a word from God.

In that post, I asked this question:

What would be the premise for, and ramifications of, promoting only the way(s) in which Scripture directly and in so many words urges and directs all Christians without exception to seek and find what it itself directly calls, in so many words, a "word from God"?

The subsequent meta pretty well convinced me that I failed the clarity test. In seeking to be pithy, dense and impenetrable... well, I certainly achieved impenetrability. Proof: some of our very best, sharpest readers got lost in the density. So clearly, lack of clarity was mine. Obliging me to untangle my verbage. Which I now do.

Ahem.


Let's begin with something I've sought to communicate many times, with varying success. Here is Buzz Christian. Buzz feels he needs Data-group A.  Buzz  doesn't find Data-group A in Scripture.  Buzz  has two choices:

1. Conclude that he doesn't need God to give him Data-group A directly, or it would be in Scripture.
2. Find another way to obtain something he'll call Data-group A... and then deal with Scripture. Or not.

So, clearly many people want to hear things from God that aren't in Scripture. The issue of what things? doesn't really matter at this point. They look at Scripture, and it doesn't have everything they want. What to do, what to do?

Basically, you can do two things:

1. You can conclude that you don't actually need a word from God relaying those things, or they'd be in Scripture.
2. You can invent another way to obtain something you'll say are those things... and then deal with Scripture. Or don't deal.

James MacDonald knows people want there to be ways "God speaks," ways to "hear from God," ways to have "the Holy Spirit speak a word," ways to get, as he says explicitly and more than once, "a word from God" — apart from Scripture. And so MacDonald teaches four such ways, and assigns degrees of certainty to them... which is revealing in itself, but we don't even need to go there to arrive at my point.

What I was asking was, Suppose we were to confine our focus to explicit Scripture alone. Suppose we don't start with stories, anecdotes, tradition, or "just what everybody knows."

Suppose we were to say that we will promote only the way(s) in which Scripture directly and in so many words urges and directs all Christians without exception to seek and find what it itself directly calls, in so many words, a "word from God." Suppose we wouldn't try to principlize stories, or torture verses, or lead with anecdotes and try to bend Scriptures which at a twelfth degree of separation might sorta give a kinda hint that such a thing might be in some way something like valid.

Suppose, instead, we said:

"I will only call 'a word from God' what Scripture calls 'a word from God.'  I will only appeal to verses that directly tell all Christians that they can always and with 100% certainly find a word from God. I will only urge Christians to use those means to obtain words from God."

So, I say, supposing we were to say that — on what premises would such a position rest, and what would the ramifications be? Having failed to make my point the first time for most of you (and I'm sorry about that), I'll answer my own question.

The premise for such a statement would be the sufficiency of Scripture, robustly affirmed.

The ramifications for such a statement is that we would only urge Christians to look to Scripture to find words from God. We would only look to Scripture ourselves to find words from God. One hundred percent of our efforts, our devotion, and our attention, would be given to the study, understanding, preaching, teaching and practice of the written Word of God, which absolutely certainly claims to be fully sufficient for such purposes.

Further ramifications would be the instant end of the Charismatic movement (— which they clearly recognize, as witnessed by the unvarying pushback against all genuine affirmations of the sufficiency of Scripture). Also, we would see the utter transformation of the majority of pulpit ministries across the world. Revival would almost surely come in as well — though it's likelier to be a necessary cause than an effect.

Clear enough now?

---