Showing posts with label apostasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apostasy. Show all posts

04 August 2015

Gurnall on why many formerly orthodox people drift from truth

by Dan Phillips

The man could have been a Pyro!

 In giving counsel how to inflame the heart with a love for truth, William Gurnall wrote this:



Too often, we've seen men who begin more or less Biblically orthodox, who then drift further and further from the safe haven of God's Word. William Gurnall suggests one reason why.

Likeness is the ground of love. A carnal heart cannot like truth, because it is not like to truth. Such a one may love truth, as he did Alexander, Regem non Alexandrum; ‘the king, not the person that was king:’ truth in its honour and dignity, when it can prefer him, but not naked truth itself.

How is it possible an earthly soul should love truth that is heavenly? An unholy heart, truth that is pure? O it is sad indeed, when men’s tenets and principles in their understandings do clash, and fight with the principles of their hearts and affections!

When men have orthodox judgment, and heterodox hearts, there must needs be little love to truth, because the judgment and will are so unequally yoked; truth in the conscience reproving and threatening lust in the heart, and that again controlling truth in the conscience. Thus, like a scolding couple, they may a while dwell together; but taking no content in one another, the wretch is easily persuaded to give truth a bill of divorce at last, and send her away, as Ahasuerus did Vashti, that he may espouse other principles, which will suit better with his corrupt heart, and not cross him in the way he is in.

This, this I am persuaded hath parted many and truth in these licentious days. They could not sin peaceably while they kept their judgments sound; truth ever and anon would be chiding them; and therefore, to match their judgments with their hearts, they have taken up principles suitable to their lusts. But, soul, if truth had such a power upon thee, to transform thee by the renewing of thy mind into its own likeness, that as the scion turns the stock into its own nature, so truth hath assimilated thee, and made thee bear fruit like itself, thou art the person that will never part with truth; before thou canst do this, thou must part with that new nature, which by it the Spirit of God hath begot in thee. There is now such a near union betwixt thee and truth, or rather thee and Christ, as can never be broke.

We see what a mighty power there goes along with God’s ordinance of marriage, that two persons, who possibly a month before never knew one another, yet their affections once knit by love, and their persons made one by marriage, they can now leave friends and parents for to enjoy each other; such a mighty power, and much greater, goes along with this mystical marriage between the soul and Christ, the soul and truth, that the same person, who, before conversion, would not have ventured the loss of a penny for Christ, or his truth, yet now, knit to Christ and his truth by a secret work of  the Spirit new forming him into the likeness thereof, he can bid adieu to the world, life, and all, for these.

As that martyr told him that asked whether he did not love his wife and children, and was not loth to part with them, ‘Yes,’ saith he, ‘I love them so dearly, that I would not part with any of them for all that the Duke of Brunswick is worth,’ whose subject he was; ‘but for Christ’s sake and his truth, farewell to them all.’
[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 222–223. Broken into paragraphs]

Dan Phillips's signature


09 December 2014

Some here, some there — December 9, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Christmas has come early!

Actually, I was looking forward to reading Frank's post... then I realized that it was "my" day. And so, since I was thinking all yesterday that I already had enough for an SHST, here is one early. Not sure whether I'll do another Friday, or something else. Suspense!

Have fun, it's quite the mini-assortment.
  • I've long said that secularists have no problem with Christians being Christians, just so long as we don't do it out-loud or in publicRick Plasterer (seriously) argues that that principle will fall heavily and possibly terminally on Christian institutions, given the current tidal wave of totalitarian, institutionalized immorality (including compulsory approval) that is sweeping what once would have been called Christendom.
  • The very people who now sneer at the fact that "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?" was ever asked, are having no problem with the same question posed of public persons, with the substitution of "Christian religion" for the last two words.
  • Reminding one of the immortal words of Cdr. Buck Murdock.
  • One last reflection on that article. Plasterer says this almost in passing: "God’s standard given in Scripture is obedience to Him regardless of pain." How many professed Christians don't even think it important to obey God regardless of inconvenience or effort, let alone pain?
  • Okay, this next item is not at all like the usual. I can only offer three reasons for including it... and they're stretches. First: it has footage from the Charlie Brown Christmas, including the reading from Luke, so: ChristmasSecond: it features one of the very best guitar solos ever recorded by one of the very best guitarists ever to play, so: common graceThird: it's awesome and I love it. So: my blog (in part)! Thanks to reader Keith Lamborn for alerting me to it. Enjoy, or move along to the next item.
  • I loved that the creator timed the clips so well to the song, but what really won me over was the dances during the guitar solo. Awesome.
  • And BTW, the song is about writing a song. In case someone's going to go all Johnny Todd on me.
  • In case you didn't see it — well, (A) shame on you; and (B) go to my blog and see this lovely version of The Wexford Carol, with Yo-Yo Ma and Alison Krauss.
  • You know what's even weirder (to me) than having Rick Warren in effect say "pish-posh" to the Reformation? Having Reformation 21 publish an article lavishing praise on that wonderfully "generous" evangelical Richard Mouw! In case you don't remember, Mouw was President pf Fuller Theological Seminary for 20 years, which all by itself would be enough to raise my eyebrow. But what's more, Mouw is the man who threw Christian missionaries to Mormons under the bus, and who the Mormons love because he has proclaimed Mormonism not to be a cult.
  • Do you think Harold Lindsell is looking smug in heaven? Are other saints having to tell him to stop saying "QED!"?
  • So is Reformation 21 prepping an article praising the generosity of Rick Warren? Unknown.
  • But the president of Covenant College agrees. So there's that.
  • Well, now to something more directly seasonal, and as a reward for Frank — if he's read further than the post title — this:

Fun, eh? Now, what will I do Friday...?


Dan Phillips's signature


28 November 2014

Some here, some there — November 28, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Happy day after Thanksgiving, y'all. Hope your yesterday was fun and familial and grateful.

Here's the first edition, 8:44 TX time. I plan to add through the morning as I can; have a hospital call pretty soon, so...limited! Enjoy.
  • We're not all married here... so, was this anyone's yesterday? Yikes, I hope not!
  • That was Thursday. Now it's Friday.
H-T this tweet: http://bit.ly/1xQRWzu
  • What does Fred Astaire in a beanie have to do with it, though?
  • Anyway, my reply was:
  • No response.
  • One more in that general area: another person John Piper elevated despite a flood of pleas and warnings was Rick Warren. I wonder if this will bring a "Do you regret partnering with Rick Warren"/"I don't regret befriending Rick Warren":
  • I quote James White about as often as he quotes me; that said, I'm in total agreement with this sentiment:
  • Maybe someone needs to direct Warren to PA#27?
  • Hm; that post is almost ready to become Forty Days of Phillips' Axioms, isn't it?
  • Any post with lines like "The goal of the pansexualist movement is to remove all creational distinctives," and "They want to batter down every border, every barrier, so that when we are all done, every sentient being has been melted down into their great cauldron of lust.," and "I would rather be on the wrong side of history, as they see it, than on the wrong side of stupidity, as God sees it," probably demands to be read.
  • Now the Ferguson section.
  • I wonder what people see when they compare Russell Moore's Ferguson and the Path to Peace with this post.
  • If Moore were the sort who interacted with his readers, I would have asked this question in the comments: "You say 'we ought to recognize that it is empirically true that African-American men are more likely, by virtually every measure, to be arrested, sentenced, executed, or murdered than their white peers.' If true, that is incontestably a tragic, sad statement, period. But why do you think it is an inherently meaningful statement? What do you think it means? What is your solution? ("Church," he says, and that is part of the answer — which, again, I ask that you compare to this answer.)
  • Reformation21 has a writer who tells white people what they may and may not say to black people; but as a sort of balance, he also tells blacks what not to say to whites. Interestingly, his first dictum to whites is "Don't tell us we make everything about race" — and yet he writes for an organization self-named Reformed African-American Network. No further comment.
  • (Which of course reminds me of the time I NEVER, EVER wrote for an organization called Reformed Pudgy White Guy Network.)
  • By contrast, even though it's on TGC, this post by Voddie Baucham is really, really good. You'd swear he and I'd been in collusion, as if we'd agreed "You focus on this aspect, I'll focus on that, and we'll meet in the middle." But we didn't.
  • On the other hand, Thabiti Anyabwile — a brother I like, love, learn from, and count as a friend — thinks the Grand Jury outcome is an injustice. Concerning my post, Thabiti was kind enough to say:
  • (Aside: Challies also recommended the piece, which we appreciate; it apparently not visible to TGC writers.)
  • Then Thabiti wrote FourCommon But Misleading Themes In Ferguson-Like Times, which at least seems to offer push-back to both Voddie (primarily and by name), and to yr obdt svt.
  • I'll offer this: to the degree that every one of my prescriptions were followed, it would certainly reduce the rate of theft, imprisonment, death and all the related miseries. If every one of Thabiti's suggestions were followed... arguably could mean fewer dead innocents, more dead policemen, both, or something else.
  • Now to finish on non-Ferguson topics...
  • Somehow I missed the brilliance of Andrew Wilson's Case for Idolatry. I hereby correct that omission, and raise it an Accurate Parody.
  • "Sologamy"? Wouldn't a better term be "ipsogamy"?
Now I'll leave you tapping your toes with a video suggested by Kerry Allen:


Dan Phillips's signature


10 October 2014

Some here, some there — October 10, 2014

by Dan Phillips

We're still on granddaughter watch. Yesterday was the due date, so this post could be updated.

But already a very full plate today! Let's launch. Tell me which ones are particularly chuckalicious, informative, thought-provoking, helpful, nuanced...oh wait, forget that. Sorry, got carried away.
  • To start on a somber note: You may know that discernment blogger and pastor Ken Silva passed away. Chris Rosebrough held a sort of online memorial for him, which you can listen to here. Reader Christine Pack of Sola Sisters, and Phil Johnson, were among those who spoke of Ken's impact.
  • Now, to the lighter side.
  • If you're in Twitter, here's a fun little game. Then plug in your favorite RPB and chuckle. BTW, the Spurgeon account gets 100% on "upbeat"! 
  • Have you heard "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship" enough yet? I've had a few pointed words with its echoers (including Jefferson Bethke). Here's a good, full-orbed response from William Boekestein.
  • In the insightful essay Had Sex, Dumped JesusJoel J. Miller develops the correct causality chain in much apostasy (h-t Aquila Report). People have immoral sex; that creates painful cognitive dissonance; God or the immorality has to go for peace to reign; God goes.
  • I wish I'd gotten down verbatim what I heard Josh McDowell say many years ago. He said he'd gotten to the point that, when some teen would come to him saying "I'm beginning to have serious doubts about my faith," his first response would be along the lines of, "Oh? who are you sleeping with?"
  • This is a step aside from the usual, but it's genius. It's one of those things that, if Frank Turk actually read the posts here, he'd really like.
  • Another step aside: ah yes, World War I. That's where the good guys fought the Germans... and the tripods?!
  • Tone-change in 3... 2... 1...
  • M'man David Murray offers a video he calls the most powerful illustration of the Gospel he's ever seen. It's worth watching. I teared up. I think I get what David's saying. Yet if it weren't for David, it just isn't what I would have thought. Instead, I can't help that a bunch of questions team in my mind, at the same time that I admire this man and am moved by what he did. That probably makes me a (or IDs me as a) bad person. You?
  • Over at the indispensable DBTS blog, professor Bill Combs asks whether a person really has to be either Calvinist or Arminian, with no middle-ground. He answers, correctly, Yes.
  • Here's one way I'd put it: either God's choice of me is the result of my choice of Him, or my choice of Him is the result of His choice of me. There's no middle-ground that isn't exclusively populated by weasels.
  • We've noted a number of times how many issues The Gospel Coalition can't seem to be bothered with pro-actively. But there is one issue they're right on top of: Kevin Bauder shared some excellent thoughts on the subject, and yesterday TGC moved to prove him right yet again.
  • Because I love you, I caution you not to hold your breath waiting for the appropriately nuanced, helpful, thoughtful presentation of the other view on this question.
  • I had a comment up. Then it disappeared. Then it returned, and has been joined by some (far better) comments of dissent. At present, this is the reverse of the usual TGC situation: the comments are far better than the article.
  • I'm tempted to write (on my blog) a response-piece titled "Is the Bible A Deceptive Book of Secret Code?" I mean, what can the TGC do to me? Hate me? Ignore everything I write about topics they claim to love? Blacklist me?
  • For my part, I've thought a certain amount of the animus against such things is fueled by jealousy. I mean, think of it: what would an amill end times movie look like? Nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens, and then the movie ends because the filmmakers wouldn't want to show the face of Jesus.
  • So, in a way... every movie is an amill end-times movie, isn't it?
  • Before you ask: no, this isn't how they fight Ebola in Texas, so stop asking.
  • My brother from another mother Phil Johnson and I had an offstage disagreement about whether a certain literary-type thingie was witty and worthwhile, or whether it was obnoxious and offensive. Often, when I think I know what Phil will and won't find funny... I'm dead-wrong. Still. For instance, here's something to ponder: Phil sees something like this as high comedy. So, there y'go.
  • Now: how's your heart? In need of a good stopping? Perfect. I think I have just the thing:
  • If that didn't finish you: David Murray — who, I think, does not sleep — found this absolutely gorgeous and heart-stopping video of this gent biking on the Isle of Skye. If you watch as I did, you'll alternately gasp, hold your breath, yelp What?!, and murmur "oh my gosh." I had no idea a bike could do all that. Still not sure a bike should do all that. But now I know it can, if propelled by the right cast-iron legs.
  • You probably know that Jonathan Merritt did a piece on Tony Campolo's son's apostasy, if that's the right word for it. The real news story that the article broke is that someone still thinks that Tony Campolo is "an influential evangelical leader." The rest of the post is a target-rich environment for sad and unsurprised reflection.
  • That said, I say this: Francis Schaeffer was a fine and sound Christian leader, and Franky's defection is famous. Apostasy happens, and it's always the fault of the apostate, no matter how fine or how wretched a father he had.
  • Lovecraft, Cabin in the Woods, Joss Whedon, and Calvinism? What? Oh, must be Patheos.
  • Lyndon Unger doesn't think much of the movie Left Behind, only in his case it isn't because he's on the Dispie-Dissing bandwagon.
  • So Joan, who's been attending for some months, comes to you wanting to trust and follow Christ. In conversation, you learn that Joan is really John, minus this and plus than thanks to surgical disfigurement. After you've swallowed your gum, what do you say? Russell Moore gives some refreshingly nuance-free and straightforward counsel.
  • Amazing sculptures out of pencil lead make us think of God's more amazing living scultures out of microscopic material.
  • This helped and challenged me: Leon Brown on the fact that sharing the gospel can be incovenient (so deal with it, re-set your priorities Kingdomward, and get on with it).
  • Aquila Report found a very provocative perspective on dying from cancer, and on dying in general. Lacking Gospel, yet worth pondering.
  • Here is a different perspective, this time with the Gospel (and a little LCMS sauce).
  • M'man Denny Burk asks whether we have confidence in Christ that could handle Ebola.
What essential service will you contribute to your church this Sunday? Well, if you're late, here's an app that can help:



Dan Phillips's signature

10 June 2014

The hateful practice of redefinition

by Dan Phillips

Last Wednesday, one of those minor household accidents happened while I was away. My dear wife was readying some of her award-winning chili which, in my house, usually requires the accompaniment of corn bread. Everyone in my family loves corn bread, excepting only me. So chili needs corn bread, and corn bread needs honey. But our honey was crystallized.

So Valerie popped it in the microwave and got it boiling hot or thereabouts. In transferring it, something slipped, and she poured this boiling hot honey on her hand. Both she and my boys swung right into action.

What did they do?

What Valerie didn't do is say "Boiling honey has gotten a bad rap all these years. At some point, uptight and narrow-minded people took a wrong turn and labeled the experience of spilling boiling honey on your hand as 'painful' and 'bad' and 'harmful.' But if we read the ancient texts right, they were talking about particular honey produced by bees visiting a particular flower that grew only in Greece, and only in the fourth century BC. Our modern honey is nothing like ancient honey. We can't apply those categories to this experience."


Likewise, what my boys didn't do was to say, "Oh Mother-dear, because we love you so, we are going to embrace and celebrate your new discovery of this new experience of joyous new-honey-pouring. In fact, we must change the language. Instead of 'boiling-honey burn,' let's call it Glistening Aroma of Sweet Pinkness. You've just had a GASP of joy! Here, we want to be supportive! Let us boil some more for you!"

As I say, they did none of this. Instead, Valerie gave a yelp and headed for the tap, and the boys got her ice and took care of her. Because all the scholarly papers by all the pointy heads in all the world wouldn't change the fact that boiling honey hurts like fire.

You're a sharp bunch and I'm sure you know right where we're going. Yet another sad soul has reportedly greeted yet another scion's sin against God his Creator by trying to redefine reality to enable his son's damning immorality. And, as always, he is unsuccessful.

What we are seeing in such small events as well as the large sweeps of legislation and litigation is a large-scale attempt to force everyone to say that spilling boiling honey on one's hand is a good thing, a real good thing. Because the aim is to remove the shame from soul-ruining perversion. God forbid that someone feel bad for doing bad.

But feeling bad is as much for our good as are the pain receptors that told Valerie that something had gone amiss in meal preparations. If the honey hadn't hurt, she wouldn't have treated the injury. Worse, if she could have persuaded herself that it was actually a positive experience, God knows what might have followed.

It is the lot of fallen men in full flight from God that they "know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die" and, notwithstanding, still "not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:32).

Now, we expect (or should expect) lost  people to act like lost people.

But the professedly saved?

The place of the loving Christian is to stand athwart all such ultimately-ruinous, ultimately-hateful attempts, no matter how widespread they are nor how loud the applause. The call of God on us is to show such deeds to be what God says they are, to affirm the shame that attends them (Ephesians 4:11-12) and, at the same time and at least as insistently, point to the only One who legitimately strikes at the root of and offers the sure remedy for all such shame, both theirs and ours (1 Cor. 6:9-20).

But to tell a supposed loved one "Go ahead, pour boiling honey on yourself, everyone who ever said it was a bad thing was deluded"?

How much do you have to hate someone to do that?


Dan Phillips's signature


18 June 2013

Proverbs inspired by the author of Proverbs

by Dan Phillips


Having done an introduction to the introduction to Proverbs, last Sunday I began an actual introduction to Proverbs.

I skipped over the first Hebrew word of the book ("Proverbs-of"), to focus on "Solomon son of David king of Israel." Titled The Pithy Penmen of Proverbs, my focus was the central author and overall editor, King Solomon.

As I'm sure I've remarked somewhere before, I find Solomon one of the most frightening, sobering men in all of history, in the company of men like King Saul, fallen pastors, and the head of the pack, Judas Iscariot.

In Solomon's case, was there ever a man who was more advantaged and fell further — apart from Judas? In the sermon, I traced his lineage, his beginnings, his encounters with God, his accomplishments... and his disgraceful fall.

The sermon concluded with a series of (artless) proverbs based on the instruction one should receive from the life of Solomon. In the sermon, they're offered pretty quickly, so I reproduce them here for your reflection:

A.       Three Do’s
1.        Do love God with everything you’ve got todaynow.
2.        Do cling to God as if all the demons of hell are trying to pull you away.
3.        Do learn God’s word like there’s going to be a test. Because there will be.
B.       Four  Don’ts:
1.        Don’t live on yesterday’s devotion
a.         Yesterday’s spirituality and devotional is a wonderful thing – if you’re building on it today!
b.         But if not, all it is is a towering, damning monument to our declension, a sad comment on how far we’ve fallen, like the religious buildings of Europe.
2.        Don’t relax your guard until the General says the war’s over.
3.        Don’t think you’re home until you’re actually at Jesus’ feet.
4.    Don’t stop studying, learning and doing until the Master says to put your pencil down...which will probably never happen.

To coin a phrase: you (and I) think about that. Amen

Dan Phillips's signature

29 April 2012

Something to Keep in Mind In These Times of Apostasy

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson




The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Our King, Our Joy," a sermon delivered on Sunday morning, 27 November 1870 at London's Metropolitan Tabernacle.



ook around us at this time at the numerous defalcations from the doctrines of the gospel among our ministers and leading men. First one and then another—those who seemed to be pillars are shaken like reeds in the storm.

A pestilence has gone forth from which few of our churches are free. Human intellect is adored as an idol, and in its pride it changes the teaching of the word, and sets up new dogmas which the word of God utterly rejects. If these things depress our spirits, nevertheless let us be of good courage; for if we cannot be joyful in our ministers, we will be joyful in our King.

If the pulpit fail us, the throne is ever filled by him who is the Truth; and if we have to suspect the orthodoxy of one, and to know the heterodoxy of another, to see Judas here and Ahithophel there, nevertheless Judah still ruleth with God and is faithful with the saints. Our King abideth, and his truth endureth to all generations.

C. H. Spurgeon

13 April 2012

The Church's Most Dangerous Enemies

by Phil Johnson

A brief excerpt from some things I said HERE.



he most dangerous adversaries of biblical truth today are not government policies that undermine our values; not secular beliefs that attack our confessions of faith; not even atheists who deny our God.

It's my conviction that the worst, most persistent hindrances to the advance of the gospel today are worldly churches and hireling shepherds who trivialize Christianity.

This is not a new problem, and it's no exaggeration to portray such people as enemies of the gospel. There were men just like that vying for influence even in apostolic times—in the very earliest churches. In Philippians 3:18-19, the apostle Paul wrote: "For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ."

One of the chief characteristics the New Testament cites about these enemies of the cross—enemies of authentic grace—was that they "set their minds on earthly things" (Philippians 3:19). They "pervert[ed] the grace of our God into sensuality" (Jude 4). They twisted the idea of Christian liberty into an opportunity to gratify the flesh. They "[used their] freedom as a cover-up for evil" (1 Peter 2:16). In short, they were carnal, worldly men, who twisted the idea of Christian liberty into an excuse for self-indulgence.

In the process, they trivialized the cross, corrupted the idea of grace, and perverted the gospel. None of the apostles were squeamish when it came to calling them out.

Phil's signature


09 April 2012

Apostasy

Some Observations about Apostasy
One of the most memorable and instructive posts in the history of TeamPyro was an entry titled "Stone-Cold Liar." It's the story of a long-time commenter and gadfly from the early days of this blog who abandoned the faith and then wrote an untruthful account of his "deconversion." The comment-thread under that post was the most memorable part of it. If you have an hour or so to read (or re-read) it, give it a go. Anyway, the excerpt below is part of a follow-up post I wrote to try to sort out some of the issues raised in that comment-thread. This was the closing section of that follow-up post:

(First posted 27 September 2008)



've had perhaps four or five friends over the years who seemed to be truly devout believers but abandoned the Lord unexpectedly. Nice guys, all of them—intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable, and (in one or two cases) active in full time ministry. So we're not talking about people who briefly made a questionable profession of faith while trying to keep one foot in the world. These were people who seemed completely devoted, exemplary disciples—just like Judas right up until the point where he betrayed Christ. Let's call them Type-J Apostates. There are several other key similarities and differences from case to case:
  1. In each case, news of their apostasy came to me as a profound shock and deep disappointment. It wasn't preceded by any plea for help or probing questions. After the fact, every one of them described their struggle as a lengthy emotional and psychological battle with nagging doubts in which they desperately sought answers from every conceivable source. But in reality, I never had an opportunity to discuss their doubts or questions with any of them until after they were settled in their unbelief.
  2. The actual pattern seems to be that the person will disappear from circles of Christian fellowship for an extended time. If they actually do express their doubts to anyone, it's usually under a false identity on the Internet. Under the cloak of anonymity, they will begin to gravitate toward skeptical forums. And if they do voice their doubts in "Christian" forums, rather than going where they might get help from mature believers, they tend to favor mixed forums featuring totally unmoderated discussion dominated by lay people, novices, and cranks. Moreover, if they voice their doubts in such a context, it will usually be in an argumentative way, and not as someone genuinely seeking answers.
  3. Then after a year or three, the person resurfaces as an agnostic, and after "coming out," becomes increasingly aggressive and militant in spreading the gospel of skepticism. They rarely seem able truly to put their faith behind them, but become more obsessed with Christianity as unbelievers than they were as "believers." I call it the Loftus Phenomenon.
  4. Half the time (or more), it has later come to light that the person's original "doubts" were related to a moral struggle. (In three of the five instances I have specifically in mind, one was addicted to pornography, another was having an extramarital affair, and the third had decided to openly indulge a homosexual bent he had struggled with secretly for years.)
  5. A disproportionate number of apostates seem to come from the kind of über-rigid fundamentalist backgrounds where what you do seems to be given ultimacy over what you believe. That kind of stress on externals naturally cultivates Pharisaism rather than authentic faith, so we shouldn't be surprised at the high percentage of apostates such a system produces.
  6. The New Testament prominently features several very sobering warnings about the dangers of spurious faith. Jesus Himself said that many will come to His judgment seat and be completely surprised to hear Him say, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness" (Matthew 7:23). This is also a huge theme in the epistles. It's the central theme of Hebrews. In fact, every major New Testament epistle (and some of the minor ones) at least touches on the dangers of false and half-hearted faith.
  7. Jesus' words in Matthew 7:21-23 suggest that a large number of people whose faith is spurious are self-deceived. They blithely assume their faith is real and sufficient. By all external measurements, they seem genuine enough. (Which is why the other disciples trusted Judas enough to make him their treasurer, and all the others suspected themselves rather than accusing Judas when Jesus said one of them was about to betray Him—Matthew 26:21-22). So there's no reason to think that all (or even most) of the "former" believers who now promote skepticism on the Web are consciously lying when they say they were once devoted believers.
  8. Combine the potential for self-deception (Jeremiah 17:9) with the reality that Scripture expressly warns us that many people will be turned away at the judgment who claim to know Christ, and it is a good reason for each of us to examine himself, to see if we are truly in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5). In fact, every time we come to the Lord's table, we are supposed to take the opportunity to do that (1 Corinthians 11:27-32). We need to take that duty seriously.
  9. If you find yourself resentful and doubting in the wake of personal tragedy, don't cultivate that kind of emotionally-driven doubt. (And if you do, don't salve your mind by assuring yourself that your doubts are "rational.") I do understand and sympathize with the depth of grief suffered by someone who is suffering personal loss such as the death of one's children or the loss of one's health, or whatever. Job lost everything at once, and his response is the model of true faith: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" (Job 13:15). That didn't keep him from saying (later in that very same verse), "Even so, I will defend my own ways before Him." But if the opening phrase of that verse doesn't describe the quality of your belief in God, your "faith" probably will not survive the inevitable sorrows and hardships of life in this sin-cursed world.
  10. In the combox under that earlier post, the question was raised about whether apostasy is the unpardonable sin. I want to be clear: I don't think apostasy per se is automatically unpardonable. But I do think there are certain flavors of apostasy from which no one ever recovers. I also think it's clear from the context of Matthew 12 that the sin Jesus described as "unforgivable" was unforgivable not because of any limit on the mercy and grace of God but because of the deliberate nature of the sin. Hebrews 6 and 10 likewise speak of the impossibility of being renewed to repentance after deliberately turning away from Christ with full knowledge and conviction of the truth of His claims. There is no litmus test that I know of to verify infallibly whether it is possible " to renew [this or that person] again to repentance." But in my experience, the longer they persist in unbelief and unrepentance, the more agressive they become as campaigners for skepticism, the more hatred they have for Christ, the more impervious they become to biblical and rational answers to their "questions," and the more like taunts those "questions" begin to sound. I can't recall ever hearing about one of these "de-conversions" being reversed. The hardened skeptic will say a statistic like that is proof that skeptics are truly enlightened. Scripture points to it as proof of how dangerous skepticism is.



I preached on these topics three times [in 2008], before any of this even came up on the blog. The third of three messages in that series is most germane to this discussion and can be downloaded free right here. Or you can get the whole series, free of charge and with no strings attached, here. If you are someone wondering how shaky your faith is, I encourage you to acquire those messages and listen.

Phil's signature

24 February 2012

Exhortation? Well, OK, If You keep It Really Tame. But Reproof and Rebuke Aren't "Nice." Tell Us a Story Instead.

Continuing a series on 2 Timothy 4.
by Phil Johnson

"Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).



ow let's face it: the church in our generation has been cultivated in a hothouse of evangelical apostasy where unapologetic truth-speaking—especially if it includes rebuke for wrongdoing or the refutation of falsehood—is simply not tolerated. And yet the denizens of this refined society fancy themselves more tolerant than our benighted spiritual ancestors who held strong convictions about moral, ethical, and spiritual matters.



This softening of conviction would come as no surprise to the apostle Paul, because he told Timothy that times such as these were already on their way: "People will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."

Notice the theme of mythology (a recurring motif in Paul's pastoral epistles). Paul would include in his definition of mythology every manmade narrative—both the blind, misguided trust in "science" (falsely so-called) that led modernists astray, and the postmodern urge to re-tell every narrative from my own personal perspective. Paul calls all such forays into the reinvention of truth mythology.

Of course, the incessant exegesis of Hollywood's mythology in evangelical pulpits (as much as contemporary churchgoers seem to love it) would likewise earn Paul's vehement disapproval. Trends like that more or less epitomize the drift Paul was warning about.

We live in such a time. People today demand story-tellers, imagineers, comedians, and clowns. Most church-growth experts today acknowledge that people would rather be entertained than listen to biblical exposition—and an appallingly high number of these pundits actually encourage pastors to cater to the demand. There is no end of young pastors and church planters who think Conan Obrien and Chris Rock—or Steven Spielberg, or Bob Dylan, or Snoop Dog—are more fitting role models than the apostle Paul—or even someone like Charles Spurgeon.

That whole attitude is hostile to the authority of revealed truth and ultimately fatal to authentic faith. It is itself a deadly evil, even when—perhaps I should say especially when—it is married to an orthodox but merely lip-service confession of faith.

Phil's signature

07 February 2012

"Careful"

by Dan Phillips

"Careful" has become a shudder-inducing word for me. Like "gay." In fact, very like "gay."

That's too bad, because it's a really good word in itself (like "gay"!; I'm going to stop saying that). It's a great word, in fact. Your kids are going on a hike, or to play touch football, or to the shooting range. "Be careful," you say. Right. Or I was chatting with a lady police officer the other day, and parted with "You be careful" and a prayer for her safety.

But lately the word has joined "nuanced" and "helpful" and "thoughtful" to give me the shudders. I don't think any of the words are irredeemable. But what I do fear is that all those words show up frequently in the writing of elites who think God's truth and damning error are nothing really to "get het up about," and certainly not worth passion or bareknuckled, plain-spoken, frontal, clear, and — let's just say it — masculine rhetoric. Not worth risking angering anyone, or being perceived as angry.

Isn't it good to be "careful"? To be sure, "careful" is a necessary and important adjective in many contexts. Don't we want to make careful distinctions between trinitarianism and tritheism,  between the Biblical gospel and libertinism, between inerrancy and bibliolatry, between elder leadership and totalitarian thralldom, and a hundred other things? If we preach on prophecy, don't we want to be careful, sticking to the text and avoiding wild conclusions and leaps or cowardly equivocations?

Of course we do. But as used in those contexts, "careful" means factual, warranted, clear-cut, concise, unambiguous, forceful. It is a servant of truth, an enhancer of truth. It serves to make the truth of (say) the Trinity and the Gospel clearer and more obviously distinct from error and false teaching.

So when is it bad? I think elites are sometimes — and I want to be careful here, haha — using the word as a code-word for "dainty" or "harmless" or "toothless." I think they are using it sometimes to mean "nobody (and no ruinous error) actually got hurt." I think they are using it to mean "false teaching and particularly its purveyors are treated with kid gloves." I think they mean "false teachers are treated with great respect." I think they mean "false teaching is described, but inoffensively." I think they mean "nobody is made to feel too bad about perpetrating or embracing heresy or ruinous idiocy."

Plain enough?

See, that paragraph is an example. It was plain, wasn't it? It also had necessary qualifiers and distinctives, didn't it? It wasn't unnecessarily inflammatory, was it? Isn't that being careful, in the best sense?

But no elite is likely to link to this as a "careful" post — any more than they ever do to any of my posts, whether they're about atonement in Proverbs or repentance in a false teacher or anything else.

Why? Truth is, I don't really fully know. And I am also pretty sure (being honest, not sugar-coating) that my very real shortcomings, which I'm trying to overcome but am still a work-in-progress, haven't helped.

But I've come to think that it's partly because They are deeply, deeply concerned that no one feel too bad or get too worked up about soul-damning or otherwise ruinous false teaching. Perhaps we might reluctantly be forced to conclude that some course or doctrine is unadvisable, but we don't want anyone too upset, and we want to protect the respectability of apostates and false teachers and their enablers. (For instance, we won't apply those labels; that wouldn't be careful.)

These elites seem deeply, deeply concerned that false teachers and incompetent/irresponsible leaders remain dear colleagues and beloved friends whom they wish nothing but well and happiness and bunnies. They seem  deeply, deeply concerned that, at all costs, they themselves be seen and lauded by all as careful, thoughtful, helpful, nuanced, judicious, measured, and all those dainty things. All the blood drains from their faces at the thought of being thought angry. "Oh merciful heavens and frisky penguins, not that!"

You see, now, those paragraphs weren't careful. They make people look bad if they are more concerned about their reputation and collegial relations and Club membership than they are about God's truth and Christ's church. And of course, they would admit none of these things of themselves. That is part of being careful: not describing anyone or anything in terms that person wouldn't apply of himself.

But I ask you who have reached out to cultists and other false teachers: how would that modus operandi work out? I wager that every one of you is shaking his head ruefully. Cultists and false teachers never describe themselves in unflattering terms. Mormons, Roman Catholics, you name it: overhear their conversation, and it's all about various facets of their error. Confront them about those very errors, and they deny it. RC to RC will talk about praying to this or that dead person all day long; but if you say "You worship dead people, and that is idolatry," and they'll say they do no such thing. Disagree, and you're "ignorant." Then, once you've left the room, the conversation resumes exactly as you described it.

These elite will embrace select apostates to Rome as great and esteemed friends. But they will shun more frontal, edged, bareknuckled, passionate-for-truth, doctrinally-sound folks like the plague. They will feign both blindness and deafness, then carry on as if no one had said anything, congratulating themselves and "disappearing" contraries, so that they never happened.

The question I think we are left with is: which best serves Christ and His church? Which more effectively alarms sheep against wolves, encouraging and admonishing and instructing the former while exposing and refuting and repelling the latter?

Our problem of course is that we are ever the pendulum. Dainty brothers will say I've painted a caricature, an extremity, and that's not them. Then they will turn around and depict what I advocate in terms of hateful, (truly) ignorant, screaming, all-caps Courier font discernmentism at its worst and blindest and dumbest, and will say that that is what they reject.

So I'd just come down to specifics: Elephant Room 2. I'll ask the non-careful questions. Questions like:
  1. Who was right, who was wrong?
  2. Who was proactive, who was reactive?
  3. Who warned sheep and opposed wolves openly and proactively, and who made the pasture easier pickings for the predators?
  4. Who put himself out on the field during the time of battle and risked criticism and discomfort to guard the truth, and who stayed in the faculty lounge sipping tea and tut-tutting and holding top-secret discussions?
  5. Who, now, by his actions, continues to extend legitimacy to the predators or those who failed to warn against them or sufficiently oppose their false teaching?
  6. What are the consequences for either, now that the dust is settling?
  7. Did we learn anything?
  8. Will anything change?
  9. When sounds of explosions and gunfire fill the air, who do you want to see at your door: a man in a smoking-jacket with a teacup and a bag of Constant Comment, or a rough fellow in camo, armed and trained and ready to go?
So in sum, trying to bring this bristling double-decker to a close, I offer this dialectic:

We should be careful to be Biblical, to be accurate, factual, on-target, articulate, proportionate, and appropriately concerned for showing that love which has God and His truth first in affection, and man a close second — and which remembers that truth and love are not mutually exclusive.

We should not be careful to sell out God's dignity, honor and truth and the health and wellbeing of His church by avoiding offending anybody, making our false priority to avoid trouble, to avoid disagreement, to blunt the edges of the Gospel or of truth, to protect the credibility of false teachers and enable their continued harming of souls, to avoid being unpopular and ill-thought-of by those among whom the truth is ill-thought-of, to avoid all criticism, to protect our reputation and popularity among the elite.

We should care about doing our best to see God's truth triumph decisively over error — first in our own lives, then in our churches — more than we care about how we ourselves are perceived.

There. Have I said all that should be said? Absolutely not. Have I said all that could be said? In no way.

Have I said something that needs to be said? I think so.

Have I said it carefully?

Probably depends on who you ask.

Dan Phillips's signature

03 October 2011

The Evangelical Freakshow

by Phil Johnson



arl Trueman has for ages been writing eloquent critiques about American evangelicalism, pointing out the folly of our big-conference market-driven culture, and the cults of celebrity we have spawned and now revel in. The past two weeks have furnished plenty of proof that his concerns are not utterly far-fetched, and it's no surprise that Dr. Trueman himself has noticed this.

If you haven't read "Fixing the Indemnity," go read it. Trueman is one of those rare, candid voices of relentless sanity in the madhouse of the religious blogosphere. Here's a sample:
"To be blunt: why so much noise about Jakes when Furtick and Noble have already apparently been established in this Elephant Room circle for some time? Frankly, they hardly seem any closer to Paul's description of what an elder or overseer should be than the Bishop. Why all the hoohah and handwringing now about TD?"

Exactly!

Trueman goes on to describe how the prevailing style among our youngest American evangelical celebrities is a cheap knockoff of Comedy-Club culture. Who can disagree with that? By their own admission Chris Rock rather than Lloyd-Jones embodies the style they have sought to imitate. Trueman stops short of calling these jesters clowns. (He's nicer than me.)



There's only one key point in Trueman's piece I disagree with. He says, "These stand up comedian preachers would not work in the church in other parts of the world because aesthetics of plausibility differ from culture to culture. . ."

The problem is that American Evangelical celebrity cults and their tawdry style of "worship" do get exported with surprising speed to other cultures. I once watched an evangelical rock band in Pune, India play a Smashing Pumpkins song (profanity and all) as the opening number for an evangelistic youth meeting. New Zealand evangelicals quickly gobble up every fad and every anomaly that American evangelicalism gives birth to, from the most outlandish charismatic lunacy to the heresies of Emergent religion. Mark Driscoll's most infamous sex-lectures were delivered to two (apparently appreciative) audiences in Scotland.

It is precisely the celebrity of American evangelical rock stars that the rest of the world seems so attracted to. And the more outlandish the personality, the more other cultures seem interested. These things spread around the world, not only because American evangelicals are wantonly imperialistic but because morbid curiosity, worldly interests, and carnal lusts are a problem in every culture, and the mortification of those passions fell out of fashion among church people ages ago.

But for their part, American evangelicals are clearly keen to export their most outlandish personalities and methodologies to as many other cultures as possible. Witness the flood of pragmatism and religious zaniness American evangelicals dumped into Eastern Europe right after the Iron Curtain fell.

And Dr. Trueman is right to point out that it is a uniquely American evangelical phenomenon to foster these cults of celebrity and to encourage each wave of superstars to push the limits of sobriety and propriety further than the last superstar did. American evangelicalism has become a large jingoistic freak show.

Sadly, some of today's evangelicals seem to think that's something to gloat about.

Phil's signature

19 September 2011

Something to Keep in Mind in a Time of General Apostasy

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Earthquake but not Heartquake," a sermon originally preached Sunday morning 27 February 1887, at the Met Tab in London.




    am often sadly tossed about because of the heresies and false doctrines of this present age. It grieves me to the heart to see the want of spirituality among ministers, and of holiness among professing Christians. It cuts me to the quick to see the utter rubbish and poison which is preached instead of Christianity.

At times it looks as if all things were going wrong; the men to whom one looked as pillars, forsake the faith, and the staunchest give way for the sake of peace.

We are apt to cry, "What will become of us?" But if God is our refuge and strength, we need not be afraid, even amid general apostasy. While God lives, truth is in the ascendant.

I remember years ago meeting with that blessed servant of God, the late Earl of Shaftesbury. He was at Mentone with a dying daughter, and he happened that day to be very much downcast, as, indeed, I have frequently seen him, and as, I am sorry to confess, he has also frequently seen me. That day he was particularly cast down about the general state of society. He thought that the powers of darkness in this country were having it all their own way, and that, before long, the worst elements of society would gain power, and trample out all virtue.

Looking up into his face, I said to him, "And is God dead? Do you believe that while God lives the devil will conquer him?"

He smiled, and we walked along by the Mediterranean communing together in a far more hopeful tone.

The Lord liveth, and blessed be my rock. All long as the Lord liveth our hope lives also. Gospel truth will yet prevail, we shall live to see the old faith to the front again. The church, like Noah's dove, will come back to her rest again.

C. H. Spurgeon


17 March 2011

The peril of the "if only"

by Dan Phillips

Last post was pretty long; this one, not so much.

In my reading through the Hebrew OT, I just arrived Wednesday at perhaps the most depressing verse in the Bible, and at the same time one of the scariest. That would be 1 Kings 11:1, which begins "Now King Solomon loved many foreign women...." Of course, that verse is just the opening note of the narrative of Solomon's dismal descent into spiritual wreck and ruin.

The passage stands out like a lump of coal on a field of fresh-fallen snow, coming as it does after the previous chapters' extended narrative of spiritual, intellectual, cultural, and material blessedness. One reaches the end of chapter ten, virtually expecting to read of Jesus gently touching down in Jerusalem and commencing the Millennial Kingdom, right then and there.

Yet we read the resounding clang of doom: "Now King Solomon loved many foreign women...." Oh no; he loved them. In fact, "clung to these in love" (v. 2b). But he was supposed to love Yahweh with all his heart, soul and strength (Deuteronomy 6:5). He was supposed to cling to Yahweh (Deuteronomy 10:20). He knew that. And Yahweh said not to marry women from these nations (Deuteronomy 7:1-4). Solomon knew that, too. He knew all that (1 Kings 2:3; cf. Proverbs 4:3-4).

Another thing Solomon knew was
Cease to hear instruction, my son,
and you will stray from the words of knowledge
(Proverbs 19:27)
...which Solomon clearly did, and which Solomon clearly did, respectively.

What a calamity. So wise, so blessed, so favored... such a fall. No Millennial Kingdom for Solomon. Even such a blessed, wise, godly man — still, the Cross loomed as an absolute necessity.

Now the punch-line.

Some time past, I wrote in my BW notes:
Here, it all goes south. This is SO DEPRESSING to read!  But what a solemn and needed warning.  Was any man ever so blessed as Solomon?  God had visited and spoken to him; He had blessed Solomon in every way imaginable -- spiritually, psychologically, materially, socially, martially, politically, he was in the best shape a mortal could be.  And what was the outcome?  What was the result of meeting every one of Solomon's needs?  Did it produce godliness, holiness, contentment?  No. His heart was weaned away from God by loving idolatrous women.  Listen up, my soul. You dream how great everything would be if only, if only, if only? Look at Solomon.  Fear.
Fear.

Postscript: possible companion-pieces here, here, and here.

Dan Phillips's signature