The true identity of Lady Wisdom is...?

by Dan Phillips

Anyone who deals seriously with Proverbs confronts the issue of the identification of the figure of Lady Wisdom, who confronts us most vividly and extensively in chapters 1, 8 and 9.

Who is she? Person, or personification? Church Fathers who wrote on the subject were united in seeing her as Jesus Christ. Due to the LXX translation of 8:22 as κύριος ἔκτισέν με ("the Lord created me"), this gave Arius a powerful weapon in arguing against the truth of the deity of Christ. Translational quibbles then absorbed those worthies, most of whom were not adept in Hebrew.

They weren't the last to identify her as Christ. In his marvelous text The Theology of the Older Testament, the late great J. Barton Payne argued extensively for the identification of this figure with Christ.  More recently, Lutheran scholar Andrew Steinmann argues for that position in his marvelous commentary on Proverbs.

Others demur. While Longmann develops the truth of Christ as the Wisdom of God at length, he concludes that the figure in Proverbs is a personification representing wisdom as Yahweh Himself. Waltke's lengthy discussion is very helpful; he draws a number of parallels between Wisdom and Christ, shows many aspects of Christ's superiority over Solomon and his wisdom, and concludes that Wisdom is a personification of the teachings of Proverbs.

And on it goes.

This is not a topic I treated at length in my book, but as I have been preaching through Proverbs, we meet Lady Wisdom in the second discourse (1:20-33). So the question looms, unavoidable, requiring final resolution.

How to approach her, sermonically? Just preach the whole section? Present the question? Allude to it? Skip it altogether? And of course, above all, how to understand (and preach about) Lady Wisdom?

If you like, you can see my answer for yourself.

---

Does "Sophistication" Make Preaching More Effectual?

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 an article in the April 1868 issue of the The Sword and the Trowel, titled "Dr. John Caird on the Declining Influence of the Pulpit." Spurgeon is responding to Caird's claim that English pulpits had become ineffectual because preachers weren't erudite enough.

(Dedicated to Dr. Karl Giberson, Ph. D.)

ot that our present prophet bids us humble ourselves, or seek the Lord by prayer, or invoke the energy of the Holy Ghost, or wait upon the great Head of the Church for deliverance; far from it; he has no burden from the Lord as to such "archaic" and "conventional" instructions; his message to this enlightened and thoughtful age is far better adapted to the present times and the existing phases of society.

He sees no need to warn ministers to cultivate fellowship with God, but much more cause to bid them keep abreast of the culture of the age and know something of what its deepest speculators have said and its sweetest poets have sung.

He is not afraid lest the cross of Christ and the doctrines of the gospel should be obscured by human wisdom, but he is very severe upon those "who insist upon our identifying divine truth with the historic accidents and archaic forms in which it has been couched, with the literal interpretation of the language of allegory and symbol, with statements, which true and beautiful as poetry, lose their reality and beauty when construed as literal fact."

What that fine jargon means, those who are acquainted with Broad School inuendoes very well know. Sermons are not recommended to be baptised with power from on high, but it is said to be of the first importance that they should bear traces of careful thought, logical arrangement, consecution of argument; conclusiveness of result; they must contain novel and interesting interpretations of Scripture, and sparkle with imagery: lacking these the auditor goes away discontented, and reads with entire assent a sneering article in the next Times, or Saturday Review, on the decline of the pulpit in modern times.

Now we are prepared to endorse any man's opinion who shall say that it is most desirable that our ministers should be well educated, and should command respect by their substantial attainments, but we are indignant when we find these secondary matters thrust into the first place, and the weightiest of all considerations compared with which these are light as feathers, thrust into oblivion.

Moreover we are not prepared to allow that the school of preaching which the writer of the Good Words article would desiderate would be any gain to the church or to the world if it could be called forth from our universities and theological schools; on the contrary, we believe that no greater calamity could befall mankind than to be preached to by such men as "the highly cultured and fastidiously critical class" would patronise.

The high culture of a mortal man! Bah! How ludicrous it must seem to the Eternal mind! Vain man would be wise, though he be born like a wild ass's colt. Refinement of intellect to be the guide of gospel ministrations! What then means the apostle when he says, "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God, for I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling, and my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 1 Cor. 2.

When men who imagine themselves to have great genius, and to be qualified judges of pulpit excellence condescend to descant upon their brethren, they have generally a superabundance of sneers at hand. While they themselves may never have won for Jesus a dozen hearts in all their lives, those earnest evangelists who are instant in season and out of season, and whom their Master honours with his Spirit's approbation, are ridiculed as "showy, ready-tongued, loud-voiced, shallow declaimers," whose dogmatism is rigid in proportion to its feebleness.

Saul, because he is head and shoulders taller than others, despises the shepherd, forgetting whose hand it was that slew Goliath, or perhaps hating him the more because he had wrought a service of which the monarch was incapable. Indifferent themselves to the very fundamentals of truth, craving always a liberty to depart from the standards of the faith, and yet to eat the bread of the church, the gentlemen of the superfine, cream-laid order, hang up before men's eyes a caricature of the "faithful" minister who adheres steadfastly to the once-delivered faith, and point at him the finger of scorn.

To preach the gospel as it is revealed is to these men to be servile; to mutilate it is independence of mind; to be simple and fervent is to adopt conventional verbiage and conventional solemnity. Yes, conventional. That is the word, which is over and over again dealt out judicially, as though it meant something criminal.

Scattered all over England and Scotland are self-educated men who have been called of God to be soul-winners, who care not a jot for what Darwin or Colenso, or even the great Scotch Latitudinarians may have to say for themselves who are doing their work all the better because they have eschewed the refinements of modern scepticism, and have not come into the secret of the new liberalism. These may be pooh-poohed as much behind their times, but we are persuaded that they have contributed far more to maintain the power of the pulpit than anything which has been achieved by the "deep-thinking" and free-thinking doctors and professors with all their boasts.

If the pulpit be declining in power, it is due in a great measure to the men who mistake error for freshness, self-conceit for culture, and a determination to go astray for nobility of mind. So far from despising brethren of small literary accomplishments who excel in spiritual power and life, it is our duty to have them in abundant honour, to cheer them under their difficulties, and imitate them in their industrious use of their few talents. They can arouse a conscience though they cannot elucidate a problem; they can stir the affections, though they cannot revel in poetic imagery; they can reclaim sinners, though they cannot mystify with subtleties.

If the fields of literature and science do not entice them, have they not enough of understanding if they are mighty in the Scriptures?

If they are devoid of the fear of "creating an aversion in men of taste to evangelical religion," may it not suffice them to have a holy fear of being unfaithful to the consciences of men?

Suppose that they do not quote from learned authorities, does not the word of God possess a superlative authority in its authorship and truth?

What if they never attempt to prove a doctrine of revelation by an appeal to so-called "natural religion," have not the truths themselves a self-evidencing power?

They have not denounced their more learned brethren, or laid the supposed decline of the pulpit at their door. Where then is the politeness and refinement so much vaunted? Is it needful to say where is the Christian spirit which allows the "intellectual" and "cultured" to talk so lightly of men whom the Lord has chosen?

Are supercilious arrogance and censorious uncharitableness the choice fruits of "thorough culture"? Then, thank heaven, there are a few who have escaped the privilege, and can yet believe that whether learned or unlearned, gracious men may do good service for Christ.

The fact is that the cant which dins into our ears such ungenerous phrases as "superficial culture, and narrowness of thought," "shallow dogmatism and merest platitudes," and smirkingly boasts its own intellectual superiority, is known to be cant by all thoughtful men, and is treated as such.

When the celebrated Cobbler How, with much learning, proved the uselessness of all learning, men smiled, and went on their way, but when professors A, B, or C, with much scorn, traduce their less philosophical brethren, some men think it time to rebuke them sharply for their own sake and for others.

There is no truth whatever in the cry of the fastidious school; the world will no more be saved by carnal wisdom now than in times gone by. When our Lord selected his apostles they were evidently chosen not on account of their intellectual endowments or scientific acquisitions, but on account of their religious character. John was perhaps accustomed to better society than Peter. Luke may have enjoyed a good education; Paul was skilled in the learning of the schools; but the rest were men of little scholarship. It would seem that our Lord chose as the first preachers of the gospel men of every variety of attainment and grade of intellectual culture, neither repudiating nor glorifying intellect, but using it and everything else that is human for his own glory.

"But," says Dr. Wayland, "It will be said, of course, that our circumstances at the present day are very different from those at the time of the apostles. This is more easily said than proved. The whole world of heathenism was then arrayed against the church of Christ. Never was the cultivation of the intellect and the taste carried to higher perfection. The poets and orators, the historians, sculptors, and architects of this heathen world, are, to the present day, our acknowledged masters. The church of Christ was sent forth to subdue this cultivated and intellectual world, and the masses associated with it.

And what was the class of men of whom this church and its leaders were composed? They were stigmatised as unlearned and ignorant. The intellectual difference between them and the men whom they were called to meet, was as great in the times of the apostles as it has ever been since. Yet God chose the weak things of the world to confound the mighty. When men of more disciplined mind were wanting, they were called by the Head of the church; but even here, the greatest of them all declared that he made no use of excellency of speech, or of wisdom, in declaring the testimony of God; that he determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified. There is nothing really in the relative condition of the parties which would render a rule inapplicable now which was applicable then."

We greatly doubt whether the Christian pulpit was ever more generally powerful than at the present moment; certainly congregations were never larger, nor religious effort as a rule more abundant. Far enough are we from being satisfied, but still there is much to rejoice over as well as much to deplore. We could rehearse the names of a score of active, useful, attractive, spiritually-minded evangelists, all exceedingly popular and powerful, and this we the more rejoice in because this class has only of late been called into existence.

In our own denomination alone we have pastors whose churches from year to year increase at a ratio altogether unprecedented in modern times. Bad as things are they are not worse, but much better than formerly, and this is owing mainly to the growing power of the pulpit. We do not believe that our educated people care an atom for the brilliant sermons which Mr. Caird would prescribe for them. The thoughtful and intellectual men with whom we are acquainted, tell us that they do not want that kind of refreshment on the Sabbath; being eminent in their professions they find enough of the intellectual in their daily work, and are just the men above all others who delight in the simple, earnest appeal to the heart and conscience.

Preach Christ to them with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, and they will be content, but try to dazzle them with the fireworks of intellectual display, and they will tell you that the articles in a respectable review are far preferable.

If, indeed, the ministry be declining in power, let us betake ourselves to the grand resource of prayer; let us invoke the Holy Spirit's aid; let us pray the Lord of the harvest to send forth labourers into his harvest. Then as matters of detail let us purge our colleges of sceptical professors, let us make the training more homiletical and less metaphysical, let us seek after unction rather than intellect, and encourage our young men in pursuits of practical evangelism rather than speculative theorising. In opposition to learned men, who by elaborate essays cry up the Diana or Minerva of their idolatry, let us look to the heavenly Comforter, and have respect unto that Scripture, "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord."

---

Non Sola Scriptura: the Blackaby view of God's will — 2

by Dan Phillips

Seemed timely in April of 2009; seems timely now.

[Conclusion of Tuesday's post]

Now to the most potentially disastrous aspect of this teaching, in pastoral terms: living it out.

Non-moral choices. In their eagerness to downplay the Scriptures' sufficiency, the Blackabys point out that God told many people to do things that were not reasonable nor morally necessary, such as where Abram or Isaac chose to live, or whether Peter or Andrew continued in their employment (p. 46). Remember this: God might lead us to do things that "make us uncomfortable" (p. 44), are not logical, and are "unorthodox" (p. 46; they do not mean doctrinally unorthodox), and may involve "surrender[ing] ... goals and comforts in order to become involved in God's activity" (p. 46).

The terrible threat. In what areas does God tell us what to do? Choice of school, career, church, ministry... even choice of mate. Oh? Does that mean that there is "only one right person"? Yep (p. 79). What if I miss that one right person? God may give us (second-best — or third? seventeenth? four hundred thirtieth?) "marriage and a fulfilled life," but "Failing to walk with God always carries a cost..." (p. 80, emphases added).

Whoa! Pause. Seriously, stop everything and think that one over.

Imagine you are a poor soul, married to a poor soul afflicted with the Blackaby view. Your spouse believes that he missed the "one [that was] best suited" for him (p. 79). He missed "the life partner He has chosen for you" (p. 79), "God's best" (ibid.), "that someone who would have been God's special gift to" him (p. 80). Every time he looks at you, he might be thinking, "second-best." Every time he says he loves you, he might be thinking, "but not like I'd have loved that special someone."

No lie. I am not making this up. I don't have to. I actually knew a girl, decades ago, who lived in fear of just this situation.

Her friend's mother "felt" she was "called" to be a missionary. Ah, but she met and married a man who wasn't so "called." And now this woman would spend the rest of her life knowing that she had missed God's calling, had missed God's will for her life! She had settled for second-best. She had married second-best.

Did you get that? That was the woman's attitude, and she communicated that to her daughter! About her father! (And wouldn't that mean that the daughter was second-best, too? Not "the child who should have been"?)

So the daughter knew, and now her friend knew! Word was really getting around, about this poor sap. Can you count the things Biblically wrong in this picture so far? Even beyond that the whole concept is the precise opposite of what Scripture says on the subject (1 Corinthians 7:39)?

So now her friend lived in fear that she might meet and love the wrong man — or, more to the point, any man other than the one right man — and spend the rest of her life knowing she was out of God's best will for her life.

See? "Train-wreck."


"Ludicrous"? So how far does this go? What does this "will" include? The Blackabys must get that question a lot, and it clearly stings them. Their reaction is as rhetorically strong as it is logically vacant.

One of the most ludicrous questions people ask is: "Should I seek God's will about everything? Must I pray and ask Him what brand of toothpaste I should buy and which breakfast cereal I should eat?" ...Clearly some mundane aspects of our lives are not life-and-death matters; nor will they influence eternity. They simply require wisdom in our decisions (p. 47)

But why is it "ludicrous"? And how is that "clear," given the argument they've been making? How do we know they "are not life-and-death matters" that will not influence eternity? After all, remember that the Blackabys belabored the point that God had specific directions for "mundane," non-moral matters such as where to live, where to eat dinner, where to sit to eat dinner, whether to stay in a given business. How do we know what God considers "mundane," given that the Blackabys demand that He direct every detail of our lives, just as Jesus did with the apostles?

No eternal consequences? How do we know there are not eternal consequences? The Blackabys ridicule the (broadly and deeply Biblical) "extreme view that everything we do, right down to the smallest detail of our lives, is prescribed by God" (p. 61). Their phrasing is characteristically sloppy here, but they seem to be denying the pan-Biblical truth of providence.

Well then, if God does not actually have a handle on "the smallest detail" of my life, and if He has all sorts of things He wants me, Dan Phillips, to figure out that He wants me to do — without the Bible, by struggling to hear and discern His voice and apply all the complex Blackaby-invented signs and tests — then how can I know where it stops?

Toothpaste and eternity. I'm absolutely serious. Think about it. The Blackabys scoff at toothpaste-selection. Well, how do I know?

If I pick this tube of toothpaste right in front of me, at eye-level, I will get to the check out line a few seconds earlier than if I bend down and reach back to pick the one near the floor, where the front packages are missing. Suppose that means that I will pick checkstand 12, whereas otherwise I would have picked checkstand 8. Suppose God wanted — in the Blackaby-God's weak, whispery, ambiguous way — for me to pick checkstand 8, because He was hoping I would then hear His next little mumbly nudge telling me to witness to that checker, because He had been preparing her heart to hear the Gospel from me.


But alas! I pick the closer toothpaste. I go to checkstand 12. I am now out of God's perfect will. Uh-oh. What happens when I am out of God's perfect, individual will? The Blackabys told me: "The consequences" can be "disastrous" (p. 48)! And so...

• ...the checker doesn't hear the Gospel from me, and goes to Hell instead of Heaven.
• ...I walk out into the parking lot 12 seconds early, am killed by a white van! Aigh! Bam! Dead!
  
• I never write that commentary on Proverbs that would have changed hermeneutical history, or that book on Calvinistic Dispensationalism that would have brought all Biblical Christians together in the truth, or preach to tens of thousands of others God was preparing to hear the Gospel just from me!
• ...and they all go to Hell, too!

And all this, every bit of this, is my fault — because I failed to discern and obey that whispery, mumbly, vague and ambiguous "voice of God" that the Blackabys have taught me is absolutely essential to Christian living.

Now maybe you chuckle, or maybe you're angry. But there are NO OBJECTIVE OR BIBLICAL CONTROLS in the Blackabys' construct to rule any of this out!

That's not a big deal?

Obey/disobey. This is not an exaggeration. The Blackabys constantly speak of divining this whispery, vaporous leading of God in terms of obedience and disobedience (pp. 45, 61, etc.) And well they should! If it is God's will, then I must obey, mustn't I? After all, God is speaking! Does it get more authoritative than that? Can anyone think of a time when God says, "Do A," when it is morally indifferent to obey or disobey? Disobeying God is the very definition of sin (James 4:17).

Yet I am not sure the Blackabys have even thought this through, even though they're famous for advocating this view. They insist that this will of God, this voice, that they want people to pursue may well not involve choices "between right and wrong" (pp. 42, 43). Huh? If God tells me to do A, doesn't that make it a choice between right and wrong? If He says, in that whispery, unsure murmur I'm to pant after, "Dan, do A," and I do B — haven't I done wrong? Even if God is "saying," "Dan, buy a white car," and I stubbornly insist on buying a car with a real color — am I not doing wrong? Am I not sinning?

And this brings us to a question I really would like to ask the Blackabys.

Supposing I was (somehow) born untainted by Adam's sin.
Supposing I never sinned in my entire life. And then...
Supposing God was "telling" me (Blackaby-style) to become a truck-driver, and I became a cook...
...would Jesus have had to die to keep me from going to Hell for being a cook instead of a truck-driver?

Or for picking the wrong seminary? Marrying the wrong person? Buying the wrong toothpaste? Going to the wrong showing of "Fireproof"?

Here is where I would find out how serious they were about their notions. If God directs me to do something, and I do not do that, then I have sinned, and I deserve Hell for it.

It's just not funny anymore, is it?

No telling who picks up a book. Perhaps most readers will assume the Blackabys' work will fall into the hands of basically stable, sober-minded people. They won't go nuts with the Blackabys' theories. In other words, they won't really take them seriously.

But why not? Suppose, instead, a less-stable, less well-taught, more obsessive person comes on their work. He shifts into overdrive at the thought of discerning this uncomfortable, inconveniencing, fantastic guidance from God. Now everything and anything is fraught with numinous overtones! Every "nudge" (their word) or circumstance or random word or even (all possible means of God's guidance, according to the Blackabys; cf. pp. 56-59) might be the voice of God, speaking to him! Miss it, and face terrible consequences!

So this poor wretch flees the job he's trained for, yanks his family across the country, moves them into a cardboard box to pick over scraps while he starts harassing strangers in Christ's name, because of a voice he thinks he's hearing... and where could it end? Do not dismiss this: remember, God might lead us to do things that "make us uncomfortable" (p. 44), are not logical, and are "unorthodox" (p. 46), and may involve "surrender[ing] ... goals and comforts" (p. 46).


If there's a one-for-one carry-on from the Bible, maybe this unstable soul will "feel moved" to have his family live on grasshoppers and honey, like John the Immerser. Or maybe he'll "feel led" to walk around naked, like Isaiah; or cook his food over dung, like Ezekiel. Or maybe he'll tell a ship's captain to throw him overboard, to end a storm, like Jonah.

There are no real, objective, Biblical controls against such behavior in this reckless article.

This is one of the most pastorally-irresponsible articles I've read, from orthodox Christian writers.

Conclusion: worse? Yes. In conclusion, I think this view of God's will is worse bondage than Pharisaism in this regard.

At least in Pharisaism, you knew where you stood. If you threw up a rock on the Sabbath and caught it with the same hand, you’d violated the Sabbath. It may be a silly rule, but it’s discrete, it's distinct, it's there.

With this view, you never know! You might have sinned merely by picking up the rock! Or maybe you picked up the wrong rock! Or maybe you picked it up with the wrong hand! You never know! Since the Blackabys stress that this "will" isn't necessarily about right and wrong, it could be about anything... and so everything becomes a matter of right and wrong!

There is no basis for knowing, no objective control, as long as it is not directly against Scripture.

Summary. After pro forma niceties about Scripture, the Blackabys assure Christians that what they really need for a dynamic, personal, God-pleasing relationship is not to be found there. They would send them on a lifelong rabbit chase for which Scripture can offer no guidance, because it envisions no such pursuit.

Among the products are irrational, unstable, irresponsible and/or chaotic lives. Unbelievers (and believers) who are wronged, hurt, or simply appalled at reckless behavior by the "I-just-felt-led" set will not glorify God for it. Just "play the God-card," and you're off the hook.

What glorifies God is not a bunch of people acting like fools in His name. I have this notion that God knows best what will really glorify Him. Hear Him:

See, I have taught you statutes and rules, as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. 6 Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’ 7 For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the LORD our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? 8 And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?
(Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

A better way. Thank God Scripture points us in no such direction! Thank God that Scripture is wholly sufficient for teaching, correcting and directing us, so that we may be fully equipped to serve God (2 Timothy 3:15-17)! God does talk to us. He talks to us through His living, truly-sufficient Word (Psalm 119:24; Proverbs 6:20-23; Hebrews 3:7-11; 4:12).

And thank God that He does in fact exhaustively control everything that comes to pass, so that His children can never put themselves out of the sphere of His love and blessing and good will (Psalm 115:3; Proverbs 16:1, 4, 9, 33; Romans 8:28-39; Ephesians 1:11).

PS — I did ask God to guide me in writing this review. If you agree with the Blackaby position... how do you know He didn't?

---

addendum — after yesterday's post, a reader offered a word of testimony, which I've shared here.

---

Non Sola Scriptura: the Blackaby view of God's will — 1

by Dan Phillips

Seemed timely in April of 2009; seems timely now.

The book. I am currently reading How Then Should We Choose?, edited by Douglas S. Huffman (Kregel: 2009), with a view to reviewing it ultimately. This a pre-review of one part of it. (Translation: I can't hold this back.)

The book allows advocates of three distinct approaches to the will of God to set forth their views, after which each is critiqued by the others. I will focus on the first only, which is called the "Specific-Will" view. It is written by Henry and Richard Blackaby, who are father and son.

I only barely began reading Garry Friesen's response and, frankly, was sharply provoked by its tepid tone. If the Blackabys' view is un-Biblical (and it is), a lot of people — and the cause of Christ — will be harmed by it. I find it hard to be chatty and blasé about that.

My plan. In this first part, I will set forth the Blackabys' view, offering some critique as we go. In the second part, I plan to delve more thoroughly into the nightmarish practical implications of this position, offer more critique, and a conclusion.

Prefatory

First, many of you have been looking forward to Phil writing on the Blackaby view. This is obviously not that.

Second, what I am about to write is not about the Blackabys, but about the view they advocate in this book. It is not about anything else they've ever written or done, nor is it about them as Christians or men. I know next to nothing about them.

This post is just about this one chapter.

Clear enough?

Bottom line

This chapter is just about the single most appalling trainwreck I've read in recent memory, whether viewed exegetically, hermeneutically, theologically, or pastorally. The implications, if taken and followed out seriously by anyone (—God forbid!), are absolutely catastrophic.

I find it impossible to be bland about it. As you will see.

More fully

Continuation with a vengeance. Foundationally, the Blackabys argue that there is a one-for-one continuation between all Biblical narratives and our lives today; we should expect no change. "...[N]owhere in the Bible are readers cautioned that they should not expect their walk with God to be like that of believers in biblical times" (p. 35). " In fact, "the only way for us to have a relationship with Christ" is if He directs our everyday lives by telling us specifically what to do in a detailed way, exactly as He did with the apostles (pp. 45-46, emphasis added). Because today "the Holy Spirit is to function in us in the same way that Jesus led his disciples," which involves very specific instructions not provided in the Bible (p. 52, emphasis added).

You may ask, "So, wait — you mean, every aspect of what God did for Abraham, Moses, Isaiah... I should expect all that?" Yes.

So forget Hebrews 1:1-2, with its portrayal of a purposeful revelation that is unfolded in differing portions and differing manners, coming to climactic fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Forget intra-canonical indications of purposeful ebbs and flows in the revelatory activity of God (1 Corinthians 13:8-10 [see here]; Ephesians 2:20; Hebrews 2:1-4). Forget the Biblical pattern of miraculous event, divine interpretation, verbal rehearsal of that interpretation (i.e. Exodus 10:1-2; 13:8, 14-6; Deuteronomy 6:20-25; Psalm 145:4-7, etc.). Forget even the successive covenants (Jeremiah 31:31-40 [old covenant, new covenant, hel-lo-o?]; Romans 9:4; Hebrews 8, etc.). All is leveled and flattened to make way for their theory.

Though Yahweh repeatedly points His people back to the given Word, even during the unfolding of revelation, the Blackabys would have believers keep looking for new words. In their hands, redemptive history becomes a block of cheese, with no distinct parts or movements. Each bit of cheese is the same.

Bad? It gets worse.

Non sola Scriptura. The insufficiency of Scripture is a major pillar to the Blackaby position. About this they are emphatic — in all but the use of that phrase. They do say many nice things about the Bible, allowing (for instance) that it is "the primary way God communicates with His people" (p. 55). "Primary," but not nearly the sole way.

Language that the Bible reserves for binding, inerrant, verbal prophetic revelation is repeatedly applied indiscriminately to normal Christian living. There is constant mention of God "speaking clearly" to people today (p. 33), of "His voice" (p. 39), of His issuing "divine directives" we are obliged to obey (p. 40), of Him having "told" people today to do things, expecting their "obedience" (p. 45), of Him "speaking" to us and our "hearing" Him (p. 53), of our "struggle to hear God's voice" (p. 54), of the Holy Spirit "speaking" to us through prayer (p. 56), of his sending us "a message through other people" just as He did through the prophets (p. 58), specifically of Henry Blackaby being "God's mouthpiece to someone desperately seeking a divine word" (p. 59; cf. Exodus 4:14-16; 7:1, to see what a reckless expression this is) — and on and on.

Note well: every one of these is in reference to revelation that is not in the Bible, yet is crucial for us obeying, knowing, and having a relationship with God.

Whatever nice things the Blackabys say about the Bible, then, it is clearly not nearly sufficient for Christian living — no matter what passages such as 2 Timothy 3:15-17 say.

Bible in 2D. In order to get here, a fundamental, grave and pervasive hermeneutical error is essential to the Blackabys' position. There must be a great and violent flattening of revealed, redemptive history. Pivotal moments in the Bible are pounded down, mashed and flattened into illustrations of daily Christian living. Direct, binding, inerrant prophetic revelations are radically down-sized into illustrations of God nudging us today towards a particular spouse or church ministry or university course major. Prophets who speak for God are shriveled into everyday Christians listening for that still, small murmur that the Bible never calls us to seek.

So Moses — a prophet without parallel until the coming of Christ (Numbers 12:6-8; Deuteronomy 18:15; 34:10; Acts 3:22ff.) — becomes merely another illustration for how we should expect God to speak to us (pp. 46, 64).

Having made a chaotic and hermeneutically irresponsible mish-mash of Scripture and its claims for itself, the Blackabys bear down on individual Christians. And what their theory does is terrible to behold.

How to divine the Divine? Say you are convinced that you must hear God's voice, must receive this flow of extra-canonical revelation that the Blackabys say is essential for a relationship with God. How do you do it? How do you hear God's voice?

I won't attempt to reproduce the Byzantine, convoluted — with less legitimate Biblical support than a Gummi Bear has hair — series of tests and checks and methods they lay out. I'll just say this: they are very much like Charismatics "explaining" to Christians how to get the gift of tongues, or how to speak prophecy, or why prophecy may be fallible. Similar in what way? In that they have cast aside Scripture in all but the eggshells — sometimes not even attempting a Biblical grounding (cf. much of pp. 57-59) — and so they have to make up what goes inside the shells.

Was it a "struggle"? For instance, recall their phrase, the "struggle to hear God's voice" (p. 54). But if we are to expect our experience to line up exactly with that of Biblical characters, we must ask: what "struggle"? God's voice in the Bible was always absolutely loud, clear, unmistakable, binding, arresting, and quotable.

"What about Samuel?" someone might ask. "Didn't he fail to recognize God's voice at first?" But note: (A) the voice Samuel heard was so audible, loud, clear, and quotably verbal that the lad thought it was Eli calling to him; and (B) the text does specifically say that Samuel did not yet know Yahweh (1 Samuel 3:7). Not that Samuel was a believer who just hadn't yet read the Blackabys' book on picking out God's whispery, shadowy, well-nigh indecipherable voice.

Hence the parallel with tongues. If you had to have someone explain how to get them, and if they aren't supernaturally-acquired human languages, they weren't Bible tongues. And if the voice wasn't unmistakable, (usually) unsought, audible, quotable, and absolutely binding, it wasn't God's voice.

And so I ask: does Scripture ever use the Blackabys' expressions — God's voice, God speaking, God talking to someone — in a sense other than revelatory, verbal, quotable, and utterly binding to believers? Is there an instance of "God speaking" in a manner that is 45% inspired, 62% inerrant, or only 39% binding? Are the Blackabys sending us off in search of 100% inspired, inerrant, binding extra-Biblical revelation from God? If not, if they're sending us after lower-octane revelation, whence do they invent this category? Not from Scripture.

Prophet-schmophet? Next I ask: if we're to hear God's voice constantly, then how is the office of prophet distinct? Biblically, what marks a prophet is that he receives direct revelation, and speaks it inerrantly (cf. Exodus 4:15-16; 7:1-2; Deuteronomy 18:15-22). If every believer hears God's voice and words, and receives individual non-Biblical guidance, what distinguishes each from a prophet? Is it the inerrant speaking of the message? But why, if "the only way for us to have a relationship with Christ" is to be directed by Christ exactly as He did with the apostles (pp. 45-46), and if we are to assume a one-for-one correspondence between their experience and ours?

Do you suspect I am caricaturing their view? But it is the Blackabys themselves who again and again indiscriminately cite the experience of prophets, seers and apostles as the patterns for our experience (cf. pp. 39, 45, 46, 52, 53, 54, 58). Are they our pattern, or aren't they? If they are, there is no "struggle" to ferret out God's voice, nor need of confirmation to follow a labyrinthine, slapdash path.

I'm with Peter, who says that

we have something more sure [than the loftiest experience], the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
(2 Peter 1:19-21)

Amen, Peter. That is the voice of God, speaking to us. And it is enough.

Thursday: pastoral and practical implications, and conclusion

---

Mouth, lips, heart

by Dan Phillips

Proverbs has a lot to say about use and abuse of mouth, tongue, lips.

For instance, Proverbs 18:6 warns us that "A fool's lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating" —constantly writing checks that the rest of his body isn't up to cashing. Over and over again, "By the mouth of a fool comes a rod for his back" (14:3a), and he never learns: "Crush a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his folly will not depart from him" (27:22).

By contrast, "The lips of the wise spread knowledge" (15:7a), and "feed many" (10:21a), because "The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life" (10:11a). "The tongue of the righteous is choice silver" (10:2a) and "brings forth wisdom" (10:31a), but "the perverse tongue will be cut off" (10:31b).

That is why we see cautions against being overly wordy, overly garrulous. "When words are many, transgression is not lacking, but whoever restrains his lips is prudent" (10:19). Indeed, "Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent" (17:28). For "Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble" (21:23).

So is that the solution? Simply exercise mouth-discipline? Learn to keep your mouth shut? Watch what you say, learn some Bible verses so you can make yourself say helpful and edifying things? Watch encouragers, learn how they talk, and do the same? There's some value in all that.

Yet I've known of folks in public and private life who lament the fruit of their lips, vow to do better... then simply repeat the disaster. What's the problem?

Of course, one problem is our common problem as Christians: remaining corruptions (Romans 7:14-25; 8:13).

But beyond that, I think the problem is when we don't go beyond the effects to the cause. Why do we say what we say? Jesus knew, because He knew man (John 2:25), and He knew Proverbs. Hear Him: "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil" (Matthew 12:34b-35).

What does that have to do with Proverbs? It points us to what I think is an absolutely critical verse to understanding the book, second perhaps only to 1:7/9:10/31:30. That verse is Proverbs 4:23. Here's my ad hoc translation, to catch the doubled verbal synonyms most versions overlook: "Keep watch over your heart more than all you guard, for from it flow the issues of life." Solomon emphatically traces it all — not merely to choices of behavior and action, but — to the heart. Every detail of our lives flows from our hearts, so we must maintain a watch over them more than we guard anything else.

Cutting right back to our topic, then, why do we say such bad things? Because we believe, cherish, and think such bad things. What fills the heart goes out the mouth. We can't really change our mouths until the atmosphere and furnishings of our hearts change.

This underscores the utter necessity of regeneration, of being born again and made new people (John 3:1ff; 2 Corinthians 5:17). We don't merely need to adjust our hearts, we need new hearts (Ezekiel 36:26). We cannot merely learn new habits; we must be made new people by God's sovereign grace. But having been made new, we still are in constant need of continual renewal of our minds (Romans 12:3).

So why does this wife keep saying poisonous things to her husband, making it hard for him to trust her (Proverbs 31:11-12)? It is because, when she does, she laments how her mouth got her into trouble, and perhaps blames her husband for his reaction to her shaming speech. "I'll just keep my mouth shut," she vows — stoking the flames of martyred, bitter self-pity that rage in her heart. She does not realize that God calls her to think of her husband in a respectful way (do read that linked essay), and so to battle and put to death and wholly replace the poisonous thoughts that give birth to the poisonous words. They are her enemy, not her husband. If her heart changes, her mouth will change.

Or why does that husband keep belittling and objectifying his wife? Maybe he is mulishly unaware, or maybe he has some dull consciousness that his words aren't feeding an intimate relationship. Or maybe he just thinks she's too touchy. Whatever grain of truth there may be in any of that, his main problem isn't his mouth, it's his heart. It is that he does not see her as a gift from God (Proverbs 18:22). He does not value her as befits a fellow image-bearer of God (Genesis 1:27). He does not make the decision to assign her great honor and value as the weaker vessel who is his equal in being heir to the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). He does not love her — an activity of the heart that moves the hands and feet and lips — as Christ loved the church (Ephesians 5:25f.). So he does not say words that are tender, appreciative, and loving, because those are not the thoughts that fill his heart.

These same principles could be applied to how we speak to children/parents, bosses/employees, church leaders/church attenders, and on and on. Attend to the mouth, yes, Proverbs calls us to do that, and to learn wisdom for how we speak.

But don't forget to start with the heart, or all efforts are doomed.

---

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.

---

A Warning about Academic Hubris

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 "Icoboclast," a sermon preached on Sunday morning 13 November 1870 at the Met Tab in London.

n the Christian church there is, I am afraid, at this moment too much exaltation of talent and dependence upon education, I mean especially in reference to ministers.

I do not believe that a man of God who is called constantly to preach to the same people can be too thoroughly educated, neither do I believe that the highest degree of mental culture should be any injury to the Christian minister, but rather should be very helpful to him. By all means let the religious teacher intermeddle with all knowledge, let him give himself unto reading and be able mentally as well as spiritually to take the lead, but, O church of God, never set thou up human learning in the place of the Eternal Spirit, for "it is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord."

The great wonders of apostolic times were mainly wrought by men who were illiterate in the world's judgment; they had been taught of Christ and so had received the noblest education, but in classical studies and in philosophical speculations they were but little versed, with the exception of the apostle Paul, and he came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom. Yet the apostles and their followers preached with such power, that the world soon felt their presence.

On the slabs of stone which mark the burial places of the early Christians in the catacombs of Rome, the inscriptions are nearly all ill spelt, many of them have here a letter in Greek and there a letter in Latin, grammar is forgotten, and orthography is violated, a proof that the early Christians who thus commemorated the martyred dead were many of them uneducated persons: but for all that they crushed the wisdom of the sages and smote the gods of classic lands. They smote Jupiter and Saturn, until they were broken in pieces, and Venus and Diana fell from their seats of power. Their conquests were not by the, learning of the schools; that hindered them—the Gnostic heresy, the heresy of pretended knowledge hindered but never helped the church of God.

Even thus at this hour the culture so much vaunted in certain places is opposed to the simplicity of the gospel. Therefore I say we do not despise true learning, but we dare not depend upon it. We believe that God can bless and does bless thousands by very simple and humble testimonies; we are none of us to hold our tongues for Christ, because we cannot speak as the learned; we are none of us to refuse the Lord's message to ourselves because it is spoken by an unlettered messenger.

We are not to select our pastors simply because of their talents and acquirements; we must regard their unction, we must look at their call, and see whether the Spirit of God is with them; if not, we shall make learning to be our brazen serpent, and it will need to be broken in pieces.

---

Regeneration and True Free Will

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 "God's Law in Man's Heart," a sermon preached Sunday evening, 28 June 1885, at the Met Tab in London.



an has become so fallen that he cannot keep the law. Sooner might the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots, than he that is accustomed to do evil learn to do well (Jeremiah 13:23); but what man cannot do, by reason of the perversity of the flesh, God performs within him, working in him to will and to do of his good pleasure. Oh, what amazing grace is this, which while it forgives our want of will, also removes our want of power!

And, dear friends, is it not a wonderful proof of grace that God does this without destroying man in any degree whatever? Man is a creature with a will,—a "free will" as they sometimes call it,—a creature who is responsible for his actions; so God does not come and change our hearts by a physical process, as some seem to dream, but by a spiritual process in which he never mars our nature, but sets our nature right.

If a man becomes a child of God, he still has a will. God does not destroy the delicate machinery of our nature, but he puts it into proper gear. We become Christians with our own full assent and consent; and we keep the law of God not by any compulsion except the sweet compulsion of love. We do not keep it because we cannot do otherwise, but we keep it because we would not do otherwise, because we have come to delight therein, and this seems to me the greatest wonder of divine grace.

See, dear friends, how different is the Lord's way of working and ours. If you knock down a man who is living an evil life, and put him in chains, you can make him honest by force; or if you set him free, and hem him round with Acts of Parliament, you may make him sober if he cannot get anything to drink, you may make him wonderfully quiet if you put a gag in his mouth; but that is not God's way of acting.

He who put man in the Garden of Eden, and never put any palisades around the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but left man a free agent, does just the same in the operations of his grace. He leaves his people to the influences that are within them, and yet they go right, because they are so changed and renewed by his grace that they delight to do that which once they loathed to do.

I admire the grace of God in acting thus. We should have taken the watch to pieces, and broken half the wheels, and made new ones, or something of the kind. But God knows how to leave the man just as much a man as he was before his conversion, and yet to make him so entirely a new man that old things have passed away, and all things have become new.

And this is very beautiful, too, that when God writes his law in his people's hearts, He makes this the way of their preservation. When God's law is written in a man's heart, that heart becomes divinely royal property, for the King's name is there, and the heart in which God has written his name can never perish.

---

Why do fools fall (and stay) in love?

by Dan Phillips

Longing fulfilled is sweet to the soul,
thus it is an abomination to fools to give up evil.
Proverbs 13:19 (Modern Language Bible)

My mother-in-law remarked what a smart little baby Josiah was, some 12+ years ago. Like all babies, he would want something he shouldn't have (let's say, her purse). She would do what works with all babies: present him with a distraction (let's say, her keys, jangle-jangle).

Josiah would play with the keys happily enough... for a moment. Then he'd go right back to looking for the purse. Not to be distracted, that one. 'Siah knew what he wanted.

That smart baby displayed a quality that isn't so smart in grownups.

Why do fools do what fools do? You've seen what I'm about to describe. If you're honest with and about yourself, you've probably done it.

Every pastor and probably every Christian has known a fool who is on a sinful, idiotic, destructive course. (Which is to say: being a fool.) From where you're standing, it doesn't even make sinful sense. Every sane person you know looks at it with slack jaw. The Bible is crystal-clear — which, if the person professes faith in Christ, is supposed to mean something. Any flow-chart starting where that person is ends in disaster, barring a sharp 180 sometime soon.

Yet on he or she goes, grimly determined and undeterred, stubbornly resisting every Biblical plea and warning, long after he can rub even two rational defenses together. The flight from God persists.

Why?, you wonder until your brain itches and throbs, and the tears flow.

The answer is as simple as it is unsatisfying: he does it because he's convinced it will bring him delight.

And that explains every sin, from Satan's rebellion to Adam's burbling idiocy to Judas' treachery to Right Honorable Reverend A. Postate's latest "discovery" to your and my "li'l peccadillo." Every sin. The sinner does what he does because he is convinced that it will bring him happiness, delight, joy. It seems right. He doesn't care where it ends.

That is why he persists, long after his life falls to shambles and he sees his own character collapse like the two towers in New York. That is why all the pleas and warnings and tears of his Biblically-faithful friends fall on deaf ears. He is like the ruined gambler, absolutely convinced that the next dollar will bring untold riches... or the next dollar... or the next dollar....

As with most (all?) such things, it reveals defective faith. If the person claims to be a Christian, he either does not heartily believe what he says he believes, or he doesn't really believe it at all. He calls Jesus Lord, but does not do as He says (Luke 6:46). He calls God his fountain of joy and life, but seeks joy and life away from Him and in defiance of Him.

What to do?

For ourselves: pray, watch, stay humble and rebukable.

For others: the same. Point to Christ. Point to Scripture. They may flee to a thousand evasions (check out this post for reminders and specifics). Don't weary, don't lose heart — you wouldn't want someone to lose heart with you if you strayed, would you?

But over all and above all and through all: pray. It takes the Spirit of God to transform our desires. By definition, we can't do it ourselves. Our wills are free to choose according to our nature, but our wills are not uncaused causes. We need the Spirit of God to transform us, so that we begin to desire what we do not now desire, and no longer desire what we once did.

Or even more to the point, we need Him to transform our desires and convictions. The desire to be happy is not an evil desire. Nothing wrong with it. A man's desire for respect and significance, a woman's desire for love and security... these are not evil desires. God built them into us.

Our problem is that we seek out broken cisterns that can hold no water (Jeremiah 2:12-13). We look for love —and delight — in all the wrong places. We see it in being-as-God, not in taking delight in God (Psalm 16:11; 37:4).

What we need is the from-the-heart conviction that all we desire and need is to be found in Christ Himself and in walking His way in faith.

God grant us such ears and eyes.

---

The Adventures of Pecadillo

by Pecadillo

Editor's note: Pecadillo and wife are celebrating their first anniversary by driving from Los Angeles to the scene of their wedding last year. In lieu of his annual blogpost, Pecadillo submitted this series of Tweets last night.

Driving through cow country. This part of California smells like a giant, open-air AM/PM.

The journey to our hotel was a blogpost in and of itself. After we got settled in the room, we discovered we weren't alone in the room.

There was a bat in our room and it was flying at us like a Japanese kamikaze pilot.

I've never seen a bat before aside from at the zoo. I nearly soiled my pants.

In fact, had I not been in the bathroom when the trophy wife discovered the bat, I'm quite sure I would find myself in need of a new wardrobe.

We're at a spa by the beach in Mendocino. There are only 10 rooms and no on duty staff after 9 PM. It's very secluded. Translation: no help.

Luckily, there was a hotel masseuse that looked and talked exactly like Peter Lorre, who was on his way out the door who helped us.

He was probably 7 feet tall—no joke. He had to do the limbo to get thru our door—and he had big Carly Simon/Gary Busey teeth.

He also had a creepy Eastern European accent that woulda sounded menacing had he not been prancing away from the bat.

Then another guy showed up with a pool net that was still wet and dripping chlorine all over our room and bed.

After literally 45 minutes of me & the pool guy trying to catch the bat in the room (Peter Lorre was in the hall, hiding) we finally got it.

Literally, for 45 minutes I watched this flying rodent soar all over our room, landing on our stuff. I'm pretty sure my luggage has rabies.

To be honest, I wasn't exactly John Wayne during those 45 minutes, although I did almost shoot it numerous times.

Let's just say I'm glad there weren't too many other people around to observe my "power stance" whenever dracula flew by.

Still, at least I was in the room. Peter Lorre was out in the hall and had to be consoled by the trophy wife.

The only person tall enough to reach the bat was the same guy who was trying to hide in the laundry room. Wonderful.

Anyways, after 45 minutes of trying to catch the beast that wikipedia calls a "natural reservoir for many zoonotic pathogens" we got it.

We were trying to catch it in the net (the pool guy was a hippie) but accidentally hit it with the pole and it fell to the ground, lifeless.

With that, the pool guy scooped up little Adam West (we named it) in the net and left the room to go dispose of it. He was very apologetic.

Our room has chlorine water everywhere, net marks all over the walls and ceilings, and probably more viruses than a petrie dish.

And there's no one here who can get us into another room. Fantastic.

On his way out, Peter Lorre offered us 20% off the cost of a massage at the spa. Yeah, that's gonna make it all better.

Somehow, the trophy wife was already able to fall asleep. Not me. I want to be awake when lockjaw sets in.

---