True Worship

Why truth—not music, not bare passion, and certainly not ritual—deserves the place of prominence in worship
by Phil Johnson



"God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24).

od is spiritual in His very essence, and therefore He must be worshipped with spiritual worship—worship in the energy of spirit; worship that engages and employs our entire spirit, not just the motions of our hands and the words we form with our lips; not bare ritual; but a true expression of the heart and soul. "Worship in spirit."

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." Jesus is making a deliberate contrast between the worship God seeks and the typical kind of worship that is dominated by human tradition, obscured by empty ritual, and buried under meaningless layers of pomp and ceremony.

Listen to Christ's criticism of the Pharisees' religion (Matthew 15:3, 8): "Why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? . . . You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.'"

They had all the ceremonies down. Many of these were rituals prescribed by Moses' law, ordained by God, and therefore good things if used properly. They were fine if seen for what they really were: symbols of a greater reality, aids to worship; not the end-all and be-all of worship. But the Pharisees were more enamored with the rituals than they were with the truth the rituals signified. And so they added layers of their own manmade rituals on top of what the law prescribed: extra washings; more complicated ceremonies; more elaborate costumes—longer tassels on their robes and whatnot to exaggerate the liturgical impact of all the pageantry and spectacle.

The flesh loves that. And the ceremonies themselves became what they thought of when they thought of "worship." It was a flamboyant display for the benefit of the worshiper rather than an expression of praise and honor to God. They were worshiping Him with their lips, but their hearts were far from Him. They were indulging their flesh, not worshiping in spirit.

And let's be honest: we all have a sinful tendency to do that. We go through the motions without really engaging our spirit in worship. We seize the opportunity during the pastoral prayer to look at our watch, or send a text message during the congregational hymn, or whatever. Jesus said that's not authentic worship; It's not worship at all unless we "worship in spirit and truth."

This is a much abused and widely misunderstood principle today. Jesus is not calling for the kind of shallow passion that responds to the music and the atmosphere. He's not saying we should aim at working ourselves into a frenzy of feeling and passion devoid of any rational content.

Authentic worship is concerned with truth, not bare passion.

It's a common misconception today that worship in the spirit requires us to empty the mind of anything rational. I visited a charismatic church a few years ago where the worship leader said that very thing: He encouraged people to "sing in the spirit"—and in order to do that, he said, "you need to empty your mind and let the spirit take over your voice. Close your eyes and forget where you are, and just feel the worship."

A lot of contemporary worship is just like that. We use music and atmosphere to build raw passion to a crescendo. And lots of people think that's the purest form of worship—when you are basically so overwhelmed with emotion that your mind is unattached and unengaged in any kind of rational thought. In fact, music is so important to the process that when you use the word "worship" today, most Christians assume you are talking about music.

But notice that Jesus gave truth, not music, the place of prominence in worship: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth."

That's loaded with implications. "Truth" here stands in contradistinction to bare ritual. It also contrasts with raw passion. Jesus is saying that sound doctrine, a clear conscience, and a true heart are infinitely more important for authentic worship than the place where we worship, the forms with which we worship, the style of our music, or any of the other things people usually want to talk about and fight over whenever the subject of worship comes up.

What's important in worship is what you believe, not what tribe you belong to. Authentic worship is about how you think of God, not just how you "feel" when you sing about Him. It's about lifting up your spirit and opening your heart before Him, not merely raising your hands and closing your eyes.

"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." The Father is seeking such people to worship him.

---

Briefly: terror (of a certain kind) and theology

by Dan Phillips

I am making my way through Michael Horton's The Christian Faith, at a glacial pace. It is thought-provoking and instructive, to say the least.

Let me lift out and amen! just one snippet from page 97 which, I think, very nicely adorns and unites a lot of our concerns:

...Calvin judged that many theologians of his day who did not sense the importance of justification before a holy God had not yet sufficiently experienced the terrors of conscience that make the knowledge of God's truth such an urgent enterprise.

Bringing to mind also:

Blessed is the man whom you discipline, O LORD,
and whom you teach out of your law (Psalm 94:12)

Before I was afflicted I went astray,
but now I keep your word (Psalm 119:67)

It is good for me that I was afflicted,
that I might learn your statutes (Psalm 119:71)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,  who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.  For as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.  If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer (2 Corinthians 1:3-6)

Books are important. They're just not all-important — except the one Book, when learned and lived.

---

Open Letter to [Names Withheld]

by Frank Turk

Dear [Names Withheld],

This weekend it was released that US Armed forces, under direct orders from President Obama, launched a strike on a compound in Pakistan to kill Usama bin Laden. The report from the White House, and from the President himself, is that the mission was successful and Usama bin Laden is dead.

You have heard this, and now, you doubt it. That is: like a bad paraphrase of a famous figure in the Christian Bible, unless you see the bullet hole in his head and can put your hand in his cranium, you will doubt the reports. Some of you are convinced he died in 2002, and others believe he was dead even before 9/11 – replaced by another man with less gray hair and a larger nose.

Now, from my desk, I say to you: that’s a very complicated religion you have there. I have a better one to offer you, but it doesn’t come with photographic evidence, so I doubt you will take it up. Suffice it to say that if you believe in the resurrected Christ and you repent of your sins – your pride, your avarice, your entitlement and self-promotion above the governments God has ordained for this world at this time – you can be saved from your paranoia and your crypto-anarchist tendencies.

That’s not why I’m actually writing. I’m writing about the photos.

Look here: in your view, until you personally see the photos, President Obama is a liar. That is: he’s not innocent until proven guilty, he’s guilty until he can produce witnesses to exonerate himself – and that’s easy work, you say, since everyone involved works for him. Just the photos, since the body is in a watery Sheol to prevent its exhumation per Sharia law, and we can call it even.

As you have read on twitter, I’m agin’ it, and I wanted to tell you why.

Back when Jesus was telling people that he would have to die at the hands of the Romans and the Jews, they did something called “crucifixion”. It was a practice so vile that even the Romans hated to write about it – and they wrote about everything. Yet they continued the practice for one purpose only: to make the point that Rome was not to be dallied with, and that those who were so stupid to do so would not just be killed, but would be put on display as a monument to their own stupidity for the sake of warning off others.

And that, it seems to me, is the executive logic behind releasing the Usama death photos: proving that we did it, and that you do not mess with Texas. Or Honolulu, as the case may be. From your desk, the reason is also to prove (to you personally, since you are the most important person we’re talking about) that the Government didn’t lie to you about violating the sovereign space of an ally for the sake of destroying a man who was (allegedly, in your view) leading an effort of mayhem and terror against the United States in particular and Western Civilization in general.

But there’s the thing: Western Civilization.

You know: as I’m typing this, I am in an airport waiting to board to go home from a business trip. Thank God, but I did not have to be virtually strip-searched at either point of entry, and somehow someone named “Turk” doesn’t raise any questions to the TSA about whether he is hiding a weapon where the sun don’t shine so I also was not given the enhanced pat-down. But in 3 weeks I’m taking my family to SoCal, and we will likely be subject to that treatment at at least one point of entry to the national airport system – me, my wife, and my two kids under the age of 12. I get all of Phil’s tweets about how vile it is that our government is treating innocent citizens like criminals for the alleged sake of containing air terror – but I can hate the game without inventing a whole MMORPG of planning and intention which causes me to abandon the principles of Western Civilization.

If what is actually at stake here is our culture and our values, then let’s distinguish war from not-war (and “not-war” is not necessarily “peace”; for example, “not-war” could be “legitimate civil debate” – it could be “pragmatic misalignment”) and approach what is not-war with the right set of categories which preserve the ways and means of Western Civilization.

So to that end, are we at the point where we are revisiting the logic of crucifixion as a deterrent to violence against our citizens? If the answer is “no,” and we can see the western logic of disposing of Usama’s body in the ocean, then maybe we should follow our western logic to its conclusion – and let crazy people who have no body to produce pretend that absence is the same as invincibility and immortality, and let them promote Usama to the Imam in the well for all we care: the fact that the live in a delusion should not cause us to allow them to dictate the way we will run our non-war civilization.

And I don’t want to be the one to point this out to you, but I’m sure you can remember the death of Nick Berg in 2004. His beheading was videotaped by those who were conducting Jihad against, well, us at that time, and their point was exactly: this is what you get when you mess with Jihadists. In fact, this is what you get when you are kidnapped by Jihadists, and when they are running things as well. That is: this is the civilization they want you to embrace.

Now, given that they did do this to Mr. Berg, if we therefore say, “We’ll see your kidnapped and helpless victim and raise you your number one guy in his house on a Sunday night, [gamer expletive omitted]. And here are our pictures,” what are we really doing? Are we saying that because we are stronger, we are right? Is that how we want to reason with the Chinese right now?

So my point is that if we’re going to allegedly be defending civilization from lunatics with Scimitars and dreams of nuclear holocaust drawing an invisible priest of God out of the well to usher in the end times, we have to be something other than the exact same guys but with automatic weapons in place of big swords and Lady Gaga or Donald Trump in place of the invisible holy man and Atlantic City or L.A. in place of the well. We have to actually have a civilization worth saving from those maniacs because it is different from what they want.

Do you want something different than what Usama wanted? Are you sure? Because if the only difference is that in your plan Jason Stratham plays you in the movie, and in his plan Jason Stratham plays him in the movie, you both like the same movie – you both want the same thing. You’re just fighting over who gets the credit.

So when the photos do come out – it’s politically inevitable and the only way our president can prolong this into a boost in popularity both here and abroad – ask yourself if that’s what we want to be known for. That’s the visual we want for this stage of western civilization: we rock because we can blow your head off.

I am certain that Caesar would be very proud.

---

Lange's Bible Commentary on Logos

by Dan Phillips

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (63 vols.)

Logos Research Systems, Inc. (2008; repub of vols orig dating from 1857)

Having used Lange's with profit in the print edition from Zondervan, I was delighted when Logos provided me with a review copy of their Logo-tized version.

This commentary set is the brain-child of Johann Peter Lange (1802-1884), who was a professor in Zürich,  professor of evangelical theology in the University of Bonn, and a prolific author. Lange began this commentary series in 1857.

As the introduction to the American version (found not in Genesis, but in the first NT volume) says, this commentary series "aims to give all that the minister and Biblical student can desire in one work." The claim is not hyperbole. Lange aims high, and the contributors and editors give it their all.

To this end, the design is a wonder. I wish some modern series would emulate it as effectively. Each book has an introduction that is both academically and homiletically (i.e. with an aim to preaching) focused. The text is a fresh translation, followed by a threefold commentary on each section.

The first part is exegetical and critical, containing the exegetical and interpretive analysis of the original text, including textual notes, often studying every word. Second comes the doctrinal and ethical section, focusing on theological and moral truths gleaned from the passage. Finally the homiletical and practical section communicates suggestions as to how the passage can be preached and applied, drawing suggestions both from German (Luther, Tholuck, etc.) and English-language (Hodge, Henry, Spurgeon, Clarke, Charnock, etc.) sources. This is genius. It isn't only a help in analyzing the passage, but often it assists in formulating a plan to proclaim or teach it.

The contributors include some of the more prominent German and English-language scholars of the day. The English-language contributors comprise a pretty impressive constellation of scholars from around the doctrinal spectrum, including Philip Schaff, Charles A. Briggs (boo), W. G. T. Shedd (yayy), Patrick Fairbairn (yayy), W. Henry Green, John A. Broadus (yayy), James Strong, and C. H. Toy (boo). Not all are equally orthodox (Briggs, Toy), but all are eminent scholars.

The English edition was commenced in the 1860s. Disappointingly, while the German version featured the scholars' fresh translation, the English-language edition reverts to "the collation [of the KJV] adopted by the Board of Managers [of the ABS] in 1858, and printed in 1860 and since," with notes or improvements inserted in brackets.

I'm certainly not endorsing every word in the volumes, but I've been glad to have them. Not all the writers come from the same doctrinal neighborhood as we, and the whole should be read with discernment. Still, it was a real help to me in preaching Psalms and teaching Romans. It is dated, and needs to be supplemented by more up-to-date scholarship. But the Bible wasn't written yesterday, and the insights of our long-gone brothers, standing on the shoulders of their long-gone brothers, are of enduring value.

The doctrinal orientation is basically orthodox, with some thises and thats. But for instance, the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals is heartily affirmed, as is the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter and sixth-century origin of Daniel, and so on. But Lange had some sympathy for Schleiermacher, and you'll read things like this from the introduction to Genesis:

Does the Old Testament theocracy rest then on the completed compilation of scriptural books, or, indeed, on writings at all, or does it not rather rest on the living, actual revelation of God, which preceded all writings? And now all Christendom! The church also rests, indeed, not on the authenticity of the New Testament books, but on the living revelation of God in Christ, although it is regulated by the canon of the New Testament.

Many of us use Keil and Delitzsch with profit, though not always embracing every thought. Lange's is valuable in that it is a bit more recent than K&D, so the authors interact with and comment on K&D's previous work.

Of greater weight than my commendation is that of Spurgeon in Commenting and Commentaries:

I do, however, greatly prize the series lately produced under the presidency of Dr. Lange. These volumes are not all of equal value, but as a whole, they are a grand addition to our stores. The American translators have added considerably to the German work, and in some cases these additions are more valuable than the original matter. For homiletical purposes these volumes are so many hills of gold, but, alas, there is dross also, for Baptismal Regeneration and other grave errors occur.

The the presence of "grave errors" did not stop Spurgeon from heartily commending the whole. In a Sword and Trowel review (1880, 92), Spurgeon says:

WITH this volume the English issue of Lange’s great Commentary is completed, and all ministers and students are deeply indebted to Dr. Schaff and the Messrs. Clark for so great a boon. The several volumes differ in value according to the ability of the various authors and translators, but we could not spare one of them. ...our younger men who are not yet compelled to devour the library in the nursery ought to possess themselves of the complete set as soon as possible. Homiletically, these commentaries are of high value. Often by a single sentence they will start the mind and give it a push along a line of thought, and this is the chief thing that most of us need.

Logos even found and included a "lost volume" on the Apocrypha which, though not canonical and inerrant Scripture, are useful in reconstructing intertestamental history and thought.

This set would make a fitting gift from a church, or a good wish for a birthday or Christmas list. I think the preaching pastor will find himself dipping in regularly and gladly, as I did when preaching through books.

---

Against Legalistic "Holiness" and Morbid Self-Examination

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 Spurgeon's Autobiography.

   have found, in my own spiritual life, that the more rules I lay down for myself, the more sins I commit. The habit of regular morning and evening prayer is one which is indispensable to a believer's life, but the prescribing of the length of prayer, and the constrained remembrance of so many persons and subjects, may gender unto bondage, and strangle prayer rather than assist it.

To say I will humble myself at such a time, and rejoice at such another season, is nearly as much an affectation as when the preacher wrote in the margin of his sermon, "Cry here," "Smile here." Why, if the man preached from his heart, he would be sure to cry in the right place, and to smile at a suitable moment; and when the spiritual life is sound, it produces prayer at the right time, and humiliation of soul and sacred joy spring forth spontaneously, apart from rules and vows.

The kind of religion which makes itself to order by the Almanack, and turns out its emotions like bricks from a machine, weeping on Good Friday, and rejoicing two days afterwards, measuring its motions by the moon, is too artificial to be worthy of my imitation.

Self-examination is a very great blessing, but I have known self-examination carried on in a most unbelieving, legal, and self-righteous manner; in fact, I have so carried it on myself. Time was when I used to think a vast deal more of marks, and signs, and evidences, for my own comfort, than I do now, for I find that I cannot be a match for the devil when I begin dealing in these things. I am obliged to go day by day with this cry,—

"I, the chief of sinners am,
But Jesus died for me."

While I can believe the promise of God, because it is His promise, and because He is my God, and while I can trust my Saviour because He is God, and therefore mighty to save, all goes well with me; but I do find, when I begin questioning myself about this and that perplexity, thus taking my eye off Christ, that all the virtue of my life seems oozing out at every pore.

Any practice that detracts from faith is an evil practice, but especially that kind of self-examination which would take us away from the cross-foot, proceeds in a wrong direction.

---

On the Threefold Division of the Law

by Phil Johnson



    rarely post book reviews here. (Challies does them so well, why should I?) But from time to time I get the urge to feature a book I totally love—or more rarely, to critique a book I really hate.

Today, uncharacteristically, I'm going to take a middle position and recommend a book, but add a few caveats.

The book is From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law, by Philip S. Ross, published last year by the Mentor imprint of Christian Publications.

A book on this subject, showing "the biblical and theological basis for the threefold division" is long overdue. Those who deny any and every distinction between the law's moral, ceremonial, and civil aspects make mincemeat of the New Testament's teaching on the law and its proper uses.

This subject comes up in our comment-threads from time to time, and invariably, someone insists that there is absolutely no valid categorical distinction to be made between one kind of law and another—as if the OT restriction against shellfish were morally equivalent to the restrictions against bestiality.

Of course, I've argued otherwise. Invariably—usually early in the debate—someone will demand a proof-text that explicitly differentiates between moral and ceremonial law in precisely those terms. The biblical rationale for different categories of commandments is not quite that simple, but (I'm convinced), it is nevertheless a necessary deduction that the Hebrew dietary laws don't have the same universal and eternally-binding significance as the laws against blasphemy and idolatry.

Anyway, here's why I need to add a caveat to my recommendation of this book: Despite the promise of the subtitle, Ross begins his argument with an appeal to tradition rather than explicit Scripture or the good and necessary consequence of sound theological logic. His first chapter is titled "A Catholic Doctrine," and his opening words are an appeal to the majority opinion of "the church's most prominent theologians" from East and West, Catholic and Protestant, conservative and liberal, patristic and Puritan—who (Ross says) "throughout history," have either explicitly affirmed the threefold division or "work[ed] within its framework."

To be clear, I don't think that argument is entirely without merit, but it's not a very good starting point for a book promising to deliver "the biblical and theological basis" for what has become (in evangelical circles) a hotly debated point.

By page three, Ross is appealing to the presuppositions of covenant theology—quoting the Westminster Confession on how "God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works." And by page 6 he has identified Sabbatarianism as the lynchpin of the threefold division: "Strike out the Sabbath and you also shatter the entire category of moral law and all that depends on it."

Many (perhaps most) who deny the threefold division will actually be put off by those lines of argument after the subtitle's promise that the book will set forth a biblical case.

Besides, the real truth is that the Fourth Commandment presents some interesting and troubling difficulties to the neat bifurcation maintained by those who say (as Ross does on page 2) that "the only laws that are, without exception, ever-binding are the laws of the Decalogue." (In other words, he believes the Ten Commandments and "moral law" are precisely identical.) As a matter of fact, many of the detailed Sabbath restrictions in Moses' law have a ceremonial flavor, and Colossians 2:16 classifies "the Sabbath days" with the law's ceremonial features. I realize Sabbatarians typically dismiss that verse as a reference to special feast-days. But given the fact that lots of non-Sabbatarians (including yours truly) do affirm the threefold division of the law, Ross's emphatic denial that such a position is possible rings somewhat hollow.

Get past the opening chapter, however, and you'll find (for the most part) a thorough, thoughtful discussion of the differences between the law's moral, civil, and ceremonial aspects from a biblical perspective. Overall, the book (weighing in at 370 pages plus back matter) is quite helpful, and I'm happy to recommend it.

I just wish Ross had saved his doctrinaire covenantalism to be used as a kind of punctuation at the end rather than making it the book's opening argument. If you're interested in this subject—especially if you doubt the legitimacy of categorizing the law's precepts—please persevere past the opening ten pages or more.

---

Pray for Chris Anderson and his mission to Uganda

by Dan Phillips


Pastor Chris Anderson is a good brother and a good guy. I've enjoyed reading his posts at his blog, profited from listening to sermons he preached at his church, and enjoyed meeting him (too briefly) at T4G08.

What's more, Chris was an extremely helpful reader of my World-Tilting Gospel manuscript as it was being readied. The Proverbs 27:17 bloodying he gave my precious darling was absolutely essential; I'll owe him forever for that favor.

So now Chris is heading to minister to pastors in Uganda, as of next week. He plans to open up the book of Colossians at a Pastoral conference in Uganda, where they are preparing for 20,000 to be in attendance. You can read more about the incredible logistics required in preparation for this conference. Also, Challies interviewed Chris' brother Jeff, who works with International Bible Conference. Clearly, given the fourteen studies we've had up here at Pyro, Chris is loving a book I love as well. Colossians is a perfect choice for that situation.

In fact, Chris said my studies helped more than any commentary he read.

Okay, I completely made that one up. Ahem. Back to serious:

What an opportunity. Pray for Chris' safety, for His care for Chris' wife and daughters as he's gone, and for the Lord to fill Chris with His Spirit. Pray that the sound teaching of the Word of the Lord might speed and spread through and take deep root in that continent, to produce abundant fruit, that Christ might be glorified.

And if you can give, financial support is still needed and will be appreciated. For instance, $15 would put a Bible in the hands of a Ugandan pastor. That would be a good investment in Kingdom work.

---

Open Letter to Jon Meacham

by Frank Turk

Dear Mr. Meacham –

Back in 2008, you were working at Newsweek and your team of professionals decided to take on the question of marriage and whether or not it should be redefined. As I responded to you in full back then, I don’t have anything new to say on that subject, but I wanted to let you know I’m familiar with your work and your outlook on “Christian” things.

This month, TIME magazine has published its list of the 100 most-influential people in the world, and it’s an interesting compendium. From my desk, anyone who has heard of more than 30% of these people is probably a pretty avid world news buff. But as a list of people with substantial influence, that list can hardly be criticized for its inclusiveness or broad interest in how “influence” is demonstrated.

Rob Bell turns up on their list, and you’re the one who drafted his entry, crediting him for his contribution to Christian thought. Here’s what you said:

I particularly enjoyed the photo TIME included with your report as it included a subtle halo around Rob’s head, but I’ll bet you didn’t choose that photo. You did, however, choose to say something specific, and then adorn it with praise for Rob: a vexed church has wrestled with the question of hell for 2000 years.

I read that a few times in and out of context to make sure it's what you meant, and I'm convinced. So from my perspective, I only have one question for you: is it true?

What I am not going to do here is fall into the trap of arguing with you about it -- or arguing at you, since it's unlikely you'll respond to a Christian Lifestyle blog with fewer readers than Gismodo. But what I am going to do is think about that question for a moment in the hopes that others will join me in considering the matter.

How would we know the answer to that question? Is there a way to know whether or not the Christian faith (and specifically, the Christian church) has made any decisions about the doctrine of hell? If there's not, I think Rob Bell is actually a kind of snake-oil salesman -- because let's face it: he's portraying a doctrine of hell which he thinks other people ought to adopt. He's a partisan guy -- and we can see that in almost every interview he's done for his book so far. That is: he wants us to know that for certain the Greek word "Aeon" doesn't mean "forever and ever" (at least, not in reference to hell -- in reference to heaven he's convinced that the good stuff doesn't ever stop). He thinks that we do God a disservice by saying hell is punishment that lasts longer than the crime(s). He wants people to get a firm grip on the doctrine of hell -- and not fear it. We should embrace it as a commentary on what we do to ourselves.

What he doesn't want for them is a doctrine in which hell is an unquenchable verdict.

That's strange, isn't it -- if the story of salvation in the biblical discussion is, as you put it, contradictory, perhaps the problem is that Rob has put too fine a point on it. And if that's the case, I wonder why his influence is seen as so useful by yourself and by TIME.

So I ask you: is it true? If it is not in fact true, should you do anything about it?

Look: sometime around 60 AD, there was this fellow Paul -- he wrote a lot of books and letters in his day, so you may have heard of him. Anyway, around 60 AD he was rounded up by the religious leaders of his day, and by the Romans, and he was put on trial for what one account calls “serious charges,” but it was likely for sedition and upsetting the peace of the city of Jerusalem.

When Paul came up for trial, and he was asked to explain himself – to defend himself against the charges at-hand – he did a strange thing: he appealed to what actually happened to him. He said: “I am not insane, Most Excellent Festus. What I am saying is the sober truth. And King Agrippa knows about these things. I speak boldly, for I am sure these events are all familiar to him, for they were not done in a corner!”

For Paul, the question of who Jesus was, and what his purpose was on this Earth, was a question of truth -- of things not done in a corner which cause speculation or uncertainty but of things for which there are many witnesses.

But what is truth, Mr. Meacham? Is it something we need today, or is it something we have outgrown?

I ask that of you, and I leave it to you. I hope that there is something true, and that it finds you ready to receive it.

---

Book review — God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment, by James M. Hamilton, Jr.

by Dan Phillips

God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment, by James M. Hamilton, Jr.

(Wheaton:Crossway, 2010; 639 pages)

Jim Hamilton is Associate Professor of Biblical Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and has an active blog that's on my personal daily-visit list. I know that, yet I keep thinking of Hamilton as an OT guy, because he's made particularly notable contributions in that area. For instance, Hamilton did a detailed, solid grapple/review of Sailhamer's recent opus. Before that, I knew him as author of God's Indwelling Presence, a book helpful to me in writing part of The World-Tilting Gospel.

However, in this terrific book, provided by Crossway for me to review, Hamilton's scope is as wide as the Bible itself. He sallies forth into the already-crowded field of those proposing a "center" for the Bible. Seminarians, particularly of the OT-phile species, will nod knowingly. They will recall the many previous propositions concerning the OT itself or the Bible as a whole, such as Kaiser (promise), Eichrodt (covenant), Terrien (presence of Yahweh), Martens (God's design), and so forth (cf. Hasel's discussion of the field as of 1991). In fact, Hamilton himself engaged the alternatives in a Tyndale Bulletin article in 2006.

In such a populous arena, does Hamilton's contribution stand out? My verdict is an unequivocal "Yes." What distinguishes God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment is a happy conjunction of various valuable features. I'll enumerate, then expand on some of them.

Sparkling and distinctive aspects of this book include:

1. Accessibility.
2. Literary quality.
3. Comprehensiveness.
4. Currency.
5. Lively engagement by the author.
6. Clarity of conviction.

...and all of this is irrespective of whether or not Hamilton convinces you that his chosen center is in fact the center of all the Bible.

Let me start with that last thought, then move to the other aspects. Hamilton insists that the center of the Bible is as the title suggests: God's glory in salvation through judgment. By "center" he means a "singular coherent faith articulation" (41, quoting Brueggemann). In Hamilton's own words, it is "the theme that is prevalent, even pervasive, in all parts of the Bible" (49), which indeed "organizes the thoughts of the biblical authors" (48, footnote).

Walter Kaiser grappled with this decades ago, insisting that "successful exegesis" required a means of "identifying the center or core of the canon" (Towards an Old Testament Theology [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978], 18). Kaiser identified the "center" as a key for "an orderly and progressive arrangement of the subjects, themes and teachings" of the OT (ibid, 20). He warned against refusal to identify such a center as "the tyranny of the particular," whose hostile modern grid would make constructing an OT theology impossible (28). Kaiser insisted strongly that the Bible emphatically lays forth a central plan (29ff.), centering on what the NT would identify as promise (33). Kaiser attempted to develop this throughout the OT, and has now (in a more recent book) extended his argument more fully to the New.

For any system, though, books such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon are a challenge. I found Kaiser's treatments to fall short of conviction. Did Hamilton fare better on their rocky shoals?

I think he did, though one sees it only if he understands Hamilton's broad use of "judgment." As a Proverbs-lover, I thought going in that Hamilton would have tough slogging finding his proposed center in Mishley. But Hamilton corrected me, pointing out that judgment is a constant refrain in Proverbs: the foolish are judged in myriads of ways for their belittling of the fear of Yahweh, whereas the wise can be saved in life and beyond only through that knowledge grounded in the fear of Yahweh, which thus is to the glory of Yahweh.

One might object, "I don't think Proverbs uses those words." True enough; but Hamilton reminds us here and elsewhere that tracing concepts is more than an exercise in word-study, and it takes more than plugging words like "salvation" and "glory" into a concordance/Bible software program to follow a theme out through Scripture.

Hamilton's clarity, personal engagement and conviction shine out from the very beginning. In the Acknowledgments (25ff.) Hamilton lists Scriptures extolling God's word, then he gives glory to God for His goodness in his life. What is more, he is up-front as to his goal. It is not to dissect the Bible as one might approach a cadaver, as an object of detached inquiry. "My goal... is to help people know God," he tells us candidly (38). To Hamilton, academics serve as tools to pursue that goal, not as ends in themselves.

Is this an inappropriate goal for a scholar? Affected, bloodless detachment may be de rigeur to many in the Academy, but I've often argued that personal engagement as a Christian academic is far from inappropriate. Look: worldviews are like belly-buttons. Everyone has one. Worldview controls all. To insinuate that one can write from a Weltanschauung-free perspective is a silly conceit, and Hamilton is free of it.

After laying his basic case, Hamilton sets out to demonstrate it by going through every book of both Testaments. In that way, this tome ends up being an extended argument, a Biblical theology of sorts, and a Bible survey. It is full, very useful, and satisfying.

What is more, Hamilton not only writes with clarity, but with style. He turns phrases memorably, seasoning with elements of irony and humor, as well as sharp conciseness. It is not only helpful and informative reading, it is good reading.

We noted that Hamilton is a professor of "Biblical theology." What does that mean, to Hamilton? He approaches biblical theology as focusing on "what the Bible meant  for the purpose of understanding what the Bible means" (41). Exactly right; there can be no facile, "great gulf fixed" between examining the Bible's contents, and finding that those contents are in fact examining us. To approach the Bible as if it were not what it claims to be is a faith-commitment; just not a Christian faith-commitment.

Further, that Bible is a whole Bible, starting with Genesis and not resting until Revelation. Thus Hamilton chides Goldingay for wanting to write about the OT — but not through Christian or NT lenses (46). Hamilton views this with something like incredulity, as a sort of pretending not to know what one knows. "If our presuppositions do not help us understand, rather than pretend we do not have them, why not revise or, if necessary, reject them?" (47). 

At this point, I realize that this is going to be a very, very long review indeed if I discuss everything I liked about the book. So let's shift gears.

Who would profit from this book? Anyone who wants to understand the Bible better. If I were teaching through Bible books in survey fashion or in-depth, I would want Hamilton's opus on my desk. His summaries are as a rule masterful, he captures the flow of the book expertly, and he often brings out themes and patterns that, in thirty years of attentive reading, I hadn't noticed. As an added bonus, Hamilton's footnotes are a rich resource. The man reads encyclopedically, and his notes are direction-signs to other treasure-troves of fuller reference works. It's simply a goldmine.

Did he convince me, and does it matter? Hamilton absolutely convinced me that God's glory in salvation through judgment is a theme-complex that literally runs through Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. I am not quite convinced, however, that it was a conscious driving force behind the writing of each canonical book.  Maybe my brain is too small. But that truly does not matter a speck in terms of the value or usefulness of the book. Further, Hamilton does not do as some, flattening uncongenial details of books if they fail to further his thesis.

Do I have any quibbles with the book? Significant quibbles, nary a one. Minor ones, sure. The publisher was unkind to us old geezers in using such a small font on the footnotes — but at least they're footnotes, so I'm content to squint. I don't share Hamilton's exact interpretation of this and that, and find myself a good bit more on the not-yet side of the eschatological spectrum than Hamilton is. Our eschatologies may not be identical. So, we have the same marginal distinction that I experience in reading Spurgeon, Owen, Lloyd-Jones, Calvin, Machen, van Til, and a truckload of other brothers who have done me a world of good.

Honestly, we're talking hiccups in a hurricane of wonderfulness. I so profited from the way Hamilton carries forward the Seed-of-the-woman/seed-of-the-serpent conflict themes, keeps identifying intertextual relationships, and a hundred other ways. Heck, I even hustled to insert some interaction into my forthcoming (DV) Proverbs book. Now I'm going back through the book, adding note upon note to the treasures I've already transferred from this book to my BibleWorks notes.

Therefore, I recommend God's Glory in Salvation through Judgment unqualifiedly and enthusiastically. Five matches. You want a better grasp of the Bible's big picture as well as vital small details? Get this book. Dive in. Stay in. Once won't be enough. You will not regret it.

POSTSCRIPT for Kindlefolk: the terrific Kindle deal I mentioned in March is still in effect. Amazing buy.

---

A Double Repost? Why Not?

by Phil Johnson

Salad Days

I wanted to do a repost today, and this one struck me as fairly important and yet potentially fun. Yes, I know there's a repost within this repost, but these days I think it's important to keep trying to get people to realize that doctrinal statements really are more important than fashion statements.

(First posted Thursday, March 01, 2007)

by Phil Johnson



   have two things to say to those who think "relevance" is related primarily to matters of style, youthfulness, and external appearance:


First, what seems really hip today might just make you look like J. R. "Bob" Dobbs tomorrow. There were people on the fringes of evangelicalism pushing a superficial notion of "relevance" for several decades before the Emergers emerged with the idea, and the cooler those people seemed at their peak, the more ridiculous their style looks today. When a particular "style" is your main distinctive, you're guaranteed to be outmoded soon. More important, if "style" is your main contribution to the conversation, you're already irrelevant, whether you know it or not.

Second, to stress the point a little more, here's a repost from my original blog that seems apropos to the current discussion. It was a reply to an e-mail from a reader who was irritated with me:

To: "Savage Countenance" From: "Phillip R. Johnson" Subject: Re: Cr—t-r?!! Dear "Savage Countenance," Many thanks for your message. You wrote: > why would you question a brother > who just wants to fit in with the > people he's trying to reach?...you > should quit trying so hard to be > different and try harder to be > genuine...i'm making this point > b/c my eyebrow is pierced and i > have a tatoo on the back of my > neck...i wear combat boots...and > i usually wear all black..i listen > to Christian metal and industrial > music—i've seen too many christians > hide in a corner away from the world > and wait for them to come to > us...and it just doesn't work > that way, you know? OK, first of all let me say that the point I want to make here has very little to do with the question of whether body piercing and tattoos are always inherently sinful. Don't misunderstand: I would indeed argue that if you pierce or tattoo yourself as an act of self-mutilation, narcissism, or rebellion, then the motivation for such "body modification" is clearly sinful and therefore something Christians ought to avoid. But that's really beside the point at the moment. Because your whole argument is that you have tattooed yourself and put studs in your face in order to be more "genuine" and to have a better testimony for Christ. And that's what I want to respond to: the notion that adopting the fads of a juvenile, egomaniacal, shallow, self-destructive, worldly culture "works" better as an evangelistic strategy than a lifestyle that gives more prominence to the principle of Matthew 5:16 and 1 Peter 2:9. As you have described it above, body modification and combat boots are a significant and deliberate part—if not the very centerpiece—of your evangelistic strategy. You seem to imagine that if you try hard enough to fit into the punk culture, you might actually win people by convincing them that Jesus would fit nicely into their lifestyle, too. But wouldn't you yourself actually agree that there is—somewhere—a limit to how far Christians can legitimately go in conforming to worldly culture? Surely you do not imagine that the apostle Paul's words about becoming all things to all men is a prescription for adopting every vulgar fashion of a philistine culture. Do you? Can we agree, for example, that it wouldn't really be good or necessary to get a sex-change operation in order to reach the transgendered community? OK, you might dismiss that as something inherently sinful and wrong for that reason. Well, how about pulling a few teeth and adopting the trashy patois and tasteless lifestyle of Jerry Springer's guest list in order to have a more effective outreach to the underbelly of the cable-TV community? How serious are you about your strategy of accommodation and conformity? And why is it mainly the lowbrow and fringe aspects of Western youth culture that this argument is invariably applied to? Why are so few Christian young persons keen to give up video games and take up chess in order to reach the geeks in the chess club? or give up heavy metal and learn the cello in order to have a ministry to the students who play in the orchestra? There used to be a misguided youth on the Web who ran a website called "Backyard Wrestlers for Jesus." He was trying to tap into the backyard wresting culture as a mission field. So he set up a Web site showing kids how to build a backyard wrestling ring, how to do what The Rock and the Dudley Boys do without getting hurt, and how to talk smack without really talking dirty—so that kids who wrestle in their own backyards could improve their style. Along the way, he figured they would see that his Web site had something to do with Jesus, and they'd know Jesus is cool, and they'd like Jesus better because he's so cool. I admire his desire to reach a troubled culture, but the methodology is all wrong and completely without any credible biblical warrant. I realize making Jesus seem cool is the dominant evangelistic strategy of this age, and everyone from Rick Warren to Brian McLaren is trying in whatever way they think best to make Christianity more hip and trendy. But I still think it's a bad idea. Incidentally, I grew up in the 1960s in a liberal church with a fairly sizable youth group where dances with live rock music were the bait used to draw us on a regular basis. So there's nothing particularly fresh or innovative about this philosophy. It didn't work in my generation, and it's not really working now. It's made the church more worldly; it hasn't made the world more spiritual. In fact, I'd say that this strategy represents the wholesale abandonment of the church's responsibility to a sinful culture. The most effective way to minister to any culture—and this goes for every culture, from highbrow society to white middle-class suburbia to the urban street gang—is to challenge and confront the culture instead of conforming to it. "Therefore 'Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean'" (2 Corinthians 6:17). Yes, I know Jesus was a friend of sinners, and His enemies accused Him—wrongly—of participating in their excesses. The truth is that He became their friend without adopting their values. That's the example we should strive to follow, not the example of worldly culture itself.

---

Worst day, ever

by Dan Phillips

The irony of the phrase "Good Friday" has been noted, probably, by all of us. "Good" for us, certainly. Without the cross-work of the Son of God on that day, all would be lost, hopelessly and forever.

But of course it was a horrid day, viewed from any other angle. Our race — Adam's race — reached its nadir on that day. Any appalling crime you can call to mind was bottomed by the mock-trial and the mocking of God incarnate. At that point, we hit bottom, and the Gospels record it for all to see, for all time.

But the worst day, ever, for the apostles and most who loved Jesus, had to be that Saturday, which today marks.

The events of Thursday night and Friday must have been a surreal nightmare, a madman's collage. With "the triumphal entry" still in their minds, the apostles had suddenly seen everything turned on its head, beyond their darkest imaginations. They must have fallen asleep — assuming they fell asleep, since that was about all they were good at — with numbed hearts and bedazzled minds.


But then Saturday dawned. Reality hit. It had really happened. They were now waking up, for the first time in three years, with no Jesus. That meant no Messiah, no Lord.  No hope, no guide; no one who really knew what He was doing. No point to doing what they had all left their jobs and their lives to do.

And nothing had changed overnight. He died Friday. He was still dead, Saturday.

Horrible, throbbing reality settling down on their chests like a massive elephant. What now? Dear God in Heaven, what now? What do we do? What do we say? What do we tell the crowds? What do we tell our families? Do we go back with our tail between our legs, and beg for our jobs back? And what, what do we make of the world now, now that we had repented because the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand... and yet it seems more distant than ever?

Not only that, but there had to be the throbbing pain of guilt. We think of Peter's big talk, but remember: everyone had said the same (Mark 14:31). Big talk, big promises, massive failure, every one of them.

What, what to do about all that?

For them, Saturday had to be the worst day, ever.

All that, for one reason: because they did not believe the Word of God.

We should never forget what a surprise Sunday was for all of them. This is a critical miscalculation for every worldling who has whistled past the empty grave, trying to explain away the Resurrection as wish-fulfillment or mass hallucination. None of them expected it, in spite of Jesus' teaching. None of them was looking for it. All of them thought it was over. All of them were caught off-guard that Sunday.

Let us think about that, this Saturday. We should learn from it. And while we thank God that Friday was not the end of the story, let us also thank Him that Saturday wasn't its end, either.

---

Something to Consider This Good Friday

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 "Tender words of terrible apprehension!," a sermon preached at Exeter Hall on Sunday morning, 4 November 1860.


he wrath of God and the judgment of the day of the Lord cannot be a trifling matter. How emphatically are we told in Scripture, that it is "a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Upon such a subject we cannot afford to trifle.

Besides, the mystery of Calvary indicates to us that sin must deserve at God's hand a terrible penalty. Did Jesus suffer so bitterly to save men, and will not the unsaved endure bitterness indeed? Must the eternal and holy Son of God, upon whom sin was only an imputed thing—must he bleed and die, and offer up his life, with his soul exceedingly heavy even unto death—and is the world to come a thing about which men can afford to sport or idly dream?

---

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.

---

Intermission: Paul's Open Letter to Agrippa

Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You may speak in your defense.”

So Paul, gesturing with his hand, started his defense: “I am fortunate, King Agrippa, that you are the one hearing my defense today against all these accusations made by the Jewish leaders, for I know you are an expert on all Jewish customs and controversies. Now please listen to me patiently!

“As the Jewish leaders are well aware, I was given a thorough Jewish training from my earliest childhood among my own people and in Jerusalem. If they would admit it, they know that I have been a member of the Pharisees, the strictest sect of our religion. Now I am on trial because of my hope in the fulfillment of God’s promise made to our ancestors. In fact, that is why the twelve tribes of Israel zealously worship God night and day, and they share the same hope I have. Yet, Your Majesty, they accuse me for having this hope! Why does it seem incredible to any of you that God can raise the dead?

“I used to believe that I ought to do everything I could to oppose the very name of Jesus the Nazarene. Indeed, I did just that in Jerusalem. Authorized by the leading priests, I caused many believers there to be sent to prison. And I cast my vote against them when they were condemned to death. Many times I had them punished in the synagogues to get them to curse Jesus. I was so violently opposed to them that I even chased them down in foreign cities.

“One day I was on such a mission to Damascus, armed with the authority and commission of the leading priests. About noon, Your Majesty, as I was on the road, a light from heaven brighter than the sun shone down on me and my companions. We all fell down, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is useless for you to fight against my will.’

“‘Who are you, lord?’ I asked.

“And the Lord replied, ‘I am Jesus, the one you are persecuting. Now get to your feet! For I have appeared to you to appoint you as my servant and witness. You are to tell the world what you have seen and what I will show you in the future. And I will rescue you from both your own people and the Gentiles. Yes, I am sending you to the Gentiles to open their eyes, so they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God. Then they will receive forgiveness for their sins and be given a place among God’s people, who are set apart by faith in me.’

“And so, King Agrippa, I obeyed that vision from heaven. I preached first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that all must repent of their sins and turn to God—and prove they have changed by the good things they do. Some Jews arrested me in the Temple for preaching this, and they tried to kill me. But God has protected me right up to this present time so I can testify to everyone, from the least to the greatest. I teach nothing except what the prophets and Moses said would happen— that the Messiah would suffer and be the first to rise from the dead, and in this way announce God’s light to Jews and Gentiles alike.”

Suddenly, Festus shouted, “Paul, you are insane. Too much study has made you crazy!”

But Paul replied, “I am not insane, Most Excellent Festus. What I am saying is the sober truth. And King Agrippa knows about these things. I speak boldly, for I am sure these events are all familiar to him, for they were not done in a corner! King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do—”

Agrippa interrupted him. “Do you think you can persuade me to become a Christian so quickly?”

Paul replied, “Whether quickly or not, I pray to God that both you and everyone here in this audience might become the same as I am, except for these chains.”

---

The "scientific evidence" dodge (NEXT! #27)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: Unless you give me (materialistic) scientific evidence for the existence of God, I will not believe.

Response: ...and the materialistic scientific evidence that "(materialistic) scientific evidence" alone can and will always be dispositive of everything is...?

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

Keeping Our Priorities Straight in These Spiritually Treacherous Times

by Phil Johnson

Preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy" (1 Peter 1:13-14)

eter wrote those words to Christians living in exile (1 Peter 1:1) and suffering under the cruelest kind of Satanically-inspired persecution (1 Peter 5:8-9). Their lives were constantly in danger because of their faith; most had already lost all their earthly posessions. Their suffering was multilayered and relentless.

Yet Peter's first concern was their holiness.

He urges them to gird up their minds, and in so doing, he reminds us what spiritual warfare is all about. It is a fight against sin, and it is first and foremost a personal warfare against our own carnal desires. Although we are beset in this world by the enemies of truth and people who would persecute and abuse us, this world is our mission-field, not our battlefield. Rome, and Nero, and the rest of the pagan world are not our main enemies—our own carnal desires are. So that is where Peter focuses our attention.

Here's how Matthew Henry paraphrases verse 13:

You have a journey to go, a race to run, a warfare to accomplish, and a great work to do; as the traveller, the racer, the warrior, and the labourer, gather in, and gird up, their long and loose garments, that they may be more ready, prompt, and expeditious in their business, so do you by your minds, your inner man, and affections seated there: gird them, gather them in, let them not hang loose and neglected about you; restrain their extravagances, and let the loins or strength and vigour of your minds be exerted in your duty; disengage yourselves from all that would hinder you, and go on resolutely in your obedience.

Matthew Henry goes on to say, "The main work of a Christian lies in the right management of his [own] heart and mind; [that's why] the apostle's first direction is to gird up the loins of the mind."

So in the midst of all the dangers these Christians were facing, Peter's first and most important exhortation was a call to personal holiness. It was not that Peter was unconcerned for the temporal welfare of these exiles. The epistle is full of encouragement for them. But even in that, Peter takes the long view and encourages them by reminding them that this life's suffering is temporary while the hoped-for glory is eternal (1 Peter 1:3-4, 7; 4:12-13; 5:10).

Persecution has a purpose, and it is to conform us to the image of Christ. The fires of persecution have a purifying effect, so Peter encourages these believers to rejoice in the midst of their trials. Note verses 6-7: "In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Pursue that end, he says, by cultivating holiness, starting with your own thought life. That's what the true Christian warfare is all about.

---

The Right Kind of Zeal

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 "Growth in Grace," a sermon delivered on a Sunday evening in the autumn of 1858 at the New Park Street Chapel.

t is no use to try to get more zeal except in the right way, knowing more of Christ; and if we seek to grow in zeal as certain people we might mention have done, we shall have a zeal like a house on fire! It will do more mischief than it will do good. There may be some heat, and a deal of illumination; but it will die away, by-and-by, into black ashes, poisoning the churches everywhere.

I have seen a certain kind of revival in England, and I can always tell where such "revivals" have been by the scarred state of the places after them. These so-called "revivals" have been wrought by excitable meetings, held by sundry preachers, who have invented strange doctrines, but have said nothing about the grace of God. They have for a time stirred up the people to a kind of religious furor, and they have left behind them a very desert. Before them it was like a garden of the Lord, but behind them barrenness and desolation.

The church has been divided; there has been a reaction, and the people have sunk into the most lamentable condition. If we would have true zeal, it must be by the preaching of the good old doctrine, proclaiming Jesus Christ and him crucified; for anyhing else comes of the devil, and to hell it shall tend; its issue shall be destruction, and not salvation.

But if we keep to the truth of God, there will be "revival" enough. We want nothing but the good old-fashioned gospel to stir the world again. Though men have tried new schemes, God will not own them. All these heresies must be swept away, and the true gospel—distinguishing grace of God in all the sovereignty of election—must yet again be preached; and when it is preached in all its fullness, then shall the church be zealous, and then shall Zion arise, and shake herself from the dust, and put on her beautiful garments.

---