Busted Jalopy

by Frank Turk



There's this guy I used to work with.

He and I had a few conversations about the Christian faith because he says he's a Christian, but he doesn't go to church anymore -- and here's the irony: it's not because church is too judgmental. It's because, as he says, church is too full of pretty people.

That's his phrase: "pretty people". Now, if you ask him what that means, he'll tell you that he's a pretty messed-up guy with a lot of spiritual problems, and a church full of pretty people with no problems doesn't do anything for him but frustrate him. Their lives don't encourage him or make him a better person or turn him toward God: their lives actually discourage him because he knows, frankly, that he'll never get there.

Now, before we break out the big Calvinist "we're #1" fingers and start playing the Fight Song, that's not all of this guy's thoughts. He's also a guy who doesn't really like the idea of hell and wants to qualify it as separation only, and he's ultimately not into a church that is going to make demands on him.

But I bring this up for a couple of reasons. The first one is this -- we really have to answer the questions people have, and not the questions we wish they had. In one sense, those of us with the Gospel are driving along on the highway of life and we see a lot of cars on the side of the road -- all kinds of breakdowns -- and we are in the only bus that is going to get people to someplace other than the junkyard. And we're supposed to be stopping and picking people up, not just driving past and worrying about these people.

But if we stop the bus and get out wearing a tuxedo (or, for the ladies reading, a wedding dress) and tell these people we've come to help, they're probably not going to take our offer at face value -- because they don't really need a pretty person in nice clothes to help them with a busted jalopy: at the very least, they think they need a mechanic, or a cell phone to call a mechanic, or maybe a guy with a toolbox. They're not looking for someone in clothes so nice that they'd be afraid to mess them up.

The other reason to bring this up is that while they may recognize some part of the problem, the other half of the truth is that they don't really know what they need. They have "felt needs", right? They might be worried that they can't get to work because their car is busted, or they might be worried that they can't afford a new car so this old one has to keep running. But the real solution for anyone is that they have to get on the bus. They don't have to pay a fare, they don't have to sit in any particular seat: they just have to get on the bus and leave the old car behind.

That solution may not seem intuitive to them -- even though it seems really obvious to us. So as we try to get people on the bus, let me suggest that we not forget that the goal is to get people on the bus because the wrecker is coming. Their busted jalopy will get picked up by the wrecker, and they need to leave the busted jalopy or they are going to go where it is going.

We probably should be dressed in a way that they'll believe us when we tell them to get on the bus, but they have to get on the bus -- and the reason is not because the bus will take them where they think they want to go: it's because the jalopy is going someplace they definitely don't want to go, whether they believe it or not.

---

Colossians studies 9: Greetings 1 — the main author (1:1-2)

by Dan Phillips

Now we begin studying the text of the epistle. If we were to do it verse-by-verse from my notes, it would take about 23,497 separate posts. So I'm thinking... no. It will be selective.

Like Ephesians, Colossians generally falls into two roughly equal parts: the first emphasizes doctrinal truths (chapters one and two), the second emphasizes practical application (chapters three and four).

First in Colossians we have the greetings (1:1-2). Ancient letters were unlike modern letters. They begin with the signature, and the addressee. So here:

Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy the brother, to the holy  and faithful  brothers in Christ at Colosse: grace to you, and peace, from God our Father. 

The primary sender is "Paul, apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God" (1:1a). Paul gives us his pedigree in Philippians 3:4-6, which may hint as to why he felt particularly moved to write this letter. I have suggested that the false teacher may have been a Jew. If so, he may have played the "race-card" on Ephaphras, who was a mere dog/Gentile. But not Paul; he came of the finest stock, racially and religiously.

But here Paul doesn't stress that (well-known) aspect. He calls himself an apostle. We should note that "apostle" is not a translation; it's merely a transliteration of the Greek apostolos. An actual translation might be  emissary, or commissioner, or even plenipotentiary. An apostle was the reality of which the Papacy/Magisterium is a warped imitation. We read of Paul's twofold pedagogy in Acts 22:3 and Galatians 1:13-14. Though steeped in Judaism, Paul's Gospel-knowledge was his by revelation from Christ.

Each apostle had at least three qualifications:

1. He was hand-picked by Jesus (Luke 6:12, 13; the office could not be applied-for)
2. He had to be an eyewitness of Christ's resurrection (Acts 1:21-22)
3. There would be confirmatory miraculous signs (2 Corinthians 12:12; Hebrews 2:3-4)

We see that Paul had these qualifications by comparing 1 Corinthians 9:1, 2 Corinthians 12:12, and  Galatians 1:1, 11-12. Thus Paul truly was an apostle "through the will of God" (Colossians 1:1). That phrase ("the will of God")) does not mean that Paul "felt led" to be an apostle. No, he knew he was called by direct, inerrant, special revelation — as direct as the Scripture we read to learn God's will for us (cf. Acts 9:5-6, 10-16; 26:12-19).

As an apostle, Paul was a conduit of ongoing revelation (John 14:26; 16:12-15), and as such laid the one foundation of the church  (Ephesians 2:20), which is the truth of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11).

Can there be apostles today? Sure, I supposed, but they'd have to be about 2000 years old (cf. Acts 3:21), and would have to show unambiguous miraculous confirmation such has not even been suggested since the close of the first century.

In other words, no.

The foundation has been laid by the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20). Our role is to build on it, not keep starting over again as if the apostles had not already laid it.

Next time, Lord willing, we'll look at the sender's Master.

---

Watch Out

Series Guide (This post is part of a series, taken from the transcript of a message on 1 Corinthians 16:13 given at the 2010 Shepherds' Conference.) Intro: "The church militant?" 1. "Watch Out" 2. "Stand Firm" 3. "Man Up" 4. "Be Strong"

"Be watchful" (1 Corinthians 16:13)

hat's a single word in the Greek text, γρηγορέω. It's is a common New Testament word with doctrinal, practical, and eschatalogical overtones, and Paul clearly has all those things in mind in his message to the Corinthians: Stay on guard. Enemies of the truth are already in your midst. You need to "strengthen what remains and is about to die." And the Lord is coming. (That's the exact meaning of Maranatha in verse 22.)

The mass of modern and postmodern evangelicals simply ignore this command. I'm tempted to say they rebel against it. Many are simply too arrogant to think they need an admonition like this. They carelessly think they are skilled enough and knowledgeable enough to recognize any and every error at its very first appearance, so they have let down their guard.

Mostly, though, evangelicals simply have no stomach for the duty—and they won't tolerate it if anyone else tries to interrupt the evangelical frat party with a shrill alarms—even while the frat house is engulfed in flames.

We don't mind reading about Spurgeon's courage and foresight in the Down-Grade Controversy; we just don't want anyone today to exercise to that kind of discernment. In fact, listen to what Spurgeon said about that very same phenomenon in his era:

It is very pretty, is it not, to read of Luther and his brave deeds? Of course, everybody admires Luther! Yes, yes; but you do not want any one else to do the same to-day. When you go to the [zoo] you all admire the bear; but how would you like a bear at home, or a bear wandering loose about the street? You tell me that it would be unbearable, and no doubt you are right.

    So, we admire a man who was firm in the faith, say four hundred years ago; the past ages are a sort of bear-pit or iron cage for him; but such a man to-day is a nuisance, and must be put down. Call him a narrow-minded bigot, or give him a worse name if you can think of one. Yet imagine [if] in those ages past, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, and their compeers had said, "The world is out of order; but if we try to set it right we shall only make a great row, and get ourselves into disgrace. Let us go to our chambers, put on our night-caps, and sleep over the bad times, and perhaps when we wake up things will have grown better." Such conduct on their part would have entailed upon us a heritage of error. Age after age would have gone down into the infernal deeps, and the pestiferous bogs of error would have swallowed all. These men loved the faith and the name of Jesus too well to see them trampled on.

The need for vigilance today is greater, not less, than it has been in times past. Every biblical description of apostasy and spiritual danger fits our generation perfectly:

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

When that is a precise description of the culture in which we live and minister—when before our very eyes we can see "evil people and impostors [going] from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived"—it is more important than ever to stay alert and on guard against false teaching and against personal temptations. And it's more important than ever to make ourselves ready for the return of the Savior.

That's what Paul was telling the Corinthians: "Be watchful"—first of all over yourselves—your hearts, your passions, your words, and your whole way of life. Be watchful over one another, lest you fall into sin and temptation. Be on guard against Satan, "so that we would not be outwitted by [him]; for we are not ignorant of his designs." Likewise, be on guard against false teachers, who lie in wait to deceive and who have already begun to sow their deception in your midst. Be on guard against the world, with all its snares and seductions. Also, watch unto prayer, and prepare yourselves for the Lord's return.

All of that is packed into this one-word admonition: "Watch."

Incidentally, with regard to the eschatalogical significance of this command, he's not saying "make dispensational charts or obsess over trying to match today's news headlines with Bible prophecy"; he's saying (simply) live as if you believe the Lord could return at any moment. And that includes all these other aspects of prayerful and polemical vigilance. Both the Lord and the enemy are at hand. Stay on the alert.

---

The Laodiceans

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 Earnest Warning Against Lukewarmness," a sermon delivered Sunday morning, 26 July 1874, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London. Spurgeon is describing the kind of lukewarmness for which the Church at Laodicea was rebuked and warned by Christ in Revelation 3. All these things could well be said about some of today's best evangelical churches.

hey were not cold, but they were not hot; they were not infidels, yet they were not earnest believers; they did not oppose the gospel, neither did they defend it; they were not working mischief, neither were they doing any great good; they were not disreputable in moral character, but they were not distinguished for holiness; they were not irreligious, but they were not enthusiastic in piety nor eminent for zeal: they were what the world calls Moderates, they were of the Broad-church school, they were neither bigots nor Puritans, they were prudent and avoided fanaticism, respectable and averse to excitement.

Good things were maintained among them, but they did not make too much of them; they had prayer-meetings, but there were few present, for they liked quiet evenings home: when more attended the meetings they were still very dull, for they did their praying very deliberately and were afraid of being too excited. They were content to have all things done decently and in order, but vigor and zeal they considered to be vulgar.

Such churches have schools, Bible-classes, preaching rooms, and all sorts of agencies; but they might as well be without them, for no energy is displayed and no good comes of them. They have deacons and elders who are excellent pillars of the church, if the chief quality of pillars be to stand still, and exhibit no motion or emotion.

They have ministers who may be the angels of the churches, but if so they have their wings closely clipped, for they do not fly very far in preaching the everlasting gospel, and they certainly are not flames of fire: they may be shining lights of eloquence, but they certainly are not burning lights of grace, setting men's hearts on fire.

It makes one's flesh creep to see how sluggishly they move: I long for a knife to cut their red tape to pieces, and for a whip to lay about their shoulders to make them bestir themselves.

In such communities everything is done in a half-hearted, listless, dead-and-alive way, as if it did not matter much whether it was done or not. It makes one's flesh creep to see how sluggishly they move: I long for a knife to cut their red tape to pieces, and for a whip to lay about their shoulders to make them bestir themselves. Things are respectably done, the rich families are not offended, the sceptical party is conciliated, and the good people are not quite alienated: things are made pleasant all around. The right things are done, but as to doing them with all your might, and soul, and strength, a Laodicean church has no notion of what that means.

They are not so cold as to abandon their work, or to give up their meetings for prayer, or to reject the gospel. If they did so, then they could be convinced of their error and brought to repentance; but on the other hand they are neither hot for the truth, nor hot for conversions, nor hot for holiness, they are not fiery enough to burn the stubble of sin, nor zealous enough to make Satan angry, nor fervent enough to make a living sacrifice of themselves upon the altar of their God. They are neither cold nor hot.

This is a horrible state, because it is one which in a church wearing a good repute renders that reputation a lie. When other churches are saying, See how they prosper! See what they do for God! Jesus sees that the church is doing his work in a slovenly, make-believe manner, and he considers justly that it is deceiving its friends.

If the world recognizes such a people as being very distinctly an old-fashioned puritanic church, and yet there is unholy living among them, and careless walking, and a deficiency of real piety, prayer, liberality, and zeal, then the world itself is being deceived, and that too in the worst way, because it is led to judge falsely concerning Christianity, for it lays all these faults upon the back of religion, and cries out, It is all a farce! The thing is a mere presence! Christians are all hypocrites!

I fear there are churches of this sort. God grant we may not be numbered with them!

---

While you're waiting, a brief thought on preaching

by Dan Phillips

Remember: Scripture meant one thing before you were born, means the same now, and will mean the same, should you die.


Preach that meaning.

(I Tweeted this yesterday)

---

Colossians studies 8: one more specific error and response

by Dan Phillips

I have this nightmare that when my first book is about to go to press, and is out of my hands, uneditable, final version, goodbye, about to be seen by however-many friends and foes...

...and suddenly I realize some massive gaffe! Either a reference I meant to double-check, or a statement I meant to clarify or qualify ("Idiot! It was Van Leeuwen! Not vanGemeren!"), or what have you. But — and here we have the saddest two words in the English language — TOOOOOO LAAAAAAAATE.

Well, thank God it's not that way with blogging. And so, HSAT, I have one more late-inclusion I should have listed in the false teacher's teaching. This, however, is not so much a specific teaching as it is the upshot, the cumulative effect, of his teaching.

That effect: exclusivism.

This would have shown itself as an “us-them” mentality vis-a-vis other Christians. For instance, recall the issue of being judged and ruled out in chapter 2:16, 18 —

Therefore, stop letting someone judge you in eating and in drinking, and in respect to a festival or new moon or sabbath day.... Stop letting anyone rule you out, delighting in humiliation and worship of the angels, going into detail about things he has experienced, being inflated without cause by the mind of his flesh....

You see, this false doctrine created a sub-class (or perhaps I should say "hyper-class") of Christians. With that teaching, you have (A) the plain old, garden-variety, just-saved Christians, who just have Jesus and the Gospel and the word of Christ through His apostles; and then, above them, you have (B) this elite group of The Arrived. They have special knowledge, and live by special rules. They have access to special information granted through the special experiences that their leader had brought them exclusively, hot-off-the-presses from Heaven.

With that in mind, look afresh at 1:5-6 —

...of which you heard before in the word of the truth, the good news, which has come to you, just as also in all the world it is bearing fruit of itself and growing just as also among you, from the day in which you heard it and came to know fully the grace of God in truth.

Do the truths Paul subtly yet insistently emphasizes stand out now? Paul asserted boldly that the Colossians had already heard and believed the one and only saving Gospel. This was the same Gospel that had gone unaltered throughout the civilized world with equal saving and lifegiving effect. They had real, accurate knowledge of God's grace in that Gospel. There was neither place nor need for an update or improvement.

Another way Paul responded to this exclusivism was in his repeated use of the word translated "all" and "every":

• 1:4 having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love which you have for all the holy ones,
• 1:28 whom we are proclaiming by confronting every man, and by teaching every man in all wisdom, in order that we might present every man mature in Christ;
• 2:9-10  because in Him is permanently dwelling all the fullness of Deity bodily, and you stand filled full in Him, who is the Head over all rule and authority,
• 2:19 and not holding fast the Head, from whom all the body being supported and knit together through the joints and ligaments is growing with the growth given by God.

Paul's stress is on what all Christians have in common. God has poured out all His riches for all His people in Christ. He told all the truth to every person with the goal of presenting every Christian mature in Christ. Any teaching that then comes and makes essential divisions among them violates that rich truth.
Now, note: I say essential. By that I refer to basic vital equipment as Christians, not differing roles or ministries, such as distinguish man from woman, husband from wife, child from parent and so on. Nor do I have in mind varying stages of maturity or knowledge. To be as plain as I can, I am talking about teaching that creates "haves" and "have-nots" among people who are saved in Christ. Paul has no such vision. In common with all the apostles, all Christians without exception are the "haves," and all unbelievers are the "have-nots" (cf. John 3:36; 1 John 5:12).

Another way Paul combats this is by stressing the unity of the body in Christ, a unity vitiated by the exclusivism of the false teacher.

And on top of all these things put on love, which is the unifying bond that leads to maturity. And let the peace of Christ keep ruling in your hearts, unto which also you were called in one body; and become thankful people (Colossians 3:14-15)

The tendency of the Gospel is centripetal, that of this false teaching is centrifugal. Actually, though, it also would be centripetal... except that the center would be the false teacher, not Christ. After all, it was his thoughts, his revelations, his experiences, his rules, his special knowledge that they were being made to depend on.

Sound familiar?

---

I doubt it

by Frank Turk



Phil's post this week has apparently hit a nerve with a couple of atheist internet apologists, and I wanted to pull one of the branches of the thread on God's justice up front here for the sake of filling my quota at TeamPyro this week.

Dr. Ken Pulliam has made an appearance in the comments to give us his "agnostic" view of the problem that God can order things which, if a man ordered them, he might rightly be called a genocidal maniac. However, someone called Dr. Pulliam an "atheist" in the thread, and he wanted to make sure we all knew he was actually an "agnostic".

His last comment to me in that thread was this:

I don't claim to be agnostic about every proposition only those that involve ultimate realities. I mentioned the three ways of verifying the truth of various propositions.

For example, if my wife says: "It is raining outside." How do I verify it? I step outside and see. If what I see and feel corresponds (the correspondence theory) to the accepted definitions of what constitutes rain, then I accept her proposition as true. If she says: "The lawnmower needs to be brought inside or it will rust in the rain." How do I know if her proposition is true? I know from past knowledge that if metal gets wet it will rust. Her statement coheres (the coherence theory) with other accepted and verified beliefs. If she says: "If you put a tarp over the lawnmower, it won't get wet." How do I know if that is a true proposition? I put a tarp over the lawnmower and wait till it stops raining and then see if the lawnmower is wet. If putting the tarp over the mower works (the pragmatic theory), then I know that her proposition was true.

However, if she says: "God is sending the rain." How can I verify it? I can't. Thus, I am agnostic about that proposition.

Now, do I need to believe in a deity in order to verify any of the four propositions above? Yes, the 4th one but not the first three.

Let me put it to you (Dr. Pulliam in particular, but "you-all" readers of this here bit of bloggin') this way: "agnosticism" in any form is a statement about the epistemic value of truth claims. As late as Hume the agnostic claim really placed all statements which are definitive -- statements which make a pan-physical judgments about reality; statements which are correlative of common value or nature -- in a category which requires us to have some doubt about their validity. The basis for Hume saying this was the limits of human perception and reason.

Which, let me say, is a fine bit of humility on the part of Hume, given his disdain for the idea of divine revelation. But Hume's agnosticism was an honest one which didn't limit itself to just religious claims.

This appeal to some kind of "honest" epistemological stoicism in Dr. Pulliam's examples of whether (or how) he believes his wife or not is interesting -- but really, is that how he lives? He tests the quality of the gas at the pump before he puts it in his car to make sure it is of the proper octane and isn't full of water or grit? He validates the Health Department certification of every restaurant before sitting down? You personally audit your bank to make sure they aren't doing stupid things with your money? You stop even at Green Lights because you never know who’s coming the other way?

I think he can define agnosticism, and he can parrot the theories for agnostic epistemology, but he has never spent a day in his life living that way.

When an atheist finds a Christian who lives his life like this, the word "hypocrite" comes out as if it solves the problem or wins the argument. (in fact, Dr. Pulliam has said as much in another comment in that thread -- Christians don't live the way they say they ought) I think it only identifies the problem – which is either one of dishonesty or one of immaturity. In the former case, the hypocrisy is there because it benefits the hypocrite – somehow, he is gaining something he can’t get by honest means; in the latter case, it’s a matter of discipleship – the hypocrite doesn’t mean to live against his beliefs, but he’s not really trained up rightly so he doesn’t really understand the implications of his catechism.

It’s unkind to assume the former – because I suspect that you have never made a penny from your “agnosticism”. But to assume the latter means that someday you will, in fact, act as if you really are “agnostic about every proposition that involves ultimate realities” (like whether it’s raining outside or not, or whether the lawnmower can be protected from the rain by a tarp, [as in your examples] or for that matter whether you have actually put the right octane gas in your car [which is my example using the same definition of “ultimate”]). But he will never live that way – it’s grossly impractical at best.

But here’s what gets me: it seems to me that these “ultimate” realities (things which he says he knows via correspondence or practical/utilitarian means, but for which he doesn't actually do the due diligence) are far more critical to making sure his life is impacted for his personal benefit than this debate about whether or not Jesus Christ was promised to Israel, born to a virgin, and died and resurrected to prove He was who he said he was.

So what gives? Why duck behind the "agnostic" label for "ultimate reality" when really, one is just doubtful about the claims of people with religious beliefs only?

This should be interesting ...

---

Colossians studies 7: Paul responds to the false teacher (2)

by Dan Phillips

Thus far, we have seen that the church in Colosse was a relatively young little church situated in a culture with diverse populace and influences. An associate of Paul's named Epaphras had founded the church by the pure preaching of the person and gospel of Jesus Christ. The church had gotten a good start, and was showing genuine life and vitality, as the gospel bore fruit in their lives.

However, an individual had come bearing a false teaching. This teaching had elements of paganism and mutated Judaism, and involved at least some degree of attempted syncretism with the edges of Christian faith. He and his teaching had apparently not yet begun to make serious inroads into the church, but Epaphras was concerned. He appealed to his mentor, the apostle Paul, for a word — and what a word he got!

Paul responded by affirming Epaphras and his message, as we saw last time.

More potently, Paul responded by preaching Christ in all His fullness. How do we see that, specifically, in Colossians? A study I did found that, out of the 95 verses in Colossians, Christ is mentioned in 53 of those verses. In fact, some verses mention Him two and three times.

To break it down a bit, this means that some 56% of the verses mention Christ at least once.

Or, put another way, every other thing Paul says is something about Jesus.

Why?  I hope to open this up more fully as we proceed, but very briefly:

First, in Christ God has come and solved our most fundamental problem (1:19-22)

...because in Him the Father was pleased for all the Fullness  to dwell permanently,  and through Him to reconcile all things back unto Himself, by making peace through the blood shed on  His cross, through Him — whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens.  And you, though being formerly abidingly alienated, and enemies in mental disposition, as shown by your wicked works, yet now He reconciled you back in the body of His flesh through His  death, to present you holy and unblemished and inculpable in His very presence,…

As has been often and well-said, we did not primarily need a teacher nor a philosopher; we had had both in Moses and Solomon, and they served to show the distance between us and God's holiness and wisdom. We did not primarily need an example. We had such a pattern in the Law, and it damned us, as does the "example" of Christ if we attempt to earn salvation by emulation.

Nor did we even solely need God to call us to come to Himself, to bid us and welcome us and throw His arms open to us. Why not? It would be a loving and lovely offer, but....  Try filling a baseball team in a graveyard. Try populating a party with ravenous wolves. We both could not have come, and would not have come, had the invitation been only external.

Nor did we need a Salvation-cosigner, merely achieving salvation, making salvation available, as if one were to lay down a goblet brimming with the elixir of life in a morgue, bidding "whosoever will" to come and drink, then standing back to watch.

No, we needed a Savior, one who came into the world not merely to teach, nor merely to guide, nor merely to offer salvation; but one who came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy 1:15).

We needed God Himself to deal once and for all with our sin-issue, root and branches. So He did in Christ (Romans 8:3). All the fullness of Deity dwelt bodily in Christ.

• It was that body that made possible the shedding of His blood, without which there could be no atonement nor forgiveness (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22). 
• It was that Deity that imparted infinite value to the shed blood (Acts 20:28).

So He does not merely open the door for us, but He opens it, clothes us, and carries us through that door into the presence of God.

Second, in Christ we are filled full (2:9-10)

...because in Him is permanently dwelling all the fullness of Deity bodily, and you stand filled full in Him,  who is the Head over all rule and authority

He who is filled with God fills us with life and blessing. His filling is natural and native; ours is a covenantal boon. His is eternal; ours has a beginning. His is infinite; ours is finite — but sufficient.

This last point is worth further unpacking. I plan to take a half-step back next time, and revisit this fullness which all Christians know in Christ.

---

The church militant?

by Phil Johnson

Series Guide (This post is part of a series, taken from the transcript of a message on 1 Corinthians 16:13 given at the 2010 Shepherds' Conference.) Intro: "The church militant?" 1. "Watch Out" 2. "Stand Firm" 3. "Man Up" 4. "Be Strong"

ost evangelicals don't really think they are at war against false religion and spiritual lies. Just read the books and blogs of the people who talk most about being "missional" and "culturally relevant"—and you might get the impression that friendship with the world is the number one goal of the church. It's not. It is a grievous sin to be avoided. "Friendship with the world is enmity with God." The church is supposed to be an army waging war against worldly values—not Hollywood's Welcome Wagon.

Churchmen in these postmodern times seem absolutely terrified by the militant language in Scripture, frightened about the prospect of contending earnestly for the faith. After all, you can't earnestly contend for the faith in rationalistic and postmodern universities and keep any kind of academic respectability.

Christians today think they have a better idea: Why not serve high tea and buttered scones to our ideological adversaries and have a polite dialogue while we look for common ground so that we can affirm one another?

That seems so much more "civilized" and "charitable" doesn't it?

Why does the warfare metaphor have to be given so much emphasis?

The answer, of course, is that Scripture itself gives prominence to this truth. We really are in a war. It's not a literal struggle against flesh and blood. It's actually something much greater, far more dangerous, and infinitely more serious than that, because what's at stake in this war is eternal. Ephesians 6:12: "We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."

Souls are perishing in this conflict—passing into eternal judgment where there is no hope of redemption. It's a somber, profound reality. That truth is not at all consistent with the amusement-park atmosphere so many sc-century evangelical churches have tried to cultivate. It's not in any sense harmonious with the spirit of our age. But every faithful Christian must be a warrior.

---

Giving ground to the world is a bad missional strategy

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 taken from "The Broad Wall," a Sermon first published in 1911, preached on some unspecified earlier date at least 20 years earlier at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London.

atan will tell you that, if you bend a little; and come near to the ungodly, then they also will come a little way to meet you.

Ay, but it is not so. You lose your strength, Christian, the moment you depart from your integrity. What do you think ungodly people say behind your back, if they see you inconsistent to please them? "Oh!" say they, "there is nothing in his religion but vain pretense; the man is not sincere."

Although the world may openly denounce the rigid Puritan, it secretly admires him. When the big heart of the world speaks out, it has respect to the man that is sternly honest, and will not yield his principles,—no, not a hair's breadth.

In such an age as this, when there is so little sound conviction, when principle is cast to the winds, and when a general latitudinarianism, both of thought and of practice, seems to rule the day, it is still the fact that a man who is decided in his belief, speaks his mind boldly, and acts according to his profession, is sure to command the reverence of mankind.

Depend upon it, woman, your husband and your children will respect you none the more because you say, "I will give up some of my Christian privileges," or, "I will go sometimes with you into that which is sinful." You cannot help them out of the mire if you go and plunge into the mud yourself. You cannot help to make them clean if you go and blacken your own hands. How can you wash their faces then?

You young man in the shop, and you young woman in the workroom, if you keep yourselves to yourselves in Christ's name, chaste and pure for Jesus, not laughing at jests which should make you blush, not mixing up with pastimes that are suspicious; but, on the other hand, tenderly jealous of your conscience as one who shrinks from a doubtful thing as a sinful thing, holding sound faith, and being scrupulous of the truth,—if you will so keep yourselves, your company in the midst of others shall be as though an angel shook his wings, and they will say to one another, "Refrain from this or that just now, for So-and-so is here."

They will fear you, in a certain sense; they will admire you in secret; and who can tell but that, at last, they may come to imitate you?

---

Redneck Atheism: The Hypocrisy of Secular Humanism

by Phil Johnson



've grouped two of our atheist friends' top ten taunts together, because they stem from the same faulty presupposition. Both of them impugn what Scripture says about the justice of God, and they implicitly hold up humanistic values as a superior standard:

Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and animals. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs—though excluding those in all rival sects—will spend eternity in an infinite hell of suffering. Yet, you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."

Of course God by definition has the power of life and death. All that He created belongs to Him and is His to deal with as He pleases. Evidence is everywhere to prove that He ordinarily deals graciously and benevolently with His creatures—that "his tender mercies are over all his works" (Psalm 145:9; cf. Matthew 5:45). According to Scripture, He is the source and the epitome of all righteousness, and the giver of every good and perfect gift (James 1:17). Goodness, justice, mercy, and kindness are defined by His character, and anyone who wants to hold Him to a different standard would need to give some valid justification for that standard—other than "well, it seems to me."

Scripture also says that "the wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23); that all sentient persons without exception have sinned (Romans 3:9-23); and that our entire race is altogether fallen, wholly corrupted with sin, and therefore under the condemnation of God (Romans 5:12-19). Moreover, Scripture tells us God is to be feared, because He has the right either to show mercy or to kill—and "after he has killed, [He] has authority to cast into hell" (Luke 12:5).

It is by no means remarkable or hard to fathom that a righteous God, perfectly just and rightfully sovereign, would punish someone with the due penalty of sin—especially civilizations as thoroughly wicked and self-indulgent as Gomorrah, Egypt, or the Amalekites. After all, He condemned the whole race of angels who fell, casting them from heaven without hesitation and without remedy (2 Peter 2:4; Hebrews 2:16).

So the real mystery is not that God sometimes destroys sinners with death, but that He ordinarily shows such extreme mercy.

The destruction of infants and animals by human armies under God's orders poses a deeper moral dilemma, of course, but it is a flat-out lie to suggest that Christians "don't even flinch" when we read those biblical accounts, much less when we ponder what Jesus taught about hell. (For those wishing to investigate that whole question in more depth, a good starting point is this video by John Piper.)

But let's note first of all that incidents of divinely-ordered genocide are highly unusual and confined to one or two specific points in biblical history. It is both spiritually naive and intellectually irresponsible to compare Joshua's military campaigns with wanton, willful, routine, and random acts of terrorism or genocide done in the name of religion. It is especially fatuous to suggest that slaughter and violence in the name of YWHW is characteristic of His people through the ages. That is a convenient argument for the lazy critic, perhaps, but it's not a very good one.

Frankly, the past century of humanism, scientific rationalism, and secularist "justice" is—or ought to be—far more embarrassing to Atheism than anything an atheist might criticize biblical Christianity for. The atheist record is even worse than that of religion in general, for that matter. As bad as false religion can be, we need to remember that it wasn't Islamic terrorism, Hindu violence, or suicidal cults that slaughtered the most people in the 20th century. It certainly wasn't Christianity. It was the followers of Darwin and Nietzsche: Nazis, Communists, and other totalitarian rationalists and social engineers.

And while our atheist friends are pretending outrage over the slaughter of innocent babies, let's talk about the death-toll brought on by abortion—a favorite cause célèbre of the humanist crowd and an evil that would not be possible at all if atheism had not left its indelible stamp on western culture.

Atheism is what gave us the most violent century in human history, and the atheists now want to make this the point around which they rally to oppose the God of the Bible?

The real issue here goes back to the question of biblical authority. Should humanistic moral judgments be evaluated by the Scriptures, or vice versa?

Atheism is what gave us the most violent century in human history, and the atheists now want to make this the point around which they rally to oppose the God of the Bible?

And if you want to set an artificial, atheistic moral code above Scripture, what is your justification and rationale for doing so? From where does your moral authority arise?

Scripture says God is a righteous judge, and the Bible also gives us every reason to trust Him. The dismal record of human judgment gives me no reason to trust that.

God's final judgment, though severe, will be perfectly righteous, and in the end, every tongue will confess that. It's neither "unloving" nor "intolerant" to warn those who are in danger of that judgment—and even some of your best-known atheistic allies acknowledge that.

This barely scratches the surface of an admittedly difficult question, I know. We'll draw out some more substance in the combox, I'm sure. But it's a busy day and I need to get to work now. Talk amongst yourselves.

---

Why I'm Not Looking for a Movement to Join

by Phil Johnson

What follows is a short excerpt from a message I gave 5 years ago at the Shepherds' Conference. The session was titled, "Dead Right: The Failure of Fundamentalism," and it unleashed a firestorm in the blogosphere. (That was a couple of months before I actually began blogging in earnest.) A transcript of my message was posted at SharperIron.org (an always-interesting fundamentalist blog) just a day or so after I delivered it. A prolonged and very active discussion began at that blog even before the Shepherds' Conference ended that year. When I heard about the SharperIron.org conversation, I visited that blog to supply a more accurate transcript, provide some documentation, and clarify a few of my comments. There I encountered Dave Doran, president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. He was an articulate and patient critic of my message, and we had an extended conversation on that blog, lasting several weeks. Someone saved most of those posts, and the document (available here) makes fascinating reading even now. Dr. Doran reminisced about that exchange on his blog today, and SharperIron also posted links to the original article and the Doran-Johnson discussion. That led me to the transcript of my message, and the following section stood out to me as blog-worthy. Since I need to do another "Redneck Atheism" post tomorrow, I'm stepping on Dan Phillips's excellent post this afternoon in order to get this online whilst it's still in my head. Enjoy.

   have always preferred independency. I consider myself an independent in every sense. I'm not looking for a movement to join. I belong to [Grace Community] church. That's enough for me. And I'm willing to work alongside anyone and everyone who shares my essential biblical convictions, whether the label they would slap on themselves is "fundamentalist," "evangelical," "strict and particular Baptist," or just plain old "Christian."

Think about the fruits of the various twentieth-century movements. Liberals and theological radicals never did anything but kill churches and turn denominations into spiritual wastelands.

"Fundamentalists" who tied themselves to the movement got sidetracked into fighting and dividing into ever-smaller and less significant factions. They managed to start with the all the right ideas, all the right enemies, and all the best men—and reduce their movement to virtual insignificance in less than a hundred years.

"Moderates" never did anything, period, except gum up the works of denominational discipline, while compromising and clouding everything that ought to be kept crystal-clear.

If you think about it, the twentieth century saw the same pattern repeated that you see throughout all of church history. The true vitality of the church is traceable through the nonconformists, the independents, the true biblical separatists. The true secret of their power is not—and never has been—in earthly organizations, political clout, or visible movements of any kind. Their power is derived from the biblical truth they preach. And the influence of that kind of power has always been what determines the relative health and spiritual vigor of the church.

---

Redneck atheism: Biblical ignorance

by Dan Phillips

OK, I'll take the in-vite. Actually, a couple of them appeal to me, but let's start with the low-hanging fruit. In this challenge, I take the "you" as "you Christians," not "you, DJP."

You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.

Agreed! Next? 

Okay, not really, not entirely. If the point of the criticism is that a staggering amount of so-called Christians (A) have very little direct knowledge about the Bible, and, far worse (B) don't care a lick about it... how could I disagree? Don't every one of us here lament that very fact, week after week? Isn't that why the professing church is overrun with nonsense and tomfoolery in the name of Christ? Isn't that why "churches" with no Biblical definition nor mission are filled to squeaking, to say nothing of the piles of claptrap that pockmark "Christian" bookstores?

So: guilty.

Though I'd not be as quick to grant the point about how much Bible "many" atheists and agnostics actually know. In my experience, the tally there isn't always much better.

I recall my first trembling encounter, as a young Christian, with an apostate neighbor. He was a much older man, well-educated, a former Christian. Myself very new in the faith, but wanting to speak with him of Christ, I asked him why he wasn't a Christian. I trembled inwardly as I anticipated the shattering blow he was sure to deal to my newborn faith.

"Those preposterous miracles," he said.

I blinked. "Oh?" I asked innocently. "Like... which ones?"

His answer: nothing. Blank. Not one example. So — as with most if not all atheists and agnostics — the presenting story was not the real story.

But let's grant for the sake of argument that 99% of professing Christians are dirt-ignorant of the Bible, and 99% of atheists and agnostics are experts.

So? What is that supposed to prove?

You see, for that to have any evidentiary force against Biblical faith,  you would have to find me a verse that says, "Everyone who names My name will be an expert in My words." Is there such a verse? There is not.

Now, there are verses like John 8:31-32, which reads:

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

So here, Jesus does say that it is a mark of genuine Christian faith that one will continue in His word, know the truth, and be set free.

Now, turn that on its head. It would mean that —

• if one has not been set free, he has not known the truth; 
• if he has not known the truth, he has not continued in Jesus' word; and
• if he has not continued in Jesus' word, he is not truly His disciple.

So all we learn, granting the 99% figure, is that 99% of those who say they are Christians are not really Christians.

Which has zero evidentiary force against Biblical faith.

In fact, quite the contrary, from two perspectives:

1. The Bible itself is quite clear that many will claim to know Christ, but the claims will be false (Matthew 7:21-23). Calling Him "Lord" is meaningless, if the call is not adorned by obedience (Luke 6:46; John 14:15: 15:14). Yet many will do so, and will ultimately apostatize (Matthew 24:10-12). So actually, a high number of false professors confirms what the Bible says... sadly so, but undeniably so. But what's more....
2. This admission from the "skeptic" will come in quite handy later. Because, if he's true to form, pretty soon he'll fall to ad hominems. He'll want to talk about his loony Aunt Betty, and his hypocritical dad; and then maybe it will be the Crusades, or Benny Hinn, or some such. 

And when he tries this, well, we'll be all set, won't we? We'll just remind him that, as he himself said, a whole lot of people who say they are Christians really aren't.

See, then we can get back to talking about Christ. Because Christ is the issue. Our aim isn't to preach Christians. Our friend's greatest need isn't to believe in Christians, or accept Christians. We want and need to preach Christ, because it is Christ who our friend needs. Everything else is a fruitless, pointless dodge.

Next?

---

One other thing today

by Frank Turk

If you're looking at the new layout/template, you can see the "star rating" for each post now available as we enjoy each other's company.

Now, we all know that every post on this blog is a 5-Star post by common internet standards. DJP can write a 5-Star post if he was typing in asian characters with his feet on the topic of what he had for lunch, by the common internet standard; Phil has forgotten posts he never made which, but the standard of the average blog, would be 5+ stars. I am fortunate to usually contribute adequately.

HOWEVER, that said, I have two favors to ask of you groupies:

1. Try hard to rate the posts on the PYRO scale and not on the scale of, "well, compared to Hugh Hewitt or Perez Hilton, that post's like a 13.4 on a scale of 5". So for example, this post is probably a 2 or a 3 -- informative, mildly amusing, but it didn't rock your world. Rate it appropriately

2. When you have time, use the archive to find your favorite posts and rate them as well. I realize that we have over 2000 posts to pick from, but you probably have a handful of posts you really, really liked. Rate those.

Both of these requests are important because, eventually, there will be a "highest rated posts" or "most popular posts" widget for Blogger, and what a great resource that would be for the passers-by and the n00bs -- if you astute readers already rated the best of the best of the best and they showed up in the sidebar.

Just sayin': help a brother out.

---

Redneck Atheism: Science vs. Enthusiasm?

by Frank Turk

So from the list of Redneck Atheist complaints, we have this interesting affirmation:

While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

Some posts write themselves.

Listen: it turns out that Christianity actually appeals to "history, geology, biology and physics". That is: the simple claim of the Gospel is that something actually happened which a person ought to be aware of and take note of.

This is how John the Apostle says it:

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us -- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete. [ESV, 1 John 1]

No tongues there -- no "Holy Spirit Hokey Pokey". Simply Jesus as a real person making God known, and witnesses making what they saw and touched and heard known.

Anything else I would say would be piling on. Which, really, is what the comments are for.

---

Colossians studies 6: Paul responds to the false teacher (1)

by Dan Phillips

[First and appropos of little, peer-pressure has done its work on me, and I have now yielded to the siren call of Twitter. Why? Because the cool kidz are doing it. And now you know that.]

Last time we outlined the false teaching that loomed as a threat to the young church in Colosse. Now we begin to study how the apostle responded.


First, I notice that Paul does not detail the false teaching. This is why there has been such debate and variations among students of the letter, through the centuries, as to the exact configuration of “the Colossian heresy.” We are left with allusions, mostly in chapter two; and with hints we glean from Paul’s emphases.

Rather than laying out the opposing view in detail, and then refuting it point by point, Paul mostly issues a positive corrective. He does not say, “Teacher X says 123, but that’s not true, because of 456. The real truth is 789.” Instead, Paul says in effect, “The truth is 789. You know this. Why ever would anyone settle for 123?”

It would be false to conclude from this that there is never any place for doing what Paul does not do here. For instance, in Galatians and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul does dedicate more space to presenting and refuting specific error. That is not the case, however, in Colossians.

Second, I notice that Paul doesn’t name this single false teacher who is threatening the flock. Sometimes, he does name the false teachers (1 Timothy 1:20), and sometimes he doesn’t (1 Corinthians 15:12; 2 Corinthians 12:11; Galatians 6:12). I don't know a simple formula that will explains the apostle’s choices in each case.

I can, however, observe that what the apostle actually does has the effect of focusing attention on the cure, rather than the disease (or its carrier). It is as if Paul is saying, “This man is nothing. What he is saying is of no consequence. That’s precisely what puzzles me: given that Christ is who He is, and that He has done what He has done – why would you pay any attention to such things, rather than stay as far away from them as you can?”

So what does Paul do, to counter the false teacher? I’ll lift out two related facets today, and then (DV) develop more next time.

FIRST: Paul supports the teaching of Epaphras (cf. 1:4-7, 23; 2:7 [DPUV]).

...having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and the love which you have for all the holy ones, ⁵on account of the hope which is laid away for you in the heavens, of which you heard before in the word of the truth, the good news, ⁶which has come to you, just as also in all the world it is bearing fruit of itself and growing just as also among you, from the day in which you heard it and came to know fully the grace of God in truth; ⁷just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ for your sake,

1:23 assuming that you remain on in the faith, abidingly founded and settled and not being shifted away from the hope of the good news which you heard, which was announced in all creation which is under Heaven, of which I, Paul, became a servant

2:7 abidingly rooted and being built up in Him, and being confirmed by the faith just as you were taught, abounding in it in thanksgiving.

Paul speaks of their faith (1:4a), love (1:4b), and hope (1:5) — and then says that they had learned these truths from Epaphras. That is Paul's seal of approval on Epaphras' teaching. In this way, the great apostle tells the Colossians, "What you already heard from Ephaphras is the real deal. It is the one saving, sanctifying, and preserving and true Gospel. There will not be another. You have no need for another. There will be no second editions, no upgrades, no supplements. What there is to know, you have already heard. Epaphras is the man."

Then 1:23 reaffirms that they are not to leave nor shift from this faith that Epaphras had taught them. What is more, it is the "catholic" faith — which is to say that it is the one Gospel that is preached everywhere, without alteration: full salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. This teacher has nothing they need.

Then 2:7 again reaffirms that all the confirmation they need in Christ, they will get from the faith Epaphras had taught them. No new revelations are necessary.

So, they had already heard the right truth.

SECOND: Paul supported the character of Epaphras (cf. 1:7; 4:12, 13)

1:27 just as you learned it from Epaphras, our beloved fellow-slave, who is a faithful servant of Christ for your sake,

4:12 Epaphras greets you, who is one of you, a slave of Christ Jesus, always struggling on your behalf in his prayers, in order that you might stand mature and fully assured in every aspect of the will of God. ¹³For I bear him witness that he has much anguish for you, and for those in Laodicea, and for those in Hierapolis.

To say that Epaphras is "faithful" is to say that he is reliable, dependable, can be counted on — as opposed to this self-impressed upstart. Epaphras is committed (1) to Christ's service, and (2) to their spiritual wellbeing. Neither of these things is true of the false teacher.

Not only did they already have the right truth, but had already heard if from the right man.

This, then, is Paul's opening salvo. It speaks to us today. Epaphras was not an apostle, but he had grounded that church absolutely sufficiently, by laying the church's one foundation: the preaching of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:10-11). It was not necessary that he have special standing or special, supernatural, revelatory gifting. What was necessary was that he preach Christ — and he had done that.

This tells us who are pastors to preach Christ, and we can be assured that we stand within the apostolic tradition. This is the true apostolic succession: the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. If you are dedicated to Christ's service, and if you preach the Gospel, you could cherish the hope that Paul would also write a letter commending your ministry because and only if he could also commend your message.

SIDEBAR: don't miss the sad irony here. The sect which today most famously makes the biggest noise about "apostolic succession" — doesn't have it.

It tells all us sheep, as well, to stick with the Gospel. Hear it straight, then stick with it. Expect our adversary to send persuasive salesmen with "new and improved" versions to appeal to our restless discontent. Expect, and prepare to ignore.

As we shall continue to see, Colossians brings us a very contemporary, much-needed message: Christ is supreme and sufficient. Accept neither supplement nor substitute.

Under Construction

by Frank Turk

Sorry for the dust and stuff. It'll get normal in a few hours.
_______________________

OK, as of right now we're running a blogger 2.0 template, and I think I have everything migrated from the old template to the new. It looks vaguely different. Except for the headlines which I have intentionally made sans-serif (at Phil's request).

So, enjoy insofar as you would enjoy something like this.

---

Brothers, We Are Not Figure-Skaters

by Phil Johnson

Pulpit Highlights - Phil Johnson from Grace Community Church on Vimeo.

---

On Reimagining the Gospel Afresh for Every Age

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 titled "Progressive Theology" in the April 1888 issue of The Sword and the Trowel. Reading it, you might think Spurgeon was dealing with today's "New Perspectives" and assorted Emerging novelties. That simply reflects what we've been saying for the past five years: The controversies in the church today are not new; they are all basically reruns. And Spurgeon sometimes speaks more cogently to our age than all the leading evangelical pundits of today combined. We ought to pay better attention to what he said:

he idea of a progressive gospel seems to have fascinated many. To us that notion is a sort of cross-breed between nonsense and blasphemy. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and, since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind's eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task, we feel half inclined to laugh; the case is so much like the proposal of moles to improve the light of the sun. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite! We think we see them brooding over hidden truths to which they lend the aid of their superior genius to accomplish their development!

Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth rearing. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this "modern thought." It is singular that, by the way of free-thought, men should be reaching the same end as others arrived at by the path of superstition. Salvation by works is one distinctive doctrine of the new gospel: in many forms this is avowed and gloried in—not, perhaps, in exact words, but in declarations quite unmistakable. The Galatian heresy is upon us with a vengeance: in the name of virtue and morality, justification by faith and salvation by free grace are bitterly assailed. Equally a child of darkness is this New Purgatory. It is taught that men can escape if they neglect the great salvation. No longer is the call, "Today, if ye will hear his voice"; for the tomorrow of the next state will answer quite as well. Of course, if men may be gradually upraised from sin and ruin in the world to come, common humanity would lead us to pray that the process may go on rapidly. We are hearing every now and again of "a night of prayers for the dead," among certain priests of the Establishment. Nor is it among Ritualists alone, or even mainly, for the other day, at a meeting for prayer, an eminent believer in this notion prayed heartily for the devil; and his prayer, upon the theory of the restitution of all the sinful, was most natural. Prayers for the dead and prayers for the devil! Shades of Knox and Latimer, where are ye? How easy will it be to go from prayers for the dead to payment to good men for special supplications on their behalf! Of course if a devout person will spend an hour in praying a deceased wife out of her miseries, a loving husband will not let him exercise his supplications for nothing. It would be very mean of him if he did. "Purgatory Pick-purse," as our Protestant forefathers called it, is upon us again, having entered by the back-door of infidel speculation instead of by the front entrance of pious opinion.

Nor is this all; for our "improvers" have pretty nearly obliterated the hope of such a heaven as we have all along expected. Of course, the reward of the righteous is to be of no longer continuance than the punishment of the wicked. Both are described as "everlasting" in the same verse, spoken by the same sacred lips; and as the "punishment" is made out to be only "age-lasting," so must the "life" be. Worse even than this, if worse can be, it is taught by some of these "improvers" that even the blessed of the Father are by no means blessed overmuch; for, according to the latest information, even they will have to undergo a sort of purgatorial purification in the world to come. There are degrees in the inventiveness of the nineteenth- century theologians; but, to our mind, it is the license given to this inventiveness, even when it is most moderate, which is the root of the whole mischief. What is to be taught next? And what next?

Do men really believe that there is a gospel for each century? Or a religion for each fifty years? Will there be in heaven saints saved according to a score sorts of gospel? Will these agree together to sing the same song? And what will the song be? Saved on different footings, and believing different doctrines, will they enjoy eternal concord, or will heaven itself be only a new arena for disputation between varieties of faiths?

We shall, on the supposition of an ever-developing theology, owe a great deal to the wisdom of men. God may provide the marble; but it is man who will carve the statue. It will no longer be true that God has hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and revealed them unto babes; but the babes will be lost in hopeless bewilderment, and carnal wisdom will have fine times for glorying. Scientific men will be the true prophets of our Israel, even though they deny Israel's God; and instead of the Holy Spirit guiding the humble in heart, we shall see the enthronement of "the spirit of the age," whatever that may mean. "The world by wisdom knew not God," so says the apostle of the ages past; but the contrary is to be our experience nowadays. New editions of the gospel are to be excogitated by the wisdom of men, and we are to follow in the wake of "thoughtful preachers," whose thoughts are not as God's thoughts. Verily this is the deification of man! Nor do the moderns shrink even from this. To many of our readers it may already be known that it is beginning to be taught that God himself is but the totality of manhood, and that our Lord Jesus only differed from us in being one of the first men to find out that he was God: he was but one item of that race, which, in its solidarity, is divine.

It is thought to be mere bigotry to protest against the mad spirit which is now loose among us. Pan-indifferentism is rising like the tide; who can hinder it? We are all to be as one, even though we agree in next to nothing. It is a breach of brotherly love to denounce error. Hail, holy charity! Black is white; and white is black. The false is true; the true is false; the true and the false are one. Let us join hands, and never again mention those barbarous, old-fashioned doctrines about which we are sure to differ. Let the good and sound men for liberty's sake shield their "advanced brethren"; or, at least, gently blame them in a tone which means approval. After all, there is no difference, except in the point of view from which we look at things: it is all in the eye, or, as the vulgar say, "it is all my eye"! In order to maintain an open union, let us fight as for dear life against any form of sound words, since it might restrain our liberty to deny the doctrines of the Word of God!

But what if earnest protests accomplish nothing, because of the invincible resolve of the infatuated to abide in fellowship with the inventors of false doctrine? Well, we shall at least have done our duty. We are not responsible for success. If the plague cannot be stayed, we can at least die in the attempt to remove it. Every voice that is lifted up against Anythingarianism is at least a little hindrance to its universal prevalence. It may be that in some one instance a true witness is strengthened by our word, or a waverer is kept from falling; and this is no mean reward. It is true that our testimony may be held up to contempt; and may, indeed, in itself be feeble enough to be open to ridicule; but yet the Lord, by the weak things of the world, has overcome the mighty in former times, and he will do so again. We cannot despair for the church or for the truth, while the Lord lives and reigns; but, assuredly, the conflict to which the faithful are now summoned is not less arduous than that in which the Reformers were engaged. So much of subtlety is mixed up with the whole business, that the sword seems to fall upon a sack of wool, or to miss its mark. However, plain truth will cut its way in the end, and policy will ring its own death-knell.

---