For the moms

by Phil Johnson
Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote space at the beginning of each week to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive.

A mother's influence

"Fathers are all very well—God bless them!—and a father's godly influence and earnest prayers are of untold value to his children; but the mothers are worth two of them, mostly, as to the moral training and religious bent of their sons and daughters."

With love from all the PyroManiacs to all the mothers in our lives.

---

On proper attire for church

My turn to post on top of James Spurgeon.
by Phil Johnson

Dan's post yesterday made an important point to which I add a hearty and solemn amen. The comment-thread that ensued prompted a secondary discussion about whether our attire for church ought to be formal or informal. I want to bring that issue up out of the meta.

Here's how it came about:

Somewhere under Dan's post, Sharon added a comment bewailing the epidemic of informality that has changed the look and feel of church services everywhere since the days of "Leave it to Beaver." Hers is not a popular point of view these days, except among schoolmarm types. After all, everyone knows that legalism is a greater threat than irreverence, right?

Well, maybe not.

First of all, thanks to Jerry Wragg for saving me some time (once again). I haven't time to say everything I would like about the issue. So see Jerry's lengthy comment in this thread for a good summary of my view.

But I wanted to add this:

Regarding formality

There's important truth on both sides of this question. Scripture gives no dress code for when the congregation assembles—except that we're expressly forbidden to favor people with fine attire (James 2:2-4). Selah.

It's also possible to be both formal and immodest.

Moreover, I've been in very formal environments where the formality seemed designed mainly as an opportunity to parade one's finery. To whatever degree that's someone's motive for dressing up, it's a sinful motive.

So I wouldn't argue that church must be formal. I've ministered too often in undeveloped countries and non-western cultures to suggest that neckties are a biblical necessity. (Ask Jay Adams if you don't believe me about that.)

Oddly enough, however, it seems to me that in less affluent cultures, people are usually more inclined to see the church service as an occasion to wear one's best clothing. For what it's worth.

Regarding informality

On the other hand, even those who claim to eschew every kind of dress code would surely deem some things too informal or otherwise inappropriate for church attire. And "modesty" is not the only issue here. If Sharon showed up at Chris Freeland's church in her band uniform, if Frank Turk arrived in a zoot suit, if I came in my lederhosen, or if James White showed up in his kilt (even with his bicycle tights underneath for modesty), I bet Chris would raise an eyebrow (or at least swallow hard).

Except for certain Anglicans, I'm betting most of us would agree that clown suits are generally inappropriate attire for church.

So even if we don't have a legalistic dress code, practically all of us would recognize that some kinds of attire are more appropriate than others for church.

But:

If there's an imbalance today on one side or the other, it seems to me that it's largely in the direction of cheapening, informalizing, and trivializing everything that's sacred.

Which is to say that while wouldn't necessarily suggest that it's a sin to dress like this, I'd wonder about a Christian who dressed that way for church.

In other words...

There's an important and valid principle in what Sharon is saying, and those inclined to blow it off ought to pause and listen first:

To a certain extent, our attire in church reflects our attitude toward the significance of corporate worship and the holiness of the One whom we worship, and we ought to give some thought to that fact when we decide what to wear. The tendency toward making Hawaiian shirts, Bermuda shorts, sandals, bare midriffs, and gold chains the standard attire for corporate worship is related to the very same mentality that is cheapening and trivializing every other aspect of our worship.

---

Sister... show mercy!

Preface: "What are you -- nuts?!" Just thought I'd lead with the question you'll be wondering in a few minutes. I am about to stick my finger in the fan, about up to my elbow, and I know it. But I really think someone needs to say this -- and why not me? I have less to lose than many who've thought the same thing, but daren't say it.

This is likely to get the water hotter than the first or second Wright posting did. If I was accused of "ignorance" in daring to Touch The Academy's Anointed... well, just wait. And it won't matter that I will dance more precisely than ever before. (See? "Dance." Already have some Baptists mad at me.)

So here we go.

What will change, and what won't. Spring's springing, and summer looms. Mercury rises, fashions change. But one thing that won't change, unless I'm badly and happily mistaken: some good and regular churchgoers will not dress as helpfully as they could.

I chose that word with care: "helpfully." I am not talking about sin, shame, indecency, wantonness, or the like. Perhaps I could, with some justification, in some cases. But that's for another time -- and probably another writer. At this point, I just want to talk about being helpful.

Sister, if there's one thing you and I can certainly agree on, it's this: I don't know what it's like to be a woman, and you don't know what it's like to be a man. We're both probably wrong where we're sure we're right, try as we might. So let me try to dart a telegram from my camp over to the distaff side.

"Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied, and never satisfied are the eyes of man" (Proverbs 27:20). Solomon doesn't use the Hebrew words that would indicate males exclusively, so this and Ecclesiastes 1:8 may apply across the gender-board. Libbie pointed out very ably that we men wrongly assume that we alone battle with temptations entering through the eye-gate.

But. But if men aren't alone in the battle, they may have a particular weakness for this aspect of it. Consider passionately-godly King David, whose psalms express aspirations after God beside which our own are pale, bloodless things. One day King David is in the wrong place, at the wrong time; sees a naked woman bathing next door, and boom! -- he's gone (2 Samuel 11). Family, kingdom, God -- all forgotten, consumed in the flash-flame of a lust that was only visual in its inception.

And what of that Israelite Philistine Samson and his own "eye trouble?" He sees a fetching young pagan, and bellows at his dad, "Get her for me, for she looks good to me" (Judges 14:3 NAS). Where did Samson's passions take him? How did his course end?

Unless all the men I've known personally or at a distance are completely unrepresentative, it's a lifelong struggle, a lifelong weakness. As I recall from a Proverbs lecture on mp3, Bruce Waltke says that his dad, at around age 100, told him, "Bruce, I still have the same struggles I did when I was 50." It was sobering for Dr. Waltke to hear; sobering for any man! (In fact, put me down for "disheartening.")

Where am I going with this? Oh, don't try to look so innocent. You know exactly where I'm going.

So here comes this brother into the assembly of the saints, hoping for a rest from the battles of the week, a moment to regroup, sing, pray, get the Word, fellowship. He looks up to the choir, or to his left or his right -- and in a tick of the clock, he's facing the same struggle he faced every time he turned on his TV, opened a magazine, or went down a city street. He's seeing things that make it far too easy for him not to keep his mind focused where it needs to be focused.

And he's not in a nightclub, he's not at a singles' bar, he's not at the beach. He's in church.

Now, some very direct disclaimers:

• Every man's sin is his own, and every man's struggle is his own (Proverbs 14:10)
• No one makes a man think or feel anything (Proverbs 4:23)
• It is each individual's responsibility to guard his own heart (Proverbs 4:23)
• Beauty is a wonderful gift of God (cf. Exodus 28:2; Song of Solomon 1:8, 15, etc.)

Having said all that: while it may be true that I'm holding the matches, you won't help me if you pile twigs all around my feet and douse them with lighter fluid. To be more specific: if you know I've had trouble with drunkenness, you won't offer me a glass of wine. If you know I battle covetousness, you won't take me window-shopping in high-end stores I've no business frequenting.

So I put this question: what are some sisters thinking, in how they dress?

As the ladies pick clothes, they'll consider what's pretty, what's flattering, what's attractive. Who could blame them? But, "attractive" to whom? In what way? To what end? With what focus?

Consider the questions again. "Is it pretty?" Good question, no evil in it. "Is it comfortable, is it complimentary, is it fun?" No problem. I'd just suggest you add one more question: "Is it helpful, or is it hurtful, to my brothers in Christ? Will this unintentionally contribute to their having a focus that is harmful to their walk?"

Now, lookie here:

In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; 19 the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarves; 20 the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; 21 the signet rings and nose rings; 22 the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; 23 the mirrors, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils. (Isaiah 3:18-23)

...likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works. (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing-- 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. (1 Peter 3:3-4)

Immediately we'll swing in, as we always do, and say, "Now, the writer's not saying that women can't dress nicely, or wear jewelry, or blah blah blah." And we'll all disown our Fundie forebears who focused on nylons and lipstick, and came up with precise hemline measurements. We'll want to make sure that we're not advocating a new line of Burqaware for evangelical women. All that will be true and valid enough.

But I'm concerned that, in our anxiety to be sure to prevent the wrong interpretation, we effectively cut off all interpretation. We have swung from making the passages say silly things, to not letting them say anything. These passages have to mean something! They must have some application! What is it?

Surely the emphasis of the passages is warning against vanity, externality, sensuality; and on highlighting and promoting focus on a godly character as true beauty. Who you are; not just what you look like. Remember: "As a ring of gold in a swine's snout, So is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion" (Proverbs 11:22 NAS).

Oh boy, I'm going to make it worse now. Deep breath....

What are you clothes saying about you, sister? What are they supposed to say to your brothers? "Hey, look at this?" Well, they actually are trying to look at the Lord; it's not good for them to be looking at that. No, it's not your fault that they have a problem. We established that. And it's really great that God has made you beautiful. I hope your husband (present or future) shows you how grateful he is for that about you.

But you can help the brothers who aren't your husband, or you can not-help them. Which are you doing? If you're not married, and a man looks at you, is he thinking, "What a great character"? Or are you giving him reason to think about something else?

I know many of the responses. "You don't know what it's like to buy women's clothes, you ignorant man!" Mostly true. My first just-for-fun purchase for my wife was, well, it was appalling. What a good sport my wife was. I took it back to the store immediately, and made a much better subsequent choice.

But this: "You can't find anything modest! It's all too revealing! It's impossible to get something that looks nice, yet isn't too tight, or too short, or too-something / not-something-enough!"

Sorry, but baloney.

I put "modest women's clothing Christian" in Google, and 453,000 pages come up. Yes, some are funny and quaint at best. But are they all Amishwear? "Can't find?"

More fundamentally: I do not accept that anyone has to wear clothes that are too tight or too sheer or too short -- unless you are the largest and tallest woman living in the hottest part of the planet. Because I see larger, taller women walking around in hot weather, and they're all wearing clothes, every last one. They got those clothes somewhere, I reason. You could too.

"But -- but they won't look good on me! The shoulders will be wrong!"

I'm not sure that's necessarily true, but let's accept it and pose a counter-question. You tell me. Which is worse: your shoulders hanging a half-inch too low? Or a blouse/shirt that simply (shifting into turbo-delicate) provides need-to-know information to those with a need-to-not-know?

I'm sure we all agree that there are clothes that show what others have no helpful business seeing. Here's what to show, in clothes-selection: show a Godward focus, discretion, a godly character.

And show mercy.

Parting thought. Darlene pointed me to a statement by Arthur Pink, which makes everything I've just said look awfully mild. But there's no denying that he has a point. I'll close with it:

Again, if lustful looking be so grievous a sin, then those who dress and expose themselves with desires to be looked at and lusted after-as Jezebel, who painted her face, tired her head, and looked out of the window (2 Kings 9:30)-are not less, but even more guilty. In this matter it is only too often the case that men sin, but women tempt them so to do. How great, then, must be the guilt of the great majority of the modern misses who deliberately seek to arouse the sexual passions of our young men? And how much greater still is the guilt of most of their mothers for allowing them to become lascivious temptresses?

Now, note, Pink and I speak to different ends. I speak to those who I assume are inadvertently dressing in an unhelpful manner. Pink speaks to those whose intent is to allure. Between the two of us, I can pray we've provided food for thought, prayer, reconsideration, and needed change.

---

The way to win

by Frank Turk

PROGRAMMING NOTE: Yes, this is almost 100% a gratuitous cross-post. I say "almost" because this version of this post -- originally seen on my personal blog -- did not have all the links in this version. So if you are not a person who normally reads my blog, all the details are duly linked here and you can now be part of the inner circle.

As many of you know, Brian Flemming declared himself the winner at the DebateBlog, and that’s fine – everyone needs to pad their resume, and if that helps him he’s welcome to it. I didn’t know that there was supposed to be a “winner” – I would have listed a point system in the rules if that was how I was looking at it.

Anyway, as the winner, Brian has recently posted a new set of rules for anyone who wants to debate him, and I thought it would be interesting to read them and see what they say. His blog entry looks like this:

So you would like to challenge me about the claims I make in The God Who Wasn't There?

No problem. But please understand that I get a lot of these requests, and I can't waste my time arguing with people who are not open to changing their minds or who haven't developed enough familiarity with the material.

So just download and sign this "Statement of Belief" PDF, have it notarized, then mail it to Beyond Belief Media. Then we can talk.

If you are unable to sign the Statement, we cannot talk any further, for one or both of the following reasons:

1) You are not familiar enough with the facts to be ready for a meaningful discussion at this time.

2) Your capacity to understand the facts is so compromised by your religious ideology that a conversation with you would be pointless.

Honestly, who wants to debate somebody who is not in the game, so to speak? It seems superficially reasonable that Brian is simply eliminating people who don’t have enough information to make a case for their own side.

I think that’s a great idea – and given that I have a Master of Arts in Literature in English, I think that Brian is making a fair demand that people who want to talk about the Bible as literature ought to know something about literature. For example: we should exclude people who do not have advanced degrees in literature, or any complete formal academic training.

Yes, Certainly. James White and William Lane Craig have the same kinds of rules. I agree. Well, that is until I read the PDF:

STATEMENT OF BELIEF

I believe it is possible that Jesus did not exist.

I believe there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ that dates to the time of his alleged life.

I believe there are no written eyewitness accounts of the existence of Jesus Christ.

I believe the names of the Gospels were added well after their composition, and there is no good reason to believe that these names correspond to the original writers.

I believe there is no good reason to believe that any of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Christ, or that any eyewitnesses to Jesus were involved in their composition.

I believe the Bible is not infallible. I believe it is common for religious cults to make things up.

I believe it is common for religions to influence each other, and for young religions to be derived from older religions.

I believe that any claim can be part of Christian tradition and also be false.

I believe that no figures such as "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "Satan" performed any supernatural actions that had any significant effect upon the formation of early Christianity.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Now, re-read the bits I highlighted there. Go on.

Do they sound familiar in some way? Ah yes! They do! They are actually all the premises of Brian’s argument! So it turns out that Brian doesn’t want to debate anybody that actually disagrees with him about his argument.

Dude: maybe we should check the definition of a "debate" before we provide this document to the world. This is more like a mutual admiration society. It is exactly like me saying, “In order to play at DebateBlog, you have to first sign off (with witnesses) the T4G affirmations and denials. After that, we can argue all day long.”

It’s an easy way to stay undefeated, I am sure. You can say without any question, “after every debate I have ever had, the person I debated agreed with me.”

Well, except for that self-deluded fundie centuri0n – but he’s a liar who’s not familiar with the facts.

ON A SIMILAR NOTE: I'm looking for a community of like-minded people to synthesize a Wikipedia entry for me -- for me personally. If Brian Flemming can have a Wikipedia entry and not feel any pangs of self-indulgence, so can I.

Let me also say something about the entry: I would love it if guys like Armstrong and Johnson and even Tim Enloe created their own sections of this entry to express their concerns about me. It would be fantastic to get both the loyal fans and the loyal opposition to all make a wikipedia stew for my wiki-bio.

If it works out good, we can get Phil and the rest of TeamPyro wikipedia entries. Any all the sidekicks, too.

---

Three short personal items

by Phil Johnson

Update on Jeff Williams

I've posted a few times about my friend Jeff Williams, who is currently doing a six-month stint in the International Space Station (ISS). He phoned me from space just before I left for Italy. Darlene and I have gotten pretty good at spotting the ISS at night. We watched it several times in Italy and expect to see it twice tonight. If you want precise details about when the Space Station will be visible over your own house, you can get the calculations at the Heavens Above website.

Updates on Jeff's mission are also featured daily on NASA-TV (channel 376 on DirectTV). This morning Jeff gave a complete video tour of the Space Station and gave himself a haircut. How do they do that in space without getting little bits of hair all over the place? I wondered that, too. Turns out there's a vacuum hose attached to the electric shears.

While we were in Italy, an unpiloted Progress cargo carrier docked with the ISS. It brought fresh supplies, including some fresh fruit (Jeff peeled and ate an orange on this morning's NASA update). While the Progress craft was docked with the Space Station, its engines were fired for about six and a half minutes—long enough to adjust the Space Station's orbit, moving the ISS an additional 1.7 miles further from earth.

The November A&O Conference and Cruise

I've had to withdraw from the Alpha & Omega national conference and cruise in November. An unexpected conflict arose that makes it impossible for me to go. Of course, my duties at Grace to You and Grace Community Church must take priority over everything else I do. So although I regret having to cancel, I couldn't anticipate or avoid the conflict, and I can't change it. It especially pains me to disappoint James White, but he is a good friend and has been very gracious about it. Likewise, Mike O'Fallon, who is arranging the cruise, was extremely kind and understanding, even though my withdrawal is a huge inconvenience to him. My profound apologies to all who are inconvenienced or disappointed by it.

Debrief on Italy

I meant to post more pictures and a full report on my recent visit to Italy and the Republic of San Marino, but there's no time this week, and after that it will be out of date.

But I wanted to say a public thanks to David Standridge, who translated for me while I taught forty hours of intensive bibliology and theology proper in five days. Teaching eight hours a day is grueling enough. Just imagine if you had to listen, translate, and repeat all that in a different language.

David is a Roman native and showed us things in Rome we'd never seen. (His dad has been a faithful missionary pastor there for many years). Since my great-grandmother's maiden name was Standridge, we're probably distant cousins. Those who know us both say that's a frightening thought.

Our hosts for the week were Joe and Georgia Aleppo, dear friends of ours and close partners in ministry with Grace to You for several years. So despite the grueling teaching schedule, the week was a wonderful and refreshing break from my routine. I'm already looking forward to next year's installment.

At the moment, however, I have to get back to my regular work. I still have a book to edit, and less than three weeks to get it finished.

---

A quickie

Picking the N. T. Wright scab one more time
by Phil Johnson

If I had any kind of clout, I would use every means available to try to induce Carl Trueman to write for PyroManiacs. I've never met Carl, but aside from his musical tastes (which seem as eclectic as mine, but in a totally different direction), he seems like the kind of guy I would never tire of listening to.

Carl writes for the reformation21 blog. You ought to read that blog, even though the experience is sometimes more like eavesdropping on a private conversation—mainly because of all the inside jokes and pseudonyms. Following threads is hard, because these guys don't ever use links, comments, or clear references to previous posts. (It's sort of like the Boar's Head without any booze or bad theology.) So it takes a little effort to follow the conversation. I don't always get it. But it's worth the effort to try.

Anyway, here are two comments in a thread begun by Trueman that perfectly and succinctly express one of the main complaints many of us have with the reflex response we get whenever we dare to express any kind of disagreement with Bishop N. T. Wright:

Read this and this.
Be sure also to read the thread started by Trueman's post on satire and humour over at reformation21.

All they need over there now is some comic-book art.

---

The agonies of travel, and the joys of coming home

posted by Phil Johnson

A postcard from Rome

Better late than never:



Darlene and I returned home from Italy late Friday night. The journey home was a 24-hour ordeal, including a four-hour layover in New York. The in-flight movies were deplorable, so I spent the entire 8-hour flight from Rome to New York listening to my iPod, and by the time we arrived on this side of the Atlantic, the iPod battery was nearly gone.

On top of that, I had stupidly left my computer in standby mode, so its battery was depleted, too. And compounding the stupidity, I had packed my power cords in the checked luggage. So the layover was not only long; it was profoundly dull, too.

New York was hot, and the air-conditioning (if such a thing exists at JFK) was not working in any of the three buildings we had to traverse to make our connection. By the time we got on the plane to Los Angeles, I was suffering from Restless Leg Syndrome, and the cramped 6.5-hour flight from New York to LAX was miserable.

People in my great-grandparents' generation would be amazed to hear me complain of such "inconveniences." The thought of traveling from Rome to Los Angeles so easily in a single day would never have occurred to them. They would be shocked and appalled to hear me complain about such petty annoyances, which are by no means real hardships.

Which brings us to. . .

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote space at the beginning of each week to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive.

Complaining about traveling reminded me of this letter Spurgeon once wrote during a hard journey home from Italy. In the later years of his ministry, at his doctors' insistence, he traveled annually to warmer climates. Unfortunately, Mrs. Spurgeon was a semi-invalid and was usually unable to travel with him. Spurgeon kept her in his mind and heart by sending letters about places he visited and things he saw.

His travel journals were by no means upbeat and cheery. Travel for him was no pleasure, and you get a sense of that from his description of this journey home:

One last letter from Paris

In the hope that one more letter may reach you before I come personally, I give myself the delight of writing it. The telegram will have told you that, at the very prudent advice of the doctor, I left Cannes at 3.15 on Tuesday in a coupé-lit to travel direct to Paris. It has proved a very wise step.

A lady lent her Bath-chair to take me to the station, and porters lifted me into the carriage. There I had a nice sofa-bed and every convenience. I lay there with great comfort till we reached Marseilles; then came the night, and I had hoped to sleep, but the extreme oscillation of the train quite prevented that. Once only I dozed for a few minutes, yet I was kept restful till six o'clock, when my dear friends got me some warm soup, and I had a refreshing wash. Then, all day long, I was at peace till 6 p.m.

From Lyons, the country is flooded all along the road; we seemed to ride through a vast river. I naturally felt the chill of this, and my knees complained. Near Paris it rained hard, and at Paris heavily.

After much stress and difficulty, I was put into a cab, and we drove to this hotel. I went to bed immediately, and slept on, on, on, till eight o'clock the next morning, awaking then refreshed, and, happily, none the worse for the long journey.

I meant to stay in bed all day, and sent my friends out, so that I might not always be a drag upon them; but, at about noon, I rose and dressed, and when they came in, I had flown,—to a sitting-room and a sofa by a cozy fire! I can walk now a little, and hope to be all right for Sunday. Bless the Lord, O my soul; and may He bless thee, too, my dear heart of love! I hope to have a coupe, and to-morrow lie down again while travelling, and so home to my tender wifely.

Who could hope to escape rheumatic pains when all the world is wet through to the center? It must not grieve you that I suffer, but you must rejoice that I escaped so long. Why, even rocks might feel this marvelous, long-continued wetting! I am indeed grateful to God for His goodness; still, "there's no place like home." This brings great loads of love all flaming. God bless thee ever!

Carriage at Victoria at 5.45, Friday!

Notice that Spurgeon was unable to walk and needed to be carried. The cold and damp of the season enflamed his gout and left him almost completely incapacitated. The pain was so intense that every motion of the train was sheer agony, and he was unable to sleep. Yet he valiantly fought for rest, because he intended to preach that very weekend.

Kind of puts the discomfort of "Restless Leg Syndrome" and the inconveniences of depleted batteries and substandard air-conditioning in perspective, doesn't it?

But I can still fully relate to Spurgeon's eagerness to get home. It's good to be back.

If you sent me an e-mail while I was gone, it might be awhile before I get to it. Send it again if it's urgent. But I'll continue to be scarce at the blog until I get my book project finished.

---

"The Semi-Pelagian Narrower Catechism"

by Dan Phillips

It's Friday. You need a chuckle.

This is not brand-new, but it's awfully and ouchily good. You'll laugh, you'll wince, you'll pass it along. I'm not sure the writer and I are on the exact same side on every particular... but yikes, it's good (H-T Paleoevangelical.)

Here are a few excerpts (but you should read the whole):

1. Q: What is the chief end of each individual Christian?
A: Each individual Christian's chief end is to get saved. This is the first and great commandment.

2. Q: And what is the second great commandment?
A: The second, which is like unto it, is to get as many others saved as he can.

3. Q: What one work is required of thee for thy salvation?
A: It is required of me for my salvation that I make a Decision for Christ, which meaneth to accept Him into my heart to be my personal lord'n'saviour

...6. Q: By what means is a Decision for Christ made?
A: A Decision for Christ is made, not according to His own purpose and grace which was given to me in Christ Jesus before the world began, but according to the exercise of my own Free Will in saying the Sinner's Prayer in my own words.

7. Q: If it be true then that man is responsible for this Decision, how then can God be sovereign?
A: He cannot be. God sovereignly chose not to be sovereign, and is therefore dependent upon me to come to Him for salvation. He standeth outside the door of my heart, forlornly knocking, until such time as I Decide to let Him in.

8. Q: How then can we make such a Decision, seeing that the Scripture saith, we are dead in our trespasses and sins?
A: By this the Scripture meaneth, not that we are dead, but only that we are sick or injured in them.

9. Q: What is the assurance of thy salvation?
A: The assurance of thy salvation is, that I know the date on which I prayed the Sinner's Prayer, and have duly written this date on an official Decision card.

...10. Q: What is thy story? What is thy song?
A: Praising my Savior all the day long.

11. Q: You ask me how I know he lives?
A: He lives within my heart.

12. Q: And what else hast thou got in thine heart?
A: I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart.

13. Q: Where??
A: Down in my heart!

14. Q: Where???
A: Down in my heart!!

He shot, he scored.

---

BibleWorks 7: a brief review

by Dan Phillips

Preface: in keeping with (what I think are) the distinctions between this blog and mine, I'll do a relatively brief review of this product here, supplemented with some more details over at my Biblical Christianity blog. If you want more details, nuts and bolts, go there.

Summary: with this version, BibleWorks really comes into its own. BibleWorks 7 (BW7) really is an astonishing product and an astonishing value. Preachers, scholars, students: save up the pennies, unsubscribe to Christianity Today, sell your old Watchman Nee collection, wash Dad's car and mow the lawn -- get BW7.

Review

What can BW7 do for you? It can help you learn, study, preach and teach the Bible, no matter what your level of education. If you're not a pastor, and thus may never learn Greek or Hebrew, it may be more than you need; but if you have studied or will study the God-breathed text, it is just an astonishing resource.

Bundled with the program, you get thirty-two English versions, plus various forms of the Hebrew and Greek texts. You can easily display in one version, or verse by verse in as many versions as you like. Point your mouse at a Hebrew or Greek term, and a parsing and simple definition pops up right in your display window. At the same time, whatever lexicon you've chosen instantly displays the full entry on that word in the right pane. There is another tab in that pane, which displays all the resources you have installed, whether on that word (in the lexica), or on the syntax or even textual condition of that verse (in the grammars and Metzger).

When you buy the basic package, you get an astonishing array of original-language resources. For the Greek NT, you get Thayer, Gingrich's Shorter Lexicon, and others; for the Hebrew, there's good ol' Brown-Driver-Briggs, but there's also Holladay's lexicon and the TWOT. Then, for a reasonable additional price, you can add the latest editions of BAGD and HALOT, as I did. (I figure that if you don't know the acronyms, you don't care; if I'm wrong, ask.)

But wait, there's more! You get the whole Greek NT diagramed; Conybeare's grammar of Septuagint Greek; MacDonald's Greek Enchiridion, the Archer/Chirichigno work laying out and discussing all the NT quotations of the OT, and the Septuagint lexicon by Lust (long "u"), and Metzger's textual commentary on the Greek NT, Burton's Moods and Tenses, Davis' grammar -- and a whole lot more.

Did I say "more"? Like the old ISBE, Robertson's Word Pictures, the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, satellite Bible maps, Bible outlines... okay, I'll stop. But those and more are all part of the package.

There are many additional resources you can get for an extra price. In addition to HALOT and BAGD, I have four additional modules. One is Waltke and O'Connor's Hebrew grammar, which is a massive and useful advanced work; remember, it's keyed in with the whole text of BW7. So if Waltke-O'Connor has a discussion of the syntax of the verse I'm reading or studying, it pops up instantly in the right pane. Also, I have Daniel Wallace's Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, another terrific reference work, full of useful studies and all keyed in to the text; Futato's Basic Hebrew for Bible Study, and N. Clayton Croy's Primer of Biblical Greek. Croy is a recent work, new to me. He focuses on being brief and to the point, uses examples from the Septuagint as well as made-up sentences to be sure the student doesn't just apply his memorized English version to his exercises. (But he's very proud of his inclusive language. Ugh.) Futato has good pedagogical focus, and works to get the reader actually into the Old Testament.

What really excites me about BW7. I've used BW for years. I thought BW6 was a pretty-good tool. BW7 is simply stellar.

1. Tabs! Used to be that, if you had a study going, and a Bible-reading plan, you'd have to create two setups, and open BW twice. Now there are a dozen tabs, and you can have that many separate readings going at the same time, saved every time you close and re-open BW7. You can keep track of your daily reading on Tab 1, then have your sermon text study on Tab 2, your Bible study on Tab 3, your research paper outline on Tab 4.... Then, mid-stream, you can step aside from any of them to do searches or other bypaths on Tab 5. Tight, convenient, cool.
2. Editors! This, in my mind, may be the single coolest thing about this upgrade. BW6 had a text editor, but it was very buggy, limited, unreliable. No longer. BW7 has two editors: one you can keep linked either to verses or chapters, and one that is whatever you want it to be. So, for instance, say you're reading Proverbs. I prefer my User Notes keyed to verses. So on that screen, I could be making notes on each verse that strikes me. The editor automatically saves and reloads as I move from verse to verse. But meanwhile on the Editor tab, I could be building a study on the different words for "fool" in Proverbs, not tied to any particular verse.

Plus, the new editors are very stable. I don't believe the editor has crashed once since I installed BW7 on March 2 of this year -- and believe me, that's a big improvement.

Beyond that, the new, completely-rewritten Editor is a fully-featured word processor, so that it has keyboard shortcuts and a full array of editing features, all completely integrated into the program. The last edition's editor was a good idea, but a bit of a nightmare in practice. This one is a dream.

And it's instantaneous. That is, as I mouse-over verses, my comments instantly display in the user notes. Plus, when I make a note and move on to the next verse, my note is instantly saved without further interaction.

3. Resources! It is amazing how the BW geniuses have integrated the wide array of resources provided. Let me try to illustrate briefly. Say I'm on Genesis 4:24. Instantly the resource tab displays lexicon articles on the Hebrew words in that verse, plus the notes in Futato, Waltke, Gesenius etc. on the general grammar (noun, conjunctions, noun patters) -- plus specific notes on this verse in Gesenius (6 of them) and Waltke (2). Or similarly, on Ephesians 5:18, it immediately displays notes in Wallace and MacDonald on Imperative, Present, Passive -- plus eighteen citations of this verse in Wallace! This is truly a goldmine.

There are facets I think are improvable, changes I hope they'll make eventually. The interface, though learnable, isn't as intuitive as I think it should be in a few respects. The update system is great, but could be automated. If I write any more, however, "brief" won't pass the Truth in Blogging Post Titles standard. Check out the BibleWorks website, and their full presentation of BW7 (including a video). Plus BW runs a forum, where generally very helpful brainiac users compare notes, and prospective buyers are free to ask questions.

BibleWorks 7, in my opinion, is a true investment in one's ministry.

---

Karate exegesis

by Dan Phillips

Yes, it's true: I "do" karate, using the verb in its very broadest sense. My three sons were in first, and then it became possible for me to join in and start making with the kiyai!

One of the (to me) counter-intuitive things one learns about sparring is to present a profile, not a flat-on wide target. That way, there's less to hit -- and you're positioned to move outside. So if your opponent lunges at you, you just let him follow his momentum, you step to the side, and you work a little mayhem as he passes. Remember that: let him lunge, then do some mayhem from the side.

This same principle -- allowed lunging, then angular mayhem -- applies well in exegetical debates. Too often, we allow ourselves to be put unnecessarily on the defensive. Somebody cites a problem verse, and we start with the 47-page frontal-assault exegetical answer defending our position... and when we finish, they just go on to the next attack unfazed, untaught, unchallenged. We stay on the defensive.

I probably shouldn't tip my hand so publicly, but here's the sort of thing I try to do. Say we're making the Biblical case for Purposeful Redemption -- that is, the view that our sovereign Lord died so as actually to save particular people (Matthew 20:28; 1 Timothy 1:15), not everyone in general but nobody in particular. (Or "Effective Redemption," in that we affirm that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners [1 Timothy 1:15], not make it possible for them to add the necessary ingredient to save themselves.)

Our friend pulls out 1 John 2:2 -- "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" -- with the air of a gambler laying down the winning card.

"'The whole world,'" our friend emphasizes meaningfully, perhaps tapping the verse in his Bible. "'Not for ours only.'"

How do we answer?

Well, we could do a lo-o-o-o-o-ong riff on every occurrence "world" in and out of John's writings. We could go to John 11:51-52, and 12:19, and discuss them at length. We could do lots of frontal, defensive things, and take a long while and expend a lot of energy doing them.

Or we could step aside, let our friend plow on through... then work a little mayhem from the side.

That is, we could nod sympathetically and say, "Yes, I can see how that is a real problem for your position."

Our friend (if he's not read this post) will likely do a double-take, say "Yes, I... wait -- my position? Huh? It isn't! It's a problem for your position!"

You see, he has lunged. Now we make with the mayhem.

That is, with a puzzled look, we could say, "How so? Your idea is that 'world' means every human being who ever was, or ever will be born, right?" (Nod.) "So, do you believe that every human being ever born will go to Heaven?"

Our friend will assure us that he believes no such thing.

"I didn't think you did. But that means you have a real problem with this verse, don't you?" we could continue. "John writes that Jesus Christ is -- not 'would really like to be,' or 'wishes He could be,' or even 'stands ready to be,' but is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. What is a propitiation?"

Our friend, an astute soul, replies, "A 'propitiation' is a sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God."

We agree. Then with knitted brow, we ask, "So, if you're right about 'the whole world,' then John is saying that Christ has turned away the wrath of God for the sins of every human being ever born -- you, me, Judas, the Beast, the False Prophet -- everyone.

"On that understanding, how can anyone be in Hell? Why are they there? For what are they being judged and punished?"

"For their unbelief," our friend may offer.

"Oh, I see. Is unbelief a sin?" we ask innocently.

Our friend may nor may not allow as much. If he does not, we could add, "From what I read, unbelief certainly is a sin. Or is it not a moral issue to call God a liar (1 John 5:9-10)? See," we can conclude sympathetically, "you have a real problem. On your view, either unbelief isn't a sin, in which case God is a liar; or everyone's going to Heaven, in which case, again, God is a liar; or Christ really isn't a propitiation for everyone's sins -- in which case, one more time, God is a liar. Do you think God is a liar?"

Maybe now our friend might be willing to consider that the text is capable of a better construction.

We might help him open up to the possibilities with another question: "I think it's your idea of what John means by 'world' that is giving you such trouble. Can you think of any verses where 'world' unambiguously means 'everyone who ever was born or ever would be born'? I can certainly think of many that do not. Maybe that isn't the best way to read that verse?"

At the very least, he'll now know that, if the verse is a problem for Calvinists, it isn't a problem for us alone. If he's honest, that is. (And why would we have dishonest friends?)

In your mind, try the same exercise with 1 Timothy 2:6 or 4:10, or other similar "problem" passages. I think you'll find it pretty effective.

---

A Sunday in Rome

by Phil Johnson

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote space at the beginning of each week to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive.

The following excerpt, from the January 1874 issue of The Sword and the Trowel, is Spurgeon's description of the second most famous stairway in Rome (after the Spanish Steps).

The lengthy quotation below is borrowed from a history of the Reformation that was popular in Spurgeon's time. Unfortunately, the author conflates two stories. Luther's discovery of justification by faith (which occurred when he pondered the meaning of "The just shall live by faith") actually occurred at Wartburg castle. Luther's own description of that experience (often called the "Tower experience") is quoted in part below, from Luther's Table Talk. The incident on the Scala Santa indeed occurred during Luther's famous visit to Rome, but Luther simply stood in disgust and walked away. The Tower Experience, marking Luther's actual evangelical awakening, came sometime later.

Nontheless, Spurgeon makes some poignant points, worth reading again:

Scala Santa

Perhaps Luther would never have become a Reformer had it not been for his visit to Rome and his ascent of these very stairs.

In the city where he expected to find the church of God in all its holiness, he found sin rampant beyond all precedent. "It is almost incredible," says he, "what infamous actions are committed at Rome; one would require to see it and hear it in order to believe it. It is an ordinary saying that if there is a hell, Rome is built upon it. It is an abyss from whence all sins proceed."

Nor did he speak as an exaggerating enthusiast, for Machiavelli's witness was that the nearer you came to the capital of Christendom the less you found of the Christian spirit. "We Italians," said the great historian, "are chiefly indebted to the church and the priests for our having become a set of profane scoundrels."

Undeceived as to the holiness of Popedom by his own actual observation in its chief city, Luther was in a fit state to be delivered from its thralldom, and the hand which set him free snapped his fetters for him upon the very stairs which we have described, and which [are depicted in the photo above].

[A] historian of the Reformation thus describes the sudden enlightenment of Luther's mind:—

"One day, among others, wishing to gain an indulgence which the Pope had promised to every one who should on his knees climb up what is called Pilate's Stair, the Saxon monk was humbly crawling up the steps, which he was told had been miraculously transported to Rome from Jerusalem.

But while he was engaged in this meritorious act, he thought he beard a voice of thunder which cried at the bottom of his heart, as at Wittenberg and Bologna, 'The just shall live by faith.' These words, which had already on two different occasions struck him like the voice of an angel of God, resounded loudly and incessantly within him. He rises up in amazement from the steps along which he was dragging his body. Horrified at himself, and ashamed to see how far superstition has abased him, he flies far from the scene of his folly.

"In regard to this mighty word there is something mysterious in the life of Luther. It proved a creating word both for the Reformer and for the Reformation. It was by it that God then said, 'Let light be, and light was.' It is often necessary that a truth, in order to produce its due effect on the mind, should be repeatedly presented to it.

Luther had carefully studied the Epistle to the Romans, and yet, though justification by faith is there taught, he had never seen it so clearly. Now he comprehended the righteousness which alone can stand in the presence of God; now he received from God himself, by the hand of Christ, that obedience which he freely imputes to the sinner as soon as he humbly turns his eye to the God-Man who was crucified. This is the decisive period in the internal life of Luther.

The faith which saved him from the terrors of death became the soul of his theology, his fortress in all dangers, the stamina of his discourse, the stimulant of his love, the foundation of his peace, the spur of his labors, his consolation in life and in death.

"But this great doctrine of a salvation which emanates from God and not from man, was not only the power of God to save the soul of Luther, it also became the power of God to reform the Church; a powerful weapon which the apostles wielded, a weapon too long neglected, but at length brought forth in its primitive luster from the arsenal of the mighty God.

At the moment when Luther stood up in Rome, all moved, and thrilling with the words which Paul had addressed fifteen centuries before to the inhabitants of this metropolis, truth, till then a fettered captive within the church, rose up also, never again to fall.

"Here we must let Luther speak for himself. 'Although I was a holy and irreproachable monk, my conscience was full of trouble and anguish. I could not bear the words, 'Justice of God.' I loved not the just and holy God who punishes sinners. I was filled with secret rage against him, and hated him, because, not satisfied with terrifying his miserable creatures, already lost by original sin, with his law and the miseries of life, he still further increased our torment by the gospel. . . . But when, by the Spirit of God, I comprehended these words; when I learned how the sinner's justification proceeds from the pure mercy of the Lord by means of faith, then I felt myself revived like a new man, and entered at open doors into the very paradise of God.

From that time, also, I beheld the precious sacred volume with new eyes. I went over all the Bible, and collected a great number of passages which taught me what the work of God was. And as I had previously, with all my heart, hated the words, 'Justice of God,' so from that time I began to esteem and love them, as words most sweet and most consoling. In truth, these words were to me the true gate of paradise.'"

As the Scala Santa thus became the place of salvation to the great reformer, so may our reference to them be made serviceable to those of our readers who have not yet found peace with God. The motive which leads men to crawl upon their knees up these famous stairs is the worldwide principle of self-salvation. Do is the popular gospel of unregenerate human nature: It is all done is the glad tidings of the grace of God.

You, dear reader, are perhaps trying to be better in act, better in feeling, better in resolution, and this with the view of commending yourself to the favor of God. What is this but your Pilate's Stairs? You will find that all your efforts are labor in vain, for by the works of the law no man will ever be justified before God. The gospel does not promise eternal life to good works, or prayers, or tears, or horrible feelings; its one great utterance is, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." May the Holy Spirit with divine power force upon every self-righteous mind the conviction of its own ruin, and of the hopelessness of its own efforts, and so may the soul become willing to accept eternal life as the gift of God by Jesus Christ.

I'm in Rome this weekend, preaching in one of the few thriving evangelical churches in this city.

Spurgeon once spent a Sunday here, too, and today things are not all that different from what he described on that occasion.

I don't have time for more than this brief update. See you later in the week.


Special addendum by request:

---

"...teach us to number our days..." (Psalm 90:12)

by Dan Phillips

David Kendrick, of NY, holds the patent for a life expectancy watch (h-t Boing Boing). The watch would estimate the time of the wearer's death, and count down to that date. Could be very... very perspectivalizing.

So if someone asked you what time it is, you could say, "I don't know... but I've only got ____ left!"

Then there's another cheery little site: The Death Clock, subtitled "The Internet's friendly reminder that life is slipping away...." You put in a bit of personal information, and it tells you when you'll die. I did it once awhile back, and it said July 5, 2027. (A friend speculated that I might fall victim to a Fourth of July firework mishap, linger a day, then expire.) Oddly, when I do it again now, rating myself as having a "normal" outlook, it comes out to July 1, 2027. I've lost a few days; not a good trend. Better be more careful.

Now, if I rate myself as having an "optimistic" outlook, I've got until August 4, 2042. Hm; maybe they figure "a joyful heart is good medicine" (Proverbs 17:22a). That would have me keeling over at eighty-six -- which was my father's age, when he passed away.

So how many seconds have I got as I type now, well before posting? In the former case, I've got 668, 654, 235 seconds, and counting down. In the latter, I've got 1,144,977, 479, and counting down. Very different numbers -- but alike in that the number's getting smaller and smaller.

Now those dates of course have no authority, and might be totally off. The only certainty is that my seconds left, before I go to the Lord or He comes for me, are getting fewer and fewer.

It certainly gives one perspective, or it should. We don't know the details of world prophecy as we might wish, but we do know one bit of eschatology for certain: the Eschaton is coming towards us, and we're heading towards it. For all, "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment"(Hebrews 9:27). This should be an absolutely terrifying prospect for all who have not made peace with God on His terms, through Christ. As Christians, "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil" (2 Corinthians 5:10).

This is our only chance, as far as we know -- our only arena of walking by faith, serving God unseen in a battlefield. We shall never again serve under fire. Faith will become sight one day, His enemies will be made a footstool under His feet, and we will reign with Him. How will this brief span look then?

Do we live with that in mind, that eternal perspective? Do you ever project ahead, and think of how you (let alone God) will view your stewardship of your marriage, your family, your ministry, your world?

Tick-tick-tick....

UPDATE: this article, and this story, very forcefully make the point that no one should count on any stretch of years, or any advance warning, as to when his time will come.

---

Long Distance

On yielding the asylum to the inmates
by Phil Johnson

Greetings from Sicily, where the volcano is currently topped by snow and belching smoke. The first day we arrived, there was an earthquake—one strong heavy jolt that left things shaking for a few seconds, but no damage. Earthquakes have become such standard fare when I travel that I almost have come to expect them. That's fine; I just hope Etna doesn't blow her stack.

I'm here teaching an intensive overview of systematic theology to a group of Italian pastors. We're covering bibliology and theology proper this week. Next year, we plan to spend a week on Christology, hamartiology, and soteriology. The following year, Lord willing, we'll cover pneumatology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. We're simultaneously working our way verse by verse through Galatians, spending one hour each morning on that. This year we're covering chapters 1-2; next year 3-4; and the final year 5-6.

It's grueling, teaching 8 hours per day. I can only imagine what it's like for the students. But they are eager and attentive, and it has been a nice break from routine for me.

The day before I left, Jeff Williams phoned me from the International Space Station. It's the longest long-distance phone call I have ever received. He sounds good; remember to pray for him.

Last night, a group of us watched him transverse the sky over Etna. It was just after dusk, so at the altitude of Jeff's orbit, the Space Station was still in the sunlight and brightly lit as it moved across the sky. It was a spectacular thing to watch, and especially amazing to think someone I know is literally traveling inside that wandering star. Jeff has already traveled faster, further, and higher than anyone else I know. I wish I had given him my cell phone number; it would be really cool to talk as he traveled overhead.

Anyway, I see Frank could hardly wait till I was out the door to turn the blog into a cheap comic-book contest. And it didn't occur to me that I would need to leave instructions to post a Spurgeon excerpt at the start of the week. James is still using all the graphics he can stuff into a post, and Dan "Booyah" Phillips is still milking NT Wright for comments.

I have occasional access to a dial-up account to check e-mail. It's well-nigh impossible to find time to write and post to the blog, much less read all the comments. So don't look for me to do it very often. But I wanted to check in and say that I've arrived safely, had the earthquake, and taught one-third of what I need to teach. At this rate, I'll be home in no time. See you then.

---

Righting (and writing) Wright's wrongs: reflections as the dust settles

by Dan Phillips

Well, last week was exhilarating. About a 530-word post provoked upwards of 33,000 words of comments.

The essay on Dr. NT. "I Personally Believe In the Resurrection, But..." Wright and the whole ensuing discussion was, I hope, instructive. The interaction certainly was for me. Let me say up-front and very sincerely: one of the best things about this "gig" is, at the same time, the very factor that initially worried me about it -- the Comments section. I feared it; now I love it. We have the most amazing readership. It's a constant education and encouragement to me, and I thank God for you.

I'd like to attempt a summary of what I think are some of the more important "take-aways" from This Moment in Pyro history.

"Important" Points: Lighter side

1. While there are a few favored souls who can wear the "I Made Rule 40!" T-shirt, as far as I know, I alone can now wear the T: "I Made Michael Spencer Break Rule 40!"
2. The tireless and well-nigh ubiquitous Carla suggests I be renamed from "Dan 'don't call me Dave' Phillips" to Dan BOOYAH Phillips, and I... yes, I think I could live with that.
3. There are almost endless title possibilities with a name like "Wright."
4. More people calling me by my name -- even Adrian Warnock. That's a good thing! (No comment yet from Tim Challies.)
5. It was kind of funny when critics seemed to imply the comment thread was too long -- thus swelling it by one more comment. But how long would it have been, if certain Wrightists had simply come in and said, "I really have gotten a lot out of Wright's books -- but good grief, what was he thinking?!"

Important Points: Weightier side

1. On friendship. Many defenders made much of Wright's "friendship" with Borg. That's why Wright said that Borg -- who (he says himself) does not believe in the resurrection -- was surely a Christian who "loves Jesus" and "believes passionately." We were told it is because of his great and wonderful "Let's do Communion" friendship with Borg.
   

   Huh? This is Wright being a friend? If so, we're talking about the sort of friend who knows I have treatable cancer, but tells me that the chicken-bones the shaman is shaking at me should do the trick. A number of the commenters seem to define friendship, along with other things, in purely emotional and subjective terms. What is the Biblical view of friendship and love?

   • God tells us that we should prefer a friend's faithful wounds, to the disingenuous kisses of an enemy (Proverbs 27:6). A flattering kiss is no more the necessary mark of true friendship, than a faithful wound is of its absence.
   • The Lord Jesus, our most faithful friend, says, "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; be zealous therefore, and repent" (Revelation 3:19 NAS). Love and stern reproof are not contraries.
   • He who chooses fools as his companions will take on their characteristics (Proverbs 13:20).
   • There are "friends" who can ruin you (Proverbs 18:24).
   • God will judge the one who sees another staggering off to destruction, and does not do his best to rescure him (Proverbs 24:11-12).
   • We have a daily obligation to "take care...lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God," and to "exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today,' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin" (Hebrews 3:12-13).
   • The closest friendship must never be allowed to compete with the purity of our devotion to the doctrinal truths of God (Deuteronomy 13:6-11; Luke 14:26).

   Let's be brutally specific. If Dr. Borg receives a sentence of condemnation from God, will he be forced to admit, "My friend Dr. Wright warned me earnestly of this"? Or will he have grounds to sputter, "But my friend and Your servant Bishop Wright assured me in front of the whole world that I was a Christian, who loved Jesus and fervently believed! How can You send a Jesus-loving, passionately-believing Christian to Hell?"

2. Hero-worship. Some of the critics of Wright's critics don't see to "get" what it means not to be a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics love to dredge up some goofy thing Luther said (and, Lord knows, he said more than a few), or something Calvin did -- as if we'll gasp in horror, throw down our Bibles, and flee to Rome. They just don't "get" what it is to be a free man in Christ (Galatians 5:1; Colossians 2:4, 8, 18), a member of the universal priesthood, a slave of God and not of any individual man or human tradition.

   This, by the way, is why I seldom call myself a "Calvinist" to folks I don't know something about. I don't believe anything that I believe simply because Calvin believed it. Insofar as I'm true to my convictions, my conscience is captive to the Word alone. The reason I like Calvin so much is because he has helped me understand what is in the Word! Yet if Calvin takes a turn I don't see called for in Scripture, I feel no obligation to follow him. I might be a Calvinist, but I'm not a Calvinolater.

   This sort of freedom of judgment simply stuns Roman Catholics -- and it rather seems to stun the always-Wright set, as well. They seem to see no grounds between almost worshipfully embracing every word that proceedeth from Wright's mouth -- or denouncing him as a Hell-bound heretic. Ergo, if we don't fall into Category A, we must be in Category B. If you don't adore him, you hate him. To criticize him is to anathematize him.

   (An aside: I anticipate some angry sputtering and denials on this point. My surrejoinder will be: then what were the objections, and why was the thread so long?)

   We were told that we shouldn't accuse Wright of denying the resurrection. We hadn't. We were admonished for judging him unsaved. We hadn't. The Wrightists wanted to talk about our feelings, their feelings, Wright's feelings... our feelings about their feelings about Wright's feelings. What was really important to them was not that this exalted scholar and religious leader had hey-presto! pronounced an unbeliever to be a for-sure, Jesus-loving fervent believer -- it was whether we were being mean, or whether we felt good (or bad enough) about it. Some good folk were "sick" that we had this discussion -- not that Wright had said "Peace, peace," where there was no peace. We weren't so much given a better model, as having been tsk-tsked for not doing Wright right... or doing it right with a bad attitude... or something. There were repeated attempts to launch out in this and that direction.

   Yet dogged commenter after dogged commenter -- bless you! -- kept noting, "Hey -- Dan is saying it's alarming that Wright says that someone who denies the foundation of Christian truth is surely a Christian who loves Jesus and passionately believes. Well... isn't it?"

3. Do scholars have a "Get Out of Accountability Free" card? My previously-voiced concerns were borne out in this business. What did I try to argue in my little Christian academics: not an oxymoron? I expressed alarm that, in the eyes of some, "academics get a 'pass' from being Christians 24/7." And so we heard again and again, "But this is such a great book! And that's such a great book! He's such a great writer, and made such a great defense of the Resurrection!"

   Perhaps so -- but at Easter time, Wright just told the world you can love Jesus and believe passionately without believing in the resurrection. You don't find that disturbing?

   But Wright himself does the same thing. Note what he says about Borg: "The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection." And so...? So what? Should God feel bad about requiring such a tough thing of Dr. Borg, given his philosophical and cultural world? Well, then, look: I daresay the philosophical and moral world of the drunkard, the self-righteous prig, the prostitute, the thief, the homosexual, the moralist, equally makes it "very, very difficult" for them to believe in the whole of the Gospel. I suppose that they'd actually have to change worlds, in order to believe. I suppose Dr. Borg would, too. They might actually have to -- what was the word? Ah, yes: "Repent," mentanoeo, have a revolutionary change of mind. Yes, he and they and we have to repent to believe the Gospel. Could be "very, very difficult" -- maybe like a camel going through a needle's eye. Impossible, really, for fallen humans. And so?

   It seems as if Wright is making special allowance for cultured despisers, swayed by the testimony of men to disbelieve God. But the apostolic witness is,

   If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son (1 John 5:9-10)

   Wright himself says, in effect, that Borg disbelieves God. That means Borg has called God a liar. But Dr. Wright assured us he is a Jesus-loving, believing Christian. That's what the discussion was about.
   
   Wright's defenders excuse his inexcusable waffling on the same pretense: intellectual atmosphere, or even ecclesiastical atmosphere (as if serving an apostate church earns one a "pass," rather than reproof).

   It really does appear to be accepted, then, that scholars get a special "pass" from the first and second commandments. Not dimwit drunkards and liars, evidently. No, they still have to repent, believe, and walk in love for God. They're not special cases, like academics are.

   Indeed, I get the distinct feeling among some that Wright is doing us a great favor by lending his scholarly credibility to some of our tenets. We should demand less of him, because of his wonderful scholarship and writing.

   But surely this is the reverse of the Scriptural stance. God's perspective is that more -- not less! -- is required of him to whom more is given (Luke 12:48). Teachers are judged more harshly, not less (James 3:1ff.). Greater privilege brings greater responsibility, not diminished responsibility (Amos 3:2).

   All this makes me wonder yet again: do we really believe the Bible, or don't we? If we do, no one does us a favor by admitting what everybody should already acknowledge, anyway -- such as that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. He's honor-bound to do that. What's remarkable is not one man's admission of the truth; it's the others' denials and evasions.

   There must be some place between shrugging off terrific academic accomplishments, and feeling that a good book or two (or ten) earns one the right to say harmful, damaging nonsense without a ripple of contrary comment. It's being brandished by some like military service has been in the political world, as if it earns a lifetime of freedom from reproach. Both are laudable, assuredly, and both merit appreciation; but neither exempts one from the critical arena.

4. Admiring the flawed for their flaws. We tend too much to see the one who doubts, challenges, even rejects fundamental truths as being a deep, wonderful, fascinating individual. Many swoon over such an one, treating him like a China egg, admiring, and perhaps wishing to be more like him. Surely this deep doubter towers over those who, perhaps by contrast, just cloddishly and oafishly take God at His Word. If spotlights and recognition and craving for "respectablity" and career-advancement lure him to abandon his former (Biblical) beliefs, many will ooh and ahh at how he has "grown," and use him to bludgeon those stubborn knuckle-draggers who refuse to "grow" similarly.

   From God's perspective, the disbeliever -- to say nothing of the false teacher -- is no such stellar creature. Unbelief is a sin, it is immoral, it is wrong, and it's nothing new. It is the mother of all sin, and thus of all ruin and abomination. The first sin was an act of unbelief, and so was your last sin, and so was mine. It isn't as if there is more or less "reason" for disbelieving God today than there was in the Garden. In fact, the one who falls for Satan's lie today is even dimmer and more culpable than our great-great grandma was.

   In recent years, I've come to see that God doesn't regard unbelief as we do. He doesn't find it understandable and noble. He finds it inexcusable, and He can be pretty harsh about it. Did Jesus say to the Emmaus strollers, "Well, boys, believe Me when I say I know it's been a hard couple of days! You're tired, your world's upside-down; and besides, the philosophical and cultural world you have lived in has made it very, very difficult for you to believe!"?

   Our Lord said nothing of the sort. "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:25). Quite the slap in the face. I'm sure it woke them up, got their attention. Then He laid out the truth of Scripture for them -- not as an option to be considered, but as the truth with demands belief (v. 26). Such verses could be multiplied.

   I don't at all deny that there are places when it is fitting to encourage someone, gently, to reconsider. But I affirm, with the Bible, that it is always fitting to call unbelievers, and false teachers, to repent.

5. How should we regard a doubting brother? This could be the subject of many full posts, but here's my short answer for now: We should regard him as we do any tempted believer.

   Say a brother admits to you that he's absolutely plagued by lustful thoughts, covetous thoughts, cowardly fears, like so many clouds of bloodthirsty and tireless mosquitoes. How do you respond? Do you bellow fiery judgments and threats at him? I doubt it. I hope not! But on the other hand, do you say, "That's really okay. Given your intellectual and cultural environment, I think it's pretty much unavoidable. But all's well with your soul, go in peace"?

   Not quite.

   Can we say this? "Oh, mercy -- I understand too well. Been there, felt that, still go there far too often. Let's look to the Lord and His Word together, and see how we can overcome this. I'll stick with you, and do what I can to help you overcome it." I would hope so.

6. And one last time: as far as I've noticed, no Wright-defender answered my question. The question was posed as the past sentence in the essay. Some found it convenient to quote part of it, the part that they imagined to be easiest to target and misrepresent. "Dr. Thomas" said he answered it, but I did not note an answer.

   Here's the question, because this really is the larger point: "One must seriously ask the question: if Wright has a view of Christianity that pencils in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an optional add-on, and embraces Marcus Borg as a 'passionate' lover of Jesus... can there possibly be any doctrine that isn't optional?"

   Note: I said "answered," not "retorted" or "replied." There were many who sputtered over the protasis, "if Wright has a view of Christianity that pencils in the bodily resurrection of Jesus as an optional add-on." This caused many palpitations among Wright devotees. After answering several of them point-blank, I finally asked, "Is there some immensely-popular yet undocumented definition of 'optional' that means something other than 'possible but not necessary; left to personal choice'?" Because that is what Wright did to the bodily resurrection of Jesus: he made it optional to genuine, Jesus-loving, passionately-believing Christianity. Is that belief true, to Wright? Yes. Important to soundness and health? Certainly. Absolutely indispensable to being a Jesus-loving, passionately-believing genuine Christian? Not if we're to take Wright at his word.

And so I simply asked: if belief in the bodily resurrection of our Lord is optional, can there possibly be any doctrine that isn't optional?

Well? Can there? And if not... then what is the Christian faith, anyway? And why bother to preach, defend, live for it -- and, if need be, die for it?

---

Note to Phil Johnson:

by Frank Turk

Consider this a reminder, and get back to work.

But for the fans of this blog:

Free teamPyro t-shirt to the first reader who can identify what comic book this is from, and I'll throw in a mug if you can tell me what issue.

YOUR ONLY HINT: this image has not been altered in any way EXCEPT that the word "PYROMANIACS" was BLACK in the original image.

Oh yeah -- almost forgot: offer expires Friday at NOON CENTRAL TIME. Tomorrow at NOON.

---