Teaching Sound Doctrine, Adorning the Gospel

by Frank Turk

From 2006 to 2012, PyroManiacs turned out almost-daily updates from the Post-Evangelical wasteland -- usually to the fear and loathing of more-polite and more-irenic bloggers and readers. The results lurk in the archives of this blog in spite of the hope of many that Google will "accidentally" swallow these words and pictures whole.

This feature enters the murky depths of the archives to fish out the classic hits from the golden age of internet drubbings.

The following excerpt was written by Frank in the first of a two-part post back in July 2009. Frank discussed Paul's primary focus in his letter to Titus.

As usual, the comments are closed.

But as for you,teach what accords with sound doctrine. Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness. Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us. Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:1-10)

The thing about this letter is that it just wells up in the reader. I think a lot of people miss that for their own reasons -- most of them not intentional -- but here the stuff that ought to stick to your ribs, theologically and practically, is simply so obvious that I think most people read past it.

The reason I say that is this: it's somewhat astounding that Paul doesn't here break into doxology, doesn't break into Eph 1-2, doesn't publish a digested book of Romans.

To Titus, who is sent to put things in order, and who must raise up elders, and is in a culture that is, frankly, as far from the Gospel as the most unchurched city in the ancient world could be, Paul tells Titus, "teach people how to adorn the Gospel." Teach what accords with sound doctrine because these people need to adorn the Gospel.

This passage is astonishing for one reason only: it says unequivocally that the church ought to be training itself up in such a way that the word of God will not be reviled. That is: it ought to be teaching people how to live after they know the Gospel is true.

The doctrine in this passage is shoe-leather doctrine. It says that those of us who are in the church must act like the church -- that it is necessary and not optional. And in that: we have to be building each other up. The older must teach the younger -- not merely systematics but pragmatics, like how to love one's husband and be submissive to him, how to be a self-controlled young man, how to grow old with dignity and sound in faith.

And this makes perfect sense, given what Paul has already said about raising up elders: if elders ought to be men who are clinging to the word of God, and are formed by the word of God, bearing fruit by the word of God, somehow the church has to be the place where these kinds of men are grown.

We're going to come back to this again next week, but think about this, dear pastor reader: somehow good works adorn sound doctrine. Somehow, the facts about God ought to be adorned with a people who are a "model of good works". And it's your job to preach doctrine and the consequences of those doctrines -- that is, how to live now that this is true.

---

A Preview of Things to Come

by Frank Turk

Happy Wednesday.  I spent the day yesterday working and raising kids and helping a couple in my care group at church decide to buy a house.  I engaged in efforts to save my employer 10x my salary in the next 90 days, and it looks like it worked.

And: I was assaulted for accusing another blogger of participating in click bait for making the death of a celebrity into a reason to read his blog/magazine.

Let me say this about that:

One Tweet for Robin Williams: We must see in tragedy the necessary implication that there is something wrong with the world. Usually: Us.
— Frank Turk (@Frank_Turk) August 12, 2014

More to follow on or around 15 September 2014.

---

Pastoral ministry: a call for Biblical thinking

by Dan Phillips

(See what I did there?)

The notion that pastor's are "called" to ministry is so enmeshed in evangelical culture that it is common for writers not even to bother attempting a Biblical demonstration of the idea. Consider this article as an example, with its list of categorical statements attended by nary a single warranting verse.

As I've already shown, the "call" model is without Biblical warrant. Not that the Bible says nothing, it just says something perfectly clear and quite different. Though I thought that article was clear enough, some of the same questions keep being asked, so we'll try to clear them up here, in two steps.

The Biblical model. "Pastors and teachers" are listed among the gifts of the ascended Christ (Eph. 4:11), though that passage gives no further clues about identifying pastors. The fullest treatment comes in 1 Timothy 3:1ff., which actually tells us all we need to know. It gives three lines of qualification.

1. Desire. Paul uses two verbs to denote the desire a gifted man has in 1 Tim. 3:1. They combine to indicate that the man will yearn for the office, will strongly desire it. He'll be driven from within — not because he's idle, not because his dad did it, not because it looks like fun, but because he needs to do it. The first pastor who trained me said something I dismissed at the time, though later I came to see the wisdom in it. "Gentlemen," he used to say, "if you can be happy doing anything else, do it."
2. Doctrine. Desire isn't enough. The man has to know his stuff. Unlike a deacon, the overseer must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2). Paul expands in writing to Titus, saying that an overseer must be able to identify and shut down false doctrine, and must be able positively to teach sound doctrine (Titus 1:9ff.). Not only must he be doctrinally sound, he must be doctrinally authoritative, in representing the Word of God and in guarding against error.
3. Devoutness. Desire and doctrinal knowledge must be adorned by a godly character. Only so does the man show that he understands and believes what he teaches, and can serve as a faithful, reliable overseer for others. Both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus give the particulars.

So there it is: an internal motivation on the level of desire, confirmed by theological soundness and holiness of character.

Why not just call that a "call"? One good brother said it doesn't matter what we label it, we end up the same place. I couldn't agree less, for two reasons:

1. Sufficiency of Scripture. The contrary position amounts to "Okay, okay, the Bible doesn't exactly teach the pastoral 'call'... but we've always called it that, so what's the diff?" Well, the "diff" is that God has given us everything for which we need a divine word in Scripture, and we are supplementing it as if He did not. We're improving on a Scripture that doesn't need our improvements. It's a bad idea, it sets a bad precedent, and sends a bad message.
2. The mystical mystique. Introducing the unbiblical notion of a "call" takes us out of the Biblical realm of desire tested by discrete evidences, into the realm of the God card. If an authority figure (another pastor) imagines that he hears another man's "call," he could push him into preaching, unqualified — of which I've heard story after story after story. Or the man (or woman!) can insist that the divine call takes precedence over everything else, and on that strength step into an office to the ruination both of himself and of his hearers.

In close, let me just do that thing I do. I know, as sure as Obama's already planning his next vacation, that people will have read this, will have no specific Biblical response, and will say "I just don't see any reason not to call it a 'call.'" 

To that, I can only reply, "Well then, you can't object if I call it a hamburger."

You're welcome!

---

How to live

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from Speeches at Home and Abroad, pages 68-69, Pilgrim Publications.

"Oh, that we could all live in the light of our last hour."

The old scholars, as we read sometimes, put their candles in a strange candlestick—in a death’s head, where it was held in that memorial of mortality. It might serve for a very beneficial purpose.

What will money do for us when we lie at the gate of death? What will fame or learning do? What reward can we have but souls we have won for Christ? They cannot pave the way to heaven, but they can be goodly company on the road. When the judgment comes, when we rise from our graves, in what light shall we then look upon our lives?

Oh, sirs, some even of our recreations may not bear to be thought of. Certainly, if we have been unfaithful in our ministry—if, as rich men, we have held to our wealth instead of following the mind of God—if we have lived contrary to his mind and will the light of the day of judgment will reveal these things to us.

Another General Assembly will then be held, and you and I shall there appear. Let us then live earnestly, live fast, live hard, live thoroughly, live prayerfully, live like Christ, for no other sort of life will bear inspection in that last great day.

There is another argument. Our Saviour has said—“Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” I beseech you, men and brethren, fathers and sisters in Christ, work hard for him. If he stood here, and asked you to help him, your purse-strings would be loosened, because your hearts would be loosened by his glorious presence.

But I need not say that spiritual minds do not need eyes to see Jesus. In your loving hearts you hear him speak to you. “If ye love me, keep my commandments; and one of my commandments is, ‘Go ye into the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.’ If ye love me, you will reply by obeying; if you do not love me, you will not help and obey.”

---

Some here, some there — August 8, 2014

by Dan Phillips

It is possible for a high-traffic blog to become an echo-chamber for others on the A-list. My vision is otherwise: I'd like to alert you to worthy material that may or may not be from the Top Men or their friends. So if you know of any low-profile, excellent, pithy and pointed material, email it to me. I'd love to expand the tent.

Such as...

• One who should be far better known and read than he is is my friend Fred Butler. Check out this narrative of his encounters (including a dinner) with Mormon missionaries. (And now I love his wife, too, though I've never met her!)
• Professor and pastor David Murray offers excellent tips for hospital visitation. Anyone could profit; particularly elders and deacons.
• Humor-pause:

• As he is wont to do, Carl Trueman poses a question many won't want asked, let alone answered.
• The problem, of course, is that what Trueman raises won't be dealt with seriously as long as there are enough "Leave Brittany TGC alone" types to shout down and vilify those asking even the most earnest, proactive, timely, brotherly questions.
  
• But some hope murmurs softly. When an article titled in part Why Collectively Ignoring Mark Driscoll Isn't an Option is greeted by some bright lights as if that suggestion has never been made, and must now be taken seriously... well, the tardiness may be irksome, but "late to the party" is still at the party. And that's something. Right?
• Some others think it's a big deal, too.
• So let me just say my one main and only point: the tardiness issue has such a grip on me because "a word in season" (Prov. 15:23) spoken years ago by those with Mark's ear, might have pointed a very gifted man in a direction that would have spared him and others a lot of heartbreak, pain, and regret, and been good for the Gospel. That being the case, I'd like to see lessons learned to prevent The Department of Redundancy Department from descending on us all again to do what it does. Understood?
• New topic!
• Despite it being on CT, here's a really good, touching, thought-provoking piece from sister Trillia Newbell on why she remained in a predominantly white church.
• Related reminders: we've weighed in here previously on racism from both directions, on the whole notion of deliberately-targeted-ethnicity Christian churches, and on how to think Biblically when walking into a church that seems not to be big on one's own comfort-zone. That last features the story of a man (Bill) who found himself in a situation similar to Trillia's.
• I'll admit my heart did a happy little leap when professor Mark Snoeberger (in a great little article) spoke appreciatively of "Pastor Phillips" and his clear writing on the relation of the Gospel to sanctification. Yay, someone is showing how TWTG anticipated and speaks directly to the grace-and-sanctification kerfuffle! Ah, but the good doctor meant the very fine post-length treatment by Rick Phillips, not the book-length treatment in TWTG by that other Phillips. That the truth is spreading, I rejoice, and I love Rick's writing.
• Jared Moore helpfully tackles 10 myths about lust. Seriously, that would be a great read after TWTG, as it's premised on a robust grasp of the transformative power of the Gospel.
• But then again, this is all some folks will be talking about. Properly so.

Programming note: I think my Hiatus will officially end 14 Sept 2014 Mark it down.
— Frank Turk (@Frank_Turk) August 8, 2014

• Two (non-contradictory) ways of responding to "But the Bible was written by man" dodge: Timothy's, and NEXT!'s. At least one of those should help you if you run into it.
• Finally: during my brief stint as an occasional church drummer, there was a song or two that I really didn't love ("Breathe" being the chief). So I compensated by trying to figure out an interesting way to accompany, that did adorn the song but also was more interesting to do. Is that at work here, in the mind of the drummer for one of the worst pagan-paean songs ever?

---

Holiness: Our Highest Priority

by Phil Johnson

From 2006 to 2012, PyroManiacs turned out almost-daily updates from the Post-Evangelical wasteland -- usually to the fear and loathing of more-polite and more-irenic bloggers and readers. The results lurk in the archives of this blog in spite of the hope of many that Google will "accidentally" swallow these words and pictures whole.

This feature enters the murky depths of the archives to fish out the classic hits from the golden age of internet drubbings.

The following post was written by Phil back in April 2011. He reminded us that personal holiness should be our highest priority.

As usual, the comments are closed.

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

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

Yet Peter's first concern was their holiness.

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

Here's how Matthew Henry paraphrases verse 13:

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

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

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

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

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

---

Grin and Garrett

by Dan Phillips

In the past and more than once I've shared that the NAC volume on Proverbs (plus Solomon's other books) by Duane Garrett is...er... not my favorite. In fact, what I've said is that mostly it disappoints. Four out of five times when I've gone for help on a verse, Garrett may not even talk about the verse, or doesn't offer much.

All that to say this: Garrett has helped me a lot in approaching the last section of Proverbs 10. As you know, I'm coming to the end of preaching Proverbs 1—10. Despite (or because of) decades of studying Proverbs, the prospect of preaching through this section verse by verse was daunting, brimming with challenges and terrors. As I have drawn near each section, I've wondered how in the world I was going to preach it — but then, when I got under the hood, it's all falling together.

Or it had until I'd done verses 15-17, a triplet of verses on wealth, wisdom and life, tied together by concept and by tag-word. After that I found myself looking down the barrel of verses 18-32. What was facing me now? Fifteen separate sermons? Clusters? Any structure? Anything at all?

Bueller?

Various commenters said this, that, or nothing. But it was actually Duane Garrett whose approach fit the text best to me. He saw it as a chiasm:

A:  On the tongue (vv. 19–21)

B:   On personal security (vv. 22–25)

C:   On laziness (v. 26)

B´: On personal security (vv. 27–30)

A´: On the tongue (vv. 31–32)

You'll note Garrett starts with v. 19, because he emends the text of v. 18 and groups it otherwise. I'm not persuaded by the emendation and, that being the case, see it as obviously fitting just fine with the first cluster of verses on the tongue.

I was really grateful for Garrett's vision on these verses. It just remained for me to make it my own, and to adapt it for preaching. So I added verse 18 to the first cluster, and came up with this:

A:    Speech (vv. 18–21)

B:    Security (vv. 22–25)

C:    Sloth (v. 26)

B´:  Security (vv. 27–30)

A´:  Speech (vv. 31–32)

 The chiasm looks like this:

I preached the first section (vv. 18-21) last Sunday. Gazing at it, reflecting, praying after all my studying, I saw that the whole was connected not only by the topic of speech, but by the fact that each verse posed a paradox. So I preached it under the title Communication: Perilous Paradoxes.

That done, I now need to decide whether what remains breaks down into four sermons, three... or something else. But I d have a structure to work within!

For which I'm happy to credit Duane Garrett.

---

First love

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from Speeches at Home and Abroad, pages 38-39, Pilgrim Publications. 

"Brethren, we must be earnest, because we are ourselves so greatly in debt to the rich, free, and sovereign grace of God." 

Let us recollect this morning that first hour when our sins were forgiven. It is fresh and vivid upon some of our memories. We remember when the burden fell from off our backs; when we saw the wounds of Christ, and knew ourselves to be his. Oh, that blessed morning!—that blessed morning!

What preachers we should have made if we could have been put into a pulpit there and then! What household visitors should we have been if we could have been sent at that very moment to go and tell to a family what Christ had done for us! And then, brethren, we were only in debt to Christ for one item; and now, the bill is so long we cannot measure it.

And do we love him less now than we did then? When he had only healed our iniquity we loved him; and now that he has been pleased not only to heal our diseases, but to satisfy our mouth with good things, so that our youth has been renewed like the eagle’s, shall we love him less? I say, God forbid!

And yet I query, brethren, whether any of us go to our work now as we should have done if this were the first day of our conversion. Come, I say now, recall the place where you were; think of the hole of the pit and the miry clay. Think also of where you are.

Put your foot down upon the Rock of Ages now, and feel that you are safe in Christ. Look at your covering now,—arrayed in his righteousness. Look at your sustenance now,—fed with the bread from heaven, and made to eat of the body and blood of Christ. Think of your end, and of that which has been provided for you,—the mansions of the blessed in the land of rest hereafter. And will not these things make you feel that you are drowned debtors to Christ—over head and ears in debt to him?

Oh, what do we not owe thee, Jesus,—what do we not owe thee! If we could give our bodies to be burned; if this flesh could be eaten of dogs and rent piecemeal from the bones, ‘twere small sacrifice for thee. And, could we give up heaven for thee; if we could be kept out of it for ages to preach, and teach, and suffer for thee, we might well be content, and think it two heavens to lose heaven for awhile if we might but the better show our love for thee.

If there be a man among you who is not in debt to Christ, this plea can have no power with you. If there be one among you who is not washed in his blood; if there be one among you who will be saved by his own merits, or by his own strength, you have no call to be in earnest; there is no need that you should give your heart to Christ. But such a man there is not; therefore spend and be spent each one of you: and may the Lord accept the sacrifice, through Christ, the great High Priest!

---

If I could give only one piece of advice to bloggers who want to be heard, it would be...

by Dan Phillips

...write less, but more often.

Oh, there, I gave away the punch-line without any buildup! And yet, you're still reading. Why is that? Probably three reasons:

1. Some: because you've learned you like my writing style. (Thank you! I appreciate you!)
2. Some: because the dialogue-style of this post has you engaged. And...
3. Some: because your peripheral vision tells you it isn't that long of a post, so a huge investment won't be necessary.

Now, there's a lesson in all of that. The first category has been earned, perhaps, by my ten-or-however-many years of blogging. I've built a readership. Again, thank you!

The second is something I've developed over the years.

The third is just the way it is. Unless your name rhymes with Zigon Zuncan or Xon Xiper or Pevin PeYoung or Qug Qilson or suchlike, you haven't earned the expectation that a huge time-investment in reading your writing would surely be rewarding. So don't write 30,000 word dissertations and ask everyone what they think. I'll tell you what they think: "That's too danged long!"

Seriously. I can't tell you how many times I've felt truly bad, because some good brother says "Please read this, tell me what you think." And, dutifully, I click over, and... my eyes go down, down, down, down, and yes once again, down. As they do, they glaze over, hope fades, my heart sinks, and I don't even want to start because I know I won't want to have to endure to the end to be saved.

So: you are bursting with a message. That's great. You want people to hear you. Of course you do! So write something snappy, to-the-point, and short. It won't say everything you want to say. But if you want anyone to want to hear what you have to say, you'll need to earn that. Start by respecting their time, and not overstaying your welcome.

After all, it's your blog. Today's a great day for Part One. Part Two can come tomorrow. Leave your readers wanting more, and they'll come back.

Put another way: use words like you have to pay for each one, instead of like you're paid for each one.

I'm done. See? Like that.

You're welcome.

---

The Spirit glorifies the Son

by Dan Phillips

From 2006 to 2012, PyroManiacs turned out almost-daily updates from the Post-Evangelical wasteland -- usually to the fear and loathing of more-polite and more-irenic bloggers and readers. The results lurk in the archives of this blog in spite of the hope of many that Google will "accidentally" swallow these words and pictures whole.

This feature enters the murky depths of the archives to fish out the classic hits from the golden age of internet drubbings.

The following excerpt was written by Dan back in December 2006. Dan pointed out that the Holy Spirit's primary focus is drawing attention to Jesus, not to Himself.

As usual, the comments are closed.

Most of our readers are old enough to remember Ed McMahon, the genial MC for The Tonight Show, with Johnny Carson. His job was to announce the show, and introduce Johnny Carson. Then he sat out there, played straight man to Johnny, laughed at his jokes, made Carson look good.

Through the years, Carson had various guest hosts including, I think, Seinfeld, Leno, Letterman, and Brenner. Never, as far as I know, Ed McMahon.

My allusion to McMahon has one point, and one only:
McMahon's job was go make another person look good, to draw attention to him. It was to produce anticipation, and then, with his famous "Heeeeere's Johnny!", to bring on the star of the show.

If the camera had remained on McMahon, if the spotlight had been trained on him, immediately we'd have known something was very wrong. Ed wasn't the focus. Nor have I ever heard that McMahon resented his role. In fact, when he wrote a book, it was titled Here's Johnny!, not Hey, Look at Me! McMahon's job was defined, he embraced it, and he did it well.

So, where am I going with this? Am I suggesting that the Holy Spirit, then, is like Ed McMahon? In virtually no way. The august Person of God the Holy Spirit produced Scripture (2 Peter 1:21), was involved in Creation (Genesis 1:2), empowered Jesus' ministry (Luke 4:14), is the mode of believers' immersion into Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13), seals us until the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30), and a great deal more. He is God.

But there is one point of analogy, and one only: the delight and joy of the Holy Spirit is not to train attention upon Himself. The Holy Spirit's great love, fascination, and focus, is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Before the Incarnation, the Spirit moved in the prophets. And of what did He speak through them? Among other things, He spoke of the sufferings of Christ, and of His glories to follow (1 Peter 1:11).

The Holy Spirit performed the miracle by which the virgin, Mary, became mother to the human nature of the Messiah (Matthew 1:18,20; Luke 1:35). He appeared at Jesus' baptism, not to flutter in mid-air until everyone noticed and admired Him, but to rest on Christ, to mark Him out as Yahweh's anointed (Matthew 3:16; cf. Luke 4:18).

And so the power of the Spirit continued in the ministry of Jesus, to guide Him in what He did (Matthew 4:1), and to bring glory and honor to Jesus, marking Him as God's Son (Matthew 12:28; Acts 10:38). This He did preeminently in Jesus' resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:4).

And what would the Spirit do after Christ's resurrection and ascension? More of the same. "He will glorify me," Jesus says of the Spirit, "for he will take what is mine and declare it to you" (John 16:14). It is worth repetition: "He will glorify me." In fact, the Greek is a bit more emphatic: "That one, Me will He glorify." The Spirit will come to bring glory, and it is to Jesus that He will bring this glory.

Imagine that. God though He is, personal though He is, the Spirit's aim is not to glorify Himself. It is to glorify Jesus. And how does the Holy Spirit do that? By imparting inerrant revelation to the apostles, revelation which we have today in the Bible alone. He did this by granting them inerrant memory of Jesus' words (John 14:26), by bearing witness to them about Jesus (John 15:26), by convicting the world of truths related in each case to Jesus (John 16:8-11), and by continuing to tell them the "many things" that Jesus still had to say to them (John 16:12-13). Jesus emphasizes this last point, assuring the apostles that the Spirit would not speak aph' heautou, from Himself, but rather from Jesus.

---

Some here, some there

by Dan Phillips

My "muse," apparently, is taking the day off. It happens. In the interim, here are some posts and thingies here and there, worth noting.

• First, an interview with m'man Phil Johnson. Always worth listening to. I have a picture of the window to the room in which he prayed to receive Christ, taken the first time I met Phil, in Tulsa. Hey, I'm sentimental.
• Yr obdt svt had the pleasure of being a solo guest on the Mortification of Spin recently, and it was all kinds of fun. You can listen here.
• At the end, the ineffable Aimee Byrd springs on me a barrage of dispie dissing. I returned the honor with a few of my own Why Didn't the Amillennialist Cross the Road?
• On the subject of Aimee, color her not-in-lockstep with the oohs and ahs over a certain bestseller.
• ...concerning which Matt Walsh — who never says in 50 words what can be crammed into 5000 — counsels actual hatred.
• Denny Burk, who I appreciate a great deal, has a terrific quotation from C. S. Lewis on why a lustful man isn't actually looking for an actual woman.
• One of our reliably very-best commenters, Nathan Machel ("Trogdor"), writes on diet and discernment.
  
• Reminder: if Prof. David Murray's blog is not a daily visit for you, it really should be.
• Lyndon Unger reviews Cold Case Christianity over at Cripplegate, which should also be a daily stop for you if it isn't.
• Rick Phillips (no relation) writes about the the Gospel and sanctification, which readers know is also addressed Biblically at some length in TWTG.
• Professor Jim Hamilton's fine work God's Indwelling Presence is on sale for just a few more days at Logos. I consulted it, with profit, in preparing TWTG.
• Similarly, I profited from Andy Naselli's study of Keswick history and theology, Let Go and Let God? It is also currently on sale at Logos.
• You've heard many of our readers, and folks like Prof. Hamilton, David Murray, Doug Wilson and others, talking about the Proverbs book. Did you know that WTS Bookstore is selling it for 40% off? I don't know how long a sale like that can last, so if you're interested for yourself, your pastor or leaders at church, or anyone else — now's a good time.
• Finally, it appears they're starting youth leaders' training younger than ever:

---

"Precious"

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from Sermons Preached on Unusual Occasions, page 45, Pilgrim Publications.

“Unto you therefore which believe he is precious.” 

He. Some think the ordinances, which they call the sacraments, very precious: so they are; but only for his sake. Others reckon the doctrines to be very precious, and always thrust doctrine into the forefront. We will not deny that every doctrine is precious, but it owes its value to the fact that Christ is in it.

Dry doctrine is nothing better that a sepulchre for a dead Christ to be buried in; but the doctrine preached in relation to his person becomes a throne on which he is exalted. It is a great pity when any of you Christians forget that you have a Saviour who is alive, and overlook the personality of Christ.

Remember that he is a real man, and as a real man on Calvary he died for you, and as a real man he is gone into heaven. He is no ideal personage, but an actual personage; and the very marrow of Christian experience lies in the realisation of the personality of the Saviour. “Unto you that believe, he is precious.”

If you make doctrine the main thing, you are very likely to grow narrow-minded; if you make your own experience the main thing, you will become gloomy and censorious of others; if you make ordinance the main thing, you will be apt enough to grow merely formal; but you can never make too much of the living Christ Jesus.

Remember that all things else are for his sake. Doctrines and ordinances are the planets, but Christ is the Sun; the stars of doctrine revolve around him as their great primal light. Get to love him best of all.

Yea, I know you do, if ye are believing in him. You love the doctrines, and would not like to give one of them up, but still the incarnate God is the sum and substance of your confidence; Christ Jesus himself is precious to you.

---

Academics: pastor as tour-guide

by Dan Phillips

Preaching through Proverbs has been such an adventure to me. The book of Proverbs been a love and special focus of mine for almost four decades. I've had the opportunity to do the occasional conference, lots of articles, and this book (which, by the way, is still available at a startling 40% off at the WTS bookstore). You might think I'd think I had a handle on Solomon's opus.

But no, I'll confess right up-front that Proverbs is a book where you never feel like you've "touched bottom." Preaching through chapters 1—9, and now into chapter 10, has forced me to go deep like I never had before: word-studies, syntax, poetics, semantics, the whole nine. It's made me bring out every tool I have, such as they are, and use each copiously.

That's what I'd like to muse about with you. Many think that a pastor might get some academics in seminary, and then will do best to leave them as far behind as possible the moment he gets his terminal degree. By now you know that I totally disagree. Every moment, every second I've spent in Hebrew or Greek or what-have-you over the last four decades, I did with the mind that I was going to use all that to serve Christ and His church in some way. What I would bring in the pulpit would be enhanced by the best academics I was capable of.

Ah, but how? How to wed the one to the other, how to bring the two seemingly-unpairable worlds together? To many, that's just an unmixable mix. "You can't stand up there and lecture," they'd say. "Preaching is truth on fire, it's no place for the scholar's dusty droning."

The concern is valid. A pastor who wants to lift up Christ and feed saints will never aim at putting folks to sleep, or sending people off swooning over his sesquipedalian vocab. But is there any benefit in a lazy approach to the text, one content with skimming three P's and a poem off the surface of any given text? Surely there are more options than the two extremes.

Here's what I settled on long ago: I would give exert my very best effort to dig as deeply as I could into the text, and then prayerfully translate the results into a sermon accessible by anyone yearning for God's truth. The sermon is not a showcase for all the tools I've picked up; but it is a showcase for the results gleaned by the prayerful use of those tools. I dig deep, not to drag everyone down the mine-shaft with me, but to show them the pretty gems I found in the process — and to encourage them to do their own digging.

The analogy that helps me identify my goal is that of the really good tour-guide.

You and I, artistic bumpkins that we probably are, could stroll through a museum and think, "Hunh, nice painting. Hunh, nice painting. Hunh, I don't like that one much. Hunh, nice painting..." And it'd have been a worthwhile experience. Cul-chah, don't you know.

Ah, but then bring in a really great tour-guide, and he'll say "Compare these two paintings to each other. The one of the left was done in 1889. Note all the bright blues and yellows and reds, the long brush-strokes, and how many of those strokes have an upward slant from left to right. Don't you just want to smile, as you look at it? Now compare this one. See all the greys and dark blues and blacks? See all the short, choppy strokes, the distressing feel to the whole? Makes you want to shiver, doesn't it? The painting on the left was done right after the birth of the artist's first child. The one on the right, shortly after the death of the artist's wife."

Now, you'd just looked at those very same paintings, and you hadn't seen any of that. But now, you can't unsee it. It makes perfect sense. What's changed? Not the paintings. Most of the evidence was right there; but then again, the tour-guide had the benefit of some study and education you haven't had. Sure, you appreciate him; but mostly, now you appreciate the painting and the artist in a way you never had, previously. You're looking at both with new, wondering, admiring eyes.

That's what I try to do. Listen to this sermon on Proverbs 10:1, if you want to, and look at the outline. It's a sample of what's happened with me over and over in this series. I'd read Proverbs 10:1... how many times? A hundred? Ten thousand? But in studying it for this sermon, I saw depths and relationships that had never come out to me. Some of them came to me thanks to reading it in Hebrew for the whatever-th time, some thanks to the research for the book, some just from this study.

But what I distilled and brought into the pulpit with me was an amazement at Solomon's art, and the grandeur of the God who inspired it. Yahweh gave that man such wisdom, the book bristles with it on every level. It's a marvel. And the Spirit of God, in lifting Solomon to the ability to write this book, produced such a masterpiece, such a work of art.

So I see part of what I'm doing as standing there with my dear folks looking at this marvelous painting, and excitedly saying "Look at those brushstrokes! They tell a story. This is the sort of style the artist uses to communicate..." — and off I go, waxing rhapsodic at the wonders of our sufficient Scripture.

I'll say frankly that countless others vastly dwarf me academically (Gordon Hugenberger would be an example among preachers), that's not my point. My point is that everything I have, everything I've culled together over some forty years, I use.

So: if you're in the process of preparing to be a pastor, give it everything you've got. Get a grip on that tools that you can keep up, until the Lord says you're done. If you're currently a pastor, keep them current; maybe find a way refresh them.

And if you're looking for a church: find one where the pastor's tools are many and well-used. You want him to dive in and bring back the best for you. And "the best" doesn't just fall off trees into lax, flabby, sluggardly hands (Pro. 10:4).

---