Sufficient Fire and Church Membership

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 back in June 2007. Frank reiterated and reinforced several points from multiple posts on the topics "How to read your Bible" and "Should I quit my church?"

As usual, the comments are closed.

We may not have Apostles among us, but we have Scripture. We have their witness. We have their testimony. And this testimony is all things which we need to grasp Jesus Christ and be what He has called us to be.

We are not smarter than Paul. We are beggars before the wisdom which Paul was given – we do not grasp what he wrote and taught, so we do not do the things Paul (or Peter, or the Evangels, or James, or the others) was exhorting the believers to do.

If we think Paul didn’t know all the errors we face, maybe we ought to go back and look at who and what Paul was talking about as he wrote his letters to the various churches.

In Romans, Paul decries legalism, libertinism, pride, racism, and anarchy – and he was writing to people whom he longed to see, and thought highly of in terms of the faith.

In 1 & 2 Corinthians, Paul decries exalting teachers, intellectual and spiritual pride, lax church discipline, sexual immorality, material squabbling, seeking recourse in secular venues outside of the church, false views of marriage, both idolatry and being a slave to the fear of idolatry, false views about Christian liberty, abuse of the Lord's Table, abuse of common worship in the demonstration of spiritual gifts, false views of the Gospel, church discipline which does not aim to redeem but seeks only to punish, the fear of death, stingy giving, and interestingly those who think they know more than the Apostles do about the Gospel, Christ and the church. His view of what to do about false teachers is especially useful if you care to review it in 2 Cor 10 & 11. And these were people whom he himself established in the faith – people who literally got it from the bondservant's mouth.

In Galatians, Paul decries adding works to the Gospel, and showing partiality based on observances, and rejects circumcision as necessary, and underscores the necessity of unity under truth in the church – in spite of the fact that he had to defy Peter to his face to do it! He didn’t say, "and I never set foot in any house with Peter ever again." You know: Peter who got the vision from God, "take and eat"? Nobody abandoning the Galatian church in spite of that.

In Ephesians, Paul expresses the fully-orbed Gospel and uses it to say, "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." And leaps off from there to exhort to personal holiness, submission to each other, the true nature of marriage and the roles of husband and wife, the roles in family and society, and the method by which we are girded up against the temptations of the world.

See: the foundational premise of Scripture is not that we should read it. The foundational premise of Scripture is that it is sufficient for our equipping; reading is a consequence of sufficiency. And the equipment in Scripture says that the church is necessary and that this is the place where we first and foremost stand for the truth of the Gospel, and in standing for truth we stand together.

If you are holed up in your study in your robe reading and writing blogs, but you can't find a church that suits you, you are not standing on the sufficiency of Scripture: you are sitting in your robe. If Scripture is sufficient to tell you that Your Best Life Now is a fraud and that no pastor should emulate it to his congregation, it is also sufficient to tell you – and let me make it clear that I mean you personally, you the one who is unable to find one believer over whom you do not have parental authority over with which to fellowship -- that you belong joined together with other believers in a visible and social way which demonstrates the glory of God to the world.

---

God in our Real Life

by Frank Turk

Well.  Hello.

This is not the end of my hiatus.  It's sort of an update.

This last weekend, I was tasked to teach in Adult Equipping Hour from Jeremiah 25.  In doing that, I was tasked to talk about the Wrath of God.  You can hear the results in the link above.  Apologies to DJP for switching in that lesson between "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" when the text said "LORD;" you know that I know your preference there, and since I agree with it I reverted to form as the lesson unfolded.  I also apologize for butchering the names in 2 Cr 34.

However, it occurred to me in writing that lesson and thinking about it after teaching it, that if God is who He is, we have to deal with the wrath of God in our real life as Christians in a way more than affirming it as a theological category.

Is there still something called "the Wrath of God" evident in the world?

What does it have to do with people in general, but especially for those of us who are believers in YHVH and therefore in Jesus?

Do we diminish Grace at all by admitting that there is a wrath of God which ought to be respected and feared?

Can we make any sense at all out of Grace if the wrath of God is not in our vocabulary?

Why ask these questions today?

Discuss as you see fit.

---

Preaching Proverbs 6 — getting started (#2)

by Dan Phillips

As I continue walking you through a lab in preaching Proverbs, using chapter 6 as an example, I'm assuming you've worked through the basics as to the specific challenge and resource that is the book of Proverbs. Otherwise, to take you through all that, I'd have to write a whole book. Oh, hang on just a minute...

So we've got in place who wrote Proverbs, what difference it makes, how the book is shaped, what the book is about, and how to approach proverbs.  All that is absolutely essential, for starters.

The next step is translating Proverbs. If you're a pastor and you don't read Hebrew, I'd urge you to get started in learning it. For this, I'll assume that you've learned it and, since your job is to teach the Bible and 2/3 of it is in Hebrew, you use it all the time.

So here BibleWorks is (as always) my best friend. As I've shown you in the past, its Notes editor is simply a Godsend to me, and it's in constant use as I prepare sermons.  I can't imagine doing what I do, without BibleWorks.

So what I literally do in Proverbs is transfer every word to Notes, and break it up so I can make notes on the words. I begin with each word getting its own slot, though that will occasionally be supplemented by phrases deserving a note. Here's a screen shot from Proverbs 7:7, which was then in the planning-stages for a coming sermon:

You'll notice that my working translation is at the top, then some initial observations, then the lexical entries start. I do a search on each word's use in Proverbs; if it's already been worked on, I refer to those places. I'll also keep an eye for Solomon's abundant artistic flourishes, like the sound-play noted in red ink (aBINah BABBANIm). Of course, such observations often don't end up in the sermon, but they feed me, and if I ever write a commentary or lecture at seminary, they'll likely show up there.

Again, here's a "finished" one from Proverbs 3:4, showing what it ends up looking like:

At the top is the verse as rendered in my Proverbs book; the next is the version I ended up using in preaching, with a minor change. Then I note the opening phrase and-find-grace, with material from commenters Waltke and Steinmann, and grammar. The hyperlinks are to the resources in Logos.

So I do lexical searches within Proverbs, and usually in the larger Canon as well. Then I refer to the lexical authorities such as BDB, HALOT, TLOT, TWOT, and NIDOTTE, as well as any of a dozen or so grammars, including Waltke-O'Connor, Joüon, GKC, Davidson (latter two = old, but still useful) and others, and copy info with links lavishly. My design is to end up with a little study-center in the Notes of BibleWorks.

All through this process, I'm noting words that are repeated within the section or chapter. Often, these are excellent clues as to how the chapter lays out or what it's about. This is just one of those places where Hebrew is essential, since English versions sometimes obscure connections (and, regularly, chiasms) by using different words and billowy syntax. The ESV is really frustrating about that; it's a main reason why I always provide my own more literal translation in my sermon outlines for the church.

Next step is usually to decide (A) what are the borders of the section, and (B) what is the shape within the section. This was really rough, in preaching chapter 3. Good arguments could be (and are) made for it being three sections, two sections, or one large section. This is the point at which I usually begin engaging the commentaries, focusing at this point with how they see the section laid out. Often I'll use the Editor tab in BibleWorks and do a study on this issue alone — as indeed I did with chapters 3, 6, and others.

I mention commentaries. Which are being most helpful, and which are pretty much worthless?

That will be a worthy focus in the next post.

---

Programming note: as of this week, I begin posting Tuesdays and Fridays (DV), instead of Tuesdays and Thursdays. Thursday is now the Greatest Hits day.

This way to the next (third) post.

Previously:
First post

---

The three wonders of Heaven

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 The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 48, sermon number 2,763, "The glory of grace."

"The grace of God is as free as the air we breathe."

You remember the story of the three wonders in heaven. The first wonder was, that we should see so many there we did not expect to see there; the second was, that we should miss so many we did expect to see there; but the third wonder would be the greatest wonder of all,—to see ourselves there.

Oh! when I hear people censuring and condemning their fellow-Christians because they are not perfect,—because they see some little fault in them,—I think, do these people know that they are saved by grace, and that they have nothing which they have not received?

I think, surely, if they knew how they received what they have, they would not be quite so hard with those who have not got the blessing. When we feel right, my brethren, we always feel ourselves to be veritable beggars. Nay, the more right we come to be, the less we feel ourselves to be.

That big letter I is so large with us all, pride is so interwoven into our nature, that I am afraid we shall never get it pulled out until we are wrapped in our winding-sheets. But if there be anything that can cure it, methinks it is the fact that it is all of grace.

Heaven shall show us how gracious God has been to us; but on earth we shall never know the full value of the grace we have received.

---

Propitiation: What It Is, What It Isn't

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 excerpt was written by Phil back in April 2007. Phil addressed a common—and seriously erroneous—view of propitiation.

As usual, the comments are closed.

Too many Christians think of divine forgiveness as something that utterly overturns justice and sets it aside—as if God's mercy nullified His justice—as if God's love defeated and revoked His hatred of sin. That's not how forgiveness works.

Is forgiveness from sin grounded only in the love and mercy and goodness of God—apart from his justice? Does love alone prompt the Almighty to forego the due penalty of sin, wipe out the record of our wrongdoing, and nullify the claims of justice against us, unconditionally?

Or must God Himself be propitiated? In other words, do His righteousness and His holy wrath against sin need to be satisfied before He can forgive?

It truly seems as if most people today—including multitudes who identify themselves as Christians—think God forgives merely because His love overwhelms His holy hatred of sin. Some go even further, rejecting the notion of propitiation altogether, claiming it makes God seem too harsh. The problem with every such view of the atonement is that mercy without propitiation turns forgiveness into an act of injustice.

That is a seriously erroneous view. As a matter of fact, that very idea was one of the main errors of Socinianism.

The original Socinians were 16th-century heretics who denied that God demands any payment for sin as a prerequisite to forgiveness. They insisted instead that He forgives our sin out of the sheer bounty of His kindness alone. They argued that if God demanded an atonement—an expiation, a payment, a reprisal, or a propitiation—for sin, then we shouldn't really call it "forgiveness" when He absolves us. They claimed that sin could either be paid for or forgiven, but not both.

In other words, they defined forgiveness in a way that contradicts and contravenes justice. They were essentially teaching that God could not maintain the demands of His justice and forgive sins at the same time. They thought of forgiveness and justice as two incompatible ideas.

Scripture expressly refutes that idea. One of the most glorious truths of the gospel is that God saved us in a way that upheld His justice. Justice was neither compromised nor set aside; it was completely satisfied. God Himself was thus fully propitiated. And our salvation is therefore grounded in the justice of God as well as His mercy.

Our thoughts about such things are almost always too shallow. We take God's mercy for granted and ignore His holy justice. But a right view of God will always exalt His righteous hatred for sin as much as it magnifies His love and mercy. God's mercy is not some maudlin sentiment that causes Him to forget about His holiness and set aside His righteous anger against sin. The demands of righteousness must be fully and completely satisfied if God is ever going to forgive sin. He cannot and will not simply overlook sin as if it didn't really matter.

In other words, the gospel is not only a message about the love of God. It is that; but it is not only that. The true gospel magnifies His justice as much as it magnifies His love.

When was the last time you thought of the gospel as a message about divine justice?

"Without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Hebrews 9:22).

---

And... we're live: TeamPyro's Sufficient Fire conference — January 23-24, 2015

...we're putting the band back together!
And we want you to be there!

Preaching Proverbs 6 — introduction and overview (#1)

by Dan Phillips

Though I've loved Proverbs for decades, the thought of actually preaching Proverbs — moving through it consecutively — was daunting to me. I'd preached from Proverbs here and there, and even included suggestions and an appendix on preaching the whole in my book on Proverbs — but I'd not yet actually done it.

Once I determined to preach through at least chapters 1—9, one looming issue I knew I'd have to confront is dealing with the size and shape of the discourses. I knew that there were extended sections, some of which were pretty easy to trace as to start and stop (i.e. 1:8-19, then 20-33). But I also knew that others were not so obvious at all — such as chapters 2, 3, 4... All these were matters of debate among Top Men, and if I preached, I'd have to make my own decisions.

So let's see: I'd have to...

1. Translate Hebrew poetry (always a challenge);
2. Discern where the discourse started and stopped (no agreement among Top Men);
3. Find the shape within and point(s) of each discourse;
4. Interpret each discourse; and...
5. Process how to preach each section — meaning: In how many sermons? In what way, specifically for the glory of Christ in a Christian church? How to take in-depth exegesis, light it on fire, and translate it into passionate Christ-exalting preaching?

Piece of cake!

Of course, it hasn't been a piece of cake. It has, however, been "the breakfast of champions," somewhat like a literary Bowflex. Given the amount and depth of research and thought I invest every week, it's been literally (and I only use "literally" literally) like writing a term-paper every week. Now, believe me, I'm not complaining in any way; I've loved it. But it's a real workout.

Now I'm sharing with you a series of posts just on Proverbs 6 as an example. It's fresh in my mind, and it makes for a good test-case.

So here's what you do: read through Proverbs 6, and see how you think it lays out. Is it one discourse? Two? Four, or five? What of themes — how many themes does the chapter feature?  Five? One? And further, how would you preach it? Would you preach one sermon? Or two? How would you divide your sermons? Would you do like Ray Ortlund does in his book on preaching Proverbs, and lump together 6:20—7:27 into one treatment, as if it were all the same?

If you'll tussle with that chapter a bit and "prime the pump," you'll get more out of our subsequent studies.

Or you could go through the sermons I preached on chapter six.

But that'd be cheating.

NEXT: where even to start?

---

A Wasted Sunday

by Frank Turk

Yesterday, John Stark made the following comment on Twitter:

God's general revelation is inerrant.
— John Starke (@john_starke) May 11, 2014

I read it, thought about it, challenged him on it, and told him he was wrong. However, John provided a link for me to discover that this is a Protestant doctrine.

Because he was right and I was wrong, I apologize to John for wasting his time and making little of his keen insight.  I was wrong.  I apologize, John.  Please forgive me.

---

Encouraging mendicancy

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 Words of Wisdom, pages 108-109, Pilgrim Publications.

"The world generally confines its good wishes and blessings to its class, and kith, and kin. It cannot think of giving blessings to its enemies."

The world always gives with a sparing motive. The most of us are compelled to economy. If we give anything away to a poor man, we generally hope that he will not come again. If we give him half-a-crown, it is very often, as we say, to get rid of him.

If we bestow a little charity, it is in the hope that we shall not see his face just by-and-by; for really we do not like the same men continually begging at our door when the world is so full of beggars.

Did you ever hear of a man who gave a beggar something to encourage him to keep on begging of you? I must confess I never did such a thing, and am not likely to begin. But that is just what Christ does. When he gives us a little grace, his motive is to make us ask for more; and when he gives us more grace, it is given with the very motive to make us come and ask again.

He gives us silver blessings to induce us to ask for golden mercies; and when we have golden favours, those same mercies are given on purpose to lead us to pray more earnestly, and open our mouth
wider, that we may receive more. What a strange giver Christ is! What a strange friend, that he gives on purpose to make us beg more!

The more you ask of Christ, the more you can ask; the more you have got, the more you will want; the more you know him, the more you will desire to know him; the more grace you receive, the more grace you will pant after; and when you are full of grace, you will never be content till you get full of glory.

Christ’s way of giving is, “Of his fullness have we received, and grace for grace”—grace to make us pant for more grace; grace to make us long after something higher, something fuller and richer still. “Not as the world giveth, give I unto you.”

---

"All You Need is Love"?

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 February 2011. Dan addressed the popular but false ideas behind the slogan "Love, not doctrine."

As usual, the comments are closed.

Breaking news: Jesus talked about love!

Well honestly, the way I see it mentioned hither and yon, you'd think there was a segment of the church which denied that statement. If so, I've yet to meet it. Certainly there are parts which aren't very good at it, but denial? Denigration? I don't think I've ever heard anyone deny or denigrate genuine, Biblical love — not the way folks have repeatedly denigrated doctrine.

Love is the mark of a disciple (John 13:34-35). In this passage, our Lord does not say that doctrine is the mark of a disciple, or that correctness is the mark of a disciple, or even that truth is the mark of a disciple. So love, some would say, clearly supplants concerns about correct doctrine.

Not so fast. Why stop there? Jesus also does not say that monotheism is the mark of a disciple. He does not say that abstaining from murder, rape, or theft is the mark of a disciple. He does not say that wearing clothes or eating are marks of a disciple. He does not even say that believing in Him, in any sense, is the mark of a disciple.

So what have we established? Only that Jesus didn't say what He didn't say in this passage. Which, hopefully, all are agreed upon. We had better hope He said other things, somewhere. Because if all we had were this passage, we would not even know what this passage meant! I mean, what is love? Warm feelings? Cheesy sentimentalism? Coddling? Indulging? Unconditional approval and enabling? Indifference towards damaging (or even damning) error? Treacly benevolence?

So rather than camping on this passage as if it were the only thing Jesus ever said, without any context, what if we — oh, I don't know — considered everything Jesus said? Shall we?

So we ask: is this the only thing Jesus ever said about love, or about what should distinguish His followers? Hardly. Let's start with the latter:  "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?" Jesus asks (Luke 6:46). So right away, we know that Jesus expects obedience to His words to characterize His real followers.  Nor do we see a hierarchy, as if one may obey some but disregard others. Jesus seems to think that He is our Lord, or He is not; and if He is, what He says should produce obedience in us.

Whatever He means by "love" in John 13, then, it must be characterized and framed by obedience to His words — which, as we just saw, leads us to the rest of the New Testament, and back to the whole of the Old Testament as well.

In fact, Jesus Himself ties those ideas together, repeatedly (John 14:15, 21, 23-24, 15:10). So would He ever have tolerated a notion of love divorced from a specific, set doctrinal framework? Fantasy-Jesus, yes. Fantasy-Jesus thinks all sorts of things, largely things that will keep the world's good graces. The actual Jesus, however, the one who really lived and lives — He would never have conceived of such a view.

Love for God comes first (Matthew 22:37-40). Then, and only then, is it followed by love of neighbor. And what, pray, is love for God? The concept is explained and given full color in the Old Testament, whence Jesus mined this gold. Let's just lift a snippet:

"You shall therefore love the LORD your God and keep his charge, his statutes, his rules, and his commandments always." (Deuteronomy 11:1)

Do you see it yet again? Love for God walks hand in hand with wholehearted acceptance of the full authority of all of God's words. But what is more, plugging in Deuteronomy, it means doctrinal loyalty, it means clinging wholly to the true God — which is to say as well, to the doctrinal truth about God — in the face of all opposing doctrines. It is loyal devotion to God, as His doctrine is revealed in Scripture alone.

---

The sufficiency of Scripture and preaching

by Dan Phillips

Last week I launched a few Tweets on a theme I've hit in the past and mean to develop more in the near future. You may have heard of it: the sufficiency of Scripture.

The specific point I was making was that, if we really believed it, we'd start there, rather than making stuff up and then testing it by Scripture. Here was one of my tweets:

If we rly believed in th sufficiency of Scripture, we'd start with Scripture in the first place — not start somewhere else and "test by Scr"
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) May 2, 2014

Someone who doesn't follow my account (and thus understandably may not "get" where the shorthand of my tweet was coming from) responded, "So then why do we hear sermons in church instead of just Scripture readings?"

I take it that the idea is, if Scripture is enough, why say anything else? Why not just stand up and read it, and be good with that?

The question itself makes my brain itch. But the calmer DJP says "Teaching opportunity!" so, here we go.

The truth of the sufficiency of Scripture means that Scripture contains everything for which we need a word from God. That's what it does mean. It doesn't mean that, whenever we have a need, we whip out a Bible and read a passage at random without a moment's thought (before or after), and call it good.

The life of faith and obedience that the Bible (the Bible, the words in the Bible, the contents of what Scripture teaches) calls us to means that we read it, study it, understand it, think about it, and apply it.

So here's this "church"-thingie. What's it for? What am I supposed to look for in it? Who leads it? If I'm one of those leader-people, what am I supposed to do?

From what Scripture teaches me, I should start with the assumption that I don't have one clue, no idea whatever — unless I get that idea from Scripture itself. (If you're not clear on why that is, I can recommend something that goes to the literal heart of the matter in great Biblical detail.) So I consciously set aside my assumptions and biases and preferences, and go to the Bible, God's Word, believing that it contains everything for which I need a word from God.

So, let's fast-forward through decades of study and all, and get to the bottom-line: if Scripture is sufficient, then why do we preach sermons, in church?

Because that sufficient Scripture tells us to. See, for instance, 1 Timothy 3:2; 4:13; 5:17; and 2 Timothy 4:1-2; Titus 1:9.

See? That's how it works. It won't teach anyone who is unteachable — nothing does that. But it does give us everything for which we need a word from God.

Like to hear that opened up even further, live and in person? I know this conference that's coming up. We'd love it if you came!

---

Of leprechauns, mermaids, and "loving homosexual couples"

by Dan Phillips

If I were to ask what leprechauns, mermaids, and loving homosexual couples have in common, I'm pretty sure this readership would have the answer. I'd like to help you explain why you answer as you do.

What they have in common with each other is, of course, that they are all mythical creatures, living only in fantasy and imagination and every movie, TV show, and commercial in existence... or at least that's true in the latter case.

Also mythical. Sorry.

This is a truth that has obviously not reached everybody. In fact, apparently it hasn't even reached those who made the decision to become spotlight-Christians, performers whose entire career is predicated on their claim to be Christian — which is to say, lifelong and advancing students of the words of God (John 8:31-32). I have in mind here folks like Dan Haseltine, lead singer for the group Jars of Clay. Note this tweet of his:

So many gay couples display more loving characteristics and healthy relationship practices than most traditional married couples....
— Dan Haseltine (@scribblepotemus) April 24, 2014

This "loving gay couples" meme is heard so much today; it's hard not to think in response:

The whole stands or falls, of course, on the definition of "love." If "love" means sexual arousal, well then, okey doke, sport, I guess if you say so. Or if it means fondness, affection, attraction, or a hundred other emotional and even volitional states... well, how would we even have the discussion? If it's all about emotion, the "discussion" is really beside the point, isn't it? Feelings are thought...well, felt... to be self-validating. After all, you've got to follow your heart, right? And your heart is all about what you feel. Right?

Unless you start with the fear of God (Prov. 1:7) instead of the lordship of Ego and Eros. Then, everything changes.

To begin with the fear of God is to acknowledge, from the outset, the Lordship and ultimacy of God, and the dependence and fallenness of man. It is to acknowledge that our hearts cannot be trusted (Prov. 28:26 {NAS]; Jer. 17:9). It is to acknowledge that real life is only found in knowing God through His word (Prov. 3:18; 4:13; John 6:63, 68). It is to see that rebellion and unbelief are the sure way of death and misery (Gen. 2:17; Pro. 8:36; Rom. 6:23).

As we learn from God how He wants us to treat others, we learn that He wants us to love them, even if they are our enemies (Lev. 19:18; Matt. 5:44). We learn that love is not primarily about feeling. Love is about doing what is for the greatest good of the other, even if that costs us (cf. Exod. 23:4-5; Prov. 25:21). We see the grandest display of love in the Father's gift of His son for our salvation (John 3:16; 1 John 4:9).

So, you see, there never was such a thing as a "loving homosexual couple." Nor was there ever yet a "loving adulterous couple," or a "loving fornicating couple." Accomplices? Yes. Co-conspirators, co-perpetrators? Sure. But loving? Never.

Love is a commitment to the good of the other — and rebellion against God is never for the good of the other. Sin against God is never for the good of the other. Turning away from life and love and forgiveness and reconciliation, and embracing guilt and wrath and doom and despair, wrapped in a straitjacket of rationalizations and distractions — these things are never about the good of the other.

Real love will point someone away from sin and death, and to Christ, the Gospel, life and forgiveness. If that Christward call to repentant faith is absent, so is love.

This is one of those cases where the crystal-clear thinking that the fear of God teaches can stand as a bright beacon of witness to God's wisdom, in our murky, fogbound culture.

That is, if fitting in with the culture isn't our highest ambition. Which it never will be, once our own world has been tilted by the Gospel.

Postscript: this and related matters are opened more fully in "Adultery De-Glamorized," a sermon on Proverbs 6:24-35.

---

Unkept vineyards

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 The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 34, sermon number 2,027, "The sluggard's farm."

"If you are slothful, friend, look over the field of your heart, and weep at the sight." 

May I ask you to look into your own house and home? It is a dreadful thing when a man does not cultivate the field of his own family.

I recollect in my early days a man who used to walk out with me into the villages when I was preaching. I was glad of his company till I found out certain facts, and then I shook him off, and I believe he hooked on to somebody else, for he must needs be gadding abroad every evening of the week.

He had many children, and these grew up to be wicked young men and women, and the reason was that the father, while he would be at this meeting and that, never tried to bring his own children to the Saviour. What is the use of zeal abroad if there is neglect at home? How sad to say, “My own vineyard have I not kept.”

Have you never heard of one who said he did not teach his children the ways of God because he thought they were so young that it was very wrong to prejudice them, and he had rather leave them to choose their own religion when they grew older?

One of his boys broke his arm, and while the surgeon was setting it the boy was swearing all the time. “Ah,” said the good doctor, “I told you what would happen. You were afraid to prejudice your boy in the right way, but the devil had no such qualms; he has prejudiced him the other way, and pretty strongly too.”

It is our duty to prejudice our field in favour of corn, or it will soon be covered with thistles. Cultivate a child’s heart for good, or it will go wrong of itself, for it is already depraved by nature. Oh that we were wise enough to think of this, and leave no little one to become a prey to the destroyer.

---

Loving Your Neighbor in a Concrete Way

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 back in January 2010. Frank explained how and why a concrete love of neighbor (as in the Parable of the Good Samaritan) glorifies God.

As usual, the comments are closed.

There’s a way in which God is glorified which, I think, we overlook pretty regularly. And I have a passage of Scripture about that which I’d like to present and discuss:

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the Law? How do you read it?" And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live."

Think about that: for Jesus, it was enough to say that loving God greatly (with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind) and loving men particularly (that is, the same way you love yourself) to warrant the inheritance of eternal life. There’s no mention there of resurrection or repentance, is there? Yet Christ says, “You have answered correctly; do this and you will live.”

Was Jesus preaching “sloppy agape”? Where’s the Glory of God? Where’s the law, and man’s inability? Doesn't this conversation intimate a synergistic view? How could the lawyer who was testing Him be “correct” to say that the Law demands love -- in the right way, and two different kinds of love to be sure – and that this is enough to gain eternal life?

Now, think on this: the matter of loving God as it is manifest in loving people is what is at stake here. The lawyer asked the question “who is my neighbor” to “justify” himself – that is, either to demonstrate that his first question was not a trap, or to demonstrate that he is not himself a fool for asking a ridiculously simple question.

So the matter of “who is my neighbor” is about how we keep the commandment to love God and love our neighbor. And in that, Christ [as Luke tells it] gives us 3 examples of men who have some relationship with God and with an actual person.

You've heard this sermon before, I am sure: the priest avoided the man; the Levite avoided the man. But the Samaritan did not avoid the man. It seems like a kindergarten Sunday school lesson, I am sure, but let’s think about this for a minute. In John 4, the woman [a Samaritan] at the well said to him, "How is it that you, a Jew, ask for a drink from me, a woman of Samaria?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans, John makes clear) That is, the Samaritans worship God apart from the Jews, and the Jews think that because of this, there is enmity between them – the Samaritans are rather less than lovers of God.

But it is the Samaritan who, as Jesus says, “proved to be a neighbor”.

Consider it: the Levite and the priest have the temple, and its sacrifices – but what do those things cause them to do? The Lawyer can cite the Sh’ma, and connect the admonition of the Sh’ma to obey God and His law to the broad command of Lev 19 which says, frankly, that you shall love your neighbor as yourself in a concrete way. Don’t lie; don’t steal; don’t cheat; care for the poor from your own portion; do not take vengeance, and do not do injustice in court. But Christ tells him that loving God requires you to love people. You can't be doing the former unless you are doing the latter.

See: God is glorified when we love. That may seem somewhat uncontroversial to some people, but there’s a reason God is glorified when we love: it is because God loves. The fact – the indisputable fact of the Bible – is that God loves men, and that love is glorifying to God.

---

IT'S COMING: Together Again, for the First Time

by Dan Phillips

Today, we snap aside the veil and show you what we've got ù so far. What could we possibly do that's never been done before?

It's the first Pyromaniacs conference! as you pretty much guessed.

Details are still being firmed up, and we'll let you know as matters are finalized, but This Is Where We're At Right Now:

Speakers:

Phil Johnson

Frank Turk

Dan Phillips

...and maybe a surprise guest speaker:

(We're also looking into some music)

Dates:

January 23-24, 2015

Place:

Houston, Texas

Working Theme:

Sufficient Fire

(The sufficiency of Scripture, ablaze)

What difference does it make when you really, truly believe that Scripture is sufficient? It makes all the difference. We'll show you.

A whole lot more should be available within the next month, Lord willing. But we did want to let you know the basics early, so those who want to come can start planning.

This is the first time we've all spoken at the same conference. But you know it isn't the first time we've been together.

Join us! Tell your friends.

 

...then hurry on out, y'all.

---