How to read the Bible

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 May 2007. The Bible isn't just 66 books that happen to be bound together.

As usual, the comments are closed.

Yes: this is another post on how to read your Bible. And as a brief exposition on why I'm not letting this topic go, it's because I am frankly tired of people tossing off the glib objection, "But how do you know? All those denominations out there – which one of them has the right reading?"

We have about 5000 readers a day at TeamPyro, and when any of us post here, that means 5000 different people read the post. And let's face it: we have a problem with people failing to engage what we write here all the time. It's frustrating. People see their pet peeves in one sentence, and suddenly the post is not about what it's about, but about what this person has made his life's work to confute.

As another example, we were sitting in church in the last couple of weeks, and my son was sitting next to me as my pastor was preaching on the doctrine of salvation. Well, my pastor was on about why salvation implies a need for being saved, and he was completely on about Romans 3:21-26.

And my son whispered to me as my pastor read that passage, "Daddy, I know that verse."

Listen: it is important to memorize Scripture, and it is important for children to memorize Scripture because they must have a foothold in God's word which is the foundation of the way they perceive the whole world. But when my son said that, I was certain that he wasn't the only one in the service who was thinking that – because that's how many adults perceive Scripture: as maxims of wisdom which are not connected except that they are all bound together with cotton stitches in their Bible.

I mention that because unless we understand the real, literary connections of the 66 books of the Bible, we don't really understand the Bible – and almost every single error one can make in interpreting or paraphrasing the Bible is founded in misconstruing how one passage fits into the book it appears in, and then in the whole canon of Scripture together.

So how do you find these connections? Is there a way to do that?

Well, of course there is. Let's look at Romans 3 to flesh that out. Paul has made the clear affirmation that we're all sinners, and that Christ redeems sinners – but so what? How do we know what Paul meant by that?

Let me suggest something: Paul makes a vivid point in Romans 3 by referencing Psalms 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccles. 7:20, Psalm 5:9, Psalm 140:3, Psalm 10:7, Isaiah 59:7,8 and Psalm 36:1.

He cites Psa 14 – but why? Is it because there's a kernel of wisdom there and, like some motivational speaker, he can find some snippet of God's nice turns of phrase to underscore his point? Or is it because Paul's point here is that there is nothing new about the plight of man, and in that there is nothing new about God's plan of salvation. See: the point in Psa 14 is that certainly all the people God sees are sinful, but that psalm closes by affirming that God saves in spite of men's sinful foolishness.

And again, Paul cites Psa 140 to underscore the wickedness of men's mouths – but he also cites Psa 140 because it says that God delivers men from that kind of wickedness. His point in connecting his theological statement in a letter to the Romans to the book of Psalms is that the Bible is telling one particular story about God's work through all of time.

This view of Scripture shuts the mouth of any man-centeredness. It is in this way we can see the systematic and unified aspect of Scripture which drives us away from our errors if we are willing to receive what is there.

It is in this way that Scripture explains itself – but this view of what is happening in Scripture requires that one connect all the dots. It requires one to have a larger picture of each book, and all the books, of Scripture than one can get buy reading a verse a day.

---

very Catholic (in the pejorative sense)

by The Late Frank Turk

I'll bet you didn't know this, but there is more than one kind of infant baptism.  And I lay that wager out in the first sentence for one reason: I don't want you to waste your time on this post if the topic is not of interest to you.  The intramural debate inside Protestantism over what is and is not a baptism is really not of interest to a lot of people -- except those who, frankly, make it uninteresting for everyone else.

There are two kinds of credobaptism: the phony kind where people get dunked every time they develop a new pang of conscience (this version mistakes growth in maturity/sanctification for "true" experiences of the second birth, for which every credo-baptists is always tortured by paedos when this discussion is approached), and the historical kind in which baptism is given to the new believer upon his confession and initial repentance in order to take him or her out of the world and put them into Christ, and into the church.

Given that there are two kinds of credobaptism (one laughable; one serious, sober, and based on the historical practice of the church), it should be no surprise that there are two kinds of baby-splashing going on.  What is surprising, however, is that the difference is not the dividing line between the clownish and the serious: it is between how these christian people justify their practice.

For the run-of-the-mill Presbyterian and standard-issue Reformed type, the argument goes like this:

1. The church of the Old Testament and the church of the New Testament are, in essence, the same church;
2. God includes the children of believers as members of this church;
3. In the Old Testament era, children of believers, because they were church members, were given the sign of circumcision;
4. In the New Testament era, God has taken the sign of circumcision and changed it to baptism;
5. Therefore, in the New Testament era, children of believers, because they are church members, are to be given the sign of baptism.

A more prosaic version of that can be found here, and it's less helpful but it is more serious about the family/household issue at stake {the core difference, of course, is that the first is OPC and the second in PC(USA)}.  I like the first version of the thing for one reason only: it puts all the cards on the table and avoids questions which neither side really is asking or ought to have to answer.  However, it makes my skin crawl because it seems to overlook a lot of the New Testament and a lot of the distinctions between Israel and the Church.  It is almost enough to make me reconsider Dispensationalism (as DJP and Phil would have me do), but not quite.

But there is a second version of the sprinkling of babies running around, and it's sort of the paleo-reformation view of the Lutherans.  Here's how the Missouri Synod of Lutherans put it (note: that links to a PDF):

Lutherans believe that the Bible teaches that a person is saved by God’s grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ alone. The Bible tells us that such “faith comes by hearing” (Rom 10:17). Jesus Himself commands Baptism and tells us that Baptism is water used together with the Word of God (Matt 28:19-20). Because of this, we believe that Baptism is one of the miraculous means of grace (another is God’s Word as it is written or spoken), through which God creates and/or strengthens the gift of faith in a person’s heart (see Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Gal 3:26-27; Rom 6:1-4; Col 2:11-12; 1 Cor. 12:13). Terms the Bible uses to talk about the beginning of faith include “conversion” and “regeneration.” Although we do not claim to understand fully how this happens, we believe that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in the heart of that infant. We believe this because the Bible says that infants can believe (Matt 18:6) and that new birth (regeneration) happens in Baptism (John 3:5-7; Titus 3:5-6). The infant’s faith cannot yet, of course, be verbally expressed or articulated by the child, yet it is real and present all the same (see e.g., Acts 2:38-39; Luke 1:15; 2 Tim 3:15). The faith of the infant, like the faith of adults, also needs to be fed and nurtured by God’s Word (Matt 28:18-20), or it will die.

For those interested, that summary looks a lot like Luther's own summary in the Smaller Catechism and the Larger Catechism.  I bring it up because a young fellow who doesn't want to baptize cats has dashed off a couple of pages on this subject from the Lutheran perspective, and this weekend he was very put out that I wouldn't engage his post via twitter.  I'm sure he's going to be much happier (?) seeing this post in response to him.

The first thing to note here, however, is that it's a mistake to confuse Presbyterian baptism for Lutheran baptism.  In Presbyterian baptism, the sign and seal of the sacrament brings the person out of the world and into the church -- and assumes (in a qualified way) that this person then has a right to the things the church participates in.  Faith may or may not come later.  The Lutheran, on the other hand, takes a much more mysterious path (which is why they have Chris Rosebrough on their side): they say that the right and proper interpretation of Scripture is that somehow Baptism plants the seeds of faith in a person, and then the church's job is to water and weed that baby faith so that it blossoms into the faith of an adult.  It's an odd way to apply Luke 8 (maybe they forgot that part), but to each his own.

And using that explanation, of course that's why they don't want to baptize cats: cats can never have saving faith.  We can't use the Word for something the Word cannot be used for.

Anyway, here's why I bring up the Official Lutheran teaching: our friends the Lutherans often don't really want to refer to it.  They are very Catholic (in the pejorative sense) in this, because they like to invent stuff like this:

One of the most fundamental points of Christian doctrine is that Christ is “Born of the Virgin Mary”. Let’s not pass over the significance of this. This means that, in Christ, birth and infancy have been made holy. Christ did not only live as the perfect man, but as the perfect infant. Infants cannot be morally neutral creatures because Christ cannot be morally neutral! Infants cannot be incapable of faith because that would mean Christ was faithless! 

And then say that they're just reciting the Catechism.  Well: the catechism doesn't attempt to delve into the mystery of Christ's faith: it says that the water under the authority of the Word of God does what God says it does.  That's why it's a "sacrament" in the Lutheran view of it: God has made it Holy (and: efficacious).  The far more interesting thing Luther said about Baptism is this:

Further, we say that we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God. This now is perhaps somewhat acute, but it rests entirely upon what I have said, that Baptism is nothing else than water and the Word of God in and with each other, that is, when the Word is added to the water, Baptism is valid, even though faith be wanting. For my faith does not make Baptism, but receives it. Now, Baptism does not become invalid even though it be wrongly received or employed; since it is not bound (as stated) to our faith, but to the Word.

It's the implication here which Luther is very clear about and the classic Lutheran is often not so hot for: that it doesn't really matter who we baptize or who is doing the baptism as long as we use the water and the Word of God.  The most federally-headed Presbyterian would be having a bout with the sweats at this point, the the right-minded Lutheran should not be batting an eye.

What he should not be saying, though, is something as far-fetched as this:

To start off, I’d like to make the point that Lutherans do not practice Infant Baptism. We also do not practice African or Irish Baptism. Nor do we practice Elderly Baptism, Female Baptism, or Male Baptism or Euro-Goth-Punk-Geman-Gay-Yoddler Baptism. We have Christian Baptism. That’s it. The question “do you believe in Infant Baptism?” is as silly as asking “do you believe in Middle-Aged Baptism?” As St. Paul emphatically proclaims, “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism”. When in doubt, side with St. Paul. It’s a good strategy.

In the first place, neither the modern Lutheran authorities nor Luther are afraid to say plainly they practice "infant baptism" -- because that is what they actually do.  But what is rather blustery here is the way this fellow wants to say that only Lutherans are practicing baptism into Christ -- as if every paedo and credo is not actually doing that.  But worse for this view of it is that Philip Melanchthon was not quite as Lutheran as Luther in talking about what Baptism is for and how it works.  According to Robert Kolb:

CLICK TO ENLARGE

The idea that the sacrament is a "sign and seal" sound suspiciously Presbyterian, and really comes back to the question of whether Lutherans are the only ones committing to "Christian baptism."

For those who have not died from boredom reading this post this far, the actual point here is simple: in the debate between paedobaptists and credobaptists, the issue is not whether one or the other intends to bring people into the church of Christ through baptism: it is whether or not one can receive a sacrament without faith and the activity still be called the sacrament. The Lutherans say yes, unequivocally; the Presbyterians and Reformed say Yes, in a qualified manner; the Credobaptists (who are frequently and uncharitably called "anabaptists") simply say no, no, not ever and not even.  The whole point of the New Covenant is that it is by grace through faith, which is what sets it apart from the Old Covenant and its works -- and in that way, anyone by grace through faith can receive the New Covenant, which is what makes it better.

Comments are open.  Mind the gap.

---

Piercing the fogbank with discerning questions

by Dan Phillips

Having introduced my dear ones to the work of God in Ephesus, last Sunday I took them into the letter itself.

I was very conscious of Kevin DeYoung's very funny anecdote about being fresh out of seminary, and giving (I think) 20 minutes on the question of authorship — when the good folks in his congregation were all just looking at the words "Paul, an apostle..." and kind of blinking.

So I faced the choice — what do I do about the debate over authorship? And the question of destination: is it really to the Ephesians, is it a circular letter, or what?

You can see for yourself how I handled it if you like. I did deal with the issue of authorship, and the history of controversy. I did it briefly and very forcefully, and then I explained why I was spending time on what seemed like an obvious issue: I am concerned that they may transfer jobs to a new city, or their kids in college may start attending International New Springs of Joyful Higher Plane Apostolic Barking Impact Abundance Worship Center. I am concerned that their pastor may have gone to Fuller, or Princeton, or somewhere. I'd like them to be able to get a fix on where he's coming from.

Why? Couldn't they just ask him if he believed the Bible was inspired? Ah, I see you're smiling. You know that lots of wolves would say "Yes" to that question. They'd say it was inspired, it was God's Word, it was authoritative for faith and practice... and they wouldn't mean anything like what you and I mean.

So I told the story of the kid I worked with in the 70s. He was a young man, Christian-raised, wanted to be a pastor one day. His Church of God had actually named him to the pastoral-search committee, and they were considering a candidate. This particular candidate was from Princeton.

Well, I'd been a Christian just a few years, but I'd already been studying and preparing with enthusiasm, and my ears pricked up. I said, "Ask him who wrote the Pastoral Epistles and when, who wrote the book of Daniel and when, and who wrote 2 Peter and when." (I don't think I included Ephesians.)

He looked at me like I'd sprouted a third eye. What stupid questions! Whyever would he ask those?

He didn't. They called the gent. I went to his welcoming party. After he'd told an off-color joke, I chatted with him. I asked him my questions.

His answers? No idea when Daniel was written, but it wasn't by Daniel or 6th-century; no idea who wrote the Pastorals, but it wasn't Paul; no idea who wrote 2 Peter, but it wasn't Peter.

He wasn't, as I recall, particularly evasive. I just had to ask the questions. (Of course, at this point the church gig was a done-deal, and I was not [and would not be] an attender.)

So: this committee had called a man to pastor their conservative, Bible-believing church, who did not believe in the inerrancy and full authority of the Bible. Because no one knew or cared to ask questions that would pin the gent down.

But he had great programs, the young man told me. The candidate really wowed them with his programs.

Surely the would-be pastor would have said he believed the Bible was inspired, though. Meaning, inspired by his definition.

This is what discernment involves. It's too bad; I wish we lived in a world where religious leaders could be relied on to say, "Well, I'd say I believed in the Bible, but I should tell you that I wouldn't mean anything like what you mean by it. And you won't hear too much of it from the pulpit."

But we don't live in that world. We live in the one where there are wolves and serpents and where we have to be constantly on guard.

And where, sadly, sometimes the sheep have to do their own guarding, since the shepherds are defaulting.

---

Allegory?

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 Teachings of Nature in the Kingdom of Grace, pages 23-24, Pilgrim Publications.

 "I pray you, never regard that story of the serpent as a fable."

It is said, nowadays, that it is a mere allegory. Yet there is nothing in the Book to mark where history ends and parable begins: it all runs on as actual history; and as Bishop Horsley forcibly remarks, “If any part of this narrative be allegorical, no part is naked matter of fact.”

It seems to me that if there was only an allegorical serpent, there was an allegorical Paradise, with allegorical rivers, and allegorical trees; and the men and women were both allegorical, and the chapter which speaks of their creation is an allegory; and the only thing that exists is an allegorical heaven and an allegorical earth.

If the Book of Genesis be an allegory, it is an allegory all through; and you have an allegorical Abraham, with allegorical circumcision, an allegorical Jacob and an allegorical Judah; and it is not unfair to push the theory onward, and impute to Judah allegorical descendants called Jews. But if you borrow any money of this race, you will not find them allegorical when you have to pay.

It is idle to call the narrative of the Fall a mere allegory; one had better say at once that he does not believe the Book. There is something sane about that declaration, although it be folly; but to say, “Oh, yes, it is a venerable volume, and worthy to be studied; but it is padded out with many an allegory,” is to say something which confutes itself, if you come to look into it.

The Book is intended to be real history, and it contains some portions which, by the consent of everybody, are real history; but Moses could not be an historian, and yet set mere fables before us as a part of his story. To write a jumble of allegory and of fact causes a man to lose the character of a reliable historian, and we had better repudiate him at once.

There was a real serpent, as there was a real Paradise; there was a real Adam and Eve, who stood at the head of our race, and they really sinned, and our race is really fallen. Believe this.

---

Some here, some there — October 10, 2014

by Dan Phillips

We're still on granddaughter watch. Yesterday was the due date, so this post could be updated.

But already a very full plate today! Let's launch. Tell me which ones are particularly chuckalicious, informative, thought-provoking, helpful, nuanced...oh wait, forget that. Sorry, got carried away.

• To start on a somber note: You may know that discernment blogger and pastor Ken Silva passed away. Chris Rosebrough held a sort of online memorial for him, which you can listen to here. Reader Christine Pack of Sola Sisters, and Phil Johnson, were among those who spoke of Ken's impact.
• Now, to the lighter side.
• If you're in Twitter, here's a fun little game. Then plug in your favorite RPB and chuckle. BTW, the Spurgeon account gets 100% on "upbeat"! 

• Have you heard "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship" enough yet? I've had a few pointed words with its echoers (including Jefferson Bethke). Here's a good, full-orbed response from William Boekestein.

• The issue of celebrity pastors is often on our minds. Dave Harvey contributes some good thoughts to the discussion, sounding some vital warnings, and pointing to where our attention as pastors should really be fixed. (h-t Aquila Report). 

How do you parody Sirius FM peddling Joel Osteen Radio in a TV commercial wherein Joel Osteen gives an empoverished village boy a high five?
— The Gospel™ Corp (@TheGospelCorp) October 9, 2014

• In the insightful essay Had Sex, Dumped Jesus, Joel J. Miller develops the correct causality chain in much apostasy (h-t Aquila Report). People have immoral sex; that creates painful cognitive dissonance; God or the immorality has to go for peace to reign; God goes.
• I wish I'd gotten down verbatim what I heard Josh McDowell say many years ago. He said he'd gotten to the point that, when some teen would come to him saying "I'm beginning to have serious doubts about my faith," his first response would be along the lines of, "Oh? who are you sleeping with?"
• This is a step aside from the usual, but it's genius. It's one of those things that, if Frank Turk actually read the posts here, he'd really like.

• Another step aside: ah yes, World War I. That's where the good guys fought the Germans... and the tripods?!
• Tone-change in 3... 2... 1...
• M'man David Murray offers a video he calls the most powerful illustration of the Gospel he's ever seen. It's worth watching. I teared up. I think I get what David's saying. Yet if it weren't for David, it just isn't what I would have thought. Instead, I can't help that a bunch of questions team in my mind, at the same time that I admire this man and am moved by what he did. That probably makes me a (or IDs me as a) bad person. You?
• Over at the indispensable DBTS blog, professor Bill Combs asks whether a person really has to be either Calvinist or Arminian, with no middle-ground. He answers, correctly, Yes.
• Here's one way I'd put it: either God's choice of me is the result of my choice of Him, or my choice of Him is the result of His choice of me. There's no middle-ground that isn't exclusively populated by weasels.

• We've noted a number of times how many issues The Gospel Coalition can't seem to be bothered with pro-actively. But there is one issue they're right on top of: Kevin Bauder shared some excellent thoughts on the subject, and yesterday TGC moved to prove him right yet again.
• Because I love you, I caution you not to hold your breath waiting for the appropriately nuanced, helpful, thoughtful presentation of the other view on this question.
• I had a comment up. Then it disappeared. Then it returned, and has been joined by some (far better) comments of dissent. At present, this is the reverse of the usual TGC situation: the comments are far better than the article.
• I'm tempted to write (on my blog) a response-piece titled "Is the Bible A Deceptive Book of Secret Code?" I mean, what can the TGC do to me? Hate me? Ignore everything I write about topics they claim to love? Blacklist me?

@ACupofKofi It's part of @TGC's "deride and conquer" strategy. ;) Probably @BibChr brought this upon us.
— David Pitman (@PastorPitman) October 10, 2014

• For my part, I've thought a certain amount of the animus against such things is fueled by jealousy. I mean, think of it: what would an amill end times movie look like? Nothing happens, nothing happens, nothing happens, and then the movie ends because the filmmakers wouldn't want to show the face of Jesus.
• So, in a way... every movie is an amill end-times movie, isn't it?
• Before you ask: no, this isn't how they fight Ebola in Texas, so stop asking.

• My brother from another mother Phil Johnson and I had an offstage disagreement about whether a certain literary-type thingie was witty and worthwhile, or whether it was obnoxious and offensive. Often, when I think I know what Phil will and won't find funny... I'm dead-wrong. Still. For instance, here's something to ponder: Phil sees something like this as high comedy. So, there y'go.
• Now: how's your heart? In need of a good stopping? Perfect. I think I have just the thing:

• If that didn't finish you: David Murray — who, I think, does not sleep — found this absolutely gorgeous and heart-stopping video of this gent biking on the Isle of Skye. If you watch as I did, you'll alternately gasp, hold your breath, yelp What?!, and murmur "oh my gosh." I had no idea a bike could do all that. Still not sure a bike should do all that. But now I know it can, if propelled by the right cast-iron legs.
• You probably know that Jonathan Merritt did a piece on Tony Campolo's son's apostasy, if that's the right word for it. The real news story that the article broke is that someone still thinks that Tony Campolo is "an influential evangelical leader." The rest of the post is a target-rich environment for sad and unsurprised reflection.
• That said, I say this: Francis Schaeffer was a fine and sound Christian leader, and Franky's defection is famous. Apostasy happens, and it's always the fault of the apostate, no matter how fine or how wretched a father he had.
• Lovecraft, Cabin in the Woods, Joss Whedon, and Calvinism? What? Oh, must be Patheos.
• Lyndon Unger doesn't think much of the movie Left Behind, only in his case it isn't because he's on the Dispie-Dissing bandwagon.
• So Joan, who's been attending for some months, comes to you wanting to trust and follow Christ. In conversation, you learn that Joan is really John, minus this and plus than thanks to surgical disfigurement. After you've swallowed your gum, what do you say? Russell Moore gives some refreshingly nuance-free and straightforward counsel.
• Amazing sculptures out of pencil lead make us think of God's more amazing living scultures out of microscopic material.
• This helped and challenged me: Leon Brown on the fact that sharing the gospel can be incovenient (so deal with it, re-set your priorities Kingdomward, and get on with it).
• Aquila Report found a very provocative perspective on dying from cancer, and on dying in general. Lacking Gospel, yet worth pondering.
• Here is a different perspective, this time with the Gospel (and a little LCMS sauce).
• M'man Denny Burk asks whether we have confidence in Christ that could handle Ebola.

What essential service will you contribute to your church this Sunday? Well, if you're late, here's an app that can help:

---

"You Are the Light of the World"

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 May 2008. Phil reminded us about what should set us apart from the world.

As usual, the comments are closed.

The qualities Jesus blesses in the beatitudes are not the same attributes the world typically thinks are worthy of praise. The world glorifies power and dominion; force and physical strength; status and class. By contrast, Jesus blesses humility, meekness, mercy, mourning, purity of heart, and even persecution for righteousness' sake.

Collectively, those things are the very opposite of political clout and partisan power. Jesus is describing people who are willing to be oppressed and disenfranchised for the sake of true righteousness. They are peacemakers, not protestors; poor in spirit, not affluent and distinguished; people who are persecuted, not the pompous and the power mongers.

And yet, notice. These poor and oppressed people are the ones Jesus is addressing when he says in Matthew 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth"—and in verse 14, "You are the light of the world." He begins addressing them directly in verse 11: "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

To whom is he speaking? The believers in His audience, those who exemplify the traits He blesses in the beatitudes. Those who were persecuted for righteousness' sake. Those who were reviled for His Name's sake. They were for the most part simple, common people—everyday people from among "the multitudes" (v. 1).

Of course, Jesus also claimed to be "the Light of the world" in a very special and unique sense. It was one of His most explicit claims of deity (John 8:12). He is "the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world" (John 1:9)—the source of all true light. He is like the sun, compared to which we are merely candles. But even as candles, we give off light, and even the faintest light of the smallest candle is capable of piercing and dispelling total darkness. The collective light of many candles has a still greater influence. That is how Jesus pictures our role in a sinful, dark, and fallen world.

And what is supposed to happen when we let our light shine before men? They see our good works and glorify God. This is not about wielding political clout. It's not about organizing protests against ungodliness. It's about how we live—the testimony of our lives. It's about exemplifying the same traits Jesus blessed in the beatitudes. That's how we let our light shine, and that's the saltiness we inject into an otherwise decaying and tasteless society.

Christ has made us different from the world, and we should simply be what we are. We're salt in a decaying and tasteless culture, and we're light in a dark world. If we give up (or cover up) what makes us distinctive, we lose our savor and forfeit our only real influence. If we have to squelch the heart of the message Christ has called us to proclaim in order to advance some political or moralistic agenda, we're guilty of hiding our light under a bushel. Those who think the church can have a greater influence by adopting a worldly strategy are actually undermining the only valid influence Christians can have on society.

When we merely imitate the world by jumping on every worldly bandwagon, when we make worldly alliances to advance political causes, or when we adopt worldly strategies to win the world's approval, we forfeit our distinctiveness. The contemporary evangelical movement is guilty of that kind of compromise on multiple levels. We've put sand instead of salt in the salt-shaker, and we have put bushel baskets over our candles.

Here's the remedy: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." It speaks to us on an individual, as well as a collective, level. It describes what we must do corporately as a church; it gives a much-needed corporate corrective to the evangelical movement as a whole; but notice: it also reveals what you and I need to be doing as individuals.

Do you want your life to count for eternity? Do you want to maximize the influence of your life on your children, your neighbors, the people at work, people in your community, and ultimately the whole world? Here is Jesus' strategy for spreading the light, one candle at a time. This is what He calls you and me to do: "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

---

All of the Remedies

by The late Frank Turk

After last week, the person reading this blog without an agenda (that is: without any built-in qualms against this blog) ought to be able to go and do likewise because they have been given all the rudimentary instructions the Bible gives someone who has the Gospel for dealing with something like racism.  But let's face it: not many come here under those terms.  Many come here looking for a reason to say, "yeah, but ..." or "no."

I'm here to help.

Let's imagine someone who has listened to the audio linked in this post, and then read all the fundamental non-biblical literature posted here and here to get a picture of what a semi-secular view of the problem is, and then waded through the muddled and simplistic things written here and here and here.  That person, after a week of rumination on these things, then says, "Frank, I just don't get it.  I mean: sure.  Theology, right.  But what is it that I am supposed to -do- if that's what I believe.  I mean: some other bloggers and authors have told me I should invite people to dinner rather than think about the problems of dignity or of competing consciousnesses  in the face of cruelty and dehumanization.  I completely understand how to invite somebody to dinner.  I do not understand all the big words you have used.  And to be honest: I think you don't either.  I think the problem is you hide behind the big words to avoid real people, and that I think it's a lot more helpful to tell me to invite people to dinner than it is to read W.E.B. DuBois from the turn of the last century and imagine that this is still the problem of black people today.  What's the actual 'to-do' item if all the things you have posted on and around your hiatus are true?"

My initial response to this way of approaching what I wrote is to think that this hypothetical person needs to graduate from the 6th grade.  From my perspective, I know a lot of 6th graders (all homeschooled, so that might be the problem and the solution) who could follow my instructions and get at least an "E" for effort.  However, because we live in an age when people demand instructions and then don't follow them anyway, I'll elaborate.

The first error my posts seek to foil is the error of saying, "If you are a White person you should ... but if you are a Black person, you should rather ..."  If there is a solution to racism, it is the same solution to both sides because while the problem may manifest different symptoms on both sides, at the end of the drama we should still be able to agree that what we really want is what MLK wanted -- "[that] little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  For that to happen, whoever you are, you personally need to behave in such a way that shows you clearly want to be judged by your own character, and you must judge others only by their character and not (for example) by their job or their neighborhood.  If you cannot agree to this, you are not about to implement the Gospel solution -- you are about to implement someone else's solution.  The "to do" there is to do unto others as you would have them do to you.  I know it's a cliche and may sound trite, but it is still a red-letter Jesus saying.

The second error my posts seek to foil is the one where we think that somehow some opportunities are beneath us.  In a sane world, I should have to append that sentiment with the clause "or above us (as in, out of our reach)," but the problem we have is that we think the only opportunities worth striving for are the ones which cause us to be Oprah or Bill Gates -- and the truth is that there are ample opportunities still for those who are willing to start where everyone really starts in order to get someplace worth arriving toward.  For example, if you want a career in Logistics (note: a career, like most people have, not to own all trucks), you could start by driving a truck -- and making about $40K your first year.  Given that your living expenses driving a truck over the road are pretty low (you usually live in the truck), that's a pretty decent wage -- and after doing that for 5 years, you could have saved enough to go to college and get a degree in logistics -- after which you have 5 years experience and a degree and no debt.

My point being: nobody dreams of being a truck driver -- but in a world where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, there is not merely nothing wrong with being a truck driver: it is actually a credit for you to do that in order to achieve something greater.  If you refuse to take that route (or one like it) in order to get where you think you want to go, that is not the fault of other people: that is part of the content of your character.  Seeing opportunities in the short term as beneath you is your problem, not the problem of someone else who, for example, worked summers and nights to pay for his college degree, and then worked from the bottom toward the "up".  If you see an opportunity like that as beneath you, you are your own enemy.  The "to do" there is to do the things everyone is expected to do to move from being without any skills to being skilled labor who gets skilled labor wages. Do not think too highly of yourself, as it says someplace in an ancient letter.

The third error my posts seek to expose and desiccate is the problem of false guilt -- either the false guilty we seek to impose on others by counting them as an ingredient in a statistical pie or the false guilt one might be willing to accept in order to honor someone else's identity crisis.  There is only one kind of guilt: actual responsibility for a crime or for doing something bad or wrong.  Everything else masquerading as guilt is actually a lie told to gain an advantage over you.  Put another way, the method for dismantling the problem of double-consciousness is not to create the same for others.  The right solution is to see that the aboriginal problem is a falsehood imposed by others and unfortunately accepted by those who bear it -- and it must be rejected by both to kill it dead.  If that is the solution of one sort of double-consciousness, it is the solution for them all.  That is actually the high plane of dignity and discipline, the place where we are not degenerating into either physical violence or moral injustice.  And the funny part of this is that if we are doing this actively, we won't have to ask ourselves about who we have invited to dinner lately -- because those we are inviting are those we have met, travelling on the same path we expect to be travelling on.  The "to do" here turns out to be to put away bitterness, anger, wrath and malice.

That outcome can sound like some sort of attractional model of like-attracts-like, but it is not a merely-pragmatic and merely-convenient approach.  What has happened as we will have implemented all of the remedies -- among which, most importantly, is the Gospel -- we will find ourselves in love with things the world does not love, and attracted to people the world did not expect us to love, and in close friendship and unity with people who now share not just some socio-economic goals but an eternal goal.  The defeat of racism comes from defeating the root cause of sin in the world, and that doesn't start with a culture war: it starts with our personal war on sin when we are faced with our own hearts changed by the Gospel.

If that does not help you, you're looking for the wrong answers.  You're looking for an explanation in the wrong terms.

The comments are open.

Post Script: I have received  a note from a trusted source that this post in particular, but this series in general, has sounded angry.  For example, if someone cannot understand how to do what is explained in the previous post, saying their ability to give it the ol' college try is actually not up to par for the 6th grade in this post is insulting.

Here's my concession to that criticism: everyone isn't always wrong.  It's possible that there are many mature and serious people who have never thought about the implications of putting off the old self because one has been raised with Christ.  How many of them are Christians I leave for the reader to discern.

For the rest, I make no apologies for being angry at the kinds of objections these posts deal with, and the reasons for those objections.

---

Love, love, love — hey, listen!

by Dan Phillips

Last Sunday I got to launch a series I've been excited about ever since I settled on it. Before, actually. It's in the book of Ephesians.

Yeah, I know; and actually I resisted it. I thought about preaching this, and I thought about teaching that; but I kept coming back to Ephesians as containing a storehouse of what I thought would best serve my dear ones here at CBC. So I finally yielded, and with the yielding came a measure of peace and a lot of excitement.

The first sermon served as an intro to Ephesus and the impact of the Gospel thereon, and was titled The Lifecycle of a Work of God. Let me just lift out (in a different way) one theme that struck me anew and afresh, even after having studied Ephesians for 470 years.

I take it that the letter was actually written to churches in Ephesus (as I'll develop a bit this coming Sunday, DV). That fact leads to a really interesting thread. To wit:

Paul first comes by Ephesus in autumn of 52 AD (Acts 18:18-21). He's on his way somewhere else, but as a good soul-fisherman he can't resist dropping in a line to see what happens. Instantly he gets a couple of hard strikes, and resolves to come back if he can.

Come back he does, for an extended stay, around 53-56 AD. Paul's ministry there is very effective and very fruitful, and probably leads to the planting of the seven churches of Revelation (cf. 19:10). Then he departs, only to call a pastors' retreat for the Ephesian elders, and urge them to serve, feed, and guard the flock as he had (Acts 20:16-38; Spring 57 AD).

Just a few years later, 61-62 AD, Paul writes them this magnificent letter. Among the themes he stresses (as I mean to show Sunday) is love — God's love for us, our love for each other, our love for God. In fact, you'll note that the last note in the letter is just that: "Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible" (6:24).

Then a few years after that, he writes his apprentice Pastor Timothy, whom he had especially tasked to remain at Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3). And in writing Timothy, what does the apostle identify as the core emphasis of his ethical instruction? "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith" (v. 5).

Do you know where I'm going next? After 1 Timothy, did Ephesus disappear from the Canon? Not at all. Our Lord Jesus dictates a letter to them as the first of seven, in Revelation 2:1-7. He wants them to know that He is glad to see their action, their hard work, their persistence, their doctrinal purity (vv. 1-3). He only has one problem, one concern — but it's a serious one. So serious that, despite all the other pluses, if they don't rectify this, He'll remove their lampstand.

What's the problem? You know what it is: they have abandoned their first love (v. 4).

My point here isn't to do an exegesis of that verse, as I do to a degree in the sermon. My point is the simple theme:

1. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul stresses love.
2. In his letter to a pastor of the Ephesians, Paul stresses love.
3. When Jesus needs to upbraid the Ephesians, it is for having left their first love.

But what is even more interesting is the connection. The very last words of Ephesians, rendered very literally, are "Grace with all those who love our Lord Jesus with incorruptibility." Who love Jesus, that is, with a love that doesn't degrade, doesn't break down. Then Paul reminds Timothy to keep up that theme. (We could stick in here that tradition says the apostle John served in Ephesus; and what was a big theme of his? Yep.)

But then fast-forward, and what has happened? The Ephesian Christians' love has degraded. It has broken down. And that, despite repeated apostolic warning.

We can marvel at Paul's pastoral heart and foresight, and at his proactive ministry. We can also marvel at the obtuseness of this people, who'd had the blessing of what we'd all agree is just about the best pastoral care that any group of churches has ever had.

But what it leaves me with is the painful desire I feel for those I have served, whether as a pastor or as a father. You can see an issue coming at someone you love, see it with crystal-clarity. You can be pro-active. You can plead, instruct, warn, urge, thunder and weep.

But without faithful reception, even the most urgent transmission of truth only ends up being another bit of evidence in the final judgment

"He who has ears, let him hear."

---

We cannot expect two rewards

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 Gospel of the Kingdom, commentary on Matthew 6:1-2, page 32, Pilgrim Publications.

"Seek secrecy for your good deeds."

Our King sets men right as to Almsgiving. It is taken for granted that we give to the poor. How could we be in Christ’s kingdom if we did not? Alms may be given publicly, but not for the sake of publicity. It is important that we have a right aim; for if we obtain the result of a wrong aim, our success will be a failure.

If we give to be seen, we shall be seen, and there will be an end of it: “Ye have no reward of your father which is in heaven”: we lose the only reward worth having. But if we give to please our Father, we shall find our reward at his hands.

To the matter of our intent and design we must “take heed”; for nobody goes right without carefully aiming to do so. Our giving of alms should be a holy duty, carefully performed, not for our own honour, but for God’s pleasure. Let each reader ask himself, how much he has done, in the way the King prescribes.

We must not copy the loud charity of certain vainglorious persons: their character is hypocritical, their manner is ostentatious, their aim is to be seen of men, their reward is in the present. That reward is a very poor one, and is soon over. To stand with a penny in one hand and a trumpet in the other is the posture of hypocrisy.

“Glory of men” is a thing which can be bought: but honour from God is a very different thing. This is an advertising age, and too many are saying, “Behold my liberality!” Those who have Jesus for their King must wear his livery of humility, and not the scarlet trappings of a purse-proud generosity, which blows its own trumpet, not only in the streets, but even in the synagogues.

We cannot expect two rewards for the same action: if we have it now we shall not have it hereafter. Unrewarded alms will alone count in the record of the last day.

---

Some here, some there — October 3, 2014

by Dan Phillips

Let's get started. Remember, updates occur throughout day, so check in again tonight:

• This is kind of neat. Last week I clipped from Charisma magazine. Then Nathan Machel (trogdor) followed that clip out and plumbed more of the depths of that glittering trophy-case of the best of Charismatic thinking and preaching. You really — and I'm not even trying to be funny or ironic — can't parody this stuff.
• This is the sort of thing that led me to observe:

If Charismatic response to @Phil_Johnson_ over the years has proven anything, it's this: 99% of Charismatics constitute the "fringe"
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) September 29, 2014

• David Murray provides a challenging elders' checklist, with extensive resources.
• Professor Mark Snoeberger has a good word on the Canon-aspect of John's Paraclete passages, over at the always-worth-it DBTS blog.
• The absolute black hole of — not merely ignorance, but — unawareness of history among emergents is caught nicely here:

Group of Emergents in Black Turtlenecks Set Off on Search for the Lost Scrolls of McLaren
— The Gospel™ Corp (@TheGospelCorp) October 2, 2014

• From Pastoralized comes top ten mistakes preachers make in our sermon intros. It's a good and convicting list, apart from the use of "impact" as a verb; I'm afraid I've done more or all of them. (h-t Aquila Report)
• Now this, my friends, is a book-title!

• Even the first paragraph is gold:

PAUL was now in bonds, yet not so close kept as to be denied pen and paper; God, it seems, gave him some favour in the sight of his enemies: Paul was Nero’s prisoner, but Nero was much more God’s. And while God had work for Paul, he found him friends both in court and prison

• My famous cohort Frank Turk also blogs over at Ref21,  where he just did some of the very best writing I've ever seen him do—and that's saying something. It was provoked by a post by Mark Jones, and is a four-part series responding to the question: why might a Biblical Christian (i.e. credobaptist) suggest that the Lord's Table shouldn't be the first stop for a convert who has not yet been baptized, by any Biblical description of the word? Turk wrote one, yea two, even three, lo four parts. They are absolutely excellent, I could never have said it fractionally as well.
  
• I can't really say "in response," so I'll say afterward, Mark Jones first said he wouldn't respond because he's too busy, then wrote something which seems framed as some kind of response, but actually sounds as if he hadn't read anything Frank wrote yet. But, as he said, he's really busy. Nobody can read everything.
• Alternate title of this very helpful and true post by Todd Pruitt: "Dude...It's Just Music."
• An oldie but goodie: Jesse Johnson's 40 reasons to be part of a local church. Or as I've said, Bible teaching/preaching is like the lecture portion of a class, church involvement is like the lab portion.
• Kerry Allen pointed me to this. Anyone know it, or Stephen McCaskell?

Celebrity Pastor Streams Sermon Admonishing People Not to Be Content with Just Listening to Sermons Online to Millions of Listeners Online
— The Gospel™ Corp (@TheGospelCorp) September 28, 2014

• We Christians often wonder how many liberals (A) oppose, for instance, clubbing seals, but (B) favor "abortion rights." It seems like a cognitive disconnect. But I wonder how many reformed evangelicals (A) oppose elitism and the celebrity culture, and yet (B) run interference for them, deflect all criticism, and attempt to shame all critics into silence? Obviously, celebrities would be nowhere without willing shoulders to ride on.

• David Murray notes that DeYoung's recent book on the authority and sufficiency of Scripture is 99 cents for Kindle at Amazon, as is Thabiti's book on finding faithful elders and deacons.
• In the spirit of credit where credit is due, a sharp sendup of a series of stock Christianoid photos is offered up by none other than Christianity Today.
• This is the last month to get your tickets to the Sufficient Fire conference at the pre-registration price. Churches, take advantage of the four-for-the-price-of-three deal.

---

Don't want to listen? Go ahead...but you'll regret it.

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 August 2011. Dan addressed the warning that Solomon gives in Prov 19:27.

As usual, the comments are closed.

Cease to hear instruction, my son,and you will stray from the words of knowledge.

Interpretation. In form, this is an ironic command (a concept I develop at length in God's Wisdom in Proverbs, 373ff.; just sayin'). Grammatically Solomon is saying to do something, but semantically he doesn't really mean it. The force is similar to what we do, when we've warned someone not to take a course of action for the thousandth time, and then we give up and say, "Fine, go ahead, do it. Let's see what happens."

In an ironic command such as this, Solomon says, "Tell you what: if you insist on not listening, go ahead, stop listening. And here's exactly what will happen when you do." What will happen? He will stray from the words of knowledge. Period. Sure thing, guaranteed, you can take it to the bank.

Somber backdrop. A factor that saves Proverbs 19:27 from being a bland truism is the grim spectacle of Solomon's own life. The author himself became a wretched illustration of the wisdom and truth of his own words.

It is impossible to read 1 Kings 11 and Proverbs with an engaged heart, and not to ask, "How could this man do that?" Solomon himself answered the question, as if in sad anticipation. We can't read his mind, but we know sin, from wretched and extended experience. How did this happen in Solomon? Inch by inch, probably; neglect by neglect, unchecked pride after unchecked pride.

Pride, I say, because like all believers who sin, Solomon must have thought his sin was different. Otherwise, how could he have read Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and yet gone contrary to it so frontally that some have held that passage to have  been written after Solomon as a polemic against him? But there is no need to reject the Scriptural testimony about Deuteronomy's authorship and time frame. We know too well that awareness of a Scriptural prohibition will not eo ipso prevent the sin itself. (Would that it did.)

What a frightening spectacle. Solomon's horrid choices and foolish sins hang him up like a scarecrow athwart the paths of our own straying — or should do so. Could there be scarier warnings? As it turns out, yes, there could be. And are.

It gets worse. Of course Judas looms up from the shadows, as someone who stayed with Christ's teaching for all appearances for three solid and difficult years. But he "ceased listening" to Christ's education, and he most certainly strayed... to eternal conscious torment in Hell, according to the only natural reading of Jesus' words (Matt. 26:24; Jn. 17:12).

I don't know if you're getting this yet. Let me try to give you a shake. Think: what do you and I have to do, to run afoul of Solomon's warning, and head in the exact same direction?

Nothing. Not one thing.

It's what we have to stop doing. We have to stop listening, which is to say we have to stop paying attention, stop applying ourselves, thinking, analyzing, breaking down and putting back together, stop making personal application. We have to stop cracking open our Bibles every day and sweating over them, we have to stop attending and attending to Biblical preaching in our local assemblies. Neglect, that's the key. Simply desist.

This isn't a small thing, and I can't stress it enough. Remember what Jesus said is the heart and soul of genuine discipleship:

"So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed Him, 'If you continue in My word, you really are My disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'" (Jn. 8:31-32 CSB)

---