Temptation: a key element is...

by Dan Phillips

(We could do a couple of dozen posts under this title. This is one of them.)

Our Men's Fellowship is working its way through Taylor and Kapic's edition of John Owen's Overcoming Sin and Temptation. I'm a huge Owen fan, but I'd say I've found the contents of varying value. But what's good is awfully good, and makes the whole worthwhile.

Having said all that, this statement particularly stood out to me:

"Hiding of ends and designs is the principal property of deceit"
(John Owen, Overcoming Sin and Temptation, edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor [Crossway Books: 2006], p. 297)

What Owen says is more profound than it might initially appear. For one thing, it rests on the assumption that God's way really, truly is best. Any contrary case, therefore, must rest on deception.

Have you really gotten your arms around that concept, just for starters? "This God--his way is perfect; the word of the LORD proves true" (2 Samuel 22:31a) Or has Hollywood (or Eden, for that matter) convinced you deep down inside that sometimes God is too narrow and traditional, that sometimes it really is for the best to "burst their bonds asunder"? Have you really accepted that you will never, ever have a better idea than God's revealed will?

More specifically, this made me think of something I've noticed throughout Proverbs. Again and again, Solomon takes something initially appealing, and says, "Now wait, don't look away just yet, Bunky. I want you to see what this leads to." And then he ruthlessly and relentlessly tears the misty, gauzy mask off of the tempting path. As it were, he grabs us by the scruff of the neck, and says, "Now you look. Keep looking! Now, do you see what happens?"

I call this the "Consider the end" theme in Proverbs.

In doing this, Solomon is laboring to counter that favorite tool of temptation. Start looking for this theme, and you'll see it all over the book. Just to single out a few f'rinstances:

1. They seem like a fun, active group of kids, don't they? And they want you! It would be great to "belong," wouldn't it? Ah, yes, but consider the end: how a violent life leads to a violent end (Proverbs 1:10-19)
2. My, that young thing's hot! And she talks so sweet; really makes you feel like a man, doesn't she? Ah, yes, but consider the end: how going after her invites ruin and waste to your character and life, and humiliation before those who did stick with the way of wisdom (Proverbs 5).
   
3. Bed is so inviting, isn't it? All dark and warm and quiet; not the hassle and hustle and bustle that you know lurks Out There. Just a few more minutes won't hurt... and a few more.... Ah, yes, but consider the end: how a life of leisure leads to loser's end (Proverbs 6:6-11).
   
4. Boy, that jerk really has it coming to him, doesn't he? And you know just what to say, to hit his personal bull's-eye; and it would feel so satisfying! Ah, yes, but consider the end: how quickly a warm situation can be escalated to a shooting war (Proverbs 15:1).
5. Fun computer game, huh? Next time, you can raise your score 50 points! Man, you could do this forever, couldn't you? Ah, yes, but consider the end: can you make a living, and feed a family, doing this (Proverbs 28:19)?
6. It's so hot, and you're so tired. You can just let that chore go. Probably something good on TV, isn't there? And something after that. Ah, yes, but consider the end: how taking the easy way now makes the way much harder in the future (Proverbs 15:19).
7. That guy keeps beating you over the head with the Bible. You hate that! Besides, you don't want that kind of legalistic, book-religion. You don't worship a book, right? You want a real spirituality. You find prayer much more fulfilling. Ah, yes, but consider the end: how you shutting your ears to God's Word today, means that God will shut His ear to your repulsive, self-worshiping, idolatrous prayer tomorrow (Proverbs 28:9).
   

Sin never presents itself to us in all its repugnant, pustulent hideousness. How would that be tempting? No, it sells itself as harmless at worst, desirable and delightful at best. The knife is always hidden behind the back.

The way of wisdom is to consider the end of this temptation. Relentlessly and mercilessly go beyond the pleasing exterior. If you respond to this enticement, what comes next? And then what? And what after that?

Force yourself to see how the lingering look can lead to a flirtation; the flirtation to emotional involvement; the emotional involvement to physical involvement; the physical involvement to the shaming of the name of God, the heartbroken betrayal of every loved one, the destruction of character, to ruin and shame and misery. Connect the dots.

And then?

If you shrink from the destination, don't take the turnoff.

PS — say, this could be a companion-piece to my recent post on Christian dating, couldn't it?

---

A Brief Monday

by Frank Turk

Phil's out of pocket for couple of days as he finishes up a project at work, and while he says he has a hamper full of stuff he could post, he's willing to admit that when he does post, he is addicted to the comments thread. Who isn't, really?

But that said, or confessed, I'm filling in today for a brief post.

I'm reading the pastoral letters of Paul with my Community Life group, and we're talking about the parallels between 1 Tim and Titus right now. What I like about these two letters together is that they show us a different perspective on the church than the "church" letters like Ephesians, Galatians, 1+2 Corinthians and so on. Those other letter show us how the church -- all the people in the church, all the called-out-ones -- should view itself. The pastorals show us how a pastor or elder should view the church.

That seems like a pretty big "duh", I am sure. They are, after all, the "pastorals" -- they are written from Paul to his pastoral disciples whom he calls (in one way or another) his true children in the faith. But one of the things Paul makes clear is that a pastor has different concerns for the church than Manny Baptist or Moe Presbyterian because he is gifted in a different way than they are.

This is the important part of this brief blog post, so pay attention.

See: Paul's not shy to say that it takes many gifts to have a body which is growing up in maturity, right? or that the church will never stop the process of growing up in maturity until Christ returns and we are made like him, yes? Many gifts -- one spirit. But when he lines out the qualifications for elders in the church (both to Titus and to Timothy), he makes it clear that along with character an elder/overseer must have the gift of teaching.

Elders are not the welcoming committee; they aren't the ones who necessarily are the first ones to meet people in the church. But they are the ones who are willing and able to teach what is right and to identify and rebuke false teaching. Their perspective on the church ought to be that they are guiding all the other gifted people to mutual maturity, and that those who are not going to be guided in and up need to be guided (quickly, clearly, with gusto) out.

It's pretty striking how Paul doesn't say, "you know: it's a journey and we're all sort of screwed up, so who's to say if we're making a mistake about this doctrine or that one. Be kind to your web footed friends, for a duck may be somebody's, um, pastor?" He says instead that those who stray from the teaching are making a shipwreck of their faith.

That is the definition of pastoral concern: keeping people off the rocks which will leave them shipwrecked. Let's be thankful today that there are still men today who are gifted by God to still think of the church in this way.

---

Preach Plainly

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from the sermon "Pentecost," delivered at the Metropolitan Tabernacle Sunday morning, 24 May 1863:

ever was there a sermon more commonplace than that of Peter, and let me tell you that it is one of the blessed effects of the Holy Spirit to make ministers preach simply.

You do not want the Holy Spirit to make them ride the high horse and mount up on the wings of the spread-eagle to the stars; what is wanted is to keep them down, dealing with solemn subjects in an intelligible manner.

What was the theme of this sermon? Was it something so intellectual that nobody could comprehend it, or so grand that few could grasp it? No, Peter just rises up and delivers himself somewhat like this—"Jesus Christ of Nazareth lived among you; he was the Messias promised of old; you crucified him, but in his name there is salvation, and whosoever among you will repent and be baptized shall find mercy." That is all! I am sure Mr. Charles Simeon in his "Skeleton Sermons" would not have inserted it as a model, and I do not suppose that any college professor alive would ever say to his students—"If you want to preach, preach like Peter."

Why, I do not perceive firstly, secondly, thirdly, and fourthly, to which some of us feel compelled to bind ourselves. It is in fact a commonplace talking about sublime things—sublime things which in this age are thought to be foolishness and a stumbling-block. Well then, may the Spirit of God be poured out to teach our ministers to preach plainly, to set our young men talking about Jesus Christ, for this is absolutely necessary.

When the Spirit of God goes away from a Church it is a fine thing for oratory, because then it is much more assiduously cultivated. When the Spirit of God is gone, then all the ministers become exceedingly learned, for not having the Spirit they need to supply the emptiness his absence has made, and then the old-fashioned Bible is not quite good enough; they must touch it up a bit and improve upon it, and the old doctrines which used to rejoice their grandmothers at the fire-side are too stale for them; they must have an improved and a new theology, and young gentlemen now-a-days show their profound erudition by denying everything that is the ground, and prop, and pillar of our hope, and starting some new will-o'- the-wisp which they set their people staring at.

Ah! well, we want the Spirit of God to sweep all that away. Oh that my dear sister who conducts the female class, and all who are in the Sunday-school, may be helped just to talk to you about Christ. When you get the Spirit of God to come upon you like fire and like a rushing mighty wind it will not be to make you doctors of divinity, and scholars, and great elocutionists; it will only be just for this, to make you preach Christ, and preach him more simply than ever you did before.

---

Banner graphics for our friends

by Phil Johnson

o you've seen sidebar badges like these:

"Friend of Emergent"	"Friend of Discernment"
"Friend of Detergent"	Friend of Missional"

. . . and whatnot.

None of those really quite summed up the perspective our blog represents (and we suspect that's true for some of our readers as well), so Frank created a banner ad for the rest of us. After tweaking it ever-so-slightly, we're turning it loose on the blogosphere and inviting our readers and fellow friends-of-sinners to add it to their sidebars:


©2007 by Frank Turk and the PyroManiacs

The image in the center is a scene from Pilgrim's Progress. Evangelist is pointing the way for Pilgrim, who still has his heavy burden lashed to his back and is carrying a document upon which is written "The Wrath to Come." The image is adapted from a famous series of stained-glass windows in the Bunyan Meeting Free Church in Bedford, England, where Bunyan himself preached.

Feel free to download and use your choice of those images in the sidebar of your blog. (If you prefer, you can simply use the URLs where those images currently reside, and thus take advantage of our bandwidth.) We only ask that you not modify the images without first asking permission, and that you not put them on Websites with blatantly unwholesome material or use it as a link to anything you know we might find offensive. We're not going to try to police how it's used, but if we do find someone linking it to something we think is blatantly unwholesome, we reserve the right to withdraw permission for it to be used for that purpose. If you want to make it into a link back to this blog, we would be honored by that.

---

Dating: when words and choices clash

by Dan Phillips

[This is yet another one of my occasional serieses. In this, I write for our readers who are yoots, for their own benefit; or for parents, to share with their yoots. It'll also work for pastors, especially yoot pastors. Previous examples include A word to Christian yoots, and Why God gave you parents, etc.]

Coarse but pointed joke-that-you've-all-heard-anyway alert in 3... 2... 1....

So this iconic guy's talking with an iconic girl, and asks whether she'd be willing to engage in carnal acts for $1 million.

She considers, shrugs, says, "For a million dollars? I guess."

"Would you do it for $5?" he follows up.

She is shocked, and deeply offended. "What do you think I am?" she rages.

His classic retort: "Oh, we've already established what you are. Now we're haggling about price."

And now, a moment's pause while Pyro readers wonder where this could possibly be going. Play the overture from Handel's Messiah in your head. Daaaa.... da-daaaa....

Now, why is that joke funny to most folks? It's funny because of the surprising clash. In the punch-line, the woman is deeply offended, because she wants to say that her virtue is precious, and he's cheapening it with his $5 suggestion. But the man counters that he already knows her virtue not to be beyond price to her. She can be bought. What she says now is one thing; what she has already said, another.

So you, unmarried Christian reader, start dating an unbeliever. What are you saying?

"What?!" you splutter. "We haven't had sex!"

This isn't about sex. I'm asking what you're saying, what message your choice is communicating.

To whatever degree you're concerned at all about this person's soul, you're trying to tell her/him about Christ, right? You're trying to tell this person that Christ is the One in whom all things hold together (Colossians 1:17), the source and reason for all the universe (Colossians 1:16), the most important celebrity anywhere, ever (Philippians 2:9-11). You want to persuade him that Christ is Lord of all. And you want him/her to believe that Jesus is all these things, and that He is all these things to you.

But you've already told him that Christ isn't all that. You're just haggling over price.

(Or am I assuming too much? Are there some who are not even concerned whether the people they date are or are not saved? In such cases, the kindest I can say is that such are clueless, loveless, and faithless, and they really need to reconsider the big question, for themselves.)

Let me approach the issue another way.

Would you date a child molestor? Oh, of course not. Instant deal-killer. Thief, murderer? No and no. Rapist? Never. Those are really bad things.

But not as bad as being an enemy of God (Proverbs 15:9; Ephesians 2:3)? I think we have some seriously skewed priorities.

See, if you are in a dating relationship with someone who doesn't love Christ, you've already said the Christ-issue isn't the issue to you. Her looks, his job, the way she treats you, his sense of humor — whatever; these things matter more to you than Christ does.

You want this person to believe that he is a sinner, under God's wrath, and deserving His judgment. You want him to know that his righteous deeds are as filthy rags, that everything he can produce is not enough for God.

But you've already communicated, by your choice, that what he has is enough for you. That you and he share enough values, goals, aspirations, and affections to create (or even consider) an exclusive and intimate relationship.

See? You've already dealt a death-blow to your own credibility. You really might as well stop talking. Your priorities, your choices, have drowned out your words (cf. the principle of Titus 1:16).

I would think this would be clear-cut to any Biblically-instructed Christian, and am constantly surprised to find that it apparently isn't. But let's extend it a bit.

If someone can credibly check the "Christian"-box, are you all-done? All that remains is attractiveness and basic compatibility, then go buy the dress and rent the tux, chapel, preacherguy?

Well, yes and no. As far as a moral issue, yes. Since the Bible doesn't teach a third "will" of God, by which we (for instance) must discern mystically and ookily what one girl/guy in all the world is The Chosen One for us, basically we may morally marry any (A) available and (B) willing (C) Christian (D) of the opposite sex (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:39). (Sad I have to add all those qualifiers, but here we are.)

But what of wisdom? I heard somewhere it was the principle thing (Proverbs 4:7, CSB).

Here is where churches often depress me. I know of a ladies' group that considered studying The Excellent Wife, by Martha Peace. The idea was rejected, because they didn't want single women to "feel excluded."

My wife and I both thought, "Huh? They're exactly who should be studying this!" The single man/woman is exactly the person who should be looking long and hard at all that marriage entails, before making that next-to-unconditional commitment.

Consider this illustration:

What would you think of a man who spends his free time going from car dealer to car dealer, checking out luxury cars that he will never buy?

He takes them out on a long "test" drive. He floors the accelerator, he jams down the brakes. He swerves around sharp turns, cranks the stereo, kicks the tires, slams the doors, asks question after question about the engine, the wiring, the electronics. He talks to the mechanic. He makes the salesman invest much of his day, and then goes through the whole process of credit checks and dickering about price and bargaining...

...then airily says "Wow, that was fun! Thanks!"

And leaves.

Next day: rinse, and repeat. Another dealer, another car. Another hapless sales staff.

What would you think of a guy like that? Selfish lout, right? Cruel? Jerk? Immature, thoughtless, loveless, graceless, without compassion? World revolves around him? Other people are his toys?

I totally agree.

So what of the person who's dating someone (s)he knows (s)he has no business considering as a spouse?

Brother, you know Ephesians 5:25-33, 1 Peter 3:7, all that? You know that God will call you to love, cherish, serve, protect, and lead your wife. You know you will need to provide for her, honor her exclusively from your heart, and with your body. You will be obliged to lead her in holiness, guard her, lay down your very life for her. You know that a bad choice will have very rough consequences (Proverbs 12:4b; 21:9; 25:24; 27:15-16).

But what if the girl you're dating is vastly more mature than you, or vastly less? What if she is disrespectful, rebellious, and sees no need of a leader? What if she particularly does not respect you, is constantly correcting and bossing you? What if you absolutely dread the very thought of having to cross her will, to any degree? What if disagreements become arguments, and go on and on? How could you put on her a yoke she so obviously is not ready to take? How could you subject your future children to such a household?

What, you never thought of that? Then what have you been thinking about?

Sister, stop nodding for a second. What of you? You know Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Peter 3:1-7, and all that? You know, do you, that God calls you to respect your husband from your very heart, in the way you think and act? You know that, under God, your husband will be the human authority in your life? That you will be obliged before God to love him, respect him, subordinate yourself to him? That you will be his helper, called to aid him in fulfilling what God has called him to?

So what if the man you're dating does not have what it takes to lead you? What if you find yourself constantly telling him what to do? What if he knows God less well than you, because he knows the Bible less than you? What if he is not prepared to lead you on, because he hasn't even caught up with you yet? What if your spirit is independent, and the thought of subordinating yourself to this man is either unthinkable (because he is so unready), or barely tolerable (because he is so passive and pliable)?

In either case, how can you be so cruel as to lead this woman or man on, letting him or her give this portion of his life to you in exclusion to others, when you know you have no business considering a future with him or her?

Is that loving (Matthew 7:12)?

"But he's started reading his Bible now!" "She's started going to Bible Study!" Great. But know this: what is most telling about another person is what he or she is before taking any interest in you. That indicates her or his heart.

If deathbed conversions are "iffy," dating conversions are doubly so.

This long post could be even longer, but I'll (almost) close with a few summary questions.

Would you consider marrying someone who never, ever washed his body? Yuck! No way, right? What if (s)he never, ever had his heart and conscience washed (Hebrews 9:14; 10:22)? Evidently yes? Hmm.

Would you consider marrying someone who never listened to a word you said? No way. What if (s)he never listened to a word God said (Proverbs 28:4, 9; Romans 10:17)? Evidently yes?

Would you let someone drive who didn't care much for traffic laws or signs? Not likely. But you'd consider marrying a man who has no Christian walk, or had none before he got interested in you? Or a woman who hasn't yet taken to heart what God says about her and her role?

And in neither case, if you'd not consider marrying, why date? Just a harmless test-drive?

REAL-LIVE FINAL THOUGHT: I know exactly what some readers will think. They will think, "Well, my (friend/relative) married an unbeliever, and later the Lord saved him, and that worked out great! So I'm just trusting God to save/mature/sanctify my unsaved/immature/rebellious little dew-drop!"

To that, two responses:

First, so if someone sins or does something stupid, and it works out all right, you should do the same? Dude. Seriously. Grow up.

Second, as long as we're trading stories, I've heard stories about people who've pointed guns straight at other people and pulled the trigger, and the gun jammed. Neat, huh? So if God wants someone to live, he can jam a gun, right?

And if you loaded a pistol and went out to see who God wants to live, and who He wants to die... would that be a good thing?

Or stupid, bad, reckless, insane, and sinful?

Kid, life's not a game. For every reason in this world and the next, wise up.

---

Ack.

    promised a full retraction if it turned out that the website I linked to in the post that originally appeared here was a fraud. Today the person who sent me that link yesterday (from a hotmail account) sent me another cryptic e-mail which I can only interpret as an admission that the site is indeed a fraud. Here is all he says: "you're a calvinist anyway. you probably think that whats happening now with the church is predestined to. we need action."

Well, we don't need the kind of "action" that involves deliberate deception. In fact, we need truth before we need "action." As I said in a comment below, the cause of truth is not served by lies.

So I'm permanently withdrawing the satirical image that was based on the fraudulent site, and I apologize for not checking it out better before posting a link.

Thanks to David, who first noticed what I didn't.

PS: I'm disappointed that no one has actually cast an official vote one way or the other for whichever version of the "Friend of Sinners" sidebar banner you prefer. Here's Frank's original and my charismaticized revision, which I think has the distinct advantage of including no violent weaponry: Comment below if you have a preference about which if either should become the official version. Alternative suggestions for imagery are welcomed. Get creative. I'm thinking maybe something like this:

---

Why I Keep Coming Back to Elijah

by Phil Johnson

y fascination with Elijah goes back to my college years. My freshman year at Moody Bible Institute, Moody Press released a very thin but potent book by Howard Hendricks on Elijah, drawn from Hendricks's messages at Founders Week the year before. I loved Hendricks and loved his book.

Then a year or two after that, the Moody Church Choir did a performance of Mendelssohn's oratorio Elijah, and that blew me away. Believe it or not, Mendelssohn made me notice several things about Elijah I never thought about before. I became captivated with the prophet's life and ministry.

So I've decided to add several more posts to the series I already did about Elijah at Cherith and Zarephath. I think Elijah would have made a wonderful PyroManiac, by the way—and I'm not referring to the times he called fire out of heaven. I'm talking about his passion and his willingness to stand against religious fads.

But we'll get to that. This time, let's back up a little bit and take note of Elijah's first appearance on the pages of the Old Testament text.

He just shows up suddenly in 1 Kings 17 without any prelude or introduction. He appears out of nowhere like Melchizedek, without any lineage, without any explanation of his background, and without any account of how he was called or what qualified him for the task he was given.

His appearance is as unexpected as it is abrupt. He arrives on the scene at a time when we might least expect to see a great prophet in Israel— during a time that was arguably Israel's worst apostasy ever.

It was as if the divine Author of Scripture deliberately wanted to surprise us with the appearance of this man. Without any warning or prologue whatsoever, Elijah stands dead center in the narrative, and dead center in Ahab's court, delivering an ultimatum. Matthew Henry says it is as if Elijah dropped from the sky like an angel. But he is no angel. He is every bit a man—and in some ways he might even seem like the most unlikely man for the task God gave him to do.

Elijah was both an ordinary and an extraordinary man. The apostle James stresses his ordinariness in James 5:17: "Elijah was a man subject to like passions as we are." He was a first of all a fallen man, with the same sinful passions you and I struggle with daily. He was also a common man, without any unusual credentials or special status. And he was a zealous man, living in a decadent culture (with many similarities to our so-called postmodern culture), and hating the spiritual apathy, false religion, and outright contempt for the truth that so dominated that society.

In fact, I suppose one of the reasons I like Elijah is that he is so easy to identify with. His character flaws are not obscured or papered over in the biblical account of his life. (Scripture never does that. The Holy Spirit always paints people warts and all. Elijah is no exception.) We see him panicky, and angry, and frustrated with God. All of that makes his outstanding courage all the more remarkable. Elijah was a fallible human being, just like you and me.

He was ordinary in other ways, too. He had no special lineage. The fact that his genealogy is omitted in Scripture suggests that he was from an ordinary family rather than a prominent one. Everything we know about his heritage is recorded in verse 1 of 1 Kings 17:1: "And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead. . ."

That's all the genealogical information Scripture ever gives us about Elijah, and frankly, what it says is not all that informative. Commentators are not quite sure what the word "Tishbite" means. Most assume it means Elijah was born in a town called Tishbe, or something similar. But there is no reliable record of precisely where Elijah's hometown was. The word Tishbite appears only 6 times in all of Scripture, and always in connection with Elijah. It is found three times in 1 Kings and three times in 2 Kings. Other than Elijah, no one else in Scripture is ever identified as a Tishbite.

It is also commonly assumed that Tishbe was a small village somewhere near Gilead, on the east side of the Jordan, about halfway between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea. But no one really knows for sure. What is clear is that Elijah was a man of humble origins from a region of little significance and a town of no reputation. He was ordinary in every way.



But he did not remain ordinary. By God's transforming grace, Elijah became one of the most extraordinary men of the Old Testament. It is significant, I think, that of all the great men of God we meet in the Old Testament, only two make a personal appearance in the New Testament: Moses and Elijah (Matthew 17:3). That's pretty elite company.

Elijah was the first and in most ways the greatest of all the Old Testament prophets. His life makes a remarkable contrast to virtually everyone else of his era. In one of the most dismal and stubbornly dark periods of Israel's history, when it really did seemed as if no one else was left still faithful to God, Elijah stands out like a shining beacon. He surpasses everyone else in his era for courage, power, and sheer love of the truth.

His successor was Elisha, on whom Elijah's mantle fell. Elisha prayed for a double portion of Elijah's spirit. And it may be significant that if you count the miracles recorded in Scripture, Elisha performed exactly twice as many miracles as Elijah.

But even that does not diminish Elijah's stature. We still remember him as the greater of the two, because he came out of nowhere to be the first in a long line of prophets, all of whom must have looked to him as their role model.

And at the end of his life, as if to signify how truly remarkable this man was, God took him alive to heaven in a flaming chariot. No one in all the Old Testament supersedes him in greatness. In fact, Elijah was so extraordinary that liberal commentators like to treat him as a mythical figure.

But—and this is James's point—there was nothing mythical about Elijah. He was a man subject to like passions as we are. In fact, we could use a whole lot more of his passion.

---

12-day slow pitch

by Frank Turk

About 3 weeks ago, I posted one of the softest, least-offensive and least-aggressive criticisms of anyone on earth I have ever made. It was in response to an article by David Aikman in CT, and because Dr. Aikman wasn't pressing any theological points but merely matters of pragmatic action, I thought it would be a good place to show that I am not the proverbial one-note tuba.

As a preface, doing that has re-educated me on one of the reasons I hate Blogger. It does a lousy job of notifying me/us when someone toddles through the back-issues of the blog and posts a random comment for whatever reason. However, I am edified that the essay in question was one of the top-3 posts we made at TeamPyro in August, and you have to take the good with the bad.

A fellow named "Todd" posted a few notes on my essay to Aikman, and because I have 15 minutes this week, I'd like to respond to Todd in detail.

Very poor article IMO. Here's why.

That's actually a great, pithy start – "I think you're full of beans, and here's why, dude." And in that, I thought I was going to get some schoolage from Todd. What I got instead was this:

You've put forth two topics.

Topic one:

You say, "But problematically, your essay does what it sets out to criticize."

That argument reminds me of the argument I used to use when I was a kid when I would say "it takes one to know one". How satisfied that would make me feel. That's all you've accomplished putting that sort of argument forth.

It seems that Todd doesn't actually understand what I said to Dr. Aikman – because "it takes one to know one" is not an argument at all but an insult. My complaint is that Dr. Aikman's essay is itself of the type of criticism he's complaining about – so if that type of criticism is not valid, then Dr. Aikman's essay is not a valid complaint.

You said:

"You equate criticizing Joel Osteen with KJVO enthusiasm"

That statement would be inaccurate. Aikman cited people who referred to Olsteen as a "viper", and then farther on down the article cited people with an obviously extremeist blog and likened their mentality to those who consider any other version of the bible than the "King James Version is a step toward apostasy". The two references which you claim are a comparison have nothing in common with each other.

Yeah, no.

Dr. Aikman says this in the 4th paragraph of his essay:

What disturbs me, however, is the extent to which some Christians have turned themselves into the self-appointed attack dogs of Christendom. They seem determined to savage not only opponents of Christianity, but also fellow believers of whose doctrinal positions they disapprove.

And that is the title of his essay, right? "Attack Dogs of Christendom"? He lumps all the "attack dogs" together, for better or worse.

And after doing that, he says this:

It is easy to laugh at these websites, which feature subheads like "Mixed Swimming" (dangerous, of course) and "Bible Guidelines for Clothing." Often these sites seem convinced that every translation of the Bible done after the King James Version is a step toward apostasy.

I added the underline, but it's Aikman's thesis that the KJVO guys and (for example) Ken Silva are the same people – the same kinds of critics. And they offer the same "laughable" kinds of opinions – which would be the range of opinions from criticism of Osteen and Billy Graham to (as above) KJVO advocacy.

So my first criticism for the Toddster (note to bob.blog: see how the overly-familiar acts as a dismissive epithet – very useful when done on purpose) is that in order to respond to a critique of some essay, you have to read the essay first and understand it. Dr. Aikman's not talking about all kinds of things here: he's saying that blogs ranging from Ken Silva's blog to some unnamed KJVO web site are all doing the same thing. They are all 'attack dogs'.

Not only did Aikman not in any way equate them together but, in making such a statement as you did, you seem ready to equate "King James enthusiasm" with the notion of 'regarding anything other than the King James version as a step toward apostasy'. You effectually equated those two distinct mindsets(grouping one sound one in with an extreme one) by saying what you said, and I don't think you'll get much agreement in fudging them together.

This would be another place where you ought to read more carefully. Because my phrase was, "KJVO enthusiasm" – King James Version Only enthusiasm. "Only" being an important word (as you note), but it was actually included in my statement, "You equate criticizing Joel Osteen with KJVO enthusiasm – trying, I guess, to demonstrate how backwards and uninformed these opinions must be."

What's really odd is that you actually cut-and-pasted my exact phrase in the next part here, Todd, but you didn’t actually read it. That's sloppy.

Virtually your only criticism of Aikman is, "equating criticism of Joel Osteen's preaching to a KJVO bibliology is a stretch at best", and, "You equate criticizing Joel Osteen with KJVO enthusiasm", and the support of that criticism is not even sound. Think further into it somehow and get more from Aikman's great point.

Well, if there was someplace to go with with your criticism, I'd be glad to. The problem, plainly, is that Dr. Aikman has equated criticism of Joel Osteen with KJVO enthusiasm, and in doing so has marginalized his criticism of people who may or may not deserve it by confusing them with people who are actually doing something which is, well, we really don't want to get into KJVO issues here because those people tend to be less dignified than even the EC people we have been dealing with lately, so let's just say that the KJVO folks are happy to be their own little remnant. Given that Ken Silva is not KJVO, he's not in that remnant, so I think it's safe to say that both sides could take offense at Dr. Aikman's point of view.

However, you were about to give me some advice about how to get something out of Dr. Aikman's essay, so let's hear it.

Here's how.

You Said:

"Your criticism of them, in a nutshell, is that their "approach" is flawed – and this may well be true. But your approach to reproach is not really much better – because it does the kinds of things you are very sincerely worried about, only without the Biblical epithets of "whitewashed tombs" and "vipers".

That's the whole point Frank. Aikman did it without the vitriolic epithets. Soundly, without making those false comparisons you claim. He didn't misquote anybody or paraphrase anybody.

What he did, Todd, was to say that criticism of Joel Osteen is as baseless as KJVO bibliology.

He may have not used the words "aberrant", or "cultic", or "crazy", but he is the one who said that they are doing their criticizing while they are doing their KJVO advocating. That's a pretty straight line, if you ask me.

Now, here's the part of your comment I think betrays your own bias:

He did take a cheap shot at the extreme KJV mindset but that extreme mindset does exist and is worthy of any and all constructive criticism it can get.

I wonder if that includes lumping it in with criticism of Joel Osteen as the same kind of work?

Topic Two:

I'm sure Aikman appreciates your criticism that he did not provide many tenable constructive alternatives but then you unpacked quite a few words yourself as well along that vain and weren't really able to give it much justice either.

So all in all I see more defensive posture that useful substance in your article.

Well, Todd, you read my essay about as well as you read Dr. Aikman's essay, so my opinion is that you need to start over, re-read his essay, and then see if you can grasp the finer points of his view of criticism – which is self-defeating – before you try to defend what he has done here.

Thanks for your comments.

---

Rough Words for Great Evils

A midweek dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each week to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive.

The following tidbit is from the October 1868 issue of The Sword and the Trowel. Spurgeon had long opposed the Anglo-Catholicism that dominated the Church of England in the wake of the Oxford Movement. That movement was also known as the "Tractarian Movement," after a series of tractates written to promote that generation's most popular New Perspectives.

When Spurgeon preached against the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, it stirred a great controversy. At the height of that controversy, Spurgeon published some short, satirical tracts of his own, including this one and this one, which were published together in an issue of Spurgeon's magazine and generated an unusual outpouring of protests from people who complained that they were uncharitable and overly "harsh."

Since we've heard from not a few readers who solemnly assure us that Spurgeon would not approve of the Po-Motivators, we wanted to let him speak for himself.

E fear that our two pictures of last month greatly shocked a few of our good readers whose souls are tender of the Establishment; but we do not in any degree apologize to them because the shock, like that of a cold bath early in the morning, will do them good, and strengthen their constitutions.

We can assure them that they cannot be one-half so much shocked by our ridicule of error as we are by the error itself.

We do not make the evil, we only expose it; and if we use words and symbols which strike and stick, and even offend, we believe that they are necessary, and ought to be used far more frequently.

We are not going to handle the abominations of the present Anglican establishment with kid gloves; and if we judge sarcasm and ridicule to be deserved, we shall give the Lord's enemies their full quota of scorn.

---

From the combox below: David Rudd: "He wasn't speaking about unbelievers who were offended... is that correct?" Your question is loaded. It presupposes something Spurgeon himself certainly wouldn't have regarded as a given. He was no more willing than we are (and by "we," I mean "we Pyros and most of the fundies and conservative evangelicals who post positive comments here") to assume that just because people call themselves Christians and follow all the current religious fads, they are genuine believers. Spurgeon especially would not have made that assumption about professing believers who constantly hung around in circles where false doctrine was a staple and sound doctrine was constantly under attack. In this instance, the central issue under debate was baptismal regeneration—and the related question of whether baptism or faith is the instrument of justification. Which side of that line you stand on determines how and to whom you will preach the gospel. Spurgeon was not happy with the fuzziness evangelical Anglicans were tolerating (and in some cases fostering) in order to avoid strife within the established church. He could see that the clarity of the gospel had been lost. Worse, even among "evangelical" Anglicans, any real commitment to a sound understanding of the gospel was quickly eroding. That was the second half of the nineteenth century, and a steady trickle of Anglicans influenced by Newman and Pusey had been converting to Roman Catholicism for twenty years or longer (including Newman himself, who ultimately became a cardinal in the church of Rome). As Spurgeon watched that happen and observed that evangelicals within the church of England were becoming progressively more timid about confronting Anglo-Catholicism, he began to speak out against Romish tendencies with great vigor, focusing mainly on baptismal regeneration. But (as you see from the satirical tracts he published) he was equally forceful in his opposition to the wearing of ornate vestments, the rising tide of sacramentalism, and other manifestations of what he perceived (rightly, I think) as a decadent and hypocritical priesthood in the church of England. His primary concern, of course, was the gospel. At first, I don't think it occurred to him that any authentic believer could legitimately be offended that someone was trying to defend the gospel. But both public opinion and the preponderance of "evangelicals" within the established church excoriated him for his "tone," his outspokenness, the inflexibility of his opinion, his unwillingness to compromise, and his supposed meddling in Anglican affairs. His use of satire was the final straw. His critics seized on that as "proof" that he was out of control, and they hammered him relentlessly. He stood his ground. So who were the offended parties? Since the controversy was featured even in the secular newspapers of that time, Spurgeon's harshest critics included people who were open about their unbelief, people who were manifestly unbiblical in their religious opinions, people who professed to be Christians did not even pretend to be evangelical in their opinions, and people who claimed to be devoted to evangelical truth. Were any of them authentic believers? Some of them probably were. But I don't think Spurgeon himself was deeply troubled by that question. He wasn't interested in mollycoddling the sensitivities of "Christians" who got upset about someone defending the gospel. He was concerned instead with the questions of whether the issues at stake were really that important or not, whether his own motives were pure, and whether he was in the right. The more he studied the issue and prayed about it, the more determined he became. On the tactical question of whether Spurgeon's satire was effective or not, I think history fully vindicates him. The "evangelicals" within the Anglican church who most vigorously opposed Spurgeon became steadily less evangelical, and their strategy of peace and accommodation did nothing whatsoever to quell the influence of Anglo-Catholicism or strengthen the evangelical contingent in the established church. Spurgeon, on the other hand, was a major influence in the strengthening of Victorian evangelicalism, and it seems clear that in the long run his critiques severely weakened the influence of Anglo-Catholicism in the Victorian age. Of course, his influence continues today. And we're doing our best to remind people that Spurgeon was never one of the gelatinous, compromising types who were a dime a dozen in the second half of the nineteenth century, and he wasn't too "nice" to use sanctified mockery against the religious fads and secular fashions of his day. His magazine, The Sword and the Trowel, represents the model we would most like to emulate here at TeamPyro. Thanks for asking. Oh, yes. Spurgeon's critics also lampooned him. Constantly.

---

ManMade Idols Will All Fall Down

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following selection is from "Idols Found Wanting, but Jehovah Found Faithful," a sermon preached during the midweek (Thursday Evening) service on 27 September 1888, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle.

f you are at all readers of the history of religious thought, you will know that systems of philosophy, and philosophical religions, have come up, and have been generally accepted as indisputable, and have done serious injury to true religion for a time; and yet they have vanished like the mirage of the desert.

When at their best, they have withered: the grass has flowered, the flower has come to its full, and has fallen beneath the scythe. The gourds have come up in a night, and have perished in a night.

Even those of us who are not aged, yet remember two or three different forms of philosophical divinity which preceded this new dreaming, which is just now so loudly cried up. Many modern thoughts have come up, and have gone down again. Bel has bowed down, and Nebo has stooped.

The boastful "thinkers" carried up their elaborate systems into their places with great labor, and then they carried them away again, and buried them with equal labor. What philosophers prove one year, philosophers disprove another year. We, old-fashioned Christians, have remained unchanged in our fidelity to revealed truth, and we have seen Bel go up and Bel go down, and Nebo go up and Nebo go down.

Yes, we have seen rubbish venerated as a precious thing, and anon the precious thing carted away as so much lumber. Like a child's merry-go-round at a fair, heresy is a revolution of the old things over and over again; yet people think it new. The present idols of the mind are just as worthless as those of former times.

The god of modern thought is a monkey. If those who believed in evolution said their prayers rightly, they would begin them with, "Our Father, which art up a tree." Did they not all come from a monkey, according to their own statement? They came by "development," from the basest of material, and they do not belie their original.

If you are not well acquainted with this new gospel, I would not advise you to be acquainted with it; it is a sheer, clear waste of time to know anything about it at all. The moderns are able to believe anything except their Bibles. They credulously receive any statement, so long as it is not in the Scriptures; but if it is founded on Scripture, they are, of course, prepared to doubt and quibble and cavil straight away.

The credulity of the new theologians is as amazing as their scepticism. But we shall see the monkey-god go down yet, and evolution will be ridiculed as it deserves to be. The philosophy of the present, whose aim is to get rid of God, has nothing to support it in fact or in nature. It will fly as chaff before the wind, and someday nobody will own that he ever thought of believing it.

The new religion will be regarded as a craze, an emanation from Bedlam; and every man will be ashamed to think that he stopped to hear or read anything about it. So idiotic is it from beginning to end, that it will become a standing jest for ages to come, a proverb and a byword to mankind. Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth already; and, as the Lord Jehovah liveth, the whole of this thing, which has been so cunningly and carefully devised to dethrone him, and cast down his gospel, shall be had in derision.

These new gods, newly come up, shall not deliver themselves, or their worshippers, any more than did the idols of Babylon.

But now, beloved, it will be just the same with us if we trust in false confidences of any sort; such, for instance, as our experiences, or our attainments, or our services, or our orthodox belief, or aught else. If we set up any confidences apart from our God, we shall soon see the end of them. Imagine that any Christian here should be so foolish as to rely upon his own works. God forbid we should! But what an airy nothing our confidence would be! Before long that Bel would bow down, and that Nebo would stoop, for the hope would be too flimsy to bear the least weight.

Or, if we should begin to rely upon our own enjoyments—if frames and feelings should become our confidence—all would come down, and our boast would become our burden, our glory our shame. "Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth": sooner or later this will be the end of all false trusts.

Placing confidence in our inward feelings is like building upon a bog, or leaning upon a rush, or feeding upon wind. The idols of our feeling are like the mudgods of India—they are utterly worthless, and they turn to mere clay almost as soon as they are formed.

If in our daily life we look to an arm of flesh, or practice self-reliance instead of God-reliance, or if we trust to friends instead of leaning upon the one great Invisible, we shall yet learn with tears the terror of that sentence, "Cursed is he that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm."

"Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth": anything that you make your confidence, instead of God, will fail to bear your burden, and will itself become a burden to you. Instead of its carrying you, you will have to carry it. Instead of its taking your load, it will increase your load, and become at last an intolerable curse.

"Little children, keep yourselves from idols." Beloved in the Lord, think not that this is an unnecessary warning even for you, for you may as easily set up an idol in your heart as other men may set up a false system of philosophy, or an idol god. Guard against setting up a rival trust to rob the Lord of even a small part of your confidence. "My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from him." None but Jesus is the ground of salvation: none but the Eternal God is the disposer of providence.

Trust thou wholly in him who loves to be trusted. Let us lean upon our God with all our weight, and lean nowhere else; for if we put our confidence elsewhere, our idolatry will come home to us, and we shall hear the voice of disappointment, wailing bitterly, "Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth: your carriages were heavy loaden; they are a burden to the weary beast. They stoop, they bow down together."

---