Colossians studies 13: thanking God — timing and significance (1:3)

by Dan Phillips

[The series all starts here.]

In Colossians 1:3-8, Paul tells the Colossian believers when and why he thanks God for them. He writes, "We always thank God, the Father of  our Lord Jesus Christ, while praying concerning you...."

It is worth noting the prominence of thankfulness in this letter. Again and again, Paul urges the Christians in Colosse to give thanks to God. Consider the following:

• "...thanking the Father who qualified us  for our portion of the lot of the holy ones in the light" (1:12)
• "...abidingly rooted and being built up in Him, and being confirmed by the faith just as you were taught, abounding in it  in thanksgiving" (2:7)
• "And let the peace of Christ keep ruling in your hearts, unto which also you were called in one body; and become thankful people" (3:15)
• "And everything, whatever you may do — in word or in deed — do all things in the name of the Lord Jesus, thanking God the Father through Him" (3:17)
• "Keep persisting in prayer, staying alert in it with thanksgiving" (4:2)

Since the apostle stresses thanksgiving so much, it is fitting and characteristic for him to set the example.

This in turns leads us to consider the importance of thankfulness, particularly in this setting. Briefly put:

1. Saying "thank you" focuses us on what we have.
2. False teaching invariably would focus us on what we supposedly don't have.

Almost four years ago, we looked at the dangerous vulnerability of discontentment. Think of it again in connection with the Colossians' situation. The false teacher was trying his best to make the Colossians feel left out, excluded, deprived. He wanted them to feel that there was a higher level of spirituality to which they hadn't attained. The Gospel hadn't gotten them there. He wanted to convince them that they needed this special doctrine, this special teaching, that only he could bring.

This is what false teachers have always done, and will always do. This is temptation, in a nutshell: what you have isn't good enough; you need this. Satan did it in the Garden  — and it worked. Bathsheba represented that to David  — and it worked. The false gods took that guise to Israel  — and it worked.

Paul's message, by contrast, is going to be that a human being finds and receives everything he truly needs in Jesus Christ (cf. 2:9-10 for a summary-statement). Any and every Christian by definition is forgiven, rescued, redeemed, reconciled, loved, indwelt, filled full, and marked out for God's service. It simply does not get better than that, except in the visible presence of Christ on that day.

Convinced of the truth of Christ's great salvation, each and every Christian can and must be totally unimpressed by any teaching that says otherwise. Suppose some charismatic person comes and says, "Oh, but you need the second blessing...and this level of grace...and this special teaching...and this experience ─ or you miss out!" The slightest flicker of interest betrays defective faith. Faith would produce glazed eyes, a yawn and a dismissive shrug.

Surely this is how we want to be. What, then, is a sure way to enjoy that invulnerable contentment in Christ, to realize it and grow in it, and to get full value out of it?

The surest way is to say "Thank You" for Christ — for His person, His work; for all we have in Him. Say it often, loudly, and regularly.

Paul sets the stage in this note of thankfulness. When he himself says "thank you" to God for the Colossians, is it going to be because some few of them are attaining some new standing in grace? Is it going to be because they received some "second blessing," or delved into deep secret teachings not open to rank-and-file, garden-variety, blood-bought Christians?  No!

When Paul says "thank you" to God, it will be for the Colossians' faith and love (v. 4). Are these reserved for an elite sub-set of Christians? Not at all. They are attributes which grow in the heart and life of every healthy, growing disciple of Christ.

Thus, we can see that the cagey apostle is already starting to counter the false teaching, in a very subtle way. Thankfulness is a heresy-antidote. A people thankful for Christ's person and work is a people immune to false teaching.

Note too that, no matter how faithfully Epaphras labored in the Gospel, it is God who gets Paul's thanks. This is the principle of "credit to whom credit is due." Popular teaching is dead wrong in its notion that numeric "success" is a sure sign of God's blessing on the right method. Only God can bring a genuine response to the Gospel, and genuine spiritual growth.

Remember Paul writing in 1 Corinthians 3:6, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." Epaphras (and you, and I) can plant and water, but only God can give life and growth.

Finally, note the frequency of Paul's thankfulness: "We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, while praying concerning you." His other letters show us that the apostle had quite a prayer list. This doesn't mean, of course, that Paul did nothing but give thanks. But it does mean that, when he prayed for the Colossians, he gave thanks for them.

This is an encouraging note, and it shows Paul's tactfulness. He is going to correct them, to be sure, and warn them off from this doctrinal temptation. But before he does so, Paul assures them that he still has much for which to thank God, every time he prays for them.

The application does not require much imagination, I think. When we tell others of Christ, do we pray that God will bring spiritual results? Or are we closeted Pelagian Calvinists — focusing on an excellent presentation of the Gospel, with proper measures of law and Gospel and sovereignty, as if that "should do the trick"?

Do we personally thank God for every spiritual benefit that comes of our attempts to serve, whether as pastors or members or parents?

Probably the single best dietary change any of us could make would be regular helpings of generous, hearty, loud thankfulness to God for all His riches to us in Christ.

---

Impassibility

by Phil Johnson



cripture tells us that the eternally unchanged and unchanging God became so angry against Israel at Sinai that He threatened to annihilate the entire nation and essentially void the Abrahamic covenant:

And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? (Exodus 32:10-11).

Two things are perfectly clear from such an account: First, we are not to read this passage and imagine that God is literally subject to fits and temper tantrums. His wrath against sin is surely something more than just a bad mood. We know this passage is not to be interpreted with a wooden literalness.

How can we be so sure? Well, Scripture clearly states that there is no actual variableness in God (cf. James 1:17). He could not have truly and literally been wavering over whether to keep His covenant with Abraham (Deuteronomy 4:31). Moses' intercession in this incident (Exodus 32:12-14) could not literally have provoked a change of mind in God (Numbers 23:19). In other words, a strictly literal interpretation of the anthropopathism in this passage is an impossibility, for it would impugn either the character of God or the trustworthiness of His Word.

Nonetheless, a second truth emerges just as clearly from this vivid account of God's righteousness anger. The passage destroys the notion that God is aloof and uninvolved in relationship with His people. Even though these descriptions of God's anger are not to be taken literally, neither are they to be discarded as meaningless.

In other words, we can begin to make sense of the doctrine of impassibility only after we concede the utter impossibility of comprehending the mind of God.

The next step is to recognize the biblical use of anthropopathism. (Since our thoughts are not like God's thoughts, His thoughts must be described to us in human terms we can understand. Many vital truths about God cannot be expressed except through figures of speech that accommodate the limitations of human language and understanding.)

The anthropopathisms must then be mined for their meaning. While it is true that these are figures of speech, we must nonetheless acknowledge that such expressions mean something. Specifically, they are reassurances to us that God is not uninvolved and indifferent to His creation.

However, because we recognize them as metaphorical, we must also confess that there is something they do not mean. They do not mean that God is literally subject to mood swings or melancholy, spasms of passion or temper tantrums. And in order to make this very clear, Scripture often stresses the constancy of God's love, the infiniteness of his mercies, the certainty of His promises, the unchangeableness of His mind, and the lack of any fluctuation in His perfections. "With [God there] is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17). This absolute immutability is one of God's transcendent characteristics, and we must resist the tendency to bring it in line with our finite human understanding.

This post is excerpted from "God Without Mood Swings," originally a chapter in Bound only Once, edited by Douglas Wilson, published by Canon Press.

---

Comma Delimited

by Frank Turk



Yeah, yeah, yeah: Phil's at T4G, Dan's at home and I'm just barely on the North American continent. But my new friend Zach Bartels recently posted an interview of me at his blog for reasons which will be apparent in the near future, and in it I said this:

Maybe “discernment ministries” would be better off talking about what they believe and what the consequences of those things are rather than how many times Rob Bell sticks his foot in his mouth.

You know: we get it. Now what? What if everyone stopped going to Rob Bell’s church, and stopped buying Ann Lamott (sorry: I meant Donald Miller) books, and took all their PDL/PDC books back for a refund. Now what?…

I did say exactly that. And the response to that from "Christian Research Network" was this:

In an interview appearing here today Frank Turk, who blogs with Phil Johnson at Pyromaniacs, shares his love for online apologetics and discernment ministries, which apparently serve no purpose: ..

And you know what? I agree with their assessment -- except for the use of the comma in the last line.

Their interpretation of my statement is that all online and apologetic ministries serve no purpose -- the comma sets off the modifying phrase so that all these ministries "serve no purpose". The problem is that I think my statement applies to only those apologetic ministries which serve no purpose. If you remove the comma, you have said what I would say. But whether or not to use the comma requires actual discernment.

Thus, my actual point in action.

As you were. Comments are closed because I am not available during the day today to help you work this one out.

---

Charles Spurgeon Collection in Logos: a review

by Dan Phillips

Logos provided me with a copy of the 86-volume Charles Spurgeon Collection to review. It is a treasure-trove for any Spurgeon-lover, including books and works I hadn't even heard of.

Here you'll have Spurgeon's Treasury of David, on the Psalms, for instance. While Spurgeon is seldom a help with the Hebrew text, he is virtually always rich, rewarding, and eminently quotable in seeing the Christward, gracious, edifying content of the psalms. He will help turn any Bible lecture into a sermon. For instance, I recall preparing to preach on Psalm 13, which begins "How long wilt thou forget me, O LORD? for ever? how long wilt thou hide thy face from me?" (KJV). Spurgeon provides this word as to its setting:

The Psalm cannot be referred to any especial event or period in David’s history. All attempts to find it a birthplace are but guesses. It was, doubtless, more than once the language of that much tried man of God, and is intended to express the feelings of the people of God in those ever-returning trials which beset them. If the reader has never yet found occasion to use the language of this brief ode, he will do so ere long, if he be a man after the Lord’s own heart. We have been wont to call this the “How Long Psalm.” We had almost said the Howling Psalm, from the incessant repetition of the cry “how long?”

These words were both personally encouraging, and homiletically helpful.

You'll also find the wonderful series of addresses for pastors titled An All-round Ministry.  While not inerrant (Spurgeon sometimes sounds very much as if he equates outward numeric success with signs of God's blessings), it is a treasure-trove of wisdom and quotables, and characteristic Spurgeon humor. Like this:

There are brethren in the ministry whose speech is intolerable; either they dun you to death, or else they send you to sleep. No chloral can ever equal their discourse in sleep-giving properties. No human being, unless gifted with infinite patience, could long endure to listen to them, and nature does well to give the victim deliverance through sleep. I heard one say, the other day, that a certain preacher had no more gifts for the ministry than an oyster, and in my own judgment this was a slander on the oyster, for that worthy bivalve shows great discretion in his openings, and he also knows when to close. If some men were sentenced to hear their own sermons, it would be a righteous judgment upon them; but they would soon cry out with Cain, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.”

That is just one of many, many golden passages. Spurgeon will have you laughing, cringing, and taking heart all within a paragraph or two. Take this call to action, instead of endless organization and deliberation:

God save us from living in comfort while sinners are sinking into hell! In travelling along the mountain roads in Switzerland, you will continually see marks of the boring-rod; and in every minister’s life there should be traces of stern labour. Brethren, do something; do something; DO SOMETHING. While Committees waste their time over resolutions, do something. While Societies and Unions are making constitutions, let us win souls. Too often we discuss, and discuss, and discuss, while Satan only laughs in his sleeve. It is time we had done planning, and sought something to plan. I pray you, be men of action all of you. Get to work, and quit yourselves like men. Old Suwarrow’s idea of war is mine: “Forward and strike! No theory! Attack! Form column! Fix bayonets, and charge right into the very centre of the enemy.” Our one aim is to save sinners, and this we are not merely to talk about, but to effect in the power of God.

Spurgeon's own lengthy autobiography (finished by his wife and his secretary) are here, as well as the volumes of The Sword and Trowel, Lectures to My Students, notes from his sermons, a devotional Bible, and a host of other books, booklets, biographies, collections of proverbs and aphorisms, "Our Own Hymnbook," devotionals, sermons, and studies.

I doubt there is much need to convince any regulars of the value of Spurgeon per se, however. Or if I do, I'm not the best-equipped of the three of us to do so. I anticipate some would reply, "Spurgeon's the best, no doubt; but I have some of those in hard-copy, and most of it is in public domain, available online or at Phil's site. Why get the Logos version, as expensive as it is?"

I can't argue with the bottom-line: I wish Logos products were not so expensive, too. I do think the prices reflect the work and care that go into reproducing the text well and thoroughly (as opposed to the typo-ridden, scanned, and/or PDF versions one can find online and in cheaper software). But still, it's a pretty penny in this economy, which I blame on... oh wait, wrong blog. Ahem.

Anyway, watch the Logos blog and the web-site; they do have occasional terrific sales, such as they are having right now. (See here and here.) Sign up for the newsletter to be alerted to deals and sales and pre-prod and community pricing. If Spurgeon specifically is now out of your reach, watch for the set to come up, or find it piecemeal — as you'll see part is on sale now, at the previous link.

But to the main question: why get this collection, if you already have some of it in hardcover (as I do), or can find a lot of it online? The answer is the integration provided by Logos software. Ask any Spurgeon-lover, and he'll tell you the same tale I'd tell, of wonderful Spurgeon sayings that you love, and know, and just can't find. With this suite, no longer. Even with just one word, you can search a book, a group of books, or the whole collection, and be able to quote (not paraphrase!) and cite the source (not guess, and perpetuate sloppiness).

Also, of course, you can incorporate these titles in your other searching collections, such as preaching or counseling or commentaries. Then Spurgeon's remarks will appear along with your other Psalms commentaries.

I'm very glad to have it. Obviously, you are your money's steward, not I. For any preacher, I think it's a worthy purchase. For any church, I think it'd be a terrific gift for a Logos-using pastor — and you'd benefit, in his preaching.

Win/win!

---

Hold Your Banner High

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 Church As She Should Be," a sermon based on Song of Solomon 6:4, first published in 1871.



he church of Christ . . . desires not to be associated with other armies, or to be mistaken for them, for it is not of this world, and its weapons and its warfare are far other than those of the nations.

God forbid that followers of Jesus should be mistaken for political partisans or ambitious adventurers. The church unfurls her ensign to the breeze that all may know whose she is and whom she serves. This is of the utmost importance at this present, when crafty men are endeavoring to palm off their inventions.

Every Christian church should know what it believes, and publicly avow what it maintains. It is our duty to make a clear and distinct declaration of our principles, that our members may know to what intent they have come together, and that the world also may know what we mean. Far be it from us to join with the Broad Church cry, and furl the banners upon which our distinctive colors are displaced.

We hear on all sides great outcries against creeds. Are these clamours justifiable? It seems to me that when properly analysed most of the protests are not against creeds, but against truth, for every man who believes anything must have a creed, whether he write it down and print it or no; or if there be a man who believes nothing, or anything, or everything by turns, he is not a fit man to be set up as a model. Attacks are often made against creeds because they are a short, handy form by which the Christian mind gives expression to its belief, and those who hate creeds do so because they find them to be weapons as inconvenient, as bayonets in the hands of British soldiers have been to our enemies. They are weapons so destructive to theology that it protests against them. For this reason let us be slow to part with them. Let us day hold of God's truth with iron grip, and never let it go.

After all, there is a Protestantism still worth contending for; there is a Calvinism still worth proclaiming, and a gospel worth dying for. There is a Christianity distinctive and distinguished from Ritualism, Rationalism, and Legalism, and let us make it known that we believe in it. Up with your banners, soldiers of the cross! This is not the time to be frightened by the cries against conscientious convictions, which are nowadays nicknamed sectarianism and bigotry. Believe in your hearts what you profess to believe; proclaim openly and zealously what you know to be the truth. Be not ashamed to say such-and-such things are true, and let men draw the inference that the opposite is false.

Whatever the doctrines of the gospel may be to the rest of mankind, let them be your glory and boast. Display your banners, and let those banners be such as the church of old carried. Unfurl the old primitive standard, the all-victorious standard of the cross of Christ. In very deed and truth—in hoc signo vinces ["in this sign you will conquer"]—the atonement is the conquering truth. Let others believe as they may, or deny as they will, for you the truth as it is in Jesus is the one thing that has won your heart and made you a soldier of the cross.

---

Live Radio, Tape Delay

by Phil Johnson



arlier this week, before writing Friday's post, I consented to a couple of live radio interviews with Chris Arnzen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron, a daily, live discussion of biblical and theological issues. The broadcast covers New York and Connecticut and is streamed live over the Internet. Recordings are usually posted for the benefit of those who can't listen live.

The recordings are made automatically, I believe, because they usually begin with several minutes of Spanish programing before "Iron Sharpens Iron" actually starts. They are unedited as well and include two long commercial breaks. I've edited the two broadcasts from this week to remove the salsa music and commercial breaks. (Those are the only edits I made; the live interview itself is complete and undoctored.) You can either stream or download the .mp3 files (formatted for iTunes) here (day 1) and here (day 2).

Since I've carved out the commercials, it's only fair to note that Chris's sponsors include Buttafuoco & Associates, batterydepot.com, and The Lockman Foundation. A more complete list of sponsors may be found at the "Iron Sharpens Iron" website.

Bear in mind that these interviews were live and unrehearsed. Friday's post represents my official statement (and most carefully-worded thoughts) on the matter. But these interviews may be helpful to those who think that post wasn't clear or thorough enough.

The Piper-Warren Connection (part 1)
The Piper-Warren Connection (part 2)

---

On the Piper-Warren Connection

by Phil Johnson

o (in case you hadn't heard) Rick Warren will headline the list of speakers at next October's Desiring God Conference.


Of course I think it's a bad turn of events, and I didn't find Dr. Piper's rationale for handing his platform over to Warren satisfying at all. I was surprised when I heard about it, but on second thought, I have to admit that it is consistent with Dr. Piper's modus operandi. Last year some people were appalled, others delighted, when Doug Wilson spoke at the conference. The year before that, the blogosphere was all abuzz with strong passions for months because Mark Driscoll would be the featured speaker. In 2007, it was John MacArthur, who (let's face it) is hardly a John Piper clone.

So Piper likes to feature speakers from outside the boundaries of his own circle of close fellowship, and that's a good thing, within limits. But Piper's choice of Warren as a keynote speaker proves his idea of where those limits lie is vastly—perhaps fundamentally—different from mine.

Furthermore, as much as I differ from Piper on the question of who deserves his imprimatur, there's at least an equal measure of difference between what I think is the proper way to respond to Piper and the way some of his most vocal critics have responded. I'm appalled and ashamed at how some on my side of this debate have expressed their disagreement with Dr. Piper.

It seems to me the whole controversy reflects in microcosm why the evangelical and fundamentalist movements of the 20th century have both failed so egregiously.

Let me explain why. Here are some observations about John Piper, Rick Warren, the critics, and the biblical duty of separation—separation both from false teachers (Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 7-11), and from deliberately, incorrigibly disobedient brethren (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; 1 Corinthians 5:11).

John Piper
I love John Piper. People often ask me what living preachers I listen to besides John MacArthur. John Piper is my clear first choice. He's also one of my favorite authors. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 was the first John Piper work I ever read, and I was hooked. His chapter in Still Sovereign by Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware is worth the price of the whole book. The chapter is titled "Are There Two Wills in God?" and if more Calvinists would read that chapter and digest its contents, it would settle most of the interminable debates about the optative language Scripture uses to speak of God's "desire" for the repentance of reprobate people. I have written elsewhere about how deeply I appreciate Piper's The Future of Justification. His Don't Waste Your Life is as profound as it is brief and pithy. I've never read any book by Piper that I would give a negative review to. I've never listened to a sermon by him without being impacted by the power of truth.

Furthermore, I greatly respect and appreciate Dr. Piper for his courage and persistence as a defender of the faith against Open Theism, not to mention his diligent defense of biblical authority against the juggernaut of egalitarianism. He's one of the most bold and large-hearted preachers alive today. For those and many other reasons, my appreciation of Dr. Piper runs deep.

Obviously, though, I disagree with him on some fairly important issues, mostly related to his belief that the charismatic gifts are still fully operative. It is this facet of Dr. Piper's theology, I think, that makes his judgments often seem subjective—even arbitrary. Consider, for example, his fascination with "holy laughter" at the height of the Toronto Blessing—and his persistent reluctance to condemn that movement despite the vast damage it was causing. (Did he ever actually denounce the Toronto phenomenon? I didn't hear about it if he did.) That is just one example of what I would regard as a glaring lack of discernment in some of his judgments.

Holy passion and sacred delight in God are wonderful virtues, of course, and these constitute the centerpiece of Dr. Piper's message. But true delight in God is the polar opposite of hedonism, and copious passion per se is not necessarily righteous. (Nor is a quiet or restrained expression of one's feelings a sign of indifference.) As a matter of fact, ungodly passions are a massive problem in the church today, especially in the charismatic fringe. I wish Dr. Piper were more vocal in warning against that kind of imbalance.

Furthermore, human passion and biblical discernment can be like oil and water—a truth Dr. Piper acknowledges in principle. Unbridled passion and feelings-based judgments are deadly to discernment. Hang onto that thought, because it will come up again later in this post. It's a principle that works both ways.

Rick Warren
I can't think of anyone who would make a finer poster-boy for the pragmatic, spiritually impoverished, gospel-deprived message of modern and postmodern evangelicalism than Rick Warren. He is shallow, pragmatic, and chameleonic. He is a spiritual changeling who will say whatever his audience wants to hear. He wants desperately to be liked and accepted by Muslims, evangelicals, and everyone in between. The length to which he will go to indulge his ecumenical bent is seen in the fact that he was one of a handful of professing evangelicals who signed "A Common Word Between Us and You," a declaration of spiritual accord between Muslims and Christians. His church's Easter service at Angel Stadium last week was headlined by the Jonas Brothers (who sang a love song from a Disney movie as if it were a song of praise to God). And Warren's sermon on the resurrection was a paean to Possibility Thinking—assuring people that God wanted to do a miracle to revive their broken dreams. That, Warren said, is the meaning of the resurrection. (And, "Remember, God isn't mad at you, He's mad about you.")

Warren has squandered too many opportunities to proclaim the gospel accurately and muffed too many questions on national television to be given a platform by one of the leading figures of Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and similar movements whose central goal, after all, is to undo the damage Warren's philosophy has caused in the evangelical movement.

The massive problems with Warren's ministry philosophy are well documented. The same with his practice of softening, omitting, or denying key gospel truths about sin, judgment, the wrath of God, and the necessity of repentance. A preacher doesn't have to affirm heresy or overtly deny truth in order to be dangerous. It is entirely possible by one's behavior to distort or obscure the gospel message. All Peter did to earn a public rebuke from Paul was change seats at the dinner table (Galatians 2:11-14). But in context, that seriously compromised the gospel. Deliberately and repeatedly giving short shrift to the greatest truths of the gospel is at least as serious an error as Peter's hypocrisy.

Warren's private reassurances to John Piper shouldn't trump the fact that he does not actually preach the gospel plainly, boldly, thoroughly, unashamedly, and in a way that is faithful to the Word of God. If he privately believes something other than what he has said in his books and sermons, that makes him more culpable as a hypocrite. His belief is better than his practice? Let's not make that sound heroic.

On one level I share Dr. Piper's curiosity. I'd love to hear Rick Warren explain how someone who believes what he professes to believe could possibly justify the pragmatic philosophy of ministry he has been championing for thirty years. But that's something I'd prefer to hear in private. I would never give such a man a platform at a national conference, in front of thousands of impressionable disciples, to make an apologia for his pragmatic ministry philosophy or his truncated gospel.

In fact, it pains me deeply to see Dr. Piper himself making such an apologia for Warren, assuring viewers (without any substantiation other than their private conversation) that Warren is "deeply theological," and "at root . . . doctrinal and sound." Jesus said, "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit" (Matthew 12:33). That's fitting advice for a situation like this.

No matter how Dr. Piper may qualify his endorsement of Rick Warren (and he didn't seem to be qualifying it very much in the live Q&A the other night), many of Dr. Piper's admirers do assume Warren now has Piper's full imprimatur. Some of the dialogue in various online forums and social-networking sites demonstrates that.

The critics



Speaking of Twitter chatter and Facebook feedback, I can't touch on this whole subject without pointing out that the tone of some of the criticism leveled at Dr. Piper is simply revolting. Within fifteen minutes of Dr. Piper's live webcast the other night, I had to delete a comment on my Facebook page from a woman who called him a clown. Over the past week I have deleted an average of two or three comments each day that were personally insulting or deliberately disrespectful toward Dr. Piper. One woman expressed a hope that his sabbatical would be permanent.

It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There's evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women who give lip service to the authority of Scripture. They would unanimously affirm that Scripture reserves for men the teaching and ruling elders' roles in the church. They would, I presume, deplore the ordination of women to such positions of authority. They are not offended by Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:12; rather, they would say amen to it. And yet in practice they have no compunction about posting angry, loud condemnations and insistent demands for the removal of a pastor of John Piper's stature. These things ought not to be.

Anyway, I remarked on the radio this week that I think a lot of Dr. Piper's critics have been too shrill, too hysterical, too trigger-happy, too eager for immediate reprisals, and too disrespectful to Dr. Piper. The reactions to that comment have been chilling. I wonder if some of Dr. Piper's critics would have been happier if I had called for his deportation to Siberia. One blog (wholly written, evidently, on a keyboard with a defective shift key) labeled my position "LUKEWARM," claiming I was trying to stay "SAFELY IN THE MIDDLE AS TO NOT ISSUE ANY DECISION WHATEVER." A woman who relentlessly tried to pick a fight with me on my Facebook page finally took her beef to Twitter, where she complained that I was determined to stifle her passion.

Well, as I said above, some passions need to be stifled, and raw passion is a detriment, not an aid, to true discernment.

I've made the argument many times that sharp words and sarcasm aren't always inappropriate, but they are certainly inappropriate as a first response to a man of Dr. Piper's stature. No wonder the self-styled "discernment" community is so odious to milder-tempered Christians.

Separation
It was, however, Dr. Piper himself, not his critics, who first raised the specter of separation. He mentioned the subject twice in his apologia for Warren. First, he said one of the reasons he invites occasional bad-boy types to speak at his conferences is that he hopes the Young, Restless, Reformed movement will not imitate the overzealous separatism of the twentieth-century fundamentalist movement.

I agree that this would be a bad thing, but seriously: Does that really look like it's a looming danger?

The answer to hyper-separatism is not no separatism at all.



That, of course, was the error of neo-evangelicalism, a movement closer to Dr. Piper's own roots. Neo-evangelicalism reacted to the extreme militancy of certain angry fundamentalists by repudiating separatism altogether. That philosophy (for which Christianity Today and the National Association of Evangelicals were tireless cheerleaders) steadily and systematically moved the boundaries of the evangelical movement further and further out, until there were effectively no boundaries at all. The mainstream of the movement abandoned its own principles. The movement traded the gospel for shallow political goals. A man of Ted Haggard's weak character and loose doctrine rose to the highest position of leadership. Good feelings and friendly relations eventually trumped almost every evangelical truth. Finally, the emerging generation began to trade the pragmatism and shallowness of their evangelical parents for a postmodernized brand of religion that at least offered the illusion of more depth and tradition.

Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and the so-called Young, Restless, Reformed resurgence of Calvinism all gained their strength chiefly because they effectively answered the trends that had been spawned by evangelicalism's attempts to broaden its base by becoming more and more inclusive. A return to that practice will in very short order utterly nullify any gains those movements have made.

The fact is, Scripture commands faithful Christians to confront, rebuke, and correct those who twist or reinvent the gospel—not to ask them to speak at our most important conferences. If they fail to amend their errors (as Rick Warren has consistently done), there comes a time when separation is mandatory. The neglect of that duty (and in many cases, a refusal to comply) has destroyed countless churches and evangelical institutions, not to mention the broad evangelical movement itself. Let's bear that in mind.

Dr. Piper also raised the issue of "secondary separation" near the conclusion of his remarks about Rick Warren. The fact that he brought the issue up at all demonstrates that he knew his invitation to Warren would be divisive. That's another reason I'm very sorry and disappointed that he made this choice—especially if (as it seems) he extended the invitation to Warren during his first conversation with him, without seeking counsel or affirmation from others (especially his partners in T4G and TGC).

But Dr. Piper's friendship with Rick Warren doesn't instantly and automatically make Dr. Piper an enemy of the faith. People have already called for a boycott of his books, reprisals against those who are perceived as "LUKEWARM" in their response to Piper, and practically everything short of assassination. In their minds, those who balk at the cry for some kind of nuclear strike against Piper are guilty of utter apathy and inaction.

That's a ridiculous point of view.

So is the opinion that no response whatsoever is actually the best possible response. Piper influences people who are under my pastoral care. It would be unconscionable for me to ignore what I am convinced is a dangerously misleading and potentially hurtful decision. But there are several valid, biblical responses that lie between the extremes of sheer apathy and shrill vigilantism. The best option, in a case like this, is to explain as carefully as possible why I disagree with Dr. Piper's decision, plead with Dr. Piper to reconsider the trajectory he has set, and do everything possible to make the boundaries between the gospel and all other messages as clear as possible. If Dr. Piper continues on this trajectory of ever-broadening boundaries, the time may come when his influence would become such a danger that total separation from him would be necessary. I frankly don't envision that, given Dr. Piper's passion for the gospel. But more shocking things have happened.

Meanwhile, I'm not obliged to invite Dr. Piper to speak to my flock in order to prove that I'm not practicing secondary separation. Without utterly anathematizing him, I can certainly temper my enthusiasm in recommending his teaching to impressionable people. I do still have a duty to regard him as a brother rather than an enemy or an apostate (cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:15), and I owe him respect and honor as one to whom those things are due (Romans 13:7).

From my perspective it looks like Dr. Piper is repeating the worst errors of the neo-evangelicals, and his critics are imitating the worst misconduct of the hyper-fundamentalists. I find myself in unfamiliar territory—in the middle—pleading for more restraint, more biblical discernment, less raw passion, and less impulsive behavior on both sides.

I'll see you at T4G next week.


See also:

• Tim Challies' response (BTW, I suspect Challies really does think this is a bigger issue than he lets on.)
  
• Chris Anderson's response (My thoughts exactly)
  
• Chris Rosebrough's response (Some important insight on how Warren manages his critics)

---

The suffering dodge (NEXT! #22)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: You're a Christian? Aren't you troubled by the suffering in the world?

Response: Well, it does seem strange that there is so relatively little of it.

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---

The Preaching of John MacArthur

Special book excerpt

The following excerpt is from a brand-new volume by Hughes Oliphant Old, The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church, Volume 7: Our Own Time, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 551-58. Dr. Old's series on preaching is a landmark achievement, and this sample is typical of his crisp writing style and careful, objective analysis. If you're interested in the history of preaching, you will love this series. Buy it.

John MacArthur (1939-)
by Hughes Oliphant Old
Reprinted by permission of the publisher; all rights reserved.

hat one hears from [John MacArthur's] pulpit is a very straight Christian message—conservative, to be sure, but free from the wrangling, the defensiveness, and the bitterness of the fundamentalism of a generation or two ago. If one were to call MacArthur a fundamentalist, a label that, I gather, he would not reject, one would have to admit that his is a very impressive sort of fundamentalism. His expository sermons are instructive and edifying. Twice a Sunday he draws a very large congregation that sits attentively for an hour-long sermon . . . .

To get a feel for the way MacArthur handles the ministry of the Word, I ordered his ten sermons on the eighth and ninth chapters of the Gospel of Matthew. I chose this collection because I myself had tried to do a number of sermons on these two chapters and found them extremely difficult to preach. In the two chapters nine of the most spectacular miracle stories of the Gospel are recounted about healings, exorcisms, and the stilling of the storm. The preacher has to deal with some tough questions in these two chapters. I was curious how someone with a reputation for solid expository preaching, such as MacArthur has, might interpret these passages. Listening to these sermons was a rewarding experience, even if I have a number of reservations and hesitations about MacArthur's approach to preaching.

MacArthur fills these sermons with a wealth of factual material . . . . In the way of human interest stories one finds, on the other hand, very little. The illustrative material focuses on the biblical story. It is the passage of Scripture that is illuminated rather than a principle drawn out of the passage.



MacArthur also has an amazing ability to explain Scripture by Scripture. He spends a great deal of time studying the parallel passages in the other Gospels. Most of the material in Matthew 8 and 9 is also found in Mark, Luke, or John. The harmonizing of the different Gospel accounts is not excessive. A good example of his moderation as a harmonizer is found in the sermon on the exorcising of the Gadarene demoniac (Matt. 8:28-34). One Gospel tells us of two demon-possessed men while the other tells us of a single man.

Particularly illuminating is the way MacArthur emphasizes the similarity between Matthew and John on the one hand and Matthew and Paul on the other. This is in contrast to much twentieth-century New Testament scholarship, which tended to see Matthew and the Synoptic Gospels over against John. Often to make his point he will run through a list of five to ten examples. He spits it out machine-gun style so he does not overburden the sermon with material that only the more initiated members of his congregation can follow, but for the more serious listener these parallel passages make the sermon richly informative and mightily convincing. Again MacArthur gives a great deal of time to coordinating the message of the Gospel of Matthew with that of the epistles of Paul.

Realizing that a significant school of modern biblical scholarship has denied that Paul's elaborate theology was based on the simple gospel of Jesus, our preacher is careful to show the similarity between the two. It is very interesting to note that the polemic implied does not come to the surface. MacArthur simply shows how Paul preaches the same gospel as Matthew. One gets the impression that MacArthur is first of all an expositor and only after that a polemicist. This speaks enormously to his credit.

Having said this, however, one has to admit that our preacher has a very clear line of interpretation on these miracle stories in Matthew 8 and 9. As he sees it, these miracles are above all the proofs of Christ's divinity. They are not examples of what the power of faith can do. Much less are they the myths that symbolically express the devotion of the early Christians to their extraordinary teacher. One never gets the impression that this preacher has the least shadow of doubt but that these miracles took place exactly as they are recorded. But, again, there is never any argument that they could have taken place just as they are recorded. Defending the accuracy of the Bible seems to interest MacArthur not at all. He simply assumes it is all quite reliable. This basic assumption that the text of Scripture is reliable is part of the foundation of his effectiveness as an interpreter.

Difficulties arise when one assumes that these stories could not possibly have happened the way they are supposed to have. If they did not happen then they can't prove anything about Jesus. They may tell us what the early church believed about Jesus, but again if they didn't happen, that suggests that the faith of the early church was mistaken. So much of the New Testament interpretation of the last century was devoted to salvaging some kind of Christian faith for an age that cannot accept the miraculous. For the last couple of generations the idea that one should make the major theme of these two chapters that the miracles proved the divinity of Jesus was about the last thought an enlightened preacher would try to make. That, however, is just the point MacArthur does make. He makes the point very successfully. He shows from the structure of the text itself that this is what Matthew is trying to say. He supports it with parallel texts from both the Synoptic Gospels and the Johannine literature. What is surprising is that there is no vitriolic attack on the "higher critics" or the modernists."

The one direction in which MacArthur does let loose a moderate amount of polemic is toward the charismatics and faith healers. Charismatics take a very different tack in interpreting the healings and exorcisms of the Gospels . . . . Charismatics see miracles as an ordinance of the church. Like the sacraments, they should be a continuing part of the Christian churches' ministry. When MacArthur argues that the purpose of the miracles was to make it clear that Jesus was the Christ, he means we should not therefore expect this kind of healing ministry in the church today. It had its function in New Testament times but, since we have the inspired witness of Scripture today that is sufficient witness to establish both the true divinity and the true humanity of Christ, miracles are no longer necessary.

As I have mentioned, these sermons on Matthew 8 and 9 have a particular interest for me because I once tried to preach through these chapters and was very unhappy with how I did it. Where MacArthur succeeded and I did not may well be in his complete clarity on just how he stood on some of these issues. While I would insist that Jesus did perform miracles, I have to admit that the caveats of the Enlightenment still obscure my thoughts from time to time. I suppose I am troubled by a shadow of doubt, but then the same would be true of many in my congregation.

The place where I have always had the greatest trouble is the whole matter of exorcism. I really do not believe in Satan, demonic spirits, and demon possession. Maybe I ought to, but I don't. I am willing to agree that I may have been too strongly influenced by the intellectual world in which I was brought up to fully grasp the full teaching of Scripture, but that is the way it is. What is more than clear to me after listening to these sermons is that those who can take the text the way it is seem to make a lot more sense of it than those who are always trying to second-guess it. Surely one of the greatest strengths of MacArthur's preaching ministry is his complete confidence in the text . . . .



Let us look for a brief moment at our preacher as an orator. One could evaluate his oratory very differently. My first impression is that he has little to offer from the standpoint of the art of oratory. Listening to the tapes, one has to say that he is the antithesis of Lloyd Ogilvie. Thinking about it a bit longer, however, I have to admit he does have techniques of getting people to listen that we should not overlook. The strength of his preaching is his content, but he has mastered some devices as well.

He seems to have a feel for the use of rhythm in his preaching. He uses a variety of rhythms. He will often deliver a whole series of phrases in the same rhythm almost as used in the Odes of Horace. Sometimes his rhythms are very rapid and sometimes very slow. Sometimes they are highly artificial. One is easily offended by his preacher's cant, but one wonders at times whether one does well to be offended. These pulpit rhythms, which we think of as being hopelessly old-fashioned, are being used by preachers today quite effectively. They somehow make it possible for the listener to absorb and retain quite a bit of material over a long period of time. Could this be why the epic poets told their long stories in rhythmic meters? MacArthur's rhetoric is terribly out of date, but maybe he knows something the rest of us don't.

Why do so many people listen to MacArthur, this product of all the wrong schools? How can he pack out a church on Sunday morning in an age in which church attendance has seriously lagged? Here is a preacher who has nothing in the way of a winning personality, good looks, or charm. Here is a preacher who offers us nothing in the way of sophisticated homiletical packaging. No one would suggest that he is a master of the art of oratory. What he seems to have is a witness to true authority. He recognizes in Scripture the Word of God, and when he preaches, it is Scripture that one hears. It is not that the words of John MacArthur are so interesting as it is that the Word of God is of surpassing interest. That is why one listens.

---

Colossians studies 12: Greetings 3 (1:2b) — Paul's prayer-wish

by Dan Phillips

We note with great sadness the passing of Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk. Our prayers are with his family and many friends who are grieving and sorrowful—yet not without hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13). "And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son" (1 John 5:11).         —Dan, Frank, and Phil

Next Paul offers what I call, perhaps not originally, a prayer-wish: "grace to you, and peace, from God our Father" (Colossians 1:2b). Paul's letters glitter with a number of such prayer-wishes, which are not straight-up addresses to God (prayers), but are perhaps a species of benediction. Paul implicitly calls on God to grant spiritual graces to the Colossian believers.

The gifts

First, Paul pray-wishes them grace. Christians have struggled for centuries to capture the meaning of grace. I find it helpful to identify some of the distinct facets of this sparkling jewel.

One facet is common grace. God shows this to all people without exception (cf. Luke 6:35). Common grace is free and unmerited; in fact (as is all grace, by definition) it is actually counter-merited. Since Adam everybody's life is forfeit, and there is no such thing as "deserved grace." Every breath is a literal gift; every bite of food, gulp of air, and swallow of water comes from God's common grace.

Another facet is saving grace. We see this in many passages, chief among them being Romans 3:24 and Ephesians 2:8-9.

...being declared righteous as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:24)

For by grace do you stand saved through faith — and this does not originate from you, the gift is God's; not originating from works, that one might not boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)

In a way, however, saving grace is not strictly "free." Oh, it is free to us. We contribute absolutely nothing to it except the sin from which we need to be saved, plus suicidal attitudes ranging from total disinterest to violent hostility — until this grace begins to work in our hearts to transform us and give us life. Free to us... but not free. Every last bit of it was paid for in full. The one who paid for it was the Lord Jesus Christ, living a perfectly righteous and holy life, and dying as a penal, substitutionary sacrifice for sinners.

Finally, there is what you might call serving grace, or living grace. This is God's free and continual self-giving into our lives, which in turn motivates and enables us to give to Him and others. A clear and dynamic statement is found in 1 Corinthians 15:10 — "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace towards me did not turn out empty, but more abundantly than all of them I labored; well, not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

Maybe the best imperfect analogy to this is the way a father might give his kids money with which to buy Mom a Mother's Day or birthday present.

Paul accepted their professions of faith as genuine, so he is not wishing saving grace to them. Rather, he is prayer-wishing them grace from God to endure, stand fast, serve and grow.

(For an instructive/corrective post dealing with misrepresentations of grace, see Grace: eighteen affirmations and denials.)

Second, Paul pray-wishes them peace. Note Isaiah 48:22; 57:21

"There is no peace," says the LORD, "for the wicked." (48:22 ESV)

"There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked." (57:21 ESV)

We must remind ourselves that "wicked" describes all mankind — us! — by nature. We must recall that we are not born either loving God, or neutral to God. We are born God-averse; we are born His enemies. So "peace" is not the legacy of all men without exception; it is in fact the legacy of no natural son of Adam, without exception.

According, something drastic must be done to make peaceful relations possible, to call off the war in a way that satisfies God's holiness as well as His mercy.

There are multiple aspects to the peace that God accomplishes and gives. First, there is peace with God. This is fundamental. Without it, nothing but warfare and wrath follows. We find this peace referenced, for instance, in Romans 5:1 and Colossians 1:20. Men are reconciled to God through Christ due to His work on the Cross. For believers, hostilities have ceased, and we are entitled to good relations with Him.

Second, there is the peace of God (Isaiah 26:3; Philippians 6-7). We enjoy the full benefit of good relations with God, with the peace of mind and confidence that accompany being in good with God. This is the peace that Paul pray-wishes the Colossians.

The Giver

The one who will bestow these gifts is "God our Father." This is an important point. The value of a gift is determined in large measure by the worth of its giver. How much a gift means to me depends on how much the giver means to me. If it is a non-material gift, the whole value depends on the giver's worth and power.

With God, the Giver's worth and power are literally infinite. There simply is no being of greater worth than God. All creation centers about Him, and owes Him thanks and praise. Further, what God gives has punch, for His grace saves and equips, and His peace keeps and satisfies

Note Paul's specificity. God is not the Father of all men without exception (unless all you mean by that is that He is their Creator and Judge). Here is how God becomes men's Father:

1. By conversion (John 1:12)
2. By regeneration (John 1:13)
3. By legal adoption (Ephesians 1:5)

Once again, note that (as in all the NT), the wonderful spiritual benefits of which Paul speaks are God's bequest specifically for converts to Christ. If you have trusted in Christ, God is your Father. Your human father may have mistreated you, or deserted you, or have died and left you. Your heavenly Father is literally incapable of mistreating you, He has unswervingly promised always to love and accept you, and death will only come to bring you into His immediate presence.

The issue, then, is this: is God our heavenly Father, on His terms?

[Note: except as noted, all translations in this article are mine]

---

Be Strong

by Phil Johnson

Series Guide (This post is part of a series, taken from the transcript of a message on 1 Corinthians 16:13 given at the 2010 Shepherds' Conference.) Intro: "The church militant?" 1. "Watch Out" 2. "Stand Firm" 3. "Man Up" 4. "Be Strong"

"Be strong" (1 Corinthians 16:13)

t's not enough just to be bold; Christian soldiers need to be strong in order to withstand both opposition and persecution. If you are going to enter the battle in earnest, you will need to be able to endure antagonism, derision, controversy, contempt, and abuse of every kind. It will come from the intelligentsia and the dregs of society alike. Worldly governments, the common people, and the academic elite of this world will conspire together to oppose us, just as they did our Lord.

Jesus himself said (John 15:18-20), "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you."

First Timothy 3:12-13: "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived."

If you're faithful, you will be persecuted, and in this worldly realm, you can pretty much count on one thing: those who persecute you will go from bad to worse. Things are not getting better in the world. That's why we have to stay on guard.

You need strength to stand in the battle. Paul is not talking about physical strength. Again, "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh." This is still talking about character, so this is a command to cultivate strength of character—integrity combined with unflagging persistence. You have must that in order to triumph in the battle Christ calls us to fight.

Christ Himself supplies that strength through His Holy Spirit to those who obey Him faithfully. In the words of Colossians 1:11, We are "strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy." Philippians 4:13: "I can do all things through [Christ] who strengthens me." Therefore "Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might." That is a command; not an option. It is what God demands of all believers, and especially the shepherds of His flock.

Now let me quickly in closing call your attention to verse 14, because this is the vital closing punctuation to everything we have been talking about: Verse 14: "Let all that you do be done in love." That's an echo and a summary of 1 Corinthians 13, where Paul gave them an extended discourse on the qualities of love.

Now lots of people are tempted to read verse 14 as if it nullified everything we have just said about verse 13. It doesn't. Jesus fulfilled every quality outlined in verse 13 to the uttermost (and if you don't believe me, read John MacArthur's exposition of Jesus' dealings with the Pharisees in The Jesus You Can't Ignore.) Love doesn't nullify any of the commands of verse 13; but it does define what should be in our hearts—and what our motive should be—as we wage this relentless fight against the ideological strongholds of Satan.

We're not supposed to be pugnacious. We don't relish conflict for conflict's sake. In 2 Timothy 2:23-26, We're commanded to "have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil."

But let's also be aware also that not every point that comes under dispute is petty and trifling. Not every debate is a foolish, ignorant controversy. The same apostle who wrote 2 Timothy 2:24 also said in Titus 1 that "there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers . . . whose mouths must be stopped." Being gentle and patient doesn't mean yielding ground to the purveyors of false doctrine. There are, even today, "many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers . . . whose mouths must be stopped"—and some of them are authors of bestselling books put out by supposedly evangelical publishers.

It is not "unloving" to recognize that fact and point it out when necessary.

But we live in a culture that has lowered the tolerance level for that kind of discourse to practically zero—in the name of a false and phony standard of charity and gentleness. In the past ten years alone, every fundamental doctrine I can think of has been placed on the table for debate within the evangelical movement. These are not mere trifles, and yet there is such a paranoia about being too militant (perhaps an excessive fear that we might fall into a fighting-fundamentalist spirit) that it shocks us nowadays when anyone does rise up in defense of some truth.

One of the favorite slogans of our age is, "Let's just agree to disagree"—and then virtually every point of truth is blithely set aside as trivial and unnecessary. That mentality—a refusal to fight for the truth—has done horrific damage to our churches and to the evangelical movement. It is not loving at all.

"Let's just agree to disagree."

Well, no. How about we just argue until one of us actually refutes the other and we come to a common understanding of God's Word? How is that "unloving"?

I'm not pleading for a constant spirit of contention. But the fact is that evangelicals currently have a lot of housecleaning that desperately needs to be done, and a lot of enemies who need to be chased from our camp. Truth has too been often set aside in the name of charity and unity. Genuine love starts with a love for the truth.

On the other hand, throwing truth under the bus is not charitable at all. Moreover, it doesn't promote genuine unity. Witness the ongoing meltdown of Emergent religion if you want proof of that. Authentic unity is when we agree and we all say the same thing—and that can't possibly happen if the people of God and the God-ordained leaders of the church refuse to use the Sword of the Spirit to demolish the ideological strongholds of Satan.

We need to remember that the whole point of tearing down those strongholds is the liberation of people who are held in bondage by them, and therefore everything we do—watching, standing firm, showing manly courage and determination, and drawing on the Lord's strength—all of it should be done in love. It is, after all, the love of Christ that sought us and called us and compelled us to enter the battle alongside Him in the first place. The love of Christ constrains us—to "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong."

---

What the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ means to me (CHS)

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 an early sermon, "The Resurrection of the Dead," preached Sunday morning, 17 February 1856, at the New Park Street Chapel, Southwark, within two years of the start of Spurgeon's London ministry.



here are very few Christians who believe the resurrection of the dead. You may be surprised to hear that, but I should not wonder if I discovered that you yourself have doubts on the subject.

By the resurrection of the dead is meant something very different from the immortality of the soul: that, every Christian believes, and therein is only on a level with the heathen, who believes it too. The light of nature is sufficient to tell us that the soul is immortal, so that the infidel who doubts it is a worse fool even than a heathen, for he, before Revelation was given, had discovered it—there are some faint glimmerings in men of reason which teach that the soul is something so wonderful that it must endure for ever.

But the resurrection of the dead is quite another doctrine, dealing not with the soul, but with the body. The doctrine is that this actual body in which I now exist is to live with my soul; that not only is the "vital spark of heavenly flame" to burn in heaven, but the very censer in which the incense of my life doth smoke is holy unto the Lord, and is to be preserved for ever.

The spirit, every one confesses, is eternal; but how many there are who deny that the bodies of men will actually start up from their graves at the great day! Many of you believe you will have a body in heaven, but you think it will be an airy fantastic body, instead of believing that it will be a body like to this—flesh and blood (although not the same kind of flesh, for all flesh is not the same flesh), a solid, substantial body, even such as we have here.

And there are yet fewer of you who believe that the wicked will have bodies in hell; for it is gaining ground everywhere that there are to be no positive torments for the damned in hell to affect their bodies, but that it is to be metaphorical fire, metaphorical brimstone, metaphorical chains, metaphorical torture.

But if ye were Christians as ye profess to be, ye would believe that every mortal man who ever existed shall not only live by the immortality of his soul, but his body shall live again, that the very flesh in which he now walks the earth is as eternal as the soul, and shall exist for ever.

That is the peculiar doctrine of Christianity. The heathens never guessed or imagined such a thing; and consequently when Paul spoke of the resurrection of the dead, "Some mocked," which proves that they understood him to speak of the resurrection of the body, for they would not have mocked had he only spoken of the immortality of the soul, that having been already proclaimed by Plato and Socrates, and received with reverence.

---

What the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ means to me

by Frank Turk

I press on to make the resurrection my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. I don’t consider that I can take it by my own power. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. For me, His resurrection is hope for what I cannot do for myself, but which will bring me the greatest joy in spite of both my failings and my successes. That will be a great day.

---

What the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ means to me (DJP)

by Dan Phillips

The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the lynch-pin of everything I believe and hope, everything on which I build my life. No isolated event, it was framed by centuries of increasingly specific prophecy and types, capped with the indisputably miraculous life of Jesus Christ. It means what He said it would mean. It is the vindication of His claim to be the way, the truth and the life. It is how I know that I am forgiven, reconciled, counted righteous, and assured of Heaven through repentant faith alone. It is that without which there is nothing, to me.

---

What the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ means to me (PJ)

by Phil Johnson

hat adjective is what amazes me most: bodily. It's the very thing that made the gospel message so revolutionary in the first century. Not just life after death, but the idea of real, physical existence in these very bodies, albeit glorified.

Even the pagans in Paul's time had some concept of life after death. In Greek mythology it was Elysium, a spiritual state of perfect bliss. To them (as well as the gnostics) the body was hopelessly corrupt and irredeemable. The resurrection of the body was a grotesque and foolish idea. Their only thought of life after death was some kind of disembodied existence on an ethereal, spiritual plane. The idea of physical resurrection was unthinkable. That's why Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill ended so abruptly (Acts 17:32).

But Christ was raised bodily, glorified so that His human frame was perfectly suited for both heaven and earth. His body could be seen, and touched (Luke 24:39; John 20:27; 1 John 1:1). He ate food (Luke 24:42-43) and walked and talked as He had before the crucifixion. At this very moment, he sits on the Father's right hand in that same body—making intercession for the saints, including me.

More amazing than all of that, I will one day have a body like His: able to traverse heaven and earth, immortal, yet familiar in its physical form. In fact, it will be this very body, thoroughly healed of all its infirmities and imperfections. That amazes me and thrills me at least as much as it shocked and offended those philosophers in Greece.

---

Programming note: Good Friday

by Dan Phillips

Tomorrow, on Good Friday, we have a little something lined up.

Phil, Frank, and yr obdt svt, will each be posting briefly (100 words or less) on the exact same topic.

That's the plan. See you then!

---

The atheist "I-have-honest-questions" dodge (NEXT! #21)

by Dan Phillips

Challenge: You're a Christian? Oho. So give me a convincing argument as to why God...?

Response A: I'll be happy to respond, but please answer mine first. How do you convince someone to accept a true, accurate and sufficient answer that he is unwilling to accept?


Response B: I'll be happy to, but please answer mine first. How does one persuade an arrogant blowhard who is unwilling to acknowledge his own biases, presuppositions and errors, and who is unwilling to answer even this question directly, to accept even a completely true and irrefutable answer that he refuses to accept? 

NEXT!

(Proverbs 21:22)

---