03 August 2012

A Brief (?) Biography of Charles Spurgeon

This Friday, to commemorate the stellar contributions to internet apologetics and punditry made by our founder and benefactor, Phil Johnson, the unpaid and overworked staff at TeamPyro is posting a "best of Phil" post to give your weekend that necessary kick.

This excerpt is from the original PyroManiac blog in August 2005.  Phil provided us with a relkatively-brief biography of Charles Spurgeon, and in the process extolled the virtues of a godly upbringing.


As usual, the comments are closed.

It is well known that Charles Spurgeon came to Christ when he ducked into a small church to escape a snowstorm and heard the gospel proclaimed. Some wrongly think Spurgeon was thus suddenly converted to Christ out of a life of sheer paganism. Spurgeon himself used to talk about how he had suffered for a long time under the weight of sin before he finally found Christ. Because of the way he described himself as a great sinner utterly in debt to divine grace, many who heard him preach came away with the impression that he was a man who had gone deeply into sin and come to Christ fairly late in life.

But the facts are that Charles Spurgeon was converted to Christ while still in his youth, and he was the product of godly upbringing in a pastor's home. Spurgeon's two main role models, his father and his grandfather, both were godly pastors.

Spurgeon was raised in his grandfather's home from his infancy until he was nearly six years old. Something, possibly economic difficulties, made it necessary for Charles to live with his paternal grandparents, in a village near the one where his parents lived, from the time he was nearly two years old until he was ready to start elementary school. Charles Spurgeon was his grandfather's constant companion, both in the pastor's study and when the elder Spurgeon made pastoral visits. Young Charles loved his grandfather's books. He was a prodigy when it came to reading, and he developed a love for books very early. He especially loved Pilgrim's Progress.

By the time Spurgeon returned to his parents' home at age six, he already had three younger siblings, two sisters and a brother. He seemed already to feel very deeply his responsibility as the elder brother to influence them for good. That perspective, which was surely part of his grandfather's pastoral legacy, made him mature beyond his years. And this was a persistent trait of Charles Spurgeon's. As a young boy, even before he was a teenager, his hobbies were writing poetry and editing a magazine. Even then he was honing the literary skills that would make him legendary both as a preacher and an author.

You can look at Spurgeon in any stage of his development and what you will see is someone who was wise beyond his years, with an exceptionally mature outlook on life. Even Spurgeon himself made reference to this. When he was 40 years old he lectured a group of young men, and he said in that lecture that he was already an old man at age 40. He told them,

I might have been a young man at twelve, but at sixteen I was a sober, respectable Baptist parson, sitting in the chair and ruling and governing the church. At that period of my life, when I ought perhaps to have been in the playground, developing my legs and sinews, which no doubt would have kept me from the gout now, I spent my time at my books, studying and working hard, sticking to it, very much to the pleasure of my schoolmaster. [W.Y. Fullerton, Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 21.]

At age 6, when Spurgeon returned to his parents' home, he entered school for the first time. With his ability to read and his love for books, his teachers immediately recognized him as a gifted student, and he excelled from the beginning. He was ahead of his classmates from the start, even though he was a late-comer to school. (There was only one time in his school career when his grades began to fail and his performance wasn't what it ought to be. The teacher was shocked, because Spurgeon was her best student. Then it occurred to this teacher that the top student's place was away from the fire and next to a drafty door. He realized that Spurgeon was actually doing poorly in school work on purpose because he didn't want the best seat. After all, it was the most uncomfortable. So the teacher reorganized the seating arrangements, and Spurgeon's academic performance rebounded. He never failed again.)

When Spurgeon was about 14, he and his brother James went to school in Maidstone, where Spurgeon's uncle was one of the teachers. It was there, as a very young teenager in a conversation with the school staff, that Charles was first exposed to the Baptist view on baptism. (Spurgeon's grandfather was a congregationalist who practiced infant baptism, and that was all that Spurgeon had ever known.) An Anglican school was an unlikely place for anyone with a congregational heritage to embrace Baptist beliefs. But Spurgeon, even at that young age, felt compelled to study the issue from Scripture and make up his own mind. As he did so, he found the Baptist position unassailable. So he made up his mind at age 14 that if he ever experienced conversion, he would be baptized. Such was the seriousness of his interest in spiritual things, even before his conversion.

When Charles was about 10 or 11 years old, he began to be deeply convicted about his sin. He was convinced that he had no saving knowledge of Christ. So he set out on a quest for salvation that lasted about 5 years. This was an agonizing time of life for Spurgeon, because he already viewed spiritual matters with far more seriousness than any other boy his age. The knowledge that he himself was not a true Christian was something that weighed more heavily on him than language can express. It became a burden he carried around continually.

W. Y. Fullerton, one of Spurgeon's biographers and a close friend in Spurgeon's adult years, wrote this about those years of Spurgeon's searching for salvation:

Into those years was crowded a world of experience which enabled him in his subsequent ministry to probe the secrets of many hearts. He learned more of the things that matter in those years than most men learn in a lifetime.

That one so young, so sheltered, trained from his babyhood in the ways of God, could have felt so much and have had such exercises of soul may seem impossible, his own account of his darkness and despair may appear exaggerated; but those who are versed in the ways of God will understand [Ibid., 23].

Spurgeon's own account of his struggle to find salvation does indeed leave us marveling that such a boy could feel his own sin so deeply. After all, he grew up in a godly family, in a pastor's home; he had never committed any sort of scandalous sin (probably the most serious sin he had ever fallen into was a lie); and yet the burden of his sin weighed so heavily on him that he was brought to the brink of utter despair by it.

Here's what Spurgeon himself wrote about those dark days of conviction:

When I was in the hand of the Holy Spirit, under conviction of sin, I had a clear and sharp sense of the justice of God. Sin, whatever it might be to other people, became to me an intolerable burden. It was not so much that I feared hell, as that I feared sin; and all the while, I had upon my mind a deep concern for the honour of God's name, and the integrity of His moral government. I felt that it would not satisfy my conscience if I could be forgiven unjustly. But then there came the question,—"How could God be just, and yet justify me who had been so guilty?" I was worried and wearied with this question; neither could I see any answer to it. Certainly, I could never have invented an answer which would have satisfied my conscience . . .. I had heard of the plan of salvation by the sacrifice of Jesus from my youth up but I did not know any more about it in my innermost soul than if I had been born and bred a Hottentot. The light was there, but I was blind: it was of necessity that the Lord Himself should make the matter plain to me. [C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography 4 vols. (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1897), 1:98.]

Notice the poetic way Spurgeon describes the sense of guilt he felt. Remember, he's talking about himself as a boy. He was a young teenager at the time he is describing—perhaps not even in his teens yet. (The whole period of his conviction lasted from age 11 until he was 16.) He further writes:

There was a day, as I took my walks abroad, when I came hard by a spot for ever engraven upon my memory, for there I saw this Friend, my best, my only Friend, murdered. I stooped down in sad affright, and looked at Him. I saw that His hands had been pierced with rough iron nails, and His feet had been rent in the same way. There was misery in His dead countenance so terrible that I scarcely dared to look upon it. His body was emaciated with hunger, His back was red with bloody scourges, and His brow had a circle of wounds about it: clearly could one see that these had been pierced by thorns. I shuddered, for I had known this Friend full well. He never had a fault; He was the purest of the pure, the holiest of the holy. Who could have injured Him? For He never injured any man: all His life long He "went about doing good;" He had healed the sick, He had fed the hungry, He had raised the dead: for which of these works did they kill Him? He had never breathed out anything else but love; and as I looked into the poor sorrowful face, so full of agony, and yet so full of love, I wondered who could have been a wretch so vile as to pierce hands like His. I said within myself, "Where can these traitors live? Who are these that could have smitten such an One as this? Had they murdered an oppressor, we might have forgiven them; had they slain one who had indulged in vice or villainy, it might have been his desert; had it been a murderer and a rebel, or one who had committed sedition, we would have said, "Bury his corpse: justice has at last given him his due." But when Thou wast slain, my best, my only-beloved, where lodged the traitors? Let me seize them, and they shall be put to death. If there be torments that I can devise, surely they shall endure them all. Oh! what jealousy; what revenge I felt! If I might but find these murderers, what would I not do with them! And as I looked upon that corpse, I heard a footstep, and wondered where it was. I listened, and I clearly perceived that the murderer was close at hand. It was dark, and I groped about to find him. I found that, somehow or other, wherever I put out my hand, I could not meet with him, for he was nearer to me than my hand would go. At last I put my hand upon my breast. "I have thee now," said I; for lo! he was in my own heart; the murderer was hiding within my own bosom, dwelling in the recesses of my inmost soul. Ah! then I wept indeed, that I, in the very presence of my murdered Master, should be harbouring the murderer; and I felt myself most guilty while I bowed over His corpse . . .. [Ibid., 99-100.]

That, of course, was written by Spurgeon in his adult years, so it represents his mature way of describing how he felt as a child. But it is clear that even as an 11- or 12-year-old child, he was carrying around a sense of personal guilt that was unusually intense. The guilt was so profound that for 5 years it colored all his thinking. He never could get his thoughts completely away from the sense that he was a sinner, that he was guilty, and that he deserved hell.

Spurgeon's mother was the one whose influence first awakened him to the claims of Christ on his life. Her exhortations to her children, as well as her prayers on their behalf, made an indelible impact on Charles as a young boy.

Spurgeon's father played a somewhat lesser role in the children's spiritual instruction. He was a pastor and a godly man. He himself admitted that his wife more than he was responsible for the children's spiritual instruction. In fact, he used to recount an incident that occurred when he was on his way to some preaching engagement. (His ministry had an itinerant aspect that often took him out of the home.) On this particular occasion he became convicted that he was caring for other people and their spiritual needs, but neglecting his own family and his own children. He went back home. When he got home, upon entering the house quietly, he heard Mrs. Spurgeon in another room, praying for her children's conversion. John Spurgeon says he decided that his children's spiritual welfare was in good hands, and he returned to his preaching engagement.

It would be wrong to conclude, however, that John Spurgeon was inattentive or a compassionless father. He was devoted to his children. He was involved in their lives. Fullerton records a touching story about the father-son relationship:

When the boy returned home from his grandfather's house, he greatly scandalised the congregation on Sunday by singing the last line of each verse twice. His father took him to task, but he said that his grandfather did it, and he would do it too. So his father told him that if he did it again he would give him a whipping that he would remember as long as he lived. Sunday came, and again the boy sang the last lines twice. It must have been amusing, for he had no singing voice. After the service his father asked him if he remembered what he had said. The boy remembered. Father and son then walked into the wood, passing a wheat field on the way, the father trying to win his son to repentance. There they kneeled and prayed together, and both were greatly moved. Turning back to the wheat field, the father plucked a stalk of wheat, and told Charles to hold out his hand. The wheat stalk was laid gently across it. "I told you I would give you a whipping you would never forget. You will never forget that," said his father. The gentle sternness of the punishment broke him down and won him over, and he never forgot it [Fullerton, 25-26].

Spurgeon's father, obviously, was a man who deeply loved Christ. His great compassion and tenderness left an indelible impression on young Charles's life. Spurgeon's father, his grandfather, and above all his mother, were therefore strong influences on him spiritually.

On Sunday evenings, Mrs. Spurgeon would gather the children together around the table for Scripture reading and prayer. Spurgeon said she used to pray like this: "Now Lord, if my children go on in their sins, it will not be from ignorance that they perish. My soul must bear swift witness against them at the day of judgment if they lay not hold of Christ." Spurgeon said the thought of his own mother's bearing witness against him at the judgment seat of Christ pierced his conscience.

Because of such influences, Charles began to develop a keen sense of his own guilt by the time he was 10 or 11. The thing that burdened him so much was a clear understanding that he was guilty in God's sight. He didn't have the limited perspective so many children have—grieving only because they have offended their parents. Spurgeon very seriously seemed to realize, even at a young age, that all his sins were an affront against God Himself.

He also seems not to have suffered from that common human failure most of us have, comparing ourselves with one another and convincing ourselves that we're all right after all, because we're so much better than this or that person. Spurgeon knew better than to do that. He wrote this:

I could not believe that it was possible that my sins could be forgiven. I do not know why, but I seemed to be the odd person in the world. When the catalogue was made out, it appeared to me that, for some reason, I must have been left out. If God had saved me, and not the world, I should have wondered indeed; but if He had saved all the world except me, that would have seemed to me to be but right. And now, being saved by grace, I cannot help saying, "I am indeed a brand plucked out of the fire!" [Spurgeon, 103.]

Spurgeon's unique perspective explains why he regarded himself as one of those "who were kept by God a long time before we found him" [Ibid.]. In his mind, those years of carrying the burden of his sin must have seemed like an eternity. Remember, he was brought up in a pastor's home in a godly environment from his infancy. He never seems to have succumbed to any sort of vile or gross behavior. He never engaged in any reputation-destroying sins. No scandalous sins appear anywhere in any account of in his life. He was converted at a fairly young age, 16. Yet he kept in his heart until the day he died a very strong sense that he was nothing but a horrible sinner. He never thought of himself as better than anyone. For the rest of his life he retained the fresh memory of that burden of guilt he had carried. And for that reason, he felt a close kinship to people converted to Christ after a long time in the depths of sin.

He wrote,

I love that picture of dear old Christian [in Pilgrim's Progress]. I know, when I first read The Pilgrim's Progress, and saw in it the woodcut of Christian carrying the burden on his back, I felt so interested in the poor fellow, that I thought I should jump with joy when, after he had carried his heavy load so long, he at last got rid of it; and that was how I felt when the burden of guilt, which I had borne so long, was for ever rolled away from my shoulders and my heart [Ibid.].

During those years of conviction, Spurgeon was exposed to a lot of preaching about the law and guilt and sin, and all of this only intensified his woes. He records that some of the books that he read during this time included books like, Philip Doddridge's The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul, Richard Baxter's A Call to the Unconverted, Joseph Alllein's Alarm to Sinners, and John Angel James' book called The Anxious Inquirer. All of those books are written to convict over-confident people. Spurgeon said it was like sitting at the foot of Sinai. Fullerton adds this: "He read the Bible through, but found that its threatenings seemed to be printed in capitals and its promises in small type. With perverse ingenuity . . . he twisted everything to his own hurt, applying the cheering words to others and the woeful words to himself" [Fullerton, 27].

Spurgeon later wrote this about the turmoil that he experienced:

Day and night God's hand was heavy on me. If I slept a night I dreamed of the bottomless pit, and when I awoke I seemed to feel the misery I had dreamed. Up to God's house I went; my song was but a sigh. To my chamber I retired, and there, with tears and groans, I offered up my prayer without a hope and without a refuge, for God's law was flogging me with its ten-thonged whip and then rubbing me with brine afterwards, so that I did shake and quiver with pain and anguish [Ibid., 27].

In another place, Spurgeon likened all this preaching of the law to someone who was actually plowing the same ground over and over again, "with a team of ten black horses"—the Ten Commandments.

During those years of conviction no one who knew Spurgeon seemed aware of his inner turmoil. He turned it all inward. Fullerton wrote,

It must not be supposed that the lad became morbid during those years. He lived two lives, one keen, natural, bookish, observant; the other absorbed, fearful, doubting, insurgent. If he had spoken of his trouble, there were those round him who could, perhaps, have helped him out of it; but he battled alone, hiding his thoughts from them all, save once when he spoke to his grandfather of his fear of being a lost soul, and was somewhat comforted for a while. He would not believe because others believed; he must have an assurance of his own; he would not rest until he knew [Ibid., 26.].

Normally, people struggling with this sort of burden will talk to others and desperately reach out for comfort and assurance, and they want to feed off the verbal reassurances people invariably offer. The counselor's encouragement and comfort may last for a while, but because the issue isn't really settled in the sinner's own heart, he or she will go back to doubting. It can be very frustrating to counsel people with that perspective on their own sins.

SpurgeonBut Spurgeon knew better. He didn't feed off the assurance and encouragement that others could give him. He realized his business was with God, and he kept it between him and God. There's no doubt that it would have been good for Spurgeon to seek counsel from his grandparents, from his parents, or from other mature believers around him. They might have at least helped him bear the burden and certainly would have prayed diligently for him. But he didn't seek that kind of help.

He describes what happened in those dark days of conviction:

While under concern of soul, I resolved that I would attend all the places of worship in the town where I lived, in order that I might find out the way of salvation. I was willing to do anything, and be anything, if God would only forgive my sin. I set off, determined to go round to all the chapels, and I did go to every place of worship; but for a long time I went in vain. I do not, however, blame the ministers. One man preached Divine Sovereignty; I could hear him with pleasure, but what was that sublime truth to a poor sinner who wished to know what he must do to be saved? There was another admirable man who always preached about the law; but what was the use of ploughing up ground that needed to be sown? Another was a practical preacher. I heard him, but it was very much like a commanding officer teaching the manoeuvres of war to a set of men without feet. What could I do? All his exhortations were lost on me. I knew it, was said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved;" but I did not know what it was to believe on Christ. These good men all preached truths suited to many in their congregations who were spiritually-minded people; but what I wanted to know was,—"How can I get my sins forgiven?"—and they never told me that. I desired to hear how a poor sinner, under a sense of sin, might find peace with God; and when I went, I heard a sermon on "Be not deceived, God is not mocked," which cut me up still worse; but did not bring me into rest. I went again, another day, and the text was something about the glories of the righteous; nothing for poor me! I was like a dog under the table, not allowed to eat of the children's food. I went time after time, and I can honestly say that I do not know that I ever went without prayer to God, and I am sure there was not a more attentive hearer than myself in all the place, for I panted and longed to understand how I might be saved [Spurgeon, 104-105].

SpurgeonSpurgeon's experience later helped shape his ministry. He remembered his frustration in wanting to hear the gospel but never hearing anything but law preached. That is why there is such a strong evangelistic thrust in almost every sermon Spurgeon ever preached. He almost never stood up in the pulpit without clearly giving the way of salvation and calling sinners to Christ.

Ultimately, Spurgeon's conversion came through the most unlikely circumstances. One Sunday morning, while Spurgeon was in this phase of sampling various churches, a terrible snowstorm virtually shut down the little town of Colchester. Spurgeon was home from his boarding school for Christmas holidays. The date can be determined with absolute precision. It was Sunday, January 6, 1850. The snowstorm started early in the morning. Spurgeon had gotten up early in the morning because he had plans to go to a particular chapel on the other side of town. But just as Spurgeon began to make his way to church, the snowstorm grew worse.

Spurgeon himself recounted what happened:

I sometimes think I might have been in darkness and despair until now had it not been for the goodness of God in sending a snowstorm, one Sunday morning, while I was going to a certain place of worship. When I could go no further, I turned down a side street, and came to a little Primitive Methodist Chapel. In that chapel there may have been a dozen or fifteen people. I had heard of the Primitive Methodists, how they sang so loudly that they made people's heads ache; but that did not matter to me. I wanted to know how I might be saved, and if they could tell me that, I did not care how much they made my head ache. The minister did not come that morning; he was snowed up, I suppose. At last, a very thin-looking man,* a shoemaker, or tailor, or something of that sort, went up into the pulpit to preach. Now, it is well that preachers should be instructed; but this man was really stupid. He was obliged to stick to his text, for the simple reason that he had little else to say. The text was,—

"LOOK UNTO ME, AND BE YE SAVED, ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH."

He did not even pronounce the words rightly, but that did not matter. There was, I thought, a glimpse of hope for me in that text. The preacher began thus—"My dear friends, this is a very simple text indeed. It says, 'Look.' Now lookin' don't take a deal of pains. It ain't liftin' your foot or your finger; it is just, 'Look.' Well, a man needn't go to College to learn to look. You may be the biggest fool, and yet you can look. A man needn't be worth a thousand a year to be able to look. Anyone can look; even a child can look. But then the text says, 'Look unto Me.' Ay!" said he, in broad Essex, "many on ye are lookin' to yourselves, but it's no use lookin' there. You'll never find any comfort in yourselves. Some look to God the Father. No, look to Him by-and-by. Jesus Christ says, 'Look unto Me.' Some on ye say, 'We must wait for the Spirit's workin'.' You have no business with that just now. Look to Christ. The text says, 'Look unto Me.'" Then the good man followed up his text in this way:—"Look unto Me; I am sweatin' great drops of blood. Look unto Me; I am hangin' on the cross. Look unto Me; I am dead and buried. Look unto Me; I rise again. Look unto Me; I ascend to Heaven. Look unto Me; I am sittin' at the Father's right hand. O poor sinner, look unto Me! look unto Me! When he had gone to about that length, and managed to spin out ten minutes or so, he was at the end of his tether. Then he looked at me under the gallery, and I daresay, with so few present, he knew me to be a stranger. Just fixing his eyes on me, as if he knew all my heart, he said, "Young man, you look very miserable." Well, I did; but I had not been accustomed to have remarks made from the pulpit on my personal appearance before. However, it was a good blow, struck right home. He continued, "and you always will be miserable—miserable in life, and miserable in death,—if you don't obey my text; but if you obey now, this moment, you will be saved." Then, lifting up his hands, he shouted, as only a Primitive Methodist could do, "Young man, look to Jesus Christ. Look! Look! Look! You have nothin' to do but to look and live." I saw at once the way of salvation. I know not what else he said,—I did not take much notice of it,—I was so possessed with that one thought. Like as when the brazen serpent was lifted up, the people only looked and were healed, so it was with me. I had been waiting to do fifty things, but when I heard that word, "Look!" what a charming word it seemed to me! Oh! I looked until I could almost have looked my eyes away. There and then the cloud was gone, the darkness had rolled away, and that moment I saw the sun; and I could have risen that instant, and sung with the most enthusiastic of them, of the precious blood of Christ, and the simple faith which looks alone to Him. Oh, that somebody had told me this before, "Trust Christ, and you shall be saved" [Spurgeon, 105-108.].

Spurgeon began preaching right after his conversion. He was converted in January, 1850. Amazingly, less than five years later he was called to be the pastor of the largest Baptist church in London. So within four years after his conversion, he preached his first sermon as the pastor in the pulpit of the congregation he would shepherd until the day he died. He never attended university or seminary. He seems to have sprung full grown into maturity as a pastor, preacher and a theologian.

But the truth behind Spurgeon's remarkable ministry is that many of the influences that made him what he was were related to his earliest upbringing. They were the influences he gained from a godly home life, under the oversight of godly parents and grandparents.

02 August 2012

Smart and wise ain't synonyms

by Dan Phillips

I really used to be smarter. Too bad you didn't know me then.

Really, I'll come across old sermon notes or study notes, or papers I did in seminary, and... well, the intellectual trajectory is not encouraging. Nostalgic, yes, but...

Let me illustrate. I've often told you that one of the things I love about BibleWorks is its ability to allow instant, limitless documentation on each and every individual verse. So if you have a thought, or you find an essay on the Intrawebs, or you find a sermon or a journal article, you just get the verse, paste, and it's there for you forever. Absolutely amazing.

So I've made notes during my dozens of Bible read-throughs in BW. The day I wrote this post, Luke 15 was part of my morning reading. Here's the note I found on Luke 15:1 in full and unedited, reflecting several readings.

First, I wrote this:
What is interesting about these parables is that Jesus puts the hearers — us — in the place of God the Father in them, asking us to reason from our own feelings to His.  How would you feel if you lost a sheep? What would you do? How would you feel when you found it? And you ladies, if you lost one of your coins...?  And you fathers: picture this.....
Then, on a later reading, I'd written this:
(Wow, was that my thought?  That's deep, for me! Usually I'll credit a source, if I get it somewhere else.  Guess I used to be smart! Dang!)
Then yet another time, I jotted this:
(Still later: no way I came up with that myself)
Can you identify? I've had that experience prepping my sermons in the current series at CBC, preaching over the basic doctrines touched on in our church's Doctrinal Statement. I'll sometimes find a sermon I'd preached on the subject 10 or more years ago and think, "Hey, that's pretty good... I'll use that!"

I don't know how that sounds to you. The feeling I have when I come across those earlier-me gems is that I'm reading something someone else wrote... except that it has my name on it, and I've never been a sermon-plagiarist. So it had to be have been me. Smarter-me.

But here's the other side of that. To this "other side," younger readers will say "Whatever," but the rest of us will moan, "Yeah, no kidding." Here it is:

At the same time I look back and marvel at how intellectually bright I was, I also marvel at how stupid I could be. Decisions, priorities, the way I handled issues of various sizes... just ouch, and groan, and head-shake, and facepalm, and pray.

Am I telling the yowwens not to study hard and learn a lot of facts and information? In no way whatever. I'm just cautioning that there is a lot more to wisdom than the accumulation (and even mastery) of impeccable truths and theories. It involves that, yessir; but it is more than that.

The moral of this story?

"Wise" and "smart" just ain't synonyms. At best, the latter can lead to the former, via a Proverbial path.

In fact, it had darned well better. For everyone's sake.

Dan Phillips's signature

01 August 2012

Our Bad Taste

by Frank Turk

Louis Berkhof says that the Goodness of God is one of three primary moral attributes of God – the other two being God’s Holiness, and God’s Righteousness.  Just to get the smart person quotient satisfied early, here’s specifically what Berkhof says in his Systematic Theology:
We speak of something as good when it answers in all parts to the ideal. Hence in our ascription of goodness to God the fundamental idea is that He is in every way all that He as God should be, and therefore answers perfectly to the ideal expressed in the word "God." He is good in the metaphysical sense of the word, absolute perfection and perfect bliss in Himself.   …

But since God is good in Himself, He is also good for His creatures, and may therefore be called the fountain of all good, and is so represented in a variety of ways throughout the Bible. …

All the good things which the creatures enjoy in the present and expect in the future, flow to them out of this inexhaustible fountain. And not only that, but God is also the highest good for all His creatures, though in different degrees and according to the measure in which they answer to the purpose of their existence. (Systematic Theology, 70)
That’s quite a mouthful.

It’s obvious that Berkhof is working hard to be as precise as possible to make his point as clear as possible, but the Psalmist takes a different approach.  The psalmist here tells us where our hope lies.  And let’s be clear: the Psalmist, in Psalm 34, is hopeful.  The Psalmist is somehow aligned with the Presbyterians who wrote the Westminster Catechism 3000 years later.  When they asked the question, “What is the chief and highest end of man?”  They responded, “Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.”

TASTE AND SEE THAT THE LORD IS GOOD, he proclaims.  He is actually a little more emphatic than that, because the Pslamist doesn’t just say “the Lord” here in proper reverence: he says instead, “TASTE AND SEE THAT JEHOVAH IS GOOD!” “TASTE AND SEE THAT YAH-WEH IS GOOD!”  That is: this is not God-in-Theory. This is not a system of understanding an ineffable and incomprehensible God.  This is the God of Joshua, the God of Moses, and Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and Noah.  This is God who called Samuel by name and gave him explicit instruction to anoint David the King of Israel.  This is God in Person, God in Fact, The God who has a living history of making promises, and keeping them.

And that’s the Psalmist’s trope here: Somehow, we have a God who is as real as a delicious meal.  Somehow, we have to get our mouth ready to receive him.  That’s actually what John Calvin says about this Psalm: “the Psalmist indirectly reproves men for their dullness in not perceiving the goodness of God, which ought to be to them more than a matter of simple knowledge. By the word taste he at once shows that they are without taste; … He, therefore, calls upon them to stir up their senses, and to bring a palate endued with some capacity of tasting, that God’s goodness may become known to them.”

Without overstating it, the Psalmist is saying that God is REAL – and that the primary way we know God is REAL is that He is knowably Good.

This is actually our problem, isn’t it?  This is actually the problem that we as people face all the time.  We have lousy taste.  I’m not talking about the way we dress, or the colors we paint our homes or the way we decorate them, or even the kinds of jokes we tell.  I’m talking about keeping our sensibilities on what God intends for this world.  And when bad things happen – things which are inexplicably bad, things which, let’s face it, one Sunday school lesson cannot possibly explain – our bad taste tends to take over.

We forget the broad ways in which the fact that God is Good which must anchor us.








31 July 2012

Thinking Biblically about church attendance, involvement, and membership

by Dan Phillips

As I continue in the "Thinking Biblically" sermon series, basically shaped after our church's doctrinal statement, we've had what could be called a "sub-series" on the church. It ended up being a trilogy. In the last installment, titled "What Do I Have to Do With Christ's Church?", I focused down as intensely as I could on just that juncture: attendance/involvement/membership.

How absurd is the condition of the confessing evangelical church? Absurd enough that you still have to say it's important actually to go to a local church. Absurd enough that you still have to say it's important actually to be involved in the church you attend, to whatever degree you're able.

My bottom line is: local church attendance and involvement is Biblically a crystal-clear moral imperative; something like membership is a necessity; and formal church membership makes sound Biblical sense, other things being equal.

The first aim in this sermon, of course, was to serve the dear folks whom it's being my great joy to pastor. All of the sermon should have legitimate specific application locally.

Second, just to be candid, my aim was to do what I could to produce a tour de force presenting the Biblical case the best I could in one sermon. Ambitious? You betcha. Out of my reach? Assuredly. But it's my job to reach (cf. Phil. 3:12-14; Col. 1:25, 28). There was so much more to say, but it was such a dense sermon that I actually handed out supplemental sheets listing off all the verses I mentioned, so that no one listening would be frustrated.

I hoped to give something online for Christians and/or pastors to share with those who haven't thought the issue through Biblically. That means I paint with a broad brush, in that larger context. There are some not in CBC who would hear the sermon and have a genuine issue in applying it. But they are relatively few, and they are far fewer than those who imagine they've got a note from Mom excusing them.

In preparing, beyond personal study and reflection and teaching and writing over the decades, some of the online resources from which I profited most were Aaron's open letter to Frank, and the Frank Turk posts to which Aaron referred therein.

Here's one passage from Frank that really struck me. The thoughts made their way into the sermon:
But here's the problem: from the day of Paul and his life after founding all those churches across the ancient world, the church was never perfect. Go back and read this post by me and look at the state of the churches Paul was writing to. The churches Paul founded were frankly not perfect -- they weren't even really very consistent. You know: it's not like 40 years had passed between the time Paul founded the church in Corinth and when they decided that the Lord's table was really a private party and not a public place where sinners demonstrate their unity in Christ, or where they had, apparently, forgotten the Gospel which is of first importance.

And Paul's first letter to Corinth didn't say, "Dudes: flee to the hills -- your pastors and elders are apostates." He said, in effect, "remember the truth of Christ and find unity in truth."
Woo, well-put. (Don't worry about Frank being puffed up by this; he never reads my posts.)

I've received some gracious feedback for the sermon, folks who found it helpful. And so now I offer this to you, hoping it's of help to you, and maybe beyond.

Now I get to figure out how to say everything about angels and demons in one sermon. Woo-tah!

FOR FURTHER READING:
Why you need to be in a church this Sunday.
Thinking like a slave

Dan Phillips's signature


29 July 2012

Why Evil?

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 49, sermon number 2862, "The Way of Wisdom."
 “I am not so much troubled about how evil came into the world as about helping get it out.”

   There are ways of God, in dealing with the human race, which are very perplexing to the judgment of such poor mortals as we are. We try to study a piece of history; and—especially if it is a short piece of history,—it appears to us all tangled and confused. A further research, over a longer period, will often explain what could not be understood in the shorter range of vision; but even history as a whole, from the Creation and the Fall until now, contains many strange puzzles to a man who believes that God is, through it all, working out his own glory, and that a part of his glory will consist in producing the highest amount of good to the greatest number of his creatures.

   What a mass of mysteries meets us on the very threshold of human history. The serpent in the garden,—how and why came it to be there? And the devil in the serpent,—why was there a devil at all? And the evil that made the angel into a devil,—why was that permitted? And all the evil that has been since then,—why has it not been destroyed? We cannot answer any of these queries. The negro’s question to the missionary, “If God is stronger than Satan, why does not he kill him?” is another enquiry which we cannot answer. Depend upon it, if it were, on the whole, best that the devil should be killed, he would be killed; and if it had been, after all, most for God’s glory that there should be no evil, there would have been none. We do not know how and why certain things have happened, and we must be content not to know unless God reveals it to us.

   All through history, God seems to be aiming at a certain mark, yet his arrow does not hit the target so far as you and I can judge. Often, he appears to do as the rifleman does, who knows that, if he sent the ball in a direct line to the target, he would miss it, so he makes allowance for certain deflections which will be caused by the force of attraction, by the wind, and various other opposing influences, and aims accordingly. God often proves that the nearest way to attain his end is to go round about; so, when he means to cleanse a man, he sometimes allows him first to get more foul; when he intends to clothe him, he first strips him naked; when he resolves to enrich him, he first makes him as poor as Lazarus at the rich man’s gate; and, strange to say, when he means to make him alive, he kills him. God’s modes of procedure, then, allow for deflection, and every other kind of influence, and are not to be understood by us. If you take the whole range of history, and look at it carefully, you will be obliged to feel that, if God has been working there, as we are quite sure he has, ordering all things with consummate wisdom, then his pathway through the world is one which no vulture’s eye hath ever seen, and which no lion or lion’s whelp hath ever traveled.


   It may be that some of you are, at the present moment, complaining of a certain providential dealing of God with regard to you, and that you are thinking and saying that it must be an evil providence. Yet it is, all the while, one of the best things that has ever happened to you. That, over which you are now mourning, will give you good cause for singing in a little while. Probably, that tribulation, which fetches most tears from our eyes here, will be among the subjects of our choicest song in the eternal realms of joy. We need not know, and we cannot know, what God is doing, but we may be quite sure that he doeth all things well.


27 July 2012

Today-only: God's Wisdom in Proverbs for 60% off

by Dan Phillips

With budgets so tight, I thought this worth a word: today-only (until midnight), you can get a copy of God's Wisdom in Proverbs for 60% off at the Kress website. That means that, instead of the normal price of $24.99, you would pay only $10.

IN FACT, all of Kress' books are on sale for 60% off, today only.

I thought you'd want to know because a number of you pastors, leaders and teachers have found it useful. This would be great to buy copies for a class, or a late graduation gift, or a going-off-to-college gift. Or others of you whose curiosity has been piqued by reviews and Tweets from readers — taking the leap has just gotten a whole lot less costly.

But remember: only until midnight.

Dan Phillips's signature

Sometimes All Alone

This Friday, to commemorate the stellar contributions to internet apologetics and punditry made by our founder and benefactor, Phil Johnson, the unpaid and overworked staff at TeamPyro is posting a "best of Phil" post to give your weekend that necessary kick.

This excerpt is from the original PyroManiac blog on 28 Oct 2005, on the topic of spiritual warfare.


As usual, the comments are closed.

Have you ever realized that if spiritual warfare is ideological, the most crucial battle you will ever participate in takes place in your own heart? If the goal and the end game of this warfare is to bring "every thought [captive] to the obedience of Christ," that presupposes that my own first order of business must be victory in my own thought life.

I have no control over your thoughts. I can perhaps influence your thinking by proclaiming the truth of God's Word, but my role in that capacity is instrumental only. You can't really be accountable to me for your private thoughts, nor can I be similarly accountable to you. This is a battle you must fight, sometimes all alone. It's lonely, grueling, lengthy, frustrating—and it's the one great battle you can least afford to shirk.

Paul knew that. On occasion, he described the Christian warfare in precisely those terms:

  • Romans 7:22-23: "I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members."
  • Galatians 5:17: "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would."

Paul was describing a struggle in his own heart. He says you can expect to have the same kind of internal conflict. That conflict you feel inside yourself is one of the key skirmishes you must win in the spiritual arena.



26 July 2012

The sovereign God and tragedy

by Dan Phillips

Understandably, whenever there is a terrible tragedy, two equally wrongheaded reactions spring to the fore.

Unbelievers will adduce the tragedy to "prove" the absence of God. Some believers, from a very different motive, will (unintentionally) agree.

The unbeliever, illegitimately robbing concepts of "good" and "evil" from the Bible, sees in tragedy proof that there is no sovereign and loving God. Also horrified by the specific tragedy, some believers will respond by trying to "help" God by making excuses for Him. Without meaning it, they agree with God's haters: God just wasn't there and in charge. That's why it happened.

Candidly, I have no problem understanding that response, on an emotional level. Emotionally, there is comfort in picturing God as doing the best He could, meaning well, but for some reason just not being able to prevent evil. Initially, that is a more comforting view. Initially, any view that says straight up-front that God is God, equally, in boon and bane, and that there is no force that trumps Him, is a harder pill to swallow.

Yet the trade-off in reaching for the quick-fix view of a well-meaning but not-in-charge God is in no way worth it. First, it simply isn't Biblical. Second, there simply is no way to explain why, if this event did not go according to God's plan, any and all subsequent events might not do the same.

On September 11, 2005, I preached a sermon titled God and Our Tragedies, approaching this issue Biblically and pastorally. Have a listen, if you like.

Dan Phillips's signature

25 July 2012

Not Baby Talk

by Frank Turk

One of the first prayers many of us either learned as children, or taught our own children, is a very simple prayer at mealtime: “God is Great, God is Good.  Let us thank him for our Food.  Amen.”  We do this, I suspect, because we want to teach our children to pray – we want them to understand what is being said when we pray so that it’s not just magic, so that prayer for them is not something they can’t understand.  We want them to know that they can talk to God and understand that He is listening.

I think that it’s a good idea.  In some sense, I wish someone was doing that for us at every stage of our lives so that we can somehow remember that God is listening to our prayers.  I’m afraid that what happens is that as we grow in wisdom and stature and knowledge, eventually we become our own reformed-type people, we get to the book of Romans, and we get overwhelmed by the general Greatness of God – so much so that when we get to Romans 8:26 and we hear the apostle tell us that we don’t even know how to pray, we somehow “grow up” past the place where a prayer like “God is Great, God is Good, let us Thank Him,” sounds like baby-talk.  It sounds like something we have grown up past.

But then we have a week this like last week, where the real world intrudes on our systematically-precise faith.  It’s a week where everyone in his right mind has to ask the question: “If this is the state of the world, how can God be even on-duty – let alone be Good?”  I don’t know where you live or work, but this question came up this week as I talked to the people I know.  The events of the world, the real dreadful tragedies of the world, made this a relevant question this week.  And it made writing a Sunday School lesson about the attributes of God a lot less academic than I expected it would be.

We are studying the attributes of God this summer in this class, and there is quite a list of things guys like Tozer and Pink and Berkhof tell us about the qualities of God.

When we consider this God we are talking about from the Bible, we’re talking about the Omnipotent God whose very words speak the created order into being.

He’s the Transcendent God, the Holy God who is utterly unlike us.

He is the Self-existent God and the immutable God who does not need us for anything, and who has no needs to speak of, and who never changes.

He is the Omniscient God who knows everything, and cannot be taught anything – he’s never surprised or somehow set back on his heels so that he has to resort to Plan “B”.

He is an utterly just and righteous God who cannot abide sin and must punish the guilty.

They say that some attributes of God are incommunicable and some are communicable – that is, some are virtues which God alone possesses, and others are traits or virtues which we can emulate even though we will never get them perfectly right.  And they say that all of these attributes, which are somehow distinct, are also not at all discrete – so you can’t really talk about God’s Just character, for example, without talking about His Long-Suffering.  You can’t talk about his Omniscience without talking about this Immutability, and so on.

But in some sense, then, our expectations of God might be to hope that, at best, he ignores us.   Because when we compare ourselves to Him, He might mean a lot of trouble for us.

Asking God for help could be like being the Tin Man asking Oz the Great and Powerful for help –

Me:  um, God?  May I have a new heart please?

GOD: YOU DARE TO COME TO ME FOR A HEART, DO YOU? YOU CLINKING, CLANKING, CLATTERING COLLECTION OF CALIGINOUS JUNK!

And he’d be right to say that to us – or to say nothing at all to us, to simply leave us to our disobedience, to our trouble, to our ultimate destination of whatever it is he might have decided it to be.

So what hope do we have in this world if the only person or authority who can help me that has all power, all knowledge, and who never changes?  Shouldn’t I only expect him to treat me like the not-much-of-nothin’ that I am?

But one attribute, it seems to me, is the category without which God cannot be God.  And it’s the one which we, sadly, somehow see as the preschool attribute of God – the one we hand over to children because they cannot mistake it or break it.  I'm talking about the Goodness of God.

I'll be talking more about it in the coming weeks.









24 July 2012

Forward, Pyromaniacally

by Dan Phillips (improved by Frank Turk)

Howdy, gang.

Since Phil's retirement from regular blogging here, Frank and I have continued as we said we would, and we've been fomenting plans for the future. Now we'll share some with you.

Spurgeon. Our weekly Dose of Spurgeon has been a beloved feature. Phil had some stored up, and we've been drawing from them. But what to do when they run out?

As a suggestion leapt to my mind, Frank readily agreed, and we extended an invitation to Kerry J. Allen to take over the role of posting excerpts from the Prince of Preachers each week. Kerry is pastor of Fox River Baptist Church in Aurora, Illinois. Also, Kerry is an author several times over, most notably working to assemble sermons and sayings from Spurgeon.

Though Frank and I love Spurgeon, we don't have a fraction of the grasp of his preaching and material that Kerry does. Kerry's addition as Spurgeon Editor to Team Pyro will be a great benefit to all of us.

Otherwise. We are not rushing to add an additional member to the team, as indeed there is no rush. This presents an opportunity for you, personally.

A lot of people think this looks easy (like watching Clapton casually toss off a riff), and some of them have thought once or twice, "If I was a PyroManiac ... oh man, I would surely have done it better than that."  If you are one of those people, it's time to screw your courage to the sticking place.

You need to have 600-1200 words on a subject which the normal readership of PyroManiacs will find interesting or compelling.  In spite of Frank's bad example, it must require no proofreading or revisions or editorial guidance.  It needs to have a beginning, middle and end, and it cannot run more than one part -- you're asking for one chance to make one point, not for a recurring part in our epic continuity.

We are making Monday "Guest Pyro for a Day" day, and it will begin when we have enough suitable posts to queue them up and let them run without interruption.

General guidelines:
  1. We prefer that you know who we are — that is, you have read this blog and understand the tone and temperament of its authors and readers.  You do not have to be a carbon copy of us, but you must complement our style and approach in the same way chicken wings complement pizza, or bacon complements... well, everything.  If you haven't been a regular Pyro reader for some time, you really should do some catching up before trying to jump on the merry-go-round.
  2. If we know you, that's a plus. (If it's a plus that we know you, that is.)
  3. Even if we do know you, submit your singing prose to us (no poems, proems, poema, songs, videos, liturgical dance or other practical jokes) with:
    • Your real name
    • Your real e-mail address
    • Your local church (aha!  Gotcha!)
    • Your picture and/or brief bio
    • Your link to your online presence (if applicable)
  4. Send your submission to: GuestPyro, then @iturk, then .com.  We prefer it in MS WORD (.doc or .docx) format, but a simple .txt file as an attachment will also work.
  5. As a British pastor wisely directed a prayer meeting I attended, "Speak up, be concise, be to the point." So once again, posts should range around 600-1200 words.  In English.
  6. You need a thick skin.  Your submission (if accepted) will be read by literally thousands of people, and a lot of them will disagree with you.  We've learned to live with it and still be happy, most of the time. Can you?
  7. You need to be sure you will not lose your job because you blogged once on a high-traffic venue. That sounds like hyperbole, but consider it.  Dan and Frank will not have a job to offer you if your first outing gets you fired.
  8. We happily expect a lot of submissions. Dan's feedback here is, "We will try to respond, but do not expect a response."  Frank's feedback is, "I already have a full-time job, and the purpose of this feature is to make less work for us, not more.  Do not expect a response." If you do not receive a response, please do not email us requesting a response. If you email us requesting a response, do not expect a response to your request for a response. Seeing a pattern here? It's nothing personal — it's utterly pragmatic. Neither of us is paid to blog, both of us have families and very full plates, and that's just the way it is.
There you go. Sound like fun? Could be. Has been for us!

Dan Phillips's signature

22 July 2012

Sour Faces

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the writings and preaching of Charles Spurgeon.  For the last 8 years, the weekly Dose has been lifted from the Spurgeon Archive, thanks to its curator, Phil Johnson.  This week marks a transition from that long and much-loved tradition.

Kerry James Allen is joining us as a staff contributor to the 
PyroManiacs.  Kerry is the curator of Spurgeon.us, and is an authority on the writings of Charles Spurgeon.  Along with the many well-known published sermons and writings of the Prince of Preachers, Kerry has access to previously-unpublished Spurgeon texts which, from time to time, will also appear here.  We are extremely grateful that Kerry is joining us to maintain the weekly Dose of Spurgeon.

 
The following excerpt is from a sermon on Psalm 101:1, preached in Cardiff, on 13 November 1856.
"Beloved, our crusty tempers and sour faces will never be evangelists."

If you are sorrowful, let not the world know it. Sigh unto God. Let your closet be witness to your sighings and tears; but let not the world see them. People naturally dislike to be unhappy; and if they see a Christian always looking melancholy, they say they will have nothing to do with a religion that makes men so miserable. I believe a Christian, who walks through the world miserable and melancholy, dishonours his God. I try to think of this whenever I am depressed. I know it is a very difficult thing to appear happy and cheerful when the heart is heavy and sorrowful. There will be times when you will not be able to do so, that I know full well; still, the Christian ought so to live before the world as far as he can. It is true that your Master wore a sorrowful countenance; but remember that He had your sins upon His shoulders, He was suffering for you. He was sorrowful that you might not be so. He does not wish you to imitate Him in His sorrowfulness.

You are commanded to be joyous.

'Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, rejoice.' 'Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.' Having a melancholy countenance will not recommend your religion. You will not be able to draw young converts to Christ if you frown at them. He who is cheerful and happy in his religion, is the man whom God will use to bring young converts to Himself. Christians can afford to be cheerful and rejoice, seeing their sins are all pardoned. Seek to recommend religion by a happy mode of living, by being always cheerful.




20 July 2012

Is The Gospel a Sufficient Ground for Christian Unity?

by Phil Johnson

"The relentless neo-evangelical campaign to eliminate doctrinal boundaries has caused division rather than true unity. If you want proof of that, just look at all the broken relationships and ill will left in the wake of the recent Elephant Room fiasco." —Phil Johnson

Here's another in our series of reposts and retrospectives from Phil Johnson. This material comes from the transcript of a session taught by Phil at the most recent Shepherds' Conference. A recording of the complete seminar may be downloaded here:

Is Justification Enough?


The message takes a look at the parallel meltdowns of the fundamentalist and evangelical movements, suggesting that both movements failed because they forgot their original distinctives. The current generation is reaping the bitter consequences of that dual failure.

Phil is critical of evangelicalism's quixotic quest for admiration and stature in the secular academic world. He also has harsh words for the profound ignorance of so many fundamentalists regarding the true fundamentals of biblical Christianity. And he decries both movements' preference for showmanship rather than substance.

He also warns that all the current talk about "gospel unity" is wasted breath if we're not actually willing to stand together in defense of the gospel.

Here's a generous excerpt:




"Gospel Unity" assumes a thorough, accurate, biblical understanding of the gospel and its implications—with a wholehearted commitment (not merely intellectual assent) to the truths of the gospel. We can say we're committed to the same gospel, but without a clear understanding of what the gospel is, that statement is meaningless.

If your view of the gospel is so broad that a Mammon-worshiping prosperity preacher qualifies as someone with whom you will publicly join hands and declare yourself committed to the same master he serves, then I question whether you have a sound enough grasp of the gospel to begin with.

What is the gospel? The Gospel is an announcement that Christ has triumphed over sin and Satan. It includes everything the Scriptures treat as essential, starting with the truth that Christ is God in human flesh (2 John 7-11). Of course, at the very center of the gospel message is the doctrine of justification by faith (Galatians 1:6-9).

The gospel furthermore includes all the historical facts and doctrinal principles Paul named and said are "of first importance" in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8—including the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ, his substitutionary death "for our sins according to the Scriptures," and the promise of our physical resurrection.

The gospel also includes these essential truths:

  • All three Persons of the Trinity are involved in the outworking of the gospel. In the words of Hebrews 9:14, we are redeemed and sanctified through "the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God"
  • The gospel teaches that Christ has turned justice in our favor. First John 1:9: "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins."
  • So at the heart of the message is the truth that Christ has redeemed us from sin—not merely the penalty of sin, but the bondage and corruption of it as well. Romans 8:21: "The creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God."
  • Christ accomplished all this by acting as our proxy. First Peter 3:18: "Christ . . . suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God."
  • His one-time sacrifice is sufficient for all who believe. Hebrews 10:12: He "offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, [and then] sat down at the right hand of God."
  • His righteousness is the sole ground of our justification and the only merit we need for a right standing with God. Second Corinthians 5:21: "For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."
  • He is coming again to bring us to glory. Hebrews 9:28: "Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."
  • In short, the gospel is "the good news about salvation"; and more than that, it is a declaration that evil is overthrown (in the words of Hebrews 2:14-15) because Christ partook of flesh and blood so "that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery."

I could probably go on for hours in the same vein, because the gospel is full of important truths and implications like that.



A question I'm often asked is this: Can we have a complete and exhaustive list of doctrines and propositions that are essential? Frankly, I don't believe that's possible, because truth itself is not a finite commodity, and the minute you think you have nailed down a simple list of all the essentials, the powers of darkness will challenge some underlying point of doctrine you never imagined would be controversial. Then you'll have to add a new item to your list.

Also, the wish for a finite list is itself exactly the kind of minimalist approach to truth that has got us into the mess we are in today anyway. It's like asking: "What's the least I can believe and still go to heaven?"

Indeed, there are two competing wrong tendencies that undermine our evangelical consensus when it comes to the gospel.

One is that minimalistic tendency: a push to pare the gospel down and reduce it to the barest list of essentials in order to make our consensus seem broader and more influential than at really is. The gospel ends up so small and insignificant that it's really no gospel at all.

D. L. Moody once famously said, "I could write the gospel on a dime." I think I know what he was trying to say: You don't have to be an advanced theologian to believe the gospel and be saved. Yet the gospel itself is deep and wide—not a postage-stamp-sized truth. The kind of thinking Moody's statement suggests has been a bad influence on the evangelical movement since long before Moody's time.

It's not just that we tend to fall back on canned, abbreviated gospel presentations, or that the superficial way we present the gospel generates shallow, unbiblical, decisionalistic false conversions. Those trends would be bad enough by themselves—certainly reason enough to reject evangelical minimalism. But this is also the trend that opens the door for someone like T. D. Jakes to be welcomed into the circle of evangelical unity.

The second wrong tendency operating in the evangelical community today is a push to define the gospel in the widest, most expansive terms you can think of, so that basically any cause you want to champion can fit under the rubric of gospel truth: social justice, the redistribution of wealth, or even gay rights.

That is the approach the classic modernists took. Reimagining the gospel was one of the favorite activities of modernist and liberal religion, and the effects were disastrous. The World Council of Churches became a left-wing political advocacy fraternity. Liberation theology is a direct fruit of this kind of thinking.

Loading the gospel with moralism, humanistic goals, and political agendas has always strewn wreckage and decline—not unity—in its wake, and invariably, the true gospel gets eclipsed.

More recently a number of the leading champions of Emergence religion and other postmodernized (yet nominally "evangelical") theologians have adopted a similar approach to reworking the gospel in order to make it broad and inclusive as possible. You can see that trend in varying degrees from a number of popular authors ranging from Ron Sider to Brian McLaren. The argument typically goes like this: The gospel is not primarily about personal salvation from the guilt and bondage of sin. Our focus too narrow. We should be less focused on divine perfection in the sweet by-and-by; more concerned with overthrowing human injustice in the nasty here-and-now. After all, Scripture says Jesus preached "the gospel of the kingdom," and since he is Lord of all, the kingdom includes all that ever has been, all that is, and all that ever will be. The gospel is the sweeping story of everything.

Scot Mcknight, for example, dismisses the classic Protestant emphasis on the doctrine of justification by faith by labeling it "the soterian gospel." It's self-centered, short-sighted, and deficient, he says. "It is too much shaped by a selfish concern of what God has done for me. . . what God has done to save me." The gospel is MUCH bigger than that, he says. "The Bible's emphasis on resurrection is cosmic, creational and has to do with Jesus reigning (and our reigning with him)."

OK, there's a germ of truth in parts of that. I've already said that gospel truth is not finite. The drama of redemption does indeed extend from eternity past to eternity future, and in one way or another, there's not a molecule or even an isolated quark anywhere in the universe that will not in some way ultimately be affected by the gospel.

But the gospel is emphatically all about "what God has done for me. . . what God has done to save me." It is not at all about my work, my righteousness, or anything I have done in order to be saved—except in the sense that true gospel faith emphatically renounces every claim that "my own righteousness" might somehow figure in the equation (Philippians 3:4-11).

Furthermore, Scripture shows with undeniable clarity that the gospel has a distinct focus, and it is the story of redemption. The gospel message is first and foremost good news about the finished work of Christ in gaining atonement and redemption for everyone who believes. In presenting this truth to us, Scripture looks backward and forward simultaneously. The historical facts of gospel truth are as vital as the eschatalogical triumph it announces. The individual dimension is as important as the "cosmic, creational" features.

Marginalizing the redemptive and personal aspects of the Christian message misshapes and severely diminishes the gospel; it certainly doesn't enlarge or enhance it in any way.

Note: in Acts 20:24, Paul called it "the gospel of the grace of God." In 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul gives that short list of things that he says are "of first importance," he makes it clear that the heart of the gospel is the atonement Christ offered on the cross. He told the Corinthians "We preach Christ crucified." He said, "When I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

And the central meaning of the cross is likewise clear: "The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I [an individual] am the foremost."

First Peter 1:9 states that "the outcome of your faith [is] the salvation of your souls." Peter goes on to say that this salvation is what the prophets prophesied about. They were writing about the grace that was to be ours. And Peter says they searched and inquired carefully, seeking to understand what the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. Atonement. Grace. The salvation of your souls. The suffering of Christ and the glory that follows. Those things are the proper focus of the gospel.

If you supplant the nucleus of that message with a lot of politically-correct values like a socialist notion of "economic justice," or a campaign to stop human trafficking, or boycotts of Disney, or anti-abortion lobbying, or "God Hates Fags" posters (or anything else, whether you are crusading for legitimate virtues or twisted ones)—if you supplant the proper focus of the gospel with any other agenda—you have twisted and corrupted the gospel just as surely as the Judaizers and gnostics did, and your efforts will undermine true unity in the visible church, whether that is what you intend or not.

History is filled with proof of that assessment. Recent history alone offers sufficient cautionary lessons. I'm thinking especially of just the past decade, looking at the wreckage in the church left by the Emerging Church movement.

In short, the gospel, properly understood, is a sufficient basis for unity. But that doesn't mean we can automatically forge bonds of fellowship with everyone who puts his signature on a sound and biblical statement of evangelical conviction.

We must not only affirm the truth but also proclaim it. And we must not only proclaim it but also defend it. That is the true, biblical prescription for unity.

Phil's signature

19 July 2012

Pyro brain trust forum: evangelism

by Dan Phillips

I'm sorry. I do have a number of posts marinating, but none is "done" yet. This Sunday's sermon is on spiritual gifts — yep, everything that can be brought from the Bible on that entire topic in one sermon. Sermon outline handout is two pages. So that's fun, and challenging.

Also, I'm prepping a Hither and Thither (a popular feature) for tomorrow on my own little blog.

So that leaves us with just enough time for another visit to the Brain Trust.

All Biblically-faithful churches are concerned with evangelism. I'd say if they aren't, they don't fit the description.

That said, how to do it? Hand out tracts in parking lots? Go door to door? Study groups?

So let me ask you two questions:
  1. What is the best book you've ever read on personal evangelism, and what makes it so excellent?
  2. What is the best book you've ever read — or approach you know — on corporate/church evangelism, and what makes it so excellent? (Include here what approaches your church has found fruitful.)
Thanks, should be profitable.

Dan Phillips's signature

18 July 2012

Killing Calvinism

by Frank Turk


A few weeks ago I promised that today I would do a book recommendation for a new book which works over a topic which is near and dear to my heart.  The book is Killing Calvinism by Greg Dutcher, published by subscription e-publisher CruciformPress.

Cruciform is an interesting business case as it is (almost exclusively) an e-publisher, and it generates long pamphlets on a pretty tight schedule on topics of general interest.  So in approaching its titles, I don't think any of the authors are trying to produce a work which will light up a generation, and I don't think Cruciform is looking to create best-sellers.  It's looking to produce timely features with enough depth to satisfy the popular reader, and to keep the content inside to four walls of orthodoxy without turning over anyone's apple cart.

Dutcher's book is already raising a few eyebrows because, by golly, it's taking a long, hard look at the ways in which Calvinists shoot themselves in the foot.  And before I get to my angry eyebrows on this subject, let me say that if you are new to the movement, or are just now realizing that your will compared to God's will is a little puny and selfish and God's will is the only thing keeping you between the ditches of works righteousness and works frat party, you should read this book.  At less than $9, I have to admit that I wish that someone had given me one of these when I e-mailed James White for the first time after reading The Potter's Freedom -- it would have saved me a couple of years of trying to get myself on the right side of God's love and sovereignty.

The laundry list is simple: Calvinists sometimes love a system rather than a savior; we love books more than discipleship; we love the position of God more than the person of God; we forget how to evangelize; we live in a small circle; we know it all; we demean those who aren't (yet) Calvinists.  And to his credit, Dutcher doesn't turn this book into an organ to run down his fellow Calvinists for, frankly, walking the path all of us walk to get to our adolescence in the faith.  Dutcher's prose is serviceable and readable, and his points are pragmatic -- immediately actionable.

Except for the 3-5 pages he spends defending Bill Hybels in his chapter about living in too small a circle, I commend the book to you as utterly worth your time, especially if you are yourself discipling someone new to our team in the Christian theology league.

I want you to go and buy Greg Dutcher's book.  I think there are a lot of people reading this blog who need it not to find out what is wrong with other people, but what is wrong with the way they are personally doing Calvinism.  This booklet is absolutely the friendly audit of the movement, and in its analysis it covers the obvious bases.



What?  This book is only about 100 pages, and you can read it in about an hour if you mark it up really good.  You could have read through to chapter two by now if you had bought the book already.

Oh: I see.  You came for the fireworks today.  It's Wednesday, and I promised to "light up one of my favorite topics" when I came to this book review.  You're one of those people.

Listen: the biggest problem with the so-called Young-Restless-Reformed movement is how allegedly self-aware we all are.  Hipsters run around hash-tagging themselves as having #FirstWorldProblems and wearing plaid and drinking PBR in some kind of meta-ironic way -- the YRR are always rolling their eyes at how theologically-wonky they are while at the same time assembling reading lists of out-of-print books and marking up lists of their own rudimentary engagement errors while at the same time not really having any lost people they know to tell about the amazing Jesus they have 1343 uses for in soteriology and sanctification alone.  Or on the other side of the team bench they find themselves hypnotized by how close to antinomianism they can ride their motorcycles up to on the way to the MMA PPV, rattling on about Christ being bigger than sin but not so big as to actually conquer any sin in them personally.

Dutcher's book is a fine piece of work to start with for someone in cage-stage Calvinism to present to them as utterly-friendly to the movement so that they don't make the grade-school errors so many of us (note the pronoun) have made -- but let's be honest with ourselves: we have much worse problems than the ones Greg notices here.

Joe Thorn's Note to Self scratched the surface of those problems, and I credit him for that.  Note to Self is probably the second book you should read in this category of theological self-help -- right after Killing Calvinism.  But that said, I think at some point the navel-gazing has to stop and we have to live a little and take our licks to grow up.  The way that Calvinism really becomes a way to worship God and not just a kind of seminary education is to live a little, and then die a little, and then maybe die a little more, until there is less of you and more of the Jesus you ought to be leaning on left to do the things you say you believe.

So fine: read the books.  Sort of read them once and hide them away for a year or 3 so that you are forewarned about the kind of person you really are.  Then, after you have tried to live inside the warning, go back and read them a second time and see how well you did.  It will sting a little, but it will be worth it.  Every one of you needs it, and it'll be OK if you don't take my word for it.

It won't be OK, however, if you don't figure these things out on your own.








17 July 2012

Pyro brain trust forum: what Bible version, and why?

by Dan Phillips

I am still in need of a low-maintenance meta, and so...

At CBC, the pew Bibles are the 1978 version of the New American Standard Bible, which actually is no longer in print. I was happy enough to learn that this was the version in use, though, prior to coming. I had a long affectionate history with the NAS.

For English Bible reading, when I was saved I read the KJV for years, straight-up wide-margin or New Scofield-ized. I was also given a Living Bible, and soon got an NAS. Though I read through many translations (including the Modern Language Bible, the version by Charles Williams, the NIV, then later the CSB), the NAS was my staple for a good long time.



Specifically, I liked the Ryrie Study Bible version for a number of reasons. The margins were wide enough for notes; I often wrote the Hebrew and Greek in the margins. Also, the historical books' outlines were very helpful, often including date plus parallel versions (i.e. between Kings and Chronicles). Finally, the footnotes usually were less Ryrie's interpretation and more often helpful information such as "25 miles NW of Jerusalem," or archaeological finds, or the like, giving helpful facts fast and straight-up.

Then when the 1995 revision came out, I quickly got it, glad that the translators had finally dropped the Thee's and Thou's which, while useful, were no part of (hel-lo?) standard American idiom, New or otherwise.

However, I soon became disaffected with the NAS95. For instance, I noticed that the NAS95 adopted the NIV's affectation of dropping conjunctions for the sake of smoothness — even when (as in Mt. 17:1) the conjunction is arguably exegetically important. Plus it did an odd thing with which the translators of the CSB were later to go a little nuts — of usually translating (or transliterating) Christos as "Christ," but a few times inexplicably using "Messiah" as well (Mt. 1:1, 16; 2:4... and never again).

As I said, I read through the CSB but never really adopted it. I did also use the New King James for some time. I appreciated that it was often even more literal than the NAS; however, the indefensible and irrational textual practices in the NT just drove me bonkers.

When the ESV came out, I switched to it and basically stuck with it, until now. I like it in most regards. But as I have read through, almost every time I see a translation issue, they've just echoed the RSV without freshly revisiting it. Plus, some passages are actually inexplicable steps backward in fidelity to the original (e.g. Mk. 1:40-41).

To match our pew Bible, I'm back to doing my personal English text reading (and preaching) in the pre-1995 NAS.

All that to ask this: what does your church use, and why?

I'm open to hearing from anyone, but I particularly want to hear from pastors. To be even more specific, I particularly want to hear from pastors who've kept up their Hebrew and Greek (which should be a tautology but, alas, is not). I'd like to hear

  • What was your rationale?
  • What process did you go through?
  • Why do you use what you use?
  • Were there helpful books, studies, articles online or in journals? 
Share.

For my part, I like the NAS just fine, though the ESV has a readability edge. Kevin DeYoung makes a decent case for the ESV. I have reservations about any English translations... including my own! Nothing will persuade me to use the NIV or (great googly-moogly) the execrable TNIV, except for reference in study.

Dan Phillips's signature