Another Bible-shilling post

by Frank Turk

Since Phil and Dan spent the first couple of days this week making you drool over software you can't possibly afford, I thought I'd show you what a luddite I am when it comes to Bible Study, and some on-the-cheap tricks for the rest of us who don't get free software because we're famous bloggers, and also don't have the budget of a small lawn-scaping business to fund our theology jones.



So first off: get over yourself when it comes to the physical bound book which we call the Bible. It's nearly impossible today to buy a Bible with a decent cover and real quality binding for less than $150.00 -- and when I say that, I know someone is going to come across with their anecdote about the $7 gift-and-award Bible Pastor Hallibut gave him at High School Graduation and how that cardboard-covered newsprint Bible has served him well lo these 40-aught years. I'm very proud of you. The rest of us will be using our Bibles daily and will destroy those leather-like Bibles which are everywhere in three years, and all the notes we have taken from the edifying sermons we have listened to will be lost forever when the folio from Micah 2 to Luke 18 falls out because the cheap glue holding the book together has finally dried up and turned to dust.

So get over the fact that the Bible has to be "bound", and get involved in the best invention since before Kindle: the loose-leaf Bible -- specifically, the ESV Loose-Leaf Bible. You can buy it in its own binder, but let me suggest to you that this completely fails to develop the genius of this product, and costs almost double what the plain pages will cost by themselves.

See: taking a loose-leaf Bible and putting it in one binder is simply thinking of the Bible as one discrete unit, and it's nothing of the sort. It's the ultimate study Bible just waiting to be born, and you just don't know it yet.

Imagine, if you will, the ability to actual capture all the notes you will ever take on every passage of Scripture in your Bible, and never losing those notes. I'm going to show you how to do that in just a second. But first you have to find this stuff:

Some Report Binders with the big sliding clips

Pre-drilled blank copy paper (at least 2 reams, but you may choose more if you're a real note-taker)

Sticky Tabs

I can smell the logs suddenly burning in your brain as I type -- some of you have already lost it because this is such a great idea. So OK: you went to the local Office Supply Outpost (that was easy!) and you got this stuff, and your ESV loose-leaf arrived in its box still wrapped in its plastic. You almost hate to unwrap the sheets because your child with the busy fingers will undoubtedly make a very complicated game of 52-card pick-up of this 1100+ pages if you leave it unattended for 4 minutes, but you must unwrap the Bible pages.

After the wrapper is gone, take the Bible and divide it up into sections. The real hard-core disciples here will make 66 books of the pile of paper -- maybe more if they go really hard-core into dividing up the book of Psalms. But divide the Bible up into the right number of sections to (A) match the number of report covers you bought, and (B) the right number of logical portable units for you. Mine is divided into 6 sections, but you might decide to give yourself more bound units so you can add more blank paper.

Here's where the busy-fingered child comes in: before you bind up the pages, you have to interleave blank pages for each printed page. Maybe you want two blank pages for each printed page -- which I think makes serious sense. One blank page per printed page means you only have one blank side for each printed side, and that's not even hardly enough for most of the NT, let alone Ezekiel or Daniel. But this prep work makes the final product entirely brilliant. You're going to interleave the blank pages to the printed pages, and make sure you keep the edges with the holes aligned.

When you're done about three days later, get out your report binders and -- get this now -- insert the printed-and-plain interleaved pages into the covers and clip the binding shut. If you have put multiple books of the Bible together, use the sticky tabs to mark the book separations so you have quick access, and that's really about it.

Now what you have is the ultimate note-taker's Bible in portable volumes. I will admit that it is cumbersome, but it is also indispensable for keeping your notes from Sunday School or "big church" all in one place for future reference. And if you're clever, it all comes together for less than $100.

Now, here's the test of fire: I am sure that Dan and Phil will both tell you that this solution is not as sweet as their solution for iBible library software for a multitude of reasons. I have one reason only for suggesting this solution: you can take my solution with you to the Pulpit.

See: neither Dan nor Phil would ever preach from the pulpit using a digital library on their laptop -- because let's face it: it would look like they are phoning it in. It would look unseemly to have your laptop open at the pulpit and to preach from something other than pages -- either printed or hand-written.

But if you stride up to the pulpit with your hand-written notes in your simply-bound report binder Bible, you have instant credibility. And you can keep all your notes right there in that Bible forever -- you can even add new pages after a couple of decades.

No controversy there, right? How will your Wednesday ever be the same? Enjoy & discuss!

---

Why I love BibleWorks 8

by Dan Phillips

M'man Phil Johnson's paean of praise to Logos 4 yesterday has moved me... to write about BibleWorks 8.

To clarify what is probably already clear, I'm neither arguing with nor disputing Phil. Particularly on the subject of e-Sword, which is an absolutely amazing program, considering that it's freeware. For many believers, that program is all they'll ever need.

My backstory is not as technical as Phil's. It's about how I've used hard-copy Bibles. Since I was a new believer, I always wanted Bibles with margins roomy enough to allow my notes. The first was a wide-margin KJV from Oxford. Later, I got a  wide-margin Greek New Testament which I had re-bound in leather.

However, the two I used most extensively were that Greek NT, and my NAS Ryrie Study Bible. I made marginal notes of varying kinds, but perhaps most were entering in some or all of the Hebrew or Greek text into the margin.

Or course, the troubles were several:

1. There was only so much room
2. I could only write (and read) so small; and
3. Every time I got a new Bible, I had to start over

At the same time, I used various Bible programs. I tried GRAMCORD in DOS, decades ago. Then I went to  the GUI program Bible Windows (now called Bibloi; haven't used it for years).

I started BibleWorks something like version 4, and have stayed with it. Let me tell you why I love BibleWorks today:

1. Economical. The amount of material you get for the one price is simple amazing. Check it out. Plus, there have been additional free updates. All of this is for the basic full-version price of $349. For most, that package would be sufficient, but there are a score of additional modules available.
2. Fast. What BW does, it does well-nigh instantaneously. I just upgraded my pc significantly. Additional RAM, CPU power, and a dedicated video card all have made my Logos a good bit spiffier. But BibleWorks? It was already really fast. It starts up faster... and that's about it. To be much faster, it would have to do the searches before I knew I wanted them. My point is that BW8 runs great on top-line pc's, but also runs great on aged pc's. You don't need to get the latest and greatest hardware to make BW8 hop and pop. It pretty much floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee. Seriously: enter a word, and bang! there's every occurrence. Click on one. Push a button. Bang! You see that verse in every version you want. Go to the Hebrew. Mouse-over a word, bam! Up pops a window with full parsing and basic definition. Right click a word. Select search on lemma. Bang! there's every use of that word in the Hebrew text. I could go on and on, but it's amazingly powerful and fast.
3. Notes. This is probably the single aspect that most has my heart. You know how you'll hear something great in a sermon, or read it in a book (or on a blog), or hear it in a conversation — something that sheds significant light on a verse or passage? Then two days later, it's gone? Doesn't have to be. BibleWorks makes it possible to make extended notes, in any font, with any hyperlinking, on any verse. With graphics. Move to another verse, and your notes are instantly saved. Go back to that verse — even just point your mouse at it — and your notes instantly display. I now have countless, countless notes on hundreds of verses, from my own observations, sermons, books, hymns, web sites, conversations, studies — all permanently stored in conjunction with my BW8. Get a laptop? New pc? No problem: just copy your Notes folder to a flash drive, then copy from there to your new device, and you can take up where you left off.

4. No, really, notes! I love that feature so much, it deserves a second entry. My notes contain excerpts from Bible journals, anecdotes, textbooks, grammars, pictures, maps, and personal reflections that would otherwise have been lost. Now they're just there, in a flash. I use this in conjunction with Logos, copying what I find (with a great expenditure of time) there into the BW8 notes, for lightning-fast access when I need it. This feature alone sells me.
5. Editor. In addition to the verse-by-verse notes, there's a fully-functional editor. So if you're doing a word-study, or a book-study, you can drag the Hebrew or Greek (or English or Spanish or whatever) into the Editor to build your document.
6. Dedicated, responsive support. The BibleWorks forum is constantly monitored by the geniuses who create and maintain BW. When a problem crops up, they're on it like an Emergent on a frappé, and the next day's update will fix it. Bug fixes don't wait for months, they're sent out as they occur. Plus, email tech support is also always thoroughly and courteously responsive.
7. This! Seriously! How could I not?

Nobody should think, "Yeah, sure, but you have to be a total brainiac to use it." Not at all. I'm pretty much a BW8 idiot, compared to the guys who post at the forum. I would really profit from a seminar; I'm only using it for maybe 5-10% of what it can do — but that 5-10% is what I care most about right now.

(click to embiggen)

Unlike Phil, I don't have an iPad. I do have an iPhone, and on it, I never use Logos. It's simply too slow and unwieldy. Instead, I use Olive Tree's iPhone software. It's fast, powerful, intuitive, very nicely done.

So what about Logos? Simply and briefly, I love BibleWorks, but I deeply respect and use Logos. Any time you discuss it, the elephant in the room is always how expensive their material is (as I experienced here, for instance). But they are always having sales, plus there is community pricing and pre-publication pricing.

The aim of the two programs is different. BibleWorks is all about the text of Scripture, while Logos is a broader research tool. BibleWorks is like having a roomy desk with Biblical texts and exegetical tools right at hand. Logos is like having a fully-stocked library. Ideally, one should have both.

I do use Logos continually, and will enjoy it all the more now with the faster computer. But BibleWorks will remain my mainstay.

I think every pastor should have BibleWorks. If yours doesn't, it would make a terrific Christmas gift. I used part of a bonus once to give BW to a pastor I thought very well of, who was struggling by with GRAMCORD. He was bowled over. Is $349 too much for your wallet? Talk to the deacons or someone, and start a whisper-campaign to get the dough together, and do your whole church a favor by giving the pastor BibleWorks.

In sum: I respect, recommend, am grateful for and use Logos, and don't have a word of argument with anyone who loves and praises it.

But I love BibleWorks.

---

Bible Study in the Cloud

The (very long) account of how I came to love Logos 4
by Phil Johnson



've been using Logos Bible Software for years—since the Windows 3.1 version in about 1993 or '94. It wasn't always my favorite Bible-study software (and even now I sometimes use as many as six Bible programs simultaneously when studying) but I never abandoned Logos because of the rich store of resources that were exclusive to Logos. (That includes, of course, the MacArthur Study Bible notes).

People sometimes ask how I do systematic study. I generally use Logos first, throughout the week, mainly for reading and research. At the end of the week, when I'm in the hands-on process of writing notes for a sermon, I use e-Sword. E-Sword is perfect if I just need to cut and paste Bible verses, check the Greek word for "lasciviousness," or look up something in a Bible dictionary quickly. It's free, easy to use, and much speedier than Logos or any of the other workhorse Bible programs.

But I consider Logos a must-have because of the wealth of excellent resources that have been formatted for Logos. For large-scale searches across a massive database of Bible-study material, Logos simply cannot be beat.

In 2001, when Logos released their third major upgrade—the one with the Libronix engine—I was deliriously happy with it. Its user interface was way cooler than any of its predecessors; it was more flexible and almost intuitive. That's when Logos became the software I preferred for reading, searching for obscure material, collecting hard-to obtain and out-of-print resources. I found loads of valuable Libronix-compatible books online, including a ton of Arthur Pink resources, Edwards' Works, and the complete works of John Bunyan. Great stuff.

Naturally, last November, when Logos announced the release of Logos 4, I was eager to see it.



It came at a very busy time, though, so I didn't try to install the new Logos right away. I read several reviews, all of which commented on the very long installation process. I decided not to upgrade until I could devote a full day to it. I also decided after reading the reviews that I was going to leave the older Libronix version on my computer until I was certain the advantages of Logos 4 warranted a full move away from software I liked so much.

That was a difficult decision, because all those resources take up lots of disk space. I had already heard Logos 4 couldn't use the Libronix format; it was going to reinstall all my books for me in a different format. I figured that would more than double the amount of disk space I had allocated to Logos. On my laptop that's no small matter.

For that reason, I decided when I did install Logos 4, I would install it on an external drive.

It turned out to be a good thing I waited, because when I finally did attempt to install Logos 4, the program kept crashing. It simply wouldn't install on my Windows XP virtual machines. Dan Pritchett, one of Logos's top executives, graciously offered help from the Logos technical staff when I was trying to track down the problem, but my schedule was jammed and I thought it likely that the problem was related to a configuration issue in my virtual machine. I didn't want to waste the Logos staff's time with that. Besides, I was still deliriously happy with Libronix, so there simply was no urgency to upgrade.



Then on August 4 (just a few weeks ago), Dan Pritchett e-mailed me to say he was making it possible for me to download the beta version of Logos 4 for my Mac. I jumped on the opportunity and downloaded it immediately. It installed flawlessly (though just like all the reviews had said, the process of downloading resources took several hours). It had a beautiful and informative home page that filled the screen on my 27-inch iMac. And (best of all) it gave me access to a fresh, new, more-complete-than-ever set of Spurgeon's works.

So my overall impression from the beginning was very positive. My only complaints were fairly minor: 1) it seemed just a bit sluggish; 2) it resided on the Mac side of my computer, and I do all my sermon prep in the Windows virtual machine, so switching back and forth was clunky; and 3) I couldn't find the location on my hard disk where Logos 4 put all those resources. (I don't think I ever did locate them, but after the first 10 minutes of searching, my attempts to find them were admittedly only half-hearted.)

Anyway, I liked Logos 4 enough that I thought I'd upgrade my Windows VM to Windows 7 and then try the Logos 4/Windows installation again. The switch to Windows 7 turned into a 4-week ordeal (but of course, that's not really germane to Logos, so I'll forego the details). When I finally got Windows 7 running well, one of the first things I did was try to install Logos 4 once more.

It crashed again. At exactly the same point in the installation process.

This time, however, I quickly figured out the problem. I was, of course, trying to install the Logos resources to an external drive. Even though the Logos install process offers a "custom" option where you can choose your preferred location for the program and resources, Logos 4 will not install happily anywhere except on the main hard drive. As soon as I allowed it to default to my C: drive, Logos 4 installed flawlessly.

Now I was in business, but not particularly happy about using so much of my disk space for that massive collection of Logos resources (especially since most of the same resources already existed on an external drive for the Libronix installation, and I also already had a copy of them somewhere on the Mac portion of my hard drive from the installation of Logos's Mac edition. In other words, I now had two copies of my all Logos data files on my main hard drive, and another set of the same data on an external drive. (Fortunately, I have a 2TB hard drive in my 27-inch iMac.)

I figured I would eventually default to either the Mac Version or the Windows version of Logos 4 (or else I could always revert completely to Libronix) and then I would uninstall whichever sets of data I wasn't going to use. I still liked the look of Logos 4, but one other thing puzzled me: That home page adds new information constantly. It draws all its data from an online source. You have to be connected to the Internet to use it. Logos 4 is also designed to keep all my settings, notes, and whatnot online—in "the cloud" rather than on my local drive.

I wasn't sure there was any great benefit to be derived from Logos's continuous connection to the cloud. I do a lot of study in out-of-the-way places, and I've always liked having my Bible-study software self-contained on my laptop so I can take it anywhere. I wasn't sure how much Logos relied on cloud computing, but it seemed like a lot, and I didn't see any serious advantage in that. I wondered what disadvantages I would notice when I needed to disconnect from the Internet and use Logos offline.

Then during last month's Ocean City Bible Conference, Logos expert Kendell Stellfox gave a presentation and demo on how to use Logos. He mentioned that there's an iPad/iPhone app that uses the cloud-based features of Logos 4 to maximum advantage. I don't know why I hadn't heard about the app before that; it wasn't exactly a secret; and it's even a free app! But that was literally the first I remember hearing about it.

So, sitting there during one of the sessions of the Bible conference, I downloaded the app to my iPad over the 3G network. It worked beautifully, immediately. All of my Spurgeon resources were right there, easily searchable, and (I suppose because the Logos files are well indexed) the search speed was about a thousand times faster than searching my local drive's .pdf versions of Spurgeon's works.

That opens up whole new vistas of advantages for me with Logos 4. Since I use it mainly for reading (as opposed to cutting and pasting texts), using the iPad as a reader offers some serious advantages. It's easily portable; it's a better interface for reading than a desktop or laptop screen; and all I have to do when I do need to cut and paste is use e-mail to send snippets to my desktop machine.

In short, the iPad/iPhone app alone makes Logos 4 worth the upgrade from Libronix. Meanwhile I'm learning the new desktop interface, and I'm almost as comfortable using it as I was with Libronix. If I can just learn how to move the data files for all those books to an external drive; consolidate the data files so that my Mac software and Windows software can use one set of data; and install my old Libronix .pbb files to Logos 4—then I'll be a really happy camper.

In the meantime, if you're still wondering whether the upgrade to Logos 4 is worth it, I strongly recommend it—especially if you can use the iPad/iPhone app.

---

Let the Dogs Bark

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 "Jesus, the King of Truth" a sermon preached on Thursday evening, 19 December 1872.

the age extols no virtue so much as “liberality,” and condemns no vice so fiercely as bigotry, alias honesty. If you believe anything and hold it firmly, all the dogs will bark at you. Let them bark: they will have done when they are tired! You are responsible to God, and not to mortal men. Christ came into the world to bear witness to the truth, and he has sent you to do the same; take care that you do it, offend or please; for it is only by this process that the kingdom of Christ is to be set up in the world.

---

Sigh of Despair, Song of Triumph

by Phil Johnson

How long, O LORD? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me?
How long must I take counsel in my soul and have sorrow in my heart all the day? How long shall my enemy be exalted over me?
Consider and answer me, O LORD my God; light up my eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death,
lest my enemy say, "I have prevailed over him," lest my foes rejoice because I am shaken.
But I have trusted in your steadfast love; my heart shall rejoice in your salvation.
I will sing to the LORD, because he has dealt bountifully with me.

salm 13 is a fascinating look into a side of David's prayer life we can all easily relate to. This man after God's own heart pours his soul out in frustration, fear, and ultimately faith as he struggles through the ordeal of tribulation.

The psalm is first of all a great prayer. There's nothing typical about it; in fact, it shatters our presuppositions about what really "spiritual" praying is like. But a close look shows it is in perfect harmony with how Jesus taught us to pray. Brevity and honesty—two qualities sadly missing from most of our prayers—stand out as its hallmarks.

More than a lesson about prayer, however, this psalm is a model response for those of us going through deep trials. David wrote it in anguish over the apparent success of an unrelenting enemy. We don't know which enemy—it might have been Saul, the renegade king, who chased David like an outlaw; or it could have been the Philistines, who as a nation epitomized all that God hates.

Imagine David's frustration, seeing enemies like that prosper while it seemed God was hiding His face from him! If we're honest, we have to admit that we understand David's inner turmoil in the opening cry of this psalm all too well.



But that initial, desperate groan is only the beginning of the story. In the six brief verses of Psalm 13, David moves from doubt to deliverance, teaching us the sublime and emancipating principle that victory depends chiefly on how we look at our trials.

The Inward Look
At first David looks inside himself, and sees only his own sorrow (vv. 1-2a). See how many times in these early verses he uses the first-person pronouns: "I," "me," "my," "my soul," "my enemy," "my heart." He's questioning God, wallowing in his own defeat, wondering why God seems to be hiding His face.

Was God hiding His face? Of course not! David was merely looking in the wrong place.

There's a serious danger in the wrong kind of inward look. Healthy introspection, the kind that leads to confession of sin and the humble brokenness of which Jesus spoke in Matthew 5:3-5, is critical to our spiritual survival. But looming in the face of those who look within themselves is a monstrous peril: a morbid preoccupation with our own inadequacies that breeds depression and debilitates us spiritually.

The difference between the two kinds of self-reflection is not so subtle. A wholesome look inside becomes hurtful when we begin looking within ourselves for a solution to the problems we find there. The solution doesn't reside in us; we must look elsewhere.

The Outward Look
David turns his focus from within and begins to look around (vv. 2b-4). Now all he sees are his surroundings. What a different David this is from the young shepherd who strode confidently into the presence of the mighty Goliath with no armor and only a few pebbles for weapons! Pay careful heed to the lesson: one great victory does not ensure future triumph.

This time David is fearful. We can sense his trembling, as he grapples with a paralyzing dread that this trial might ultimately kill him (v. 3).

I've felt that way, too, and in trials of much less consequence than David's. Such fear is the inevitable result of looking at circumstances and hoping some kind of help will come through them.

But deliverance doesn't come through circumstances, either.

The Upward Look
Finally, in verses 5 and 6, David looks to the Lord, and there he sees his salvation. Compare this passage to verses 1 and 2. "Me . . .I . . .mine" has given way to "thy mercy . . . thy salvation . . . the Lord."

Thus what in the beginning sounded like a dismal wail of unbelief becomes an exhilarating hymn of faith. What's the difference? The trial has not changed—but David's point of view has. Now his eyes are clearly directed upward.

Salvation belongs to the Lord (Psalm 3:8)—that goes for deliverance from trials as well as salvation from sin. No other truth emerges from everywhere in Scripture so definitively. If we look around or within—or anywhere but to God—for a way of escape, we are condemned to disappointment and ultimate failure.

It is God who provides the way of escape—not out of our trials, but rather through them. He enables us to bear testing, not avoid it (1 Cor. 10:13). And He uses our tribulations to accomplish His wonderful purpose in us (Rom. 5:3-5, James 1:3-4).

Thus God works all things—including our hardest testings—together for our good. That's the ultimate victory, and it's how even in our darkest hour of trials, we can fix our eyes on Him and say confidently with David, "He hath dealt bountifully with me" (v. 6).

---

Christianity Today: Biblical, Reformed confidence = baaad, ignorant Pentecostal hubris = A-OK

by Dan Phillips

My reader David Elliott pointed me to this Christianity Today interview from April. The author of An Eyewitness Remembers the Century of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker [?!], 2010), Regent University professor Vinson Synan, is asked a series of questions centered loosely around his book.

Sidenote: "THE Century of the Holy Spirit." Don't miss that. It begins with the Azusa Street "revival." Before that — Holy Spirit? Not so much. Nineteen centuries, not much Holy Spirit... until the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. Ahh, now, all sorts of Holy Spirit!

Read the interview, it's fairly brief. But do it in private. That article will have most of you talking aloud to yourselves. Particularly, you should read that interview in light of CT's snarky profile of Al Mohler, which has been much discussed of late. The contrasts are... interesting and informative.

As has been pointed out even by those lofty souls who find it distasteful to give Christianity Today the general drubbing that it (to my mind) so richly deserves, the Mohler piece was disdainful and slanted. Readers were encouraged to view Mohler askance and critically. It couldn't be (to the writer) that Mohler was a sharp man living from Biblical convictions; everything was seen to be crafted, disingenuous, a bit sinister.

Contrast that with the softball questions lobbed at Vinson Synan in the interview above — and, particularly, at the astonishing assertions and responses allowed to go unchallenged.

Question: What to you has been one of the most unexpected changes of the past century?

Answer: The biggest surprise was the Catholic-charismatic renewal that started in 1967. That came as an utter shock to me, to most of my friends, and probably to the Catholic Church. It gave legitimacy to the movement, that the largest and one of the oldest churches in the world was seeing a Pentecostal movement.

I noted this at the time of which Synan speaks. It wasn't important to the Charismatic movement that the Roman Catholic church preaches a false, damning non-gospel, that it encourages idolatry, that it adds to Scripture and a host of other ills. They speak in tongues! They're big! They like us! We're validated! Ergo, the Holy Spirit is sweeping through them... er, evidently not in any way affecting their hatred for Christ's Gospel, but, well, they like us! They really like us! Yayyy!

There's more, much more.

Synan says the high point was some big meeting, the low point was — what? What do you think? Word-faith heresy? Barking like dogs, mooing like cows, gold dust, whiter teeth, behaving appallingly and blaming it on the Spirit? False prophecies? Perverting the Gospel? Abuse of thousands of adherents? Shelving the Bible?

Nah; a couple of televangelists' moral scandals. (And, btw, they're back, accepted by the same movement — a fact Synan doesn't mention.)

But no fear, those same morally-corrupt televangelists "still helped spread the movement worldwide" — that would be the "movement" of the non-Gospel-centered, non-sanctifying, non-Christ-exalting "Spirit" (i.e. fake tongues, fake prophecies, etc.). What matters more than anything is the legitimization and spread of "the movement."

And, Synan is asked, what do non-Charismatics most need to understand about Pentecostals?

The answer is simply amazing. We nons most need to understand that "Pentecostals are the most successful at converting people in competition with Islam."

I. Am. Not. Kidding.

And who are Synan's prize examples of these more effective evangelists?

Benny Hinn.

Reinhard Bonnke.

Brothers, sisters, it just goes on and on. Like:

• Africans and Indians are more receptive to Pentecostalism because the don't really "have to change [their] culture or paradigm" to be Pentecostals.
• A big leader to keep one's eye on is T. D. Jakes (who is, at best, wobbly on the Trinity — one Person of whom is, as I recall, that selfsame Holy Spirit whose century this has been).
• Oral Roberts is the previous "transformational" paradigm. Baptists and Presbyterians can't equal him. ("Thank God!" is heard 'round the land.)

The CT interview is all like that, just a series of friendly softballs. Not one of these ridiculous responses receives a challenging followup.

Worst of all, to bring this post full-circle, the title goes without the least challenge. This has been "the century of the Holy Spirit"? Meaning what, exactly? On whose authority? By what evidence?

In a dozen different ways, Phil and I in particular keep asking: what does the Pentismatic movement have to show from its distinguishing doctrines from the last century? Our author suggests a remarkable list:

1. Oral Roberts
2. Benny Hinn
3. T. D. Jakes
4. Jimmy Swaggart
5. Jim Bakker
6. Reinhard Bonnke
7. Televangelists
8. Sidelining the Gospel (i.e. treating the Roman Catholic church as a big Christian denomination — if they are friendly to Pentismatics)

These are the grand trophies of Pentismaticism.

And before that? Before the Holy Spirit really-really got going with spiritual giants like Bakker and Hinn and Bonnke and Swaggart and Jakes?

Well, I guess it was a pretty pathetic offering. All we had to show for the non-Holy-Spirit era is Augustine, Athanasius, Anselm, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, John Owen. You know. Pikers. Those guys, their work, their sermons, and those books they wrote which are still opening treasure-caskets centuries later.

But CT, as I say, has no challenge for Synan.

But Mohler? Oh,  yeah. After all, remember: CT kissed-and-made-up with the world decades ago on the issues of female "pastors" and ditching Biblical cosmogony — and Mohler is on the (to them) wrong side of both of those issues. So Mohler gets elitist mocking and disdain, while folks like Synan get a pass.

Bonus thought 1: note that there is no reformation going on in the Pentismatic movement, if Synan is any representative. Everything that fueled the last century of Pentismatic-inflicted miseries and errors is still embraced and enabled.

Bonus thought 2: also remember, Reformed Charismatics, by their distinguishing doctrines, necessarily own these folks as well.

---

Talent

by Frank Turk



Having listened to all the talks now from the DGNC2010 conference, I think the best news is that there were no surprises. I mean, guess what: Al Mohler is still the smartest guy on the planet. John Piper can make you love God more and hate your pride -- he can help you see pride in places you didn't think you had a place for it. Francis Chan is still the Richie Cunningham of the Conference circuit. R.C. Sproul is still, as far as I'm concerned, the only guy who always gets Paul right from inside out. Rick Warren was commended by his hosts and, of course, criticized by all the right people (including me, before the torches and pitchforks come out).

So, yay team: nice one put to bed again. Jesus was praised one way or another, and we all got to go home edified. Some of us stayed home and were edified.

We all get to have our tidy theology and lives back, and we can go on reading Crossway with the right amount of humility and tranquility (that's not smugness, mind you: "smug" would be reading our Crossway on the subway or at Starbucks where people could see you reading Crossway, even if it's studying your ESVSB) to be edified that we are in the right place under God's sovereignty.



OK, I have to admit it: I did have a moment in listening to these talks and panels when I really, really felt like we had crossed into the surreal. There was one surprise. It was the first panel where Kevin DeYoung, Tullian Tchividlian, Burk Parsons and John Piper were sort of round-tabling with David Mathis soft-balling them with general questions about pastoral ministry.

The surreal part was not where John Piper called Rick Warren "an unbelievable communicator" in a completely-unironic way. It was the part late in that panel where he unironically said this (around 22:00):

Piper: I just think you should faithfully do what you love to do and are called to do, (I'm talking to Pastors now) and if it happens it happens. Now, I suppose Rick Warren would roll over in his, uh, not his grave but his study because that sounds so unpurposeful, but, I just, uh, it's just discouraging and paralyzing to take away specifics. There has to be a certain organic-ness to dreaming. Skill-sets and gifting and what he called SHAPE in his book Purpose-Driven Life are so crucial to the way you go about dreaming, the way you go about seeing what's not there. And you can just kill yourself trying to see what's not there that doesn't fit you at all. It doesn't fit your church, it doesn't fit your situation, and you may not know the dream God has planned for you, and so … you know, everyone speaks about their own trajectory … this is me talkin', not Rick Warren, and I just came to Bethlehem and I tried to preach the Bible faithfully.



And didn't have any other plans. I didn't. (in CEO voice) Oh, there's a 50,000 student University across the street - what's the strategy? (/voice) Well, they can come. If they want. [laughter] And there were a few other things thrown in along the way, but mainly I want to feed the sheep in such a way that the sheep love God, are so thrilled with God, they tell other people about him, and they come and worship and they love God so much, and yeah then you have to train some people and maybe a Tom Steller will join your staff and make something happen. I kinda want pastors to keep their focus clear and do a livable life, keep your wife happy, and your kids in the fold, and preach your heart out, and you really will do remarkable things. [ends at 24:25]

Now: why is that surreal? I mean, that's the reformed (small "r" intended) demographic schtick, right -- I'm just a simple preacher being faithful to God's word. That's how John MacArthur "did it". That's how Al Mohler "did it". That's how R.C. Sproul "did it". That's how Mark Dever "did it". And that, to put a fine point on it to keep our street cred, is exactly what Rick Warren said is unfaithfulness -- to be allegedly-faithful and unconcerned with fruit, to be more concerned with knowing the whole systematic ball but never leaving your study to take it out to the playground or the unreached people group.

Somebody might say that's not surreal -- that's the kind of people we are striving to be, isn't it? But look at the underlined part there. In the midst of detailing the reformed schtick under the cover of "organic" dreaming and avoiding too-hard burdens, of all people on Earth John Piper says, essentially, that intentional evangelism is not his first concern. I mean, this is the guy who wrote Let the Nations Be Glad. This is the guy who penned Don't Waste your Life. In essence, in a very transparent and self-aware way, he admitted that he doesn't have at top of mind lost people.

That is something, I think, no one expected -- because nobody heard it. Or rather: they all laughed! Nobody squared up to it and said, "well, Dr. Piper, is that why you invited Rick Warren in the first place? Isn't that a pretty dangerous diagnosis for you, given that you're in some way a leader and mentor for the so-called 'Young Reformed' movement? It plays right into the stereotype of calvinism -- and not in a good way."

Listen: that's got to be a wake-up call for all of us. That's got to be something that makes us ring hollow on the inside. If John Piper can admit that evangelism is not on the top of his mind when preaching, then I think we are all suddenly caught with the same look on our faces that the Coyote has when he runs off the edge of the cliff.

You know what? Rick Warren has a concern for people who are going to hell. Maybe we're all correct, and he's so riddled with faults and errors and unrepentant pride in his accomplishments that his message is not what we, the well-informed, would preach. But his first instinct is, as he says, "Come and See." Come and See if this is the Messiah. Taste and see the Goodness of the Lord. Look: I see the Heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!

So maybe I don't like Rick Warren. I'm actually not going to defend Rick Warren. But maybe it's not Rick Warren who needs defending, or who needs someone to justify what he does. Maybe it's the rest of us who have a perfect Gospel which we never think about taking to lost people.

I'm sure you have a full day, and this is just a blog post. Shrug it off. But I'm headed out to the yard because there's a single talent I buried out there someplace, and I think I better go dig it up before the Master comes home and asks me what I did with it ...

---

I just realized it

by Frank Turk

First things first: over the weekend someone tweeted me about Rick Warren's taped appearance at Desiring God's National Conference, and my reply was, "did he say something vile? I heard he phoned it in to avoid panel discussions."

For the record, after hearing his talk via download, that was unwarranted and a little snide, and I apologize for it.



I'll have more to say about the conference tomorrow, but Dan has a new computer and is not using it to blog yet, so I have the podium this morning. I'll say this today, and we can come back to my larger concerns tomorrow.

I listened to two panel discussions from DGNC, and I listened to half of Francis Chan (who was recently berated in a friendly way by Mark Driscoll for his pastoral whimsey in leaving his church), and then I listened to the Rick Warren talk.

John Piper called Pastor Warren a "master communicator."

Burk Parsons said Pastor Warren has an obvious "child-like faith."

Hmph.

I listened to the same talk while working today and also while driving home from work in ridiculous traffic for Little Rock, and just before he closed in prayer, I just realized why I don't like Rick Warren.

And that is really the problem: I just don't like him. You'd think that with my defense of him here and in other places that somehow I liked him or thought he was a secret pearl in the oyster of evangelism, but I don't feel that way at all. He said probably 15 things in his hour of power at DGNC which were tweetable and repeatable. I may have agreed with every substantive point he made. But even as I was nodding my head in the car in agreement to his words, I couldn't must up any listener good-will toward him.

I just realized I just don't like Rick Warren, and I know exactly why. I just can't muster up the spite to say why in public.

I'll post about DGNC2010 tomorrow. Today I'll leave the thread open, but don't drag the guy (me, or Pastor Warren) through the mud. Say something useful that demonstrates you listened to the conference since this weekend, and then go about your business.

---

UPDATED

Yeah, ok: I guess this got buried in the comments for this post, so I'm going to put it here at the bottom of the post for your edification, such as it will be.

I realized why I do not like Rick Warren: He does not have the fear of God in him. His talk at DGNC2010 was self-serving, self-approving, self-interested and self-centered. Not a lot of room for God or a savior when there's that much you in the sermon sandwich.

Back to your thing.

---

---

"Advanced Thinkers"

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 "Advanced Thinkers," an article Spurgeon wrote for the November 1871 issue of The Sword and the Trowel.

here has by degrees risen up in this country a coterie, more than ordinarily pretentious, whose favorite cant is made up of such terms as these: "liberal views," "men of high culture," "persons of enlarged minds and cultivated intellects," "bonds of dogmatism and the slavery of creeds," "modern thought," and so on.

That these gentlemen are not so thoroughly educated as they fancy themselves to be, is clear from their incessant boasts of their culture; that they are not free, is shrewdly guessed from their loud brags of liberty; and that they are not liberal, but intolerant to the last degree, is evident, from their superciliousness towards those poor simpletons who abide by the old faith.

Jews in old times called Gentiles dogs, and Mahometans cursed unbelievers roundly; but we question whether any men, in any age, have manifested such contempt of others as is constantly evidenced towards the orthodox by the modern school of "cultured intellects." Let half a word of protest be uttered by a man who believes firmly in something, and holds by a defined doctrine, and the thunders of liberality bellow forth against the bigot.

Steeped up to their very throats in that bigotry for liberality, which, of all others, is the most ferocious form of intolerance, they sneer with the contempt of affected learning at the idiots who contend for "a narrow Puritanism," and express a patronizing hope that the benighted adherents of "a half-enlightened creed" may learn more of "that charity which thinketh no evil."

To contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints is to them an offense against the enlightenment of the nineteenth century; but, to vamp old, worn-out heresies, and pass them off for deep thinking, is to secure a high position among minds "emancipated from the fetters of traditional beliefs."

. . . . . . . . . .

These gentlemen of culture have certainly adopted peculiar tactics. The misbelievers and unbelievers of former ages withdrew themselves from churches as soon as they found out they could not honestly endorse their fundamental articles; but these abide by the stuff, and great is their indignation at the creeds which render their position morally dubious. Churches have no right to believe anything; comprehensiveness is the only virtue of a denomination; precise definitions are a sin, and fundamental doctrines are a myth: this is the notion of "our foremost men." For earnest people to band themselves together to propagate what they hold to be the very truth of God, is in their eyes the miserable endeavor of bigots to stem the torrent of modern thought; for zealous Christians to contribute of their substance for the erection of a house, in which only the truths most surely believed among them shall be inculcated, is a treason against liberality; while the attempt to secure our pulpits against downright error, is a mischievous piece of persecution to be resented by all "intellectual" men.

The proper course, according to their "broad views," would be to leave doctrines for the dunces who care for them. Truths there are none, but only opinions; and, therefore, cultivated ministers should be left free to trample on the most cherished beliefs, to insult convictions, no matter how long experience may have matured them, and to teach anything, everything, or nothing, as their own culture, or the current of enlightened thought may direct them. If certain old fogies object to this, let them turn out of the buildings they have erected, or subside into silence under a due sense of their inferiority.

It appears to be, now-a-days, a doubtful question whether Christian men have a right to be quite sure of anything. . . . The right to doubt is claimed clamorously, but the right to believe is not conceded. The modern gospel runs thus: "He that believes nothing and doubts everything shall be saved." Room must be provided for every form of skepticism; but, for old-fashioned faith, a manger in a stable is too commodious.

Magnified greatly is the so-called "honest doubter," but the man who holds tenaciously by ancient forms of faith is among "men of culture" voted by acclamation a fool. Hence, it becomes a sacred duty of the advanced thinker to sneer at the man of the creed, a duty which is in most cases fully discharged; and, moreover, it is equally imperative upon him to enter the synagogue of bigots, as though he were of their way of thinking, and in their very midst inveigh against their superstition, their ignorant contentedness with worm-eaten dogmas, and generally to disturb and overturn their order of things. What if they have confessions of faith? They have no right to accept them, and, therefore, let them be held up to ridicule.

. . . . . . . . . .

While we are upon the point, it may be well to inquire into the character of the liberality which is, now-a-days, so much vaunted. What is it that these men would have us handle so liberally? Is it something which is our own, and left at our disposal? If so, let generosity be the rule. But no, it is God's truth which we are thus to deal with, the gospel which he has put us in trust with, and for which we shall have to render account.

The steward who defrauded his lord was liberal; so was the thief who shared the plunder with his accomplice; and so were those in the Proverbs, who said, "let us all have one purse." If truth were ours, absolutely; if we created it, and had no responsibilities in reference to it, we might consider broad-church proposals; but, the gospel is the Lord's own, and we are only stewards of the manifold grace of God, and of stewards it is not so much required that they be liberal, but that they be found faithful.

Moreover, this form of charity is both useless and dangerous. Useless, evidently, because all the agreements and unions and compromises beneath the moon can never make an error a truth, nor shift the boundary-line of God's gospel a single inch. If we basely merge one part of Scriptural teaching for the sake of charity, it is not, therefore, really merged, it will bide its time, and demand its due with terrible reprisals for our injustice towards it; for half the sorrows of the church arise from smothered truths.

False doctrine is not rendered innocuous by its being winked at. God hates it whatever glosses we may put upon it; no lie is of the truth, and no charity can make it so. Either a dogma is right or wrong, it cannot be indifferent. . . . The rule of Christians is not the flickering glimmer of opinion, but the fixed law of the statute book; it is rebellion, black as the sin of witchcraft, for a man to know the law, and talk of conceding the point. In the name of the Eternal King, who is this liberal conceder, or, rather, this profane defrauder of the Lord, that he should even imagine such a thing in his heart?

Nor is it less important to remember that trifling with truth is to the last degree dangerous. No error can be imbibed without injury, nor propagated without sin. The utmost charity cannot convert another gospel into the gospel of Jesus Christ, nor deprive it of its deluding and destroying influence.

There is no ground for imagining that an untruth, honestly believed, is in the least changed in its character by the sincerity of the receiver; nor may we dream that the highest culture renders a departure from revealed truth less evil in the sight of God. If you give the sick man a deadly poison instead of a healing medicine, neither your broad views of chemistry, nor his enlightened judgment upon anatomy, will prevent the drug from acting after its own nature.

It may be said that the parallel does not hold, and that error is not deadly, but here we yield not, no, not for an hour. Paul pronounced a curse upon any man or angel who should preach another gospel, and he would not have done so, if other gospels were harmless. It is not so long ago that men need forget it, that the blight of Unitarian and other lax opinions withered the very soul of the Dissenting Churches; and that spirit has only to be again rampant, to repeat its mischief. Instances, grievous to our inmost heart, rise up before our memory at the moment of men seduced from their first love, and drawn aside from their fathers' gospel, who only meant to gather one tempting flower upon the brink of the precipice of error, but fell, never to be restored.

No fiction do we write, as we bear record of those we have known, who first forsook the good old paths of doctrine, then the ways of evangelic usefulness, and then the enclosures of morality. In all cases, the poison has not so openly developed itself, but we fear the inner ruin has been quite as complete. In the case of public teachers, cases are not hard to find where little by little men have advanced beyond their "honest doubt," into utter blasphemy.

. . . . . . . . . .

We are not believers in stereotyped phraseology, nor do we desire to see the reign of a stagnant uniformity; but, at this present, the perils of the church lie in another direction. The stringency of little Bethel, whatever may have been its faults, has no power to work the mischief which is now engendered by the confusion of the latitudinarian Babel. To us, at any rate, the signs of the times portend no danger greater than that which can arise from landmarks removed, ramparts thrown down, foundations shaken, and doctrinal chaos paramount.

---

Well, I did

by Frank Turk

Most of you have read it already, but Dr. Al Mohler exposes the dirty secret about allegedly-conservative values especially as it relates to divorce.



I don't wanna say I told you so, but I did in fact tell you so, almost 2 years ago.

Have a nice weekend. I am sure Dan and Phil will be back with bells on next week. Be in God's house with God's people on His day this weekend, and remember that God is the one who designed marriage -- so treat it like it is His gift.

---

Does it matter to you?

by Frank Turk

Briefly today, I am certain many of you have read about the new Pew Forum Survey of U.S. Religious Knowledge. That link takes you to the actual home page for Pew and the survey, so you can go as deep into the subject as you have time and talent and temperament.

I think the knee-jerk reaction to this survey is to bemoan the state of American religion, especially among evangelicals and Protestants. But I think there are some significant pieces of good news in this survey.

For example, a lot of us are worried about whether or not Catholics are Christians -- whether or not we can trust them as brothers and sisters in Christ. This survey says -- as I have said repeatedly for years -- that most American Catholics aren't actually "Roman Catholic", if by that we mean "accepts and receives the teaching of the Magisterium." They're more like potentially-religious people -- which reads to me like the perfect opportunity to evangelize them. No sense worrying about if they are followers of the Pope -- they can't name the things the Pope stands for, and I think that makes them people who can and will listen to the Gospel if you go ahead and offer it to them.

Of course, that assumes there's anyone to tell them about the Gospel, which may be the bad news. Note to every person who runs a local church, whether you;re a liberal or a hyperfundamentalist: getting 7 out of 12 right on a quiz about the Christian faith is appalling, especially when the questions include these:

1. What is the first book of the Bible?
2. Name the first 4 books of the New Testament, that is the four Gospels.
3. Where was Jesus born, according to the Bible?
4. Which group teaches that salvation comes through faith alone?
5. Please tell me which of the following is NOT one of the Ten Commandments: Do not commit adultery; Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; Do not steal; Keep the Sabbath holy
6. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with "Remaining obedient to God despite suffering"? (Job, Elijah, Moses or Abraham)
7. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with "Leading the exodus from Egypt"? (Job, Elijah, Moses or Abraham)
8. Which Bible figure is most closely associated with "Willingness to sacrifice his son for God"? (Job, Elijah, Moses or Abraham)
9. What was the name of the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation? (Luther; Aquinas; Wesley)
10. Which one of these preachers participated in the period of religious activity known as
the First Great Awakening? (Edwards, Finney, Billy Graham)

So take a look at Pew's analysis, and think about whether you personally would have fared better than the average -- and then decide that it matters to you. Decide that you're going to believe that the Gospel is the power to save today, and then act like it really will by delivering it to someone.

---

From 2008: that troublemaker Jesus

by Frank Turk



Back in 2008, Dr. Piper said this:

Catch on to the affectional nature of Christianity, conversion. It is not merely a decision to believe a fact. It is a heart treasuring Christ and His glory more than football, sex, money, power, play, toys. You gotta make this an issue Sunday after Sunday so that they feel scared that they're not saved.

You know, I think some pastors are so afraid that somebody might walk up at the end of the service and say, "you really jostled my assurance this morning." If we don't -jostle- people's assurance when they're not saved, we send them to hell.

We must preach in such a way so that people can test -- Test Yourself! 2 Cor 13:5 says, "test yourself to see if you are in the faith". Well, one of the tests is do you love Football more than you love Jesus? Do you love Golf more than you love Christ? What does your heart say about Christ? Late at night, all alone, in front of an internet screen, mouse ready to click, what does your heart say about Christ over pornography?

And as I read the path of destruction at my blog, some parts of the internet sort of lost it over that very transparent statement.

What Dr. Piper did not say is that people should walk around the world wondering if they are saved or not – which is the impression one gets when one views that one sentence out of context, and is the impression guys like Sled Dog are giving in the meta.

Dr. Piper's point is the wholly-scriptural point that the believer is called to test himself, and see if the faith which he claims he has is a faith which is changing him. As someone pointed out in the meta, it's a matter of knowing by one's fruits what kind of branch one is.

But apparently that's out of line. Some will call it legalism, and others will call it "works-based faith", and some will simply turn their noses up at the idea that people ought to have a little bit of concern over whether what they say is actually what they mean. You know: when I say that I am a child of the living God, adopted into His Household rather than left for punishment where I belong – and that, bought at the price of the blood of God's one and only son – maybe I should act like that really happened and not like it's a political slogan, a talking point, or a t-shirt.

Maybe I should act like there's a real God who really did this stuff and I'm, at least, grateful.

Moses said it this way:

And when the LORD your God brings you into the land that he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give you—with great and good cities that you did not build, and houses full of all good things that you did not fill, and cisterns that you did not dig, and vineyards and olive trees that you did not plant—and when you eat and are full, then take care lest you forget the LORD, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. It is the LORD your God you shall fear. Him you shall serve and by his name you shall swear. You shall not go after other gods, the gods of the peoples who are around you— for the LORD your God in your midst is a jealous God— lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled against you, and he destroy you from off the face of the earth.[Deu 6, ESV]

And this is interesting because when Jesus gets questioned about the greatest commandment, this is the one he cites, right? "Love the Lord your God"? Go open your Bible and check it out, in case you don't repeat the Sh'ma to yourself every morning.

It's Moses who starts that crazy idea that men owe their affections to God, and Jesus signs off on it.

So when Dr. Piper said that people who love football more than they love God might not have faith in the savior of men, maybe what he means is that Moses knew something about faith in God which the rest of us would do well to reconsider.

Listen: Hosea knew a little bit about love, and God told him to say this --

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Look at the comparison there: the burnt offerings are the requirements of the Law, and they are contrasted with what the KJV calls "mercy" and the ESV here calls "steadfast love".

God doesn’t want your penance, or your religious work, or your bulls and sheep and rams: God wants your love, dude. And love, it turns out, is not a fruity emotional cocktale – even in that little snippet from John Piper which is getting so many angry eyebrows this week. Setting our affections on God is not the same thing as sending Him a Valentines Card every day.

But here's the thing: that troublemaker Jesus was also on about how our affections relate to our standing before God. There are a couple of places I think this is demonstrated pretty clearly, but here's one that is simply to obvious to ignore.

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. [ESV, Mat 6]

Right? And this version of this statement is even less invasive than the parallel passage in Luke 12, amen?

Where your -treasure- is, there your -heart- will be. Jesus' words here say explicitly that your treasure -shows- where your heart is.

Think about this: if Donald Trump, who is a billionaire egoist, drove through your town and stopped at your house because he saw your posts on my blog, and he rang the doorbell, invited himself in, and handed you the closing papers on your house, the title for your car, and receipts for 10 years worth of utilities to your house paid in advance, what kind of person would you be?

That is, what would you feel? You'd feel something – maybe stunned at first, or embarrassed. But my guess is that you'd feel grateful. You'd feel grateful – and then the question is what to do about that.

And what Piper is asking here, exhorting here, is that Christ has done more for you than the billionaire egoist can do for you, and if you don't feel grateful, maybe you haven't really received the gift. It could be other things – maybe you haven’t considered the gift; maybe you haven’t examined the gift. But to do those things, you have to be somehow awakened to the fact that you ought to make sure you received the gift.



You know, I drove my first car for 14 years, and the morning it wouldn’t start anymore I was a little put out, but a couple of weeks later my wife bought me my new car. And you know something? Every time I get in it, I wonder if it's really mine, and if I deserve it, and if I will take care to show that I am grateful. Not to the car: to my wife – even though I'm the breadwinner in the house. And for the record, I thank God for his generosity that I have it.

For a car. How much more should we think that way about our salvation? And why on Earth would anyone think that challenging people to examine whether or not they are still grateful, and whether that gratitude has any spiritual bearing on them, is wrong? It's not hardly wrong.

Think about who you are this weekend. Be in the Lord's house with the Lord's people on the Lord's day and let your assurance be challenged – because unless your assurance is changing you, unless it is putting your treasure in things which cannot rust and thieves cannot steal, you have a false assurance.

---