Jesus, the First Resurrection!
We interrupt the mundane theological debates at hand to proclaim to you Jesus, Our Resurrection! Those who believe will share, not only in his death, but also in his resurrection! Jesus is the First Resurrection (Revelation 20:4-5)! For more on this odd refernce, see Kim Riddlebarger’s sermon, “They Came To Life And Reigned With Christ For A Thousand Years”
Don’t forget, Easter–or “Resurrection Sunday,” if you prefer–is only two weeks away!
Christ is Risen!!! In John 11, we learn about Jesus our resurrection: let’s read about it together . . .
The Death of Lazarus
· Jesus’ ministry coming to an end; his greatest sign about to be given by which Jesus revealed the glory of God the Father (see John 17:1-6).
· Jesus and his disciples are on their way to Jerusalem for the last time, to keep Jesus’ last Passover feast, the meal in which the Jews took part in the great work of redemption in the Old Testament, the exodus from bondage in Egypt. This last Passover will become Jesus’ Last Supper where he will update some of the symbols in the meal to communicate his ultimate work of redemption for not only Jews, but also for Gentiles from every nation.
11:1 Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was ill. 3 So the sisters sent to him, saying, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.” 4 But when Jesus heard it he said, “This illness does not lead to death. It is for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”
· Jesus had some friends in Bethany, where Mary and Martha would take care of Jesus whenever he came that way. Mary will become famous for how she prepares Jesus for his burial in chapter 12.
· The sisters send word that their brother is sick, but Jesus, by the Holy Spirit, knows that this is not the last anyone will see of Lazarus. But that what is about to happen will help Jesus glorify his Father in heaven.
5 Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6 So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. 7 Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.” 8 The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now seeking to stone you, and are you going there again?” 9 Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If anyone walks in the day, he does not stumble, because he sees the light of this world. 10 But if anyone walks in the night, he stumbles, because the light is not in him.” 11 After saying these things, he said to them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I go to awaken him.” 12 The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will recover.” 13 Now Jesus had spoken of his death, but they thought that he meant taking rest in sleep. 14 Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus has died, 15 and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.” 16 So Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
· (5-6) Normally, if we call for someone to help, and if they are slow to come, we think they don’t like us much; but John wrote that because Jesus loved Lazarus and his sisters, he put off showing up for two days! That means God has a plan!
· (7-10) When Jesus is ready he calls his disciples to follow him to Judea. Bethany is in Judea, as is Jerusalem, where the Jews wait to kill Jesus. The disciples fear the danger and remind Jesus, hoping he’ll just let Lazarus recover on his own, so they can stay safe. But Jesus tells them plainly that Lazarus is dead and Jesus is to go raise him to give them a sign that will strengthen their faith in him. Finally, Thomas speaks for the whole group when he resolves to follow Jesus even to the cross! This is how far God calls us to follow Jesus, too, and when that time comes, he gives us the grace to be willing to do so, if we believe (Hebrews 12:1-4).
I Am the Resurrection and the Life
17 Now when Jesus came, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days. 18 Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off (15 stadia), 19 and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them concerning their brother. 20 So when Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, but Mary remained seated in the house. 21 Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But even now I know that whatever you ask from God, God will give you.” 23 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. [4] Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She said to him, “Yes, Lord; I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”
· (17-22) When Jesus and the disciples get to Bethany, they find that dead Lazarus has been buried for four days, and many people from Jerusalem had come to console Martha and Mary. When the sisters hear of Jesus’ arrival, Martha hurries to greet Jesus and reaffirm her faith in him, even though he didn’t do what she had originally asked for. We can rest assured that when we pray for something, if we don’t get it, we can know that it’s only because God plans to do something even better for your good and his glory (Romans 8:26-30)!
· (23-27) When Jesus promises Lazarus will rise from the dead, Martha misunderstands, thinking that Jesus is talking about the end of the world when everyone will rise from the dead. But, again, Jesus plans to do something better than we expect! Jesus proclaims that he is resurrection himself, and we who believe in him will experience a spiritual resurrection, because of which, though we may die physically one day, we can be sure we will live in God’s presence forever (Romans 6:5)! Now I ask you what Jesus asked Martha: “Do you believe this?” Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, whom God sent to die because of your sins and to rise from the dead that you may live forever because God has justified you by giving you Jesus’ rigteousness?
Jesus Weeps
28 When she had said this, she went and called her sister Mary, saying in private, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.” 29 And when she heard it, she rose quickly and went to him. 30 Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha had met him. 31 When the Jews who were with her in the house, consoling her, saw Mary rise quickly and go out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32 Now when Mary came to where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled. 34 And he said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” 35 Jesus wept. 36 So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!” 37 But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man also have kept this man from dying?”
· Now Martha fetches Mary so she may greet Jesus and be comforted by her. Jesus felt sorry for Mary when she came and complained to him in tears. Jesus asks to see Lazarus’ tomb, and when he sees it, he weeps with Mary (Romans 12:15) over Lazarus’ death. This, as usual, serves to divide the people who witness Jesus’ works: some admire his love for Lazarus, while others complain that Jesus’ tears aren’t good enough.
Jesus Raises Lazarus
38 Then Jesus, deeply moved again, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone lay against it. 39 Jesus said, “Take away the stone.” Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, by this time there will be an odor, for he has been dead four days.” 40 Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?” 41 So they took away the stone. And Jesus lifted up his eyes and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this on account of the people standing around, that they may believe that you sent me.” 43 When he had said these things, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out.” 44 The man who had died came out, his hands and feet bound with linen strips, and his face wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”
· When Jesus commands the stone be removed, Martha reminds him Lazarus’ decomposing body will stink, but Jesus reminds her of his words to her about trusting Jesus so she can see how he will glorify God the Father. Then Jesus prays for the Father to raise Lazarus, and he prays for this so that those who witness this sign will believe that Jesus is the Christ, sent by God the Father.
The Plot to Kill Jesus
45 Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him, 46 but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. 53 So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.
· Some of the Jews who saw the resurrection of Lazarus believed and so received a spiritual resurrection of their own in Jesus! They were raised to life by God and believed in Jesus! But others went and reported this miracle to the Pharisees, who, with the chief priests, gathered the Council to determine what to do next about this trouble-maker, Jesus. They feared that if they left Jesus alone, and everyone receives him, then the Romans would consider it a threat and would send troops to punish the nation of Israel. But John points out that the high priests words also prophesied about Jesus’ mission: it is better that one sinless man should die on behalf of sinners, than it is for the large group of sinners to die themselves. John uses the high priest’s words to teach us that by his death, Jesus would save not only Jews, but Gentiles from all around the world, too! Gentiles like me and you, who believe (Romans 9:22-26)! Out of hatred for Jesus, and fear of the Romans, they meant evil toward Jesus, but God meant good for his chosen people from all around the world (cf. Genesis 50:20).
54 Jesus therefore no longer walked openly among the Jews, but went from there to the region near the wilderness, to a town called Ephraim, and there he stayed with the disciples.
· Jesus knew how much the Jews in Jerusalem hated him, but he desired to keep the Passover, so he waited in Ephraim to keep safe until the time of the Feast.
55 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and many went up from the country to Jerusalem before the Passover to purify themselves. 56 They were looking for [5] Jesus and saying to one another as they stood in the temple, “What do you think? That he will not come to the feast at all?” 57 Now the chief priests and the Pharisees had given orders that if anyone knew where he was, he should let them know, so that they might arrest him.
· Although the Jews want to arrest Jesus and kill him for their own good, God sent Jesus to die for sin, so that through believing in Jesus, sinners like you and me could be brought to life in Jesus, Our Resurrection!
A Little More Guidance on “Guidance”
Looking around the internet for some more resources to help you get an idea of just how mystical most modern American Evangelical Christians are, I decided to see what has been written in the way of critique regarding the Southern Baptist phenomenon of the ninties, Henry Blackaby’s bestseller, Experiencing God. A simple Yahoo search yielded an interesting review from 1994 by Greg Gilbert for 9Marks Ministries, the verysame source that got me on this topic in the first place last Monday. Gilbert’s remarks are remarkably positive overall, but has a lengthy caution regarding the very subjective, mystical tendency I’m trying to spotlight. Gilbert writes:Blackaby’s teaching throughout Experiencing God is heavily tilted toward discerning some particular “assignment” or “task” from God for a person’s life. His illustrations often begin with words like, “One of our churches believed that God was calling them to . . .” or “Our association was convinced that God wanted us to . . .”(pp. 23, 41) He writes on page 24, “Whenever God gives you a directive, it is always right.” What, though, is the nature of such directives? How does God give them? Blackaby’s conception of these “tasks” or “directives” seems to be a subjective impression on the mind about God’s will for a particular circumstance. God communicates directly to the mind of the Christian and tells him, almost audibly it seems, what should be done. “When God speaks to you in yourquiet time, immediately write down what He said,” (p.172). This belief that God gives direct, subjective impressions to His people is certainly not without merit. Perhaps most importantly, it underlines the reality that God is imminently present and involved in the world. He has not left it to run itself, but is determined to be a part of His people’s lives. There are, though, some cautions that should be raised about such a belief. (Read more)
Gilbert not only offered the criticisms contained in the article, but also made a recommendation for those of you asking, “So, if Blackaby’s version of “leading, guiding and directing” by the Holy Spirit is problematic, where can I learn the way of the Spirit’s leadership more perfectly?” Gilbert’s answer is to direct you to the teaching and writing ministry of Jim Eliff called Christian Communication Worldwide, whose stated ”compelling interests are the reformation of the church, biblical evangelism, and the hope for authentic revival in our day.” Elliff has written a book called, Led by the Spirit: How the Holy Spirit Guides the Believer. I’m intrigued. Whenever I get around to ordering it, perhaps I’ll write a few posts featuring his wisdom from the written Word of God on the subject.
“Fruit of the Vine”: Three Parts Water, One Part Wine
A new commenter recently posted a comment on my post from July 31, 2006 on “The Church’s Witness to the Responsible Use of Wine.” Convinced that Keith Mathison’s information about the Church’s early and ongoing use of alcoholic wine, while true, is also misleading, due to Mathison’s lack of reference to its dilution, Barry Traver adds valuable scholarship to the fact that, while the wine used in the Passover before the cross and the Lord’s Supper afterward was certainly fermented, it was also as certainly diluted by three parts water. Following are his remarks which can also be found at the old site at Blogger. I’m posting it here, linking to as many of his references as possible, so that it may benefit those of you who are presently keeping up with this WordPress site. Here are links to the related posts to which Traver responds:Your post says this:
“We have already mentioned that wine was universally used by the entire church for the first 1,800 years of her existence. During those years, there was never any suggestion that another drink should be used. In the early church, for example, we find clear testimony to the use of wine by such men as Justin Martyr (The First Apology, 65) and Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 2.2).”
True, but misleading, since it fails to mention the ancient practice (including 250 B.C. to A.D. 250) of using diluted wine. That fact is brought out clearly in both Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. Read on!
First, let’s look at Charles Hodge’s comments in his Systematic Theology (volume 3, pages 617):”The Elements to be used in the Lord’s Supper…. In most churches, the wine used in the Lord’s Supper is mixed with water. The reasons assigned for this custom, are,
(1.) The eucharist having been instituted at the table of the Paschal supper, and the wine used in the Passover being mixed with water, it is morally certain that the wine used by Christ when instituting this sacrament, was also thus mixed. Hence it was inferred that his disciples in all ages should follow his example. That the Paschal cup contained wine mixed with water rests on the authority of Jewish writers. “It was the general practice of the Jews to dilute their wine with water….” It is certain, from the writings of the fathers, that this custom prevailed extensively in the primitive Church. As the Greeks and Romans were in the habit of mixing water with their wine on all ordinary occasions, it is the more natural that the same usage should prevail in the Church. It is still retained, both by Romanists [i.e., Roman Catholics] and by the Oriental [i.e., Eastern Orthodox] Church.
(2.) Besides this historical reason for the usage in question, it was urged that it adds to the appropriate significance of the ordinance. As water and blood flowed from the side of our Lord on the cross, it is proper, it is said, that water should be mixed with the wine in the service intended to be commemorative of his death….”
Note that Hodge — an advocate of the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper — indicates that “[i]n most churches, the wine used in the Lord’s Supper is mixed with water ….” for two reasons, one based on ancient practice (the “historical reason”) and the other based on “the appropriate significance of the ordinance.” (Hodge is using the word “significance” in its older meaning of a “symbol” or “sign” with a theological reference.)
Like Charles Hodge, Robert Stein — New Testament seminary professor and author of Difficult Passages in the New Testament (Baker, 1990, pp. 233-238) — believes that it “is obvious that the term wine in the Bible does not mean unfermented grape juice….” Stein provides many interesting specifics that support Charles Hodge’s references to “the Greeks and Romans,” “Jewish writers,” and “the writings of the [Church] fathers” on the “prevailing custom” of diluting wine with water:”
In ancient Greek culture, … [w]hat is important to note is that before wine was drunk, it was mixed with water…. The ratio of water to wine varied. Homer (Odyssey 9.208-9) mentions a ratio of twenty parts water to one part wine. Pliny (Natural History, 14.6.54) mentions a ratio of eight parts water to one part wine…. [Stein also mentions Hesiod (three to one), Alexis (four to one), Diocles (two to one), Ion (three to one), Nicochares (five to two), and Anacreon (two to one).] [As] a beverage [wine] was always thought of as a mixed drink. Plutarch (Symposiacs 3.9), for instance, states, ‘We call a mixture “wine,” although the larger of the component parts is water.’ The ratio of water might vary, but only barbarians drank wine unmixed, and a mixture of wine and water of equal parts was seen as ’strong drink’ and frowned upon. The term wine or oinos in the ancient Greek world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today, but wine mixed with water. Usually a writer simply referred to the mixture of water and wine as ‘wine.’…”
And we … have examples in both Jewish and Christian literature … that wine was likewise understood as being a mixture of wine and water. In several instances in the Old Testament a distinction is made between ‘wine’ and ’strong drink.’…. The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia (vol. 12, p. 533) states that in the rabbinic period at least, ‘ “yayin”‘ [wine] is to be distinguished from “shekar” [strong drink]: the former is diluted with water…; the latter is undiluted….’ In the Talmud, which contains the oral traditions of Judaism from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 (the Mishnah)…, there are several tractates in which the mixture of water and wine is discussed…. In a most important reference (Pesahim 108b) the writer states that the four cups every Jew was to drink during the Passover ritual were to be mixed in a ratio of three parts water to one part wine. From this we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the fruit of the vine used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was a mixture of three parts water to one part wine. In another Jewish reference from around 60 B.C. we read, ‘It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one’s enjoyment’ (2 Macc.15:39). In ancient times there were not many beverages that were safe to drink…. The drinking of wine (i.e., a mixture of water and wine) served therefore as a safety measure, since often the water available was not safe….”The burden of proof … is surely upon anyone who would say that the wine of the New Testament is substantially different from the wine mentioned by the Greeks, the rabbis during the Talmudic period, and the early church fathers.
In the writings of the early church fathers it is clear that ‘wine’ means wine mixed with water. Justin Martyr around A.D. 150 described the Lord’s Supper in this way: ‘Bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president sends up prayers and thanksgiving’ (Apology 1.67.5)…. Cyprian around A.D. 250 stated….: ‘Nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf….. Thus, therefore, in considering the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered….’ (Epistle 62.2, 11, 13). Here it is obvious that unmixed wine and plain water were both found unacceptable at the Lord’s Supper. A mixture of wine and water was the norm…. Earlier (the latter part of the second century) Clement of Alexandria had stated: ‘It is best for the wine to be mixed with as much water as possible…. To … the water, which is in the greatest quantity, there is to be mixed in some of the [wine]….” (Instructor, Book II, Chapter 2, page 243 [A.D. 182-212]).
If wine in Bible times had a maximum alcoholic content of 12% undiluted and if it is true that “we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the fruit of the vine used at the institution of the Lord’s Supper was a mixture of three parts water to one part wine,” then that would put the alcohol content of wine used for the Lord’s Supper at 3% or less.
–Barry Traver
Larry Norman Goes “One Way”
There’s some good reading in the Daily Evangel section, Evangelical News & Views, today about the passing of the Father of Christian Rock, Larry Norman. There is also some great reading about it by Steve Camp at his blog, where he shares a few memories from the days when he spent time with this music ministry mentor of his. But you gotta read, “Larry Norman, Coffee Shop Evangelist” by one of Larry’s more fruitful converts–she went on from her coffee shop conversation with Larry about Jesus to found Jews for Jesus (Wikipedia on J4J)
You know, they always say that you never know what will become of the people with whom you share Christ, the message may go on and on and on. And apparently it did in her case.
I’m not old enough to remember Larry’s music and impact back in the day, but, his legacy in contemporary Christian music played a role in my growing in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, as I laid on my floor in front of my stereo, listening to Christian rock and reading the lyrics sheets and looking up the Scripture references that were often printed along with the words. I wonder if they still do that on lyrics sheets nowadays . . .
Here’s a nice song that seemed appropriate to feature in light of the passing of the effectively evangelistic Father of Christian Rock, Larry Norman. I’ll post another in the sidebar VODPOD.
<
What Illuminates Your Path?
Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D. C., the successor to Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, founder of 9Marks Ministries
, and speaker at bi-annual “Together for the Gospel” conferences, has written a great post on “The Bondage of Guidance,” in which he bursts the bubble of those who don’t realize that waiting for God’s “still, small voice” to direct all of your decision making, is really a form of mysticism which can undermine the sufficiency of Scripture. Many have heard this practice prescribed from pulpits for so long, that even those who confess faith inthe sufficiency of Scripture are among its chief proponents and practitioners.
Subjectivism reigns among modern American Christians. Otherwise orthodox believers who grew up being taught the memory verse, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path” (Psalm 119:105, KJV), even having grown up singing these words with Amy Grant, yea, and even the generations prior to ours, regularly turn from the objective divine guidance recorded for them in the Bible, praying for wisdom and acting on their “sanctified common sense,” and wait with Elijah to mystically hear God speak directly to them in the “still, small voice” to guide them in their daily decision-making process.
Nothing will do our systems better than to give them a good flushing out with some Bible-based objectivism. Read Dever’s post (linked above), and then go over to the blog of my buddy, Gage Browning’s church, Grace Community Presbyterian Church and read the helpful discussion of this same post in their post, “What To Do, What To Do . . . “
But first, here’s an excerpt from Dever’s sage counsel on seeking guidance from God’s will:
I do believe that God’s Spirit will sometimes lead us subjectively. So, for instance, I am choosing to spend my life here on Capitol Hill because my wife & I sensed in 1993 that that is what God wanted us to do. However, I realized then (and now) that I could be wrong about that supposition. Scripture is NEVER wrong.
There is also some interesting and relevant discussion about the general tendency of American Christianity toward gnostic-like mysticism in yesterday’s episode of the White Horse Inn to which I have linked in the sidebar. About twenty-one minutes into the program, host Michael Horton quotes the provocative words of a critic of American Christianity which we discount to our own discredit:
‘Whatever the stated doctrinal positions that stated American Evangelicalism shares with historic Christianity, Mormons and Southern Baptists call themselves Christians, but, like most Americans, they’re closer to ancient gnostics than to early Christians.
(Gulp!)
First Edition of the Daily Evangel Rolls Off the Press!
Spider-Man has the Daily Bugle; Superman has the Daily Planet; now, your (all ten of you) favorite Reformed superhero, Captain Headknowledge features a newspaper of his own . . . The Daily Evangel!
That’s right: The Daily Evangel. I thought this would not only be a clever imitation of Clark Kent’s newspaper, but that it would also be a daily reminder to those of you who believe in Christ-Centered Preaching, and Living the Cross-Centered Life, to “preach the gospel to yourself.”
I know that a few days ago, I set up RSS feeds to Reformation Theology and Out of Ur, to direct you to more solid Reformed reading and to keep your finger on the pulse of “The State of Evangelicalism.” Well, the idea took root in that condition, but now it is bearing fruit in a different form.
Just under the list of pages in the sidebar, you’ll notice the Daily Planet-like logo of the Daily Evangel, under which will follow the ESV Daily Bible Verse, “Reformed News & Views,” featuring the RSS feed from Reformation21, and “Evangelical News & Views,” featuring that of Christianity Today Magazine. I’m toying with politics and sports (don’t get excited, guys, sports to me is arguing theology–hint-hint!), but those sections haven’t gelled just yet, so, to mix my metaphors, “stay tuned.” In the meantime, I hope you benefit from the daily short Scripture reading and from keeping up with current events and “commentary” on the Reformed and Evangelical fronts in the headlines of the Daily Evangel–and most of all, don’t forget to preach the gospel to yourself everyday to strengthen your faith and sanctification!
First Christmas, Easter and Halloween . . . now the pastorate?
Look at the bottom of my sidebar. I’ve added a couple of RSS Feed widgets. One links to the blog, “Reformation Theology,” where you can find some pretty good reading on Reformed theology, by folks more experienced at expounding it to you than I am. With this feed I’m attempting to, as they say, “light a light.”
The other feed, conversely, is where I, if you will, “curse the darkness.” It’s a link to “Out of Ur,” the blog of “Christian Leadership” Magazine, a subsidiary of “Christianity Today”. It may help us keep our finger on the pulse of the spiralling state of evangelicalism. What I want you to see specifically are the links to “Pagan Christianity” and “Is the Pastorate Pagan?” These deal with a new book called Pagan Christianity?, that has recently been published, co-written by Frank Viola and George Barna, author of Revolution. If you look for them after today, it probably won’t be in my sidebar anymore, but you’ll have to search the archives at “Out of Ur” for these articles.
Since the release of Barna’s book, I’ve been concerned with how addicted most churches seem to be on Barna’s polling of Christianity. Knowing what we now know from his book, Revolution, about his belief that the institutional church is irrelevant, and individuals need to rather “be the church” individually (which is an oxymoron), I fear that his statistical research is actually used to promote this ideal. I submit, either evangelicals who are faithful to God’s Word and historic orthodoxy ought to find other sources for such statistical information, or give up entirely the need to tell us from the pulpit what the latest statistics are that relate to whatever it is that is being preached about on any given Sunday.
So the rolling snowball of Barna’s “Revolution” is growing; with the help of Frank Viola, not only is church irrelevant, traditional forms of church ministry are pagan! Or, so they would have you believe.
Evangelicals are living in perilous times (2 Timothy 3:1-17).
From “Feed My Sheep” to “Self-Feeders”
The following is an excerpt of the concluding remarks of the White Horse Inn from yesterday’s program, “What Would Moses Do?” dated, Sunday, February 17, 2008 (see sidebar for link to program). About the modern evangelical tendency to do anything and everything but the one simple thing Jesus asked the church to do–feed his sheep the Word of God, which Peter would go on to write, “the Word of God is the Gospel which we preached to you” (1 Peter 1:25b)
Horton: Now, the Bible is God’s instruction book. And that’s how a lot of people talk about it. Or it’s the owner’s manual. Well, what is an owner’s manual? An owner’s manual is a guide you go to that tells you how to fix your car. Folks, that’s the wrong category. The Bible is not primarily God’s instruction book. It has instructions, and they need to be preached, but it is not primarily that. In fact, the Bible is silent about half of the things that preachers want to talk about on Sunday morning when it comes to the practical. I can get a lot more help from Susie Armand about my finances than Bill Hybels.
Jones: Or diets, or things of that nature.
Horton: Yeah! I don’t need a Christian diet—I need a Christian gospel if you’ve got that. Tell me something I can’t get from Oprah or Dr. Phil.
Jones: Preaching is feeding time for the whole family.
Horton: Boy, isn’t that the case?
Riddlebarger: It should be!
Horton: But according to the latest study by Willow Creek Community Church, they concluded because their most active members said they were dissatisfied with their church—they concluded, “We gotta wean people off of the church. What this tells us is, as you mature, you need the church less.” They didn’t take away from that, they actually were not providing the nutrients that those people needed, even though they actually said in their surveys, “Not deep enough Bible teaching or worship.” Willow Creek concluded from that, “Yep. We’ve gotta make people ‘self-feeders.’” We’ve got to make it where they don’t have to depend on the church, whereas, Jesus said, “Peter, before I go—I know it’s you—I know you can’t handle a lot—I’m asking you to do one thing and do it well. Feed my sheep.”
The one thing Jesus asked the church to do. And Willow Creek says we need to teach people to become self-feeders. That is, at the end of the day, what moralistic therapeutic deism does. When you preach the law as gospel, people can find their own good advice on the internet.
White Horse Inn “Webisodes” on YouTube
“One of the most urgent tasks facing Evangelical Christendom today is the recovery of the gospel.” – J.I. Packer
The quote above is featured under the title of a blog called, “Recover the Gospel.” Kim Riddlebarger, pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California, co-host of the White Horse Inn Radio Show, and Reformed Blogger extraordinaire, directed his readers to the Recover the Gospel website where they have prepared a series of videos featuring the past two weeks’ episodes of the White Horse Inn for viewing on YouTube.
For those who aren’t aware, The White Horse Inn is a “theological talk show” advocating a return to the solid doctrine and practice of the Calvinist and Lutheran traditions which were foundational to Protestantism. They’re call is for every believer to “Know What You Believe and Why You Believe It.” This is an important message for this generation for very obvious reasons.
What passes for Protestant Christianity nowadays is often hardly Protestant, and some of it does not even legitimately pass as Christian. Here in America, pragmatic and entertaining methods often trump and undermine the validity of the Christian message. Whether we know it or not, Christianity in America is experiencing a “Dark Ages” of its own, because biblical illiteracy and ignorance of Christian history is so rampant that most American Christians are adrift in a see of error which they cannot discern and which is endangering their very souls. The Gospel is in desparate need of recovery in our day, and I urge you to begin your own examination of your personal beliefs with Scripture and historically orthodox resources, making an effort to see how different yours and your church’s views may or may not be from the generations of faithful Protestant Christians who’ve gone before us (which era ended sometime early in the nineteenth century).
I have embedded part one of the YouTube presentation of The White Horse Inn’s recent episode called, “That’s Entertainment,” where the hosts discuss the history of the development of entertainment as a form of ministry in America. You will be introduced to such folks as Charles Finney, Aimee Semple McPherson and Billy Sunday and you will see how what passes for ministry nowadays comes from a long line of unorthodox ministers who were acting in a manner consistent with their unbiblical beliefs. It is simply unacceptable that churches with otherwise orthodox doctrine should emulate such people and attempt to glean so-called “wisdom” from the methods of “successful” “ministers” like these. But back at Recover the Gospel, you’ll find a similar YouTube presentation of the previous White Horse Inn episode which analyzed the errors of Joel Osteen, pastor of the largest church in America.
Pray for your church, pray for your family, and pray that the Lord will give you the wisdom to search the Scriptures daily to see whether the things you are being taught on an ongoing basis are so.
Reforming Your Best Life Now
January 31, 2008 was the release date for J. I. Packer’s latest short book, Keeping the Ten Commandments, published by Crossway. I was notified by Amazon.com a few days before its release and immediately placed the order. Now that it’s in my hands, and I’ve begun reading it, I would like to recommend the book to you as a great introduction to the Reformed theology of the relevance of the Ten Commandments in the Christian life. At the same time, it will serve as a great antidote to the man-centered, motivational self-help pop-psychology that passes itself off nowadays as teaching on practical Christian living, or the victorious Christian life. In other words, set aside your “What Would Jesus Do” moralism, Osteen’s “Your Best Life Now,” and anything else that fits in that category and go straight to the source, the Ten Commandments, and learn how to properly apply it to your life as a Christian.
Some may wonder what place the Law has if Christ has fulfilled the Law, and the New Testament says simply to “love one another.” This book will explain it to you. The New Testament didn’t eliminate the Christian’s need to be regulated by God’s moral Law. True Christ-centered living involves a certain kind of reference to the Ten Commandments. I call it the “Law-Gospel Cycle”: The Law points to the Gospel that sinners may be justified by grace through faith; the Gospel points saints to the Law that they may be sanctified by grace through faith which works by love. But enough of my misadventures in exposition, I want you to see some excerpts from Packer himself.
Rightly, Reformation theology did not separate God’s law from God himself, but thought of it personally and dynamically, as a word that God is continually publishing to the world through Scripture and conscience, and through which he works constantly in human lives. Spelling out this approach, Reformed theologians said that God’s law has three uses or functions: first to maintain order in society; second, to convince us of sin and drive us to Christ for life; third, to spur us on in obedience, by means of its standards and its sanctions, all of which express God’s own nature (p. 110).
For the Commandments are God’s edict to persons he has loved and saved, to whom he speaks in “I-you” terms at each point. “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out . . . You shall . . . ” The ten directives, which embody the Creator’s intention for human life as such, are here presented as means of maintaining a redeemed relationship already given by grace. And for Christians today, as for the Jews at Sinai, law-keeping (that is, meeting the claims of our God, commandments 1-4, and our neighbor, commandments 5-10) is not an attempt to win God’s admiration and put him in our debt, but the form and substance of grateful, personal response to his love (pages 30-31).
Place your order soon. It’s a great eight-to-ten dollar investment in Reforming your best life now for God’s glory.
At Last! The Captain on Luther–Audio!
On Reformation Sunday, 2004, which happened to be Reformation Day itself, my
Southern Baptist pastor allowed me to give an oral presentation on Martin Luther at church. Not being a trained, or even talented, speaker, I desired a crutch, so I put together a Power Point slide show to illustrate my presentation. I thought it would also help me make it through my outline as well. I always hoped I’d be able to share it with you, but back when I did the show, I was even more green computer-wise than I am now, so I just recently figured out how to get one of those “My Public Box” thingies in my sidebar and uploaded it. If you’d like to listen, you are certainly invited.
Some of you Luther scholars out there may detect a less than accurate date or fact or two, but give me a break, I’m an amateur. I did what I could with what I had. So, without further ado, if you go over to the black box in the sidebar and click on the top selection, entitled “Reformation Sunday and Gideon Report” (that’s right those Gideons, remeber them?), then you can give it a listen. I know it’s not October or anything, but some of you may enjoy it, if you like mediocre speaking. You can also view the slide show below. . .
John Calvin’s Theology: The Rest of the Story
Those who disagree with the Calvinist view of election and reprobation,
and object to “Calvinism,” per se, usually seem to not realize just how much more there is to Calvinism than his systematization of the Augustinian (i.e., from the 4th century) doctrine of grace versus the Pelagian notion of free will (which comes complete with its own false gospel of works-righteousness). Baptists in particular, who deny the “doctrines of grace,” don’t realize just how much leftover Calvinism there is in their current theology. Those that do, recognize that they are technically categorized as “moderate Calvinists.” Chief among these is what is nowadays called “eternal security.”
Also, there’s the doctrine of original sin, the Biblical doctrine that Adam’s guilt was imputed to all of his descendants, which sinful condition manifests itself in outward sinful acts. Most Baptists today affirm original sin, and they do so because the Baptists who migrated to America were originally Calvinists. Those “General Baptists,” whom modern anti-Calvinistic Baptists sometimes erroneously look back to as their forefathers in the faith, collectively fell away from the faith, and their theological descendants can be found today among modern Unitarianism.
As a proof for this claim, consider the following words from the Wikipedia entry on the General Baptists, to which I linked above: ” . . . traditionally non-creedal, many General Baptist congregations were becoming increasingly liberal in their doctrine, obliging the more orthodox and the more evangelical among them to reconsider their allegiance during this period of revival (Edward’s, Whitefield’s and Wesley’s 18th century First Great Awakening). Before this re-organisation, the English General Baptists had begun to decline numerically due to several factors linked to non-orthodox ‘Free Christianity’. Early Quaker converts were drawn from the General Baptists, and many other churches moved into Unitarianism. . . “
Those General Baptists denied original sin. For example, John Smyth, (first to pastor a church called “Baptist” shortly before he cast his lot with the Mennonites) wrote in his Confession of Faith in 1609 that, “there is no original sin (lit;, no sin of origin or descent), but all sin is actual and voluntary, viz., a word, a deed, or a design against the law of God; and therefore, infants are without sin.” Modern anti-Calvinistic Baptists generally (no pun intended) affirm original sin, and this is because the Baptists from which you descend were originally Calvinists.
Eternal security and original sin managed to stick around because they weren’t offensive enough to undermine the outward results of mass evangelism, the way the doctrines of grace seem to. We have “revivalism” to thank for that. Read Revival and Revivalism: The Making And Marring of American Evangelicalism, by Iain Murry of Banner of Truth Trust, and you’ll learn how the TULIP got plucked in the wake of the Second Great Awakening as otherwise orthodox Christians began to adopt the methods of arch-Pelagian Charles Finney’s “new measures” in order to maximize the effectiveness of their ginned-up revivals.
But enough introduction. What I wanted to point out was just how pervasive Calvinist theology defines modern Baptist and otherwise Evangelical theology. In my last post, I linked to an essay written by B. B. Warfield entitled “Calvin As A Theologian.” This essay was written to set the record straight about all the common misconceptions that have been fabricated by anti-Calvinists in order to not only disagree with the “five points of Calvinism” (aka, TULIP, the doctrines of grace, etc.) but make those under their spiritual care despise Calvin himself and just about everything he stood for. Read Warfield’s introductory remarks, and then go read the entire article:
I am afraid I shall have to ask you at the outset to disabuse your minds of a very common impression, namely, that Calvin’s chief characteristics as a theologian were on the one hand, audacity—perhaps I might even say effrontery—of speculation; and on the other hand, pitilessness of logical development, cold and heartless scholasticism. We have been told, for example, that he reasons on the attributes of God precisely as he would reason on the properties of a triangle. No misconception could be more gross. The speculative theologian of the Reformation was Zwingli, not Calvin. The scholastic theologian among the early Reformers was Peter Martyr, not Calvin. This was thoroughly understood by their contemporaries.
Among the things that we have inherited from Calvinist theology include the following (as Warfield reports):
-
“In one word, he [Calvin] was distinctly a Biblical theologian, or, let us say it frankly, by way of eminence the Biblical theologian of his age. Whither the Bible took him, thither he went; where scriptural declarations failed him, there he stopped short.”
-
“Calvin marked an epoch in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity, but of all great theologians who have occupied themselves with this soaring topic, none has been more determined than he not to lose himself in the intellectual subtleties to which it invites the inquiring mind; and he marked an epoch i the development of the doctrine precisely because his interest in it was vital (that means “spiritual,” or “devout”) and not merely or mainly speculative.”
-
“The fundamental interest of Calvin as a theologian lay, it is clear, in the region broadly designated soteriological. Perhaps we may go further and add that, within this broad field, his interest was most intense in the application to the sinful soul of the salvation wrought out by Christ, — in a word, in what is technically known as the ordo salutis. . . Its [Calvin’s Institutes]effect, at all events, has been to constitute Calvin pre-eminently the theologian of the Holy Spirit.”
-
“He also marks an epoch in the mode of presenting the work of Christ. The presentation of Christ’s work under the rubrics of the three-fold office of Prophet, Priest and King was introduced by him: and from him it was taken over by the entirety of Christendom, not always, it is true, in his spirit or with his completeness of development, but yet with large advantage.”
-
“In Christian ethics, too, his impulse proved epoch-making, and this great science was for a generation cultivated only by his followers.”
-
“It is probable, however, that Calvin’s greatest contribution to theological science lies in the rich development which he gives–and which he was the first to give–to the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit. “
-
Finally, here’s Warfield’s summary of Calvin as a theologian: “It has been common (among academic theologians, not pastors and laity who love to hate Calvin) to say that Calvin’s entire theological work may be summed up in this–that he emancipated the soul from the tyranny of human authority and delivered it from the uncertainties of human intermediation in religious things: that he brought the soul into the immediate presence of God and cast it for its spiritual health upon the free grace of God alone.”
-
And of Calvin’s masterpiece, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Warfield summarizes: “The Institutes is, accordingly, just a treatise on the work of God the Holy Spirit in making God savingly known to sinful man, and bringing sinful man into holy communion with God.”
Far from being some cold, depressing, rigidly logical and academic murderer (we mustn’t forget Servetus!), Calvin was recognized by his peers and his entire generation as an eminently devout and spiritual biblicist whose development of Protestant theology built on the shoulders of Augustine, Anselm, Hus, Bradwardine, Wycliffe, and Luther and helped make Western Civilization what it became in its historical greatness. All by the grace of God, and for his glory alone!
Reformed Theology Coming to an SBC Church Near You!
On January 11, 2008, the Baptist Press posted a report by Michael Chute, entitled, 
-
“. . . ten percent of Southern Baptist pastors (currently) identify themselves as Calvinists.”
-
“. . . 29 percent of recent SBC seminary graduates espoused Calvinist doctrine.”
-
“. . . a minority of SBC churches are led by Calvinist-leaning pastors, but the number is increasing”
-
“. . . Calvinist-led churches are generally smaller in worship attendance and baptisms than non-Calvinist churches.”
-
“. . . baptism rates between Calvinist and non-Calvinist led churches are virtually identical.”
-
“. . . Calvinistic recent graduates report that they conduct personal evangelism at a slightly higher rate than their non-Calvinistic peers.”
-
A PDF file of the full report is posted here.
Also of interest in the report, Chute quoted Hal Poe, Charles Colson Professor of Faith and Culture at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, who paints a picture for us of the recent historical trends within the SBC which have led to the current circumstances. “In a broad sense, it’s happening on Christian college campuses too, as Calvinism appeals to young people who are wanting a more intellectual approach to Christianity . . . . Southern Baptists neglected serious Christian education from the early 1960’s, and that’s when all the trouble started. From discipleship training we went to the amorphous youth groups, whose only real good was to keep kids happy until they graduated from high school and graduated from church. Now, you have a generation [of college students] who have come along and want something deeper and they have latched onto Calvinism.”
Poe goes on to site “John Piper, a Reformed Baptist theologian, preacher and author who currently serves as pastor for preaching and vision of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis. . . . He’s effective because he’s so passionate. . . He holds huge, stadium-type events that are rip-roaring. There’s nobody else doing anything like this so he becomes [Calvinism’s] expositor. But John Piper’s version of Calvinism is not something John Calvin would espouse, or even that Charles Spurgeon [British reformed Baptist preacher] would espouse.”
It is true that Piper is cut from a different cloth from the great Reformer and the nineteenth-century Puritan “Prince of Preachers.” First of all, it must be noted that Piper is not a Southern Baptist, but a member of the Northern Baptist Convention (Bethlehem Baptist member and Reformed Baptist blogger, Bob Hayton, at Fundamentally Reformed, can correct me on that detail if I’m wrong), where he has been a leader in that denomination’s struggle with the modern heresy known as Open Theism. From my reading of his sermons, Piper may be categorized as a “charismatic Calvinist,” which is more of a doctrinal position than a weekly exhibition of extreme emotionalism in worship, or attempts at exercising the miraculous spiritual gifts of tongues, healing, prophecy, etc., images usually evoked by the term charismatic–though the appeal to emotion seems to be greater in his preaching than in typical Reformed preaching. His experiential emphasis on “desiring God” is in part an application of the answer to the first question in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, which states, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” But this seems to be little more than a perhaps pietistic reaction against the reputed cold-orthodoxy of many Reformed worship practices.
Another way Calvin would disagree with Piper is in his application of Baptistic principles to Reformed theology, of which, of course, Spurgeon is also guilty. But in this, Piper and Spurgeon are informed by the historic early Baptist confession of faith commonly known as the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, which is in large part, a condensing of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith, with revisions on the statements regarding Baptism. On the other hand, Piper also is embracing the abberant postmodern “emerging” churches–at least the one’s that at least maintain Reformed theology, while seemingly applying seeker-sensitive pragmatic retooling of worship styles to appeal to an “emerging church” demographic. Thus, Piper’s twenty-first century expression of Calvinism does seem to differ from that of Calvin and Spurgeon; however, this Reformed blogger is grateful that such a figure has been able to influence so many Southern Baptists for the doctrines of grace, the biblical emphasis on the sovereignty of God, and his supremacy in all things, including the secular, sacred and even sinful activity of all men.
Joel Osteen: Love Thy Navel
You may or may not notice that I keep updated in my sidebar the
of the White Horse Inn radio show. This week, I’m not satisfied to just update the sidebar, but I want to impress upon you that you really ought to listen to this week’s program on Joel Osteen, as he is examined as a case study in what Doctors Horton, Riddlebarger, Jones and Rosenblatt call “American Religion.” This is a topic and a problem that affects the way all of us approach our faith and our worship. This timely message needs to be heard and heeded. Don’t miss this week’s episode of the White Horse Inn, for the sake of your soul and the sake of your nation.
Evangelical Defense of the Biblical Historical Jesus
Many Reformed Christians often decry the glut of Evangelical literature on the market. We frequently wring our hands about how much literature available at your local Christian bookstore isn’t worth buying. For example, I have a friend who always says that you can find better Christian books at Barnes & Noble. I know what he means, and I don’t disagree. However, when those of us with high expectations for Christian books spend all of our time talking about the undesirable aspects of the Evangelical literature, we forget that with the bad comes the good.
I, for one, am glad that the Evangelical bookselling market is there to regularly defending the reliability of the Bible on a popular level against the constant onslaught of critical, skeptical, cynical and outright irreverent and disrespectful “search for the historical Jesus.” I added irreverent and disrespectful with Ann Rice’s comments about her opinion of the critical scholarship she’s read over the years in her historical research for her writings. When I find the article I read in which her opinion was cited, I’ll update this post. But I digress. I’m glad the Evangelical Booksellers market is there if only to provide on a popular level a defense of the reliability of the biblical account of Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible makes lots of historical and theological claims about Jesus, and we, as Evangelicals, are obligated to believe the Word of God on these issues. If we are willing to believe the spiritual revelation about Jesus in the Bible, we’d better be prepared to believe the historical revelation about him, too. After all, Jesus told Nicodemus in John chapter three, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?” (John 3:12) The historical reliability of the Bible (“earthly things”) is part of the basis for the reliability of the theological reliability of the Bible (“heavenly things”).
That’s why, one day, I hope to get around to reading Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for the Real Jesus. You can check out Zondervan’s website with lots of promotional material about it. But right now, I’m having too much fun along the same lines with one of Zondervan’s other great recent releases, The NIV Archeological Study Bible!
The Misadventures of Captain Headknowledge 