Sunday, March 28, 2010

Spurgeon calls it "A load of trash."

On April 28, 1878 Charles Haddon Spurgeon preached at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. This was Spurgeon's Church and he generally preached to keep his people focused on Christ. He of course, was a master orator and expositor. One of the things I like about his sermons is the fact that he was unconcerned about what outsiders might think. He preached scripture and scripture only. He added nothing to it and took nothing away. Below is an example to make this point:

[...] ”If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

He who does not hate the false does not love the true; and he to whom it is all the same whether it be God’s word or man’s, is himself unrenewed at heart. Oh, if some of you were like fathers you would not have tolerated in this age the wagon loads of trash under which the gospel has been of late buried by ministers of your own choosing. You would have hurled out of your pulpits the men who are enemies to the fundamental doctrines of your churches, and yet are crafty enough to become your pastors and undermine the faith of a fickle and superficial generation.

Most preachers today don't have the spine required to say things like that today. Instead they concern themselves with stroking the "felt needs" of those in attendance seldom even bothering to mention that Jesus began his ministry demanding repentance. I wonder what would be the case in American Christianity today if preachers actually preached the Word only instead of layering "trash" on top the Gospel?

Reliability of Bible

Is the Bible reliable? James White takes the time to explain that it is. Is KJV the only Bible to read? It was copied from printed Bibles not the manuscripts so I suppose one would have to learn Greek to obtain certainty - or at least as much certainty as is possible. I'll just take it as a given that it is accurate. Anyway this is a very interesting talk by Dr. White

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Earth Hour

As I was getting ready this morning I was listening to the Voice of the Midwest, WJR Radio. They were discussing an event planned for 8:30PM tonight called Earth Hour. What it is, I gather, is a movement to "save the earth" from "global warming" by turning off all our lights for 1 hour. Personally I believe the global warming nonsense is just a scam to make some elites very wealthy; Al Gore comes to mind.

In any event I thought these folks should give some kind of medal to North Korea for it's year-round participation in this project. Below is satellite photo of the two Koreas. Obviously the North has been participating in this project for several decades now and appears to have cornered the market on blackouts and turning off lights. But, then again, maybe its because they don't know how to produce large amounts of electricity.

Here's What We Will Get

Mark Steyn has a very good piece about Obama Care. What he describes is not a pretty picture, but we all sense it is the truth - we just don't want to admit it. Here is a snippet from Steyn's article:

I think of a young man called Gerald Augustin of Rivière-des-Prairies, Québec, who went to the St. André medical clinic complaining of stomach pain. He’d forgotten to bring his government medical card, so they turned him away. He was a Quebecker born and bred, and he was in their computer. But no card, no service: that’s just the way it is. So he went back home to get it, collapsed of acute appendicitis, and by the time the ambulance arrived he was dead. He was 21 years old, and he didn’t make it to 22 because he accepted the right of a government bureaucrat to refuse him medical treatment for which he and his family have been confiscatorily taxed all their lives. “I don’t see what we did wrong,” said the administrator. “We just followed the rules.” No big deal, M Augustin wasn’t anything special; no one in her clinic even remembered giving him the brush.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Doug Wilson on Thinking

Pastor Wilson has a great post about thinking - particularly thinking correctly. He began the article with a bunch of things he prefers: You know like the taste of butterscotch over that of spinach. I thought; duh! Who doesn't. But then he went on to say things like:
John Stott once wrote that fuzzy thinking was one of the sins of our age, and he was right. And Dorothy Sayers argued in her great essay on the lost tools of learning that we must learn how to make careful distinctions.

In our day, some profound spiritual errors proceed from Christians who have gotten tired of the need to do just this.
There are very good insights in this article. You can read it here.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Towzer Quote

Not long ago I came across A.W. Towzer's book Knowledge of the Holy. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and I enjoy dipping back into it's insightful teachings about God. Here is a quote from it:
If some watcher or holy one who has spent his glad centuries by the sea of fire were to come to earth, how meaningless to him would be the ceaseless chatter of the busy tribes of men. How strange to him and how empty would sound the flat, stale and profitless words heard in the average pulpit from week to week. And were such a one to speak on earth would he not speak of God? Would he not charm and fascinate his hearers with rapturous descriptions of the Godhead? And after hearing him could we ever again consent to listen to anything less than theology, the doctrine of God? Would we not thereafter demand of those who would presume to teach us that they speak to us from the mount of divine vision or remain silent altogether?” (p. 71).

Saturday, March 20, 2010

My church preaches a form of salvation known generally as "decisional" regeneration. Church leadership believes men have the power and ability in and of themselves to choose, or not, to "accept" Christ as savior.

I have believed for several years now, after much study, this form of belief is flawed in that it does not recognize the Biblical declaration that mankind when born are born "dead in trespasses and sins." To my mind this statement from Scripture is clear, unambiguous, and leaves no wiggle room for the concept of an autonomous free will. My argument is that we choose all kinds of things but those choices are limited by the nature with which we are born and that nature is fallen or spiritually dead. I don't often appeal to science in my arguments but in this case genetics has proven we are what we are as a result of the DNA inherited from our parents regressively back to the first pair of man and woman. Therefore, our natures are derivative of Adam and Eve (if you believe Scripture, as I do) and God said they died spiritually the day they ate of the fruit forbidden to them. Therefore, it is pretty difficult for dead people to choose to something of which they are unaware or even argue coherently from Scripture that they have this capacity.

Scripture teaches than unless and until God "regenerates" our fallen natures we cannot hear, understand or choose to respond to Him.

Because of my beliefs I have found, and am going to begin studying, the writings of Cornelius VanTil. He is the late Westminster Theological Seminary professor who wrote about and taught  Presuppositional Apologetics. VanTil said:
This is, in the last analysis, the question as to what are one's ultimate presuppositions. When man became a sinner he made of himself instead of God the ultimate or final reference point. And it is precisely this presupposition, as it controls without exception all forms of non-Christian philosophy, that must be brought into question. ...In not challenging this basic presupposition with respect to himself as the final reference point in predication the natural man may accept the "theistic proofs" as fully valid. He may construct such proofs. He has constructed such proofs. But the god whose existence he proves to himself in this way is always a god that is always something other than the self-contained ontological trinity of Scripture. (Quote)
 Thinking about the construction of a god who is not God led me to the conclusion that if we are of the belief that we do in fact choose from an autonomous free-will to follow Christ, we have by a faulty world view, subordinated God in our thinking to something that is subject to our whims. It is this world view that asks questions of God such as, in the case of tragedy, "why me?," or in the case of doubt, "how can I know for certain I am born again."

The Sovereign God in whom I believe will not accept, any form of these kinds of questions from me. The only thing I can find in Scripture that even remotely relates to my questioning God are the verses about the Clay's inability to question the Potter. So, I enjoy His presence and rest in the knowledge that there is indeed a life after human death and I am "elected" to be in Heaven with Him and not in Hell when my time here is up.

I don't have to remember anything about "dates of salvation," or "dates of Baptism," all I have to remember while able,  is that even if Alzheimer's eventually eats my brain I am still secure and safe in the Palm of the Saviors hand. If anything should make those who believe a walk down the aisle and a memory jogger written in the front of a Bible is of little comfort if the mind is gone,  it should be that most horrible of brain-eating diseases Alzheimer's.

The good news of the Bible, (the Gospel) is that Christ will care for those the Father has given Him no matter what happens.

Tozer Quotes

Quote A.W. Tozer, "Faith Beyond Reason"

We begin with an explosive text, teaching as it does about a mysterious, invisible birth—a mystic birth. Here is how it reads:

He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:11-13)

Such a text cannot be properly handled without getting into areas that some may consider radical. It cannot be handled without considering the fact that there are many people in the world who are God's creation but not God's children.

It cannot be handled without an admission that we do truly believe in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. (Stay with me and see what the Word of God says about these concepts!)

It cannot be handled without considering the refusal of many "believing Christians" to accept the terms of true discipleship—the willingness to turn our backs on everything worldly for Jesus' sake.

It cannot be handled without discussing the fact that receiving Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord must be an aggressive act of the total personality and not a passive "acceptance" that makes a door-to-door salesman of the Savior.

And it certainly cannot be handled without a warning that evangelical Christianity is on a deadend street if it is going to continue to accept religious activity as a legitimate proof of spirituality.

In this text God informs us about certain people being born. That is significant. God has stepped out of His way to talk about certain persons being born, and we know that He never does anything without purpose. Everything He does is alive, meaningful and brilliantly significant. Why should the great God Almighty, who rounded the earth in the hollow of His hand, who set the sun shining in the heavens and flung the stars to the farthest corner of the night—why should this God take important lines in the Bible record to talk about people being born?

Quote #2,


Why should believing Christians want everything pre-cooked, predigested, sliced and salted and expect that God must come and hold the food to their baby lips while they pound the table and splash? And we think that is Christianity! It is not. Such a degenerate, illegitimate breed have no right to be called Christians.

Those who insist that the Lord God humor them, letting them continue on as they are and still say in the end, "Come, faithful servants," are fools. Someone needs to tell them so now!
—Faith Beyond Reason

Friday, March 19, 2010

Peter Enns on the Ancients

"A literal understanding of Genesis from an ancient mind frame would not necessarily be the same as what we now think of as a literal reading—where everything corresponds to reality in a one to one fashion."


"Ancients were much more accepting of the language of metaphor and in many cases, expected it. This was the way that complex ideas were often transmitted in terms that people could understand."

"In contrast, modern evangelicals carry very modern assumptions about reality that can be in conflict with the ancient (and therefore metaphorical) way of telling a story. Moderns presume that good communication will be literalistic and accurate and since metaphor departs from linear history and communicates things using imagery, misunderstandings can occur."

From the BioLogos Foundation

Scripture has meaning

The Pyromaniac in Chief has come up with a novel idea:
Remember: Scripture meant one thing before you were born, means the same now, and will mean the same, should you die.

Preach that meaning.
Peggy Rosenthal wrote a book a long time ago declaring that "words have meaning." Richard Weaver wrote one declaring "ideas have consequences." Now Dan Phillips declares "Scripture has meaning."

I think these learned folks are trying to tell us something.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

The Missing Gospel

Apprising Ministries posted this video and somehow I missed it. The link to the Apprising Ministries page is in my links list, but just in case here is the direct link to this video.

Predicated on much I have been hearing lately from various sources I thought this message would help educate some folks who seem to be losing sight of the task of Christian leadership.

The Sabbath

Recently we had a guest Evangelist speak at our church. This gentleman is of the "old school" which taught that getting people emotionally involved in what was being said required various body and vocal manipulations to insure his audience did not go to sleep. He exhibited an array of gestures, some of which were so studiously applied they distracted from anything he could have said.

Apparently however, his style worked. I listened to what he had to say. What I remember is his closing remark that he was shortening his harrangue (he chewed us out for complaining, which could only be a result of "insider" information - some call it gossip) because he was hungry and wanted to get to Max and Erma's.

This was spoken on a Sunday Evening to an audience which in this day and age can be assumed to be Christians only. Contrary to popular "christian" belief, lost people are not breaking down the doors "seeking" this Jesus we talk about.

Anyway, the thought struck me: If this gentleman is such a gung-ho Christian why does he insist the folks at Max and Erma's break the Sabbath to wait on him and feed his ego as well as his stomach? Wouldn't the best example, for a Christian to show a fallen world on the Sabbath, be the example of absolute resting from all non-essential activities? I wonder if the wait-person, dishwasher and cook at Max and Erma's might be attracted to a religion which actually believes no one should work on a Sunday?

I'm just sayin'. But, lest you think me overly picky, here's what Spurgeon said on the subject in his Cathecism:

"Question 51

How is the Sabbath to be sanctified?

Answer 51

The Sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days, (Leviticus 23:3) and spending the whole time in the public and private exercises of God's worship, (Psalms 92:1,2; Isaiah 58:13,14) except so much as is taken up in the works of necessity and mercy. (Matthew 12:11,12)

Chew on that Mr. Evangelist the next time you  preach on how hungry you are. And, on whom you are going to demand break the Sabbath to feed you.

Intellectual Sobriety

This morning I was relistening to one of my teachers, Doug Groothuis, professor of philosophy at Denver Seminary when I heard him say, "...intellectual sloth and intellectual sobriety."

I thought what a potent phrase that is. Often when I talk to people about Christ or Christianity I hear them say things, which have made me wonder if they were sober. Leave it to the teacher to express the idea so succinctly. I guess that's why we have teachers, isn't it?

Doug says this about 41 minutes into this video in the Q & A portion. The entire video, along with the video for Part 1, is well worth the time it will cost to watch. I recommend it to anyone who might read this.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Understanding Derivatives

A friend sent this to me but I have no idea who wrote it. It is funny so I thought I would share.

Subject: How to Understand Derivatives


A rather simplified explanation of what has happened to the American economy.
(Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets )

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit . She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.

By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions, and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.
Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed
alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from
issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.

Now, do you understand?

(You probably already did).

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Reality Catches Up

Greece is in trouble. America is in trouble. Greece is just a few years ahead of us in being forced to actually begin living in the real world. Here's what the Washington Post says about the two:
To pull Greece back from the edge, Papandreou has promised to cut the deficit to 3 percent of GDP by 2012. For the U.S. government to make an equivalent cut, it would have to shut down the Pentagon and a few other agencies: the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, plus the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA — and even then we'd come up a few dollars short.
I wonder if we will awaken to the fact that prosperity is not achieved by spending? Probably not.

HT Gene Veith

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Al Mohler Speaks

I got this quote from the Gairney Bridge blog. It's link is on the right in my links list. Mohler is a very thoughtful, insightful, man who often says what I would like to say but can't. I probably say too much as it is. Anyway, I wish I had written this:
In many churches, there is almost no public reading of the Word of God. Worship is filled with music, but congregations seem disinterested in listening to the reading of the Bible. We are called to sing in worship, but the congregation cannot live only on the portions of Scripture that are woven into songs and hymns. Christians need the ministry of the Word as the Bible is read before the congregation and God’s people — young and old, rich and poor, married and unmarried, sick and well — hear it together. The sermon is to consist of the exposition of the Word of God, powerfully and faithfully read, explained, and applied. It is not enough that the sermon take a biblical text as its starting point.

How can so many of today’s churches demonstrate what can only be described as an impatience with the Word of God? The biblical formula is clear — the neglect of the Word can only lead to disaster, disobedience, and death. God rescues his church from error, preserves his church in truth, and propels his church in witness only by his Word — not by congregational self-study.

In the end, an impatience with the Word of God can be explained only by an impatience with God. We — both individually and congregationally — neglect God’s Word to our own ruin.

As Jesus himself declared, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”


The entire article can be found here. It should be read by every one who is concerned about his/her Church and its practices.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Piper on Regeneration

This is clear enough. Nothing here about "decisions," "altar calls," "choosing," "accepting Christ as personal saviour," etc. Just the plain gospel. Anyone can understand it. Boiled down it means God does everything - we do nothing. Clip #1 below is on how "regeneration" happens, the one below is on why it happens.



Thursday, March 4, 2010

Calvin Quote

Ambition is fine if properly constrained. Calvin understood this fact and commented on it. Although he didn't call it "ambition" there is no other name for it. I know some Christians who could learn much from reading this quote:
No single mortal can be sufficient to do everything however many and various may be the endowments wherein he excels. Let then God’s servants learn to measure carefully their powers, lest they should wear out by ambitiously embracing too many occupations. For this propensity to engage in too many things is a very common malady and numbers are so carried along by it as not to be easily restrained. Calvin on Exodus 18:15ff