The Shroud and the Sufficiency of Christ

There is fresh enthusiasm surrounding the Shroud of Turin as it is on public display for the first time since 2000. As the Church of Rome's most noteworthy relic, the Shroud always gathers a lot of attention and has been hotly debated for generations. But the Shroud raises some serious questions not only about the errors of Roman Catholic doctrine and piety but also about evangelicalism's current fascination with the mystic and sensational.

Al Mohler has contributed an important article reflecting on these themes.

He writes,

The veneration of relics, still a part of popular piety among many Roman Catholics worldwide, is a grotesque distortion of biblical piety. The authority for our faith is not based on the evidence of relics, but on the fact that God has spoken to us in his Word. We are to trust the truthfulness of the Bible, not the existence of some relic, authentic or not.

Of course, most of these relics are not authentic — a fact easily determined by even a casual review of the story behind the item. Furthermore, the existence of contradictory claims, such as were made by competing villages with respect to the circumcision remains of Christ, demonstrates the embarrassing fact that these claims cannot be trusted.

The best evidence concerning the “Shroud of Turin” is that it dates to the medieval period and is probably an artifact of human artistry. In David Farley’s words, “a medieval fake.” Nevertheless, more than a million and a half people are lining up to see it, representing far more than historical curiosity. Farley also reports that relics associated with St. Therese of Lisieux went on a 28-city tour of Britain last year, also drawing huge crowds. Clearly, interest in and veneration of relics is not a thing of the past.

But is anyone hurt by the veneration of relics? "After all," one may reason, "if relics provide comfort and hope to the believer, isn't it a good thing?"

Mohler continues:

The “happiness and relief” found in these relics is empty and delusional. Christians are to find happiness and relief and infinitely more in Christ alone. The obsession with relics comes at a grave cost — the confusion of the Gospel, the marginalization of Christ, and the subversion of the Bible’s sufficiency.

The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church has failed its members and betrayed the Gospel by embracing and allowing various forms of the veneration of relics, and this particular feature of Catholic piety and theology cannot be isolated from the larger project of Catholic doctrine.

Mohler's article, however, is not a critique of Roman Catholic piety alone. He helpfully calls evangelicals to attention concerning our own tendency toward relic spirituality.

Evangelical Christians observing the veneration of relics by Catholics are rightly horrified by the practice, but may be wrongly satisfied that nothing like this marks evangelical piety.

This temptation should be checked by the realization that many evangelicals fall prey to similar modes of thinking. Consider the attention given in recent days to the claim that remnants of Noah’s ark had been found on Mount Ararat in Turkey. A team from “Noah’s Ark Ministries International,” based in Korea, claimed that wood found on the mountain came from Noah’s ark — with a certainty of “99.9 percent.”

Archaeologists remain skeptical about the claims, and the controversy is likely to continue for some time. But Christians should not give too much attention to such claims in the first place. Our confidence that the account of the flood and Noah’s ark happened in space, time, and history is grounded in the Bible, not in remnants of ancient timber.

If archaeologists later agree that the fragments are indeed from Noah’s ark, that will be a matter of real interest to Christians, but this should add nothing to our confidence in the Bible. If the fragments are determined to be authentic or, most likely, if there is no consensus at all, this will not detract anything from the truthfulness, authority, and sufficiency of the Scriptures.

Our confidence is in the Bible as the Word of God, not in gopher wood.

Read the entire article HERE.

Smart Christians...

"The 20 Most Brilliant Christian Professors"

Apply the Gospel to Everything

“In order to grow in Christlikeness, we’ve got to intentionally apply the gospel to everything we are and everything we long to do. We’re not to sever our obedience from [Christ's] perfect sinlessness nor disconnect our mortal life from his resurrected life. We’ve got to understand ourselves in the light of our new identity, seeing ourselves as we truly are: sinful and flawed, loved and welcomed. Only these gospel realities have enough power to engender faith, kill idolatry, produce character change, and motivate faithful obedience.”

- Elyse Fitzpatrick, Because He Loves Me

On learning hymns...

Over at the Gospel Coalition James Grant has written a very helfpul piece on intruducing contemporary congregations to the richness of Christian hymnody.

I occasionally get questions about introducing hymns to congregations that do not sing them. Should a pastor introduce old hymns? And if so, how should we go about the process?

First, make sure to explain and teach to your people the importance of theological expression through music. Help them see the depth of a hymn like, “For All the Saints,” or another one listed below.

Second, help them see that as Christians, we have to lean against the “arrogance of the modern.” We are people who are connected with brothers and sisters from the history of our faith, and we should not ignore that. Learning hymns is a way to participate in the church universal and the communion of the saints.

Third, develop a practical method for introducing the hymns. I suggest you introduce a new hymn each month. I used this for introducing the Psalms, but it works just as well for a hymn. At significant points in the church year (Advent, Christmas, Easter) introduce a powerful hymn. If you start in March around the time of what some observe as Lent, you can introduce a hymn like “O Sacred Head Now Wounded,” which is a hymn that emphasizes the passion of Jesus Christ. Then for Easter introduce a hymn like “Christ the Lord is Risen Today.”

Fourth, develop a long-term plan. By this I mean you should know the main hymns you want to introduce over the course of the next few years. That means if you want to plan out two years, pick 24 hymns. Put the appropriate hymn in the month relative to the major event of the church year.

Read the entire piece HERE.

I resonate with Grant's statement that Christians ought to push back against the "arrogance of the modern." Many younger evangelicals have abandoned their protestant church in favor of a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox communion. This trend has less to do with theology than it does with a desire for connection to something which is reverent and enthusiastically embraces its history. My rule of thumb is something like this: The older something is, the greater likelihood that it is right. The newer something is, the greater likelihood that it is wrong.

Perhaps the chief reason the church is losing so many of our young people once they go off to university is that they have not been equipped with a robust faith. Their concept of God is often sentimental and this in no small part because of the woeful condition of Christian worship. It offers a romantic but substance-less vision of God. Our understanding of worship is often limited to music while ignoring or minimizing the public reading of Scripture, the sacraments, prayer, and the preaching of God's Word as vital elements of corporate worship. What is more, we often sing about our love for God and our emotional longings for Him but who this God is and what He does has gone largely ignored. Thus our faith more romantic than substantive.

This can be addressed by a thoughtful consideration of how the church has worshipped through the generations. Certainly there were practices that needed (or still need) to be jettisoned. Certainly the Church of Rome is full of extra-biblical rituals. However, the content of great hymns is something that needs desperately to be recovered by the contemporary church. Certainly, candy is much easier to eat and digest than steak but sugar is no substitute for protein. Let us not give our young people a bowl of porridge in place of their magnificent birthright.

The Evangelical Liturgy?

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

Martha's Vineyard (cont)

A Good Weekend

Thanks to my church family for letting me get away with my wife for a few days. We spent the weekend on Martha's Vineyard. The occasion was our 20th anniversary. Actually our anniversary is not until the end of the month but that is when summer rates kick in on Martha's Vineyard. Anyway, we stayed in a great inn, saw some beautiful sites, and enjoyed each other's company.

"Theological Leverage"?! (Updated)

This seems to be another sad case of biographical embellishment from a well known evangelical "leader." Liberty University ought to be ashamed. I expect no such emotion, however, from Dr. Caner.

Scripture teaches that few of us should be teachers for we will face a stricter judgement. It is the church's responsibility (as well as that of Christian organizations such as Liberty University) to hold accountable those who are entrusted with the mantle of leadership. Should they be encouraged, supported and prayed for? Absolutely! But they must be rebuked when their sin damages the purity and witness of the body of Christ.

Update:
Justin Taylor has posted the latest on this sad story. I hope that Liberty University will take this issue seriously. Justin posts a series of questions that James White has raised which indicate just how many problems there are with Caner's multiple versions of his own story.

Westminster Seminary on iTunes

Check it out HERE.

Justification, N.T. Wright, and the New Perspective on Paul

Ligonier Ministries has posted a wealth of helpful resources addressing N.T. Wright's theology, commonly referred to as the New Perspective on Paul. Check it out HERE and HERE.

"The great secular idol of modernity," or "Keep your politics out of our morality"

From a very helpful article on Christians and politics by Doug Wilson:

James Davison Hunter has this to say about contemporary Christian political involvement.

"These qualifications notwithstanding, the reality is that politics is the tactic of choice for many Christians as they think about changing the world . . . It is not an exaggeration to say that the dominant public witness of the Christian churches in America since the early 1980s has been a political witness" (To Change the World, p. 12).

Yeah, but. An important qualification has to be added to this. Before offering that addition, however, let me say that I acknowledge that there are evangelical Christians out there who are political wonks and junkies in a way that is not spiritually healthy. That said (in order to demonstrate that I am as even-handed and as balanced as can be), let me proceed to add my qualification.

Think about this for a moment. The "most dominant public witness" of Christians has been political. Assuming this to be so (and I believe it is), there are different
reasons why it might be so. One reason could be that Christians are the ones with the problem. They have politics on the brain. They rush to the mechanisms of the state (which were modestly hiding in a distant village), in order to advance their public faith with the politics of coercion. In other words, these Christians have lost faith in Jesus their Savior, and are trying to use the political process as a sort of savior's-little-helper.

Another option, and one that I consider far more likely, is this. The political state in our day is swollen and overgrown, and has gotten into everything. Politics, the great secular idol of modernity, has virtually filled up every public space. This means that it is not possible to go into any public space in order to have a public witness of any kind without it resulting in some kind of political confrontation.

To this extent, to blame public Christians for being "too political" is like blaming Noah's ark for being "too wet."

Read the entire article HERE.

Ligon Duncan on the Gospel and the Church Fathers

T4G 2010 -- Session 7 -- Ligon Duncan from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo

Earth Day drives me crazy, but...

I confess that Earth Day drives me crazy. Hollywood activists leave me running for an air sick bag. I will not be taking my children to see "Furry Vengence." I also suspect that certain politician's supposed concern for the environment is nothing more than an opportunity to rob the citizens of their liberty and capture more power for the federal government. That said, I was properly rebuked by the following piece by Russell Moore.

As I type this, I am looking out at the Gulf of Mexico. You could have seen a similar sight out the window of the hospital where I was born, just a few miles down the road here on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi. Now, though, those waters I grew up with, gently lapping against the sand, are threatening to bring with them millions of gallons of oil, spewing up from an exploded rig out in the Gulf. Five years after Hurricane Katrina leveled this hometown of mine, it is bracing for the worst environmental disaster in the history of the United States.

Some conservatives, and some conservative evangelicals, act as though “environmentalism” is by definition “liberal” or even just downright silly. Witness a lot of the evangelical rhetoric across social media on Earth Day a while back: mostly Al Gore jokes and wisecracks about cutting down trees or eating endangered species as a means of celebration.

Do some environmentalists reject the dignity of humanity? Yes. Do some replace the reverence for creation with that due the Creator? Of course. This happens in the same way some do the same thing with reverence for economic profit or any other finite thing.

There’s nothing conservative though, and nothing “evangelical,” about dismissing the conservation of the natural environment. And the accelerating Gulf crisis reminds us something of what’s at stake.

The incoming tsunami of oil isn’t just about the beaches, although that will be environmentally and economically catastrophic. Just as problematic is the creeping of the oil into the inland estuaries and marshes and waterways. The crisis could potentially destroy the eco-systems of birds, shrimp, oysters, and other lifeforms.

Does God care about baby shrimp? I would argue, yes; God cares for the sparrow that falls to the ground (Matt. 10:29). But, even if you disagree with me on that, consider how God loves those who are “of more value than many sparrows” (Matt. 10:30).

Shrimpers here in Biloxi are mourning the potential loss of more than just an industry but a way of life handed down, at least to some of them, from multiple generations before them. If shrimping collapses, so does tourism, apart from the in and out predation of the casinos dotting the shoreline.

Just as significant, though, are the ways the balance of ecology affects people in ways we never consider or notice, until it’s threatened. God gave his image-bearing humanity dominion over the natural creation (Gen. 1:28). But this isn’t a pharaoh-like dominion; it’s a Christ-like dominion. Humans aren’t made of ether; we’re made of Spirit-enlivened mud. We come from the earth, and we must receive from the earth what we need to survive, in the form of light from the sun, oxygen from plants, and food from the ground.

God knows that we need the natural creation (what we so reductionistically call an “environment”). He exults in it throughout the Psalms and in his speech to Job about his mysterious ways. Jesus continually retreats into the silent places of the mountains and the hills and the deserts, sometimes in the fellowship of only the wild beasts (Mark 1:13). We are built to recognize God in the creation (Rom. 1:18-21), and we need more than just what we can pave over and build in order to flourish.

This is why the Scriptures speak of eternal life in the metaphor of a river that causes the waters to teem with life, with many kind of fish, and vegetation thriving on the banks (Ezek. 47:9-12). This is why one aspect of Jesus’ kingship is to make the waters teem with fish, right in the presence of his commercial fishermen disciples (John 21:3-8), And this is why the Scriptures consider it an apocalypse when the waters are poisoned, and the sea-life is gone (Rev. 8:8-9).

We need the creation around us, including the waters and all they contain, because we are not gods. We are creatures who thrive when we live as we were made to live. We exercise dominion over the creation not only when we use it, but also when we conserve it for the generations who will come after.

So pray for the Gulf Coast, that the oil wouldn’t devastate a people and a land already devastated by so much. As you do, remember: real conservatives protect what God loves.

Perseverance and Apostasy

What would you say to a church where two of its most promising young “Christians” had not only left the faith but had turned against it with mockery and hostility? That’s the very real scenario I was asked to address recently at a small gathering of pastors and elders. It is undoubtedly one of the most agonizing and disturbing experiences in the Christian life when a dear friend or family member, abandons his/her profession of faith. I’ve known this very personally and painfully, both among my relations and in my pastoral ministry.

Very helpful post by David Murray at TGC.

Sunday's Sermon

Sunday's message was part 34 in our series through Hebrews. It is entitled "Faith Looking Forward" (Heb 11:8-10). You can listen to or download it HERE.

A Gift for Mom

This new book could be a great gift for Mother's Day.

This new On-the-Go Devotional addresses a universal challenge: finding joy in today's world.

God's Word tells us of all that is ours through his Son. Our security is guaranteed, our provision is sure. In the face of such abundant life, why is our joy so often stolen from us? Undoubtedly we pass through seasons of difficulty, sorrow, and uncertainty. But real joy isn't conditional on circumstances, is it? How are we to pursue joy in seasons of both plenty and need?

This newest addition to a series of small devotional books for women teaches that we will only find perpetual joy when we pursue Christ. Brownback helps women understand that their joy is not circumstantial, but built on the promises of God and the work of Jesus. Forty-two short devotionals look to Scripture for words of encouragement, correction, wisdom, and guidance to help women adorn themselves with joy.

Lydia Brownback Devotionals Promo from Crossway on Vimeo.

Athletes who likely are or are not emergent

Check THIS out from Ted Kluck.

True Woman

A new book edited by Nancy Leigh DeMoss is a collection of addresses delivered at The True Woman Conference in 2008. It looks like it is well worth reading.

In spring 2008, over 6000 assembled in Chicago to hear a counter-revolutionary call.

John Piper. Mary Kassian. Joni Eareckson Tada. Karen Loritts. Janet Parshall. Nancy Leigh DeMoss. These voices launched the call to return to biblical womanhood. Thousands of women responded. Now they are the voices heard in communities, churches, and ministries worldwide. The True Woman Movement began.

Experience the birth for the first time or relive True Woman ’08 with The Voices of the True Woman Movement.

"Trajectories Toward an Adjusted Gospel"

T4G 2010 -- Session 3 -- Al Mohler from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

PCRT Live Streaming Video

The Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology takes place in Philalphia this weekend. The theme is "These Last Days" and will feature speakers such as Sinclair Ferguson, Michael Horton, Rick Phillips, Ligon Duncan, Phil Ryken, and Cornelis Venema. If you cannot attend don't worry. You can watch the PCRT live by streaming video HERE.

"That's a good question Larry."

Most of us have seen it. The evangelical preacher appearing on Larry King Live who is asked the inevitable "gotcha" question: "Do you believe that everyone who does not believe in Jesus will go to hell?" There have been many cringe worthy responses over the years to that question.

Kevin DeYoung has posted, what I think, is a very worthy response to that question. So if you are a well-known evangelical who may end up on Larry King Live then please takes notes.

“You know, Larry, that’s a huge question. On one level it’s hard to answer because it feels like a trap. ‘Will he or won’t he condemn everyone to hell?’ Well, it’s not my place to give the final evaluation for anyone. And I don’t want to sit here and say that I deserve to go to heaven more than someone else.

“Because the fact of the matter is none of us can merit heaven. God is holy and we are not. No matter how sincere we are or how many good things we do, we can’t begin to approach the purity and perfection of God. So we need a Mediator, a go-between.

“The Bible teaches that God sent his Son to be our Mediator. He lived the life we couldn’t and died the death meant for us. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says he was counted as sin so that we could become the righteousness of God. This great exchange is only possible by faith. Even Jesus said that those who don’t believe in him stand condemned already.

“And not because they don’t believe. God doesn’t punish people for not hearing about Jesus. He punishes us for being sinful sinners, for twisting what he has revealed to us in creation and what our own consciences tell us we should do. Without Christ, there’s no bridge between God and man, there’s no hope for a personal relationship with God, there’s no chance of being forgiven.

“Look, I realize that’s offensive to many people. But our desire is not to exclude anyone. That’s why Christians believe in sharing their faith and starting new churches. We want everyone to put their faith in Christ and be his disciples. That’s what Jesus told us to do before he ascended into heaven. But I can’t accept that good Buddhists or sincere Hindus are doing just fine, because I don’t believe Jesus is someone’s personal God. I believe he is God. He is more than a personal Lord. He is the Lord over everyone and everything whether they recognize it or not. I can’t fully honor Christ if I pretend he is just one option among many. To say what I think your viewers want me to say would be to deny all that I believe is glorious, precious, and unique about Christ. He is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through him.

“See, the good news is Jesus is not just my personal Savior. He is the Savior of the world. That means he’s not my possession that I try to monopolize. No, he possesses everything and will gladly forgive all who turn to him in faith and repentance. Apart from Christ, no one can be right with God, no Hindus, no Buddhists, no Muslims, least of all this sinful pastor. There is no other name under heaven whereby we can be saved. But in Christ, there is salvation, joy, and new life for all who believe."

Inspiration and Inerrancy

Modern Reformation, my favorite journal, is focusing this year on the doctrine of Scripture. The White Horse Inn has also been focusing on Scripture. The latest program (like the March/April Modern Reformation) focuses specifically on inspiration and inerrancy. Listen HERE.

Some who believe that the Bible is an inspired book go on to reject the idea that it is inerrant. But what does it mean to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? How can sinful men produce a holy text without errors? What are we to do with some of the alleged contradictions in Scripture? Joining the panel for this discussion is Dr. R.C. Sproul, one of the founding leaders of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The White Horse Inn: know what you believe and why you believe it.

Unity without truth is an illusion

Good post from Rick Phillips concerning an article in Christianity Today which offered an analysis and critique of Together for the Gospel:

Once while worshiping at a church in Africa, I heard a woman preaching the health-and-wealth gospel. If that wasn't bad enough, she was preaching from the book of Job. I feel similarly about the appeal for unity-without-truth in Christianity Today's negative critique of Together for the Gospel (T4G) . It's bad enough that the author, Bret McCracken, endorsed N. T. Wright's dictum that "nothing justifies schism" (on this, see Phil Johnson's excellent blog post) and relegated the doctrine of justification to the category of "theological minutia," commenting, "Paul, after all, speaks of justification only in a few places (Romans, Galatians, etc.)." This is bad enough, but did he have to make this argument from the book of Galatians?! When Wright and, by extension, McCracken base their appeal to unity without truth on Galatians 3:28, they, like the woman preaching the prosperity gospel from Job, fail to recognize the context. After all, Paul speaks of unity in Christ only after the apostle rejects those who differ on justification as anametha (1:9) and divides even with the apostle Peter over this matter of doctrinal "minutia" (2:11-14). This, then, is my prayer for today: Please, Lord, no more prosperity gospel sermons from Job and no more unity-without-truth appeals from Galatians!

I had a similar response when I read the CT piece. McCracken seems to miss the point ENTIRELY.

A better analysis of the T4G conference in comparison to the Wheaton conference can be found HERE.

New Book Reviews

The Gospel Coalition has posted some new book reviews. They have previously posted a review I wrote of Schreiner's Magnifying God in Christ. I am currently working on a review for TGC of J.I. Packer's Grounded in the Gospel with reviews of Entrusted with the Gospel (Kostenberger) and Marks of the Messenger (J. Mack Stiles) to follow.

Has Noah's Ark been found?

Last Sunday I preached from Hebrews 11:7 which deals with the faith of Noah so I could not resist linking to this story.

What does "those whom God foreknew" mean?

60% Off ESV Study Bibles

WTS Bookstore is running a clearance special on some ESV Study Bibles - Only $30!

Black

Brown

Thinking Biblically about Social Justice (4)

Keving DeYoung is continuing his series of articles on social justice. In his latest post he deals with Jesus' words in Matthew 25. This is, in my mind, a very important article because the Matthew 25 text has so often been misused.

Matthew 25 has become a favorite passage for many progressives and younger evangelicals. Even in the mainstream media it seems like hardly a day goes by without someone referencing Jesus’ command to welcome the stranger, feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. And few biblical phrases have gotten as much traction as “the least of these.” Whole movements have emerged whose central tenet is to care for “the least of these” ala Matthew 25. The implications–whether it be increased government spending, increased concern for “social justice,” or a general shame over not doing enough–are usually thought to be obvious from the text.

But in popular usage of the phrase, there’s almost no careful examination of what Jesus actually means by “the least of these.” Even brilliant scholars are not immune to this oversight. In his important book To Change the World, James Davison Hunter argues at one point that Christ makes “our treatment of strangers” a “measure of righteousness.” He then quotes from Matthew 25:34-40, followed by this conclusion: “To welcome the stranger–those outside of the community of faith–is to welcome Christ. Believer or nonbeliever, attractive or unattractive, admirable or disreputable, upstanding or vile–the stranger is marked by the image of God” (245). Now, it’s certainly true that we all are made in God’s image. It’s also true, on other grounds, that dealing kindly with strangers, even those outside the church, is a good thing (Gal. 6:10). But it’s difficult to conclude this is Jesus’ point in Matthew 25.

So who are “the least of these” if they are not society’s poor and downtrodden? “The least of these” refers to other Christians in need, in particular itinerant Christian teachers dependent on hospitality from their family of faith.

DeYoung is absolutely right. "The least of these" in Matthew 25 is not a reference to the poor, imprisoned, or hungry in general. This is not to say that we are not to help the poor regardless of their faith or lack of connection to us. However, in Matthew 25 Jesus is dealing specifically with "the least of these brothers of mine." He is referring to those who would follow him (specifically the apostles) declaring the gospel of the kingdom. Because of their work they would be harassed, impoverished, and persecuted. How his followers received the apostles corresponded to how they received the gospel they proclaimed hence the warning of judgement.

Read the rest of DeYoung's article for the four supporting reasons underpinning this interpretation of Matthew 25.

May Christians Assassinate Evil Doers?

Justin Taylor recently interviewed Eric Metaxas concerning his new biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I was particularly struck by the way Metaxas answered the question, "Do you think Bonhoeffer was justified in conspiring to kill Hitler?"

In a word: yes. Bonhoeffer knew what was going on with the Jews. His family was well-connected, and he knew the worst stories of what was happening. He saw it as the plain duty of a Christian to protect the weak and the innocent. To sit back while this was going on, while he knew it was going on, was simply unthinkable. It would have been nothing less than cowardice. He felt that God Himself was calling him to act boldly, in faith. To step out and act. It was what his faith and his theology led him to do. That’s very important to understand, and if I’ve finally clarified that somewhat in my book I think I’ve done something very valuable.

Agree? Disagree?

Think about the number of lives that could have been saved had Hitler been assassinated.

Before you answer, however, consider one thing. What if you were asked if George Tiller's assassin was justified in killing the notorious abortionist.

Sunday's Sermon

This Sunday's message was part 33 in our series through Hebrews. It is entitled "Faith That Works" and is based on Hebrews 11:7. You can listen to or download it HERE.

Q & A with Storms and Ortlund

Justin Taylor posted links to last year's Clarus conference at Desert Springs Church which featured Ray Ortlund and Sam Storms. The following links are to YouTube videos of Drs. Storms and Ortlund fielding a number of excellent questions.

Questions on Worship

•How does the average Christian pursue worship in spirit and truth? Part 1
•How does the average Christian pursue worship in spirit and truth? Part 2
•How does the average Christian pursue worship in spirit and truth? Part 3

Questions on Miraculous Gifts

•If we believe in the continuation of all spiritual gifts, should we pursue them?
•Tell us about being a “charismatic Calvinist.”
•Further thoughts on pursuing miraculous gifts…

Questions on Election and Predestination

•If God has already chosen who will be saved, why witness and pray?
•How did you begin to understand election?
•Does “foreknowledge” mean God looked into the future to see what we would do?
•What does it mean that God wants all people to come to repentance? Part 1
•What does it mean that God wants all people to come to repentance? Part 2

Questions on Various Issues of Ministry and the Church

•What are some encouraging things you see God doing in the church?
•What are some not-so-encouraging trends you see in the church?
•What is Biblical Theology?
•How can a pastor capture the power of the Bible’s metaphors without being unnecessarily crude?
•How should we give assurance to our children?

This Was Grace

From Justin Taylor:
"A video featuring one of my heroes, John Knight (development director at Desiring God), talking about God’s work in and through his son, Paul, who was born blind and with autism."

"You can't live in the hallway."

The following is an important observation from an article by Michael Horton:

I’ve argued elsewhere that evangelicalism is like the village green in older parts of the country, especially New England. There may be two or three churches on the grounds, but the green itself is a wide open space where people from those churches can spill out in conversation and cooperation. Evangelicalism is not a church, though it often acts like one. It isn’t the big tent (more appropriate, given the history) that encompasses all of the churches on the green. It’s just…, well, the green. When it tries to adjudicate cases of faith and practice through conferences, press releases, and blogs, evangelicalism (including Calvinistic versions) exhibits its movement mentality.

My analogy echoes C. S. Lewis’s “mere Christianity”: a hallway in a large house where believers mix and mingle, often opening the door as non-Christians knock. But, as Lewis insisted, it’s in the rooms where people actually live as a family—where they sleep, are warmed by the fire, fed and clothed, and grow. We are formed in the family life of Christ’s body by particular churches, with their distinct confessions and practices. You can’t live in the hallway.

I’m not against evangelicalism as a village green or hallway. In fact, I think it’s a wonderful meeting place. However, when it acts like a church, much less replaces the church, I get nervous.

T4G Messages

The messages from Together for the Gospel are now available in both audio and video format.

Is darwinian evolution compatible with Christianity?

Mark Jones has written two excellent articles (Here & Here) on the compatibility of darwinian evolution and Christianity. The articles were spurred on by the recent dust up at RTS over Bruce Waltke's video for the Biologos Foundation.

Darwinists like [Francis] Collins claim that evolution is a fact. They are not content to admit that it is a theory. Richard Dawkins posits, “no serious biologist doubts the fact that evolution happened, nor that all living creatures are cousins of one another.”[14] Not only are all living creatures cousins of one another, but the Darwinian synthesis also argues that we can extrapolate how single-celled organisms came to produce human beings. Like Religion, science is not neutral, despite its claims. An inherent philosophical presupposition guides evolutionary thinking. And though disagreement exists among a number of leading evolutionists concerning the mechanisms of evolution, they are all in agreement that a supernatural being (i.e. God) must not be invoked to help out with the difficulties. For this reason, evolution is fundamentally atheistic. Professor of biology at Cornell University, William Provine, candidly admits that embracing evolution makes atheists of people: “One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”[15] The famous Harvard geneticist, Richard Lewontin, provides further evidence that fully naturalistic evolution is atheistic:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[16]

Lewontin makes these comments because of his a priori commitment to naturalism. Naturalists operate on the assumption that science would not be science if a non-matieral cause were invoked to explain any part of the theory. The influential American paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson insists that the phenomena of life “can be explained by purely naturalistic […] factors […] Therefore, man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”[17] Fully naturalistic evolution and God can only co-exist if God acted as a first cause who retired from activity after establishing the laws of nature and setting the natural mechanism in motion. Of course, on this model, even “God” would have been surprised by how things were turning out; after all, creatures developed from purely material forces without any purpose or goal.

C.J. Mahaney at T4G

T4G 2010 -- Session 9 -- C.J. Mahaney from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Themelios

The latest issue of Themelios has just been released.

PDF

HTML

Contents:
1.D.A. Carson Editorial: Perfectionisms
2.Carl Trueman Minority Report: The Importance of Not Studying Theology
3.Nijay Gupta New Commentaries on Colossians: Survey of Approaches, Analysis of Trends, and the State of Research
4.Martin Salter Does Baptism Replace Circumcision? An Examination of the Relationship Between Circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11–12
5.Bill Kynes Pastoral Pensées: The Church: A Hidden Glory (1 Timothy 3:14–16)
6.Book Reviews

Sunday's Sermon

The message on Sunday was part 32 in our series through Hebrews. It is entitled "Faith That Pleases God" (Heb 11:5-6) and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

Does it matter if Adam was an historical person? (2)

The situation with Dr. Bruce Waltke has now been featured on ABC News. The report features Pete Enns who was forced to leave Westminster Theological Seminary for holding and teaching a doctrine of Scripture that was not in accord with the Westminster Confession of Faith (All teachers at WTS pledge their belief in and commitment to teach in accord with the WCF). Dr. Enns once professed a belief in an historical Adam but now apparently no longer holds that position. Interestingly, Dr. Waltke holds firmly to the fact that Adam and Eve were historical persons and the fall was a real event. If he is wanting the approval of modern scientists then he will need to jettison those beliefs.

I found Dr. Enn's words troubling. Will the Bible ever put a student at odds with something he hears in his biology class? I imagine so. I also know that what that student learns in his biology class will put him at odds with what his parents learned in their biology class or what may be taught in the same class the following year. How about belief in the virgin birth or resurrection of Christ? Will that put our hypothetical student at odds with what they learn in biology? How about the substitutionary atonement or the necessity of faith in Jesus if one is to be saved? Will these put us at odds with what we learn at school? Will these beliefs put us at odds with our culture? This obsession with the approval of our cultured despisers always marks the slide into theological liberalism which leads to apostasy.

It does matter whether or not Adam was an historical person. Robert Strimple lays out the issue clearly in an article posted by Westminster California.

You see, biblical Christianity, over against all other world and life views, is unique in viewing human sinfulness as the result of a Fall. Other religions and philosophies – and myths – look to sin's origin elsewhere; e.g., in the very constitution of man as composed of a lower as well as a higher nature, or in man's evolutionary past and his natural tendency to revert to a more primitive stage, or in the fact that he has not yet evolved beyond such a stage in certain respects. (And it is evolutionary theory regarding man's origin, of course, which has caused many to deny the biblical teaching regarding man's creation as a holy being whose sin is the result of his own mysterious free act of transgressing God's law.)

Biblical Christianity, on the other hand, views human sinfulness as a Fall – an unnatural development, a lapse from man's proper state – and thereby asserts that to find sin's "explanation" in the original constitution of man is to slander the holy Creator – and thereby also assures man that there is hope: hope for restoration, hope for redemption, hope for Paradise Restored.

On other views of the origin and nature of sin, human sinfulness must be seen as really inevitable (Adam = all men = sinner; to be human is to be sinner); and therefore how can sin ever be remedied or removed? The Bible, on the other hand, gives grounds for hope because, as another has written, the Bible “represents the ills in which man is involved not as the necessary faults of a being low, earthy, and animal by his constitution but as (the) effects from the fall of a being made in the image of God.” (3)

The biblical pictures of fallen human nature are painted with very dark colors, speaking, e.g., of man's heart as “deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt” (Jer. 17:9 RSV). But we must never forget that what is so pictured is not man but fallen man – not man as God created him but man as he has turned his back on God – not man the co-laborer with God but man the rebel. And the hope of the Gospel is that through the accomplishment of the Second Adam and the power of the Creative Spirit, man may be all that he was meant to be.

Read the entire article HERE.

What Did You Expect?

Paul Tripp's new book What Did You Expect is now available. This is the best material on marriage I have ever been exposed to. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Also, if you would like this material in seminar form it may be purchased in audio and DVD formats.

Endorsements:

As a pastor I am always on the lookout for resources that embody both doctrinal precision and practical application. Paul Tripp is consistently faithful to both. This conference has been a blessing both to me and those I serve. Will our marriages be characterized by ministry or manipulation? Will my relationship with my spouse be an expression of worship to God or a casualty of idolatry? The truth presented in these sessions is not always easy to hear but it is profoundly good.
- Todd Pruitt, Teaching Pastor, Church of the Saviour, Wayne, Pennsylvania

"What I've come to expect from Paul Tripp is consistently deep, transparent, biblical, wise, practical, gospel-driven counsel. Rather than muddying the water with self-focused strategies designed to meet our ever-multiplying needs, Paul, as the seasoned soul-physician he is, correctly diagnoses our problems and provides the cure—humble faith in Jesus Christ. I wasn't disappointed. You won't be either."
- Elyse M. Fitzpatrick, author, Because He Loves Me and Comforts from the Cross

"Paul Tripp brings many years of counseling, growth as a husband, and deepening discovery of the liberating power of grace to this realistic and challenging guide to God's engagement in redeeming marriages that are threatened by complacency, misunderstanding, and selfishness. The Bible's message of the humbling and healing power of Christ's mercy and the powerful presence of his Spirit in our homes comes through loud and clear. The daily practicality of gospel doctrine is made crystal clear by Tripp's transparency about his personal missteps in becoming a Christ-reflecting husband and the many examples of couples who have discovered that they are sinners married to sinners. But that the third, divine Party in marriage gives hope and change when unrealistic expectations are shattered and when we confront our sin. But be warned: Tripp's diagnostic questions are downright uncomfortable. Even those with strong marriages by God's grace will find their deep tendencies toward self-coronation challenged!"
- Dennis E. Johnson, Professor of Practical Theology, Westminster Seminary California

Sproul at T4G

T4G 2010 -- Session 2 -- R.C. Sproul from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Mohler at T4G

T4G 2010 -- Session 3 -- Al Mohler from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Piper at T4G

T4G 2010 -- Session 6 -- John Piper from Together for the Gospel (T4G) on Vimeo.

Masterful!

Did the apostle Paul preach the same message as that of Jesus?

This question pops up periodically. Theological liberals say "absolutely not! Jesus preached kindness, justice, and love. He preached ethics not doctrine. Paul was an angry, misogynistic theologian who invented the doctrines of imputation, the atonement, and justification by faith alone."

This refrain is repeated by the emergent crowd who are always looking for another biblical doctrine to deny. But as the lights on emergent dim and they find themselves increasingly irrelevant the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), led quite effectively by N.T. Wright, is raising the same objection.

This evening at T4G John Piper delivered a message that was nothing short of masterful. In one message he overturns any notion that the gospel Paul preached differed in any way from that which Jesus preached. This was a truly important message. You can read the text HERE.

Derek Thomas on T4G

From Ref21:

Seven thousand men, half of whom appear to be under 35, gathered together to sing traditional hymns and avow orthodox theology in lectures that would test a seminary student. What is it that gives this conference (T4G in Louisville, KY) such charisma -- no, not the presence of Sovereign Grace brothers (though, C J Mahaney's infectious personality is something to behold). It is a palpable sense that we really are committed about what the gospel is and how it should be proclaimed.

Al Mohler's address tonight -- in which he gave eight trajectories for an adjusted gospel, ranging from Bultmann to Brian McLaren-- was a tour de force. In fact, it may well be the best analysis of our own culture and how we got here that I've heard. I will try and post a link to it whenever I discover what that may be.

Oh, and good coffee houses abound -- a sign that this really is a reformed conference.

I could not agree more with Dr. Thomas' assessment of Al Mohler's address. Outstanding!

A Cruel Mistress Indeed

Between sessions at Together for the Gospel I was able to check a few of my favorite sites on the web. Carl Trueman has posted an article concerning the situation with Dr. Waltke. In particular Trueman responds to Waltke's assertion that unless we (theological conservatives) get with the program and embrace evolution then we risk the sneers of our cultured despisers.

The recent comments by Professor Bruce Waltke, to the effect that Christianity risks becoming a cult, or at least being perceived as a cult, unless it embraces evolution, have provoked a storm of comment, pro and con. I do not wish to address Professor Waltke's comments directly; for the record, I have always enjoyed his writings (and found them helpful). He is a scholar and gentleman, and when Professor Waltke speaks, I listen, even when I disagree. Thus, what I want to reflect on here are not Professor Waltke's well-known and long-standing views on origins but the questions surrounding the claim that a Christianity which rejects evolution really does risk becoming a cult, and, if so, whether that is something about which we should worry...

To the first point, it is clear from the New Testament that Christian views, particular of the cross, were regarded as stupid and offensive by the wider world. I Corinthians 1 makes that point in dramatic fashion; and the various Jewish and Gentile persecutions of the church described in Acts would imply that the church was not only seen as holding silly beliefs but as doing so in a way that scared society - a hallmark of being regarded as a sinister cult. This continues in the post-apostolic period. Pliny, writing to Emperor Trajan ca. 112, describes how he broke up a local Christian group. He describes them as secretive and engaging in strange practices which reflected their strange beliefs. In other words, he seems to have regarded them as a cult. Historian Tacitus is much the same: when he alludes to the Neronic persecutions, he speaks of Christianity as `shameful and hideous.' Well, as I have said in this column before: if it's white and woolly and goes `Baaaa!' when you kick it, it's a sheep.

To the second point, every theological discipline has its own point of whackiness. Perhaps evolution is where Old Testamentlers feel the pinch. Homosexuality would be the hotspot for contemporary Christian ethicists. For me as a historian, it is the resurrection: my friends in the secular history world will always regard me as a mediocre, or, perhaps more charitably, methodologically inconsistent, historian because I believe the tomb was empty. I am guessing that scientists would probably regard that belief as ridiculous too: the empirical and theoretical evidence for bodies being resurrected after traumatic execution and days of decaying in a tomb is, to say the least, not very compelling. Let's face it: opposition to homosexuality and belief in the resurrection are whacky views in today's climate, enjoying little or no support from the scholarly scientific world. Do we therefore change our views on these in order to avoid being seen as a cult? Even more dramatic, perhaps, is the increasingly strident voice of the aesthetic atheists, of whom Hitchens and Dawkins are just the most famous. As aesthetic atheism gains ground, any form of theism will increasingly be regarded as idiotic and cult-like. What will we do then? Cultural acceptability is a cruel mistress...

The question of evolution is a tough one, but it is not to be determined by whether rejection of it leads those who despise Christianity as whole to regard us as a cult. That is an utterly irrelevant point. What I want to know is whether evolution is consistent with biblical teaching, particularly Genesis 3, Romans 5 and I Corinthian 15. Which form of evolution is it at which we are looking (there being significant disagreements even within the scientific community)? What about the scientific objections of men like Michael Behe? And how come some people, with little or no scientific training, and who spend their lives telling us how difficult it is to understand messy, written texts - texts designed to, ahem, communicate in a relatively direct fashion -- seem to think that scientific data is univocal, unequivocal, and perspicuous on this point? Funny how old Enlightenment views of science can be found alive and well in the most postmodern quarters, isn't it? Given the stakes in play, it is not unloving or divisive for me to ask for answers to
these questions; but whether I run the risk of looking like a cult member if I find the answers I am given to be inadequate and unbiblical is, frankly, a matter of sheer indifference to me. I may be destined to live life on the cultic fringe of society, but there are worse places to be.

Read the entire article HERE.