Scorning what is holy...

“There’s nothing wrong with talking and singing about how the ‘Blood will never lose its power’ and ‘Nothing but the blood will save us.' Those are powerful metaphors. But we don’t live any longer in a culture in which people offer animal sacrifices to the gods.

“People did live that way for thousands of years, and there are pockets of primitive cultures around the world that do continue to understand sin, guilt, and atonement in those ways. But most of us don’t. What the first Christians did was look around them and put the Jesus story in language their listeners would understand.”

- Rob Bell on the atonement from Love Wins

To strip the atonement of its substitutionary nature, as Rob Bell does, is to strip it of its power. It is to take the "good" out of the good news. It is to rip the heart out of the Gospel and therefore the hope out of human hearts. It is an act of profound cruelty for it robs the sinner of what he truly needs: a guilt-bearing substitute.

This is nothing new. Theological liberals have been diluting and even neutering the gospel for generations. In the 1920's J. Gresham Machen saw this clearly.

They [liberal preachers] speak with disgust of those who believe ‘that the blood of our Lord, shed in a substitutionary death, placates an alienated Deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner.’ Against the doctrine of the Cross they use every weapon of caricature and vilification. Thus they pour out their scorn upon a thing so holy and so precious that in the presence of it the Christian heart melts in gratitude too deep for words. It never seems to occur to modern liberals that in deriding the Christian doctrine of the cross, they are trampling upon human hearts. (Christianity and Liberalism, 120 [pagination may differ])

HT: Kevin DeYoung

Sermon Audio

Last Sunday evening I preached a message on Hell. Specifically I preached on why Jesus warned so often about Hell and the coming outpouring of God's wrath. The sermon is entitled "The Other Side of the Good News" and can be listened to or downloaded it HERE.

Al Mohler Responds to Brian McLaren

The other day Brian McLaren decided to point out Al Mohler's many errors in his critique of Rob Bell's Love Wins. It's the usual post-modern emergent fogginess. You know the routine. It's the, "We can't really know the Gospel so we can't really critique another person's version because it's only an interpretation anyway which makes your critique invalid but my critique of your critique is valid," sort of thing. In the end, McLaren's challenge to Mohler falls quickly under the weight of its own inconsistencies.

Helpfully, Mohler weighs in with a response to McLaren.

We do not know who God is by knowing what love is. We understand love by knowing who God is. But Brian McLaren seems quite ready to judge God by human standards of love and justice. In his most important book, A New Kind of Christianity, he rejects the Genesis account of God’s actions in the story of Noah, describing the story as “profoundly disturbing.” As he concluded, “In this light, a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worthy of belief, much less worship.” He responds to other texts in a similar way.

But God explicitly rejects such a human determination of his character. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord,” as the prophet Isaiah declared. [Isaiah 55:8] Instead, God defines his loving character like this: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” [Romans 5:8]

McLaren’s rejection of the Noah account is based on his own view of the Bible — a truly radical view that, taken in full force, explains McLaren’s theological method and positions. He rejects the Bible as a “legal constitution” and proposes that it be seen as a “community library” that reveals an evolving human understanding of God — one in which some texts effectively nullify other texts.

He asserts that there can “be no new kind of Christian faith without a new approach to the Bible.” That statement is profoundly true, and it points to a central problem. McLaren’s new approach to the Bible is a straightforward and amazingly honest call to relativize passages that are deemed to be inferior or unacceptable. We should not wonder that he, like Bell, argues against the traditional doctrine of hell.

Read the entire article HERE.

These are important discussions because what is at stake is nothing less than the Gospel itself which the church has lost in the past and will again if not for the grace of God through the means of faithful men.

Free Audio Book

Christian Audio is offering John Piper's very helpful Jesus: The Only Way to God in audio format free of charge.

Check it out HERE.

Michael Horton Reviews "Love Wins"

I was hoping Mike Horton would review Rob Bell's newest book. It is a thoughtful review which sets Bell's understanding of the gospel and heaven and hell in historical context. Horton also, appropriately, challenges Bell's habit of asking rhetorical questions in a way that mitigates against any real conversation. In other words, Bell makes very clear assertions but he disguises them as questions. His questions are not questions at all. He offers caricatures of the historic views of hell and then dismisses them in the form of a question. Dr. Horton also points out the problems in "Love Wins" related to the attributes of God, the doctrine of man, and the nature of the Gospel.

Dr. Horton's review appears in two parts. Take time to read the entire review.

Part One

Part Two

Regeneration and Conversion

Infants do not induce, or cooperate in, their own procreation and birth; no more can those who are “dead in trespasses and sins” prompt the quickening operation of God’s Spirit within them (see Eph. 2:1–10). Spiritual vivification is a free, and to man mysterious, exercise of divine power (John 3:8), not explicable in terms of the combination or cultivation of existing human resources (John 3:6), not caused or i nduced by any human efforts (John 1:12–13) or merits (Titus 3:3–7), and not, therefore, to be equated with, or attributed to, any of the experiences, decisions, and acts to which it gives rise and by which it may be known to have taken place.

- J.I. Packer

This week I have had two people ask me for more clarity on what I preached on Sunday. Since I am a sinful and flawed man I always assume that if there is a lack of clarity in what I preach it is my fault. I also assume that for every one person who tells me that I did not make myself clear enough there are many others who are thinking the same thing. So, here goes...

The text for Sunday's message was John 3:1-15 where Jesus speaks to Nicodemus about the new birth. The focus of the message therefore was on the doctrine of the new birth or regeneration.

Regeneration is the sovereign and mysterious work of God. If the new birth is the result of something we do or a commitment we make then Jesus has given us a truly confusing metaphor and he is not the teacher we assumed him to be. This, of course is not an option. In the new birth, God is the actor and we are the responders. Those who are children of God by virtue of faith in Christ "were born not of blood, nor of the will will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13). Unfortunately however there has been much teaching about the new birth which clouds the clarity of John 1 and 3. This teaching makes man the actors in the new birth and God the responder. But this simply cannot be.

Regeneration is the sovereign and merciful act of God to breathe life into a dead sinner. Dead men do not raise themselves. The blind do not restore their own sight. Prior to the new birth we are dead Lazarus rotting in the grave until that miraculous moment when Jesus cries "come forth!" We do not control or command this act of God's sovereign grace. Jesus drives this home by not only referring to the experience as being "born again" or "born from above" but by the word play in verses 7 and 8:

Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born uagain.’ The wind5 blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Here Jesus uses the word pneuma which can be translated as "wind" or "spirit." He is comparing the mystery of the Spirit's work in regeneration with the mystery of the wind. We can no more command and control the Spirit's work in regeneration as we can the wind. Further, in regeneration, the Spirit is not responding to something we do or a commitment we make any more than the wind responds to our will. For the one wanting to be told what to do in order to get born again, Jesus offers no answers. Quite the opposite. "The wind blows where it wishes...So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."

So where does this leave us? Is deliberately placing our faith in Jesus irrelevant? Do we not have to believe? Are we always entirely passive? Is this not fatalism to some degree? These are legitimate questions based upon what I have written thus far.

This is where conversion comes in.

Conversion is our act of repentance from sin and faith in Christ as our only Savior. But how do hardened sinners who are dead in trespasses come to grieve over sin and delight in Jesus? The only hope the sinner has is through the new birth which is entirely the work of the Holy Spirit. Regeneration, therefore, must come before conversion. The new birth is what produces conversion. We can state it like this: Regeneration (the new birth) is the root while conversion (repentance from sin and faith in Jesus) is the fruit. By God's grace, the second will surely follow the first.

So without a doubt, faith in Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation. We are saved by grace through faith. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." But how do we come to the place where we willingly and joyfully place our faith in Jesus? Outside of Christ, our hearts are darkened and we are dead in our sins. We cannot understand the things of the Spirit for they are spiritually discerned. So what makes the difference between the one who believes in Jesus and the one who rejects Him? Is it that believers are wiser or more moral? Certainly not. The difference is the sovereign grace of God in the new birth.

If our faith and repentance produce the new birth then we must conclude that regeneration is at least a cooperative effort between God and man. What is more, we must conclude that unregenerate sinners, dead in their trespasses are not able to repent and trust in Jesus before they are brought to new life.

"I say that man, before he is renewed into the new creation of the Spirit's kingdom, does and endeavours nothing to prepare himself for that new creation and kingdom, and when he is re-created has does and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone works both blessings in us, regenerating us, and preserving us when regenerate, without ourselves..."
- Martin Luther from Bondage of the Will, pg. 268

"Faith in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ is always the result of the new birth, and can never exist except in the regenerate. Whoever has faith is a saved man."
- Charles Spurgeon

"Regeneration is monergistic: that is, entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit. It raises the elect among the spiritually dead to new life in Christ (Eph. 2:1-10). Regeneration is a transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, and conscious, intentional, active faith in Christ is its immediate fruit, not its immediate cause. Regeneration is the work of what Augustine called “prevenient” grace, the grace that precedes our outgoings of heart toward God."
- J.I. Packer

"Why do some people repent and respond by faith in Christ to the divine summons to faith while others do not? Concerning those who believe in Christ’s name John immediately says in John 1:13: “[These are they] who have been begotten [egennēthēsan], not by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of a husband, but by God.” By this particular reference to God’s “begetting” activity John refers to regeneration, and clearly suggests by his statement that, while faith is the instrumental precondition to justification and adoption, regeneration is the necessary precondition and efficient cause of faith in Jesus Christ. In short, regeneration causally precedes faith."
- Robert Reymond

A Few Relevant Scriptures:
1. "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved..." (Ephesians 2:1-5)
- Regeneration ("made us alive") happens before any faith response on our part.

2. "And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live...Then you shall know that I am the LORD; I have spoken, and I will do it, declares the LORD." (Ezekiel 37:14)
- Notice that God says through the prophet that he will make his people alive and THEN we will know that he is the Lord.

3. "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me [i.e. believe in me] unless it is granted him by the Father.” (John 6:63-65)

4. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." (1 John 5:1)
- Those who believe do so because they have been born of God (regeneration).

Please take time to check out the following excellent articles:
Regeneration Precedes Faith by R.C. Sproul
The New Genesis by R.C. Sproul
Regeneration by J.I. Packer
Regeneration by Wayne Grudem
Regeneration by Robert Reymond

Two Views of Regeneration by John Hendryx

Grace Alone: An Evangelical Problem? by Kim Riddlebarger

Update:

I have corrected a small typo in the final sentence of my post just prior to the Martin Luther quote. Amazing how one little word like "not" makes all the theological difference in the world!

Camping's Craziness

Chris Gordon has written a helpful article concerning Harold Camping's possible motive behind his latest prediction about Christ's return. As many of you know, Camping and his unfortunate followers are proclaiming May 21, 2011 as the return of Christ and the end of the age. In the article Gordon gives a brief history of Camping's sad trajectory. Take time to read it. It is the first in a series of articles Gordon is writing on Camping and the damage done by his kind of end-time predictions.

"Let us be a different breed of people"

From a sermon preached by John Piper on Romans 2:6-10:

I feel such a burden for us as a church to swim against the tide of almost every current in our culture. More and more and more, America is a nation given over to play. The industries of play are huge! Houses are built today with entertainment centers. Computers and videos and television and stereo all coordinate to give us ever more stimulating and captivating distractions from the realities of the world. When we need to be dreaming, for the glory of Christ, about how to spend our lives alleviating ignorance and sickness and misery and lostness, we are becoming more and more addicted to amusement.

Make a little test of evangelical vocabulary, and calculate, for example, the increasing frequency with which we use the world "fun" to describe almost everything we like. But when do we describe our good experiences as "meaningful" or "significant" or "enriching" or "ennobling" or "worthwhile" or "edifying" or "helpful" or "strengthening" or "encouraging" or "deepening" or "transforming" or "valuable" or "eye-opening" or "God-exalting"?

Examine yourself with this text: Whatever else it teaches, this is clear, it teaches that after death there is eternal life and glory and honor and peace, and there is eternal wrath and indignation and tribulation and distress. And in the twinkling of an eye, even before this service is over, you could be irreversibly in the one or the other. I am a watchman on the wall. And I have warned you as clearly as I know how. Get ready and stay ready.

Live in the light of eternity. And I do mean light, not shadow. When you have come to know your God, and love his Son so much that you can say, "For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain," then living in the light of eternity will replace your "fun" with deeper, higher, wider, longer, more unshakable, more varied, more satisfying, more durable, more solid pleasures than all the fun that entertainment could ever give. O come, and let us be a different breed of people for the few short years we have to live upon this earth! Dream some dream of making your life count for Christ and his Kingdom. "Only one life, 'twill soon be past. Only what's done for Christ will last."

"Jesus Wept" by Makato Fujimura

I am really wanting a copy of Crossway's The Four Holy Gospels illustrated by Makato Fujimura.

The above painting is Fujimura's attempt to capture something of the Bible's shortest verse - "Jesus wept" (Luke 13:34).

You can read his reflections on the text and this particular work HERE.

In my place condemned he stood...

At the 2008 Together for the Gospel conference R.C. Sproul delivered an extraordinary message on the nature of Christ's atonement as anticipated through the Old Testament sacrificial system. It is a powerful antidote against the current trend to deny the substitionary atonement of Jesus. The following video is a portion of Dr. Sproul's message.

Good Books from Tim Chester

Westminster Bookstore is offering two excellent books from Tim Chester for only $15 (42% off!). I highly recommend both Delighting in the Trinity and From Creation to New Creation.

Resources on Hell and Universalism

Check out these helpful resources from Monergism.

Also, take time to read this article by Robert Reymond which utterly refutes the idea of inclusivism.

Heaven and Hell

The latest edition of The White Horse Inn features a discussion with Kevin DeYoung about Heaven and Hell. Take a listen HERE.

Also read this post by Michael Horton regarding Rob Bell's most recent denials of the biblical teaching about hell.

Sunday's Sermon

On Sunday I preached part 8 in our series God's Great Story: How the Gospel Changes Everything. It is entitled "The Life-Giving God" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

Conversation and Clarity...

"At some point, people need precision in our thinking. Provocation has its place. Ambiguity serves a purpose. But the work of the preacher is to present the gospel in an open statement of the truth (2 Cor. 4:2). Sooner or later people in the media, people in the hospital bed, people in the pews want to know what we think. Conversation works in the foyer, but behind the pulpit clarity is king."

Kevin DeYoung

"Amending the Gospel"

Rob Bell has been making the rounds. He's been on Good Morning and America and on MSNBC with Martin Bashir. What is fascinating is the clarity that Mr. Bashir seems to possess concerning Rob Bell's project.

The Bigger Issue...

That's right, we're still on the same topic.

The bigger issue with denying hell as Rob Bell does in Love Wins...Okay, okay, I know he says he believes in "hell" but he is using a radically different dictionary. For Bell, hell is not the just punishment of a holy God poured out on the unrepentant but a temporary kind of earthly mess we make for ourselves by not letting God love us.

As I was saying, the bigger issue with Bell's style of "Christian universalism" or inclusivism is that it is ultimately a denial of the atonement of Jesus Christ for sinners. Bell entirely dismisses the substitutionary atonement of Jesus (the heart beat of the Gospel) as an outmoded metaphor entirely unhelpful for advanced people such as ourselves. Indeed he mocks the very idea of Jesus dying for our sins as a propitiation.

“There’s nothing wrong with talking and singing about how the ‘Blood will never lose its power’ and ‘Nothing but the blood will save us,’” Bell writes. “Those are powerful metaphors. But we don’t live any longer in a culture in which people offer animal sacrifices to the gods.

“People did live that way for thousands of years, and there are pockets of primitive cultures around the world that do continue to understand sin, guilt, and atonement in those ways,” he continues. “But most of us don’t. What the first Christians did was look around them and put the Jesus story in language their listeners would understand.”

After the obvious heresy, I'm not sure which is worse: the historical revisionism or the generational arrogance.

Tragically, Bell's "good news" of a God who is not angry over sin has deafened him (and who knows how many more) to the truly good news of a holy and just God who marvelously sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Rob's shrunken god simply does not have the capacity to provide that which he requires. His "gospel" cannot proclaim: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1) because there was no condemnation to begin with. Bell cannot rejoice in the fact that "since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand..." (Rom 5:1-2). There was, according to Bell, no justification or reconciliation necessary for "the gods are not angry."

Rob Bell's draining of hell from the biblical narrative is merely a symptom of his draining the life blood from the Gospel.

Russel Moore has written an excellent article on this connection.

Dr. Moore writes:

Blood means judgment. When the Holy One of Israel wishes to remind Pharaoh that he is a man and not a god, he turns the king’s life-giving Nile River into blood (Ex. 7:17-25). The Apostle John sees the same judgment on a self-worshiping humanity. The waters they need for life turn to blood (Rev. 8:8).

By removing the blood language, the language of sacrifice, we remove what it means to sing with the redeemed of all of the ages, “for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). If you remove the blood from the doorposts of Egypt, all that’s left is judgment. The same thing happens when you remove the blood from the gospel.

Jesus offends us with our own blood, reminding us that what runs through our veins will one day run cold. He tells us then that in order to live, we must be united to the life-blood of another, a blood spilled for rebels like us. Jesus’ blood speaks a better word than Abel’s. It tells us precisely what Bell would like us to ignore: God is just and judgment is sure.

The people around us already believe in hell, and not because they’ve heard a guilt-inducing message from the church. They may deny it consciously; everyone does, at first. But the Scripture tells us that, apart from Christ, we are all in captivity to the devil who holds us in bondage “through fear of death” (Heb. 2:15). How does anyone get free of this? It’s only by countering the accusations of Satan, and that can only happen, if there’s a just God, if there is a judgment. In Christ, we’ve already been to hell. In Christ, the devil’s indictments are answered. We have conquered him “by the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 12:10).

That’s why every church that has embraced universalism had died out, withering away from the gospel. In order for people to see Christ, they must see sin and, yes, judgment. In order to see justification, you must also see justice. If you drain the blood out of the church, all you are left with is a corpse.

Read the entire article HERE.

Love, Justice, and the Power of a Good Narrative

Mike Witmer has an excellent post demonstrating the problem with Rob Bell's promo video for Love Wins. You see, many folks will view that video (or read the book or hear Bell speak) and be persuaded, not because of the truthfulness of the position but by the power of the narrative.

Several years ago I was touring a holocaust museum, and I was deeply moved the images of suffering and inhuman brutality that I saw there. And near the end of the tour on the wall was a picture of Hitler standing in front of the Eifel Tower in Paris. I and many who were with me were struck by the idea of Hitler enjoying the beauties of Paris while at the same moment one of the greatest genocides the world has ever known was being carried out on his orders.

But apparently not everyone saw it exactly the same way

Sometime in the previous few hours, somebody had attached a hand written note to the picture, and on the note they had written, “It’s okay because God forgave Hitler too.”

God forgave Hitler?

He did?

And someone knows this for sure?

And felt the need for the rest of us to know?

Do the most evil and unrepentant people in history, remaining what they are, still make it to heaven?

And what of those who aren’t quite so evil as that—Child molesters, racists, drug lords.

And what of the rest of us who only yell at our children, cut people off on the highway, and cheat on our taxes?

And what makes our evil less and Hitler’s more?

Is it the number of people you hurt? Or how badly? Or whether anyone else knows? Or whether you meant to?

And what if you’re the one who was molested or your loved ones murdered because of their ethnicity?

And then there’s the question behind the question?

The real question… What is God like?

Because millions and millions were taught that the primary message of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that God is willing to forgive everybody no matter who they are or what evils they’ve committed against the rest of us.

So what gets subtly sort of caught and taught is that God is willing to forgive the perpetrators of evil, regardless of whether or not their victims ever see justice. That God is willing to let slide things that we mustn’t.

But what kind of God is that?

Can a God so uninterested in justice be good?

How can that God ever be trusted?

How could that ever be…good…news?

This is why lots of people want nothing to do with the Christian faith.

They see it as an endless list of absurdities and inconsistencies, and say, “why would I ever want to be a part of that?”

See what we believe about heaven and hell is incredibly important because it exposes what we believe about who God is and what God is like.

What you discover in the bible is so surprising, and unexpected, and beautiful, that whatever we’ve been told or taught, the good news is even better than that, better than we can ever imagine.

It means pure and perfect justice, no wrong accusations, no punishments that don’t fit the crime, no hidden motives, no unaccounted pains or sorrows. But overflowing compensation for anyone who’s ever been hurt or betrayed.

The good news is that “justice wins.”

Reviews of "Love Wins"

Kevin DeYoung and Denny Burk have posted their reviews of Rob Bell's Love Wins. I strongly encourage you to read both reviews. They are models of thoughtful engagement and sound theology.

Kevin's Review HERE.

Denny's Review HERE.

Denny Burk also references Richard Mouw's review of Love Wins. Dr. Mouw is the president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California. Bell is a graduate of Fuller and friend of Mouw.

USA Today reports on Mouw's favorable review:

Richard Mouw, president of the world’s largest Protestant seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary based in Pasadena, Calif., calls Love Wins “a great book, well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity and passionate about Jesus.

The real hellacious fight, says Mouw, a friend of Bell, a Fuller graduate, is between “generous orthodoxy and stingy orthodoxy. There are stingy people who just want to consign many others to hell and only a few to heaven and take delight in the idea. But Rob Bell allows for a lot of mystery in how Jesus reaches people.”

Dr. Mouw repeats a tired and irresponsible accusation against those who uphold the biblical teachings on hell and the judgment of God: that they "take delight in the idea" of hell. Richard Mouw and Fuller Seminary are coming to represent what "big tent evangelicalism" has become. Surely Dr. Mouw would not make this accusation against Jesus who himself said that the way to life is narrow and few find it while the way to destruction is wide and many find it. Does this make Jesus "stingy"? Does this means Jesus "takes delight in" hell? As far the Rob Bell allowing "for a lot of mystery," of that there is little doubt. They only thing Rob Bell seems to make clear is that Jesus cannot possibly mean what he said.

God's Punitive and Retributive Silence

There is a sense in which the church owes a debt to heresy. Don't misunderstand. We should never be thankful for false teaching which leads God's people astray. False teachers are clearly condemned in Scripture. But we also know just how easily sound doctrine devolves into a kind of dead orthodoxy. It seems to have pleased God throughout the generations of the church to use heresy and various false teachers to prompt the church to renew her love for God and His truth.

The latest attacks on God's truth come once again from within the big tent of evangelicalism. Specifically, a certain highly influential pastor in Grand Rapids is now denying the doctrine of hell as a just expression of the judgment of God upon unrepentant sinners. Of course this is no surprise given the fact that this same man has denied the substitutionary atonement of Jesus' death and the necessity of His virgin birth and resurrection. But this same man has unwittingly called the church to arms in a way. There has been a flood of excellent material flowing through the blogosphere reminding God's people of the truth declared in Scripture.

Martin Downes has been helpful in recent postings on the Bible's doctrine of hell: HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Thanks to Kevin DeYoung for posting the following words from Carl Henry's majestic work God, Revelation, and Authority:

God’s most awesome silence in eternity will be his silence toward the lost, a punitive and retributive silence reserved for the wicked who are not on speaking terms with him. There are scholars who consider the eternal punishment of the wicked to be inconsistent with the nature of God. These critics tend to subordinate to divine love all the biblical passages about God’s wrath, and ignore the fact that Jesus said even more about the pangs of hell than about the bliss of heaven, and moreover makes their duration coextensive and unending.

Millar Burrows is right in the verdict that “no basis” exists in Jesus’ recorded sayings for the universalist notion that all humans will finally be saved: “So far as the evidence indicates, he thought of the punishment of the wicked as eternal” (An Outline of Biblical Theology, p. 211). Hell involves not only the continuance of the sinner’s present condition of unhappiness, but also grievous punishment and irreversible exclusion from God’s presence. Jesus did not hesitate to quote Isaiah 66:24, which implies eternal punishment in the flesh, and to use such characterizations as “out darkness” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Hell resounds with weeping and wailing: there it is not the sinner but rather God who is silent.

The New Testament has no doctrine of a “second chance”; its emphasis is rather that “everyone must die once, and after that be judged by God” (Heb. 9:27, TEV) or, as Phillips words the text, “it is appointed for all men to die once, and after that pass to their judgment.” Nor does the New Testament anywhere condone the notion that the wicked will not survive this life into an afterlife. Such an end would mercifully terminate their existence, would spare them conscious separation from God and the punishment of the ungodly of which the Bible insistently speaks.

A fundamental Christian doctrine is that all departed souls will at the second coming of Christ be restored to bodily life; the redeemed will enter upon the life of heaven, the unredeemed will be excluded from it. The punishment of the wicked who in this life rejected the divine invitation to redemption will include conscious awareness of having spurned Christ’s agony and death in their behalf. (Volume IV, 596-97)

On Monday, Rob Bell will be unveiling his new book in what is being billed as "a live global event." DeYoung will be posting on that day a review of Love Wins. Be sure to check it out.

What's Next for Harold Camping?

Does this mean Harold Camping will repent and romove himself from the airwaves on May 22, 2011?

The New Birth

On Sunday I am preaching on the miracle of the new birth from John 3. This evening I found some wonderful words from Warren Wiersbe which are in his commentary on 1 Peter, Be Hopeful:

This miracle [the new birth] all began with God: we were chosen by the Father (Eph. 1:3-4). This took place in the deep counsels of eternity, and we knew nothing about it until it was revealed to us in the Word of God. This election was not based on anything we had done, because we were not even on the scene. Nor was it based on anything God saw that we would be or do. God's election was based wholly on His grace and love. We cannot explain it (Rom. 11:33-36), but we can rejoice in it.

'Foreknowledge' does not suggest that God merely knew ahead of time that we would believe, and therefore He chose us. This would raise the question.'Who or what made us decide for Christ?' and would take our salvation completely out of God's hands. In the Bible, 'to foreknow' means 'to set on's love upon a person pr persons in a personal way.' It is used this way in Amos 3:2: 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth.' God set His electing love on the nation of Israel. Other verses that use 'know' in this special sense are 1 Corinthians 8:3, John 10:14, 27; Matthew 7:23; and Psalm 1:6.

But the plan of salvation includes more than the Father's electing love; it also includes the work of the Spirit in convicting the sinner and bringing him to faith in Christ. The best commentary on this is 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14. Also, the Son of God had to die on the cross for our sins, or there could be no salvation. We have been chosen by the Father, purchased by the Son, and set apart by the Spirit. It takes all three if there is to be a true experience of salvation.

Just Cause for Optimism

It strikes me that, amid all the hype and hoo-hah this week surrounding a certain author, we need to remember that promise. Teachers -- true and false -- come and go; they have done so for centuries, and few have made any lasting mark, let alone those who write paperback potboilers. But the church has survived; the gates of hell shall still not prevail; and the church will be built. Yes, we must defend the truth, with learning, passion and fortitude; but we should remember that the battle is not won through our efforts, and we must not be caught up in overestimating the importance of the present moment. After all, how many `defining moments' do we hear about in a typical year? And how many of such moments truly define anything at all?

If we really believe Matt. 16:18, I would suggest that we will not panic with every wind of false doctrine which comes our way, nor will we be intimidated by astronomical sales figures for bad books or tickets to hear false preachers. We will rather focus on what we should be doing: humbly preaching and teaching and believing the word. Sometimes, I suspect the over-the-top panic and outrage of the orthodox when faced by the latest challenge are really functions of self-importance and an impoverished doctrine of God. They seem to imply that our age is unique, the future of Christianity really does depend solely on us, and the church is really jeopardised by the latest heterodox blockbuster.

Such behaviour is the flipside of that which, for example, claimed Mel Gibson's The Passion was the greatest evangelistic opportunity for the church since the resurrection itself, and chided those of us who felt it was, among other things, a breach of the Second Commandment, as fuddy-duddy reactionaries who were hindering the church's outreach and needed to get with the program. It was not; life went back to normal very quickly; and, whatever else Gibson is now known for, it is not for being a great evangelist. Sometimes cynical indifference to the latest thing, good or bad, is actually quite healthy and reflects the reality of Matt. 16:18 in perhaps unexpected ways.

Neither we, nor any of those who oppose the Bible's teaching, are actually that important. The church is not, after all, built on us or our efforts; nor is it in any danger of being annihilated by any human scheme or schemer. And that is enough to make even me into an optimist. Almost by accident, I might add.

- Carl Trueman
Read the entire article HERE

New Resources from TGC

Gospel Coalition Booklets, D.A. Carson & Tim Kellor (ed.)

Tim and Carl on "Love Wins"

Tim Challies has written a helpful review of Rob Bell's new book Love Wins.

A God who would allow people to go to hell is not a great God, according to Bell, and the traditional belief that He would is “devastating … psychologically crushing … terrifying and traumatizing and unbearable” (pp. 136-7).

God is at best sort of great, a little great—great for saving some, but evil for allowing others to perish. Dangerous words, those. It is a fearful thing to ascribe evil to God.

So what of the gospel? Where is the gospel and what is the gospel? Ultimately, what Bell offers in this book is a gospel with no purpose. In his understanding of the Bible, people are essentially good, although we certainly do sin, and are completely free to choose or not choose to love God on our own terms. Even then he seems to believe that most people, given enough time and opportunity, will turn to God...

Christians do not need more confusion. They need clarity. They need teachers who are willing to deal honestly with what the Bible says, no matter how hard that truth is. And let’s be honest—many truths are very, very hard to swallow.

Love does win, but not the kind of love that Bell talks about in this book. The love he describes is one that is founded solely on the idea that the primary object of God’s love is man; indeed, the whole story, he writes, can be summed up in these words: “For God so loved the world.” But this doesn’t hold a candle to the altogether amazing love of God as actually shown in the Bible. The God who “shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8), who acts on our behalf not so much because His love for us is great, but because He is great (Isaiah 48:9, Ezekiel 20:9,14,22,44, 36:22; John 17:1-5).

That’s the kind of love that wins. That’s the kind of love that motivates us to love our neighbors enough to compel them to flee from the wrath to come. And our love for people means nothing if we do not first and foremost love God enough to be honest about Him.

Read Tim's entire review HERE.

Carl Trueman, a professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary has written a helpful critique of Rob Bell's use of historical sources. In Love Wins Bell offers a quote from Martin Luther proving that the Reformer asserted that God would give men and women an opportunity to turn to Christ after they die. The problem, as Dr. Trueman points out, is that Luther wrote nothing of the sort.

On page 108 of Love Wins Bell writes:

“And then there are others who can live with two destinations, two realities after death, but insist that there must be some kind of "second chance" for those who don't believe in Jesus in this lifetime. In a letter Martin Luther, one of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, wrote to Hans von Rechenberg in 1522 he considered the possibility that people could turn to God after death, asking: "Who would doubt God's ability to do that?"”

“Again, a good question.”

“And so space is created in this "who would doubt God's ability to do that?" perspective for all kinds of people--fifteen-year-old atheists, people from other religions, and people who rejected Jesus because the only Jesus they ever saw was an oppressive figure who did anything but show God's love.”

But, as Trueman points out, context is king. It is amazing how just a little context changes the entire meaning of what Bell claims that Luther wrote. The quote used by Bell is found within these two paragraphs from Luther. The portion Bell uses in Love Wins is highlighted in green:

“If God were to save anyone without faith, he would be acting contrary to his own words and would give himself the lie; yes, he would deny himself. And that is impossible for, as St. Paul declares, God cannot deny himself [“II Tim. 2:13”]. It is as impossible for God to save without faith as it is impossible for divine truth to lie. That is clear, obvious, and easily understood, no matter how reluctant the old wineskin is to hold this wine--yes, is unable to hold and contain it.”

“It would be quite a different question whether God can impart faith to some in the hour of death or after death so that these people could be saved through faith. Who would doubt God's ability to do that? No one, however, can prove that he does do this. For all that we read is that he has already raised people from the dead and thus granted them faith. But whether he gives faith or not, it is impossible for anyone to be saved without faith. Otherwise every sermon, the gospel, and faith would be vain, false, and deceptive, since the entire gospel makes faith necessary. (Works, 43, ed. and trans. G. Wienke and H. T. Lehmann [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968], 53-54; WA 10.ii, 324.25-325.11)”

So it is clear that Luther is affirming the exact opposite of what Bell attributes to him. Of course, the average reader, assuming Bell has done his homework, will not question the assertion. Does this make Bell dishonest or just sloppy?

Trueman concludes:

Building arguments on theological soundbites, especially from the works of prolific and sophisticated theologians such as Luther, is surely very tempting in today's instant internet age. We all want our fifteen minutes of fame but none of us want to spend any more than fifteen seconds doing the grunt work necessary to achieve it. Yet, like a lady of easy virtue, such an approach may have immediately seductive charms but ultimately proves a rather cruel mistress for the would-be historian. It also says much (and none of it flattering) about the competence of the editors at Harper, that they did not seize on this elementary error and correct it. Checking sources, especially when they seem to say something unexpected, is surely the most basic task of both author and editor.

The book will, of course, sell many copies, far more than anything I will ever write, I am sure. But then so did Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code; and that was a book with which, from the safely controversial content to the sloppy historiography, Rob Bell's latest offering would appear to have much in common.

Read Carl's entire article HERE.

Sunday's Sermon

On Sunday I preached part 7 in the current series God's Great Story: How the Gospel Changes Everything. It is entitled "The Incarnate God" and can be listened to or downloaded HERE.

"Ashamed of hell"

“Many in the church today have universalism simply as a hope. Though they may not preach it dogmatically, they don’t eliminate the possibility that all will be saved in the end. We may call them the ‘wishful universalists.’

I have been told numerous times that there are many ‘closet universalists’ in evangelical churches today. These are people who believe that all will be saved, but are afraid of being public about this belief as it is considered a heresy in orthodox Christian circles, and also because the idea that all will be saved could add to the spiritual apathy of this generation.

Related to the above question is that of evangelicals who are ashamed of hell. They are bound to believe everything the Bible explicitly teaches, so they believe in an eternal hell. But they wish that they did not have to believe it. If they speak about the topic, which is not very often, they do so with a sense of shame, as if it were something very unjust, and they keep saying that they wish it were not true.”

Ajith Fernando from Crucial Questions About Hell

Not orthodox enough for Zondervan?

When Zondervan says you do not fit within the parameters of their mission, you know you're in trouble. Zondervan (along with IVP) pretty much defines broad margin, big tent evangelicalism these days. Large publishing houses like Zondervan are also very fond of books that sell (imagine that!). That is what makes Zondervan's decision to pass on Rob Bell's latest book so remarkable.

The Grand Rapids publishing company which published Bell's last four books including the wildly popular Velvet Elvis (500,000 sold) chose not to publish Love Wins. In a story from CNN.com, Eric Marrapodi writes:

Bell's split from Zondervan came in part over this new book. "The break with Zondervan was amicable," Tauber said. "In the end the president of Zondervan made the decision. The proposal came in and they said, 'This proposal doesn’t fit in with our mission.' "

When you are are not orthodox enough for Zondervan you really have to wonder...

On a related note, a certain "Rodney Trotter" over at Ref21 has finally weighed in with his characteristic keen analysis:

Well, Mrs Trotter and myself have been most astonished at the, umm, astonishment that Rob Bell has apparently come out as a universalist. Indeed, the fact that Zondervan has now apparently broken ties with the chap shows what a stunning change of direction this is for the young theologian. Who could have predicted such a doctrinal switcharoo based on his earlier, impeccably orthodox, work?

Indeed, it took my mind back to a number of books I have read that, frankly, shook me to the core of my being through their shocking and unexpected revelations. Here are my top three:

I am Catholic by Benedict XVI (you will no doubt remember that the National Catholic Reporter controversially broke with Benedict when this was published)

We Relieve Ourselves in Them There Woods by Mr and Mrs Bear.

Many Teenagers Sometimes Disrespect Their Parents by the Rev. Dave Trendy

In the meantime, for anybody out there still trying to come to terms with the shock of Bell's new position, I have an offer for you which, I believe, may help dull the pain. Please email me for details at RodneyT@selling_the_brooklyn_bridge.org.

"No Doctrine Stands Alone"

The latest controversy over the doctrine of hell has raised the larger of issue of Christian doctrine in general. It is no surprise that there are certain doctrines, not least of all the gospel itself (1 Cor 1:18ff) which offend modern sensabilities. The project of liberal theology since Schleirmacher has been to make Christianity plausible to its "cultured despisers." This same project was carried forth by Rudolph Bultmann, Harry Emerson Fosdick and more recently by the emergent kids. The intentions to deny, ignore, or redefine key biblical doctrines are all in an effort to reach more people, which is noble. But ultimately it is a fool's errand for it does not take long to figure out that tinkering with one doctrine inevitably leads to compromises in another and so forth.

From Al Mohler:

The first issue is a changed view of God. The biblical vision of God has been rejected by the culture as too restrictive of human freedom and offensive to human sensibilities. God’s love has been redefined so that it is no longer holy. God’s sovereignty has been reconceived so that human autonomy is undisturbed. In recent years, even God’s omniscience has been redefined to mean that God perfectly knows all that He can perfectly know, but He cannot possibly know a future based on free human decisions.

Evangelical revisionists promote an understanding of divine love that is never coercive and would disallow any thought that God would send impenitent sinners to eternal punishment in the fires of hell. They are seeking to rescue God from the bad reputation He picked up by associating with theologians who for centuries taught the traditional doctrine. God is just not like that, they reassure. He would never sentence anyone — however guilty — to eternal torment and anguish.

The Christian faith is not a series of loosly connected doctrines. The Christian faith is a doctrine made up of many parts beautifully connected and interdepent.

Mohler continues:

Extending this argument further, it would surely be easier to persuade secular persons to believe in a God who would never judge anyone deserving of eternal punishment than it would to persuade them to believe in the God preached by Jonathan Edwards or Charles Spurgeon. But the urgent question is this: Is evangelical theology about marketing God to our contemporary culture, or is it our task to stand in continuity with orthodox biblical conviction–whatever the cost? As was cited earlier, modern persons demand that God must be a humanitarian, and He is held to human standards of righteousness and love. In the end, only God can defend himself against His critics.

Our responsibility is to present the truth of the Christian faith with boldness, clarity, and courage — and defending the biblical doctrine in these times will require all three of these virtues. Hell is an assured reality, just as it is presented so clearly in the Bible. To run from this truth, to reduce the sting of sin and the threat of hell, is to pervert the Gospel and to feed on lies. Hell is not up for a vote or open for revision. Will we surrender this truth to modern skeptics?

Current controversies raise this issue anew among American Christians and even among some evangelicals. Nevertheless, there is no way to deny the Bible’s teaching on hell and remain genuinely evangelical. No doctrine stands alone.

Read Mohler's entire article HERE.

Doubt as a badge honor...

The latest flap over Rob Bell's views of hell and salvation have raised once again the post-modern infatuation with doubt and uncertainty. Even as post-modernism has largely been consigned to the intellectual trash bin, the emergent kids still think it is cutting edge. "We're into questions, not answers." "We're into the journey, not the destination." Ho hum.

Kevin DeYoung has posted a quote from one of my favorite writers of pastoral reflection, David Hansen. The quote is from Hansen's wonderful book The Art of Pastoring:

There is an important place in the ministry for honest questioning over doctrinal issues. But I’m not proud of my tossing and turning over hell. Some pastors wear their agnosticism about hell as a badge of honor. I’ve tried it. I’ve acted as if struggling to believe our Lord’s words were a virtue. But I always found that when I became proud of my doubts, they suddenly become the sin of unbelief. For me, finally, waffling over hell became the sin of unbelief (p. 78).

Two books that give the biblical answer to "Christian inclusivism":
Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved? by John Piper

Faith Comes By Hearing: A Response to Inclusivism by Morgan & Peterson

Rob Bell on Good Morning America

Thanks to Denny Burk for linking to Rob Bell's appearance on Good Morning America.

The story features a tweet posted from Josh Harris which gets to the point: “There’s nothing loving about preaching a false gospel.”

The report also features Al Mohler representing the historic, orthodox consensus:
“If indeed Rob Bell denies the existence of hell, this is a betrayal of biblical truth that has severe spiritual and evangelistic consequences… Jesus was himself very, very clear about the reality and threat of hell.”

Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary, represented the liberal side of the debate:
“I think that the people who are going after Rob Bell as controversial are themselves closer to heresy than Rob Bell is… Jesus’ message was basically that the love of God is stronger than anything we can do. And the forgiveness of God is stronger, so why would that God be torturing people in some made-up hell?… Centuries of theologians … have said that the question of heaven and hell was not something that we should be worrying about but rather doing good in this life and loving God.”

President Jones' answer affirms the truth of what Machen wrote almost 100 years ago. Liberalism is not so much a form of Christianity but an entirely different religion. They have embraced another gospel.

Not only our liberty but our duty...

"One thing is clear to us, we cannot be expected to meet in any union which comprehends those whose teachings on fundamental points is exactly the reverse of that which we hold dear. Cost what it may, to separate ourselves from those who separate themselves from the truth of God is not alone our liberty but our duty.”



“Separation from such as connive at fundamental error, or withhold the ‘Bread of life’ from perishing souls, is not schism, but only what truth, and conscience, and God require of all who would be found faithful.”

- Charles Spurgeon

For the book lover...

From The Book Surgeon

HT: Tim Challies

Evangelicalism and the rise of secularization

On Wednesday I was able to attend the annual Gaffin Lecture Westminster Theological Seminary. Al Mohler was the speaker and his lecture was entitled: "On the Other Side of Complexity: Christian Conviction in the Late Modern Age." It is an academic lecture, not a sermon so don't expect a long string of entertaining stories. The content however is powerful. As Dr. Mohler nears the end of his lecture he cites a study which suggests that the modern evangelical church is actually leading to an increase of secularization. It is worth your time to invest in listening to this important lecture.

Abomination

I have posted this before but it is worth hearing again:

"Your testimonies are my delight; they are my counselors."

"Whoever finds his life..."

Thanks to my wife for calling my attention to this stunning interview.

Near the end of the interview Reiko Rizzuto reflects on what would have happened if she had returned to her family. She would have done "that thing that I didn't want to do, which was give up my life...for someone else."

What is on display in Miss Rizzuto's interview is a heinous kind of narcissism which is able to justify the abandonment of one's spouse and children and call it "good." It is a corrosive morality that seeks the highest good in serving self at the expense of those who need us most.

But I must confess that the same depravity that Miss Rizzuto wears so proudly lurks in the recesses of my own heart. The same impulse to live entirely for self is a siren's song with which I am well acquainted. Indeed, what, in the end, could provide any of us with sufficient motive to lay down our lives for anyone else?

Only a suffering Savior, a King who takes up a cross, a Lord who lays down his life can give us sufficient cause to give up ourselves for the good of another. Only the cross makes sense of Jesus words: "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it" (Matt 10:39).

Understanding Hell

Worth Reading...

Hell Under Fire, Morgan & Peterson ed.

What is Hell? by Morgan & Peterson

Hell on Trial by Robert Peterson

Heaven and Hell by Edward Donnelly

Hell and the Glory of God

Jim Hamilton asks the question, "Would Rob Bell rob God of glory?" The question is appropriate for anyone who dismisses the biblical doctrine of hell.

Dr. Hamilton writes:

If there’s no hell, God can’t be trusted because he doesn’t keep his word and therefore doesn’t do justice, and if there’s no justice, mercy has no meaning.

If you don’t understand what I just typed: “if there’s no justice, mercy has no meaning,” keep thinking about it. Look the words “justice” and “mercy” up in a dictionary (click them and read the definitions on dictionary.com).

In addition, if there’s no hell, the Bible’s big story doesn’t make sense.

How does hell glorify God? Glad you asked: let’s take a narrative look at hell.

Here’s the conclusion to the short piece linked above:

“In sum, hell glorifies God because

■ it shows that he keeps his word;
■ it shows his infinite worth, lasting forever;
■ it demonstrates his power to subdue all who rebel against him;
■ it shows how unspeakably merciful he is to those who trust him;
■ it upholds the reality of love by visiting justice against those who reject God, who is love;
■ it vindicates all who suffered to hear or proclaim the truth of God’s word;
■ and it shows the enormity of what Jesus accomplished when he died to save all who would trust him from the hell they deserved. If there were no hell, there would be no need for the cross.”

"The Organized Heart"

The newest release from Cruciform Press sounds like an interesting one: The Organized Heart: A Woman's Guide to Conquering Chaos.

From the Publisher:

The fight against chaos is universal, whether it be the outward chaos of disorder and frenzy or the inward chaos of fear and self-criticism. Even if we already know how to do better, something falls apart between our good intentions and getting it done.

Most books on organization just add more rules to your life, whether it be another plan, another calendar, or another method. This book will show you a different, better way that is grounded in the grace of God.

Jesus taught that true change doesn’t come by the addition of more rules, but from the inside out, with a change of the heart that only the gospel can bring. When you identify the heart problems behind the chaos in your life, lasting change can happen. This will not only reduce the stress in your life, but help you be more effective in your service to God.

A dangerous place to be a Christian...

Afghanistan continues to be a place where it is dangerous to be a Christian. It is particularly dangerous to convert from Islam to Christianity. Such a conversion carries with it a death sentence. Those who do convert know that they are potentially laying down their lives.

Thanks to Denny Burk for posting this:

Another Afghan convert is facing possible execution for his Christian faith. His name is Shoaib Assadullah, and he is 23 years old. Michael Foust has done some excellent reporting on this story, and I hope and pray that it will help to focus attention on Shoaib’s case. Intense international scrutiny led to the release of Said Musa last week. Let’s pray that the same might happen for brother Shoaib.

Michael Foust has printed a translation of the entire text of a letter that was smuggled out of Shoaib’s prison cell. I reprint that letter in full below. After you read the letter, please pray for Shoaib. Pray that he might be released to safety and that he would bear faithful witness to Christ no matter what happens.

Please pray for the protection and perseverance of Shoaib Assadullah, our brother in Christ.

Nine Marks Journal

The Latest Nine Marks Journal is available. The theme of this issue is the relationship between the church and the parachurch.

• J. Mack Stiles, Nine Marks of a Healthy Parachurch Ministry. A longtime parachurch veteran lays out nine things that should keep a parachurch ministry faithful to the gospel.
• Carl Trueman, How Parachurch Ministries Go Off the Rails. Parachurch ministries often go wrong because they sideline important doctrines and lack proper accountability.
• Aaron Menikoff, Are Parachurch Ministries Evil? Bad and Good Arguments for the Parachurch. This article critiques common arguments in favor of parachurch ministries; then it offers surer footing for their biblical legitimacy and practical usefulness.
• Byron Straughn, For the Parachurch: Know the Difference Between Families & Soccer Teams. Too many parachurch workers are only casually connected to a church. But this parachurch worker says they should reconsider this stance—for their good and the good of their ministries.
• Andy Johnson, For the Church: Which Parachurch Ministries Should You Support? Pastors are flooded with requests for parachurch support. Here are a few principles to help you decide whom to get behind.
• Jeramie Rinne, For the Church: How Can You Support Parachurch Ministries? How can the local church support parachurch ministries? This pastor says by attending to your church’s health, by providing accountability, and by promoting their work.
• D. A. Carson, Praying for Parachurch Ministries. A seasoned saint, scholar, and parachurch leader offers six reflections on praying for parachurch ministries.
• Jonathan Leeman, How Church Discipline Will Save the Parachurch. Imagine what the evangelical landscape would look like if local churches did more to correct sin. Might the landscape become crowded with healthy parachurch ministries?

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Thanks to Justin Taylor for posting a remembrance of Lloyd-Jones who died 30 years ago today.