The Kingdom Come

by Dan Phillips 

Most of you who care (and many of you who don't) know I'm here in Houston, TX, pastorizing and very happy about it. What most of you don't know (because I haven't said) is that I've been without my family -- and not so happy about that!

This BTW is why it was especially dear to me that Frank Turk and his terrific family took the pains to be here with me on the Sunday when I was installed as pastor. It took some sting out of my family's necessary absence to have longtime dear friends here with me and my new friends.

My dear wife and youngest sons remained in Sacramento, selling the house and finishing up various necessities. They've been working like crazy day and night, so's to reunite here in Texas. Meanwhile, I've pastored and house-hunted... and house-purchased! Using iPhone pictures and working with a terrific local agent, I was able to purchase a house near a lake. In fact, here's one of the neighbors I met from a distance the other day:


I think that's a water moccasin. He disappeared into the water before I could say "Howdy." Texas has 'way more venomous snakes than California. In California, if it didn't have a rattle, it was friendly. Not so much, here. But I digress.

So all that to say that I don't have a post for you today, because today is the day when my family is finally to arrive! The cats arrived by jet a couple of weeks ago, the furniture arrived last Wednesday and was unloaded with the help of a wonderful bunch of folks from church, and my family's driving here today.

What I'll be doing is mowing, shopping, arranging, tidying, and basically getting ready for a moment I've been looking forward to since March 9, when the sight of my family waving goodbye was one of the saddest sights I've ever seen. God's been good to Valerie and me, holding us up and being with us. But we are really looking forward to being back together, and today is that day, DV.

Pray for them as they travel, and be good in the meta.

by Phil Johnson



Denmark's an option, too:

by Frank Turk

When I ran into these older videos last week, I knew I would be blogging about them this week because of the topical nature of the subjects they cover.  What I did not remember (saying I did not know this would be false, but I always hope for the best) is that Satan controls my scheduled work load, and when I have a great blogging subject like this I wind up having more work than 5 people can accomplish, and my blogging takes a back seat.

So here's the deal:  This is the first of a 2-part post.  Today I'm posting two videos by well-respected men speaking on the same subject, and here's my ground-rule for keeping the comments open: you must find all the good things from these videos this week -- because there is something good in both of these videos.  Negative comments will simply be deleted without any warning or recourse.  Next week we'll talk about whether or not one of these videos is better than the other, and in what way, and what the other video can teach us both from a positive example and from its shortcomings.

First, from John Piper:



Second, from Tim Keller:



Mind your manners.

by Dan Phillips

I've remarked before (notably here, and in all these posts) that I think some highly-caffeinated Reformed types don't help The Cause much when they pick apart just about every word that comes out of most Christians' mouths.

Another example is the use made of Joshua 24:15 — "And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Popularly, two clauses are singled out from this verse: "choose this day whom you will serve," and "as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." The popular use is to call people to decision, to call them to decide for Christ, to choose to serve Him.

Hypercaffeinated Calvinists (imho) retort with a sneer that this is "decisional regeneration," or "decisionalism," or something like that. Forced to expand, they point out that Joshua is not saying "Choose whether or not you will serve Yahweh." Rather, he is saying, "If you will not serve Yahweh, then choose what false god you will serve."

Fair enough, as far as it goes. That is what the verse says. And anyone who's read the whole eighth chapter of TWTG, which is devoted to the Biblical doctrine of regeneration, knows that I don't see the Bible as teaching that new birth is caused by a human decision.

But don't humans make a decision? Is it helpful simply to dismiss the whole thought? I mean, dude, bro — what is repentance, if it doesn't involve a decision? What is faith? Don't we say that it has a volitional element? And what is the volition, if not the faculty that chooses? Don't we teach that we're all born heading south, and we have to do a 180? Isn't a reverse direction — though enabled by a work of sovereign grace — a decision?

Even putting all that aside, I don't even think the exegesis of this text stands up as a hypercaffeinated Calvinist critique.

Isn't context an important element of exegesis? Hypercaf critics do do a better job that popular Christians, in that they go back to verse 14, read all of 15, and note that the specific words are not a call to choose whether or not to serve Yahweh. Fair enough, as far as that goes.

But.

Keep reading. Read verses 16-27, and what do you see?
16 Then the people answered, "Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods, 17 for it is the LORD our God who brought us and our fathers up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, and who did those great signs in our sight and preserved us in all the way that we went, and among all the peoples through whom we passed.  18 And the LORD drove out before us all the peoples, the Amorites who lived in the land. Therefore we also will serve the LORD, for he is our God."

 19 But Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the LORD, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins.  20 If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm and consume you, after having done you good."

 21 And the people said to Joshua, "No, but we will serve the LORD."

 22 Then Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD, to serve him." And they said, "We are witnesses."

 23 He said, "Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart to the LORD, the God of Israel."

 24 And the people said to Joshua, "The LORD our God we will serve, and his voice we will obey."

 25 So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and put in place statutes and rules for them at Shechem.  26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone and set it up there under the terebinth that was by the sanctuary of the LORD.  27 And Joshua said to all the people, "Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD that he spoke to us. Therefore it shall be a witness against you, lest you deal falsely with your God."The people retort that they will serve Yahweh. Joshua replies that they won't be able to, because of their fickleness. They insist that they will serve Him. So Joshua formalizes this declaration, indicating his approval — first saying "you have chosen the LORD, to serve him" (v. 22).

In other words, they did choose Yahweh, in response to Joshua's challenge. They did choose Yahweh.

And, in conversion, so do we.

A Practical Example Showing Why Doctrine Is Important
by Phil Johnson



ere's a set of talking points the Jehovah's Witnesses hand to their door-to-door teams to instruct them on how to foment doubt about the deity of Christ. Some lazy JW saw an article I wrote on the deity of Christ and as a kind of shorthand reply, he e-mailed me a copy of the handout he was given by his church.*

I wonder how many evangelicals would be prepared to give an answer.

*The misspellings and typos in the document are all exactly as they appear in the original.

Good Points For Field Service

IF JESUS IS GOD

1. Why is he called the "firstborn" of all creation? Col. 1:15, Rev.3:14
2. Why did he say that he did not come of his "own initiative" but was sent? John 8:42, 1 John 4:9
3. Why did Jesus not know the "day and the hour" of the Great Tribulation but God did? Matt. 24:36
4. Who did Jesus speak to in prayer?
5. How did he "appear before the person of God for us"? Heb. 9.24
6. Why did Jesus say "the Father is greater than I am"? John 14:28, Php. 2:5, 6
7. Who spoke to Jesus at the time of his baptism saying "this is my son"? Matt. 3:17
8. How could he be exalted to a superior position? Php. 2:9, 10
9. How can he be the "mediator between God and man"? 1Tim. 2:5
10. Why did Paul say the "the head of Christ is God"? lCor. 11:30
11. Why did Jesus "hand over the Kingdom to his God" and "subject himself to God"? 1 Cor. 15:24, 28
12. Who does he refer to as "my God and your God"? John 20:17
13. How does he sit at God's right hand? Ps. 110:1, Heb. 10:12, 13
14. Why does John say "no man has seen God at any time"? John 1:18
15. Why did not people die when they saw Jesus? Ex. 30:20
16. How was Jesus dead and God alive at the same time? Acts 2:24
17. Why did he need someone to save him? Heb. 5:7
18. Who is reffered to prophetically at Prov. 8:22-31?
19. Why did Jesus say "that all authority has been GIVEN to me in heaven and on earth"? Matt. 28.18, Dan. 7:13, 14 (similar)
20. Why did he have godly fear? Heb. 5:7
21. How could he learn obedience and be made perfect? Heb. 5:8-9
22. Why would an angel be able to strengthen him or angels minister to him? Luke 22:43, Matt. 4:11
23. Why would Satan try to tempt him if he KNEW that he was GOD? Matt. 4:1-11
24. Jesus when sent to the earth was made to "be Lower" than the angels. Heb. 2:7. How could any part of a God Head EVER be lower than the angels?
25. Then if Jesus was the sameas God, who was he being tempted to rebel against? could God be tempted to rebel against himself? Matt. 4:1
26. Near the end of his earthly life, Jesus cried out "My God, why have you forsaken me?" Matt. 27:46 Can God desert or forsake himself?
27. Heb. 5:8 says that Jesus learned obedience! To whom would he obey if he was GOD? And Does God need to LEARN anything?
28. God's justice is strickly perfect. Ex. 21:23-25 for example. The ransom price was one perfect human for another. An imperfect man's life would be too low. Ps. 49:7 If Jesus was the same as God, the ransom price paid by a God would have been too high. Adam was a perfect MAN and the ransome price was a perfect MAN, not higher nor lower.

A bonus dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson





The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Christ Precious to Believers," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 13 March 1859, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens, London.




the best sermon is that which is fullest of Christ. We never like to hear a sermon unless there is something of Christ in it.

A Welsh minister who was preaching last Sabbath at the chapel of my dear brother, Jonathan George, was saying, that Christ was the sum and substance of the gospel, and he broke out into this story:—

A young man had been preaching in the presence of a venerable divine, and after he had done he went to the old minister, and said, "What do you think of my sermon?"

"A very poor sermon indeed," said he.

"A poor sermon?" said the young man, "it took me a long time to study it."

"Ay, no doubt of it." "Why, did you not think my explanation of the text a very good one?"

"Oh, yes," said the old preacher, "very good indeed."

"Well, then, why do you say it is a poor sermon? Didn't you think the metaphors were appropriate and the arguments conclusive?"

"Yes, they were very good as far as that goes, but still it was a very poor sermon."

"Will you tell me why you think it a poor sermon?"

"Because," said he, "there was no Christ in it."

"Well," said the young man, "Christ was not in the text; we are not to be preaching Christ always, we must preach what is in the text."

So the old man said, "Don't you know young man that from every town, and every village, and every little hamlet in England, wherever it may be, there is a road to London?"

"Yes," said the young man.

"Ah!" said the old divine "and so form every text in Scripture, there is a road to the metropolis of the Scriptures, that is Christ. And my dear brother, your business in when you get to a text, to say, 'Now what is the road to Christ?' and then preach a sermon, running along the road towards the great metropolis—Christ. And," said he, "I have never yet found a text that had not got a road to Christ in it, and if I ever do find one that has not a road to Christ in it, I will make one; I will go over hedge and ditch but I would get at my Master, for the sermon cannot do any good unless there is a savour of Christ in it."

by Frank Turk

OK: enough is enough.  I'm opening this post and the comments below for one reason only: SGM "Survivors".

Here's what I think: I think that SGM has had some problems, and they have called in a third party to assess those problems, and they are working on solutions based on that report.  And I think that there is a vocal and emotional faction of people inside and outside of SGM who are not satisfied with anything but the yet-to-be-determined volume of blood and mass of flesh to be extracted.



And there are a very small number of people who think they have the rational explanation for the whole thing and are also not entirely satisfied with where it is right now.

Me personally?  I think this is what you're going to get with Charismatic theology: when conflict raises its ugly head, people lead with emotions and self-image and forget they have an objective Christ who overcomes my sin and your sin so that the two men can become one under Christ.  That's not fantastically kind, but I think that's what this boils down to.

Anyway, here it is: the TeamPyro SGM thread.

Here are the ground rules:

1. I will delete any comments which are slanderous toward any people.  "Slander" is defined by the dictionary as "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report."  I'm qualifying as "false" anything which is not supported by evidence, and I'm qualifying as "evidence" things done publicly or reported by an objective third party.  It's a narrow gate.  See to it.
2. I will delete any comments which are rehashing things already covered by the AoR Report, or calling the AoR report false or otherwise tainted.  The world is not in a conspiracy against the battalion of people who claim SGM is run by the minions of Satan, in spite of some opinions to the contrary.
3. I will welcome thoughtful reflections on the events, but not accusations or tantrums.  "What's the difference," you ask?  Then you better not comment.  Seriously.
4. I reserve the right to be capricious and utterly unfair in my editorial prerogatives.
5. The other rules for posting here apply.

Have a nice weekend.

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted (a bit early) by Phil Johnson


The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "The Real Presence, the Great Want of the Church," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 11 February 1872 at the Met Tab in London.


S IT NECESSARY to say that the Lord Jesus Christ is no longer corporeally present in his church? It ought not to be needful to assert so evident a truth; and yet it is important to do so, since there are some who teach that in what they are pleased to call "the Holy Sacrament," Christ is actually present in his flesh and blood.

Such persons unwittingly deny the real humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, for if he has indeed assumed our humanity, and is in all points made like unto his brethren, his flesh and blood cannot be in two places at one time. Our bodily humanity could not be present in more places than one at one time, and if Christ's humanity be like ours it cannot be in an unlimited number of places at once; in fact, it can only be in one place. Where that place is we know from Scripture, for he sitteth at the right hand of God, expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

Unless you are to suppose that the humanity of Christ is something altogether different from ours, it cannot be here and there and everywhere; but to suppose that it is a different humanity from ours is to deny that he is Incarnate in our nature. Our Lord Jesus told his disciples that he would go away, and he has gone away. He ascended into heaven, bearing humanity up to the throne of God.

"He is not here, for he is risen."

by Dan Phillips

Don't have anything ready to serve at the moment, nor the time to finish cooking what's on the drawing board (how many mixed metaphors is that?). So I'll point back to Frank's, and add a couple of tight-lipped thoughts.

I could not have said all that I think about BoB2012 (nor the, in equal parts, response and non-response to David Kjos' post) as politely as Frank did, so at the moment I'll mostly say "amen," and join you all in waiting to see if an appropriately substantial response is forthcoming, adding only these:

1. Luke 12:48b is surely germane in this connection, is it not?
2. I would also point out what Thabiti Anyabwile said about celebrity pastors at T4G12, if I understood him correctly: Actress X would not be a star if truckloads of people didn't buy tickets to her movies. Transferring the metaphor, readers must take responsibility that Blogger X would not have the prominence he enjoys without truckloads of clicks, retweets, follows and links. Just sayin'.
3. Even granting that serious, weighty, dire, intense and personal discussions were being carried on behind closed doors, is there anything in this post or this post that relied on "facts not in evidence"?
4. What would have happened differently if, instead of taking a posture of unawareness of (or sullen resentment towards) all such posts on various blogs, TGC blogs and leadership and other leading voices had taken such concerns seriously before (to quote Frank) "all the wrong that could be done was actually accomplished"?
5. And finally, this can't be pointed to enough, if only for a needed sad chuckle:

by Frank Turk

UPDATED:

OK - you came here for the fireworks, but there are a couple of things I need you to do before you start playing John Phillips Sousa for the Grand Old Flag.

1. A young friend of our family, who is named "Daniel," is going into surgery on Thursday, 9 May 2012, at about 5 AM, to have a pacemaker put in; his surgery is postponed one week.  When I say "young," I mean he's not old enough to drive.  Please pray for Daniel and his family, his doctor and the support staff, and that God will be merciful.

2. My beloved friend Mark Lamprecht, known to many of you as "Here I Blog," has a friend who is in dire need of medical treatments he cannot afford.  I haven't been given the liberty to share all the details, but I can say that Mark and I are trying to find a way to create a donation campaign for this fellow who is a father and a husband in order that he gets the minimum urgent care he needs, which will be about $12,000 to start.  Until I can find a way to make the donations payable to this fellow's church so that we know the funds will be property administered, I'm not linking to a donation site.  But for now, if you would be in very serious prayer for this man and his family, it would serve them well.
Well, I find myself with a LOT left to say after cutting some slack on section 2 of the outline last week, but I'm going to rein it in (a little) and stick to one last bit of what's left of the BoB2012 panel discussion, which we find thus:
[30:19]
JT:I think the one with [Jefferson Bethke], who is here someplace, I think that one was in some ways an easier thing because Jefferson does not represent a movement per se.  He's an individual person doing a video and received some, you know, hurtful comments, and also some iron sharpening iron push back.  I think that's in a little bit different category that, say, some of the controversy  with Sovereign Grace, or with Elephant Room.  Um, so much to say, about both those that could be said.  I take a little bit of a contrarian perspective on both of those in that there is so much dialog going on behind the scenes that not everyone is privy to.  Take Elephant Room as an example: There was just a lot of conversation going on behind closed doors, private communication, and some of the people in the blogosphere were saying, y'know, "why isn't TGC saying more?  Why isn't Carson or Keller saying more?"  I think if you're not privy to those conversations, it can seem like stone-walling or sweeping something under the carpet, and y'know, why aren't we being communicated to.  Some of that is that we're conditioned to, when there's information, it should be made public. OWEN: Immediately.  Now. JT: And I think in the Sovereign Grace one, which I think is its own animal, very complicated, but there you have an example with uh, the wiki-leaks sort of mentality and strategy among some people who had left the movement, some who were still in it, just saying, "That's not good enough, we're gonna take this into our own hands.  We're gonna go public, make documents public, nothing's off limits."  There's literally no ethics involved.
[32:20]The reason for it, to be as clear as possible, is that I think there's something to be said in defense of David Kjos' sparse review of the panel in which he said:
The debacle of the Elephant Room, according to the representatives of The Gospel Coalition on the Band of Bloggers panel, was the objections of numerous bloggers, and the criticism of The Gospel Coalition, of which MacDonald was a founding member, for its silence on the matter. We were scolded for expressing opinions without being privy to the inside discussions of The Gospel Coalition, as if that was at all necessary, as if T. D. Jakes was an unknown quantity instead of a public figure whose heresy is well known through multiple publications. Bottom line: if you’re not on the inside, you’re not qualified to speak.Justin Taylor specifically said that this is a bad distortion of what he personally said, and I want to consider that as well as a further issue regarding the problem of transparency and disclosure overall.

Let's start where Justin starts: the Jeff Bethke incident which, as he rightly assesses, is an "easier thing".  But Justin's assessment is that it was easier because Young Jefferson is just a guy with a YouTube channel.


That is: a YouTube Channel that has received 20 million pageviews.  Just for comparison sake, "David after Dentist" has 110 million views in 3 years; Jeff has 20% of that in 4 months.  At this rate Jeff's video will have 100 million views by next summer and will be parodied by Chad Vader before the Fall.

My point being: Justin classes Jeff and his video as "just a guy," when in fact Jeff has captured more viewers than any one time Mark Driscoll has been on national TV.  Justin's view is an understatement at best -- and it minimizes what followed.

Jeff, who is not a pastor, or the leader of a movement, but who has gotten more views for his video than Jon Stewart gets for the Daily Show in any given 10 days combined, received some criticism for his video -- some of it constructive, some less than helpful.  But Jeff did something which, it seems to me, is instructive: he listened and admitted his mistake(s).  Of particular use for this teachable moment was the pastoral poking of Kevin DeYoung; Jeff's response to Kevin was, it seems to me, not just edifying but exemplary.  Jeff made some clear mistakes, Kevin lined them out clearly and fairly, and Jeff accepted them at face value.

Some things Jeff didn't do:

• Jeff didn't pipe up on twitter toward nameless people who were vexing him
• Jeff didn't delete posts he was thereafter ashamed of, or the original video because it took some hits
• Jeff didn't ignore the comments, and didn't ignore Kevin in particular who was trying to point out his errors
• Jeff didn't go into seclusion or go into radio silence while urgent and necessary private conversations were conducted for the sake of his soul and the real people who might somehow be damaged.

See: Jeff Bethke, when he put his foot in it publicly, took public criticism, and made public amends for it.  He even accepted that people criticizing him meant it for his good -- even if some of them were somewhat not good at goodness or at speaking the truth in love.  Let me say this clearly: if that's what we receive from a young fella with a YouTube channel, why would we expect less from the heroes of the reformed blogosphere?



Let's face it: saying nothing at all is actually less than what Jeff did.  Ignoring the public spin of those doing the wrong thing, which were tantamount to lies and obfuscations, is less than what Jeff did.  Failing to speak up until all the wrong that could be done was actually accomplished is far less than what Jeff Bethke did.  And doing less than Jeff when your position in a movement or in a coalition or in a band of men joined together for some para-church sake is less than what ought to be expected.

Yet here's where those I am talking about, and their advocates and surrogates, will start sniffing at the criticism.  JT has already hinted at the tactic in his statement, above: not everything has to be public.  In fact, as JT said, public statements would hurt the private conversations.

Therefore, let's think about the perfect example of that -- the mud fight surrounding SGM -- as it is also instructive.  JT, as the insightful and helpful blogger that he is, actually nails it in his statement: what happened to those with the (in my view: unreasonable) hunger and thirst for justice is that they gave up on any kind of ethics in order to make public every jot and tittle of perceived wrong-doing and to demand a pound of flesh because they said they were offended -- and not because there was any substantive offense.

From the AoR report:
One of the greatest factors that inflamed the conflicts and increased people’s wrath and clamor was the extensive use of sinful communication in talking, emails, blogs and meetings. While every Christian would agree that gossip and slander are sinful, many in SGM failed to recognize when they initiated, participated, or listened to and read sinful communications. When we met with people, they often justified their own judgmental and damning words with dangerous thinking such as:
• “It’s just the truth!”
• “I am loving this person by revealing this person’s sins to that person or to the community or even the world (e.g., through the Internet).”
• “Since I’m being ignored, I am justified in saying these terrible things about others.”
• “I need to protect the church or the world against these evil people.”
• “Because I was hurt, I am justified in how I hurt others by whatever kind of words I use!” As mentioned above, AoR has often seen sins of the tongue in conflicted groups. But in working in this situation, we experienced first-hand an unusual severity of this grievous sin. It was simply shocking. For a people who take pride in humility, who claim to have been totally indoctrinated in biblical peacemaking, and who brag about the way they share Christ and his love, we were saddened that so many of these same people minimized sinful talk, justified gossip and slander, and refused to see how such activity itself exaggerated their troubles.My point being: if this really is the only other choice as what "some bloggers" were demanding, then I agree with Justin: maybe we'd be better off just minding our own business.

But, in fact, that's not the only other choice -- and in a very specific sense, it's not what "some bloggers" were suggesting, and exhorting, and pointing out was missing.

One blogger (since we are not naming names) started an open letter to Carson and Keller when the ER2 hoopla was just getting ginned up by saying this:
As I begin to write this, I do so with a personal sense of indebtedness to both of you.  I am not merely grateful for your books and lectures and sermons which have taught me so much: I am grateful for the spirit with which you have done it all.  That is to say: while I am well-known through a reputation of being quite a pill for the sake of the Gospel, you both are known as fatherly men who have a graciousness I am certain I lack, and it is that spirit from which I learn much all the time.And then this:
Recently, you have both penned a detailed statement about the nature of the Gospel Coalition, and about its duties or relationship to its readers and also its council members.  I found this essay instructive, and useful, and clarifying in the context it was coming from, but in my view, it misses the point of the concerns of almost all the critics of the dust-up over the Elephant Room.  I wanted to offer to you an outsider's perspective on what just happened and why it is not enough merely to say what you have said so far.And then this admonition:
Now, here's what's not necessary: we don't need the reality TV version of whatever it is that has happened, is happening, and will happen between the various parties at TGC, including any trumped-up drama.  But when someone publicly makes an error of this size, the broad stokes of the public resolution are, frankly, necessary for the sake of those you started your internet site up for in the first place.
...
Saying what you might do is an interesting approach -- and it is the approach of the essay you have already written.  But showing the rest of us how to actually do it would be invaluable.  It would actually put into play something the Evangelical church lacks -- an education on how to exercise spiritual responsibility, and turn a brother away from wrong-doing and toward the right path, the right orbit in our center-bounded life which is around Christ.
So I ask you as a fan, and as your far-removed student, and as a Christian who is indebted to you: help us understand how to resolve this matter.  Please do not let the weak single tweet from James MacDonald that the parties #AgreeToDisagree stand as the milestone to this event.  That activity would be helpful to so many people for so many reasons that they cannot all be listed, but the one most important must be said: it will glorify Christ.That's not badgering.  That's not unethical intrusion into private conversations.  But that's also not one of the choices JT is willing to proffer. See: what is said by JT (and to be fair: I think it is at least partially unintentional, partly a function of unprepared remarks) is that we can expect one thing from a young fellow with a YouTube channel, and we should expect that same thing from people with complaints about their churches, but we can't expect it from men like the guys who sit on the council for the Gospel Coalition.  These are important men, and they represent more than themselves, and we can't just expect them to take public rebukes for public misdemeanors and mistakes as if they might actually be wrong.

This is why David Kjos was offended by the table talk at BoB2012.  In fact, this is why I am offended by this little kaffeeklatsch of fellows under 40 who know things they wish they didn't know: there's no question they have a different standard for a James MacDonald or a D.A. Carson or a Mark Driscoll or a John Piper or a Mark Dever than they do for a Jeff Bethke -- and it's not a higher standard.

It really doesn't get better as you listen to this discussion: it gets worse.  Collin Hansen, God bless him, pulls back the curtain for us and makes it transparent what this means, ending around 34:50.  Again, to be utterly fair, I think he didn't intend to say it this way, but he said what he said.  In his view, in the same way that Christianity Today would never publish anything but nice about Billy Graham and his kin, the same barrier exists at TGC for the council and its members.  When you link this to Collin's foundering around about what's so bad about comments (negative comments being, on the one hand, welcome for the sake of "openness", but on the other hand, being from "parasites" who don't have any other platform or readers), it's sort of ghastly.  It's like finding that darned cat which has been missing for a few weeks behind the appliances -- it's not what one wanted to find, or meant to find, but you have (for good and ill) found it.  It answers a lot of questions.

But the choices are not to either do nothing or to produce a reality show that runs after Keeping Up with the Kardashians: a real third way could be to be like Jeff Bethke even though one might be James MacDonald or Mark Driscoll.  Or better still: specifically because one might be the leader of a movement, somehow one takes Jesus' admonition to be unlike the world but to instead save the world (or your demographical piece of it) by dying for it rather than jockeying for position.  The real third way is to be like Kevin DeYoung or Thabiti - to say what is right regarding what is wrong, in a clear and cogent and compassionate and public way so that what is actually wrong with a brother is made clear to those one intended to attract in the first place, and so that what is right about public discourse can be modeled for the plethora of hit-piece writers and undiscerning discernment bloggers.

There are more lessons to be learned here than the really-superficial and rudimentary issue that somehow Keller and Carson are aware that Jakes is a Modalist - and those lessons are actually lessons in applying the Gospel.  When a James MacDonald publicly embraces, from bad to worse, panderers, demogogues, and then a modalist, the least one can do is say, "I think my friend has made a mistake which, I hope, he will repent of."  And the least he can then do in return is to say, "I have received a general critique of what's happening here, and I hope I can resolve it with my friends."  And then let all the private enclaves and secret meetings which have jaded and disillusioned these poor young fellows with thoughts that cannot be mentioned ensue.  But that cannot be demonstrated because these men are, it seems, too great to be burdened with running the parachurch ministry they sought to build to this high a profile.  It's no wonder both James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll got a fond farewell from TGC rather than a sorrowful public final plea to repent of their terrible mistakes: there is a different standard for men like them, and men like Carson and Keller, than there is for men like me.

The proper standard, however, will be upheld in the comments, which are open. Play nice.

by Dan Phillips

I think the truth of the sufficiency of Scripture may be the central Biblical doctrine under attack in our day.  Of course cults, heresies and false religions attack it, as they must. What is saddest to see is all the "friendly" fire that well-meaning obsessives have leveled with a boldness that seems to be on the increase.

I've come at this topic "at sundry times and in divers manners," including here, here, and here, among many others.

Sunday was part three of our Thinking Biblically series at CBC, and the sufficiency of Scripture was one of the foci of the sermon titled What Should We Do with the Bible? (That and, well, once again too many other things.) I'll lift out a part of the sermon, part that actually wasn't in the notes.

I grant that my efforts may not have convinced everyone, though I will keep trying. But virtually all remotely-sound Christians will at least give a nod to the proviso that yes, yes, yes, the Bible is God's Word, and yes, it's some kind of sufficient, and no, no hemi-demi-semi-kindasorta revelation can displace it — well, not formally, anyway.

So agree with me on this. If you really believe what you say you really believe, this should be no problem. Here we go:

Agree heartily to believe in and use Scripture as befits what it claims about itself. Treat it like it is what you say you believe it is: God's actual, real-live, inerrant, personal, living and powerful Word. Approach it as you would actually approach such a treasure as you profess to affirm to have found in Scripture.

That is, pledge yourself exclusively to seek God and His will according to Scripture. Pray only for light to understand Scripture (cf. Psa. 119:18; 2 Tim. 4:7). Commit yourself only to regard what comes from Scripture as God's binding will for you. Set aside all the yeah-buts and evasions and distractions and special-pleadings and fourteenth-hand stories and traditions, for a time.



Set yourself to seeking and being in a church that emphatically teaches the Bible as if it were what it says it is, that devotes itself to the exposition and proclamation and practice of Scripture as God's inerrant word, without the endless distractions of entertainment and fads and dancing bears.

Devote yourself exclusively to studying Scripture, all sixty-six books. Set yourself to master every book, every chapter, every verse, every word. Seek perfect understanding of all of Scripture, and Scripture only, as containing what God really wants you to know. Memorize all of it.

Finally (and at the same time) commit yourself to practicing Scripture perfectly. All of it. Master it, and be mastered by it — exclusively. If it is not Bible or a valid straight-line application of the Bible, do not claim it as any level of special revelation from God.

Then and only then — when you have plumbed the full dimensions of Scripture in every direction; when you have conformed your thoughts, attitudes, affections and behavior to it; when you've ransacked every corner and crevasse and entirely emptied the cupboards and completely cleared the shelves — if you find that Scripture is truly insufficient to lead you to know and serve God in this life (contrary to its own self-testimony)...

...then look me up.

Deal?

A Bridge too Far
by Phil Johnson


his year's Standpoint Conference is an online video event only, and my contribution was posted today at the Sharper Iron blog.

I don't like talking into a video camera rather than speaking to an actual congregation. The timing and inflection seems stilted; my eye-contact is slightly askew (I keep looking at the computer screen in front of me rather than the actual camera lens); on playback, it feels like I'm yelling at the camera; and I miss the choruses of "amen" and "preach it, brother," that I usually get when preaching. (Just kidding about the amens. In fact, one of the good things about preaching to a video camera is that there's no one to walk out on the sermon.)

Anyway, here it is. I'm talking about bridge-building, boundary-guarding, brotherhood, belief, and the problem of how to cultivate all of those things without compromise. In the process, I'll touch on The Gospel Coalition, The Elephant Room, and some other topics that will be familiar to our regular readers:



I'm closing comments, because I don't want to detract from the discussion at Sharper Iron. If you want to comment, head over there. You'll have to sign up, and I think you have to meet a minimal standard of evangelical orthodoxy in order to comment there, but I'm pretty sure most of our regular commenters will qualify. If you have never perused Sharper Iron, look around. There's lots there to profit from.

by Phil Johnson



o I was in Minneapolis Saturday for Todd Friel's Wretched Psalm 119 Conference, and David Wheaton broadcast his weekly radio program, "The Christian Worldview," live from the conference venue. David graciously featured an interview with me in one of the segments, and at one point he asked me to give a thumbnail sketch of what I would be speaking on later in the day. The theme of this year's Psalm 119 Conferences is the Holy Spirit, and one of my messages dealt with the question of how the Holy Spirit communicates truth to believers. Should we expect Him to reveal fresh prophecies through intuitive impulses, voices in our heads, and other means of private revelation?

I said no, nothing in Scripture instructs us to seek that kind of guidance. Instead, we are commanded to order our lives by the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 5:32; Joshua 1:7-8; Psalm 1:2-3; 1 John 2:5-6; etc.). The Holy Spirit's ministry is to enlighten our understanding of the Word (1 John 2:20, 27; Ephesians 1:17-18; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14; Psalm 119:18) and motivate our obedience (Ezekiel 36:27), so that the Word of God (not some mystical extrabiblical revelation) is "a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Psalm 119:105).

That's more or less what I said in answer to David Wheaton's question about how the Holy Spirit guides us.

Less than 15 minutes later, my phone dinged, letting me know I had received a fresh e-mail. Here's what the message said:

I was just listening to an interview with you on local Christian radio. It seems you have elevated that which is written above the mystery of Christ hidden in us. Perhaps I have misunderstood. I hope so. There was nothing "written" for the common man until when? The 16th century? Maybe sooner...Even so, literacy was widespread. But, here we are, the seed has not been obliterated.

I submit that you could consider the inner work of the Spirit...that is a mystery, indeed. Just as surely as the union of sperm and egg produces life, so the Spirit produces new life, and that eternal. And we have no dispute there.

Lean not into your own understanding...let the Spirit have His work...by Faith. After all, God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must do so in spirit and in truth.

Yikes.

My reply:

God himself elevates "that which is written" to the position of highest authority, and He has expressly instructed us "not to go beyond what is written" (1 Corinthians 4:6). Scripture is the only truth we have that is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). And the truth of Scripture is sufficient for all our spiritual needs (v. 17).

So if someone heard my abbreviated answer to David Wheaton and thought I was saying the Scriptures are more authoritative and more reliable than any mysterious "inner work of the Spirit" that involves extra-biblical "truth" or inspired intuition, then emphatically: Yes, you heard me correctly.

Like many charismatics, my interlocutor seems to imagine that the principle of sola Scriptura is hostile to a robust understanding of the Holy Spirit's work in the daily lives of Christians today.

That idea is perhaps the single most deadly error in the vast menagerie of problems associated with the charismatic movement.

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson



The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Repentance unto Life," one of Spurgeon's earliest sermons, preached on Sunday morning, 23 September 1855, at New Park Street Chapel, Southwark.


nother mistake many poor people make when they are thinking about salvation . . . is that they cannot repent enough; they imagine that were they to repent up to a certain degree, they would be saved.

"Oh, sir!" some of you will say, "I have not penitence enough."

Beloved, let me tell you that there is not any eminent degree of "repentance" which is necessary to salvation. You know there are degrees of faith, and yet the least faith saves; so there are degrees of repentance, and the least repentance will save the soul if it is sincere.

The Bible says, "He that believeth shall be saved," and when it says that, it includes the very smallest degree of faith. So when it says, "Repent and be saved," it includes the man who has the lowest degree of real repentance.

Repentance, moreover, is never perfect in any man in this mortal state. We never get perfect faith so as to be entirely free from doubting; and we never get repentance which is free from some hardness of heart. The most sincere penitent that you know will feel himself to be partially impenitent.

Repentance is also a continual life-long act. It will grow continually. I believe a Christian on his death-bed will more bitterly repent than ever he did before. It is a thing to be done all your life long. Sinning and repenting—sinning and repenting, make up a Christian's life. Repenting and believing in Jesus—repenting and believing in Jesus, make up the consummation of his happiness. You must not expect that you will be perfect in "repentance" before you are saved. No Christian can be perfect.

"Repentance" is a grace. Some people preach it as a condition of salvation. Condition of nonsense! There are no conditions of salvation. God gives the salvation himself; and he only gives it to those to whom he will. He says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." If, then, God has given you the least repentance, if it be sincere repentance, praise him for it, and expect that repentance will grow deeper and deeper as you go further on.

Then this remark I think, ought to be applied to all Christians. Christian men and women, you feel that you have not deep enough repentance. You feel that you have not faith large enough. What are you to do? Ask for an increase of faith, and it will grow. So with repentance.

by Phil Johnson



his may be risky, because I haven't had an opportunity to listen for myself yet, but yesterday Chris Rosebrough reviewed one of my sermons. You can hear his review in the second half of this broadcast:




Chris's sermon reviews are sometimes painful to listen to but always insightful. He plays the sermon from start to end, stopping the tape where he needs to make a point. If you want to learn how to listen to preaching with a discerning ear—paying attention to content, context, and doctrine, rather than style-of-delivery alone—Chris shows how it's done.

Chris reviews the good, the bad, and the ugly almost daily. There's a lot more bad and ugly than good, sadly. I'm guessing he (mostly) appreciated my sermon on Barabbas because it featured the kind of gospel focus he usually appreciates. But if you want some scary entertainment (better than any horror movie out there), you ought to listen to Chris's review of a bad sermon someday.