Shocker: Antidepressants Don't Work Well!

That's right! I don't know if you saw the BBC story yet but the news is out. Prozac and other antidepressants don't seem to help many people for whom they are prescribed. I am of course being sarcastic since I see these people every day in the emergency room. They come in still feeling depressed and want more help. I will not even begin to mention people who overdose on their antidepressant medicines.
If all this is surprising to you then consider this. People feel depressed. We give them medicine to increase dopamine or serotonin in the brain. They are still depressed. Or, as this study shows, they feel better simply because they are taking something (aka placebo effect.) Of course, in my opinion, the problem is at step one. Why are these people depressed in the first place? They drink too much; smoke too much; tick off everyone they know; don't hold jobs; don't think of others; etc., etc. You get the picture.
What is the solution to depression. As always, I think the Bible holds the answers. We need to align our lives with the Creator's instructions: to love God and love others. We need to poor our lives into the lives of others. We should live temperately whether dealing with chemical substances, food, or activities. In all this we need to realize that life does not revolve around us! Unfortunately, the religion of Scientism, established in the public mind by the teaching of the Theory of Evolution as incontrovertible fact, tells people that they are randomly combined chemicals that need to strive for their own benefit in the great cosmic struggle for survival. What a depressing idea.

I really need to write a book.

I had some time to kill yesterday so I wandered into our local Borders. I was rather amazed at some of titles I saw. If this kind of drivel gets published I really need to write a book. I think I could churn out 200 pages of something like Living History by Hillary Clinton. This was billed on the cover as "the phenomenal bestseller"! Really. I am sure she wrote it completely factual and from the motive of inspiring us to clearly remember past events. Oh yeah, she doesn't clearly remember many past events of her own life. See, that is where I come in. I am thinking of writing some kind of Forest Gump autobiography where I forget a lot of actual events in my life but make up some really cool stuff!
My other favorite was this chestnut: You Don't Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right. Really, that is a published book! So if I am right about the world being round and you think it is flat that is OK? Well, the book is about faith and religion and so it is not that simple. But I believe in one all-powerful, good, and just God and if you believe in a cosmic dualism like a huge majority of people then we can't both be right.
Well, I will not inflict any more of this on you, dear reader, until my book gets published!

I like Ben Stein

I am 38 and like most of my peers Ben Stein is the "Bueller,…Bueller, …" guy. I was too young to remember him as a presidential speech writer and old enough to remember him before "Dry eyes…" and "Win Ben Stein's Money." All that to say that over the last 20 years I have really come to like Ben Stein.
There are a lot of smart people in this world. Some of them are insufferable and some are delightful. Ben is the later. I could sit and listen to him talk for hours not because I always agree with him but because he slowly, carefully lays out his thoughts on a matter. If you've never listened to him go over to YouTube and watch some of the videos of interviews with him. Caveat: there is one clip that someone posted to try and undermine this point by showing him getting into a shouting match with a guy (with whom I incidentally agree) who keeps interrupting him.
Now Ben has a new movie coming out. It will probably not get the kind of attention that Michael Moore can get by filming himself blowing his nose because it is not pushing liberal politics. The movie is called "Expelled" and documents the harassment in store for any scientist brazen enough to question the received wisdom: Science is God, the Arbitrator of all Wisdom and Knowledge and the Sole Authority for all of Life. Think of it as kind of the opposite of AlGore's movie. Ergo, don't look for Mr. Stein in Stockholm next year.
The premise is simple, there are legitimate questions about Darwinism but if you ask them you will be more castigated and persecuted than people who questioned the Pope were by the Inquisition. I am tired of people saying things like, "Millions of people have been killed by organized religion." Which I like to counter by simply saying, "Right, since Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot all were adherents of Secular Humanism." I also love being castigated as closed minded for my beliefs by people who have swallowed the Dogmatism of Darwinism without any question and will not open their minds one iota to let you question that.
The best part of the movie is where Ben talks about why the establishment is so virulent in opposition to any dissent. He points out that people who are confident in what they believe are willing to discuss it. Only those who are afraid that their beliefs are not fully rational are reactionary against the questioning of their religion.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed should be shown in every school in America. It probably won't be but I still like Ben Stein.

Consider the Prophet Job

James tells us to consider the prophet Job.

As I meditate on that today it strikes me that even as christians we so often think of our lives as our own. Our job, our skills, our money, our family, our personality, our luck, our good karma. But what do we have that we do not hold in the providence of God. No doubt Job worked hard, spent wisely and loved his family. But all of this operated within the protection of God. When it pleased God to oppress Job all this was stripped away, but to what benefit for us! While Job suffered and sought for why God was doing this, God mercifully opens to us a window into the operations of the Tempter and greatness of of He who sits enthroned in heaven.

All these things lead to the great prophecy of Job: "I know that my Redeemer is alive…and in my flesh I will see Him!" We must live every day in a way that makes us ready to meet the Risen Christ face to face.

A New Year

BEING SENSIBLE THAT I AM UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT GOD' S HELP, I DO HUMBLY ENTREAT HIM BY HIS GRACE TO ENABLE ME TO KEEP THESE RESOLUTIONS, SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO HIS WILL, FOR CHRIST' S SAKE. – Jonathan Edwards

I enter this new year most conscious of my need for God's grace. At this time when so many will attempt to "turn over a new leaf," or to "strive harder to better themselves," I desire, by God's help to be "agreeable to His will, for Christ's sake." That will is given to us so clearly: To love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. I am chagrined to have to confess that we so often make God's direction for our lives a matter of hidden mystery when we neglect to do this thing: love those that are near at hand. Or conversely, we pride ourselves on our kindnesses to others when all is merely selfish pride masquerading as piety.

O Lord, grant that I may love You with all my being and clearly show that love to others this year.

Apology: The Revelation of God

As I elaborated in my last post: I believe that there is one personal, eternally existant, all-powerful creative being and that He is properly to be regarded as God.  From there I move to the next major head of apologetics: Has God revealed Himself to us.

By definition, if God actively hid Himself from us then we could never hope to discover anything of Him.  His transcendent existence, wisdom, and power would render that a futile enterprise.  So, anything that we know of God must be knowledge, at the least, allowed by God.  If God has not revealed Himself we cannot be held in anyway responsible to relate to Him.  It would be all the same as that He did not exist.

So we ask, “How does God reveal Himself to us?”  Many hold that God speaks to people spiritually in many places and many times.  The problem with the view appears to be that of all the religious writings extant that speak of the divine, hardly do two agree on any major point.  Many things have been written that claim to be the revelation of God to man but few can meet the test of veracity.

So, this leads me to believe that God has revealed Himself to man.  For any revelation to be considered true it would have to meet several tests.  First, it must be universal.  It must address how every man, from first to last, lives and relates to God.  Most religious texts fail in this test.  The Bible however gives consistent principles of sin and forgiveness throughout its pages.  While many have attacked the Bible for inconsistencies, all of these are easily beaten back by careful reading of the entire book.

Second, it must be verifiable.  I do not mean that everything it teaches must be testable and verifiable today.  But when it speaks of history and science it must be verifiable.  The Koran and the Book of Mormon fail on this test for both are blatantly inaccurate historically.  The Bible talks about some events that are have not been verified but it speaks of nothing that is historically impossible.  As to science many how have been indoctrinated with the tenets of evolution would scoff at my calling the Bible scientifically accurate.  I do not have the time, inclination, training or resources to go into a detailed argument here, however, many others have and the argumentation is available.  I will simply state here that a God that is worthy of that name would certainly have to have the power to be able to create the world.

In the third place revelation must be knowing and purposeful.  That is if God has a man write something that He is revealing, then the man must understand he is being used.  The Bible meets this test as it repeated asserts that it is speaking in direct quotation of God.  The New Testament takes this farther in making direct statements about all the writings being from God and inspired by Him.

Lastly, there must be consensus.  Now let me be clear: the consensus did not create the canon but it does confirm ex post facto the existence of the canon.  The consensus of the church has been clear for 2000 years that the book we call the Bible contains all that God has wished to reveal to all men, everywhere, for all time. 

Thus I believe that God has revealed Himself to us in the Bible.  That it contains not all that we need to know about everything but all that God has chosen to reveal to us and certainly “all things that pertain to life and godliness.”  I believe that the Bible is not at odds with history, math, medicine, astronomy or any other scientific discipline.  I contend that however the canon came to be (and again, this is too lengthy a subject to enter into here), 2000 years of consensus can render us certain that we have all that God intended us to have.  A god ao capricious as to hide or impotent as to be unable to accurately transmit and preserve his revelation is no god at all.  But God has revealed Himself to us in the Bible–the ultimate standard of truth.

Apology: The Existence of God

The first subject of any apologist must be the existence of God.  For if there is no god, all religion is merely part of the population manipulating another part to some end.  If there is no spiritual dimension, no metaphysicial reality then there is only nature: the observable world and religion is simply a vain affectation.  Certainly many who hold themselves to be scientific embrace this view.

First, I maintain that there is a metaphysical reality.  I hold this view for several reasons.  There is a universal acceptance of the spiritual sphere.  Not that every person in the world holds this for they do not.  Rather that every people group in the world is religious.  Perhaps I had best pause and define religious as: of or relating to the worship of or a doctrine concerning a divine being or beings (from the New Oxford American Dictionary.)  It is apparent that by this definition even atheism is a religious belief!  Every tribe and nation believe in some kind of religion.  Spirituality is ubiquitous.  Surely if this were merely human invention it would not have been invented everywhere by everyone.  Think of how the wheel and alphabet are not ubiquitous.  But religion is universal.  In contemporary America as we have become more “scientific” (i.e. more convinced that evolution is true and there is no supernatural world) in reality we have become increasingly superstitious.  There has never been more belief in angels, demons and ghosts since the middle ages.

Second, if there is a spiritual dimension either it is either inhabited or not.  If it is not inhabited by beings (other than whatever spiritual dimension we may possess) then it is of no concern to us.  If however it is inhabited then we must be concerned with the beings that live there as they undoubtedly have power to influence our natural world.

Third, what do we can a superhuman being? The New Oxford American Dictionary defines god as: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes.  So if there is a spirit world and it is inhabited at least some of it's inhabitants may properly be called gods according to our understanding.  Again, if these beings have no power over nature or human fortunes than they are not gods and we need not concern ourselves with them.

Fourth, the existence of God.  If there are 2 or more gods then relating to one or all of them may be problematic.  What if we relate to a god who is overpowered or destroyed by another god?  What if we worship a god who is capricious or untruthful?  What if the gods interfere with each other's revelation of themselves to us?  In pluralistic deity there can be no sure relationship with any divine person and hence we are hopeless to discern a right and wrong way to relate to such a reality.

So if there is a metaphysical world inhabited by a being of power that necessitates the existence of God.  A God powerful enough to create the world and reveal Himself to us.  A God righteous enough to truthfully reveal himself and just enough to rule over and administer the world fairly.  Thus I posit the existence of one God against all forms of atheism, naturalism, pantheism, polytheism and dualism.

Apology: An Introduction

From the New Oxford American Dictionary:

apology noun ( pl. -gies)

1 a regretful acknowledgment of an offense or failure.

2 ( an apology for) a very poor or inadequate example of.

3 a reasoned argument or writing in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

I trust, dear reader that you understand I do not intend to write in the spirit of the first or second definition but in the third.  I have long thought of how to organize this essay and finally have worked up the courage to start writing it down.  As always my goal is to see if it sounds as cogent in writing as it does in the echoing recesses of my mind.  Undoubtedly it will not if past projects have taught me anything!  Equally I am hopeful that this will have some reasonableness about it and that my thinking will be refined by the exercise of setting these things down on paper and the interaction that may follow.

What is it that I will seek to defend here?  It is simply this: Christian Orthodoxy.  St. Peter tells us, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”  So that is what I set out to do: to answer for my Hope.  And the measure of my answer is this: that it conforms to the Word of God.

A voice says, “Cry out.“

       And I said, “What shall I cry?“

       “All men are like grass,

       and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.

 The grass withers and the flowers fall,

       because the breath of the LORD blows on them.

       Surely the people are grass.

 The grass withers and the flowers fall,

       but the word of our God stands forever.”

A Few Thoughts on Christian Missions

“You haven't been writing much recently, Jon,” you say. “What have you been thinking about?”
OK, I know no one really said that but anyway here it is since I am a blogger and I share what I think regardless of whether anyone cares!
Missions. There has been a fair amount of stuff written in the blogosphere about Christian Missions. No bible-believer doubts the need for some kind of mission to share the gospel. The main thing right now in 2007 is that I think we are working with the wrong paradigm. There is an adage: armies always prepare to fight the last war. I think this is true of missions. We don't even blink at spending $50,000 or more to send an American to live in a foreign country and plant a church. We are unfazed when every fourth year he brings his whole family back to the US and travels to his 60-100 supporting churches. We are unconcerned that there are churches supporting multiple missionaries when they are not honoring their pastor by supporting him financially.
“So,” you ask, “what paradigm should we be using.” The NT one of course! Paul did not try to go to every town in an area. He makes this clear in Colossians 2. He did go to the big population centers and then sent people out from there to plant churches in the hinterlands. So, where are our big populations centers. New York, L.A., Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. If we could do some really effective gospel outreach in these places we could reach the world!
My second thought is that missions is cyclic. There are periods when the focus is outward and there are periods when the focus is inward. For instance: can you name a great missionary from the reformation? No, the focus was on building up the church with a renewed focus on God's Word. From that we get later great missions outreach. My thought here is that the great American missions movement came from a church that was domestically healthy and growing. Is that still the case today? Perhaps we need to focus missions on really building up american churches and sharing the gospel with the growing number of our fellow citizens who have never been to church or heard the gospel.
American missions has historically done a huge work in evangelizing the whole world. We have sent missionaries to every nation and translated the Bible into hundreds of languages. But the now the church is failing to reach our own Jerusalem. A huge majority of those in evangelical churches will never give the gospel message to anyone. Yet we hold fast to the idea that we, as Americans, have shouldered the burden of world evangelism and the idea that we should deviate from that in any way is unquestioned. Until now.

Church Membership Revisited

In the past month while I have been too crazy busy to write, the blogosphere has been alive with the Grudem-Piper discussion of church membership and baptism. So, I figure I can plunge in in the wake of the other million-plus bloggers!
The issue, I think, has been very much clouded by references to the universal body of Christ and the doors of heaven, etc. Let us ask this question: Are there people who claim to be Christians and are not? The New Testament makes clear that there are. And there are even church leaders who are wolves in sheep's clothing. So how do we mark out those who are not real? This has traditionally been done by confession. The course of church history has been the refinement (note: not the invention) of these confessional points. But with the postmodern rejection of propositional truth we have arrived at the idea that these confessions are moot.
Today there are many people (i.e. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et. al.) who call themselves Roman Catholic but do not agree with the Pope's position on human reproduction. The problem is that to be a member of their catholic church you have to believe what the church teaches or you are a heretic. And the church teaches that the pope is infallible. Ergo, if you believe that abortion is OK then you are a heretic in the eyes of Rome. The problem is that the Roman church has lost all it fire to tell people that kind of thing. Not to mention they have lost the moral ground to talk to others about their morals.
But confessions are important. The history of modern american evangelicalism was the confession of the truth of the gospel against modernism's refutation of inspiration, inerrancy and miracles. So there has to be a confession of some absolute truth by a person before they can be considered to be a christian.
Also, early in church history we see a division of the visible church over cultural and interpretational issues. Let us not forget that the Roman and Greek churches were greatly divided hundreds of years before the Pope and the Patriarch excommunicated each other. But until that open divide the differences did not hinder the churches from fellowship and agreement on the major doctrines: Trinitarianism, Christology, Pneumenology, etc. The protestant reformers could not even come to an equitable understanding about the eucharist!
Personally, I have recently joined a baptist church after 12+ years in a bible church. I am not particularly ready to have the baptist distinctives tattooed on my arm! But I also believe that God Sovereignly led us to a baptist church so I don't fight against them. If God had placed us in a town where the only bible-preaching church was a Wesleyan Brethren assembly I would not be trying to convert them all to the doctrines of grace! So why would a presbyterian want to join a baptist church and not be baptized?
What if it was the other ordinance? If you visited a church that practiced closed communion, would you insist that they allow you to participate because you believe in open communion? I think most would think it quite rude and uncharitable. Why would a divergent stance on baptism be any different?
Let us call it what it is: consumerism. People want what THEY want and they have a RIGHT to have it! I believe the Bible teaches that God is providentially ruling the world. Any church that is doctrinally sound that God places me in deserves my commitment and submission. If they are some place theologically that I am not then I need to submit to that. That means, if I were a preby and was sprinkled either as an adult believer or as a child, I would submit to submersive believer's baptism. Remember, part of submitting to Christ is submitting to the authorities God has placed in our lives. It is where the tire of divine sovereignty meets the road.

Bob Bixby's Thoughts on the Emerging Middle

Bob Bixby has a very interesting article over at Pensées (see the right sidebar). It is one of the best articles I have read in a while. I wanted to respond at some length so I decided to make my own post instead of taking up too much of his comment thread.

Abstract of “The Emerging Middle”
There is a new circle forming in the middle ground between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. This circle is made up of men who are uncomfortable with the fringe elements of their respective circles. This terra media is the historic ground of all true evangelicals and fundamentalists. Within this pale are men like Bauder and Dever, MacArthur and Doran. The old taxonomy of evangelicals and fundamentalists is flawed and obscured by the fringe loonies and will be done away with as more good men move into the emerging middle.
The emerging middle will triumph for several reasons.
1) The revival of “calvinish” doctrine over the Finney-esque methodology.
2) The failure of the old taxonomies to differentiate between good men in the movements and the fringe elements.
3) The liberation of pastors from “presentism”. Presentism is projecting the values, goals, and methods of the present on the past. Presentism has forced fundamentalism into the post-50's mold of separtism while there was previously a strong brand of non-conformist fundamentalism.
4) The waning power of institutionalism. Pastors and churches are less and less drawn by institutional loyalty.
5) The blessing of God on sound doctrine and practice. All movements eventually fail but the truth of God marches on.

Points of Agreement
I agree with Pastor Bixby that there are good things in both movements. I heard a pastor say recently that he was NOT an evangelical. He was very proud of this fact. He was also proud to be KJVO so there you have it. But I am evangelical. And I want to be more evangelical. By that I mean that I want to be about the gospel. Many of my recent posts are my musings about how the gospel should be infecting different areas of my life. It always concerns me when people don't want to be labeled fundamentalists. All true christians should be concerned about the truth of the doctrines once delivered to the saints. Indisputably there are goofy people within both these movements. So good men who want to please God and share the gospel of Jesus Christ with the world should be able to identify the good and bad and associate with what is good in both these movements.
I concur with Bob that this growing ground of commonality will eventually become its own movement and will move beyond the old labels. I hope that good men will rally around truth and dispense with the foolishness that goes on at the extremes of both left and right. I think that this will take place for four of the five reasons he lists. Namely reasons 2-5.
The failure of past definitions is apparent. I grew up in a fundamentalism where if your where not fundamentalist it was highly suspect if you were even saved. While I would not agree with everything that John MacArthur has done, I have heard his ministry disparaged by fundamentalist leaders while it is apparent from his writings that he has made tremendous contribution to the cause of defending sound doctrine and building churches that stand for the gospel.
Bob's bringing up David Beale's explanation of presentism is masterful. I have struggled with this for years. I have often viewed this as a matter where one must choose when to be a Puritan and when to be a Pilgrim. Remember that the puritans where historically those who stayed in the established Church of England and strove to keep it scriptural. The pilgrims where those from among the puritans that felt that they must leave and establish churches outside of the established church. Which were right? They both were! Early fundamentalism understood this. Men like “Fightin' Bob” Schuler stayed in the denominations and fought for truth just like Piper and Dever do today. Many of the early fundamentalists came to believe that they could no longer stay in the denominations, that the battle was lost and they needed to separate and be independent or start new associations like GARBC. Unfortunately at some point fundamentalism stopped being either/or and became exclusively separatist. I think this opened the door to sectarianism. No longer was it about emphasizing doctrinal unity over denominational distinctive but rather lining up with others who agree with you in your definition of what is important. We need to get back to being citizens of the Kingdom and not worry so much about who belongs to our little principality, earldom or county.
Institutionalism goes hand in hand with the last point. As fundamentalism became more separatist and then sectarian the institutions became a handy way to keep track of with whom you could play and with whom you would be polluted. I remember so vividly a dear christian friend saying he didn't feel like he fit in at our church because he had not gone to BJU. I never want anyone to feel like a second-class citizen in any church of mine because of where they were educated, what version of God's Word they read or what kind of music they prefer.
The continuation of sound doctrine is the story of church history. As my dad says, there have always been men who were fundamentalist and there always will be men who hold the position that doctrine is important and worth fighting for whatever they are choose to be called.

Points of Disagreement.
I disagree with Pastor Bixby's first reason for success. While I would certainly subscribe to his definition of “calvinish” since I am a little uncomfortable trying to fit myself into the full mold of calvinism. However, I think that he falls into the trap of presentism here. The fact is that the furtherance of the gospel in the last 400 years has never been completely owned by either arminians or calvinists. I would further posit that the greatest gains where seen when good men from both leanings came together for the sake of the gospel. Think of the Wesley/Whitfield revival and also of the early fundamentalism to illustrate this point.
My second point of contention is the characterisation of BJU as arminian. The founder was a Methodist and so he was certainly arminian in his leanings yet he was also not afraid to preach about the truth of a sovereign God and His grace. It is hard to swallow this too since Ian Paisley (indisputably a full Five-Pointer if there ever was one!) has been a close friend and frequent guest of four generations of Jones presidents. The only calvinists that got in trouble in my 30 years of recollection where some people who were manifestly and unabashedly hyper-calvinist.
One of the problems with institutionalism is that pastors have run out to suck up to institutional officers. I remember a case (that I do not think is unique) where a pastor brought a dispute to Bob Jones III. In the same vein why would someone hold a conference and invite Stephen Jones to preach on how to pastor? Dr. Jones is certainly well trained and a gifted preacher but perhaps not the most qualified to speak to men in the trenches of pulpit ministry. But this has gone on for years and happens in evangelicalism too. I think that a man like Dr. Jones can certainly encourage pastors in their ministry and I am sure he has ever put himself forth as an expert in pastoring any more than Kevin Bauder or other such administrators would. There is still the danger of a shift to a different kind of institution: the conference. Conferences are a wonderful way for men in ministry to be ministered too and encouraged. At the same time there is a risk of being swept along with every wind that blows through these conferences. I was listening to the Whetstone Conference recently at Pastor Bixby's advice and thought that Dr. Minnick did a great job in saying that there were men who had good things to say but do not have the same sensibilities that we have in fundamentalism. I think that is a great balance point. But the same is true with each movement not every fundamentalist is all right. We need to listen to all men who are concerned to give the whole council of God and weigh everything they say with Berean nobility.

Conclusion
Pastor Bixby has done a good job of summarizing the current situatution in what I think of as broader evangelicalism. He has made a prediction that good men in the middle will come together to stand for the gospel and fight for the fundamentals. He posits that this is the historic position of both these great movements. And, he points us to the fact that God is building a kingdom that cannot fail to succeed! All Glory to Him who reigns on High!

What kind of judgment do we face?

Next time you get a speeding ticket try this: show up with your records of charitable giving. Bring your friends, neighbors, co-workers, children, spouse, et aliud with you to testify to how good you are in various aspects of your life. I really think it will work! Oh, Oh, here is another one: deny the authority, legitimacy, or existence of the court. There is a couple in New Hampshire that was recently in a standoff with the feds after being convicted of not paying taxes because they denied the existence of the law that required them to pay the taxes. And there were the dinosaur people in Florida that are in jail now for the same plan.
Really now, who would be dumb enough to try that? Yet that is exactly the plan that many people have in mind to do at the final judgement. Among other places Paul confronts this in his letter to the Colossians and Laodiceans when he says, “For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality.”
We all understand this, right. If you speed or steal or murder, it really doesn't matter what else that person has done that is good, they are guilty. We often bridle to hear that some rich person gets off with a light sentence for DUI or tax evasion or some other infraction of the law because they have the ability to hire some great attorney for $500 an hour. Yet we instinctively feel that God is going to use this same kind of standard in his court.
We must remember that one of the great teachings of the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments is that God is the righteous judge. One day He will have every person stand before Him and He will judge them based on the wrong that they have committed and He will do it without partiality, without respect for different persons/stations in life or favoritism.
The good news is that we all have equal opportunity and access to hire for ourselves the greatest Advocate ever! Who could ever be a better person than the Son of God? What better person than one who never, ever even thought about transgressing any of God's righteous standards? And, the news gets even better! There is no retainer, no fee, no quid pro quo! All there is, is to ask Him to represent you at that tribunal.
That is the Good News. We can all have the lawyer that will get us off because He has already paid the penalty for our violation of God's law, for our unthankfulness and He can assure us of a good verdict! This is the message that we need to share with our friends and neighbors.

Do you Belive In Magic?

Two thoughts before I get into this one.

One: Yes, I cannot help but think of that old song that someone (?M&Ms?) used for a commercial back in the 70's or 80's.  A quick Google informs me that it was sung by a group with the inspired name of The Lovin' Spoonful.

Two: Yes, I heard that an obscure movie about some guy named Harry did come out this week.  I have been thinking about this post for a least a month.

Magic is one of those words that is pretty nebulous.  It can mean a lot of things in a lot of different contexts.  While some would object to using it in any Christian kind of sense it is in the KJV (you may find it as “magik”) so it must be alright.  Also, a lot of people have problems (understandably) with Hogwart's Magic but are not bothered by Aslan's or Gandalf's magic.  If you are oblivious to the references in the previous sentences then you probably ought to stop reading now.

I am not particularly taken with Potter but one thing I do like is that all the magic spells are just good ol' Latin!  And some of my favorite magical phrases are found in my Latin Bible.  But, I get ahead of myself.  What I am talking about here is the power of words.  The kind of words that when you hear them your heart leaps or your hair stands up.  Phrases that conjure up so much more than the sum of the words.  I want to share a few of my favorites and I would love to hear some of yours.  Yes, you, O Silent Reader.  I am attempting to draw you into clicking that little link that says “comment” and typing a few little words.  …Please?

Ecce homo!  Of course these are the words of Pontius Pilatus and they indicate the first vestige of the sufferings of Christ and are a small token of what is to follow.   This phrase is also powerful because where so many saw a mere man, some were starting to see much more and the whole point of the story is that this is no mere man being crucified!

“I Am”  This is perhaps the pre-eminent example.  First we see it in the story of Moses.  Then when they came to arrest Jesus.  What a power to make those wicked men step back by the mere speaking of the to be verb!

“But God…”  A common occurrence in the New Testament this phrase always catches my breath.  We often see it in the midst of a contrast between our natural condition and God's natural grace and mercy.

Lord Jesus Christ.  What a great truth is contained in these three little words.  The divinity, the humanity and the mission are combined in this name.  The whole gospel really is represented here.  That God would become man and die to redeem sinners is all encapsulated in that title for the savior!

Those are my four favorites so tell me about yours!

The Gospel and Good Discipline

Many good churches are bringing back church discipline. There is a renewed teaching and understanding of the proper balance between confrontation and restoration. The Gospel is central to this balance. We must be confronted anew by the death of Christ because of sin and His resurrection to assure us of our new life in the Kingdom of God. Church discipline exists to call back erring brethren who are straying so that they can renew their life in Christ. It also exists to keep the church pure so that the Gospel message may be clearly heard in the world.
But there is another kind of discipline. Within the church members must hold each other accountable to live according to God's holiness. But between churches there is also a need for accountability. It cannot function exactly like discipline within the church but it still needs to exist. Think with me: a pastor is getting carried away with some fad. It is a fad that tends to blur and downplay the message of salvation. His fellow pastor friends see this trend and confront him. If he does not listen to them they cannot really call him up on disciple but they might end up separating from him. This separation should not be motivated by spite (“He didn't listen to me!”) or a false piety (“I just cannot be around someone like that.”) but by the Gospel. The desire to exert all our influence to bring that person back to the clear preaching of the good news of the Kingdom.
I believe much of the abuse of separation in Fundamentalism has been the failure to keep the Gospel as the central theme of separation. To maintain contact with those in evangelicalism who were really carrying out ministry in a manner that obscured the Gospel. We must separate from those who are not upholding the truth of scripture but we must leave the door open enough that we can continually call out to them with the Gospel, remind them of the need to stand and clearly proclaim the Good News and show by our love that the repentance and faith are at work to change our hearts.

364

Last July 4 was hot in Woodruff, SC.  I slept in since I did not have to go to work.  Also I was worn out from a late night party at Tom Williams house the night before!  About mid morning I was reading some blog articles.  I wanted to comment on one but I needed to have a blogger.com account.  So I signed up for an account which meant I needed to have a blog name.  Once I had a blog I figured I would post something on it.  And that is how Standing on the Rock got started.

This is post number 37.  I have tremendously enjoyed the exercise of writing.  At the time I started I was midway through a professional writing course that I subsequently finished with an A.  One of my main goals was to continue writing to refine the lessons I learned in the class.  I feel that I have accomplished that goal.  I also wanted to get feedback from trusted friends on my writing.  In that goal I have not succeeded.  I have only seen a handful of comments from a fraction of the readers of this blog.  I do have several friends who faithfully read the blog and email me or personally tell me their thoughts on the articles.  I would like to see more online feedback however.  So that will be a goal for the coming year.

I never set out to compete with Tim Challies,  SharperIron, or the Pyros but I do look in on Site Meter from time to time to make sure that terrorists are not monitoring my words.  It has been amazing to see that people in Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Ireland and all over the US have stopped by.  I hope that one thing I wrote might have an impact on some of these visitors.

So, being nostalgic and historic, this post marks the end of one year of blogging.  We will have to see what the year ahead holds! 

The Gospel of Grace & Truth

I have been studying in Colossians since my pastor is preaching through the book.  Paul says something in the first chapter that jumps out at me.  He says, “…since the first day that you heard and understood the grace of God in truth….”  This is in the midst of a passage where he is talking about the Colossians accepting “the word of truth, the gospel which came to you.”  So he links the gospel with two key elements: grace and truth.  What is the link?

I think the tie-in here is that we are saved by grace and truth.  It is the truth about our standing in Adam that drives us to seek by grace to stand instead in Christ.  It is the grace of God giving us redemption and forgiveness of sins instead of damnation that drives us to share the truth with others.

As we grow in sanctification and the gospel becomes more and more central in our lives, truth and grace should increasingly be characteristic of our actions.  How can we tell others of the God of Truth and His infallible, inerrant word if we are people who are not truthful?  How can we freely avail ourselves of God's matchless grace and not be willing in turn to forgive even our enemies and be gracious to those who abuse us?

The gospel must be central to all we do: how we behave and how we relate to those around us.  And that gospel that should be core to our existence should be seen by those around us in grace and truth oozing out of our lives.

Doctrine, Wisdom, Conviction

There has been a lot of furor over Joe Zichterman's departure from fundamentalism and his embracing the emergent conversation.  If you have not already read Dan Miller's article “Why Do They Leave Fundamentalism?” then you really should.  Dan was a classmate of mine in college and his reasoning ability has been refined over the years to be very good.

In the article Dan ends up largely discussing the issue of music.  If you are a Fundamentalist and you have not wrestled with music then one wonders where you have been for the last 30 years.  The fact is that there are modes of worship that we are comfortable and familiar with and there are modes that we feel are not best.  Music a key area where this happens.

Dan shares his personal testimony of how he ended up,for a brief time, in a church that was not fundamental.  He found that while much of what they did was what he thought of as worldly and unwise that it came from a heart that was redeemed and that was striving to worship God.

This is the key.  We have too often forgotten as Fundamentalists what the fundamentals are.  The fundamentals do not include liturgical styles, music, specific translations, ordinance modalities and soteriologies, to name a few.  Now, these things are all informed by our view of scripture, creation, atonement and escatology, and well they should be.  However, we must be careful to not take our views of wisdom and conviction issues and artificially make them into doctrinal issues.  Our common sense is often not so common as we would like to imagine.

This actually does come back around to my soap box du juor: the Centrality of the Gospel.  We must embrace as brothers all those who are repenting of sin and trusting in Christ alone for salvation.  It is incumbent upon us to treat as fellow-citizens all who are looking for the Kingdom of God.  And we may not behave arrogantly toward others who are fellow bond-servants of Christ.

Doctrine is important.  We are commanded to pray for wisdom.  Our convictions should be informed by the Word and cultivated by the Spirit.  But we must be careful not to confound the three or we cease to be Fundamentalists and become simply Donatist sectarians.

The Hypocrisy of Paedobaptism

This is just a little thought that has been brewing for a while. There seems to be a real hypocrisy in many Baptist churches. They would turn red and blustery at the evils of paedobaptism. Many Baptists could hardly say the word without spitting! But then they will turn around and baptize little Bobby or Suzy who prayed to “ask Jesus to come into my heart” last week after a sermon on hell. Now before you start quothing “let the little children come…,” I must quickly say that I am in no way opposed to little children being led to the Lord. What I am saying however, is that if we are going to practice believer's baptism should we not have a clear definition of what that is.

My definition of a believer is, “one who has repented of sin and believed in Christ alone for salvation from the wrath of God.” This requires not just a prayer and an altar trip but some time to show that it is real repentance and faith. This is one reason why the early church often made converts wait years to be baptized.

I think everyone knows some child, born into a church-going family who made an early profession of faith and was baptized only to go astray as a teenager and end up as an adult who has no interest in church. How hard would it be to allow such a child to grow and mature and defer their baptism until the age of say, sixteen. Would it really be so bad to examine teenagers and ask if they are really showing a life characterized by a love of God and love for others?

Is there not a fundamental hypocrisy in standing on the doctrine of believer's baptism and then baptizing those who have been given no time to show that they truly are believers.

The Centrality of the Gospel

Well, our move is over and we are getting settled in here in Maine. I thought I might try blogging again!

I have been pondering the centrality of the Gospel. This is one of those things that I think we lose sight of sometimes. While there are many important things, personal holiness, right doctrine, God-honoring worship, et cetera, we must view all these through the lens of the Gospel.

I was thinking of the issue of personal holiness this morning. I am afraid that many of us have made that a central issue in our lives. Now, please do not mistake what I am saying. It is very, very important. But it is important because it puts emphasis on the Gospel. When our neighbors see us living holy lives they ought to be able to see from their interaction with us that it is the Gospel that empowers sinful men to be good. But when holiness is the main thing then we become "good people." The problem with being good is that the worldling already believes that most people are good and that God will not punish people who are basically, on balance, at the end of the day, good. But the message of the Bible is that All are wicked and the only good in life is God! The only hope we have to offer is that the righteousness of Christ can change our innately warped nature and make it into a new man.

If we do not keep this Gospel focus in the forefront of our minds we run a real risk of being in the place of the Pharisee of Luke 18:9-14. I would much rather be the publican in this parable!

Appologetics: The Law of Large Numbers

In continuation of my last post I want to discuss another issue that came up recently in an argument with an atheist. When confronted with the idea that Ockham's Razor works much better for the theory of creation than for that of evolution, he turned to the Law of Large Numbers. This is a common tactic. Obviously that probability of life happening randomly is very small. Actually the probability is zero. And the probability of it happening over and over is even smaller. P(A∩B)=P(A)*P(B). That is the probability of A and B happening is the product of their individual probability. Remember, that when you multiply 2 fractions (i.e. very small number; less than one; approaching zero) you get an even smaller number. So, the laws of probability say that there is even less chance of having 2 highly improbable events occur. Now, the evolutionist grants all this ("The probability is zero but we are here…") and then trots out the Law of Large Numbers to argue that in an infinite amount of time anything could happen. Here are my 2 responses.
Remember, that when you multiply 2 fractions (i.e. very small number; less than one; approaching zero) you get an even smaller number. So, the laws of probability say that there is even less chance of having 2 highly improbable events occur. Now, the evolutionist grants all this ("The probability is zero but we are here…") and then trots out the Law of Large Numbers to argue that in an infinite amount of time anything could happen. Here are my 2 responses.

First, this kind of reasoning means that any kind of miracle could happen, right? I mean, if a random electric shock could make a protoplasm coalesce into a living single-celled organism then is it any less likely that some how the Sun could stand still for Joshua for a few hours? Or that a virgin could conceive a child? Or that a man could come back to life? Basically, the naturalistic philosopher wants to reserve this kind of magic for his own presuppositions!

Second, this is not what the Law of Large Numbers really says anyway. Without being too technical the Law of Large Numbers throws out outliers instead of proving their existence as the evolutionist is trying to use it to do. Let us examine a common example of the Law. There are 2 sides of a coin. So naturally we know that the chances of getting either a "heads" or a "tails" is 50% on any coin toss. As we toss multiple times we expect to see about half-in-half of the two sides. But if we actually start tossing we may see 7 of 10 heads and 3/10 tails. Is our probability wrong? No, the Law of Large Numbers says that while at low sampling we may see this kind of aberrancy, that as the numbers get large these numbers are going to converge on the expected 50-50. So, while we may see 70% heads on 10 tosses, the chance of seeing that 70% on 10,000 tosses is effectively zero. When you start talking about millions you just won't see anything outside of ±0.01%.

So if you get into a debate with an evolutionist who just cannot except miracles and creation here is some ammo to refute them as we stand ready to give an answer of what we believe.