From Monday’s post:

2. Spontaneous Public Prayer

I realize that many will disagree with my first objection, but that’s because their ecclesiology is messed up. Public prayer, along with Scripture reading and preaching, is a formal ministry reserved for the congregational elders. No part of the worship service should be spontaneous. It should be orderly and controlled. It must be, in order to ensure that all speech is biblical. (If I had nickel for every time someone in the pew prayed for something blatantly unbiblical—like God’s blessing on an ungodly lawsuit—well . . . I’d have at least several nickels.)

Secondly, when you call on someone to pray spontaneously, you invite—perhaps even force—insincerity. Their prayer might be, at least in part, a performance. It’s not that they intend it to be, it’s just a natural result of normal self-consciousness. For many of us, this is exacerbated by a total inability to speak extemporaneously. But that also is for the next post. God wants sincere prayer. That means uncoerced prayer. Never, never, never put anyone in a position in which they feel pressured to pray aloud.

A reader named Stephen was understandably confused. He wrote:

I agree mostly with most of what you say, but I had a clarifying question on #2. Could you remind me the support for making public prayer strictly a formal ministry for elders? The only time I could find in the NT instructing elders specifically to pray was the healing/anointing time in James 5. In 1 Timothy, where the church offices are most qualitatively defined, Paul actually says that “men” in general should pray “in every place . . . lifting holy hands.

I agree with your point in that in a worship service, prayers should only be given in an orderly, intentional manner. I interpreted the original post’s point here to be prayers in a small group/class setting, but your argument seems to ban spontaneous prayers there also.

I reply:

Stephen,

Thanks for asking. I see the cause of your confusion: my muddled presentation. Let’s see if I can clear things up.

The first thing I should clarify is that I am not objecting to spontaneous prayer across the board. I am primarily talking about calling on someone to pray aloud extemporaneously.

Second, I was addressing both prayer in the formal worship service, and prayer in informal study groups, and I didn’t make that clear at all.

In the former case, I oppose all spontaneous prayer. This reflects, in part, my adherence to the Regulative Principle. God has revealed how he wants to be worshiped, and demonstrated that it really matters (just ask Uzzah, Nadab, and Abihu). Precise application of the Regulative Principle is debatable, but that God cares about order is not. And I would think order matters, even if I didn’t hold to the Regulative Principle.

In the latter case, I have no objection to an orderly time of voluntary spontaneous prayer, permitting all to participate. I do object to creating any situation in which anyone feels pressured to do so, for the reasons stated.

Regarding 1 Timothy 2:8, as I see it, Paul is exhorting everyone, men and women, everywhere to pray on behalf of all people as directed in the previous verses. It’s a general exhortation to pray, without regard to time and place, and doesn’t have specific application here.

It would not shock me at all to hear that I’m still not making sense. Feel free to pursue more clarity, and I’ll try to provide it.

As I see it—and as poll after poll proves—too many people who regard themselves as Christians are utterly clueless about the most fundamental truths. They don’t understand what God says about the human condition. They don’t know what God meant to do when He made man, what happened to us to wreck us up, or what we really need. Cherished traditional notions they have in abundance; biblical truth in all its raw, intrusive, and transforming power, they lack.

Consequently, they aren’t at all prepared to grasp the grandeur of what God has done for people in Christ. With that wobbly and incomplete foundation, they may claim to have “received” Jesus, may really believe they have done so—but nothing comes of it. They think and live just like the world.

As I said: They don’t tilt the world. The world tilts them because of various barriers erected in their minds through exposure to bad teaching. A variety of false doctrines hold them back from enjoying the life to which God calls them in Jesus Christ. They bank on bad teaching, they’re burdened by bad teaching, and they’re bound by bad teaching.

Banking on Bad Teaching

Some professing Christians are naturally indolent, lazy, retiring, introspective, self-involved, perhaps even selfish—and the rotten teaching they get magnifies and calcifies those tendencies. They refuse to trust and obey; they feel no need to try and to dare and to engage. Worse, they do all this nothingness in the name of the Lord.

God’s Word has good news for just such folks: The cross of Christ means far more than you’ve been told, and Jesus wants to have much more to do with your life than you have thought!

Burdened by Bad Teaching

Other Christians dearly want to soar, but they keep crashing. These poor souls fell into teaching that promised quick fixes and jump starts to their spiritual lives. “Just follow our instructions” (they were told), “and you will soar to victory! Pray ____! Bind ____! Unleash ____! Receive ____! Claim ____!”

So they followed the instructions. They prayed, bound, unleashed, received, claimed . . . and maybe they danced a little jig, to boot. Yet they kept crashing, and crashing, and crashing.

Now they feel like giving up. Maybe they have given up. There is great, glorious news in the Word for them as well: The cross of Christ means far more than you’ve been told, and Jesus has yet more grace and wisdom for your path.

Bound by Bad Teaching

Still others are reluctant captives who would love to break out and live boldly for God’s glory. But they have been fed a line of bad teaching that has convinced them that they dare do no such thing. It has them stalled on the roadside in a holy haze. They cannot risk making a move for fear of doing it wrong and ruining all.

The Bible has wonderfully good news for them as well! The cross of Christ means far more than you’ve been told, and it brings a freedom for you that you’ve only dreamt of thus far! Once the good news grips you (as one of my blog readers gladly reported), “some major chains” will shatter, and you’ll be free to blast off.

The world needs tilting, and bad doctrinal barriers need busting.

—Dan Phillips, The World-Tilting Gospel (Kregel, 2011), 17–19.

At this point in my life, I’m beyond blaming my error on bad teaching. I’ve simply been given too much. Still, whether or not I can identify them, I’m positive that there are things I’ve got wrong, and of those things I’ve got right, my knowledge is incomplete. That deficiency hinders my ability to live a full gospel-driven and sustained life. So while I could read the paragraphs above and conclude that they were written to folks who are far more messed up than I, I can’t help seeing myself in each paragraph. The cross of Christ does indeed mean more than I know, and by the grace of God, I’m learning.

Last week, I promised to write my own thoughts on why The Top 5 Things Introverts Dread about Church should never be done. My intention was to divide a post into two parts, approaching the “5 things” from the anthropological (human) perspective and the theological (God’s) perspective. I’ve decided instead to write two posts, beginning with the theological reasons for scrapping each one. That way, if I never get around to part two (which I kind of dread writing), I’ll at least have covered the most important angle. So here goes:

Why I think God opposes the “5 things.”

5. “Welcome! Shake a hand, give a hug, share a name!”

While this, in its most minimal form, is the least offensive item on the list, it still has no place in a worship service. Why? Because it’s a worship service. This is not the time for visiting with neighbors. Our focus is to be on God and his Word. There is plenty of time for chit-chat before and after, or between Sunday school and the worship service, however your Sunday worship is arranged. Like homicide, this crime comes in various degrees. If your version is a thirty-second “greet your neighbor” interruption, I’ll let you off with a warning. If it extends to five minutes (that seem like ten or fifteen to folks like me) of wander-around-and-visit-with-everyone chaos, you’ve lost all pretense of being in a reverent, worshipful state of mind, and you’ve probably busted mine.

4. “Chelsey, what do you think?”

The appropriateness of this one really depends on the group and the setting. There might be appropriate times to solicit an opinion here and there. In general, though, if you’re the leader, your job is to teach. You are supposed to have prepared in advance to declare truth. Get that: to declare truth. Not to present your opinions, but to communicate truths gleaned from diligent study in the Word. It makes no sense to solicit spontaneous opinions from people who have just shown up for class, especially if you’re going to ask anything as stupid as “what does this mean to you”—which is really the best you can expect when you put the average person on the spot like that.

3. “Let’s get into groups and pray aloud and/or tell each other our deepest, darkest struggles.”

Are you utterly insane? I realize that there are plenty of exhibitionists who thrive on attention and love baring their souls in public, but I, and many others, are not among them. That kind of conversation is reserved for our most intimate friends, and appropriately so. Why this is, I’ll leave for the next post. For today’s purposes, it is enough to say that if you put others on the spot to expose themselves like this, at best you are ignorantly insensitive, and at worst, you are not loving your brother. If you are not loving your brother, you are not loving God.

2. Spontaneous Public Prayer

I realize that many will disagree with my first objection, but that’s because their ecclesiology is messed up. Public prayer, along with Scripture reading and preaching, is a formal ministry reserved for the congregational elders. No part of the worship service should be spontaneous. It should be orderly and controlled. It must be, in order to ensure that all speech is biblical. (If I had nickel for every time someone in the pew prayed for something blatantly unbiblical—like God’s blessing on an ungodly lawsuit—well . . . I’d have at least several nickels.)

Secondly, when you call on someone to pray spontaneously, you invite—perhaps even force—insincerity. Their prayer might be, at least in part, a performance. It’s not that they intend it to be, it’s just a natural result of normal self-consciousness. For many of us, this is exacerbated by a total inability to speak extemporaneously. But that also is for the next post. God wants sincere prayer. That means uncoerced prayer. Never, never, never put anyone in a position in which they feel pressured to pray aloud.

1. “You should be more . . .”

Unless you are in a counseling/discipline situation, you have no business telling anyone to be anything other than what they are. God made them a certain way, and he did it on purpose. God, in his great mercy, didn’t give everyone big mouths that never shut up. He didn’t make everyone thoughtful and reticent. Most of us are somewhere on the scale in between, and that’s good. Will the clay say to the potter, “Why did you make that other pot that way?

Our Life Is Long
Christina Rossetti (1830–1894)

Our life is long. Not so, wise Angels say
Who watch us waste it, trembling while they weigh
Against eternity one squandered day.

Our life is long. Not so, the Saints protest,
Filled full of consolation and of rest:
“Short ill, long good, one long unending best.”

Our life is long. Christ's word sounds different:
“Night cometh: no more work when day is spent.
Repent and work to-day, work and repent.

Lord, make us like Thy Host who day nor night
Rest not from adoration, their delight,
Crying “Holy, Holy, Holy,” in the height.

Lord, make us like Thy Saints who wait and long
Contented: bound in hope and freed from wrong,
They speed (may be) their vigil with a song.

Lord, make us like Thyself; for thirty-three
Slow years of toil seemed not too long to Thee,
That where Thou art there Thy Beloved might be.

—Christina Rossetti, Poems (Alfred A. Knopf, 1993).

21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

—2 Corinthians 5

The Exchange Between The Sinful And The Sinless.

In shewing favor to a criminal, an earthly sovereign must consider whether he can do so (1) without loss of character; (2) without breach of law; (3) without encouragement to crime; (4) without infringement or compromise of government. All these things have been amply provided for in the divine scheme of pardon; that scheme being the embodiment of such provision,—not only containing the prevention of any such wrongs to God and to His universe, but the development of principles and the revelation of facts, which far more than compensate for threatened evils, and bring immense glory to God and His government, out of that which otherwise would have been big with dishonour and confusion.

That scheme is announced in these words, “He hath made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might be made (or be, or become) the righteousness of God in Him.” Thus God is just, and the justifier of the unjust. Here are two special points: (1) The sinless one made sin for the sinful; (2) the unrighteous becoming the righteousness of God in the righteous One.

I. The sinless One made sin for the Sinful. He was “without sin;” He “knew no sin;” not the shadow of evil was to be found in Him; He was the “righteous one,” the “holy one,” the “Lamb without blemish, and without spot ;” altogether perfect, yet partaker of our very flesh, our true humanity; very man, of the substance of the virgin, partaker of the dust of earth, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, still sinless in the entirest sense of that word; loving righteousness and hating iniquity, this sinless One was made sin, made sin by God: “He hath made Him sin.” The connection between Him and sin, between Him and the sinner, was one made, constituted by God. It was the Lord that laid our iniquity upon Him (Isaiah 53:6); that bruised Him and put Him to grief; that made His soul an offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10); that made Him a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). Our guilt was transferred to Him by God, and He was treated as if He were really the doer of it all. God “spared Him not, but delivered Him up” (Romans 8:32). In the Psalms He confesses our sin as if it were His own (see 38., 40, 69); during His life He acted as one shut out because of guilt; at His trial He was dumb, and answered not a word; on the cross He cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.” It is not merely that He was made a sin-offering, but he was “made sin,” as if no words could fully express the closeness of His connection with our transgressions. He was treated as a sinner from His cradle to His cross. His was a vicarious life and a vicarious death. It was this that made Him the man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. On no other ground can we account for His profound and life-long sorrow, save that all His life long He was bearing sin for us,—He was being led as a lamb to the slaughter; and this leading to the slaughter was the real meaning of His sorrowful and burdened life. He was moving to the altar with the sins of His church upon Him; He was going to the cross, laden all through with this infinite burden which was laid upon Him, when He took flesh by the power of the Holy Ghost. As sacrifice, burnt-offering, sin-offering, trespass offering, substitute, surety, sin-bearer, we find Him here on earth, till He had finished the work which was given Him to do, till He had by Himself purged our sins (Hebrew 1:2). Men call this a “fiction,” or a “make believe;” it is the truth of God, with which the whole Bible is full,—the transference of our human guilt to our divine Substitute, that He might bear it all for us,—the transference of legal condemnation and divine displeasure from us to Him, that only acquittal, and pardon, and favor and love might belong to us.[14] “Thy wrath lieth hard upon me” (Psalm 88:7), are the words of the Sin-bearer; and that this was felt in a measure all His life through (though consummated on the cross), is shewn by what follows : “I am afflicted and ready to die (“sorrowful unto death”) from my youth up” (Psalm 88:15). The sinless One made sin for the sinful is the pervading doctrine of both Testaments; such books as Leviticus and the Epistle to the Hebrews are unintelligible otherwise. It is this that so strongly and awfully establishes the doctrine of eternal recompense for sin. If sin deserves no eternal wrath, what an unmeaning thing is this divine sin-bearing! What a gratuitous expenditure of labour, and suffering, and death.

II. The unrighteousness becoming the righteousness of God in the righteous One. The name of our Substitute is, “Jehovah our Righteousness”; and the justifying righteousness is called by an apostle, “the righteousness of Him who is our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). Thus the “righteousness of God” amid the “righteousness of Christ” are declared to be the same, and our common use of the expression, “the righteousness of Christ,” is amply vindicated from the cavils of Socinians and others of like mind. Luther exhorted the brethren to learn, as their constant song of praise, “Lord Jesus, thou art my righteousness, and I thy sin.” So must we, if we would enjoy Luther’s doctrine, his twofold teaching, “That a man is justified by faith, and that he is to know that he is justified.” We are “unrighteous.” There is no question as to that. Yet, says the apostle, “We become (not merely “righteous,” but) the righteousness of God,” in this righteous One. What is ours passes over to Him; what is His passes over to us. We become righteousness! As if, from the moment that we believe God’s testimony to the righteous One and His work, we and righteousness become one and the same thing. So completely are we justified, and lifted up into the same righteous level or standing which the righteous One himself occupies in the sight of God. Thus are we “complete in Him,”—“found in Him,”—recognized as one with Him in righteousness, and entitled to possess all He possesses. What a transference! And how simply effected! Receive the Father’s testimony to the righteousness of the beloved Son, and all that righteousness becomes yours! O man, canst thou refuse an exchange like this? A salvation so complete, so perfect and divine.

Yes; “It is finished!” On the cross it was finished. Then the blood was shed with which the sinner is sprinkled and purged in conscience; and all that followed (both resurrection and ascension) assumed the completion of the great sacrifice on Golgotha. Then the righteousness was finished also, in virtue of which we are “accepted in the Beloved.” During all the preceding ages the voice of each sacrifice laid on the altar, morning and evening, was, “It is not finished;” but then the one voice of the one Sacrifice proclaimed before earth and heaven, “It is finished.” Nothing was from that moment to be added to it or taken from it. All was done.

It is the ministry of this “righteousness” that is now preached to the unrighteous. There are many “ministries.” There is the ministry of “the word” (Acts 6:4); the ministry of “the grace” (Acts 20:24); the ministry of “the reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18); the ministration of “the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3:8). There is also the ministry of “the righteousness” (2 Corinthians 3:9). Righteousness for the unrighteous is God’s message to the world; righteousness for those whose only’ qualification is, that they need it; righteousness to the most unrighteous of the sons of men; for it is to the wretched prodigal, the wanderer in the far country, that the Father says, “Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him.”

In Jesus, the sinner’s substitute, we have “the perfect One.” God sees perfection in Him. But this perfection, while it detects and condemns our imperfection, provides also for its forgiveness. It is by means of this perfection that God is enabled to deal in love with our imperfection, however great and manifold it may be. The good swallows up the evil, and yet is not tainted thereby. The sinner hands over his sins to the perfect One; and the perfect One hands over His perfection to the sinner. Thus, by reason of this blessed transference or exchange, the imperfect one becomes as the perfect One in the sight of God, and is dealt with as such in regard to all favor and blessing. Perfection covers imperfection, and the believing sinner stands “complete” in the perfect One: “accepted in the Beloved.” Crediting God’s testimony to the perfect One, and His perfect sacrifice, we stand before God on a new footing,—as men who have “become the righteousness of God in Him,”—and who now get life, and peace, and pardon, and blessing, simply because the perfect One has deserved it for them. We have all in Him.

—Horatius Bonar, Light & Truth: Bible Thoughts & Themes

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

—Psalm 119:18

Thy Word Is Like a Garden, Lord

Thy Word is like a garden, Lord, with flowers bright and fair;

And everyone who seeks may pluck a lovely cluster there.

Thy Word is like a deep, deep mine; and jewels rich and rare

Are hidden in its mighty depths for every searcher there.

Thy Word is like a starry host: a thousand rays of light

Are seen to guide the traveler and make his pathway bright.

Thy Word is like an armory, where soldiers may repair;

And find, for life’s long battle day, all needful weapons there.

Oh, may I love Thy precious Word, may I explore the mine,

May I its fragrant flowers glean, may light upon me shine!

Oh, may I find my armor there! Thy Word my trusty sword,

I’ll learn to fight with every foe the battle of the Lord.

—Great Hymns of the Faith (Zondervan, 1968).

Christianity is not just an experience, we need to remember, but it is about truth. The experience of being reconciled to the Father, through the Son, by the work of the Holy Spirit all happens within a worldview. This worldview is the way God has taught us in his Word to view the world. That is why the Bible begins with Genesis 1:1 and not with John 3:16.

—David Wells, quoted in The World-Tilting Gospel (Kregel, 2011), 10. [source: The Courage to Be Protestant (Eerdmans, 2008), 45.]

(I loved The Courage to Be Protestant, and seeing it cited here, in this way, makes me want to go read it again before continuing. But if I obeyed that urge every time I felt it, I'd never finish anything.)

Phillips continues to explain the premise of The World-Tilting Gospel:

I love compressed truth. Wells’s observation was as brilliant as it was pithy. It went off in my imagination like a thrilling cascade of fireworks, effectively illuminating and framing so much that had been troubling me about today’s church scene.

People leap for an experience, fall short of truth, and wander off lost and aimless. A truncated “half-spell” has been substituted for the biblical Gospel. The “nice bits” have been snipped out, isolated, and dolled up as more marketable. Folks have signed on without any real grasp of the Gospel in all its fullness and power.

Many professed Christians regard the Gospel as our ticket “in,” and then we’re done with it. It’s like a contract: We ignore the lawyer-talk, sign it, and then forget about it. We think that the Gospel was beginner’s material. Pray a prayer, pen your name, you’re “in”; now move on to something else.

But what too many of us have not grasped is:

• who we really are
• what kind of world we are really living in
• how the world really operates and where it is really going
• who God really is
• what His eternal plan really was
• why we really needed Him and His plan so desperately
• what His terms—the Gospel—really were
• what difference the Gospel will really make on every day of our lives

To discover the reality of these issues, to begin to understand that reality in its fullness, we simply must start with Genesis 1:1.

—Ibid.

I have several recently-published, yet unread, books that include the word “gospel” in the title. I'm sure most of them are quite good, but none of them start from this foundational position. And this is where we must begin.

What Is Chance?

We begin by asking the simple but critically important question, What is chance? Because this question is so critical, however, I think it important first to explain why the definition of chance is so crucial.

Words are capable of more than one meaning in their usage. Such words are highly susceptible to the unconscious or unintentional commission of the fallacy of equivocation. Equivocation occurs when a word changes its meaning (usually subtly) in the course of an argument. We illustrate via the classic “cat with nine tails” argument.

Premise A. No cat has eight tails.
Premise B. One cat has one more tail than no cat.
Conclusion: One cat has nine tails.

We see in this “syllogism” that the word cat subtly changes its meaning. In Premise A “no cat” signifies a negation about cats. It is a universal negative. In Premise B “no cat” is suddenly given a positive status as if it represented a group of comparative realities. Premise B assumes already that cats have one tail per cat. If we had two boxes, with one box empty and the second containing a single cat, we would expect to find one more cat in that box than in the empty one. If cats normally have one tail, we would expect one more cat’s tail in one box than in the other.

The conclusion of this syllogism rests on the shift from negative to positive in the phrase no cat. The conclusion rests upon equivocation in the first premise. “No cat” is understood to mean a class of cats (positively) that actually possesses eight tails.

Such equivocation frequently occurs with the use of the word chance. We find this in the writings of philosophers, theologians, scientists—indeed pervasively. Here’s how it works.

On the one hand the word chance refers to mathematical possibilities. Here chance is merely a formal word with no material content. It is a pure abstraction. [For example, if we calculate the odds of a coin-flip, we speak of the chances of the coin’s being turned up heads or tails. Given that the coin doesn’t stand on its edge, what are the chances that it will turn up heads or tails? The answer, of course, is 100%. There are only two options: heads and tails. It is 100% certain that one of the two will prevail. This is a bona fide either/or situation, with no tertium quid possible.

If we state the question in a different manner, we get different odds or chances. If we ask, “What are the chances that the coin will turn up heads?” then our answer will be “Fifty-fifty.”

Suppose we complicate the matter by including a series of circumstances and ask, “What are the odds that the coin will turn up heads ten times in a row?” The mathematicians and odds-makers can figure that out. In the unlikely event that the coin turns up heads nine consecutive times, what are the odds that it will turn up heads the tenth time? In terms of the series, I don’t know. In terms of the single event, however, the odds are still fifty-fifty.

Our next question is crucial. How much influence or effect does chance have on the coin’s turning up heads? My answer is categorically, “None whatsoever.” I say that emphatically because there is no possibility, real or imagined, that chance can have any influence on the outcome of the coin-toss.

Why not? Because chance has no power to do anything. It is cosmically, totally, consummately impotent. Again, I must justify my dogmatism on this point. I say that chance has no power to do anything because it simply is not anything. It has no power because it has no being.

I’ve just ventured into the realm of ontology, into metaphysics, if you please. Chance is not an entity. It is not a thing that has power to affect other things. It is no thing. To be more precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. It has no “isness.” Chance has no isness. I was technically incorrect even to say that chance is nothing. Better to say that chance is not.

What are the chances that chance can do anything? Not a chance. It has no more chance to do something than nothing has to do something.

It is precisely at this point that equivocation creeps (or rushes) into the use of the word chance. The shift from a formal probability concept to a real force is usually slipped in by the addition of another seemingly harmless word, by. When we say things happen “by chance,” the term by can be heard as a dative of means. Suddenly chance is given instrumental power. It is the means by which things come to pass. This “means” now assumes a certain power to effect change. Something that in reality is nothing now has the ability or power to do something.

—R. C. Sproul, Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology (Baker Books, 1994), 4–7.

]]>

tag:www.thirstytheologian.com,2012://1.2128 2012-05-08T19:11:54Z 2012-05-08T20:26:29Z

I am going to offend someone today. I am going to allegorize people as That Which Must Not Be Mentioned in the Presence of Fundies. I don’t really want to do it, but I have thought, and thought, and thought...

David http://thirstytheologian.com I am going to offend someone today. I am going to allegorize people as That Which Must Not Be Mentioned in the Presence of Fundies. I don’t really want to do it, but I have thought, and thought, and thought some more, and I have not come up with a better alternative. So I hope those who are prone to frown over these things will overlook the details and get the point, which is loosely connected to the point obliquely made in these Two Stories.

I like beer (there, I said it). With rare exceptions, I drink one every day with lunch or supper. Beer is mild and refreshing, and I’ve enjoyed learning about its history, the many different styles, and the art of brewing. Furthermore, while I know that many will scoff at this, I am taking seriously the advice of 1 Timothy 5:23 to take a little wine for the sake of my stomach. Mock away, but since I began taking my beer daily, I’ve experienced unmistakable relief from nearly-chronic painful digestive problems. And science keeps discovering more health benefits of the daily dose of the aqua vitae. But I digress. All I want to say about beer is that it is enjoyable, that it is good for you, and that it is a mild drink that can be taken in relatively large quantities (relative to hard liquor, that is).

Beer is not all I drink. Also on hand are a small variety of liquors. I take pleasure in an occasional nightcap of brandy, Irish whiskey, or Scotch whisky (also taking pedantic pleasure in knowing that they are spelled differently), and find Bourbon especially comforting when I am sick.

Beer and liquor are different creatures. Just as liquor cannot be consumed in the same quantities as beer, it cannot be consumed in the same way. While one may hoist a mug and take a long, cool draft of beer, whiskey is for sipping in small doses. Taken otherwise, it is harsh and unpleasant. Taken in the same quantity as beer, it is unhealthy. Likewise, beer, consumed in the same manner as whiskey, in small sips and very small doses, would fail in every way. It would not refresh, it would not settle the stomach, and its full flavor could not be appreciated. In short, beer is mild, which is good, while whiskey is potent, which is equally, but differently, good.

People are like that. In particular, I’m thinking of people as they focus on what they focus on, and as they express themselves on those things. To be more specific, I’m thinking of Christian blog writers, but what I’m saying applies to any Christians expressing themselves in any medium. Some write broadly on Christian life in general, teaching and applying Scripture in a way that is often considered mundane. Others are more attracted to controversy, and are quick to jump on current offenses against truth. Many will do both, but most will do one more than the other. Returning to the beer/whiskey metaphor, it should go without explaining which of these individuals are beer and which are whiskey. It should also go without saying which I need more of. Needing more of one, however, does not belittle the value of the other (1 Corinthians 12).

What is grievous to me is seeing my bottle of Redbreast Irish Whiskey point to the refrigerator and mock my Latitude 48 IPA thus: “6.0% ABV—Ha! What a light-weight! And he’s just a baby, while I’m fifteen years old!” (The Glenlivet, looking down his nose as only a Scotch can, says, “eighteen for me.”) Or to hear Sam Adams scornfully whisper, “Too strong; harsh and nasty; not edifying at all.” At least, that would grieve me, if it happened, and once I got over the shock of the talking bar.

That is what I often hear among bloggers: criticism that amounts to little more than “He’s not like me, doesn’t do what I do.” I don’t like that. It grieves me because I have friends on both sides. I’m convinced it’s wrong, even sinful, and I wish they would stop. And if you’re reading this and think I’m talking to you, you’re probably right.

As Forrest Gump said, “That's all I have to say about that.”

Except for this: I’m aware that there are light beer writers out there that deserve all or at least some of the scorn they get. The rankest heresy wouldn’t raise their heartrate. This post contains no refuge for them. On the other hand, there are others who are nothing but moonshine, or worse, Everclear. They are just as bad, offering nothing positive at all (yes, watchbloggers, I mean you). Both are useless, and should be poured down the nearest drain.

]]>

tag:www.thirstytheologian.com,2012://1.2127 2012-05-07T20:01:30Z 2012-05-07T21:12:19Z

A few months ago, I read a blog post on introversion. I wish I could link it here, but I've forgotten who wrote it when and where. This morning, I read another (click here), which reminded me that I had...

David http://thirstytheologian.com A few months ago, I read a blog post on introversion. I wish I could link it here, but I've forgotten who wrote it when and where. This morning, I read another (click here), which reminded me that I had wanted to write something myself on the topic, which I did, largely in response to the previously linked post. However, I scrapped it because I was dissatisfied with both the content and the way it came across.

Concerning the content, I had two angles from which I wanted to approach the five practices listed. First, I wanted to come from the perspective of the introvert. Call that the anthropological view. Second, I wanted to come from the God’s perspective, addressing their affects on worship. Call that the theological view. As I wrote the second part, I realized that I need to think a great deal more on it before laying it before you, and so I will.

Concerning the presentation, it became apparent that the first portion, the anthropological view, is so personal that my motivation could easily be misconstrued. The issues involved are so deeply felt that it was difficult not to come across as merely self-justifying. Furthermore, it led to tangents that, while important and relevant, complicated everything. For those reasons, I very nearly decided not to write anything at all.

Still, I think the topic of the previously linked post (Have you read it yet? Please do so.) and the tangential, but more important, topic of worship are important enough to risk the dangers of writing about it, and so I will—but not today. As I do, my hope is that which was expressed in the words of those great twentieth century theologians, The Animals: “I’m just a soul who’s intentions are good; Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.”

]]>

tag:www.thirstytheologian.com,2012://1.2126 2012-05-06T14:03:21Z 2012-05-06T15:08:07Z

I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord.” The Elder Brother. Horatius Bonar (1808–1889) Yes, for me, for me he careth With a brother’s tender care; Yes, with me, with me...

David http://thirstytheologian.com I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord.”

The Elder Brother.
Horatius Bonar (1808–1889)

Yes, for me, for me he careth
With a brother’s tender care;
Yes, with me, with me he shareth
Every burden, every fear.

Yes, o’er me, o’er me he watcheth,
Ceaseless watcheth, night and day:
Yes, even me, even me he snatcheth
From the perils of the way.

Yes, for me he standeth pleading,
At the mercy-seat above;
Ever for me interceding,
Constant in untiring love.

Yes, in me abroad he sheddeth
Joys unearthly,—love and light;
And to cover me he spreadeth
His paternal wing of might.

Yes, in me, in me he dwelleth;—
I in him, and he in me!
And my empty soul he filleth,
Here and through eternity.

Thus I wait for his returning,
Singing all the way to heaven;
Such the joyful song of morning,
Such the tranquil song of even.

—Horatius Bonar, Hymns of Faith and Hope, First Series (James Nisbet & Co., 1878).

18Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, 19namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

—2 Corinthians 5

God Beseeching Men.

The words, “all things are of God,” mean evidently, “all these things are of God;” for the apostle is not speaking generally of God being all in all; but of all the things connected with the new creation. These are all of Him, and through Him, and to Him; originating with and carried out by Him. Thus the fountainhead of the new creation is like that of the Old, in God. The plan, the means, the execution, the consummation, are entirely divine.

This new creation lies at the foundation of our relationship to God; it is something very thorough and decided; a divine process; a being “in Christ”; a passing away of old things; a making all things new.

How is this begun and carried out? By reconciliation. How is this reconciliation carried out? By an embassy of peace direct from God himself. On what does this embassy base itself? On substitution,—“the just for the unjust.”

I. The reconciliation. The beginning of our new relation is bringing us into peace with Himself. Distance, alienation, enmity, condemnation,—these are the main features of our natural condition. God proceeds to reverse all these; bringing us nigh; removing the estrangement and enmity; setting us free from the condemnation. In this we have the renewal of our unfallen state of holy friendship, as well as closer and dearer intimacy. Separation from God is to be exchanged for union; nearness for distance; love for wrath; forgiveness for condemnation. God and the sinner are made one; the prodigal leaves the far country; restored to his Father’s arms and his Father’s house. All past variances are forgotten; the quarrel is removed; the friendship cemented, sealed, secured forever. All God’s love pours into the sinner; all his love pours into God. It is not the reconciliation of Joseph and his brethren, in which the latter still felt doubtful of the perpetuity of their brother’s favor; it is complete and absolute; perfect love casting out fear. Nor is it the reconciliation of David to Absalom, in which the latter, though forgiven his offence, had to dwell at a distance, and saw not the king’s face; it is reconciliation which brings the alienated one into the city, and presence, and palace of the King. It is complete and eternal.

II. The embassy. The ambassador is one who has himself been reconciled; neither an angel, who does not need reconciliation, and therefore could not tell out all its meaning and love; nor an unreconciled man, who has never tasted the blessedness, and therefore cannot speak of what he knows, nor point to himself as one who is a specimen of reconciling love. But a reconciled man,—“All these things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Himself.” Having reconciled them personally to Himself He commits to them the “word,” “ministry,” of reconciliation; constituting them His ambassadors, and sending them out on their embassy. Mark here, then:

(1.) The word of reconciliation. It is, “that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” This is the gospel or good news of God’s free pardon, or non-imputation of sin, and forgiving love.

(2.) The ministry of reconciliation. That is the office of dispensing the pardon. Pharaoh would send out the good news of the plenty in the storehouse of Egypt; and announce that it was to be got through and from Joseph. So does God as to the fullness of Christ.

(3.) The footing of the ambassador. He is an ambassador for Christ. He speaks in Christ’s name and with Christ’s authority, telling of Him, and saying what Christ would say were He here.

(4.) The manner of approaching the alienated sinner. Not by command or threat, but by entreaty and exhortation, for such is the force of the words, “As though God did exhort and entreat you by us, we pray you.” What earnestness of pleading do these words imply! What depth of desire for the accomplishment of the reconciliation and of longing for their welfare! What gentleness, what patience, what perseverance! On bended knee, like a suppliant before a king, the apostle makes his suit to the sinner!

(5.) The identification of God and Christ with the ambassador, in this entreaty. He intimates that it is not so much he who is speaking as God; it is God who is exhorting; it is not the voice of a fellow man but of God. He intimates also that the Son as well as the Father is in all this: “We pray men in Christ’s stead.” The expression denotes two things: (1) that he is representing Christ; (2) that he is serving him. And the words, “ Be ye reconciled to God,” sound like a quotation; as if Christ had given him this very message; and as if it were meant that we should regard them as Christ’s own words, no less literally than, “Come unto me.” This, then, is God’s exhortation, and Christ’s prayer or entreaty to the sons of men, “the world.” It is our message, with which we are to go up to every man, “Be thou reconciled to God”; a personal message, as personal to each as if he were the only man upon the earth.

(II.) The Substitution. We do not enter on this, but simply point to it as the basis of all reconciliation, without which it would be vain to approach a sinner; for it must be a righteous reconciliation if it is to effect anything at all. We preach Christ the Sin bearer; and pointing to His cross, we pray men in His name, “Be ye reconciled to God.”

—Horatius Bonar, Light & Truth: Bible Thoughts & Themes

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

]]>

tag:www.thirstytheologian.com,2012://1.2125 2012-05-05T13:35:15Z 2012-05-05T14:39:19Z

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. —Psalm 119:105 O Word of God Incarnate O Word of God incarnate, O Wisdom from on high, O Truth, unchanged, unchanging, O Light of our dark...

David http://thirstytheologian.com Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

—Psalm 119:105

O Word of God Incarnate

O Word of God incarnate,
O Wisdom from on high,
O Truth, unchanged, unchanging,
O Light of our dark sky;
We praise thee for the radiance
That from the hallowed page,
A lantern to our footsteps,
Shines on from age to age.

The Church from her dear Master
Received the gift divine,
And still that light she lifteth
O’er all the earth to shine.
It is the golden casket,
Where gems of truth are stored;
It is the heaven-drawn picture
Of Christ the living Word.

It floateth like a banner
Before God’s host unfurled;
It shineth like a beacon
Above the darkling world;
It is the chart and compass
That o’er life’s surging sea,
’Mid mists and rocks and quicksands,
Still guide, O Christ, to thee.

O make thy Church, dear Savior,
A lamp of burnished gold,
To bear before the nations
Thy sure light as of old;
O teach thy wandering pilgrims
By this their path to trace,
Till, clouds and darkness ended,
They see thee face to face.

—Great Hymns of the Faith (Zondervan, 1968).

]]>

tag:www.thirstytheologian.com,2012://1.2124 2012-05-04T18:41:29Z 2012-05-04T19:43:53Z

The short answer to why Theonomy is bunk: Theonomists argue that the Old Testament laws that God gave to Israel in the Mosaic covenant should be the pattern for civil laws in nations today. This would include carrying out the...

David http://thirstytheologian.com The short answer to why Theonomy is bunk:

Theonomists argue that the Old Testament laws that God gave to Israel in the Mosaic covenant should be the pattern for civil laws in nations today. This would include carrying out the death penalty for such things as blasphemy or adultery or homosexual conduct!

The error of Theonomists is that they misunderstand the unique place that these laws for Israel had in the history of the whole Bible, and they misunderstand the New Testament teaching of the distinction between the realm of the church and the realm of the state that Jesus established when he said, “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21).

—Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (Zondervan, 2010), 66.

]]>

tag:www.thirstytheologian.com,2012://1.2123 2012-05-03T21:54:56Z 2012-05-03T22:59:28Z

More from Iain Murray on Philippians 2:12–13: For deepening my sense of responsibility I must bear in remembrance that I and not another have to do this work; that I myself, and no other, must work out my salvation with...

David http://thirstytheologian.com More from Iain Murray on Philippians 2:12–13:

For deepening my sense of responsibility I must bear in remembrance that I and not another have to do this work; that I myself, and no other, must work out my salvation with fear and trembling; and then for bearing me up under the overwhelming impression that I have such a work to do, and in order to encourage myself in the Lord, I am to call to mind that it is God who performeth all things for me, and of his gracious pleasure worketh in me to will and to do. For purposes of duty, I must never forget that the work is strictly mine, — my own work, as truly as my own salvation. For purposes of praise, I must joyfully acknowledge that all the work is his, that no flesh should glory. And is not this the full explanation of those passages in which the apostle appears so often, as it were, to correct himself, and substitute another statement for the one which he apparently condemns and parts from, but to which he again returns as being quite defensible and accurate after all? He is only alternating between two expressions or assertions, both of them true, but which would indeed be contradictory were it not that they are to be resolved into one. ‘I live, yet not I, Christ liveth in me; and yet I live a life of faith on the Son of God.’ ‘By the grace of God I am what I am.’ ‘I labour, striving according to his working that worketh in me mightily.’ ‘I laboured more abundantly than they all, — yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.’ ‘I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me.’ It is thus also we are to harmonize those numerous passages in which the very same work is attributed in one to the agency of God, in another to the believer himself. For in this principle it is at one time said that God purifies his people’s hearts, and at another that they have purified their own souls by obeying the truth; at one time they give praise to God because he alone has cleansed them, and at another there is laid on them the duty of cleansing themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit; at one time that God keeps every regenerated disciple through his own name, and at another that every one who is begotten of God keepeth himself.

—Iain Murray, Pentecost Today? (Banner of Truth, 1998), 207–208.

]]>

tag:www.thirstytheologian.com,2012://1.2122 2012-05-02T16:45:15Z 2012-05-02T17:47:00Z

A few years ago, I was visiting with a cousin, who is a business owner in a small town in South Dakota, and his father. In the course of the conversation, it was reported that my cousin had hired a...

David http://thirstytheologian.com A few years ago, I was visiting with a cousin, who is a business owner in a small town in South Dakota, and his father. In the course of the conversation, it was reported that my cousin had hired a certain individual. My uncle expressed some doubt in the wisdom of that decision, citing certain well-known facts about his son’s new employee. With some mild ironic sarcasm, my cousin replied, “Yes, I know, but sometimes we just have to accept the fact that not everyone is as wonderful as we are.”

On another occasion, a friend and I were talking (but certainly not gossiping) about a mutual acquaintance. I made a somewhat snide comment about a certain character flaw this person possessed. My friend, rather uncomfortably, said, “I know; that’s something I’ve just had to overlook to stay friends with him.”

Both of those stories remain, uncomfortably, in my memory. Each time I recall them, I am convicted. Do they convict you?

I’ll be turning to this theme again, probably soon.

]]>