For those who don’t know, Rob Bell is the leader of the euphemistically-named Mars Hill Bible Church and author of a number of books suitable only for hanging on the outhouse wall. His latest effluvium is Love Wins.

Happy April Fool’s Day. Our topic for the day, appropriately, is Rob Bell, innocent victim of slander*, who offers the following answer to the question, “Do you think you’re going to go to heaven?”

Yeah, and I say that because I trust Jesus and I believe in Jesus, but I say it because of my experiences now, that which I can’t explain: the peace and joy now, the sense of presence, especially for me in the midst of difficult things. I am loved, I am being guided, I am being supported . . . [more here]

That is a terrifying testimony, especially coming from a man who has created his own Jesus, rejecting the Jesus of Scripture and the substitutionary atonement of the cross. The source of his assurance is his present experience and how he feels right now. It’s a fool’s testimony because it rests not on what the Christ of real history has done, but on what his feelings about what a fictitious Jesus is presumed to be doing for him now.

I write this not because anything more needs to be said about Bell’s heresy, but to warn you that if Bell’s testimony is your testimony, you have no cause for hope of salvation. Unless your faith is in the finished work of Christ as recorded in Scripture, in his life, death, and resurrection, your hope is empty.

The Bible is quite clear on what the foundation of genuine saving faith is. It is never based even in part on our experiences or feelings. It is firmly founded upon absolute propositional truths. At the center of every one of those truths is Jesus, not you, and not your feelings about Jesus. When someone asks you if you think you’re going to heaven, you should be able to answer with those truths.

I offer my own testimony as an example.

* Slander: To accurately repeat and analyze the public statements of those not man enough to face examination.

Psalm 23
   The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
   He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
   He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
   Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
   Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
   Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

As far as I can recall, I’ve never sung this rendition of Psalm 23, but I should have, it’s in the book, and the tune is familiar, so I’m including it here.

207 The Lord’s My Shepherd, I’ll Not Want

The Lord’s my Shepherd, I’ll not want;
He makes me down to lie
In pastures green, He leadeth me
The quiet waters by.

My soul He doth restore again;
And me to walk doth make
Within the paths of righteousness,
E’en for His own Name’s sake.

Yea, though I walk in death’s dark vale,
Yet will I fear no ill;
For Thou art with me, and Thy rod
And staff me comfort still.

A table Thou prepares me
In presence of my foes;
My head Thou dost anoint with oil,
And my cup o’erflows.

Thy lovingkindness all my days
Shall surely follow me;
And in God’s house forevermore
My dwelling place shall be.

—The Concordia Hymnal (Augsburg Publishing House), 1960.

The Concordia tune is Dundee, also used with My God! How Wonderful Thou Art and According to Thy Gracious Word.

And the tune you may find more familiar, Crimond:

I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord.”

Appeal to Christ for Sincerity of Love to Him
Philip Doddridge (1702–1751)

Do not I love Thee, O my Lord?
Behold my heart and see;
And turn each cursed idol out,
That dares to rival Thee.

Do not I love Thee, O my Lord?
Then let me nothing love;
Dead be my heart to every joy,
When Jesus cannot move.

Is not Thy Name melodious still
To mine attentive ear?
Doth not each pulse with pleasure bound
My Savior’s voice to hear?

Hast Thou a lamb in all Thy flock
I would disdain to feed?
Hast Thou a foe, before whose face
I fear Thy cause to plead?

Would not mine ardent spirit vie
With angels round the throne,
To execute Thy sacred will,
And make Thy glory known?

Would not my heart pour forth its blood
In honor of Thy Name?
And challenge the cold hand of death
To damp the immortal flame?

Thou knowest I love Thee, dearest Lord,
But O, I long to soar
Far from the sphere of mortal joys,
And learn to love Thee more.

—Worthy Is the Lamb (Soli Deo Gloria, 2004).

The Gospel According to John

20 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. 2 So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” 3 So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. 4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; 5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. 6 And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed. 9 For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. 10 So the disciples went away again to their own homes.

The chapter we have now begun takes us from Christ’s death to Christ’s resurrection. Like Matthew, Mark, and Luke, John dwells on these two great events with peculiar fullness and particularity. And we need not wonder. The whole of saving Christianity hinges on the two facts, that Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification. The chapter before our eyes deserves special attention. Of all the four evangelists, none supplies such deeply interesting evidence of the resurrection, as the disciple whom Jesus loved.
   We are taught in the passage before us, that those who love Christ most are those who have received most benefit from him.
   The first whom St. John names among those who came to Christ’s sepulcher, is Mary Magdalene. The history of this faithful woman, no doubt, is hidden in much obscurity. A vast amount of needless ridicule has been heaped upon her memory, as if she was once an habitual sinner against the seventh commandment. Yet there is literally no evidence whatever that she was anything of the kind! But we are distinctly told that she was one out of whom the Lord had cast “seven devils” (Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2),—one who had been subjected in a peculiar way to Satan’s possession,—and one whose gratitude to our Lord for deliverance was a gratitude that knew no bounds. In short, of all our Lord’s followers on earth, none seem to have loved Him so much as Mary Magdalene. None felt that they owed so much to Christ. None felt so strongly that there was nothing too great to do for Christ. Hence, as Andrews beautifully puts it,—“She was last at His cross, and first at His grave. She stayed longest there, and was soonest here. She could not rest until she was up to seek Him. She sought Him while it was yet dark, even before she had light to seek Him by.” In a word, having received much, she loved much; and loving much, she did much, in order to prove the reality of her love.
   The case before us throws broad and clear light on a question, which ought to be deeply interesting to every true-hearted servant of Christ. How is it that many who profess and call themselves Christians, do so little for the Saviour whose name they bear? How is it that many, whose faith and grace it would be uncharitable to deny, work so little, give so little, say so little, take so little pains, to promote Christ’s cause, and bring glory to Christ in the world? These questions admit of only one answer. It is a low sense of debt and obligation to Christ, which is the account of the whole matter. Where sin is not felt at all, nothing is done; and where sin is little felt, little is done. The man who is deeply conscious of his own guilt and corruption, and deeply convinced that without the death and intercession of Christ he would sink deservedly into the lowest hell, this is the man who will spend and be spent for Jesus, and think that he can never do enough to show forth His praise. Let us daily pray that we may see the sinfulness of sin, and the amazing grace of Christ, more clearly and distinctly. Then, and then only, shall we cease to be cool, and lukewarm, and slovenly in our work for Jesus. Then, and then only, shall we understand such burning zeal as that of Mary; and comprehend what Paul meant when he said, “The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge that if One died for all, then were all dead: and that He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again.” (2 Cor. v. 14, 15.)
   We are taught, secondly, in these verses, that there are widely different temperaments in different believers.
   This is a point which is curiously brought out in the conduct of Peter and John, when Mary Magdalene told them that the Lord’s body was gone. We are told that they both ran to the sepulcher; but John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, outran Peter, and reached the empty grave first. Then comes out the difference between the two men. John, of the two more gentle, quiet, tender, reserved, retiring, deep-feeling, stooped down and looked in, but went no further. Peter, more hot, and zealous, and impulsive, and fervent, and forward, cannot be content without going down into the sepulcher, and actually seeing with his own eyes. Both, we may be sure, were deeply attached to our Lord. The hearts of both, at this critical juncture, were full of hopes, and fears, and anxieties, and expectations, all tangled together. Yet each behaves in his own characteristic fashion. We need not doubt that these things were intentionally written for our learning.
   Let us learn, from the case before us, to make allowances for wide varieties in the inward character of believers. To do so will save us much trouble in the journey of life, and prevent many an uncharitable thought. Let us not judge brethren harshly, and set them down in a low place, because they do not see or feel things exactly as we see and feel, and because things do not affect or strike them just as they affect and strike us. The flowers in the Lord’s garden are not all of one color and one scent, though they are all planted by one Spirit. The subjects of His kingdom are not all exactly of one tone and temperament, though they all love the same Saviour, and are written in the same book of life. The Church of Christ has some in its ranks who are like Peter, and some who are like John; and a place for all, and a work for all to do. Let us love all who love Christ in sincerity, and thank God that they love Him at all. The great thing is to love Jesus.
   We are taught, finally, in these verses, that there may be much ignorance even in true believers.
   This is a point which is brought out here with singular force and distinctness. John himself, the writer of this Gospel, records of himself and his companion Peter, “As yet they knew not the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead.” How truly incredible this seems! For three long years these two leading Apostles had heard our Lord speak of His own resurrection as a fact, and yet they had not understood Him. Again and again He had staked the truth of His Messiahship on His rising from the dead, and yet they had never taken in His meaning. We little realize the power over the mind which is exercised by wrong teaching in childhood, and by early prejudices imbibed in our youth. Surely the Christian minister has little right to complain of ignorance among his hearers, when he marks the ignorance of Peter and John, under the teaching of Christ Himself.
   After all we must remember that true grace, and not head knowledge, is the one thing needful. We are in the hands of a merciful and compassionate Saviour, who passes by and pardons much ignorance, when He sees “a heart right in the sight of God.” Some things indeed we must know, and without knowing them we cannot be saved. Our own sinfulness and guilt, the office of Christ as a Saviour, the necessity of repentance and faith,—such things as these are essential to salvation. But he that knows these things may, in other respects, be a very ignorant man. In fact, the extent to which one man may have grace together with much ignorance, and another may have much knowledge and yet no grace, is one of the greatest mysteries in religion, and one which the last day alone will unfold. Let us then seek knowledge, and be ashamed of ignorance. But above all let us make sure that, like Peter and John, we have grace and right hearts.

—J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Baker Books, 2007) [Westminster (PB) | Amazon (HC)].

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

I used to have a list of links to those of you who linked to this blog. I had compiled it by watching my stats and adding any site that put a permanent link to this blog on their home page. I no longer keep very close tabs on my stats anymore, so I'm not likely to notice any new links. I still want to recognize those of you who are kind enough to link in, so I've opened the comments of this post for you to link to yourself. I've put a permanent link to this post on my front page.

Here is how you should do it:

1. Don't put your name in the “name” field. Enter your site or blog title instead.
2. As usual, enter your URL in the URL field.
3. Provide a very brief description (1–3 lines should be plenty) of your site in the comment field. This is your ad space.

If you like, you may use one of the following banner images. These are transparent png images, so they should look good on any color background.

400×81

300×61

200×133

200×47

Ever heard of a square poem? Neither had I, until today. A square poem is one which reads the same vertically as horizontally, like this example by Lewis Carrol. Composing a square poem is really quite challenging, and fun to boot. (If you think that makes me a nerd, it’s because you’re an illiterate boob. So there.) Here is my first attempt:

The Lord is my shepherd.
Lord, my God all merciful,
Is God the sufficient redeemer.
My all sufficient Savior be;
Shepherd, merciful redeemer, be glorified.

As poetry, it leaves something to be desired, I know. As prose, it’s not much better. Feel free to submit your own attempts. I myself will versify further in the comments.

P.S.
Reminder: Those of you who link here should add your sites to the list. You should do this even if you expect to be on the New! Improved! blogroll, because I want you to, and because it’s the only way to get on the list.

Originally posted at The Calvinist Gadfly

Q. 14. How does God execute his decrees?

A. God executes his decrees in the works of creation and providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will.

By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,

And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;

He lays up the deeps in storehouses.

Let all the earth fear the Lord.

Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him.

For He spoke, and it was done;

He commanded, and it stood fast.

—Psalm 33:6–9

I have built houses — whole houses, from a bare hole in the ground to a turn-key home. I’ve formed and poured the footings down in the ground, and set forms on top of them and poured the basement walls. I’ve bolted plates down on top of those walls and nailed the floor joists to them. I’ve screwed the sub-floor to the joists, and framed walls on top of them. I’ve set the rafters, sheeted the roof and walls, installed the windows and doors, and shingled, sided, and soffited the shell of the house. Then, following the electrician and plummer, I’ve gone inside, insulated the exterior walls and hung the drywall. I’ve installed the kitchen and bathroom cabinets and countertops, hung the interior doors, and trimmed the whole works.

Impressive? Not really. On every job, I was taking orders, along with at least two others. Every wall I raised had another man at the other end, and maybe a couple in the middle. Lumber was measured and cut, and nails, screws, and glue held it all together. Thousands of dollars worth of tools and who-knows-how-many kilowatts of electricity got the job done. All that, plus hundreds of man-hours, put another family in a house.

Sometimes, when my back and feet were tired and hurting, I wished I could be God for a day. I wished I could show up on the job site one morning and say to my boss, “Watch this,” and to the dirt, “Let there be a house.” I reckon I could have gotten a pretty good raise out of that.

That’s how God executes his decrees. From creation to the carrying out of his will for the creation, he executes his decrees by the sheer power of his will. He speaks, and it is done; he commands, and it stands fast.

Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created.

Psalm 148:5

Get your own copy of The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms here.

A few years ago, I made a list of things I once believed that I now reject. My intention was to write on each of them, explaining my former view and why I am now convinced that I was wrong. Over fifteen months, I wrote three articles on two topics under the heading “Dumb Things I Have Believed.” Nineteen months passed since the last, and I haven’t written any more. It’s not that I’ve forgotten; it’s just that, when I think of those things, I find I’m too embarrassed to admit them publicly. Most of the “Dumb Things I Have Believed” are really dumb.

Today, I’m going to make an excruciatingly painful admission: I was once a moderately enthusiastic follower of Bill Gothard. I am making that confession in connection with a topic that came up in my reading last week of Living in the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham. This topic is primarily for you male readers: listening to your wives. Among the many odd teachings of Gothardism is the idea that a man should never do anything without the agreement of his wife. This notion is drawn from the experience of Pontius Pilate, whose wife warned him, “Have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatly in a dream because of Him” (Matthew 27:19). For Gothard, who sees every biblical text as a Christless* moral lesson even when Christ is at the very center, the message is obvious: Listen to your wife, or you’ll end up doing something horrific, like killing the Messiah!

Iain Duguid, comparing Adam’s taking the fruit from Eve and Abram’s taking Hagar at Sarai’s behest, takes a different view:

   Like Adam before him, Abram found temptation approaching in the person of his nearest and dearest. We often forget that temptation can come from any quarter, even from within our own family circle. We expect the devil to assault us like a roaring lion, as ugly and fearsome as can be. We don’t expect him to come to us dressed as an angel of light, speaking in the honey sweet tones of the one we love. Yet the bible warns us that such an approach is easy for him to adopt (2 Cor. 11:14). Thus, Satan didn’t only confront Jesus head-on in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1–11); he also tempted him more subtly through words of one of his closest disciples, Peter (Matt. 16:23).
   Like Adam, Abram capitulated readily to a temptation that might not have deceived him had it come from a different source. The parallel between the two experiences is underlined in the original Hebrew by the use of the same idiom: Adam and Abram both “hearkened to the voice of” their wives (Gen. 3:17; 16:2). What is more, in both cases the woman “took” and “gave” to her husband (Gen. 3:6; 16:3). There was an inversion of the proper spiritual leadership structure in the home, and the result in each case was disaster. Of course, listening to your wife is not necessarily wrong! In Genesis 12:12, God specifically commands Abraham to listen to his wife because in this instance she is right. But we need to be aware that the very person intended to be a blessing to us may also be the one through whom we are lead astray. The only protection is for us to be so thoroughly attuned to God’s word that we are able to recognize and resist temptation from whatever source it comes. Obedience must be more precious than even the closest of human relationships (Matt. 10:37).

—Iain Duguid, Living in the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham (P&R, 1999), 63–64.

Like Duguid, I am not denying that a man should listen to his wife, but a view like Gothard’s makes two serious errors. First, it places a human being in a place that can only be occupied by God, and is therefore idolatrous. Second, it fails to recognize human depravity. Even the wisest, most pious and mature believer is a fallible being, and as such can never be trusted unconditionally.

* I challenge you to read Gothard’s personal site and see if you can find, outside of the brief propositions in What I Believe, any Gospel at all. One would surely think that a page entitled A Testimony of God's Grace would be a testimony to the gospel, but no, it’s just another Gothard-formula “four-part testimony”: 1) I had a problem, 2) I tried to fix it my way and failed; 3) then I applied this [command of Christ/biblical principle] 4) and now it’s all hunky-dory. Gothardism is nothing more than Your Best Life Now, but a lot less fun.

Since Tuesday, when I posted another example of my prodigious poetic prowess, poetry has been a hot topic in our house. We, as I’m sure you would expect, favor the classics. Consequently, there have been multiple quotings of that late, great American poet, Shel Silverstein. Having no profound thoughts of my own, and this being Friday, too late in the week to collect any, I offer you one of our family’s favorite Silverstein pearls.

Tattooing Ruth

Collars are choking,
Pants are expensive,
Jackets are itchy and hot,
So tattooing Ruth tattooed me a suit.
Now folks think I’m dressed
When I’m not.

—Shel Silverstein, Falling Up (I think).

Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him . . .

—Job 13:15

213 When Peace Like a River

When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ hath regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

He lives, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought;
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul.

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll,
The trumpet shall sound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

—The Concordia Hymnal (Augsburg Publishing House), 1960.

I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord.”

Lost but Found.
Horatius Bonar (1808–1889)
     “Arte mirâ, miro consilio,
      Quærens ovem suam summus opilio,
      Ut nos revocaret ab exilio.” —Old Hymn.

I Was a wandering sheep,
   I did not love the fold;
I did not love my Shepherd’s voice,
   I would not be controlled.
I was a wayward child,
   I did not love my home,
I did not love my father’s voice,
   I loved afar to roam.

The Shepherd sought his sheep,
   The Father sought his child,
They followed me o’er vale and hill,
   O’er deserts waste and wild.
They found me nigh to death,
   Famished, and faint, and lone;
They bound me with the bands of love;
   They saved the wandering one!

They spoke in tender love,
   They raised my drooping head:
They gently closed my bleeding wounds,
   My fainting soul they fed.
They washed my filth away,
   They made me clean and fair;
They brought me to my home in peace,—
   The long-sought wanderer!

Jesus my Shepherd is,
   ’Twas He that loved my soul,
’Twas He that washed me in his blood,
   ’Twas He that made me whole.
’Twas He that sought the lost,
   That found the wandering sheep,
’Twas He that brought me to the fold,
   ’Tis He that still doth keep.

I was a wandering sheep,
   I would not be controlled:
But now I love my Shepherd’s voice,
   I love, I love the fold!
I was a wayward child;
   I once preferred to roam,
But now I love my Father’s voice,-
   I love, I love his home!

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

John 20:11–18

But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; 12 and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. 13 And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). 17 Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her.

The interview between the Lord Jesus and Mary Magdalene immediately after His resurrection, described in these verses, is a narrative peculiar to St. John. No other Evangelist has been inspired to record it. Of all the accounts of the appearances of our Lord, after He rose from the dead, none perhaps is so affecting and touching as this. He that can read this simple story without a deep interest, must have a very cold and unfeeling heart.
   We see, first, in these verses, that those who love Christ most diligently and perseveringly, are those who receive most privileges from Christ’s hand. It is a touching fact, and one to be carefully noted, that Mary Magdalene would not leave the sepulcher, when Peter and John went away to their own home. Love to her gracious Master would not let her leave the place where He had been lain. Where He was now she could not tell. What had become of Him she did not know. But love made her linger about the empty tomb, where Joseph and Nicodemus had recently laid Him. Love made her honor the last place where His precious body had been seen by mortal eyes. And her love reaped a rich reward. She saw the angels whom Peter and John had never observed. She actually heard them speak, and had soothing words addressed to her. She was the first to see our Lord after He rose from the dead, the first to hear His voice, the first to hold conversation with Him. Can any one doubt that this was written for our learning? Wherever the Gospel is preached throughout the world, this little incident testifies that those who honor Christ will be honored by Christ.
   As it was in the morning of the first Easter day, so will it be as long as the Church stands. The great principle contained in the passage before us, will hold good until the Lord comes again. All believers have not the same degree of faith, or hope, or knowledge, or courage, or wisdom; and it is vain to expect it. But it is a certain fact that those who love Christ most fervently, and cleave to Him most closely, will always enjoy most communion with Him, and feel most of the witness of the Spirit in their hearts. It is precisely those who wait on the Lord, in the temper of Mary Magdalene, to whom the Lord will reveal Himself most fully, and make them know and feel more than others. To know Christ is good; but to “know that we know Him” is far better.
   We see, secondly, in these verses, that the fears and sorrows of believers are often quite needless. We are told that Mary stood at the sepulcher weeping, and wept as if nothing could comfort her. She wept when the angels spoke to her: “Woman,” they said, “why weepest thou?”—She was weeping still when our Lord spoke to her: “Woman,” He also said, “why weepest thou?”—And the burden of her complaint was always the same: “They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid Him.”—Yet all this time her risen Master was close to her, with “body, flesh, and bones, and all things pertaining to the perfection of man’s nature.” (Article IV.) Her tears were needless. Her anxiety was unnecessary. Like Hagar in the wilderness, she had a well of water by her side, but she had not eyes to see it.
   What thoughtful Christian can fail to see, that we have here a faithful picture of many a believer’s experience? How often we are anxious when there is no just cause for anxiety! How often we mourn over the absence of things which in reality are within our grasp, and even at our right hand! Two-thirds of the things we fear in life never happen at all, and two-thirds of the tears we shed are thrown away, and shed in vain. Let us pray for more faith and patience, and allow more time for the full development of God’s purposes. Let us believe that things are often working together for our peace and joy, which seem at one time to contain nothing but bitterness and sorrow. Old Jacob said at one time of his life, “all these things are against me” (Gen. xlii. 36); yet he lived to see Joseph again, rich and prosperous, and to thank God for all that had happened. If Mary had found the seal of the tomb unbroken, and her Master’s body lying cold within, she might well have wept! The very absence of the body which made her weep, was a token for good, and a cause of joy for herself and all mankind.
   We see, thirdly, in these verses, what low and earthly thoughts of Christ may creep into the mind of a true believer. It seems impossible to gather any other lesson from the solemn words which our Lord addressed to Mary Magdalene, when He said, “Touch Me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.”—No doubt the language is somewhat mysterious, and ought to be delicately and reverently handled. Yet it is only reasonable to suppose that the first surprise, and the reaction from great sorrow to great joy, was more than the mind of Mary could bear. She was only a woman, though a holy and faithful woman. It is highly probable that, in the first excess of her joy, she threw herself at our Lord’s feet, and made greater demonstrations of feeling than were seemly or becoming. Very likely she behaved too much like one who thought all must be right if she had her Lord’s bodily presence, and all must be wrong in His bodily absence. This was not the highest style of faith. She acted, in short, like one who forgot that her Master was God as well as man. She made too little of His divinity, and too much of His humanity. And hence she called forth our Lord’s gentle rebuke, “Touch Me not! There is no need of this excessive demonstration of feeling. I am not yet ascending to my Father for forty days: your present duty is not to linger at my feet, but to go and tell my brethren that I have risen. Think of the feelings of others as well as of your own.”
   After all, we must confess that the fault of this holy woman was one into which Christians have always been too ready to fall. In every age there has been a tendency in the minds of many, to make too much of Christ’s bodily presence, and to forget that He is not a mere earthly friend, but one who is “God over all, blessed forever,” as well as man. The pertinacity with which Romanists and their allies cling to the doctrine of Christ’s real corporal presence in the Lord’s Supper, is only another exhibition of Mary’s feeling when she wanted Christ’s body, or no Christ at all. Let us pray for a right judgment in this matter, as in all other things concerning our Lord’s person. Let us be content to have Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith, and present when two or three are met in His name, and to wait for the real presence of Christ’s body until He comes again. What we really need is not His literal flesh, but His Spirit. It is not for nothing that it is written, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing.” “If we have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we Him no more.” (John vi. 63; 2 Cor. v. 16.)
   We see, lastly, in these verses, how kindly and graciously our Lord speaks of His disciples. He bids Mary Magdalene carry a message to them as “His brethren.” He bids her tell them that His Father was their Father, and His God their God. It was but three days before that they had all forsaken Him shamefully, and fled. Yet this merciful Master speaks as if all was forgiven and forgotten. His first thought is to bring back the wanderers, to bind up the wounds of their consciences, to reanimate their courage, to restore them to their former place. This was indeed a love that passeth knowledge. To trust deserters, and to show confidence in backsliders, was a compassion which man can hardly understand. So true is that word of David: “Like as a Father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth those who fear Him. For He knoweth our frame; He remembereth that we are dust.” (Psalm ciii. 13, 14.)
   Let us leave the passage with the comfortable reflection that Jesus Christ never changes. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. As He dealt with His erring disciples in the morning of His resurrection, so will He deal with all who believe and love Him, until He comes again. When we wander out of the way He will bring us back. When we fall He will raise us again. But he will never break His royal word: “Him that cometh to Me I will in no wise cast out.” (John vi. 37.) The saints in glory will have one anthem in which every voice and heart will join: “He hath not dealt with us after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.” (Psalm ciii. 10.)

—J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Baker Books, 2007) [Westminster (PB) | Amazon (HC)].

It has become increasingly difficult to have a serious, adult conversation these days. One can hardly say what he means and mean what he says anymore without hurting someone’s oh-so-sensitive feelings. If a defining characteristic of a grown-up is the ability to give, receive, and understand straight talk — and it is — then grown-ups are in short supply these days. This is true in the real world, and it’s true in the Never Land of the internet. Some folks seem to make it their business to troll blog comments and make sure no one is being too dogmatic or failing to preface every opinion with an insipid “IMHO,” and appending the desultory smiley accompanying an insecure “just a thought” or “just my two cents.” These people may accurately and properly be derided as the “tone police.”

I know such people exist. Blog comments are filled with their whining. I know, because I frequently, and ruthlessly, delete them. I find these people utterly intolerable. Sadly, however, they are not alone in their sin. Newton’s Third Law of Motion is as true in metaphysics as in physics: for every sin, there is an opposite, and equally sinful, reaction. Playing in the same cat-abused sandbox are those who refuse to consider any challenge to their attitudes and methods of expression. They cling tenaciously to their imaginary right to say anything they want, any way they want, and pity the fool who dares to criticize them. That unfortunate individual will not receive a polite, humble, reasonable answer, either admitting fault, or explaining why the particular offensive item was justified. No, instead they will be dismissively mocked with the epithet, “Tone police!” even if their criticism has nothing to do with tone and everything to do with content.

As I have said, those individuals exist who are as sensitive as a baby’s bottom and break out in a rash when exposed to any kind of straight, critical language. They deserve no defense, and will get none here. But whenever you encounter the mocking reaction of “Ooh, the tone police are here!” you can be sure you have met a proud, unteachable person. Those who are humble, teachable, and mature don’t react in such a sophomoric fashion, not even to the genuine “tone police” who deserve it. With prudence, they choose either to 1) ignore it, 2) respond firmly but politely* before employing choice #1, or 3) reconsider the wisdom of their ways and change course or continue forward, respectful of and grateful to the brother or sister who challenged them. The mature, civilized response — the Christian response — is never, “Tone police, tone police, neener, neener, neener!”

So don’t do that.

Unless you want to create the image of a playground bully or, at best, that cool guy in high school or one of his minions.

* “Politely” does not exclude straight talk, or the prudent, restrained use of satire and sarcasm. It does mean maintaining a mature restraint, limiting oneself to what should be said, rather than letting loose with what one would dearly like to say, or even what the target might deserve to hear.

Q. 2. How does it appear that there is a God?

A. The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his Word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
   Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
   There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

—Psalm 19:1–3

for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, “For we also are His children.”

—Acts 17:28

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

—Romans 1:18–20

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

—Romans 2:14–16

but just as it is written,

“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,

And which have not entered the heart of man,

All that god has prepared for those who love him.”

For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.

—1 Corinthians 2:9–10

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

—2 Timothy 3:16–17

Get your own copy of The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms here.

Originally posted at The Calvinist Gadfly

Q. 15: What is the work of creation?

A. The work of creation is that wherein God did in the beginning, by the word of his power, make of nothing the world, and all things therein, for himself, within the space of six days, and all very good.

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

—Hebrews 11:3

Nothing: it's a big word. Wrapped up in those two syllables is a concept that won't fit into my head (spare me the jokes). But I need to try to get a grip on it, because it's a very important concept, vital, in fact, to my understanding of God. If you were to ask me what it is that convinces me of the existence of God, I would reply, “Nothing.” “Yeah, me too,” says the atheist. But you know I don’t mean that. Let me explain.

Billy Preston exhibits his scale model of the Big Bang

The only way to get something when there is nothing is for someone to create it. If we go back as close to the beginning as we can get, we must find an uncaused cause which would be, by definition, without beginning and self-existent. It would also have to have the ability to create from less than thin air. It would have to be a who.

The nothing I have described is impossible for the human mind to imagine, but we can and must understand that that was the state of things — that is, not things — before the first creative act took place. Having admitted that, it is simply obtuse to argue that all that is came to be independently. So there is a God who created the heavens and the earth, and everyone reading this knows it. He created it out of absolute nothing.

Atheists will, of course, deny it, but that doesn’t bother me (Psalm 53:1). What bothers me is that all this is plainly true, yet some men to whom God has entrusted his truth are too sophisticated to believe that it was done in six days, as God has plainly declared, and have the hubris to teach their improved history to Christ’s flock.

Get your own copy of The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms here.

1 After these things Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (or Tiberias). 2 A large crowd followed Him, because they saw the signs which He was performing on those who were sick. 3 Then Jesus went up on the mountain, and there He sat down with His disciples. 4 Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was near. 5 Therefore Jesus, lifting up His eyes and seeing that a large crowd was coming to Him, said to Philip, “Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?” 6 This He was saying to test him, for He Himself knew what He was intending to do. 7 Philip answered Him, “Two hundred denarii worth of bread is not sufficient for them, for everyone to receive a little.” 8 One of His disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, said to Him, 9 “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish, but what are these for so many people?” 10 Jesus said, “Have the people sit down.” Now there was much grass in the place So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. 11 Jesus then took the loaves, and having given thanks, He distributed to those who were seated; likewise also of the fish as much as they wanted. 12 When they were filled, He said to His disciples, “Gather up the leftover fragments so that nothing will be lost.” 13 So they gathered them up, and filled twelve baskets with fragments from the five barley loaves which were left over by those who had eaten. 14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” 15 So Jesus, perceiving that they were intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king, withdrew again to the mountain by Himself alone.

—John 6 (cf. Matthew 14; Mark 6; Luke 9)

This is one of the many New Testament narratives testifying to the deity of Christ. Like nothing else, the miracles of Jesus bear witness to his divinity (Luke 7:19–22; John 2:24–25; 14:10–11). Remember this: this text is not a VeggieTales episode. It is not a morality play about the boy who gave his lunch away. It is not about the boy at all. About the boy, we are told only this: “There is a lad here who has five barley loaves and two fish” (v. 9). Matthew, Mark, and Luke (this is the only miracle recorded by John that is also found in the synoptics) leave him out entirely. All we know about the boy is that he had some fish and bread. The boy is accompanied by no action verbs. There is no word about his generosity or compliance with the request for his victuals. I rather suspect that, like the owner of the foal in Matthew 21, Mary in Luke 1, and the woman at the well in John 4, he was not asked, but told. Jesus is not a beggar who comes hat-in-hand; he is the Lord who commands.

This narrative is entirely about Jesus. So what does it tell us about him?

He had compassion on a crowd that was undeserving. Here was a bunch that followed him, not for who he was, but for what he could do for them (v. 2). They were nothing but freeloaders, most of whom, as Jesus knew, would abandon him. Yet Jesus, weary, in need of rest (Mark 6:31), felt compassion for them, healed their sick (Matthew 14:14), taught them (Mark 6:34), and commanded the disciples to feed them. Overlooking their selfish motives for following him, Jesus mercifully ministered to their needs.

He was patient with his faithless disciples. These disciples, who had already seen him turn water into wine (John 2), still thought they were limited, even in his presence, by the size of their purse. Rather than rebuking them, he presented a test for the strengthening of their faith. “Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?” he asked. Of course he knew the answer, but he wanted confront them with the impossibility of meeting such a great need. There was clearly nothing they could do. These are the times in which our faith is built, when we are helpless in impossible circumstances (James 1:2–4).

Jesus delivered. After commanding the disciples to feed the multitude, forcing the admission that it couldn’t be done, he took matters in hand. “Everybody sit down. Bring me the fish and bread.” Then he gave thanks, and began distributing the food, and the distribution continued until all were fed, with leftovers.

Jesus is Lord. The crowd saw the miracle, and recognized Jesus for who he was: the Messiah. So they did what people will do: they took charge of doing what they thought should be done, and thought to “take him by force and make him king.” But Jesus was the king, and his crown was not of this world; no man had the authority crown him. He would take his throne at the right time, according to the Father’s will, and no man would say they had made him lord. He is the Lord. He is the Lord.

Of the boy, we are told nothing. To draw a lesson from him, you must first make up a story. Are there any moral lessons we can learn from the other minor players in this drama? Certainly, but as is typical, they aren’t good. That is, the other characters — the disciples, the crowd — are examples of how we should not be. And those examples bring us back to Christ, because they model for us a false, or at least weak, view of Jesus. The crowd saw him as a benefactor, someone to help them in their quest for their Best Life Now. The disciples had been with Jesus, had seen him work miracles, but tasked with feeding the crowd, they scratched their heads and wondered how it could be done.

Are there moral lessons to learn from Christ himself? Certainly. But above all, this story is told that we may know who he is, and believe in him. That is the theme and purpose of this narrative.

How long can we expect to remain a superpower, having elected a President who says, “I’m like . . .”? If this is tolerated, can it be long before we are reduced to third-world status? When people say “America,” will they mean Canada or — God help us — Mexico?

Wake up, America!

In other news, we’ve got six inches of fresh snow this morning. I blame that on Congress.

We love, because he first loved us.

—1 John 4:19

This may not be the most theologically-packed hymn — it contains only one line about the atonement, and so perhaps doesn’t belong in the “Easter and Ascension” section of the hymnal — but, for better or worse, it belongs in this series, so here it is. It’s much too much about me, and too little about Christ, but I suppose it’s not bad work for a sixteen-year-old author.

216 My Jesus, I Love Thee

My Jesus, I love Thee, I know Thou art mine,
For Thee all the follies of sin I resign;
My gracious Redeemer, my Savior art Thou,
If ever I loved Thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

I love Thee because Thou hast first loved me,
And purchased my pardon on Calvary’s tree.
I love Thee for wearing the thorns on Thy brow;
If ever I loved Thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

I’ll love Thee in life, I will love Thee in death,
And praise Thee as long as Thou lendest me breath;
And say when the death dew lies cold on my brow,
If ever I loved Thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

In mansions of glory and endless delight,
I’ll ever adore Thee in heaven so bright;
I’ll sing with the glittering crown on my brow;
If ever I loved Thee, my Jesus, ’tis now.

—The Concordia Hymnal (Augsburg Publishing House), 1960.

From Red Mountain Music’s Depth of Mercy

I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord.”

Hymn LIII.
A friend that sticketh closer than a brother. Proverbs xvii. 24.
John Newton (1725–1807)

One there is, above all others,
Well deserves the name of friend;
His is love beyond a brother’s,
Costly, free, and knows no end:
   They who once his kindness prove,
   Find it everlasting love!

Which of all our friends to save us,
Could or would have shed their blood?
But our Jesus dy’d to have us
Reconcil’d, in him to God:
   This was boundless love indeed!
   Jesus is a friend in need.

Men, when rais’d to lofty stations,
Often know their friends no more;
Slight and scorn their poor relations
Tho’ they valu’d them before.
   But our Savior always owns
   Those whom he redeem’d with grones.

When he liv’d on earth abased,
Friend of sinners was his name;
Now, above all glory raised,
He rejoices in the same:
   Still he calls them brethren, friends,
   And to all their wants attends.

Could we bear from one another,
What he daily bears from us?
Yet this glorious Friend and Brother,
Loves us tho’ we treat him thus:
   Tho’ for good we render ill,
   He accounts us brethren still.

Oh! for grace our hearts to soften!
Teach us, Lord, at length to love;
We, alas! forget too often,
What a Friend we have above:
   But when home our souls are brought,
   We will love thee as we ought.

—from Olney Hymns. Book I: On select Passages of Scripture.

John 20:19–23

So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

The verses we have now read contain things hard to be understood. Like all the events which followed our Lord’s resurrection, there is much in the facts before us which is mysterious, and requires reverent handling. Our Lord’s actions, in suddenly appearing among the disciples when the doors were closed, and in breathing upon them, might soon draw us into unprofitable speculation. It is easy, in such cases, to darken counsel by words without knowledge. We shall find it safer and wiser to confine our attention to points which are plain and instructive.
   We should observe, for one thing, the remarkable language with which our Lord greeted the apostles, when He first met them after His resurrection. Twice over he addressed them with the kindly words, “Peace be unto you.” We may dismiss as untenable, in all probability, the cold and cautious suggestion, that this was nothing better than an unmeaning phrase of courtesy. He who “spake as never man spake,” said nothing without meaning. He spoke, we may be sure, with special reference to the state of mind of the eleven apostles, with special reference to the events of the last few days, and with special reference to their future ministry. “Peace” and not blame,—“peace” and not fault-finding,—“peace” and not rebuke,—was the first word which this little company heard from their Master’s lips, after He left the tomb.
   It was meet, and right, and fitting, that it should be so, and in full harmony with things that had gone before. “Peace on earth” was the song of the heavenly host, when Christ was born. Peace and rest of soul, was the general subject that Christ continually preached for three years. Peace, and not riches, had been the great legacy which He had left with the eleven the night before His crucifixion. Surely it was in full keeping with all the tenor of our Lord’s dealings, that, when He revisited His little company of disciples after His resurrection, His first word should be “Peace.” It was a word that would soothe and calm their minds.

   Peace, we may safely conclude, was intended by our Lord to be the key-note to the Christian ministry. That same peace which was so continually on the lips of the Master, was to be the grand subject of the teaching of His disciples. Peace between God and man through the precious blood of atonement,—peace between man and man through the infusion of grace and charity,—to spread such peace as this was to be the work of the Church. Any religion, like that of Mahomet, who made converts with the sword, is not from above, but from beneath. Any form of Christianity which burns men at the stake, in order to promote its own success, carries about with it the stamp of an apostasy. That is the truest and best religion which does most to spread real, true peace.
   We should observe, for another thing, in these verses, the remarkable evidence which our Lord supplied of His own resurrection. He graciously appealed to the senses of His trembling disciples. He showed them “His hands and His side.” He bade them see with their own eyes, that He had a real material body, and that He was not a spirit or a spirit. “Handle Me and see,” were His words, according to St. Luke: “a spirit hath not flesh and bone, as ye see Me have.” Great indeed was the condescension of our blessed Master, in thus coming down to the feeble faith of the eleven Apostles! But great also was the principle which He established for the use of His Church in every age, until He returns. That principle is, that our Master requires us to believe nothing is contrary to our senses. Things above our reason we must expect to find in a religion that comes from God, but not things contrary to reason.
   Let us lay firm hold on this great principle, and never forget to use it. Specially let us take care that we use it, in estimating the effect of the sacraments and the work of the Holy Ghost. To require people to believe that men have the quickening power of the Holy Spirit, when our eyes tell us they are living in habitual carelessness and sin, or that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper are Christ’s real body and blood, when our senses tell us they are still bread and wine,—this is to require more belief than Christ ever required of His disciples. It is to require that which is flatly contradictory to reason and common sense. Such requisitions Christ never made. Let us not try to be wiser than our Lord.
   We should observe, lastly, in these verses, the remarkable commission which our Lord conferred upon His eleven Apostles. We are told that He said, “Just as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And after he said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” It is vain to deny that the true sense of these solemn words has been for centuries a subject of controversy and dispute. It is useless perhaps to expect that the controversy will ever be closed. The utmost that we can hope to do with the passage is to supply a probable exposition.
   It seems then highly probable that our Lord in this place solemnly commissioned His Apostles to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel as He had preached it. He also conferred on them the power of declaring with peculiar authority whose sins were forgiven, and whose sins were not forgiven. That this is precisely what the Apostles did is a simple matter of fact, which any one may verify for himself by reading the book of the Acts. When Peter proclaimed to the Jews, “Repent ye, and be converted,”—and when Paul declared at Antioch of Iconium,—“to you is the word of this salvation sent,”—“Through this man is preached the forgiveness of sins, and by Him all that believe are justified,”—they were doing what this passage commissioned the Apostles to do. They were opening with authority the door of salvation, and inviting with authority all sinners to enter in by it and be saved. (Acts iii. 19; xiii. 26—38.)
   It seems, on the other hand, most improbable that our Lord intended in this verse to sanction the practice of private absolution, after private confession of sins. Whatever some may please to say, there is not a single instance to be found in the Acts of any Apostle using such absolution after confession. Above all, there is not a trace in the two pastoral Epistles to Timothy and Titus, of such confession and absolution being recommended, or thought desirable. In short, whatever men may say about private priestly absolution, there is not a single precedent for it in God’s Word.
   Let us leave the whole passage with a deep sense of the importance of the minister’s office, when that office is duly exercised according to the mind of Christ. No higher honor can be imagined than that of being Christ’s ambassadors, and proclaiming in Christ’s name the forgiveness of sins to a lost world. But let us ever beware of investing the ministerial office with one jot more of power and authority than Christ conferred upon it. To treat ministers as being in any sense mediators between God and man, is to rob Christ of His prerogative, to hide saving truth from sinners, and to exalt ordained men to a position which they are totally unqualified to fill.

—J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Baker Books, 2007) [Westminster (PB) | Amazon (HC)].

As discussed previously, God has made a unilateral covenant with his people. He alone has made a promise, and he alone will be the promise keeper. And, as Duguid explains, he alone has the authority to set the terms of the covenant.

What does it mean when we say our relationship with God is based on a covenant? In the first place, it means that we cannot set the terms of our relationship with God. the terms of the covenant are not negotiable.
   Imagine the weaker king in an ancient covenant saying to the great king, “Fine. Let’s do a deal here, but I want to be in charge in this relationship. I want to say what you can do and what you can be like—and don’t come making demands of me.” It’s absurd, isn’t it? He would have found his head on a pole and his limbs distributed to the four corners of the empire before you could say, “Assyria rules, okay!” Yet many people think that they can strike their own bargains with God. They say, “I like to think of God as . . .”—as if they can decide what God will be like. They want to pick and choose what they will believe and what they will do—and they certainly don’t want a God who makes too many demands on them. “My God isn’t like that,” they will tell you. In other words, they don’t want a God who is God.
    The real question, however, is not what you would like God to be like God to be like, but what he is really like. And he has revealed himself as the God who has made a covenant with his people. When the great king comes and offers to establish a covenant with you, you really have only two choices: you can accept the covenant relationship on his terms and receive its benefits, or you can refuse it and face the consequences.
   Many people approach religion as if they were interviewing God for a job, the position of “personal deity in my life.” “I want to find a philosophy that works for me,” they say. But if God is really who he claims to be, Almighty God, then that is what he is, whether the idea “works for you” or not. You can interview idols and ideologies, but the God who created the universe offers you only two choices: surrender on his terms of face the consequences.

—Iain Duguid, Living in the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham (P&R, 1999), 75.

I believe that most of the controversial doctrines of Scripture are disputed only because men and women want some control over whom and how they will worship. They hear a doctrine that challenges autonomy, and reason thusly: if a, then b; b is unacceptable, therefore a must be false. But God has no interest in conforming to our opinion of what is right and acceptable. He is Lord; we are not. Our opinions must conform to the truth that is, the truth that our Sovereign has declared. When we get our view of God straight, we will cease protesting against the truths revealed in Scripture.

Q. 3. What is the Word of God?

A. The holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.

“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

—Luke 16:19–31

This parable is an effective rebuttal to those who tout the capacity of signs and wonders to add power to the gospel. Here we see a man begging for a warning to be sent, via a dead man, to his unbelieving brothers, to turn them from their unbelief and spare them the eternal torment of hell. Surely, “if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!” No, Abraham replies, if they won’t hear the Word of God through Moses and the Prophets, not even that will dent their hard hearts.

Remember this when the next evangelistic “new measures” come around, or when the next fabulous “I’ve been to heaven (or hell)” tale hits the bookstores and tempts you to think it might effectively draw people to Christ. Forget it. Even if there was a new way, even if those stories were true, they could not succeed where the seed of the Word has fallen and died.

It is only “the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 3:14–17).

Get your own copy of The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms here.

If you have been following this blog, you know that one of my ongoing projects is blogging through the Westminster Larger Catechism with the Calvinist Gadfly. I took on this project because I thought it might be good for me, and it has been; in fact, I’ve been enjoying it much more than I expected.

My usual method has been to take one of the proofs listed in the catechism, or a relevant unlisted text, and write a brief expositional or devotional commentary on that text. I’ve found this to be especially rewarding. Today, I thought I would give you a list of the main resources I’ve used.

• The Bible, of course. I use the NASB (and so should you), but the ESV will do nicely. For the Psalms, you will need a KJV, naturally.
• The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. This is a nice, compact edition in dark blue cloth, nicely formatted, with very clear, readable print. It includes the full text of all proofs. This is my favorite of all on this list. You can get a cheaper paperback here, but it contains the text of the confession and catechisms only, with no proofs. Besides, the hardcover is only $13.00. For those who are content to forgo a hard copy, it can also be read online here.
• Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary. I haven’t used this one very much, but I’ve found it useful when I have. Note to the publisher: anything worth publishing is worth publishing in hardcover.
• Harmony of The Westminster Confession and Catechisms. I like this one, too. The Confession and both Catechisms are printed side-by-side, with proofs (references only, no text), bound in blue cloth. The only thing I don’t like about it is the quarto size. You’ll have to buy it used, as it’s out of print. Try Amazon or abebooks.com.
• Reformed Confessions Harmonized, by Joel Beeke and Sinclair Ferguson. I don’t have this one yet, but it looks very good. From the description (at the link):

  Drs. Beeke and Ferguson have harmonized seven important Reformed confessions into a convenient parallel arrangement. The seven confessions were produced by three different strands among the European churches. From the Dutch-German reformers came the Belgic Confession of Faith (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Canons of Dort (1618-19). The Swiss churches contributed the Second Helvetic Confession (1566). And the Scottish-English tradition was set down in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646-47) and the Larger and Shorter Westminster Catechisms (1647).

  If this one was available in hardcover, I’d probably snap it up immediately.

Tomorrow, April 22, is our anniversary. On June 29 (76 days later), I’ll have been married half as long as I’ve lived (yes, I factored in leap years). If you can figure out, from those numbers, my birth date or the year we were married, and provide the equation you used to figure it, I’ll give you a big “atta boy (or girl, as the case may be)” and let you pay for our day out today. Now, I’m off to take my sugar to tea.

Originally posted April 13, 2006.

On which day was Jesus crucified? It seems like an odd question, doesn’t it? The gospels give a clear record of a Friday crucifixion, so why even ask? Well, that is what I said too, but there are some who claim that Jesus must have been crucified on Wednesday or Thursday, and they are not entirely without justification. A Friday night burial and Sunday morning resurrection allows only one full day and two nights in the tomb, when Jesus clearly said that he would be in the grave for “three days and three nights”. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, under divine inspiration, clearly chronicled a Friday evening burial and Sunday morning resurrection. So, who is wrong? Consider the Gospel accounts:

Day 1, Friday: Death and burial

37 And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last. . . . 42 When evening had already come, because it was the preparation day, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea came, a prominent member of the Council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God; and he gathered up courage and went in before Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus. 44 Pilate wondered if He was dead by this time, and summoning the centurion, he questioned him as to whether He was already dead. 45 And ascertaining this from the centurion, he granted the body to Joseph. 46 Joseph bought a linen cloth, took Him down, wrapped Him in the linen cloth and laid Him in a tomb which had been hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.

—Mark 15

46 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last. . . . 50 And a man named Joseph, who was a member of the Council, a good and righteous man . . . 52 this man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. 53 And he took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid Him in a tomb cut into the rock, where no one had ever lain. 54 It was the preparation day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. 55 Now the women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid. 56 Then they returned and prepared spices and perfumes And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment.

—Luke 23

30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. 31 Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. . . . 33 but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. . . . 38 After these things Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but a secret one for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate granted permission. So he came and took away His body. . . . 41 Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. 42 Therefore because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

—John 19

Day 2, Saturday: Guards posted

62 Now on the next day, the day after the preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together with Pilate, 63 and said, “Sir, we remember that when He was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I am to rise again.’ 64 Therefore, give orders for the grave to be made secure until the third day, otherwise His disciples may come and steal Him away and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard; go, make it as secure as you know how.” 66 And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone.

—Matthew 27

Day 3, Sunday: Resurrection

1 Now after the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the grave. 2 And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. . . . 5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. 6 He is not here, for He has risen, just as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying.”

—Matthew 28

1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. . . . 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.”

—Mark 16

1 But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.

—Luke 24

1 Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. . . . 13 And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus.

—John 20

These are obviously three consecutive days. Jesus was crucified and buried on the first day (the day of preparation for the Sabbath), guards were placed at the tomb on the second (the Sabbath), and Jesus rose from the tomb on the third (the day following the Sabbath, the first day of the week). Friday, Saturday, Sunday.

If it is so obvious, why even bring it up? Because eventually, you may be faced with this question, and it is good to be able to answer with more than, “I don’t know, I never thought of that, that’s a good question,” like I did when I was first asked. This is not just a crackpot theory that you will hear from the eccentric oddball who talks too much in your adult Sunday school class. I heard it first from Charles Swindoll. It is also a choice argument for those who like to point out that “the Bible is full of contradictions.”

Those who question the Gospel accounts will do so based on Matthew, who refers to Jonah.

for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

—Matthew 24:12

And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights.

—Jonah 1:17

The gospels all agree that Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday, and rose early Sunday morning. It is easily understood that “three days in the belly of the fish/heart of the earth” does not have to mean a full seventy-two hours. He was buried on Friday, and rose on Sunday; three days. But it is only two nights. What about that third night?

According to C.F. Keil,

The three days and three nights are not to be regarded as fully three times twenty hours, but are to be interpreted according to Hebrew usage, as signifying that Jonah was vomited up again on the third day after he had been swallowed.

—C. F. Keil, Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament, volume 10 Minor Prophets (Hendrickson, 1996), 269.

John MacArthur writes,

The matter of three days and three nights is often used either to prove Jesus was mistaken about the time he would actually spend in the tomb or that he could not have been crucified on Friday afternoon and raised early on Sunday, the first day of the week. But as in modern usage, the phrase “day and night” can mean not only a full 24-hour day but any representative part of a day. . . . the Jewish Talmud held that “any part of a day is as the whole.” Jesus was simply using a common, well-understood generalization.

—John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Matthew 8-15 (Moody, 1987), 329.

Those who insist on interpreting Matthew 12:40 according to modern idiom must explain away the details contained in the gospel accounts. They also create for themselves a no-win situation. Jesus was buried in the evening, and rose in the morning. Therefore, if he was in the grave for three nights, then he was in the grave for only two days, if you only count full days, and he was in the grave for five days if you count partial days. It cannot be exactly three full days and three full nights. No matter how you figure it, it does not add up.

This is a good example of why correct biblical interpretation requires that we understand what the text meant to its original audience. Whatever it meant to them is what it means to us.

He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.

—Isaiah 53:3–6

This hymn seems to be a rip-off of Wesley’s Come, Thou long Expected Jesus. The Concordia tune is Lord Victorious, of which I have previously expressed my disdain. The tune below is Hyfrydol, which you will certainly recognize. The Concordia text differs somewhat from examples I have found at cyberhymnal.org and elsewhere, reflecting a particular vs. universal atonement. I can’t say which is correct according to the author, but this is surely the theologically correct version.

221 Hail, Thou Once Despised Jesus

Hail, Thou once despisèd Jesus!
   Hail, Thou Galilean King!
Thou didst suffer to release us;
   Thou didst free salvation bring.
Hail, Thou agonizing Savior,
   Bearer of our sin and shame!
By Thy merits we find favor;
   Life is given through Thy Name.

Paschal Lamb, by God appointed,
   All our sins on Thee were laid;
By almighty love anointed,
   Thou hast full atonement made.
All Thy people are forgiven,
   Through the virtue of Thy blood;
Opened is the gate of Heaven,
   Peace is made ’twixt man and God.

Jesus, hail, enthroned in glory,
   There forever to abide;
All the heav’nly hosts adore Thee,
   Seated at Thy Father’s side.
There for sinners Thou art pleading,
   There Thou dost our place prepare,
Even for us interceding,
   Till in glory we appear.

Worship, honor, power and blessing,
   Thou art worthy to receive;
Loudest praises, without ceasing,
   Meet it is for us to give.
Help, ye bright angelic spirits,
   Bring your sweetest, noblest lays;
Help to sing of our Savior’s merits,
   Help to chant Immanuel’s praise!

—The Concordia Hymnal (Augsburg Publishing House), 1960.

I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the Lord.”

Was Thy Wrath against the Sea?”
Christina Rossetti (1830–1894)

The sea laments with unappeasable
   Hankering wail of loss,
      Lifting its hands on high and passing by
         Out of the lovely light:
No foambow any more may crest that swell
   Of clamorous waves which toss;
      Lifting its hands on high it passes by
         From light into the night.
Peace, peace, thou sea! God’s wisdom worketh well,
   Assigns it crown or cross:
      Lift we all hands on high, and passing by
         Attest: God doeth right.

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

John 20:24–31

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
   26 After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”
   30 Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.

The story of the unbelief of Thomas, related in these verses, is a narrative peculiar to the Gospel of St. John. For wise and good reasons it is passed over in silence by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and was probably not given to the world until Thomas was dead. It is precisely one of those passages of Scripture which supply strong internal evidence of the honesty of the inspired writers. If impostors and deceivers had compiled the Bible for their own private advantage, they would never have told mankind that one of the first founders of a new religion behaved as Thomas here did.
   We should mark, for one thing, in these verses, how much Christians may lose by not regularly attending the assemblies of God’s people. Thomas was absent the first time that Jesus appeared to the disciples after His resurrection, and consequently Thomas missed a blessing. Of course we have no certain proof that the absence of the Apostle could not admit of explanation. Yet, at such a crisis in the lives of the eleven, it seems highly improbable that he had any good reason for not being with his brethren, and it is far more likely that in some way he was to blame. One thing, at any rate, is clear and plain. By being absent he was kept in suspense and unbelief a whole week, while all around him were rejoicing in the thought of a risen Lord. It is difficult to suppose that this would have been the case, if there had not been a fault somewhere. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Thomas was absent when he might have been present.
   We shall all do well to remember the charge of the Apostle St. Paul: “Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is.” (Heb. x. 25.) Never to be absent from God’s house on Sundays, without good reason,—never to miss the Lord’s Supper when administered in our own congregation,—never to let our place be empty when means of grace are going on, this is one way to be a growing and prosperous Christian. The very sermon that we needlessly miss, may contain a precious word in season for our souls. The very assembly for prayer and praise from which we stay away, may be the very gathering that would have cheered, and established, and quickened our hearts. We little know how dependent our spiritual health is on little, regular, habitual helps, and how much we suffer if we miss our medicine. The wretched argument that many attend means of grace and are no better for them, should be no argument to a Christian. It may satisfy those who are blind to their own state, and destitute of grace, but it should never satisfy a real servant of Christ. Such an one should remember the words of Solomon—“Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.” (Prov. viii. 34.) Above all he should bind around his heart the Master’s promise: “Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” ( Matt. xviii. 20.) Such a man will rarely be left like Thomas, shut out in the cold chill of unbelief, while others are warmed and filled.
   We should mark for another thing in this verse, how kind and merciful Christ is to dull and slow believers. Nowhere, perhaps, in all the four Gospels, do we find this part of our Lord’s character so beautifully illustrated as in the story before our eyes. It is hard to imagine anything more tiresome and provoking than the conduct of Thomas, when even the testimony of ten faithful brethren had no effect on him, and he doggedly declared, “Except I see with my own eyes and touch with my own hands, I will not believe.” But it is impossible to imagine anything more patient and compassionate, than our Lord’s treatment of this weak disciple. He does not reject him, or dismiss him, or excommunicate him. He comes again at the end of a week, and apparently for the special benefit of Thomas. He deals with him according to his weakness, like a gentle nurse dealing with a froward child,—“Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side.” If nothing but the grossest, coarsest, most material evidence could satisfy him, even that evidence was supplied. Surely this was a love that passeth knowledge, and a patience that passeth understanding.
   A passage of Scripture like this, we need not doubt, was written for the special comfort of all true believers. The Holy Ghost knew well that the dull, and the slow, and the stupid, and the doubting, are by far the commonest type of disciples in this evil world. The Holy Ghost has taken care to supply abundant evidence that Jesus is rich in patience as well as compassion, and that He bears with the infirmities of all His people. Let us take care that we drink into our Lord’s spirit, and copy His example. Let us never set down men in a low place, as gracious and godless, because their faith is feeble and their love is cold. Let us remember the case of Thomas, and be very compassionate and of tender mercy. Our Lord has many weak children in His family, many dull pupils in His school, many raw soldiers in His army, many lame sheep in His flock. Yet He bears with them all, and casts none away. Happy is that Christian who has learned to deal likewise with his brethren. There are many in the Church, who, like Thomas, are dull and slow, but for all that, like Thomas, are real and true believers.
   We should mark, lastly, in these verses, how Christ was addressed by a disciple as “God,” without prohibition or rebuke on His part. The noble exclamation which burst from the lips of Thomas, when convinced that his Lord had risen indeed,—the noble exclamation, “My Lord and my God,”—admits of only one meaning. It was a distinct testimony to our blessed Lord’s divinity. It was a clear, unmistakable declaration that Thomas believed Him, whom he saw and touched that day, to be not only man, but God. Above all, it was a testimony which our Lord received and did not prohibit, and a declaration which He did not say one word to rebuke. When Cornelius fell down at the feet of Peter and would have worshiped him, the Apostle refused such honor at once: “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts x. 26.) When the people of Lystra would have done sacrifice to Paul and Barnabas, “they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you.” (Acts xiv. 14.) But when Thomas says to Jesus, “My Lord and my God,” the words do not elicit a syllable of reproof from our holy and truth-loving Master. Can we doubt that these things were written for our learning?
   Let us settle it firmly in our minds that the divinity of Christ is one of the grand foundation truths of Christianity, and let us be willing to go to the stake rather than let it go. Unless our Lord Jesus is very God of very God, there is an end of His mediation, His atonement, His advocacy, His priesthood, His whole work of redemption. These glorious doctrines are useless blasphemies, unless Christ is divine. Forever let us bless God that the divinity of our Lord is taught everywhere in the Scriptures, and stands on evidence that can never be overthrown. Above all, let us daily repose our sinful souls on Christ with undoubting confidence, as one who is perfect God as well as perfect man. He is man, and therefore can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. He is God, and therefore is “able to save to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him.” That Christian has no cause to fear, who can look to Jesus by faith, and say with Thomas, “My Lord and my God.” With such a Saviour we need not be afraid to begin the life of real religion, and with such a Saviour we may boldly go on.

—J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Baker Books, 2007) [Westminster (PB) | Amazon (HC)].

Originally posted at The Calvinist Gadfly.

Q. 17: How did God create man?

A. After God had made all other creatures, he created man male and female; formed the body of the man of the dust of the ground, and the woman of the rib of the man, endued them with living, reasonable, and immortal souls; made them after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness,and holiness; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it, and dominion over the creatures; yet subject to fall.

Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

—Genesis 2:7

All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

—John 1:3–4

It was a simple recipe: a little dirt, the breath of life, and just like that, Yahweh created man. So simple, it was, that one might wonder why we can’t do it. After all, we have dirt, and we have life and breath, so why not? The answer is in the phrase “breath of life.” The truth is that God could have used anything to make man. It didn’t have to be dirt. It could have been water, grass clippings, or tree bark. The thing that did the trick was the “breath of life.”

This is not breath as we know it. It is an anthropomorphic expression, a figure of speech that projects human character onto non-human beings or things — in this case, God. The Lord uses them frequently in Scripture help us gain some small measure of understanding of ideas and events that are humanly incomprehensible. God doesn’t breathe. He doesn’t have a body, cardiovascular system, lungs. He doesn’t inhale oxygen-rich air and exhale carbon dioxide. The breath of life is not to be found in our atmosphere, or any other, because it doesn’t exist as a thing to be measured and analyzed. The breath of life is life itself, and it proceeds from God alone.

“In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” This life is more than just the mechanical workings of organic beings — God is not an organic being — it is “light,” however we may define that. It is what separates us from the animals; it is understanding, spiritual existence, the image of God in us. It is the necessary essence that fits us “to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.”

Get your own copy of The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms here.

or, Bell’s Hell

I really love John MacArthur. It would be safe to say that no one, other than the biblical writers, has influenced my theology and church philosophy more than he. I love him because he does almost nothing but teach the Bible. He is, to my knowledge, the most single-minded, textually obsessed Bible expositor alive. At the same time he isn’t afraid to address current issues and tell it like it is when the name of God and the health of the church are at stake. Such was the case in the last couple of weeks, as he peeled the fleece off a very thinly disguised wolf.

One might ask why it is necessary to keep talking about Rob Bell. Hasn’t enough been said already? Well, yes; enough has been said, but until everyone hears it, it must be said again and again. Bell’s influence is not limited to the apostate circles in which he lives. It reaches far and wide, and into the most unexpected places. I was dumbfounded to learn that one of the elders of my own church — an EFCA church in North Dakota — had used the Nooma videos in a Sunday School class. In my own church, a man who does not know the Lord, has no understanding of the gospel, and in fact, hates the God of the Bible, was teaching via DVD. I felt like Mayor Vaughn in Jaws: “My kids were on that beach too!”

So yes, I find it necessary to dedicate some space here to attacking this wolf. But like I said, enough has been said. I don’t need to, and really can’t, add anything new. Below are links to MacArthur’s series on Bell. Read them, and share them. You never know where a false teacher might have crept in unnoticed (Jude 1:4).

1. Rob Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or a Wolf to Avoid?

   

   Historic evangelicalism has always affirmed the authority, inerrancy, and sufficiency of Scripture, while declaring (as Jesus and the apostles did) that the only way of salvation for fallen humanity is through the atoning work of Christ, and the only instrument of justification is faith in Jesus Christ as He is revealed in the gospel.

   Rob Bell believes none of those things. His skepticism about so many key biblical truths, his penchant for sowing doubt in his hearers, and his obvious contempt for the principles of divine justice as taught in Scripture all give evidence that he is precisely the kind of unbelieving false teacher Scripture warns us about.

2. Rob Bell: “Evangelical and orthodox to the bone?” Hardly.

   So on the one hand, in a single sentence, he professes to affirm the virgin birth. On the other hand (and on the very same page), he spends multiple paragraphs calling the truthfulness and importance of that doctrine into question.

   That is Bell’s modus operandi. He labels himself an evangelical while simultaneously undermining the foundational tenets of evangelical conviction.

   In light of this, Love Wins should not have been a surprise to anyone. The book is consistent with several things Bell has been teaching for some time.

3. Rob Bell’s Unbelief in His own Words

   Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, 130: “I can’t find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners.”

4. Bell’s Inferno

   The sad reality is that if Rob Bell does not confess the truth in this life, one day he will realize how wrong his understanding of hell really is. His view of hell will be painfully altered forever when he receives the more severe punishment reserved for those who with a Bible in their hands mock God and trample the blood of Christ underfoot (Hebrews 10:29; cf. 2 Peter 2:21).

   My earnest prayer is for Rob Bell’s repentance. But I am even more deeply and urgently concerned for the many untaught and undiscerning people who are being led astray by his toxic teaching (Jude 22-23). It is time for faithful shepherds to speak up and warn the flock of the deadly peril posed by false teaching such as this.

Note: I thought I was being clever with the Bell’s Hell title, but I had forgotten that Michael Horton had beaten me to it.

Q. 16. How did God create angels?

A. God created all the angels spirits, immortal, holy, excelling in knowledge, mighty in power, to execute his commandments, and to praise his name, yet subject to change.

Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.

—Psalm 103:20

“Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength.” Finding his work of praise growing upon his hands, he calls upon “the firstborn sons of light” to speak the praises of the Lord, as well they may, for as Milton says, they best can tell. Dwelling nearer to that prepared throne than we as yet have leave to climb, they see in nearer vision the glory which we would adore. To them is given an exceeding might of intellect, and voice, and force which they delight to use in sacred services for him; let them now turn all their strength into that solemn song which we would send up to the third heaven. To him who gave angelic strength let all angelic strength be given. They are his angels, and therefore they are not loth to ring out his praises. “That do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.” We are bidden to do these commandments, and alas we fail; let those unfallen spirits, whose bliss it is never to have transgressed, give to the Lord the glory of their holiness. They hearken for yet more commands, obeying as much by reverent listening as by energetic action, and in this they teach us how the heavenly will should evermore be done; yet even for this surpassing excellence let them take no praise, but render all to him who has made and kept them what they are. O that we could hear them chant the high praises of God, as did the shepherds on that greatest of all birth nights—

“When such music sweet

 Their hearts and ears did greet

 As never was by mortal finger struck;

 Divinely-warbled voice

 Answering the stringed noise,

 As well their souls in blissful rapture took:

 The air, such pleasure loth to lose,

 With thousand echoes still prolongs each heavenly close.”

   Our glad heart anticipates the hour when we shall hear them “harping in loud and solemn guise,” and all to the sole praise of God.

—Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David (Hendrickson, 1988).

Get your own copy of The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms here.

Another perspective on conferences and “celebrity” pastors from Just a Guy Who Took His Wife and Went. I’m just going to start writing stuff as I think of it, so don’t expect one paragraph to logically follow the previous, or any great organization at all. I might even get redundant at no extra charge.

This post is partly in response to Carl Trueman, whom I respect in a manner that he probably would deplore, but mostly in response to various blog commenters who have taken his arguments and ran with them. For the attention-deficient, here is the gist of this post: Dr. Trueman is making an elegant, finely crafted, mountain out of a molehill. Those commenters who read his post (most likely with their lips moving, skipping the big words), or more likely, read someone smarter who actually read and understood Trueman, and ran with it, saying some things Trueman never did, are idiots.

I have read some comments about “people who go to all these conferences,” as though the same people are running from one conference to another. Of course, they are not. But what if someone does go to more than one? What is that to you? “Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls” (Curmudgeon’s Paraphrase: Mind your own cotton-pickin’ business, long-nose).

I’ve read comments implying the greater legitimacy of small, local conferences over larger national or international conferences. While I agree that the local church, and therefore, local church events, should take precedence, the conflict presented in these arguments is false. Attending one large conference such as Together for the Gospel is not going to prevent anyone from attending the Possum County (NW District) Preachin’ on the Prairie Weekend. And while the large and small conferences have much in common, they do not serve all of the same needs and purposes. More on that, later.

Others point to the fact that large conferences feature well-known speakers as if that’s a bad thing. It would be so much better, you know, if the speakers were obscure fellows from places like Frostbite Falls, Minnesota. Well, maybe. Unpublished Joe Preacher from Buffalo Squat, Montana might be a brilliant, wise, and godly man, and he might give a barn-burner of a sermon, but I don’t know him. I won’t be travelling to hear him speak. His audience will be local, and he probably feels just fine about that. He might even be sitting somewhere near me at Together for the Gospel, because he admires those guys, too. And why shouldn’t we? These men have accomplished great things on a large scale. The average pastor from Buckbrush, South Dakota knows that it’s entirely appropriate that they, and not he, are on the platform. After all, he’s got their books on his shelf, not vice-verse.

It seems odd to me that folks who would think nothing of it if I took my wife on a cruise — just a vacation — can get snooty about the time and money we spend on a biennial trip to Louisville to stay in a hotel, have a drink overlooking the Ohio River, and hear my heroes in the faith speak, because that’s worldly. These, I suspect, are the Ralph Naders of churchianity who think, “Someone, somewhere, is having fun, and they’re not doing it the way we do it. They must be stopped!” To them, I offer a heart-felt “Yeah, yeah, whatever,” and head off down the road in my internal-combustion fossil-fuel burning van.

Oops, I said “heroes in the faith.” I suppose that makes me idolatrous. Well, phooey on that. How ridiculous. Of course there are men I respect, admire, honor, revere, etc. They have, through their faithful service, ministered to my soul in exceptional ways. The fact that some of them are famous doesn’t make them idols any more than those whose names you don’t know — and there are several. I’m tired of hearing about “celebrity” pastors. I’ve observed some behavior that fits that complaint, but I don’t see much of it around the older men involved. (The celebrity aura is usually attached to the young hipsters who, frankly, are making an attempt to be cool and are gathering followings of the young and undiscerning. To be blunt, and even name names, there is a definite difference between the audiences of Sproul and Driscoll.)

Now, about the different purposes mentioned somewhere previously. Assuming there was a local conference that I could attend without travelling, staying in hotels, eating out, etc., I would not choose that over the trip we’ve taken, twice now, to Together for the Gospel. We don’t go there just to hear some great speakers. If that was all I wanted, I’d just wait and download the sessions when they came online. I don’t go for the books, either. Of course I like the free books, but considering the cost of the trip, I’d do better to buy them locally (if I could) or online. But we don’t go just for those things. We go for the experience. We go for the fun. And there is nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, there is something very encouraging about being surrounded by believers from, not only America, but every continent on the globe. It also gives me a vivid picture of the global nature of the church which I will admit (to Trueman’s delight, no doubt, if he was to read this) is something of which I, as an American, need to be reminded. I think there is something very God-glorifying in that. Oh yes, did I mention it’s a lot of fun?

That’s just me. Most of those attending are pastors (I’m not). Pastors have an added incentive to attend one of these conferences. They need to get away from you. They need to go where you can’t pop in or call them. They love you, but their lives are wrapped up in serving you, and honestly, you’re just a little too much at times. Going somewhere local and coming home at night just doesn’t give them the distance they need. So, if you’re a small church that overworks your pastor (you know you do), if your pastor never gets away to fellowship with other pastors, send him to a conference far away, of his choice, don’t call him while he’s there, and don’t take it out of his vacation time.

As I have said, we’ve attended Together for the Gospel twice, and God willing, will probably go again. I haven’t seen any idolizing of the speakers. I haven’t seen them acting or being treated like celebrities, at least not in the wicked American Hollywood fashion. What I have seen is honor being given where honor is due. And I’ve seen a lot of perfectly appropriate excitement among the attendees. If the effervescence of Christians gathered together with thousands of other Christians from around the world in the presence of our heroes (which I maintain is a perfectly legitimate category) and with access to an absolutely heavenly bookstore troubles you, you are to be pitied indeed.

To recap one more time,

Trueman: molehill → mountain.
Blog commenters: idiots.

A somewhat frivolous post for a Friday. I’m not really sure how it will end.

If you know me at all, you know I’ve got nothing good to say about papism. Heretical doctrines aside, I’m no fan of the disciplines Rome encourages, and particularly abhor those imposed on the priesthood. Monasteries and the poor souls who inhabit them are tragic, indeed. However, that doesn’t mean I have anything personal against individual papists. In fact, I think some of them are very clever, and I suppose living in a monastery, free from worldly concerns, leaves a guy a lot of time to think. Case in point: Lent. The story of J. Wilson (HT: Ordinary Pastor, AKA Irish Calvinist) reminded me of the fact that one of my favorite beers, a double bock, was invented by monks as a way to (as I see it) cheat on their Lenten fasts. According to the Samuel Adams website,

Brewed since the 13th century, these malty lagers are still some of the biggest and most sophisticated beers around. . . . Doppelbocks (or double bock) originated in Bavaria as an extra strong bock brewed by the monks of St. Francis of Paula. Traditionally monks brewed strong, high gravity bock beers full of nutrients, to provide sustenance during fasting. These beers thus became closely associated with the holidays from Christmas, to Lent and Easter.

I’ve always admired those monks for their ingenuity in circumventing the pointless practice of Lenten fasting. Fasting, as I see it, is eating nothing. Beer, or juice, or whatever liquid food is used to “get [one] through a fast” disqualifies the fast. Call it a “_____-free” or “low-_____” diet, but don’t call it a fast. Anyway, as their Lenten fast was not (to my knowledge) voluntary, I give those monks a high-five for creating a legal loophole and getting away with it. Each twelve-ounce bottle of Samuel Adams Double Bock is made with a half-pound of malted barley and contains 320 calories, so you can see how that could help you through an ostensibly food-free day.

Back to J. Wilson’s story, one item that caught my attention was the twenty-five pounds he lost during his forty days of purpose beer. I’ve been trying to drop a few pounds by limiting my carbs to my routine one beer per day at lunch. I’ve thought of cutting even that for a while, but I drink it because I am genetically pre-disposed to one day having a heart attack, and men who have one or two drinks per day lower that risk (OK, yes, and because I like it). I’ve never thought of taking a beer-only “fast.”

What do you think?

1. Cool, go for it!
2. No, you will go to hell for sure.
3. Other

By the way, the Thirsty Theologian has a beer page. Read it in moderation.

In the year of King Uzziah's death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said,
   “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts,
    The whole earth is full of His glory.”

—Isaiah 6:1–3

Today’s hymn is certainly my most-sung hymn. It was the opening hymn every Sunday in the church I attended from Kindergarten through 7th grade, and I’ve sung it many times since, so I must have sung it well over four hundred times. The Concordia omits the fourth verse. I don’t know why, although I’m tempted to attribute it to the Lutheran penchant for neat groups of three.

232 Holy, Holy, Holy

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!

Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee;

Holy, holy, holy, merciful and mighty!

God in three Persons, blessèd Trinity!

Holy, holy, holy! all the saints adore Thee,

Casting down their golden crowns around the glassy sea;

Cherubim and seraphim falling down before Thee,

Which wert, and art, and evermore shall be.

Holy, holy, holy! though the darkness hide Thee,

Tho’ the eye of sinful man Thy glory may not see;

Only Thou art holy; there is none beside Thee,

Perfect in power, in love, and purity.

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty!

All Thy works shall praise Thy Name, in earth, and sky, and sea;

Holy, holy, holy; merciful and mighty!

God in three Persons, blessèd Trinity!

—The Concordia Hymnal (Augsburg Publishing House), 1960.