Retailers of second hand windbags

Who else, would call someone that fails to preach sound doctrine from the pulpit a “retailer of secondhand windbags?”

“Rousing appeals to the affections are excellent, but if they are not backed up by instruction, they are a mere flash in the pan, powder consumed and no shot sent home. Rest assured that the most fervid revivalism will wear itself out in mere smoke, if it be not maintained by the fuel of teaching. The divine method is to put the law in the mind, and then write it on the heart; the judgment is enlightened, and then the passions subdued. Read Hebrews 8:10, and follow the model of the covenant of grace. Gouge’s note on that place may with fitness be quoted here: “Ministers are herein to imitate God, and, to their best endeavor, to instruct people in the mysteries of godliness, and to teach them what to believe and practice, and then to stir them up in act and deed, to do what they are instructed to do. Their labor otherwise is like to be in vain. Neglect of this course is a main cause that men fall into many errors as they do in these days.” I may add that this last remark has gained more force in our times; it is among uninstructed flocks that the wolves of popery make havoc; sound teaching is the best protection from the heresies which ravage right and left among us. Sound information upon scriptural subjects your hearers crave for, and must have. Accurate explanations of holy Scripture they are entitled to, and if you are “an interpreter, one of a thousand,” a real messenger of heaven, you will yield them plenteously. Whatever else may be present, the absence of edifying, instructive truth, like the absence of flour from bread, will be fatal. Estimated by their solid contents rather than their superficial area, many sermons are very poor specimens of godly discourse. I believe the remark is too well grounded that if you attend to a lecturer on astronomy or geology, during a short course you will obtain a tolerably clear view of his system; but if you listen, not only for twelve months, but for twelve years, to the common run of preachers, you will not arrive at anything like an idea of their system of theology. If it be so, it is a grievous fault, which cannot be too much deplored. Alas! the indistinct utterances of many concerning the grandest of eternal realities, and the dimness of thought in others with regard to fundamental truths, have given too much occasion for the criticism! Brethren, if you are not theologians, you are in your pastorates just nothing at all. You may be fine rhetoricians, and be rich in polished sentences, but without knowledge of the gospel, and aptness to teach it, you are but a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. Verbiage is too often the fig leaf which does duty as a covering for theological ignorance. Sounding periods are offered instead of sound doctrine, and rhetorical flourishes in the place of robust thought. Such things ought not to be. The abounding of empty declamation, and the absence of food for the soul, will turn a pulpit into a box of bombast, and inspire contempt instead of reverence. Unless we are instructive preachers, and really feed the people, we may be great quoters of elegant poetry, and mighty retailers of secondhand windbags, but we shall be like Nero of old, fiddling while Rome was burning and sending vessels to Alexandria to fetch sand for the arena while the populace starved for want of corn.” – C. H. Spurgeon – Lectures to My Students (pp. 74-75). Hendrickson Publishers. Kindle Edition.

HT: Reformed for His glory

God and the Theology of Risk

Well said Dr. Piper! I could not agree more. God has never taken a “risk.”

John Piper writes:

What Is the Basis of Risk?

Risk is “an action that exposes you to the possibility of loss or injury.” (“Risk Is Right” in Don’t Waste Your Life, 79). “Possibility” is a key word. If you know what you will suffer, it’s called sacrifice, not risk. God requires both from us. God demands a life of intentional sacrifice (Philippians 2:4-8), and he demands risk for the gospel — in smaller ways of dying daily (1 Corinthians 15:31), and possibly in the bigger way of martyrdom (Luke 14:26).

The basis of that demand for sacrifice and risk is the absolute, God-given assurance that in the end there is no ultimate risk. We risk life now that we may gain it forever. Risk persecution for Christ’s sake “for your reward is great in heaven” (Matthew 5:12). Risk the loss your goods, “for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14). Risk being treated unjustly, for “vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). Risk being counted as sheep for the slaughter for nothing “will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:36, 39).

The promises of God that all things will work together for our ultimate, Christ-exalting good is the basis of our risk (Romans 8:28). And corporately the basis of global missions, with all its risks, is the total assurance that “the kingdom of the world [will become] the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (Revelation 11:15). The mission cannot fail.

Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost write in The Faith of Leap:

It seems correct to say that God took something of a risk in handing over his mission to the all-too-sinful human beings who were his original disciples—and all the sinful disciples beyond them. We wonder what Jesus must have been thinking on the cross, when all but a few powerless women had completely abandoned him. Did he wonder if love alone was enough to draw them back to discipleship? The noncoercive love of the cross necessitated a genuinely human response of willing obedience from his disciples. Given our predispositions to rebellion and idolatry, it is entirely conceivable that history could have gone in a completely different, indeed totally disastrous, direction if the original disciples hadn’t plucked up the internal courage to follow Jesus no matter where. (36–37, Locations 464)

The view of God embodied in this quote from Hirsch and Frost is

1.false to the Scriptures;
2.built on a false philosophical presupposition;
3.damaging to the mission of Christ in the world;
4.and belittling to the glory of God.

1) False to the Scriptures

Their view of God and Jesus is that they are so little in charge of the success of the Great Commission that “it is entirely conceivable that history could have gone in a completely different, indeed totally disastrous, direction if the original disciples hadn’t plucked up the internal courage to follow Jesus no matter where.”

This is false. God is fully in control of his mission on earth: a) Jesus did not wonder if it would succeed; b) God can be utterly counted on to finish it, and c) every person ordained to eternal life will be drawn into the mission.
Continue reading

Contradiction in the death of Judas?

30 Minutes ago I received this e-mail from a former student of mine:

Pastor John,

I am taking a course in my college on History of the New Testament. My teacher, a Lutheran reverend, has claimed there is blatant contradictions in the Bible (He showed the Judas hanging one in Acts and the Gospels)… Is this guy smoking excessive amounts of marijuana laced with PCP? I didn’t pay good money to be taught by some liberal. What is your response?

My response: Well, you are definitely being taught by a liberal. There’s no doubt about that. Its the same old tired argument that has been refuted so many times. Its actually kinda boring.

There are many places where you can get good sound responses to this and other claims of contradiction in the Bible. Here’s a short response found at the Answers in Genesis website:

Regarding Judas: The relevant passages are:

Matthew 27:5
Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18
Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.

Some people have wrongly assumed that Matthew and Luke (the author of Acts) are contradictory in their account of Judas’ death. Since the Bible is inerrant, Judas cannot have died by hanging and died by falling and bursting open. Rather they are two different viewpoints of the same event. For example, if I saw a car hit a pedestrian, I might simply say that the pedestrian died because they were hit by the car. The coroner who came on the scene later but did not actually see the accident might give a graphic description of the injuries to the pedestrian. Both the coroner and I are describing the same event just different aspects of it.

Matthew tells us that Judas died by hanging (death is inferred from the passage). Luke, being a doctor, gives us a graphic description of what occurred following the hanging. The reason for ordering the events as such is twofold. First, if someone has fallen and their internal organs spilled out they would die and so could not subsequently die from hanging. Secondly, even when people suffer bad falls they do not usually burst open and have their internal organs spill out. The skin is very tough and even when cut in the abdominal area their internals do not usually spill out. Thus, it is unlikely that Judas could die in this manner merely from falling.

Gruesome as it is, Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

There is no contradiction surrounding Judas’ death; rather, merely two descriptions given by two different authors of the same event.

Hope that’s a help.

You may also want to bookmark this resource on the web, and get hold of Hank Hannegraaff’s new book “Has God Spoken?” which is an excellent apologetic resource.

Luther and the Jews

Dr. Carl Trueman is Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.

From the blog at http://www.reformation21.org/blog/.org (August 2010) he writes three short posts:

Luther and the Jews I: The Problem

Most preachers and teachers have what one student of mine calls `the candy cane class’ — that sermon or lecture which is in the back pocket, so to speak, committed to memory and there to be pulled out at a moment’s notice if, on a Sunday morning, somebody requests that you preach or teach at the last minute. For me, it’s what I call my Luther shtick: a brief account of his life up to 1518, culminating in an exposition and application of his teaching on what it is that makes a theologian of the cross.

Some years ago, I became aware, however, that each time I gave this talk, one of the first questions to come from the audience would be some variation on this basic theme: `But didn’t Luther hate the Jews and write pamphlets about them that led to the Holocaust?’

Of course, if like Rousas Rushdoony — for those at the creepier end of the Christian Life and Worldview spectrum, the doyen of historical scholars (`scholar’ being their term for him, not mine) — you don’t think the Holocaust happened, this isn’t a problem (see my posts of some years back); back on Planet Earth, however, the question has some urgency for those of us who want to make the case for Luther’s continued relevance. We can’t really dodge this one by referring to a few skinhead historians or writing foaming-at-the-mouth taxi-driver style blogs accusing our opponents of being educationally sub-normal bleeding heart liberals.

Indeed, given the fact that racism and genocide played prominent and evil roles in the history of the last 100 years, such a question is, of course, always more than just a question of the `Didn’t Luther suffer from constipation?’ variety. If Luther did hate the Jews, then surely he was a racist; and if he was a racist, couldn’t this be seen as a good gauge of his theology? And should we not therefore dismiss it as bad — at best a dead end, at worst an ideology of evil?

Certainly this view has found some significant supporters. Most famously, the American journalist, William Shirer, a man who witnessed the rise of Hitler while working in Berlin in the 1930s, proposed a positive and direct connection between Luther and the German anti-Semitism which fueled the Holocaust. Then, if you care to spend any time researching Holocaust Denial on the web, on the myriad anti-Semitic sites out there, you will find quite a few which link to Luther’s writing on the Jews. In addition, certain strands of the New Perspective on Paul, have posited links between Luther’s theology of justification and racism. This is all significant evidence that, yes, there may well be a huge theological problem here.

To put the case in a nutshell, the piece of writing which stands at the heart of the question is On the Jews and Their Lies, a work from 1543. Now, anyone who has read any of my recent posts will know that, when it comes to uncritical fans of Luther, I am right up there with the best of them; but even for a benighted Lutherophile like myself, this book is vile. Its rhetoric is revolting, and many of its suggestions — not least locking up Jews in their synagogues and burning the buildings to the ground — are not only horrific in and of themselves but, in light of events in Europe between 1933 and 1945, horribly prophetic.
Continue reading

Buses and Ambulances

“till we all come to the unity of the faith” Ephesians 4:13

“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” – Augustine

The high amount of injury and bloodshed amongst the people hurled under proverbial buses has caused great concern to me recently.

I would just make the point that the reformation slogan of “Semper Reformanda” or “Always Reforming” is a very good one. The Reformation was never just a snap shot in time, but a desire for all Christians and the Church at large to be mastered by the God-breathed word of God until all thought and doctrine was bibline.

I for one, am so glad that succeeding generations have weighed up some of the things the Magesterial reformers have said and written and decided that they were wrong – plain wrong – on some things. For example, some of the worst things ever said about the Jews, come from the lips and pen of Luther. That indeed is a terrible tragedy.

Luther was a father to German hearts the way Lincoln was and is to the people of the United States. It could be argued that Germany’s history with anti-semitism could be traced back directly to Luther’s writings. It gives me no joy at all to say so, but that is a fact. As much as we love these heroes of the faith, only Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the people of God. Yet we embrace these men even though we may strongly disagree with them on some things. Believe me, for a Jew, Luther’s rhetoric is very problematic, and I have had many a conversation with Jewish people where when the name of “Luther” came up, the conversation was basically over. Yet centuries on, I am happy to embrace Luther as my brother in Christ and fellow laborer in reformation and am thankful to God for his ministry.

I say all this because many seem to want to claim the title of “reformed” only for themselves. Some Presbytereans seek to outlaw Baptists as not being reformed, and so on. Cessationists want to do that with the likes of Piper, Grudem, Storms, D. A. Carson and so on. Without trying to be funny, I just think cessationists should just “stop it!” None of these men individually or not even all of them collectively are infallible (just like Luther or Calvin) but I think we are a sad, sad bunch of people if we do not allow these men (and others like them) to be included under the umbrella of “reformed,” because of our differences concerning spiritual gifts.

The issues are indeed important, but lets keep talking to one another, and not divide over these things, when what we share in common FAR outweighs our differences. If you can look at a D. A. Carson and say “I dont want you in our circles because you wrote a book about spiritual gifts and exegeted 1 Cor 12-14 in a way I dont agree with” – be my guest – go ahead.. but you wont find me cheering you on.

I thank God very much for my reformed cessationist friends and am happy to embrace them as co-laborers in reformation. I hope others on the other side of the aisle in this debate can do likewise in reciprocity.

Memorizing the Ten Commandments

I came across this memory device for the Ten Commandments as taught by Pastor Jim McClarty. It works! (Great for both adults and children)

(I would have preferred it if in the video, Commandment number 6 was called “Don’t murder” rather than “Don’t kill” as this is more accurate and precise. This distinction becomes important when we seek to understand other issues such as the death penalty, etc. – but other than that, this is excellent.)

Friday Round Up

(1) If you did not read the post this week about Pastor PJ Smyth’s long battle with cancer and the lessons he has learned, the furnace doesn’t consume it refines. The furnace of suffering doesn’t shout out “forsaken by God,” it shouts out “loved by God!””

You will find the article here.

(2) Inward impressions are subjective and are not a sure or even a safe guide. C. H. Spurgeon stated, “I have been the subject of such impressions, myself, and have seen very singular results. But to live by impressions is oftentimes to live the life of a fool and even to fall into downright rebellion against the revealed Word of God. Not your impressions, but that which is in this Bible must always guide you.”

He acknowledged having experienced impressions, yet affirms we should never consider them to be setting for us any kind of foundation, precedent, principle, or pattern upon which to build. That role belongs to the Word alone. I agree completely. I believe the biblical canon is closed. God is not giving inspired revelation in our day. I also believe that God does indeed lead and guide His people, sometimes even in unusual and very supernatural ways, but always, always, always in accordance with the word of God. It is the objective standard of the word of God by which we are to test every apparent and subjective leading of the Lord.

1 Thess 5:19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.

(3) Ligonier has some SUPER deals today on some excellent material in this week’s $5 Friday sale. Especially recommended is the 2003 National Conference series on CD, normally $65, but for today only is $5. I have heard this series and it is terrific. This is an amazing deal. Maybe worth getting a few of these CD sets as gifts for others – just a thought. Check it out here.

(4) “The prayer which moves the arm of God is still a sinful prayer, and only moves that arm because the Sinless One, the great Mediator, has stepped in to take away the sin of our supplication.” – C. H. Spurgeon