Monthly Archives: August 2014

The Facts are Never the Problem

Posted on by
Reply

Lyndon Unger writes:

A while ago, I reading Acts 4 when I noticed something I hadn’t seen before and I thought I would share with the fantastic Cripplegate readers. Acts 5:14-21 is a great little text that gives a wonderful example of the noetic effects of sin; how sin affects the mind and the rational process. The unbelieving mind is anything but neutral regarding facts and their relationship to God, and Acts 4:14-21 displays that in rather stark language.

Acts 4 follows Acts 3, where Peter and John heal a lame man who’s more than 40 years old (Acts 4:22). He’s lame, asks for money, they command him to rise up and walk, and he does (Acts 3:1-9) in full view of many people in the Temple and thousands had heard about it almost immediately (Acts 4:4). Everyone knows the guy because he’s been lying on his mat for a long time (Acts 3:10) and then Peter preaches the good news of the resurrection of Christ in the temple (Acts 3:11-26). Then, in Acts 4 Peter and John are called before the Sanhedrin the next day and the Sanhedrin read them the riot act (Acts 4:4-13). Then, comes this passage:

14 But seeing the man who was healed standing beside them, they had nothing to say in opposition. 15 But when they had commanded them to leave the council, they conferred with one another, 16 saying, “What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it. 17 But in order that it may spread no further among the people, let us warn them to speak no more to anyone in this name.” 18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” 21 And when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, because of the people, for all were praising God for what had happened.

Now that’s an amazing apologetics text with some amazing implications to apologetics and evangelism.

– The facts were irrefutable.

– The guy who was healed was standing in plain sight; everyone know he was the guy who had been paralyzed, lying outside the temple for decades. Continue reading →

My Sad Robin Williams Story

Posted on by
2

Robin_WilliamsMy publisher, Michael Gaydosh writes:

Some years ago I received a call from someone seeking help picking out books for a man she was witnessing to. After a few minutes she informed me that the man she had in mind was none other than ROBIN WILLIAMS. After giving her suggestions she let me know that she and her husband were seeing some genuine interest in him. In fact, when he was in NY he would attend Redeemer Presbyterian Church and in Toronto a Reformed Baptist Church. She told me he liked those churches because they both treated him like a sinner and not a celebrity. I asked her if I could include a copy of the book A PASTOR’S SKETCHES by Ichabod Spencer along with a personal note from me. This was done and all the books were shipped to this lady.

About three weeks later Susie and I were in CT with Rachel and her family when the phone rang. It was Robin Williams calling to thank me for the book and for the note I included. He was very humble, very appreciative and very different from the man I had always seen and heard on TV and in the movies. We talked perhaps five minutes and I told him more about the book I had sent him. He had already begun to read it and he showed a sincere interest in spiritual things. The call ended and I never heard from him again but the woman called me some six months later to say that Robin had cut off his relationship with them because his wife (I believe that was # 2) demanded him to do so. Next thing I knew he put himself into rehab, and then that marriage ended. The Lord alone knows THE REST OF THE STORY, but all of that came back to me this week when I heard of his tragic death at his own hands.

So sad, so very sad.

Does God Take Risks?

Posted on by
Reply

Derek W. H. Thomas is senior minister at First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, S.C., and Distinguished Visiting Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta. In an article from Tabletalk magazine entitled “Praying with the Patriarchs”, he writes:

Does God take risks? The question is not as silly as it sounds, and in present-day discussions regarding what is called “open theism,” it is the pertinent question to ask. But let’s ask the question again, from a different perspective. Is God’s knowledge of the future certain? Certain in the sense of being unchangeable, set down by an unalterable divine decree that cannot be changed?

The answer would seem, to orthodox Christians at least, obvious. But recently a flood of literature has emerged suggesting that the future is “open.” The so-called open theists take as one of their key texts Abraham’s prayer for Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18:22–33. On the face of it, Abraham’s prayer seems to change God’s mind over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah on the basis that fifty, then forty-five and eventually ten “righteous people” are to be found there. More pertinently for Abraham, his nephew Lot and his family lived there. The prayer is bold, even audacious! Frankly, if it wasn’t right here, in the Bible, we would not even think that such haggling (for that is what it sounds like) would emerge from the one whom the Bible calls “the friend of God” (2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8).

The “God takes risks” proponents of providence have a field-day: Continue reading →

Just so we are clear

Posted on by
Reply

visionThe word “saved” is banded about all the time in our culture. We talk about a goalkeeper making a “save,” but we do not mean by this that the goalkeeper provided atonement for the other players on his team. What we are referring to, of course, is simply that he “saved” the team from conceding a goal. In the same way, we say that a boxer was “saved” by the bell, but we do not mean that the boxer entered into heavenly bliss through his relationship with the bell. We mean that the bell which signified the end of the round, rang at the time when defeat looked inevitable, right at the moment the opponent was about to knock him out. The bell “saved” the boxer from certain defeat.

The point I am making is that when we use the term “saved,” we are referring to the concept of being saved from someone or something – to be rescued from an impending calamity.

So what does the Bible mean when it says that Christ “saves” us. What does He save us from? A low self esteem? A boring, purposeless life? Financial debt? Physical disease? It may be a surprise to discover that Christ made provision for all of man’s needs through His death on the cross. The word “salvation” in both Hebrew and Greek means “wholeness, deliverance, healing, restoration, soundness and protection…” The main aspect of the salvation He provided is to be saved or delivered from the wrath of Almighty God.

It was Jesus who declared that the wrath of God abides on the unbeliever (John 3:36). Christ therefore came into the world to “save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15), and if a person will repent and believe the Gospel, Christ will save them from the Father’s wrath. As the Scripture declares, “…Jesus delivers us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10), “for God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us…” (1 Thess. 5:9, 10)

All this was the Father’s idea. He sent His Son to save sinners from His own wrath – a wrath that is sure to come on those who do not receive His provision of grace in Christ. In other words, the Gospel or “good news” is that God saves us… from God!

Sadly though, the Church of today doesn’t usually make reference to any of this. The usual modern “Gospel” message being preached is “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.” Though the message is heard almost everywhere around us, when I turn to the New Testament, I cannot find Jesus or a single Apostle preaching this kind of message. Certainly God is a God of love. The Bible speaks of this on almost every page. There’s no doubt about that. But God is also a holy God who will never compromise His holiness.

The Apostles, as God’s fully authorized representatives, didn’t merely “invite” sinners to repent. That’s because the Gospel is not merely an invitation that can be accepted or declined with impunity. The Apostles were sent to summon people to surrender to the righteous claims of a Holy God by commanding that they repent and believe the Gospel or face eternal, terrible consequences. The Apostle Paul declared that God “commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained.” (Acts 17:30, 31). We cannot dismiss the fact that God hates sin and punishes sinners with eternal torment. How can we begin a Gospel presentation by telling people on their way to hell that God has a wonderful plan for their lives? Unless repentance takes place, the “wonderful plan” is hell itself!

The big issue in the Gospel is therefore righteousness, rather than happiness. Happiness is important, but it’s the by-product of righteousness – right standing with God. “For the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Rom. 14:17). Note the order in the verse, first righteousness, then peace, and then joy, in the Holy Spirit. There’s no real peace or joy without first obtaining righteousness.

Once the world sees the perfect standard by which they will be judged, they will begin to fear God and hunger and thirst after the righteousness that is found in Jesus Christ alone. And that’s where the Good News comes in – for it is the Lord Jesus Christ who meets our need for righteousness as He has secured salvation as a free and gracious gift for all those who will believe (Rom. 3:28; 4:4, 5; 5:17; 6:23; Phil. 3:9). Christ is the Lord our righteousness (Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21).

God is a God of love, and it is in the cross that we see God’s love for the world. How can we point to the cross without making reference to sin? How can we refer to sin without the Law? One man wrote, “The biblical way to express God’s love to a sinner is to show him how great his sin is, and then give him the incredible grace of God found in Christ.” I wholeheartedly agree. People will much more likely run to obtain the salvation, shelter, and mercy of God found in Christ alone when they are aware of the terrible wrath that is presently abiding on them. To appreciate the good news, sinners need to know the bad news that their sin is not just a minor blemish, but in reality, cosmic treason against a Holy and Righteous God. In hearing of the remedy found in Christ, this becomes to them an expression of love and concern for their eternal welfare, rather than merely helps towards finding a better lifestyle on this earth.

The Gospel is God’s Gospel (Rom. 1:1) and we have no right to seek to “improve” it. That’s impossible anyway. The Apostle Paul wrote, “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes…” (Romans 1:16) The power of God is in the Gospel of God. Let’s not dilute it with man-made imitations but lets go preach the real thing and see the Almighty, Omnipotent power of God awaken His elect from spiritual death. (John 6:37-45, 65; Eph. 1:3-5, 11; 2:1-4; Acts 13:48; 2 Thess. 2:13, 14).

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. – Romans 5:8-9

Five Myths About Reformed Theology

Posted on by
1

five01Michael Horton it is a terrific irony that a theology that so exalts God and lays human beings low before his majesty and grace should be championed sometimes with a spirit that contradicts it.

There are a lot of misconceptions about Reformed theology. I tackle these at length in For Calvinism. Here I’ve been asked to address a few of these in a nutshell.

1. “REFORMED THEOLOGY IS ARROGANT AND PRIDEFUL”
There are several impressions bound up with this critique.

First, the very name suggests that we hold up John Calvin more than Jesus Christ. Truth is, “Calvinism” was coined by critics who wanted to marginalize Reformed teaching, when actually Calvin didn’t teach anything unique that you can’t find, for example, in Augustine or Luther. Furthermore, as important as he was, Calvin was one of many shapers of the Reformed tradition. Our confessions and catechisms (none of them written by Calvin) set forth what we believe. As Charles Spurgeon said, “Calvinism is just a nickname” for what we should call “the doctrines of grace.”

Second, sinful attitudes and behaviors come from our own hearts, not from the word of God. Reformed theology exalts God and his grace, while laying ourselves low as helpless sinners and rebels who are on the receiving end of his generosity. Puffed-up pride is about the most contradictory response one can imagine to the deepest convictions Reformed churches confess.

Third, new converts to anything often possess a zeal that easily morphs into a spirit that many perceive as impatient, know-it-all, and harsh. Yet again this doesn’t fit the conviction that only the Spirit can persuade people of his truth, just as he teaches us.

2. “REFORMED THEOLOGY MAKES US ROBOTS IN GOD’S PLAN”
First, this impression rests on a basic misunderstanding of Reformed teaching. Regardless of what individuals teach, our confessions teach that human beings are never forced to believe or do anything against their will. Unpacking that requires more space, so I can only refer folks to For Calvinism, where I treat this question at length. Continue reading →

Sola Scriptura (Rightly Understood)

Posted on by
Reply

Patrick Schreiner writes:

Sola scriptura is a Reformation principle of the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in spiritual matters. Unfortunately, it is a doctrine commonly misunderstood.

Often when described by contemporary supporters and contemporary opponents the view of sola scriptura differs from what one finds in the writings of the Reformers. In other words, what is set up to sink as a misguided principle or to hoist as a banner is not sola scriptura but solo scriptura.

The major issue underlying sola scriptura is relationship between Scripture and tradition. But some who propound sola scriptura do so in the sense that Scripture clashes with tradition.

Nevertheless as Timothy Ward notes “the early fathers of the church would simply not have understood the notion of Scripture clashing with tradition” (143).

Ward then introduces three different views of tradition found in the writing of Heiko Oberman.

Tradition I:
Tradition I is the view that tradition is a tool to aid in the faithful interpretation of Scripture, expounding the primary teachings of Scripture.

Tradition II:
Tradition II asserts there are two distinct sources of divine revelation, Scripture and church tradition, with the latter being handed down either orally or through customary church practices.

Tradition o:
Tradition o exalts the the individual’s interpretation of Scripture over that of the corporate interpretation of past generations of Christians.

The Reformers saw themselves as propounding Tradition I in response to both Tradition II (Roman Catholic Church) and Tradition o (Anabaptists). They did not see themselves as introducing some new teaching about the relationship between Scripture and tradition, but rather a principle most of the church fathers had taught all along.

But sometimes being so far removed from the situation or simply hearing soundbites of what sola scriptura is causes one to slide into Tradition o. Keith Mathison argues that since the eighteenth century American evangelicalism, especially in its popular forms, has largely adopted something close to Tradition o or solo scriptura, while wrongly imagining they are remaining faithful to Luther and Calvin.

The Reformers’ conviction of sola scriptura is the conviction that Scripture is the only infallible authority, the only supreme authority. Yet it is not the only authority, for the creeds and the church’s teaching function as important subordinate authorities, under the authority of Scripture (147).

Or in the famously used phrase, “our final authority is Scripture alone, but not a Scripture that is alone.”

Reaching Muslims

Posted on by
Reply

This last Thursday (August 7, 2014), Dr. James White taught for Apologia Church’s Biblical Apologetics class on how to reach Muslims. He outlined the 3 major barriers that exist in all Muslim and Christian dialogue. Included are portions of his public debates with Islamic apologists. The presentation is very useful and practical and highly recommended.