New Blog

My new blog can be found at: http://takethestand.net

Chief of Sinners Though I Be

The first stanza to one of my favorite hymns:

Chief of sinners though I be,
Jesus shed His blood for me;
Died that I might live on high,
Died that I might never die;
As the branch is to the vine,
I am His, and He is mine.

Feeding the Sheep? Or Amusing the Goats?

From Charles Spurgeon:

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most short-sighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, “and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.” No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him . . . .

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? “Ye are the salt,” not the sugar candy — something the world will spit out, not swallow . . . . I do not hear [Jesus] say, “Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it.

Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!” Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement . . . .

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the Church met them half-way, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God’s link in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today’s ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

Baptism - Is it necessary? Does it save?

For the purpose of preserving a comment I sent to Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries regarding baptism and whether or not it is necessary and whether or not it saves:

From: Andrew
To: apprising@hughes.net
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 12:17 PM
Subject: roman catholicism and baptism -- Apprising Ministries contact form

Ken,

Great website! I read as often as I can. Thank you for taking Scripture
so seriously.

I do have to take issue with one thing in your entry about baptism. I am
not Catholic, so I don't mean to defend their doctrine. But I do think
your analysis of 1 Corinthians 1:14 is incorrect, or at least your
interpretation mistaken. I think this is due to the fact that you've
forgotten the context of the verse. Starting at verse 10, and running
through at least verse 17, if not to the end of the chapter, we see that
Paul is speaking about divisions in the church at Corinth. This idea -
divisions - provides the necessary context:

11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are
quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow
Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still
another, "I follow Christ."
13Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into
the name of Paul? 14I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you
except....

Paul says he is thankful that he did not baptize very many because he was
concerned that the people in the church would claim "I follow Paul"! He
was concerned that his baptizing would lead to further division, because
the church was misunderstanding that ALL baptism was done in one name: God!
(Well, three names in unity, of course)

So it is really quite clear that Paul was NOT talking about whether baptism
is necessary for salvation or not necessary for salvation. I'm not even
addressing that question. What I'm saying is that this verse is
inappropriate to make the point you're trying to make. According to your
logic ("Paul, arguably the greatest evangelist after Christ Jesus Himself,
doesn’t seem to place much importance on baptism"; "Paul wasn’t sent to
baptize"), no one need be baptized, whether infant or adult. If Paul didn't
come to baptize, why should anyone be baptized?

I'm sure you don't agree that no one should be baptized. The text doesn't
mean to say that, nor does Paul ever hint at that elsewhere. Paul wasn't
even addressing the question of whether baptism was necessary. He was
merely using baptism as an example of the divisions within the church!
And without going into the issue of infant baptism (b/c that's not my point
here), your logic leads to your example of the thief on the cross, which is
a really poor choice of argument. The thief on the cross had no
opportunity to be baptized - regardless of whether baptism is necessary or
not, regardless of whether infants or only adults. He was forgiven by
Christ Himself, who I trust can allow that the man hadn't been baptized.
Using the thief to argue that baptism isn't necessary is a poor choice.

On the notion that Paul didn't "seem to place much importance on baptism",
it's clear from the context of this passage that he isn't even speaking
about baptism itself. But what does Paul ahve to say about baptism when he
is actually speaking about it?
- Acts 19:1-5 (Paul discusses & instructs disciples in Ephesus on the
meaning of baptism)
- Acts 18:7-8
- Romans 6:3-4 (Paul sure seems to think baptism is important here - it is
the key to understanding that we are no longer slaves to sin but are alive
in Christ, and sin no longer reigns over us: "We were therefore buried with
him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from
the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life")
- Ephesians 4:4-5
- Colossians 2:11-12

So Paul clearly placed great importance on baptism. Using the verse you
did, out of context, to attempt to prove that baptism isn't necessary for
salvation is mistaken, and I think even a bit irresponsible. Without
context, it becomes a prooftext for a pretext. Walter Martin recognized
that and he was right!

Anyway, I hope you understand that I do not mean to attack you in any way.
I think you are doing great work and I appreciate the time and effort you
put into this site. I value the resource and I know you are extremely
knowledgeable about these matters. I simply mean to clear up what I think
is a weak argument and a misuse of Scripture (which i'm sure wasn't
intentional).

In Christ,

Andrew

And his response:

fromApprising Ministries
toAndrew

dateMon, Sep 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
subjectRe: roman catholicism and baptism -- Apprising Ministries contact form

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for contacting Apprising Ministries. Rest assured there was nothing I found offensive in the way you wrote or within what you said. I appreciate your concern that I misunderstood the context of what God is saying through Paul in the verses I cited.

Where you might have gotten confused is I'm simply speaking of a spiritual application also taught by this passage of Scripture where you are speaking of the other side of the double-edged Sword of the Spirit in it's historical-grammatical setting.

Please keep in mind that I am wrote the article with the idea that it will be read by Roman Catholics who believe in unbiblical baptismal regeneration and am employing a mild form of sarcasm in my saying, "Paul didn't seem to place much importance on baptism." This is not then to say there is no importance in baptism.

The post in question wasn't meant as an exegesis of that passage of Scripture. I pray this helps.

Sincerely,

Pastor Ken Silva
President
Apprising Ministries
http://apprising.org/
Ezekiel 3:7-14

General Editor
Christian Research Net
http://christianresearchnetwork.com/
2 Corinthians 11:12-15

Regarding whether baptism is necessary and whether it saves, what Mr. Silva calls "unbiblical baptismal regeneration", read this great summary by Extreme Theology.
Also, here is a fantastic and basic step-by-step look at God's promises in baptism.
On the issue of infant baptism, though not really part of the above discussion but certainly relevant, see this list of Scriptures.
Last, but certainly not least, is the treatment of baptism in Luther's Small Catechism.

Quote of the Day

"The time has come to take off the velvet glove with these jokers, and tell people what they are really up to, and this is what they are up to: They are up to the perversion of the text of the Holy Scriptures.

"We are more concerned in the United States about the rights of homosexuals than we are about Who Jesus Christ is and what He did. We’re more concerned with social issues in the United States in the Christian church denominationally than we are with those who are dying in their sins without the Gospel. We are very concerned about everything except the things that really matter.

"…the only way you can deal with this is to bring it out in the open and let people see it for what it really is: It’s filth, because it is attacking at the very core the character and nature of holy Scripture, and making the Scripture say what the Scripture does not say…"

- Walter Martin

More Miller Mish-Mash

I hadn't intended on posting a second entry on Donald Miller but after visiting his website I can't not discuss him. The only reason I even thought of him in the first place is because I read an excellent article earlier today by Richard Nathan, called Green Like Envy: An Ex-pagan Looks at Blue Like Jazz.

Miller's website has a section for his different books. As I mentioned in the previous post, I was given and read Searching For God Knows What. The website description for this book, which was presumably written by Miller himself, reads [emphasis mine, grammar and spelling his]:

I wrapped this book up in a bar on Hawthorne and that night I felt like I was losing it a bit. Essentially, I had begun to wonder if had misunderstood the gospel of Jesus, thinking of it in propositional terms rather than relational dynamics. The latter seemed too poetic to be true, but the former had been killing my soul for years and was simply illogical. If we hold that Jesus wanted us to "believe" certain ideas or "do" certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy. In that bar on Hawthorne, I finished the last paragraph and felt a kind of sickness at the thought of whether or not I was telling the truth. But after further consideration, and after rewriting the book, I realized the formulaic version of Christianity was irrational, and for that matter, unbiblical. True Christian spirituality mirrors relational dynammics more than the workings of a free-market economy. This seemed to open up an entire new world to me, a world where every thought and feeling operates as a kind of living metaphor for the workings of the Godhead.

As a year has passed since the release of the book, I've seen more and more how, in my own life and in the lives of the Christians around me, we subscribe to false gospels that are troubling our souls. Because we live in a constant sales enviornment where we are told a certain car will make us sexy or a certain dishwashing detergent will be a miracle for our dishes, we assume the gospel of Jesus works the same way, that is, if we invest something, we get something more back. But this is not the case. To understand what the Bible explains Jesus' gospel to be, we must look to each other, to the way a father interacts with a child, a bride to a bridegroom, a doctor to a patient. When we let go of the idea of Jesus as a product and embrace Him as a being, our path to spiritual maturity begins.

Honestly, the more I read by this guy, the more I realize that he really has no understanding of what the Bible says or means. That entire book left me feeling, even on a page-by-page basis, that he was 'making it up as he went along' - not only the book (which rambles and jumps around in nauseating fashion), but his own version of what Christianity is or what he wants it to be. Everything this guy says reflects that he does everything to meet his own felt needs, including how he formulates the 'gospel of Jesus'.

Miller says, "If we hold that Jesus wanted us to "believe" certain ideas or "do" certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy." He doesn't provide any support or authority of any kind for such a statement, and I don't remember seeing any in the book itself either. So what did Jesus want, if he didn't want us to 'believe' or 'do'? Let's see what his word says, shall we?

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

(Matthew 21:32)

Miller says Jesus did not want us to "'believe' certain ideas or 'do' certain things". According to Miller, that is heresy. But Jesus clearly had a different idea. That's right, JESUS HIMSELF. Jesus faults the chief priests and the Pharisees for failing to believe John the Baptist. He tells them that the tax collectors and prostitutes would enter heaven before them. Why? Because they believed! In other words, their belief was a condition to entering the kingdom of God. Without belief, no entry. Then, in case there was any doubt about what Jesus was saying, he criticizes them again! Why? Because they did not "repent and believe"! It sounds a lot like Jesus DID want them "to 'believe' certain ideas and 'do' certain things (e.g. repent).

Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

(Mark 16:14-16)

Again, God's Word is crystal clear. Jesus rebukes his disciples for refusing to...believe! Why? Because he told them repeatedly that he had to die and would rise again. Then, he commissions them to go into the world and preach the gospel, the good news of Christ's resurrection and victory over death and sin. What is the point of the disciples' preaching? What is the reaction that should be found to the good news? Belief! What happens to those who will not believe? They are condemned. Clearly, Jesus desired that the world believe.
How Miller can miss this is beyond me - unless he misses it on purpose because it doesn't fit his needs.

Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

(John 14:11)

This passage is particularly instructive here. Jesus answers Philip's request to show them the Father by instructing them on his relationship to his Father. Jesus explains that he is in the Father and vice-versa, and tells the disciples that the miracles they have witnessed are evidence of his unity with the Father. Attention Donald Miller: this is doctrine! This is theology, and Jesus is giving it to us! And when he does, he tells us to 'believe' and 'do'.

But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Simon himself believed and was baptized

. (Acts 8:12-13)

This one sums up perfectly what we're talking about. Donald Miller says that Jesus did not want us to "'believe' certain ideas or 'do certain things". But here, as his disciple proclaims the good news, the hearers ignore Donald Miller: "they believed" and "they were baptized". Just as Christ instructed Philip, so Philip instructs them: believe and do.

Here are a few (of many) more passages worth reading: Mark 5:36; Luke 8:50; John 3:16-21; John 20:31; Romans 10:9.

Miller's little book description goes on: "I realized the formulaic version of Christianity was irrational, and for that matter, unbiblical." Again, no support for this statement. Nothing from the Bible to show us that this idea is unbiblical. What Miller calls "formulaic" and "irrational" winds up being those things about the Bible and Christianity he just doesn't like, isn't comfortable with, and doesn't want to bother with. In other words, if it meets his needs, it's rational and Biblical. If not, toss it out. This sounds like one of those "Choose Your Own Adventure" books I used to read as a kid. Sadly, it isn't confined to Miller alone, but many, many people in evangelicalism and emergent-ism who glom onto his books.

Miller concludes by saying that true chistian spirituality is "a world where every thought and feeling operates as a kind of living metaphor for the workings of the Godhead." Wow. I sure don't remember reading ANYTHING like that in my Bible. Maybe Miller is reading a different version. My Bible says,

All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

(Isaiah 64:6)

And,

"There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God."

(Romans 3:10-11)

And,

Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved right when you speak and justified when you judge. Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

(Psalm 51:4-5)

And especially,

I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

(Romans 7:14-20)

It seems pretty clear from the above passages that we are infected completely throughout with sin. From the moment of conception, we are sinful creatures who do not seek God. We are slaves to sin, and nothing good lives in us. Do we really agree, with Miller, that this is a "living metaphor for the workings of the Godhead"? No, and neither does the Bible. I don't have any confidence that Miller even understands the Godhead at all, and this is evidence of that. Contrary to Miller's mistaken musings, our every thought and feeling are hostile to God and filled with sin. Thankfully, by God's unlimited love and mercy, he forgives us of that evil through the sacrifice of His Son. That is, through Jesus' death and resurrection we are spared the just punishment for our sinfulness and are then transformed by His Spirit to live a life pleasing to God. Only through God's grace are we saved and made holy in His sight. This is made even more certain when we understand that Paul was writing that last passage as a Christian! Even as a redeemed sinner, saved through Christ's shed blood, Paul knew that he was a wretched sinner without Christ.

Donald Miller strikes me as a very sincere and very honest man. Everything I have read by him shows me that he is not afraid to bare his soul to the world. But sadly, he has completely forgotten what lies within our souls without the true Jesus Christ of the Bible - it is unclean and unwilling to seek God. No amount of fighting against injustice will do it, as "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags". Only the true Christ and His true gospel will suffice. Until Donald Miller is willing to dispense with his superficial felt needs, get over his hang-ups with "formula", and stop trying to shape 'christian spirituality' to meet his idea of what it is and what he wants, he will be the one who "subscribes to a false gospel". Miller thinks that "to understand what the Bible explains Jesus' gospel to be, we must look to each other". You're wrong, Mr. Miller, and you need to hear it. Don't look to others. As Paul lamented, "I know that nothing good lives in me. ... What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?" Is that really the one you think you should look to? No, Paul answers. Look to CHRIST - "Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

Donald Miller's "Prayer" at the Democratic National Convention

Donald Miller, author of the popular best-seller Blue Like Jazz, was invited to give the closing prayer, or invocation, at the Democratic National Convention last night. I was exposed to Miller about two years ago when a friend gave me a copy of one of Miller's other books, Searching For God Knows What. I won't review the book here, but suffice it to say that Miller has a very confused and extremely problematic understanding of Christianity and the Bible.

Anyway, he gave the prayer last night at the DNC. His acceptance of the offer does raise serious questions about his approval of the Democratic Party's pro-abortion and pro-gay agendas (both of which he refuses to condemn, in this interview). But leaving all that, what a wonderful opportunity this was for him to share the gospel with so many people. What a great chance for him to send out the message of God's transforming love through the death of His Son, Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sin. Did he take that opportunity? Did he talk about Jesus? See for yourself (beginning with his introduction to the prayer, from his website):

I was honored to deliver the closing prayer at the DNC on Monday night. Evangelical voices have been scarce within this party, perhaps since the Carter administration. But as strides are being made on key issues of sanctity of life and social justice, as well as peaceful solutions to world conflicts, more and more evangelicals are taking a closer look at options certain members of the Democratic Party are beginning to deliver. There is a long way to go, but sending a message to Washington that no single party has the Christian community in their pocket, thus causing each party to carefully consider the issues most important to us, is, in my opinion, a positive evolution. I am glad that, for the most part, the dialogue has been constructive and positive. Will you join me in keeping the conversation thoughtful and not reactionary?

That said, I was honored to speak to, and especially pray with and for, the DNC. Here is the full text of the prayer:

"Father God,

This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future.

We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation.

We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy.

Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.

Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.

Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.

Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle.

Hep us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education.

Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony.

We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.

Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world.

A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.

Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world.

Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.

Lastly, father, unify us.

Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.

And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.

God we know that you are good.

Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans.

I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.

Let Him be our example.

Amen."

That was pretty sad. A lot of stuff gone wrong there, but here is the main problem: "I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice." This is the oh-so-popular-nowadays 'social gospel' at work. Jesus the fighter of social injustice. The problem is that we don't see that Jesus in the Bible, or in any other account of him for that matter. The Bible doesn't say anything about a Jesus who gave his own life 'against the forces of injustice'; the Bible says he gave his own life against the forces of Hell! He gave his life in our place, to forgive our sin! WE deserved to die for our sin, and Christ was crucified IN OUR PLACE. That is why we hear that he gave his life as a 'ransom' for many - because he stepped in and accepted the punishment that we justly deserved. This Jesus who gave his own life against the vague forces of injustice is a work of pure fiction. And he certainly isn't what Miller and the social gospel-ites think he is: comforting. Jesus the fighter of injustice is comforting because he makes me feel good about myself when I "follow Jesus' example", when I give the beggar a dollar, when I attempt to feed the poor and pray for health care and college for the kids. But that comfort is short-lived, and that false Jesus brings absolutely NO comfort when the real issue sinks in: I am a miserable sinner, and all my meager attempts to be a fighter of injustice get me nowhere when it comes time to be judged. And remember who's going to do the judging: Christ! Are we really so naive and self-involved to think that we can one day stand before Christ and say, "I followed your example! I fought injustice!"?

Donald Miller hasn't said anything new. J. Gresham Machen combatted this nonsense in the 1920s. So when, in 2008, Donald Miller says, "Let Him be our example", Machen says, in 1923,

"Why then did the early Christians call themselves disciples of Jesus, why did they connect themselves with His name? The answer is not difficult. They connected themselves with His name not because He was their example in their ridding themselves of sin, but because their method of ridding themselves of sin was by means of Him. It was what Jesus did for them, and not primarily the example of His own life, which made them Christians.

But the example of Jesus is a perfect example only if He was justified in what He offered to men. And He offered, not primarily guidance, but salvation; He presented Himself as the object of men's faith. That offer is rejected by modern liberalism, but it is accepted by Christian men.

There is a profound difference, then, in the attitude assumed by modern liberalism and by Christianity toward Jesus the Lord. Liberalism regards Him as an Example and Guide; Christianity, as a Savior: liberalism makes Him an example for faith; Christianity, the object of faith."