You Can't Have True Unity in Christ Without a Fight

by Phil Johnson



    love the idea of unity built on a gospel foundation, but the success or failure of that idea hinges on our understanding of and commitment to a true, unadulterated, biblical understanding of the gospel. We know from both Scripture and the hard-fought lessons of church history that not everyone who says he is committed to the gospel really is. Not everyone who claims to stand with us in affirming gospel truth is really interested in doing the work of the Great Commission. Not everyone who signs an evangelical confession of faith actually preaches the gospel.

Some people who use a lot of gospel words actually peddle a different gospel that is nothing like the apostolic message. Invariably, the very same people who openly advocate (re)imagining Christianity also seek mainstream acceptance. The Emergent(ing) Church Movement melted down as a movement, but it hasn't gone away. Multitudes who thought the emergents' New Kind of Christianity was a Truly Great Idea have simply been dispersed back into the large shallow end of the evangelical community—where hardly anyone is willing to engage in any kind of controversy to stanch their influence.

But if we truly want any kind of gospel-based unity, we have to be willing to defend the gospel together. The gospel is not only the ground on which we unite with other believers, it is also ground we must earnestly defend against false teachers. You cannot achieve true unity unless you vigorously pursue both of those goals.

I'm just sayin' . . .

---

Right now, this is where I am

by Dan Phillips 

Most of you who care (and many of you who don't) know I'm here in Houston, TX, pastorizing and very happy about it. What most of you don't know (because I haven't said) is that I've been without my family -- and not so happy about that!

This BTW is why it was especially dear to me that Frank Turk and his terrific family took the pains to be here with me on the Sunday when I was installed as pastor. It took some sting out of my family's necessary absence to have longtime dear friends here with me and my new friends.

My dear wife and youngest sons remained in Sacramento, selling the house and finishing up various necessities. They've been working like crazy day and night, so's to reunite here in Texas. Meanwhile, I've pastored and house-hunted... and house-purchased! Using iPhone pictures and working with a terrific local agent, I was able to purchase a house near a lake. In fact, here's one of the neighbors I met from a distance the other day:

I think that's a water moccasin. He disappeared into the water before I could say "Howdy." Texas has 'way more venomous snakes than California. In California, if it didn't have a rattle, it was friendly. Not so much, here. But I digress.

So all that to say that I don't have a post for you today, because today is the day when my family is finally to arrive! The cats arrived by jet a couple of weeks ago, the furniture arrived last Wednesday and was unloaded with the help of a wonderful bunch of folks from church, and my family's driving here today.

What I'll be doing is mowing, shopping, arranging, tidying, and basically getting ready for a moment I've been looking forward to since March 9, when the sight of my family waving goodbye was one of the saddest sights I've ever seen. God's been good to Valerie and me, holding us up and being with us. But we are really looking forward to being back together, and today is that day, DV.

Pray for them as they travel, and be good in the meta.

---

In Case You Plan to Be in Finland in Mid-July

by Phil Johnson



Denmark's an option, too:

---

Compare, Contrast, Caterwaul (1 of 2)

by Frank Turk

When I ran into these older videos last week, I knew I would be blogging about them this week because of the topical nature of the subjects they cover.  What I did not remember (saying I did not know this would be false, but I always hope for the best) is that Satan controls my scheduled work load, and when I have a great blogging subject like this I wind up having more work than 5 people can accomplish, and my blogging takes a back seat.

So here's the deal:  This is the first of a 2-part post.  Today I'm posting two videos by well-respected men speaking on the same subject, and here's my ground-rule for keeping the comments open: you must find all the good things from these videos this week -- because there is something good in both of these videos.  Negative comments will simply be deleted without any warning or recourse.  Next week we'll talk about whether or not one of these videos is better than the other, and in what way, and what the other video can teach us both from a positive example and from its shortcomings.

First, from John Piper:



Second, from Tim Keller:



Mind your manners.

---

Decisions, decisions: choosing to serve the Lord

by Dan Phillips

I've remarked before (notably here, and in all these posts) that I think some highly-caffeinated Reformed types don't help The Cause much when they pick apart just about every word that comes out of most Christians' mouths.

Another example is the use made of Joshua 24:15 — "And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Popularly, two clauses are singled out from this verse: "choose this day whom you will serve," and "as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." The popular use is to call people to decision, to call them to decide for Christ, to choose to serve Him.

Hypercaffeinated Calvinists (imho) retort with a sneer that this is "decisional regeneration," or "decisionalism," or something like that. Forced to expand, they point out that Joshua is not saying "Choose whether or not you will serve Yahweh." Rather, he is saying, "If you will not serve Yahweh, then choose what false god you will serve."

Fair enough, as far as it goes. That is what the verse says. And anyone who's read the whole eighth chapter of TWTG, which is devoted to the Biblical doctrine of regeneration, knows that I don't see the Bible as teaching that new birth is caused by a human decision.

But don't humans make a decision? Is it helpful simply to dismiss the whole thought? I mean, dude, bro — what is repentance, if it doesn't involve a decision? What is faith? Don't we say that it has a volitional element? And what is the volition, if not the faculty that chooses? Don't we teach that we're all born heading south, and we have to do a 180? Isn't a reverse direction — though enabled by a work of sovereign grace — a decision?

Even putting all that aside, I don't even think the exegesis of this text stands up as a hypercaffeinated Calvinist critique.

Isn't context an important element of exegesis? Hypercaf critics do do a better job that popular Christians, in that they go back to verse 14, read all of 15, and note that the specific words are not a call to choose whether or not to serve Yahweh. Fair enough, as far as that goes.

But.

Keep reading. Read verses 16-27, and what do you see?

16 Then the people answered, "Far be it from us that we should forsake the LORD to serve other gods, 17 for it is the LORD our God who brought us and our fathers up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, and who did those great signs in our sight and preserved us in all the way that we went, and among all the peoples through whom we passed.  18 And the LORD drove out before us all the peoples, the Amorites who lived in the land. Therefore we also will serve the LORD, for he is our God."

 19 But Joshua said to the people, "You are not able to serve the LORD, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins.  20 If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm and consume you, after having done you good."

 21 And the people said to Joshua, "No, but we will serve the LORD."

 22 Then Joshua said to the people, "You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the LORD, to serve him." And they said, "We are witnesses."

 23 He said, "Then put away the foreign gods that are among you, and incline your heart to the LORD, the God of Israel."

 24 And the people said to Joshua, "The LORD our God we will serve, and his voice we will obey."

 25 So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and put in place statutes and rules for them at Shechem.  26 And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone and set it up there under the terebinth that was by the sanctuary of the LORD.  27 And Joshua said to all the people, "Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD that he spoke to us. Therefore it shall be a witness against you, lest you deal falsely with your God."

The people retort that they will serve Yahweh. Joshua replies that they won't be able to, because of their fickleness. They insist that they will serve Him. So Joshua formalizes this declaration, indicating his approval — first saying "you have chosen the LORD, to serve him" (v. 22).

In other words, they did choose Yahweh, in response to Joshua's challenge. They did choose Yahweh.

And, in conversion, so do we.

---

Pop Quiz

A Practical Example Showing Why Doctrine Is Important
by Phil Johnson



ere's a set of talking points the Jehovah's Witnesses hand to their door-to-door teams to instruct them on how to foment doubt about the deity of Christ. Some lazy JW saw an article I wrote on the deity of Christ and as a kind of shorthand reply, he e-mailed me a copy of the handout he was given by his church.^*

I wonder how many evangelicals would be prepared to give an answer.

*The misspellings and typos in the document are all exactly as they appear in the original.

Good Points For Field Service IF JESUS IS GOD Why is he called the "firstborn" of all creation? Col. 1:15, Rev.3:14 Why did he say that he did not come of his "own initiative" but was sent? John 8:42, 1 John 4:9 Why did Jesus not know the "day and the hour" of the Great Tribulation but God did? Matt. 24:36 Who did Jesus speak to in prayer? How did he "appear before the person of God for us"? Heb. 9.24 Why did Jesus say "the Father is greater than I am"? John 14:28, Php. 2:5, 6 Who spoke to Jesus at the time of his baptism saying "this is my son"? Matt. 3:17 How could he be exalted to a superior position? Php. 2:9, 10 How can he be the "mediator between God and man"? 1Tim. 2:5 Why did Paul say the "the head of Christ is God"? lCor. 11:30 Why did Jesus "hand over the Kingdom to his God" and "subject himself to God"? 1 Cor. 15:24, 28 Who does he refer to as "my God and your God"? John 20:17 How does he sit at God's right hand? Ps. 110:1, Heb. 10:12, 13 Why does John say "no man has seen God at any time"? John 1:18 Why did not people die when they saw Jesus? Ex. 30:20 How was Jesus dead and God alive at the same time? Acts 2:24 Why did he need someone to save him? Heb. 5:7 Who is reffered to prophetically at Prov. 8:22-31? Why did Jesus say "that all authority has been GIVEN to me in heaven and on earth"? Matt. 28.18, Dan. 7:13, 14 (similar) Why did he have godly fear? Heb. 5:7 How could he learn obedience and be made perfect? Heb. 5:8-9 Why would an angel be able to strengthen him or angels minister to him? Luke 22:43, Matt. 4:11 Why would Satan try to tempt him if he KNEW that he was GOD? Matt. 4:1-11 Jesus when sent to the earth was made to "be Lower" than the angels. Heb. 2:7. How could any part of a God Head EVER be lower than the angels? Then if Jesus was the sameas God, who was he being tempted to rebel against? could God be tempted to rebel against himself? Matt. 4:1 Near the end of his earthly life, Jesus cried out "My God, why have you forsaken me?" Matt. 27:46 Can God desert or forsake himself? Heb. 5:8 says that Jesus learned obedience! To whom would he obey if he was GOD? And Does God need to LEARN anything? God's justice is strickly perfect. Ex. 21:23-25 for example. The ransom price was one perfect human for another. An imperfect man's life would be too low. Ps. 49:7 If Jesus was the same as God, the ransom price paid by a God would have been too high. Adam was a perfect MAN and the ransome price was a perfect MAN, not higher nor lower.

---

A Beeline to the Cross

A bonus dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson





The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "Christ Precious to Believers," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 13 March 1859, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens, London.




the best sermon is that which is fullest of Christ. We never like to hear a sermon unless there is something of Christ in it.

A Welsh minister who was preaching last Sabbath at the chapel of my dear brother, Jonathan George, was saying, that Christ was the sum and substance of the gospel, and he broke out into this story:—

A young man had been preaching in the presence of a venerable divine, and after he had done he went to the old minister, and said, "What do you think of my sermon?"

"A very poor sermon indeed," said he.

"A poor sermon?" said the young man, "it took me a long time to study it."

"Ay, no doubt of it." "Why, did you not think my explanation of the text a very good one?"

"Oh, yes," said the old preacher, "very good indeed."

"Well, then, why do you say it is a poor sermon? Didn't you think the metaphors were appropriate and the arguments conclusive?"

"Yes, they were very good as far as that goes, but still it was a very poor sermon."

"Will you tell me why you think it a poor sermon?"

"Because," said he, "there was no Christ in it."

"Well," said the young man, "Christ was not in the text; we are not to be preaching Christ always, we must preach what is in the text."

So the old man said, "Don't you know young man that from every town, and every village, and every little hamlet in England, wherever it may be, there is a road to London?"

"Yes," said the young man.

"Ah!" said the old divine "and so form every text in Scripture, there is a road to the metropolis of the Scriptures, that is Christ. And my dear brother, your business in when you get to a text, to say, 'Now what is the road to Christ?' and then preach a sermon, running along the road towards the great metropolis—Christ. And," said he, "I have never yet found a text that had not got a road to Christ in it, and if I ever do find one that has not a road to Christ in it, I will make one; I will go over hedge and ditch but I would get at my Master, for the sermon cannot do any good unless there is a savour of Christ in it."

---

You know what? All right already.

by Frank Turk

OK: enough is enough.  I'm opening this post and the comments below for one reason only: SGM "Survivors".

Here's what I think: I think that SGM has had some problems, and they have called in a third party to assess those problems, and they are working on solutions based on that report.  And I think that there is a vocal and emotional faction of people inside and outside of SGM who are not satisfied with anything but the yet-to-be-determined volume of blood and mass of flesh to be extracted.

And there are a very small number of people who think they have the rational explanation for the whole thing and are also not entirely satisfied with where it is right now.

Me personally?  I think this is what you're going to get with Charismatic theology: when conflict raises its ugly head, people lead with emotions and self-image and forget they have an objective Christ who overcomes my sin and your sin so that the two men can become one under Christ.  That's not fantastically kind, but I think that's what this boils down to.

Anyway, here it is: the TeamPyro SGM thread.

Here are the ground rules:

1. I will delete any comments which are slanderous toward any people.  "Slander" is defined by the dictionary as "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report."  I'm qualifying as "false" anything which is not supported by evidence, and I'm qualifying as "evidence" things done publicly or reported by an objective third party.  It's a narrow gate.  See to it.
2. I will delete any comments which are rehashing things already covered by the AoR Report, or calling the AoR report false or otherwise tainted.  The world is not in a conspiracy against the battalion of people who claim SGM is run by the minions of Satan, in spite of some opinions to the contrary.
3. I will welcome thoughtful reflections on the events, but not accusations or tantrums.  "What's the difference," you ask?  Then you better not comment.  Seriously.
4. I reserve the right to be capricious and utterly unfair in my editorial prerogatives.
5. The other rules for posting here apply.

Have a nice weekend.

---