reformed blogging.

I ask’d the Lord that I might grow
In faith, and love, and every grace:
Might more of His salvation know,
And seek more earnestly His face.

I hoped that in some favour’d hour
At once He’s answer my request,
And, by His love’s constraining power,
Subdue my sins and give me rest.

Instead of that, He made me feel
The hidden evils of my heart,
And let the angry powers of hell
Assault my soul in every part.

‘Lord, why is this?’ I trembling cried,
‘Wilt thou pursue a worm to death?’
”Tis in this way,’ the Lord replied,
‘I answer prayer for grace and faith.

These inward trials I employ
From self and sin to set thee free:
To break thy scheme of earthly joy
That thou mayst seek thy all in Me.’
-Alexander Whyte, Thomas Shepard: Pilgrim Father and Founder of Harvard, 52.

Christian officers in the Church should show their loyalty to Christ in their capacity as members of the individual congregations. The issue often arises in connection with the choice of a pastor. Such and such a man, it is said, is a brilliant preacher. But what is the content of his preaching? Is his preaching full of the gospel of Christ? The answer is often evasive. The preacher in question, it is said, is of good standing in the Church, and he has never denied the doctrines of grace. Therefore, it is urged, he should be called to the pastorate. But shall we be satisfied with such negative assurances? Shall we be satisfied with preachers who merely “do not deny” the Cross of Christ? God grant that such satisfaction may be broken down! The people are perishing under the ministrations of those who “do not deny” the Cross of Christ. Surely something more than that is needed. God send us ministers who, instead of merely avoiding denial of the Cross shall be on fire with the Cross, whose whole life shall be one burning sacrifice of gratitude for the blessed Saviour who loved them and gave Himself for them! - J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 175-6.

Some pastors and preachers are lazy and no good. They do not pray; they do not read; they do not search the Scripture … The call is: watch, study attend to reading. In truth you cannot read too much in Scripture; and what you read you cannot read too carefully, and what you read carefully you cannot understand too well, and what you understand well you cannot teach too well, and what you teach well you cannot live too well … The devil … the world … and our flesh are raging and raving against us. Therefore, dear sirs and brothers, pastors and preachers, pray, read, study, be diligent … This evil, shameful time is not the season for being lazy, for sleeping and snoring. -  Martin Luther

Recently, International Director for Frontiers, Rick Love, responded to John Piper’s video on A Common Word, a document sent from Muslim scholars, which 300 Christian leaders have signed, expressing unity with Muslims on God’s command to love one another as central to both religions. For the full response see here. I do not question motives and I think it’s safe to assume that none who signed the document did so with any intent or motive to dishonor Christ, but were seeking that through open dialogue and discussion to share the gospel of Christ.

In his response, Rick Love mentions dialogue as a means of evangelism rather than replacing evangelism, and I find this very much agreeable. Yet dialogue presupposes common ground and I am hard-pressed to find any genuine points of agreement between the foundational beliefs of Islam and Christianity. According to Rick Love one common basis is God or Allah. Below is a portion of his response to Piper’s video and I while much of it sounds good, I think that to hold to the common ground that the document calls for is to abandon the fundamentals of Christianity.

Here’s Rick Love’s response as well as some commentary:

Q: The Yale Response seems to imply that Allah is the same God that Christians worship. Is this true?

A: I do not hesitate to refer to the God of the Bible as Allah, since Arab Christians before and after the birth of Islam use the term Allah to describe the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I think if we’ve learned anything from our dealing with the Emerging Church it’s to define our terms. Over time words change their meanings, sometimes meaning something completely contrary to what it first meant. For instance, words like “bad” sometimes take on a radically different meaning and go from a negative word to a positive one. This can also occur with more important words, such as Allah. Though earlier Christians have used the word in reference to the Christian God, and some may use it even now in other cultures, I do not think it is wise nor completely honest for us, Western Christians, to refer to God as Allah for the sake of “common ground” and I think this becomes mere dishonesty if we use it with Muslims. If we are to use it we must make it absolutely clear (which Rick Love does, but this cannot be said for the general signers of the document) that the Christian “Allah” is the only God, the God of the Bible, and as it says in Scripture, He is the Triune God, one God, three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Christian and Muslim views of God are similar in that we both worship the one true God, creator of the heavens and the earth. We both believe this God will judge all peoples at the end of history. We both believe this God has sent His prophets into the world to guide His people. Christian and Muslim views of God differ primarily regarding the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity, and especially regarding the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Here Rick Love seems to contradict himself. If a Christian Allah is Triune, while the Allah of Islam is not, if Islam does not acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, the image of the Father, then we cannot properly say that we are both worshiping the same God, much less, the one true God unless we throw out any form of rationality. Until Muslims agree that Allah is the Triune God we cannot say, and ought not dare come close to saying that we worship the same God lest we dishonor the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And if God is to judge all peoples at the end of history, according to what standard will He judge? Based only on works based righteousness? Will God forgive those whom He chose through Jesus Christ His Son whom He reconciled to Himself through the propitiation of Christ? Or will He unjustly allow imperfect sinners who try hard to enter into heaven? We both believe God has sent His prophets, but to what end? And was Jesus Christ merely a prophet? Was Mohammed a prophet? The fact that Christians and Muslims differ on their views of the Fatherhood of God, the Trinity and life, teaching, death and the resurrection of Jesus Christ means that they disagree with all of Christianity. What has Christ to do with Belial?

I believe that Muslims worship the true God. But I also believe that their view of God falls short of His perfections and beauty as described in the Bible. Thus, I try to model my approach to Muslims after the apostle Paul who said to the Athenians: “What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you” (Acts 17:23).

If Muslims deny the Deity of Christ, the exact representation of God’s nature, the image of the invisible God, then we cannot say that we are worshiping the same God. Their view is not a view that merely falls short, their view is completely contrary to the Christian God. When Paul was in Athens he said what he said because he saw an altar with an inscription “to an unknown God.” The Athenians were clearly lost and confused. They were searching for something they did not know. This cannot be said about Muslims. They have already declared that Christ Jesus is not the Son of God. They do not worship in ignorance, they are very clear about their beliefs and so it would require turning our backs to what is plain to say that they are not at this moment worshiping in ignorance. Muslims do not claim to be seeking anything more than what they have, just as Christians do not claim to seek more truth outside of Scripture. Unless we show them that the basis of their entire faith is contrary to Christ, rather than encouraging them to continue in their ways, then we cannot lead them to the truth.

Muslim background believers all over the world testify that they were previously worshiping God in ignorance and now they have come to know him in Jesus Christ.

I know that Rick Love is sincere in wanting to see Muslims come to Christ, and we all should be. Yet the way to win the lost is not to give in to undefined, vague commonalities. If we are to establish dialogue with Muslims it must be on honest and open truth. We must state at the forefront what it is that we believe about the fundamentals, about Scripture, the Deity of Christ, the Triune God, etc. God is the one who changes the heart, He grants repentance. It will not come about through compromises but through the upholding of the message of Christ. Namely, we need to preach repentance to all men that they may turn to Christ. All men are under sin and no matter how religious one is, they still need to realize that they are not just confused people heading in the right direction. No, all have sinned and there is no one who seeks after God. Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists, agnostics, all men everywhere must repent. Why? Because we are all sinful people who have rebelled against a holy God. And the only way to get to a holy God is through His perfect Son who came and died to be punished as a substitute. And it was necessary that He be God, for none but God can pay the penalty of the Father’s wrath which we deserved. It was necessary for Christ to die and be raised again to life to demonstrate His victory over death. The message of Christ is not a message of encouraging rebellious sinners to continue in their obstinate ways but to turn to Christ! We must not peddle the gospel, but must preach the word of God without fear. Yes, people will be offended, yes, there will be those who hate us for it, but Christ has promised that persecution would come to those who followed Him. Because the world hated Him they will hate us as well.

I know that those who signed the document did so with good intentions and to win over the lost. But how will we convince Muslims of the supremacy of Christ when we leave Him out of the main discussion? We must show that there is no one greater than Christ and that He is all in all, and we cannot do this unless we refuse any form or hint of compromise. We will not allow anyone to even begin to think that Christ is not the Son of God, that He did not die, that He was not raised again, that He does not sit at the right hand of God, for to compromise Christ is to compromise the entirety of our hope and faith.

Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria

“Conversion is not the smooth, easy-going process some men seem to think . . . . It is wounding work, of course, this breaking of the hearts, but without wounding there is no saving. . . . Where there is grafting there is a cutting, the scion must be let in with a wound; to stick it on to the outside or to tie it on with a string would be of no use. Heart must be set to heart and back to back, or there will be no sap from root to branch, and this I say, must be done by a wound.” - John Bunyan, The Excellency of a Wounded Heart

Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from “controversial” matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight. - J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, 1-2.

There are two ways to do apologetics. The first is to argue based on the unbelievers presuppositions, which is called traditional or evidential apologetics. In this form of apologetics one tries to convince the unbeliever from a “neutral” point of view that God probably exists, due to evidences, scientific facts, etc. The argument is for a general God, first, then to show that there is a great deal of evidence showing that Christianity might be the true religion. As you might already be able to see through the language, this is an apologetics of probability. The most that anyone can show to an unbeliever is that there is good reason to believe, but not an absolute necessity to believe. In traditional apologetics the Christian is arguing from creation to God, and once he/she has established God the argument goes from historical evidence to Christ. But, again, all of this is based on the presupposition of the unbeliever that either God does not exist, or in unknowable or could be the God of any form of religion. The presupposition that both the unbeliever and Christian are working from is that science and historical evidence holds absolute sway, and thus man holds absolute sway over what is true and what is not, over and above the word of God. Based on these presuppositions, it is impossible to “objectively” show an unbeliever that Christianity is the right religion. The traditional form of apologetics only suggests or, at best, strongly suggests that it is true. Because Christianity is presented as a mere probability it can be dismissed like any other belief. There is no way that the Christian can tell the unbeliever “unless you repent, you will likewise perish.” For such a strong statement must be made on absolutes, namely that Christianity is the only true religion, which, again, cannot be proved upon false, atheistic, God-reducing presuppositions.

The second form of apologetics is what is commonly known as presuppositional apologetics. This differs from traditional in that rather than argue from the unbelievers presuppositions, the Christian digs deeper and argues presuppositions themselves. What does this mean? The Christian challenges the unbelievers underlying beliefs to show that there is really no such thing as neutrality or objectivity on their side. The challenge is this: upon what grounds does the unbeliever dismiss the word of God as untrue and hold science/history as absolute. In evidential apologetics this is often an unchallenged presupposition and to argue from it would be to argue from a bad foundation that can only build a bad house. To lead an unbeliever to Christian Theism one must argue on the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God. Why? Because God exists and because He is God and is sovereign and has revealed Himself though creation. Evidence does not serve to merely prove His existence, but affirms it. On top of all this the presuppositionalist recognizes that the unbeliever is in rebellion against God and he “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.” Thus, to argue traditionally is not only to argue on false presuppositions, but upon presuppositions that are hostile to God. The unbeliever does not want to believe in the Christian God, and will choose anything whether it be atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Islam, anything is acceptable except for the truth. To seek to know anything based on a consistently non-Christian presupposition is impossible, since such a presupposition is based on chance or on false, inconsistent assumptions. Yet atheists do not live by chance, but live according to basic principles and laws such as the law of gravity or the uniformity of nature, they utilize the laws of logic to figure things out, yet upon atheistic presuppositions this is ridiculous. To hold to the uniformity of nature requires that one believe in more than chance, yet the atheist refuses one and holds to the other. It becomes clear then, to argue with an atheist based on atheistic presuppositions inconsistent from his/her life will only result in sheer absurdity. To utilize the laws of logic (which are blindly accepted as true by the atheist) to argue against God is as preposterous as a child slapping her father in the face and denying his existence while sitting on his knee.

The fact is, God did create the universe, Christ is the Son of God who came and died to reconcile sinners to God. Anyone, then, who refuses this in light of creation (which clearly attests to the power of the invisible God) in light of our ability to utilize logic, or our ability to reason (which is unjustifiable on atheistic grounds which give no reason to adhere to the laws of logic) our sense of morality (again unjustifiable on atheistic presuppositions or any other non-Christian presuppositions for that matter), and finally in light of God’s revelation in Scripture sins against God and is continually in sin until he/she repents. Only upon presuppositional grounds can the Christian present Christ and the Kingdom of God with a demand to repentance. And finally, only upon presuppositional grounds can the Christian offer the free, unconditional gospel of Christ to sinful unbelievers who need Christ’s righteousness as absolute truth and thus absolute good news.

So I decided to get off reading heavy stuff and spend more time studying Greek. Thought that I would accomplish this by reading something smaller thus seemingly “light.” I picked up this book, small, short (100 pages and four dollars!) thinking that that would happen. I was wrong. Despite it’s brevity this devotional book is packed with theology. This is s a prime example of deep theology meeting high doxology. Though theology should never be separated from worship, it is often difficult to find books that bring the two together with such force. In a day when everyone is trying to live their “best life now” it is refreshing to find a book so solidly and passionately based on Truth. As Edwards Donnelly says in the foreword, “No words are wasted. There is nothing of the frothy and unsubstantial. Here is satisfying truth, painstakingly quarried and crafted for the needs of God’s people.”

Here’s a little quote:

Warfield reminds us that our Lord’s life of humiliation ‘was not His misfortune, but His achievement’, and that ‘He was never the victim but always the Master of circumstance’. This must be borne in mind as we reflect on the Savior obediently taking the oath. His response was clear: ‘You have said so’, meaning, ‘Yes indeed; I am the Christ.’ It is interesting to compare Christ’s response to Judas who, having heard the master speak of his betrayer, asked, ‘Is it I?’ Christ replied, ‘You have said so’ (Matt. 26:25). And so in Mark’s account of Christ’s response to Caiaphas’ question, ‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?’ We read, ‘And Jesus said, “I am…” (14:61). Caiaphas wanted a forthright ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; he received a definite ‘Yes’. The Apostle Paul, thinking of Christ’s words to Pilate, spoke of his ‘good’ or ‘beautiful’ confession (I Tim. 6:13). His answer to Caiaphas was worthy of the same description.

All agreed that the prisoner was guilty of blasphemy and that he should die. They refused to acknowledge his claims. ‘His own people did not receive him’ (John 1:11). In the full light of his character , teaching and deeds, they rejected him. The cry of their hearts was, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us’ (Luke 19:14). So answers the heart of fallen man when confronted with Christ and the challenge of his cross and his crown. Never had the members of the Sanhedrin heard a proclamation so majestic as that which fell upon their ears when Christ declared his Messiahship and warned of the second advent. But unbelief and prejudice blinded them to the truth.

There is no more solemn moment when one is confronted by the Christ of God. Is he a fraud and an impostor? or is he the world’s Saviour and the world’s Judge?

‘What think ye of Christ?’ is the test
To try both your state and your scheme;
You cannot be right in the rest
Unless you think rightly of Him.

- Frederick S. Leahy, The Cross He Bore, 45-7.

Here is a passage from Marsden’s biography of Edwards regarding new interpretations of Scripture during the Enlightenment. Edwards’ words seem especially important today:

“How wonderful is it, he mocked, that these ‘new writers‘ have discovered in the Apostle Paul meanings so deep that they escaped the view of all previous interpreters for fifteen or sixteen hundred years. ‘No wonder then, if the superficial discerning and observation of vulgar Christians, or indeed of the herd of common divines, such as the Westminster Assembly, etc. falls vastly short of the Apostles reach.’ We have to realize, Edwards continued his irony, that the Reformers and all interpreters before and since ‘dwelt in a cave of bigotry and superstition, too gloomy to allow ‘em to use their own understandings with freedom, in reading the Scripture.’ Now, though, moderns have left the cave and ascended to the light. ‘It must be understood, that there is risen up, now at ength in this happy age of light and liberty, a set of men, of a more free and generous turn of mind, a more inquisitive genius, an better discernment.’” - Jonathan Edwards, quoted from George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life, 457

5. Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can.