A great article on the necessity to fight for Orthodoxy. A reminder that we are always one generation away from losing the precious Gospel. Edward's church fell, Luther's denomination is lost, Calvin's church is no longer used, Zwingli's church is empty, Yale and Harvard are gone. Don't ever think the fight for orthodox is not worth it.
An article reminding the young, restless, reformed that we will one day have to grow up. I consider myself a member of this group, and it is a good reminder that I will not always be what I am, and that's ok.
Manhood has been lost in our modern society. Kevin de Young takes a stab at defining briefly biblical manhood, and what it's not. I think he did a pretty good job.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Friday, October 7, 2011
Blogosphere Commentary 10/7/2011
Can we still believe in our Church government?
In this article Matthew Barrett graples the question of church government. The elephant in the room (sorry, couldn't resist) is if we can hold to a single "biblical" view of church leadership while still being within broader evangelicalism, which accepts many theories of church polity. Good article and I agree with Barrett that we can and should believe our church government is biblical. As a side note, I also agree with Barrett that a plurality of elders is the biblical way to go.
No commentary, just watch this video with David Platt and Lighon Duncan.
This was an brain shocker. If you were a pastor, would you marry a couple who were living together. Its a tough one, I admit very readily, but the reasons given for why pastors would do this basically come down to the statement "I guess marriage is better than living together, so why not marry them?". What? This completely sweeps sin under the rug, without dealing with it. Is this what the pastor is called to do? We need to be able to stand against sin, even if it is culturally unacceptable. Does that mean I would never perform the ceremony? Of course not. If the party repented of their sin and still wanted to enjoy the benefits of a pure marriage, then absolutely I would marry them. I echo completely the thoughts of Al Mohler:
"Pastors are stewards of a biblical understanding of sexuality. Marrying cohabiters miscommunicates the teaching function of marriage. I would only marry couples that were repentant, had forsaken the sin of cohabitating, and sought the remedy of marriage. Marriage does not simply validate the long-term commitment of a couple whose relationship has been based upon cohabitation. There's another problem, which has to do with the fact that pastors are not the only stewards of marriage. In other words, marriage is accessible to persons outside the church. So when the church allows a marriage to take place within its life, it should be validating this in a way that goes beyond marriage as a creation institution and gets to what marriage is teaching in the ceremony of the church and the church's stewardship of marriage."
A very interesting article on evangelicals "canonizing" of C.S. Lewis. Interesting and thought provoking. I like C.S. Lewis, for the record, and am very impressed with his allegories. However, I do agree with Ryken that at times we overlook obvious faults (even in Mere Christianity) because we have such a saint-like image of him.
No commentary, just watch this video with David Platt and Lighon Duncan.
This was an brain shocker. If you were a pastor, would you marry a couple who were living together. Its a tough one, I admit very readily, but the reasons given for why pastors would do this basically come down to the statement "I guess marriage is better than living together, so why not marry them?". What? This completely sweeps sin under the rug, without dealing with it. Is this what the pastor is called to do? We need to be able to stand against sin, even if it is culturally unacceptable. Does that mean I would never perform the ceremony? Of course not. If the party repented of their sin and still wanted to enjoy the benefits of a pure marriage, then absolutely I would marry them. I echo completely the thoughts of Al Mohler:
"Pastors are stewards of a biblical understanding of sexuality. Marrying cohabiters miscommunicates the teaching function of marriage. I would only marry couples that were repentant, had forsaken the sin of cohabitating, and sought the remedy of marriage. Marriage does not simply validate the long-term commitment of a couple whose relationship has been based upon cohabitation. There's another problem, which has to do with the fact that pastors are not the only stewards of marriage. In other words, marriage is accessible to persons outside the church. So when the church allows a marriage to take place within its life, it should be validating this in a way that goes beyond marriage as a creation institution and gets to what marriage is teaching in the ceremony of the church and the church's stewardship of marriage."
A very interesting article on evangelicals "canonizing" of C.S. Lewis. Interesting and thought provoking. I like C.S. Lewis, for the record, and am very impressed with his allegories. However, I do agree with Ryken that at times we overlook obvious faults (even in Mere Christianity) because we have such a saint-like image of him.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Tax Collector Prayers-NEW BLOG
Just so everyone knows, I've started a new blog specifically for written prayers.
Check it out at www.taxcollectorprayers.wordpress.com.
Check it out at www.taxcollectorprayers.wordpress.com.
The Elephant Chaos
In case you haven't heard, a disturbance has rumbled the young, restless, reformed world. James Macdonald, TGC council member, has invited the pentecostal, prosperity gospel spewing, and probably heretical (modalist) Bishop T.D. Jakes to the second round of his "Elephant Room" event. I recently published a series of tweets to catch anyone up who wasn't aware of the controversy. I have listed them below and I encourage you to read these blogs before reading my opinion and forming your own (sorry about the links not being lite up-you'll just have to do some old school copy and pasting).
First, check out the elephant room website to get the feel of the event. Maybe watch videos from the first go around http://bit.ly/grQXce
next, read the negative reaction from such notable voices as Tim Challies Thabiti Anyabwile http://bit.ly/pn7h7w http://bit.ly/qzmrLz
the response from james macdonald and mark driscoll to the controversy http://bit.ly/qcBnoQ http://bit.ly/n3Ehcv
take note that Mark Dever from 9marks bowed out of the event after previously being on the roster
Two more great responses about the situation from Justin Taylor http://bit.ly/qN6WNY and anthony carter http://bit.ly/oaIT4V #elephantroom
Finally, a direct response to James Macdonald's defense from a Master's Seminary prof http://bit.ly/nL1uYm
The real question is if T.D. Jakes is a heretic. It is quite clear that James Macdonald's answer is "no", and Mark Driscoll's answer is "we'll see". It is equally clear that Thabiti, Carter, Taylor, Dever, and Challies answer with an emphatic "yes!" If he is a heretic, the Bible is clear about rejection of false teachers.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed...If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed" Galatians 1.8-9
"If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing..." 1 Timothy 5.3-4
"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 10-11
These verses make it clear, especially the 2 John reference, that we should have nothing to do with false teachers. Men like Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers fought over a single greek letter, why should we now lie down on the same issue for the sake of unity? Overall, this is a serious lapse in judgement from the normally firm James MacDonald. To be honest, I think TGC should consider disciplining him (in whatever way they can, maybe kicking him off the counsel). He is seriously in danger of taking part in T.D. Jakes's wicked ways.
The positive side of the controversy? It brings the doctrine of the Trinity to the forefront and awaken some sleeping minds to serious issues and the importance of sound doctrine. Just as the Rob Bell controversy of yesterseason made young Christians consider the doctrine of hell (a doctrine that needs to be firmly held), so this controversy will allow deep thought on the doctrine of the Trinity. One friend I was talking with about this actually said, "The Trinity-people still argue about that?" Yes, they do. While Athanasius and the gang closed the issue back in the fifth century with the definition of Chalcedon, Oneness Pentecostalism, Mormonism, and Jehovah Witnesses, among others, deny the doctrine. For an excellent post on the importance of the issue, read Kevin de Young's blog on the Trinity. A book on the topic that would be greatly beneficial to read would be Stephen Nichol's book "For Us and Our Salvation".
Bottom line: I consider T.D. Jakes a heretic. It really isn't hard to agree on the definition of the Trinity. This isn't the second century and we aren't in unknown territory. In these pre-Chalcedonian days, this shouldn't be an issue among brothers. Conclusion? Macdonald and Driscoll are making big mistakes, and I commend Dever for backing out of the event. Best case scenario: T.D. Jakes gets exposed in the Elephant Room, is verbally condemned as a heretic by several voices, and is thrown off the set, unable to even finish the taping. More probable worst case scenario: As one blogger said, Jakes will put on his sheep's clothing and the wolf will get another platform to promote himself; and perhaps worse, be legitimized in the eyes of thousands.
First, check out the elephant room website to get the feel of the event. Maybe watch videos from the first go around http://bit.ly/grQXce
next, read the negative reaction from such notable voices as Tim Challies Thabiti Anyabwile http://bit.ly/pn7h7w http://bit.ly/qzmrLz
the response from james macdonald and mark driscoll to the controversy http://bit.ly/qcBnoQ http://bit.ly/n3Ehcv
take note that Mark Dever from 9marks bowed out of the event after previously being on the roster
Two more great responses about the situation from Justin Taylor http://bit.ly/qN6WNY and anthony carter http://bit.ly/oaIT4V #elephantroom
Finally, a direct response to James Macdonald's defense from a Master's Seminary prof http://bit.ly/nL1uYm
The real question is if T.D. Jakes is a heretic. It is quite clear that James Macdonald's answer is "no", and Mark Driscoll's answer is "we'll see". It is equally clear that Thabiti, Carter, Taylor, Dever, and Challies answer with an emphatic "yes!" If he is a heretic, the Bible is clear about rejection of false teachers.
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed...If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed" Galatians 1.8-9
"If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing..." 1 Timothy 5.3-4
"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works." 2 John 10-11
These verses make it clear, especially the 2 John reference, that we should have nothing to do with false teachers. Men like Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers fought over a single greek letter, why should we now lie down on the same issue for the sake of unity? Overall, this is a serious lapse in judgement from the normally firm James MacDonald. To be honest, I think TGC should consider disciplining him (in whatever way they can, maybe kicking him off the counsel). He is seriously in danger of taking part in T.D. Jakes's wicked ways.
The positive side of the controversy? It brings the doctrine of the Trinity to the forefront and awaken some sleeping minds to serious issues and the importance of sound doctrine. Just as the Rob Bell controversy of yesterseason made young Christians consider the doctrine of hell (a doctrine that needs to be firmly held), so this controversy will allow deep thought on the doctrine of the Trinity. One friend I was talking with about this actually said, "The Trinity-people still argue about that?" Yes, they do. While Athanasius and the gang closed the issue back in the fifth century with the definition of Chalcedon, Oneness Pentecostalism, Mormonism, and Jehovah Witnesses, among others, deny the doctrine. For an excellent post on the importance of the issue, read Kevin de Young's blog on the Trinity. A book on the topic that would be greatly beneficial to read would be Stephen Nichol's book "For Us and Our Salvation".
Bottom line: I consider T.D. Jakes a heretic. It really isn't hard to agree on the definition of the Trinity. This isn't the second century and we aren't in unknown territory. In these pre-Chalcedonian days, this shouldn't be an issue among brothers. Conclusion? Macdonald and Driscoll are making big mistakes, and I commend Dever for backing out of the event. Best case scenario: T.D. Jakes gets exposed in the Elephant Room, is verbally condemned as a heretic by several voices, and is thrown off the set, unable to even finish the taping. More probable worst case scenario: As one blogger said, Jakes will put on his sheep's clothing and the wolf will get another platform to promote himself; and perhaps worse, be legitimized in the eyes of thousands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)