The Church: The Gospel Made Visible

What Does the Bible Say?

The Nature of the Church

The church is the body of people called by God’s grace through faith in Christ to glorify him together by serving him in his world.

The People of God in the Old Testament: Israel
In order to understand the church in the full richness of God’s revealed truth, we must examine both the Old and New Testaments. Christians may sometimes use the phrase “a New Testament church,” but the shape of the visible church today bears a clear continuity—though not identity—with the visible people of God in the Old Testament.

God’s eternal plan has always been to display his glory not just through individuals but through a corporate body. In creation God created not one person but two, and two who have the ability to reproduce more. In the flood God saved not one person but several families. In Genesis 12 God called Abram and promised that Abram’s descendents would be as numerous as the stars in the sky or the sand on the seashore. In Exodus God dealt not only with Moses but with the nation of Israel—12 tribes comprised of hundreds of thousands of people yet bearing one corporate identity (see Exod 15:13–16). He gave laws and ceremonies that should be worked out not only in the lives of individuals but also in the life of the whole people.

In the Old Testament, Israel is called God’s son (Exod 4:22), his spouse (Ezek 16:6–14), the apple of his eye (Deut 32:10), his vine (Isa 5:1–7; Nah 2:2), and his flock (Ezek 34:4). Through these names God foreshadowed the work he would eventually do through Christ and his church.   Continue at B&H Blog

Will The Defenders Of Michael Servetus Please Stand Up

Some words of Michael Servetus provoking John Calvin:

"The title makes me marvel at the impudence of the man who boasts of being a Catholic, although he is a disciple of Simon the magician, as I have evidently shown in my Apology. Who will say that a prosecutor* and a homicide is a true minister of the Church?" 

“You do not know what you say—you are a wretch, if you persist in condemning what you do not understand. Did you think to stun the ears of the judges by your barking? You have a confused intellect, so that you cannot understand the truth. Wretch! perverted by Simon Magus, you are ignorant of the first principles of things—you make men only blocks of wood and stone by establishing the slavery of the will.”

“If I have said that—not merely said it, but publicly written it—to infect the world, I would condemn myself to death. Wherefore, my Lords, I demand that my false accuser be punished, pœnâ talionis, and that he be detained a prisoner like me, till the cause be decided for his death or mine, or other punishment. And to accomplish that, I now lodge an accusation against him for the said pœnâ talionis. And I am content to die if he be not convicted of these things, as well as of others which I shall bring forward” (emphasis mine).

“Wherefore, like a magician, as he is, he ought not merely to be condemned, but to be exterminated and hunted from your city; and his goods ought to be confiscated to me in return for mine, which he has caused me to lose; which things, my Lords, I request from you” (emphasis mine).

William Tweedie writes:

As to the right to inflict punishment for the excess of religious opinion, and to chastise impiety, that was never a question in the mind of the magistrate. In condemning Servetus and his doctrines, the Council of Geneva did not think that it was doing aught more strange than in declaring Berthelier capable of receiving the communion.  Continue at Fernando Ramirez

Does Justification Still Matter?

Once upon a time, the label evangelical identified those who were committed not only to historic Christianity but to the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In our day, however, that can no longer be taken for granted. Increasingly, evangelical scholarship is challenged by trends in biblical studies (especially the New Perspective on Paul) to abandon the Reformation's understanding of justification. Recent ecumenical rapprochements (such as the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification and "Evangelicals and Catholics Together") have revised and relativized this key article. (1) 

Remarkably, in a new book with essays by mainline Protestants (Lutheran and Reformed) and Roman Catholics on justification, the former reject the Reformation doctrine (by appeal to the New Perspective on Paul) while leading Roman Catholic New Testament scholar Joseph Fitzmeyer demonstrates the technical accuracy of the Reformation's exegesis of the relevant passages. In his book Is The Reformation Over?, leading evangelical scholar Mark Noll seems to be speaking for a lot of conservative Protestants in answering yes.

Outright criticism of the doctrine of justification as it is defined in our Reformed confessions and catechisms has become common even in conservative churches. Although the church courts of these sister denominations have exhibited a heartening solidarity in standing for the confessional position and prosecuting ministers who oppose it, it is tragic that controversies over this cardinal doctrine should arise in our own circles. 

Most people in the pew, however, are simply not acquainted with the doctrine of justification. Often, it is not a part of the diet of preaching and church life, much less a dominant theme in the Christian subculture. With either stern rigor or happy tips for better living, "fundamentalists" and "progressives" alike smother the gospel in moralism, through constant exhortations to personal and/or social transformation that keep the sheep looking to themselves rather than looking outside of themselves to Christ. Even in many churches formally committed to Reformation teaching, people may find the doctrine of justification in the back of their hymnal (in the confessions section), but is it really taken seriously in the teaching, preaching, worship, and life of the congregation? The average feature article in Christianity Today or Christian best-seller is concerned with "good works"-trends in spirituality, social activism, church growth, and discipleship. However, it's pretty clear that justification is simply not on the radar. Even where it is not outright rejected, it is often ignored. Perhaps the forgiveness of sins and justification are appropriate for "getting saved," but then comes the real business of Christian living-as if there could be any genuine holiness of life that did not arise out of a perpetual confidence that "there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). 

Of course, it's impossible to track down all the reasons for the attitude toward this doctrine that lies at the heart of the gospel itself. However, in this article I will point out a couple of the dominant sources.   Continue at Michael Horton

The Centrality of Preaching

Preaching has fallen on hard times. The great Protestant Reformer, John Calvin, wrote: “At the present day there are many who are well-nigh sickened by the very name of preaching, because there are so many stupid, ignorant men who blurt out their worthless brain waves from the pulpit.” That was 450 years ago! Today not only has preaching been decentralized, but the greater part of what is called “preaching” no longer deserves to be at the center. This has created a vacuum and few have raised a voice while a Pandora’s Box of replacements has rushed in to fill the void.”

A.W. Tozer said of the danger: “One of the most popular current errors, and the one out of which springs most of the noisy, blustering religious activity in evangelical circles, is the notion that as times change the church must change with them…That mentality which mistakes Hollywood for the Holy City is too gravely astray to be explained otherwise than as a judicial madness visited upon professing Christians for affronts committed against the Spirit of God.”

And John MacArthur aptly described it: “Worship services in many churches today are like a merry-go-round. You drop a token in the collection box; it is a good ride. There’s music and lots of motion up and down. The ride is carefully timed and seldom varies in length. Lots of good feelings are generated, and it is the one ride you can be sure will never be the least bit threatening or challenging. But though you spend the whole time feeling as if you’re moving forward, you get off exactly where you got on.”

A BRIEF HISTORY OF PREACHING

The 16th century Reformation, 17th century Puritanism, and the 18th century “Great Awakening” were all revivals of preaching! Whatever else they were, they brought preaching back to the center. Similarly, periods of decline were marked by a corresponding decline in preaching. The 19th century languished under the influence of Charles Finney’s “new measures.” Preaching was reduced to “moral suasion.” This is reflected in modern “crusade evangelism” in which the sermon has become a mere prelude to the “invitation.” The 20th century dawned with the pulpit histrionics of Billy Sunday. Preaching had become “pulpiteerism.” A more sophisticated retreat was found in the “quiet talks” of inspirational liberalism. “Sharing” rather than preaching marked the advent of a “kinder, gentler” Christianity.”

“The miserable phrase, sharing Christ, which so sickens those of us who believe that the work of preaching not that of sharing an experience but of proclaiming a message.” (J. Gresham Machen)  Continue at Tom Lyon

Five Misdiagnosed Symptoms

In the Emergency Room, decisions of life and death are regularly made with extreme pressure and very limited information. Symptoms present themselves and a trained, discerning mind diagnoses the real issue. Get it right and the treatment plan takes over. Get it wrong and not even the best treatment plan is able to fully help.

But what about diagnosing spiritual problems? Only God is omniscient and has a full, uninfluenced view of the human heart (1 Samuel 16:7). As believers, our discernment must be driven by the insights and fruit Scripture directs us toward as His Word exposes and corrects issues of the heart (Matthew 7:20; Hebrews 4:12-13). Many more could be added, but here are five symptoms that are commonly misdiagnosed by pastors:

1. Remorse misdiagnosed as repentance

Remorse is the reaction to the temporal, human consequences of sin. It springs from guilt and often seeks to halt the sin for a season. Mere remorse does not require any supernatural power. Remorse is not repentance. True repentance is God’s supernatural, sanctifying work in our hearts! It is both forsaking sin and turning to righteousness (2 Corinthians 7:10-11). It is the abandoning of self as the Spirit works in us to put off sinful thoughts, words and actions and works in us to putting on righteousness (Colossians 3:1-11) producing His fruit (Galatians 5:22-23). Guilt and God’s wrath are not erased by remorse and His discipline will continue to remain until a believer is brought to repentance on a given sin issue (Hebrews 12:6).   Continue at Jim Stitzinger

A Call and Agenda for Pastor-Theologians

There have never been this many Christians around the world, yet few know much about God, the actual contents of the Bible, or the ways in which God's people have interpreted and applied the Bible historically. Many Americans, at least, still go to church and read the Bible--as their social lives permit. Even more in the Global South do so with fervency and zeal. Still, despite our apparent esteem for the Bible's status and authority, few believers know as much about its contents as they do about Hollywood movies, popular music, or athletics.

Indeed, as anyone who teaches in our churches can attest, few today know the Ten Commandments (I mean all ten, in proper order), the twelve apostles, the letters of Paul, or even the titles of the books included within the biblical canon. A basic grasp of Bible doctrine is also hard to find today. How many Christians do you know who can articulate what Scripture teaches about our Lord's two natures, the ministry of the Spirit, or the nature of the church? Even first-year seminarians have trouble with these things.

The church wants education and needs theological leaders. In this day when many pastors lead non-theologically, and academics work in a way that is lost on the people of God, we need pastor-theologians who can minister the Word in ways that edify the saints and offer a winsome public witness to the goodness, truth, and beauty of the Lord and his will for us.

The time is ripe for dialogue, even charitable debate, regarding the best way forward. So I offer the following theses in the hope that they will incite a large number of church leaders--in congregations and divinity schools--to think together with me about how we can serve God's people more effectively as preachers, teachers, and Christian educators.

1. Our churches and our world desperately need pastors to lead and teach theologically.    Continue at Douglas A. Sweeney

10 Simple Ways to Encourage your Pastor

Truth: “Hey preacher man, good sermon!” is nice…but come on, we can do better than that, right?

We can do better than the shoulder squeeze with the solemn look in the eye. Better than the slow head nod of approval. Especially when we remember that our pastor spends hours each week pouring out their heart on stage, ministering to and in our communities, and shepherding hard-heads like us.

The work of a pastor is often lonely, difficult work…we need your encouragement.

Encouragement isn’t that difficult, but it takes being intentional.

10 Ways to encourage your pastor:

 

1. Appreciate the work they do throughout the week, not just on Sunday. You know that being a pastor is more than a Sunday gig, right? We don’t love that you-only-work-one-day-a-week ribbing, by the way.

2. Take notes on Sunday. This is a great way to encourage your pastor…at least act like you’re going to work diligently to remember and apply their teaching.   Continue at Ben Reed

Would Jesus Have a Facebook Page?

“When [Jesus] came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.’ And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, ‘I will; be clean.’ And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.”

A recent article in USA Today by Cathy Lynn Grossman cites examples of the growing tendency in churches to treat the Internet as a genuine ministry-provider. It’s not just about having websites and email contacts, but about assuming that digital contact is actual ministry. [Cathy Lynn Grossman, "Church Outreach Takes on a New Technical Touch," Wednesday, April 18, 2012.] According to the report, for example, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association offers a page for visitors to sign on the sinner’s prayer and “turn up in a real-time scroll of latest ‘decisions’ at www.SearchforJesus.net…” Grossman writes, “Technology should ultimately be an enhancement, not a replacement, for gathering in person for worship, discussion, debate and service to others, Drew Goodmanson says. Goodmanson is chief executive officer of Monk Development, which helps churches use the Internet to fulfill their missions. He appreciates that ‘you can have a digital Bible in the palm of your hand or connect with others in prayer any time anywhere.’ Nevertheless, Goodmanson says, ‘Jesus would not have a Facebook page. He wouldn’t be stopping in an Internet café to update his status.’” Thank God.

Responding to the USA Today article, Al Mohler helpfully points out some of the costs and benefits. It’s a great benefit that we can read lots of content on-line to which he had limited access before. Yet, he observes, “A digital preacher will not preach your funeral. The deep limitations of digital technologies become evident where the church is most needed. Don’t allow the Internet to become your congregation. YouTube is a horrible place to go to church.”   Continue at Michael Horton

The Preface and Opposition to New Translations

In a previous post I noted that the Preface to the 1611 King James Version is an embarrassment to KJV-only advocates because in it the translators of the KJV make a series of statements that argue against the KJV-only position. Since KJV-only proponents insist that only the KJV is the Word of God in English, they are radically opposed to any English translation produced in the last 400 years.

Prior to the KJV, there had been many English translations of Bible: Wycliffe (1382), Tyndale (NT, 1526), Coverdale (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishops’ Bible (1568), and the Douai-Rheims (1609–10). Since these and other translations were already available in 1611, the translators of the KJV believed there would be hostility to their new translation, and so they were quick to address the issue in the Preface:

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any­thing ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, de­serveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold enter­tainment [reception] in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil [trivial objection] to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story [history], or have any experience. For was there ever any thing projected, that savoured any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying or opposition?

This, and more to this purpose, his Majesty that now reigneth…knew full well, according to the singular wisdom given unto him by God, and the rare learning and experience that he hath attained unto; namely, that whosoever attempteth any thing for the publick, (specially if it pertain to religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the same set­teth himself upon a stage to be glouted [frowned] upon by every evil eye; yea, he casteth himself headlong upon pikes [spears], to be gored by every sharp tongue. For he that meddleth with men’s religion in any part med­dleth with their custom, nay, with their freehold [an estate or office held for life]; and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering.  Continue at Bill Combs

Are Mormons Christian?

Note: The FAQs is TGCs new series in which we answer your questions about the latest news and current events. Although the series normally attempts to be as fact-based and objective as possible, this entry relies on scriptural interpretation that some Christians may consider wrong or at least open to debate.

"Are Mormons Christian?" Since the 1820s, when Joseph Smith founded the religious movement, evangelicals and other orthodox Christians have answered with a resounding "no." Over the past decade, though, many Americans have begun to provide a different response. In an interview with CNN, megachurch pastor Joel Osteen said that while the Mormon faith is "not traditional Christianity" he still views them as "brothers in Christ."

And earlier this month, the widely read evangelical blogger David French wrote,

I'd argue that our view of salvation --- whether Arminian or Reformed --- is of enormous consequence, going directly not only to the nature of God but also how we understand each moment of our lives, yet I rarely hear anyone seriously ask, "Are Methodists Christian?" Perhaps that's not so much because the theological differences aren't real and profound but because we've made our historical peace through shared understanding of our faith in Christ. Perhaps its time that we make that same peace with Mormons.

Are Mormons our fellow "brothers in Christ?" Are the theological distinctions between Mormonism and evangelicalism similar to the differences between Presbyterians and Methodists?

In order to examine these questions, I've compiled answers from various resources and subject-area experts and presented them in the form of a FAQ. This article is not intended to be an in-depth explanation of Mormon history or theology, but rather an examination of areas that are relevant to the question of whether Mormons should be considered by evangelicals to be Christians. For more information on Mormonism I recommend Andrew Jackson's Mormonism Explained: What Latter-day Saints Teach and Practice.  Continue at Joe Carter

IMAGE

The Old Testament Is a Story of Providence

 ”God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem” (Judges 9:23).
•    ”Now the Spirit of the Lord has departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him” (1 Samuel 16:14).
•    ”I am the Lord and there is no other.  I form the light and create disaster; I bring prosperity and create disaster; I the Lord do all these things” (Isaiah 45:6-7).
•    ”When disaster comes to a city has not the Lord caused it” (Amos 3:6).

Even death is in the Lord’s hands.

•    ”The Lord brings death and makes alive; he brings down to the grave and raises up” (1 Samuel 2:6).
•    ”There is no other god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life. I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand” (Deuteronomy 32:39).

From the big pictures to the tiniest details, the Old Testament teaches that God guides all our steps.

•    ”The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Prov. 16:33).
•    ”A man’s steps are directed by the Lord.  How then can anyone understand his own way?” (Prov. 20:24).
•    ”I know, O Lord, that a man’s life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his step” (Jeremiah 10:23).
•    ”All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:16).

Our God, Daniel says, “does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth” (Dan. 4:35). And in Isaiah the Lord declares: “I am God, and there is no other; I am God ant there is none like me.  I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times what is still to come.  I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isa. 46:9-10). God is God because he  has the power to do what he wants, the wisdom to carry it out, and the sovereign authority to immutably appoint whatsoever shall come to pass.     Continue at Kevin DeYoung
 

Is Only the King James Version the Word of God?

The King James-only movement refuses to recognize any other translation in English as the Word of God. As I noted in previous posts (here and here), the Preface to the 1611 KJV is an embarrassment to the KJV-only position because in the Preface the translators themselves absolutely reject the erroneous idea that any translation has such a unique position. Unlike modern KJV-only advocates, the translators them­selves admired the work of previous translators of the English Bible.

And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land, or beyond sea, either in King Henry’s time, or King Edward’s, (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation, in his time) or Queen Elizabeth’s of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remem­brance.

The preface goes on to declare that other translations are also the Word of God, even if they contain minor errors. In fact, they acknowl­edge that errorless translation is impossible since translators are not like the apostles, who were superintended by the Holy Spirit in their writing.

Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [worst] translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, every where.…A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

So according to the translators there is no justifiable reason why any good-faith translation should not be considered the Word of God, yet KJV-only proponents have denied that any English translation since 1611 is the Word of God.  Continue at Bill Combs

The Legacy of Charles Colson

I don’t mean to be a curmudgeon and I don’t mean to be insensitive, truly. Perhaps there are rules that govern these things, and I am violating them, or maybe I am just missing some vital piece of information. I don’t know. But I have been to a wide variety of Christian blogs and news sites reading the obituaries and memorials and remembrances of Charles Colson and have been surprised to note that they are have been very nearly uniformly, unabashedly positive. 

I am not convinced that we are doing right here. I suppose I would rather wait a little while to say this, but then the opportunity will be gone. At least to my understanding, Colson’s legacy was both more and less than people are making it out to be. I didn’t really understand the man in all his inconsistencies and complexities while he lived—the combination of good and bad baffled me—and I certainly don’t understand him now that he has died.

Don’t hear me say that Colson was a complete villain, but do hear me when I say that he leaves behind a legacy that is far more multi-faceted, far more multi-dimensional, than most people have been saying. It is a legacy that includes some dark chapters, and not only prior to his conversion.

Charles Colson leaves behind a testimony of a man who encountered grace at his darkest hour. He leaves behind a legacy of a ministry that seeks to extend grace to those who are likewise in their darkest hour. He sought to teach Christians how to think—to describe and define a biblical worldview. And then he sought to lead in the application of that biblical worldview, and this is where things become hazy, where a positive legacy collides with a woeful one, where his work for the Lord encounters his work against the Lord’s church.  Continue at Tim Challies

Why Theology and Youth Ministry Seldom Mix

Editors' Note: Everyone has an opinion about youth ministry. Parents, pastors, and the youth themselves have expectations and demands that don't always overlap. But the rash of dire statistics about the ineffectiveness of youth ministry has prompted rethinking in these ranks. So we devote one day per week this month to exploring several issues in youth ministry, including its history, problems, and biblical mandate. The Gospel Coalition thanks Cameron Cole and the leadership team of Rooted: A Theology Conference for Student Ministry for their help in compiling this series. Cathedral Church of the Advent in Birmingham, Alabama, will host their 2012 conference from August 9 to 11. Speakers Ray Ortlund, Timothy George, and Mary Willson will expound on the conference theme, "Adopted: The Beauty of Grace."

**********

Everyone knows the stereotype of the youth minister as a big kid with an expertise in games and an affinity for creative facial hair and body piercings. Despite the stereotype, many youth pastors are passionate and intelligent. Yet youth ministry has a reputation for not doing serious theology. In the book The Theological Turn in Youth Ministry, Andrew Root describes a discussion about a PhD program for youth ministry at his seminary. A biblical scholar asked, "Who is going to teach the seminar on group mixers?" Root goes on to describe the perception of youth ministers as theologically "lightweight." The National Study of Youth and Religion notes, "The vast majority of teens, who call themselves Christians, haven't been well educated in religious doctrine and, therefore, really don't know what they believe." Certainly, these results, at least to some degree, reflect the typically shallow theological culture of youth ministry. Why, then, does there seem to be a gap between youth ministry and theology?   Continue at Cameron Cole and Dave Wright

Our Desperate Condition, God’s Amazing Provision

Albert N. Martin was the pastor at Trinity Baptist Church in Montville, NJ for over 40 years. In recent years due to health issues he had moved to Michigan to be closer to his wife’s family. One day, while I was still living in New Jersey about 45 minutes away from Montville, I had heard he would be back to visit Trinity and would preach during the Sunday morning service.

I wasn’t a member there, but I had visited on multiple occasions to sit under Pastor Martin’s preaching. So I went back to Trinity with a good friend of mine who is a member there. And I was excited. I was looking forward to hear what Pastor Martin had to say. What wonderful message, exhortation, rebuke, did he have for the congregation he loved and shepherded for nearly half a century?

He began his message by talking about the Bible, how it’s quite a large book, and really is more like a library, being a collection of books. And then he started talking about the overarching message of the Bible that’s recognizable in certain “capsule statements” that are given throughout revelation.

God has given us these wonderful little capsule statements that give us the heart of the whole message of the Bible. And those statements become like a door into this marvelous, panoramic, overarching message of Bible. And if you can grasp those particular portions, you have a handle on what the Bible is all about. (04:03-04:39)  Continue at Mike Riccardi

Christopher Hitchens debates William Lane Craig: Does God Exist?

Now I think most people are familiar with Christopher Hitchens and his arguments – he is widely regarded as the top atheist debater in the world, and has written bestselling books on atheism. So below is a little more about the Christian debater William Lane Craig. Craig is  regarded as the top defender of Christianity in the world, although many people are unfamiliar with his arguments. Here is a written explanation of the five arguments he uses in the debate with Hitchens, if you want to follow along. This is a good debate for any of you who have never seen a debate on God’s existence before.

About William Lane Craig

Let’s review William Lane Craig’s qualifications:

William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California.

Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity… In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until assuming his position at Talbot in 1994.

He has authored or edited over thirty books, including The Kalam Cosmological Argument; Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus; Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom; Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology; and God, Time and Eternity, as well as over a hundred articles in professional journals of philosophy and theology, including The Journal of Philosophy, New Testament Studies, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, and British Journal for Philosophy of Science.  Continue at WintryKnight

Classic Articles on Reformed Theology

ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER (1772—1851)

A Practical View of Regeneration
Catechetical Instruction
Sinners Welcome to Come to Jesus
Thoughts on Religious Experience (online book)
The Day of Judgement
The Lord's Day
The Nature & Means of Growth in Grace
Over 40 More sermons and writings...

JAMES W. ALEXANDER

Consolation
My Brother's Keeper

AUGUSTINE

A Treatise on Grace and Free Will
Anti Pelagious Writings
Augustine on the New Life in Christ
A Treatise On The Predestination
A Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance
The Confessions of St. Augustine
Enchiridion
On Christian Doctrine
The City of God
more...

JOSEPH ALLEINE

A Sure Guide to Heaven (.pdf)
An Alarm to the Unconverted

Read them all HERE

A Great Oak Has Fallen, but New Growth is On its Way: The Legacy of Charles Colson (1931-2012)

Agreat oak has fallen.

The death of Chuck Colson (1931-2012) is so remarkable because of the life of Chuck Colson. His life is summed up in the scripture that the Manhattan Declaration posted:

“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17 NIV)!

Chuck Colson was truly a new man. His life forever will be remembered, not in a legacy of political intrigue, but with a legacy of new life in Jesus Christ that overflowed to the world with a robust intellect and dynamic message lived out in a heart of deep, demonstrable compassion. Yet the new life that transforms old legacies of shame into legacies of faithfulness is available to all who call, like Chuck, on the name of Jesus Christ in repentance and faith.

Chuck’s life reflected the newness of God’s Truth in Christ. The man thought like Christ. He was immensely theological—caring deeply about the Truth of God revealed in His Word in the Flesh, Jesus, and in His Word, the Bible. He brought that Truth to bear in every area of life and encouraged others to do the same. At a time when some proclaim that there is no truth, and others shrink from proclaiming that Truth in a postmodern, pluralistic age, Chuck Colson became one of the Church’s greatest apologists for the Truth of God in Jesus Christ. He proclaimed Truth with boldness, intellectual strength, compassion and humility and was active in his presentation of Jesus Christ through the last days of his work on his earth. He is now worshipping face to face before the One he preached so well.  Continue at Michael A. Milton

See Also:

Chuck Colson Remembered

Charles Colson (1931-2012)

Evangelical Leader Chuck Colson Dead at 80

Charles W. Colson, 1931-2012

Evangelical Leader Chuck Colson Dead at 80

Chuck Colson: 1931-2012. A Legacy of Gospel Proclamation and Social Concern

Nixon’s “Dirty Tricks Man” No More

Chuck Colson dead at 80

ShareTh

 

Settlers, Pilgrims, and Wanderers

Before Emergent brothers and sisters reject Reformation orthodoxy, they should at least know what it is and what it is not. 

 

Travel writer Pico Iyer confesses that he likes airports a lot. Part mall, part border-crossing, they buzz with the ambient noise of postmodern consciousness, representing an "everywhere" that is really no actual place at all. Those of us who can't remember when we were not always on the go, repeatedly uprooted growing up, living in the fast lane with computers and cell phones, catching planes and channel surfing, know deep inside ourselves what it means to be a wanderer in these "everywhere" places.

The Emergent Church movement is as much the product of this postmodern condition as the megachurch movement from which it recoils, but whereas the latter has seemed obsessed with the novel, the ephemeral, the immanent, and the practical, the next-generation Emergent groups evidence an interest in the ancient, the authentic, the transcendent, and the mysterious. 

While there is much to appreciate in the Emergent movement's instincts that should be celebrated and encouraged, is there a characteristically modern tendency that it shares with its megachurch heritage-a tendency that may finally threaten the noble aspirations of these bright, energetic, and hopeful followers of Christ? 

First and foremost, Emergent identifies with postmodernism, although its celebration of postmodernism is often as sweeping as its critique of modernity. In many respects, Emergent reflects these most-modern rather than postmodern tendencies. In fact, to gain any real insight into the Emergent movement (as about any other in our day), one has to visit its websites. There, one enters a world in which theology and church practice are decided largely by democratic conversation: like a 24-hour live streaming Oprah show.   Continue at Michael Horton

Witchcraft Exposed (and Defeated)

Galatians 3:1 “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? (literally, who has put the evil eye on you or brought you under their spell) It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.” 

 

Witchcraft is a dark, forboding, demonic force. It is easy to recognize in its various outward forms. However, there is a subtle form of witchcraft that this verse in Galatians exposes. Witchcraft, in its overt and visible manifestations seeks to do its damage to the people of God. Yet by stealth and through the means of false teaching, witchcraft also seeks to obscure the message of the cross in the Church. 

Paul rebukes the Galatians, saying in so many words, “What’s wrong with you people? Who has brought you under their spell? You saw the cross. It was so very clear to you. What? Can’t you see it anymore?”

Let me state it once again, witchcraft seeks to obscure the message of the cross in the Church. 

What Paul writes is intriguing. How could he make this comment, “It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified”? How could Paul suggest such a thing? 

Did Paul forget who it was he was writing to? Did he have some mental aberration and think he was writing to the Christians at Jerusalem and not in Galatia? The Galatian Christians were not at Golgotha to see the Lord crucified.  Continue at John Samson

The Deep Limitations of Digital Church

Do you go to the Internet for church? Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today reported this week on the increasing use of digital technology by churches. This trend is not new, of course, but some of the developments she traces are fresh and innovative.

She begins with a look at Christ Fellowship in McKinney, Texas — a church Grossman describes as “on board with almost every high-tech gambit under heaven.”

She then writes:

“Find the church by going online — the 21st-century version of sighting a steeple on the horizon. Beyond their website, Christ Fellowship has a Facebook page to give it a friendly presence in social media.

You can download the worship program by scanning their customized-with-a-cross QR code. The worship services are streamed online from their Internet campus — with live chat running so you can share spiritual insights in real time.

Afterward, says senior Pastor Bruce Miller, ’someone will ask you, ‘How did it go? Did God help you, today? How can we help you?’ Just like we do when people come to our building in McKinney. We are here to help people find and follow Christ, wherever they are starting out from.’

And wherever they are in the digital world.”

There is something good, healthy, and Great Commission-minded about the eager use of new communication technologies. Digital technologies and social media have transformed our world, redefining how human beings engage one another and how we all access information. A church without a digital presence is a church that, to many people, simply doesn’t exist.   Continue at Al Mohler

So You Want to Date My Daughter?

1. You must love Jesus. I don't care if you're a "good Christian boy." I was one of those too. So I know the tricks. I'm going to ask you specific, heart-testing questions about your spiritual affections, your daily devotional life, your idols, your disciplines, and the like. I'll cut you a little bit of slack because you're young and hormonal and your pre-frontal lobe isn't fully developed yet, but I'll be watching you like a hawk. I know you. I was you. You will think you can fool me, and you likely have fooled many other dads who didn't pay much attention to their daughters' suitors, but I will be on you like Bourne on that guy whose neck he broke. Which guy was that? Every guy. So love Jesus more than my daughter or go home.

2. You will install X3Watch or Covenant Eyes on your computer and mobile devices and have your regular reports sent to me.

3. I will talk to your dad and tell him I will hold him responsible if you don't treat my daughter like a lady. If he thinks I'm a crazy person, you fail the test and won't get to date her. If he understands what I'm saying, that bodes well for you.

4. You will pay for everything. Oh, sure, every now and then my daughter can buy you a Coke or something and a gift on your birthday and at Christmas. But you pay for meals, movies, outings, whatever else. Don't have a job? I'm sorry, why I am talking to you again?

5. You will accept my Facebook friend request.

6. If it looks like you need a belt to hold your pants up, I will assume you don't have a job. See #4.

7. Young people dating are putting their best face forward, so if you appear impatient, ill-tempered, or ill-mannered, I know you will gradually become more so over time. I will have no jerks dating my daughters.

8. If I am not your pastor, I will talk to the man who is. If your pastor is a woman, why I am talking to you, again?

9. You don't love my daughter. You have no idea what love is. You like her and you might love her someday. That's an okay start with me, so put the seatbelt on the mushy gushy stuff. Don't profess your undying love, quote stupid love song lyrics to her, tell her you'd die for her, or feed her any other boneheaded lines that are way out of your depth as a horny little idiot. A lady's heart is a fragile thing. If you play with hers, I will show you yours.  Continue at The Thinklings

IMAGE

Multisite, the Poker Tell and the Importance of Presence

Any classic rock fan knows that there is nothing quite like hearing a live band.   A few years ago, I went to hear The Who (or at least Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend, the extant members).  I remember listening on the way home to a live recording of 'Won't Get Fooled Again' just after hearing the real thing in the stadium.  Even without Moon and Entwistle, the live performance was so much more powerful than the recording which, in the immediate aftermath of the concert, sounded like an anemic cover by a wannabe boy band.  The same thing applied next day to my watching of the video of the last time the original line-up ever played together, performing that very song.  It was simply not a patch on actually being there, despite the absence of Keith and John.

Presence is important.   In a world where it is easy to simulate presence, even visible presence as by television, webcam or skype, it remains the case that actually being in the immediate physical proximity of somebody is important.   We all intuitively know this: given the choice of talking to a loved one on the phone or over a camera link up or in the same room, who would not want actually to be with them?

This raises an important question about the notion of multi-site ministry, where the preacher is piped in to various locations by satellite link-up or fibre optic cable.  Of course, this practice is susceptible to numerous lines of devastating critique.   One might suggest that it moves the church towards a model where the accent in preaching is increasingly on the information communicated, nothing more; one might also raise questions about the way it detaches pastoral care of congregations and individuals from the ministry of public proclamation.  For church officers it should surely be a nerve-wracking notion that pastors are to be held accountable for those entrusted to their care; and how can they give a credible account of such care if they do not know the faces, let alone the names, of those thus entrusted to them?  Continue at Carl Trueman

Is Anyone More Holy than Anyone Else? The Missing Category of the 'Righteous Man'

So, what exactly is a “righteous” person? Surely we cannot suggest that all these passages are simply referring to the imputed righteousness of Christ (as important as that is).

“No one is more holy than anyone else.” That was the statement I heard in a recent sermon. At first, I thought I must have misheard it. But, I had not. The point being made to the congregation was clear: abandon your ‘self-righteousness’ and recognize that you are no holier than the person in the pew next to you.

 

Now, statements like that sound compelling at first. Humble, even. After all, we are trained to go after those Pharisees among us (usually defined as anyone who appears to be holier than we are!). Moreover, we have the reformed doctrine of total depravity entrenched in our minds, reminding us that our hearts are wicked beyond what we can imagine. And, above all this, surely Christ is most glorified when we acknowledge that no one is more holy than anyone else. Right?

 

 Well, not really. Although the Bible certainly condemns self-righteousness, and while we are certainly much more sinful than we ever could realize, there is something missing here. What is missing—ironically in many reformed circles—is the clear biblical category of the “righteous man.” Noah is described this way in Gen 6:9: “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.” Joseph of Arimathea was described this way in Luke 23:50: “Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man.” Zechariah and Elizabeth were described this way: “And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). And there are countless passages throughout Scripture that contrast the “righteous” with the “wicked” (e.g., Ps 1:5-6; 32:1-2; 37:16-17; 75:10).

 

So, what exactly is a “righteous” person? Surely we cannot suggest that all these passages are simply referring to the imputed righteousness of Christ (as important as that is). No, it appears the Bible uses this category of the “righteous man” for believers who display a marked consistency and faithfulness in walking with God. Of course, this doesn’t mean these people are perfect, sinless, or able to merit their own salvation. It simply means that the Spirit is at work in such a way that they bear steady fruit in their lives.   Continue at Michael Kruger

 

IMAGE

The Post-Christian Condition — Anders Breivik and the Limitations of Justice

The trial of Anders Behring Breivik represents one of the greatest tests of human justice in decades. Breivik stood in an Oslo courtroom this week and declared: “I admit to the actions, but not to the guilt.” The “actions,” of course, were the killing of 77 people on July 22, 2011. Eight were killed in a car bomb in Oslo. Breivik then shot 69 people to death on Utoya Island — most of them teenagers and young people involved in a summer camp sponsored by one of Norway’s major political parties.

Breivik has celebrated his murderous actions in court, calling his massacre the most “spectacular” event in recent European history. Having admitted to the killings, Breivik told the court, “I would do it again.”

He may have an opportunity to do so. Norwegian law allows Breivik to be imprisoned for only 21 years, even if found guilty of all 77 killings. Officials in Norway have attempted to assure their fellow citizens that Breivik is unlikely to be released, but the law allows criminals to be held in captivity after their sentence only on psychological grounds that represent a threat, and Breivik has been found sufficiently sane to stand trial.

How can this be? What sane nation would allow for a maximum sentence of 21 years in prison for premeditated murder — much less the calculated killing of 77 people?  Continue at Al Mohler

What’s Wrong with Theistic Evolution?

Theistic evolution, generally defined, is the belief that natural processes sustained by God’s ordinary providence were the means by which he brought about life and humanity. It often entails a common ancestry for all living things, macro-evolution, and some version of polygenesis.

William Dembski explains:

For young-earth and old-earth creationists, humans bearing the divine image were created from scratch. In other words, God did something radically new when he created us–we didn’t emerge from pre-existing organisms. On this view, fully functioning hominids having fully human bodies but lacking the divine image never existed. For most theistic evolutions, by contrast, primate ancestors evolved over several million years into hominids with fully human bodies. (God and Evolution, 91)

According to some proponents of theistic evolution Genesis 2:7 is a reference to God’s work in history whereby he made Adam into a spiritual being in the image of God, instead of the lesser sort of being he was before. This approach still insists on the historicity of Adam and Eve and their real fall in the Garden. But, on this view, Adam may not have been the first human:

According to [Denis] Alexander’s preferred model, anatomically modern humans emerged some 200,000 years ago, with language in place by 50,000 years ago. Then, around 6,000-8,000 years ago, God chose a couple of Neolithic farmers, and then he revealed himself for the first time, so constituting them as Homo divinus, the first humans to know God and be spiritually alive. (Should Christians Embrace Evolution?, 47)  Continue at Kevin DeYoung

IMAGE

Why Idolatry Was (and Is) Attractive

Most Westerners have struggled at one time or another to understand the attraction of idolatry in the ancient world. What could be so compelling about an inanimate block of wood or chunk of stone? Hard core idolatry feels as tempting as beet juice. It’s likely someone out there loves a frothy glass of obscure vegetable extract, but the temptation doesn’t weigh heavily on our souls.

But idolatry made a lot of sense in the ancient world. And, had we lived two or three millennia ago, it almost certainly would have been tempting to each one of us. In his commentary on Exodus, Doug Stuart explains idolatry’s attraction with nine points. You’ll likely want to save this list and file it for future sermons or Bible studies.

1. Idolatry was guaranteed. The formula was simple. Carve a god out of wood or stone and the god would enter the icon. Now that you have a god in your midst, you can get his (or her) attention quickly. Your incantations, oaths, and offerings will always be noticed.

2. Idolatry was selfish. Scratch the gods backs and they’ll scratch yours. They need food and sacrifices; you need blessings. Do your stuff and they’ll be obliged to get you stuff.

3. Idolatry was easy. Ancient idolatry encouraged vain religious activity. Do what you like with your life. So long as you show up consistently with your sacrifices, you’ll be in good shape.

4. Idolatry was convenient. Gods in the ancient world were not hard to come by. Access was almost everywhere. Statues can be used in the home or on the go.   Continue at Kevin DeYoung

Five Problems with the Slutwalk Marches

[Language Alert:  I use the Sl** word in this post to address the phenomenon of thousands of women walking in Sl**Walk Marches]

This week marks the first anniversary of SlutWalk.

The first SlutWalk demonstration took place in Toronto, Canada, on April 3, 2011. The rally was held in response to a Toronto police officer's statement that young women could help safeguard themselves against rape by dressing more modestly. 

Feminist activist, Sonya Barnett, was incensed at his remark. She bristled at the implication that provocatively dressed women were in any way responsible for their own victimization and abuse. Barnett argued that girls should have the right to dress slutty without fear of sexual assault. Suggesting otherwise, places the blame on the female victim, and excuses the behavior of the male perpetrator. 

Barnett organized a protest march to the Toronto Police Station, which she dubbed "SlutWalk." Through it, she hoped to raise society's collective consciousness, and to encourage girls to:

• "reclaim" the word "slut" and other such negative male-defined labels,
• exert their right to reject male-defined, patriarchal norms of female dress and behavior, and
• protest a culture that puts blame on the victims of sexual assault.

Proud to be a Slut?

Over the past year, more than 50 SlutWalks have taken place in the US, Canada, and around the world, including Australia and Britain. The events are similar to "Take Back the Night" rallies. But they differ, because addressing sexual violence is only one of their aims. SlutWalk also wants to aggressively redefine notions about woman's sexuality.  Continue at Marry Kassian

Should a Minister Preach the Funerals of Unbelievers?

Recently I argued that a Christian minister ought not officiate at wedding ceremonies for unbelievers. These weddings, I contended, represent the trivialization of the Christian ministry and a loss of pastoral courage. Since then, I've received lots of queries about funerals. Should a Christian minister preach the funeral of an unbeliever? That's a very good question.

Some of the saddest moments of my ministry have been in funeral homes, preaching for people I didn't know. Early on in ministry, I became the "go to" minister for a local mortician when one of his deceased passed away with no religious affiliation. I've seen almost empty chapels, with no one to do the eulogy but me. And I've seen full chapels of family members who clearly hated the deceased. I had one deceased woman's daughter tell me there was nothing positive she could think to say about her mother, nothing at all, except that she did feed the birds in her backyard.

Do I think it was biblically acceptable to preach those funerals? Yes. Would I do it again today? Yes.

A funeral is an entirely different matter than a wedding. A wedding is about the near future (near meaning the next 30 to 70 years or so). A funeral is about the past, and about the ultimate future (the resurrection from the dead). A wedding is the witnessing of vows, the calling together of a covenant between two persons. A funeral doesn't call any reality together. It commits the body of the dead to the earth and awaits the resurrection of both the just and the unjust.  Continue at Russell D. Moore