One of the controversies that has sadly plagued those who embrace Calvin as one of the more astute and faithful theologians concerns the “free offer of the gospel.” Some followers of Calvin, a minority of them, reject the free offer of the gospel. They believe, erroneously, that the gospel is only to be offered to the elect. While listening to a former PCA worship leader lament Calvinism at the recent John 3:16 Conference, he described this strain of Calvinism called hyper-Calvinism.
While preparing for last week’s sermon on Psalm 16, I didn’t find Calvin to be particularly helpful. This is a rarity. But he did say something that should set the record straight on what John himself believed Scripture to teach.
“It would be of no advantage to us for God to offer himself freely and graciously to us, if we did not receive him by faith, seeing he invites to himself both the reprobate and the elect in common; but the former, by their ingratitude, defraud themselves of this inestimatable blessing. Let us, therefore, know that both these things proceed from the free liberality of God; first, his being our inheritance, and next, our coming to the possession of him by faith. The counsel of which David makes mention is the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, by which we are prevented from rejecting the salvation to which he calls us, which we would otherwise certainly do, considering the blindness of our flesh. Whence we gather, that those who attribute to the free will of man the choice of accepting or rejecting the grace of God basely mangle that grace, and show as much ignorance as impiety.”
Calvin himself holds to the “free offer of the gospel” to all. God truly offers Himself to the elect. Notice how he phrases that- God offers Himself, not just salvation. As John Piper noted in his book, God is the gospel.
Calvin held that God did not prevent any from coming to Himself. Rather it is the sinful nature which hates God and refuses the offer of grace.
Those who receive the offer of God do so as a result of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Having chosen them for salvation, God then illumines them so they can and will believe receiving God himself and salvation.
In this way, Calvin upholds God’s sovereignty and his liberality. We are to freely offer the gospel to all we meet and have opportunity to speak in this way. Whether or not they believe the good news is a result of whether or not God illumines them by the Holy Spirit or if they persist in their unbelief through the power of the flesh.
May the hyper-calvinists stop presenting themselves as faithful adherents of Calvin’s theology. His theology holds the tensions of Scripture in proper tension- theirs does not.
Update: While studying for Luke 1, Mary’s Song, I found this in Calvin’s Commentary.
“God offers his benefits indiscriminately to all, and faith opens its bosom to receive them; while unbelief allows them to pass away, so as not to reach us.” John Calvin
And from Luke 2:10-
“… just as, at the present day, God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few.” John Calvin
Why do some have so much trouble believing this?
The discussion in the comments reveals a few things. The supposition is that the free offer of the gospel (or well-intended offer) implies that God is of 2 minds, that he wants all to be saved. The free offer of the gospel, as a doctrine, makes no such claims. The point is our responsibility to proclaim the message of salvation freely. God has ordained who will believe it. This is not irrational- for we are distinguishing between 2 things: God’s sovereign choice and our responsibility as His redeemed creatures.
I’ve written a book on marriage. I can’t seem to get it published, but I wrote one. The last few years have seen some excellent books on marriage published. I currently have a “trinity” of marriage books. My “go to” books are Intimate Allies, When Sinners Say “I Do” and What Did You Expect?. They all focus on different things and do that very well. Recently a church planter asked me what I used. I try to draw from all of these depending on the needs of the couple.
But I may need to employ the new math if I want to keep a trinity of marriage books. You know, the kind where Winston had to say, believably, that 2+2=5 or have a rat chew off his nose (this trick was used in The Salton Sea except it wasn’t a rat, and it wasn’t his nose).
Since my current sermon series from Genesis includes the idea of relationships, I decided it would be a good time to read Relationships: A Mess Worth Making by Tim Lane and Paul Tripp. Of course, when you take a few months to read a book it is not as fresh in your mind when you come to review it.
The book is not long (under 200 pages), but it does cover quite a bit of territory. The chapters include ones on sin, agendas, worship, obstacles, mercy, time and money and more. They cover that ground, as usual, with lots of Scripture and many examples compiled from years of experience in ministry as well as their personal lives. Thankfully, it does have a Scripture Index (one of my pet peeves is to not have one).
The first chapter talks about their relationship with one another. There have been times when they haven’t got along well. They have struggled through many of these things. So, they speak from personal experience, not as merely teaching theory.
They begin with the reasons why to invest in relationships. The most important, in my opinion, is that since we are made in God’s image we are made to be in relationship. God Himself has eternally existed in relationship with Himself. The Trinity is a community of love. He made us to bring us into that loving community. But since we rejected the spring of living water, we make our relationships into broken cisterns from which we expect to receive life. Sin, including idolatry, have messed things up.
Sinclair Ferguson has a booklet called The Grace of Repentance. Since I read just about everything he writes, I was compelled to buy and read it. It is an interesting booklet. In some ways it was not what I expected.
The first (very short) chapter is called A Monk’s Tale which focuses on Luther and the first of his 95 Theses which triggered the Reformation. The church was in dire shape as Rome relied on indulgences for the latest building project. It was not hard for the average person in the pew to be confused about the gospel. It was obscured by the use of indulgences and the sacramental theology of the church. That theology taught penance as an act to provide satisfaction for our sins. This was different from repentance. Luther recaptured the notion that Jesus was calling us to a lifetime of repentance.
Ferguson then has a chapter explaining Biblical Repentance. Some of the phrases the Old Testament uses are “circumcision of the heart” and “breaking up fallow ground”. The most commonly used Hebrew word simply means “return” and conveys the idea of turning around and returning to the Lord. When we sin, we stray from His side to pursue our own pleasure. Repentance is the return to God. We turn, not primarily due to fear of consequences, but due to the promise of grace offered to us in the gospel. We do recognize that sin is a violation of the covenant and places us under God’s just condemnation as non-Christians and His just discipline as Christians.
The book What is theMission of the Church?: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom and the Great Commission by DeYoung and Gilbert has been on my list of books to read since it came out. The recent “controversy” regarding the book moved it up the list faster. It is really difficult to talk about this book without referencing at least some of what has gone on.
In the book, they noted that some people received early copies of the manuscript to elicit feedback. They were thankful for that, and included some people who would “push back”. In other words, they didn’t send it to people who would love all over it. This book is a contribution to a larger discussion on the topic of the mission of the church. So they read a number of books on the subject, drew upon their own experiences as pastors and studied the Scriptures (not necessarily in that order). They tried to do their homework. But no book is met with unanimous affirmation.
Ed Stetzer’s review, in particular, has received a great deal of attention. He affirms them in many ways, but also criticizes their views for being too narrow. As I read his review, I get the impression he wasn’t really listening.
“The mission of the church always must include making disciples, but the life of disciples will always produce work unique to its time and place, relating to the various needs and corruptions in the world around us. And such work is not only the fruit of discipleship, but is also, through modeling, part of the process of making disciples.” Ed Stetzer
I didn’t get the impression they would disagree with what he said. But he misses the point. That is the life of disciples, which they distinguish from the mission of the church. As disciples, we act justly and defend the rights of others. But he’s saying this to criticize their view of the mission of the church. The book is about what the Church is to invest it’s limited resources doing. And that, in their view, is to make disciples. Those disciples will do many things that they institutional church does not, and should not do. Let’s put it this way: John Newton was right to encourage Wilberforce to remain in politics and work for the abolition of slavery. And John Newton, who aided that cause with his personal testimony and records, was right not to establish a program of the church designed to work for the abolition of slavery. At least this is how I understand both the Scriptural testimony and the Westminster Confession of the topic of Civil Magistrate.
If I were given one word to describe Disciple: Getting Your Identity From Jesus by Bill Clem, that is the word I would use. It is published as part of the RE:Lit line and has a forward by Mark Driscoll. It comes with blubs by people like Paul Tripp. In other words, it intrigued me.
Bill is trying to create a paradigm shift in how we think about discipleship. Someone in the church I pastor has been asking me questions about discipleship recently. My answers were in many ways close to what Bill is shooting for. But this runs against the grain of a church shaped by life in America which is filled with standardized tests and a concept of time consumed by efficiency. Programs aren’t discipleship. They can be a means of discipleship, but aren’t necessarily discipleship. Communicating theological knowledge and understanding isn’t either (though people need to grow in their biblical and theological knowledge to grow as disciples).
Bill Clem’s premise is that disciples primarily image God to the watching world (and unseen world). We were created in God’s image. As image bearers, Adam and Eve were to reflect God’s glory, and represent Him to the rest of creation. In their sin, the image was marred. In redemption, Christ’s work in us (sanctification) is to restore that image in us. We reveal God’s character and represent Him more clearly over time. This premise is a giant step in the right direction. It is a necessary corrective to our thinking about discipleship.
Back to my one word assessment of the book. There are some very good chapters in this book. They are filled with red ink from my pen. And there are some chapters that have little additional ink, or the red ink is expressing my confusion. There were times when I was really tracking with Bill Clem, and there were times when I was under-whelmed or just plain frustrated.
“To disciple people is not to make them like everybody else; it is to shape them into the image of Jesus.”
Every so often I follow a link, read a blog or an excerpt of a book (or a whole one) which argues against the complementarian view of Scripture and therefore marriage. What I so often find are straw man arguments. They either don’t understand or don’t want to understand the view. They present distortions of the view as the view. That would be like saying Benny Hinn is a mainstream charismatic. He’s not, and to present him as such is unfair. As one writer noted recently on his blog (Kevin DeYoung, I think) you must present your opponent’s view as one they would recognize. Egalitarians, in my experience, have not done this.
While re-reading Desiring God, I was struck by how well Piper presented the standard complementarian position (though I have a few quibbles). Piper sets this within the context of Christian Hedonism. What does marriage look like with people are pursuing their delight in Christ instead of pursuing their own agenda of manufactured, demanding, substandard delights.
It may be helpful to consider dancing for a moment. A traditional dance, with a partner, is coordinated. One person leads, and the other follows. Joy is found in this as they work together for mutual joy. Much of today’s dancing is uncoordinated. You don’t even need a partner. It is chaotic and pleases only the dancer. Unless there is some bump and grind, but one the dance floor that is a vulgar mess, not a picture of marital bliss.
“… husbands should devote the same energy and time and creativity in making their wives happy that they devote naturally to making themselves happy.”
Part of this can be summed up as finding your delight in the joy of your spouse instead of at the expense of your spouse. You delight in giving them joy (long-term, God-oriented joy). But Piper then delves deeper into Ephesians 5, the crux of the issue.
17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
Let’s start by remembering that Paul is taking about the Spirit-filled life. The ESV, unlike the NIV, reflects Paul’s grammar in showing submission as part of the Spirit-filled life. Gospel-driven submission is not produced by the flesh, but by the influence of the Spirit. This “one another” is taken by some to argue for “mutual submission”. I think it is better to view what follows as 3 particular relationships in which people are to submit to others: wives to husbands, children to parents, and slaves to masters (applied today as employees to employers). There is a relationship of legitimate authority that Paul recognizes in each of these. If we are to argue for mutual submission in marriage, then we should argue for mutual submission in the parent-child and work relationships. This runs completely contrary to the marriage relationship that Paul brings into focus to illustrate: Christ and the church.
I first read Desiring Godin the late 1980′s after hearing about it from someone I knew. I was a young Christian at the time. Like Knowing God, it would be one of the books to lay the foundation for my life as a Christian. But not all books hold up over time. So I am reviewing the revised edition from the perspective of an older Christian who has read this book a few times. Does it hold up? Why should I bother with a revised edition? Those are the questions I come to the book with.
Does it hold up? Classic books stand the test of time. There are books that are very popular when they are released, but 10 or 20 years later people won’t point to them as significant long term. This is a book people still talk about. This book is chock-full of good theology. Piper not only defends his assertions regarding Christian Hedonism, but he lays out lots of good theology. In other words, his theological distinctive (you can actually see similar teaching in Calvin, Burroughs, Owen and other Reformed pastors, not just Edwards) does not exist in a vacuum. Piper has to work through the sovereignty of God, the character of God and the nature of salvation. I think I used more ink in my new copy than in my old one.
People often misunderstand his position based on the name. But the point is that a Christian Hedonist seeks their pleasure in God, one of the many things were are commanded to do in Scripture. Piper shows how Scripture not only teaches but feeds Christian Hedonism. He unpacks the doctrine to see how it plays out in marriage, money, missions and more. One subject that is missing would be work (perhaps in the 30th anniversary edition). This is a very practical theology book, but one that is rooted in theology.
The Salton Sea is one of my favorite Val Kilmer movies. It is quirky and an odd sense of humor. In addition to Val Kilmer you find Vincent D’Onofrio, B.D. Wong, Peter Sarsgaard, Anthony LaPaglia, Luis Guzman and more. It is a crime drama that takes place in the midst of the tweaker culture of Southern California. Since I was home alone for a week, I decided it was a good opportunity to enjoy the movie again.
"Look in the mirror and tell me what you see."
One of the central questions of the film is “who am I?”. It is a movie wrestling with the question of identity. The movie begins with Val’s character(s) lying gut shot on the floor of a burning apartment playing the trumpet. “Am I an avenging angel, or a rat who got what he deserved?” The movie tells the story of how he ended up there so you can decide.
After the murder of his wife, Tom Van Allen assumes a new identity in order to discover the identity of her murders. His plan, initially, is to take revenge. To do so, he becomes a police informant, and an addict. Every so often he goes to a locked trunk in his room. Inside is his true identity: papers, pictures, clothes, hat and trumpet. He puts them on, and plays. He’s trying to keep who he is in mind. He’s losing his grip on his identity. He’s losing… himself. In the midst of the lies he tells others, he’s beginning to believe those same lies. The lines between Tom and Danny are beginning to blur. He’s not sure if he’s still Tom or if he’s become Danny. But while Tom seeks revenge, someone else is seeking revenge against Danny the Rat.
While I was a temporary bachelor, I spent an evening watching The Last Man Standing. I had only seen parts of the movie in the past, so I decided to watch the whole thing. It is an updated version of A Fistful of Dollars, which was the basic story line of Kurosawa’s Yojimbo that takes place during prohibition on a Texas border town. The basic story is that of the unknown drifter who enters the town in the midst of a struggle for power between 2 gangs (of different ethnic groups in the Leone and Hill versions). What the drifter notices is the beautiful woman who “belongs” to one of the gang leaders.
It has been some time since I’ve seen A Fistful of Dollars, so perhaps The Last Man Standing starts off differently. Or I didn’t have the eyes to notice how important the beginning was. LMS begins with the thus far unknown woman in the deserted chapel. She is praying. We learn later, of course, that she is essentially a hostage. The leader of the Irish gang won her in a poker game. She longs to be reunited with her husband and child (here a little girl). In AFD, we actually see the grieving husband and their grieving son. Here they have vanished in the depths of Mexico. We are led to believe that she is praying for her freedom.
We’ve all heard the illustration of the frog in the kettle. I never thought I’d be the frog.
I’ve been tired for a long time. I can’t remember when it started, but it was sometime after my daughter was born. I’d come home from work more than tired. I thought it was just getting older. And raising kids. I don’t know. But I couldn’t get enough sleep either. No get up and go. This was beyond being an night owl.
In the last year or so I’ve noticed memory issues. It just wasn’t firing as fast as it used to fire. I’d get the information out of there, but not as fast as I used to. Something wasn’t right.
This year I had what I thought was my annual physical (long story of faulty communication at the doctor’s office). I brought it up. We added a few things to the usual blood work. I’m glad they did.
They discovered a few things, including a B-12 deficiency. There were about 3 issues that directly affect energy and brain function. So I was started to take some supplements and what I call “the cream” (no, I didn’t get it from Balco). It has been about 2 weeks now.
I feel like a different person. The memory is the slowest to return, but I have fewer “ah…” moments. I’ve come home from work and willingly engaged in projects. I’m not wiped out. Yesterday, for instance…. awake around 7. At the office I finished 2 sermons and 2 Sunday School lessons. A productive day at the office, even with beginning the process of refinancing our home.
When I finally got home, I took a the dog for a walk and started cooking dinner. After dinner I worked on a project around the house, did some reading and started watching a movie at 10 pm. I didn’t have to fight to stay awake.
Sometimes we slowly disintegrate, so to speak. We don’t realize what is happening to us and it becomes normalized. We never think “something’s not right”. We just bumble along.
I’m hoping that now that these things are being addressed that I’ll be a better husband, father and pastor. Oddly enough, I have to re-adjust to normal. And interesting parallel to sanctification- learning to be the person I’ve been redeemed to be. It may pose some interesting dilemmas, but it sure beats going back to being a slug.
There are some great boxing movies: Rocky, The Hurricane, Raging Bull, and Cinderella Man. And then there are some lousy boxing movies, The Main Event comes to mind. So does everything after Rocky III. You’ll notice something about the best ones- they are based on true stories. As a result, they are not just about boxing. They deal with subjects like family dynamics, racism, profound set backs like the Depression.
The Fighter is based on the true story of Welterweight Champion Micky Ward, or rather the story of how he became champion. It deals with family dynamics, addiction, forgiveness and reconciliation. It is about second chances.
Christian and Mark as Dicky and Micky
Micky grew up the younger half-brother of “the Pride of Lowell”, his brother Dicky Ecklund (played marvelously by Christian Bale). Dicky made his claim to fame by knocking down boxing legend Sugar Ray Leonard (or did Sugar Ray just slip?). After his brush with fame, Dicky went down hill. When we enter the story, he is Micky’s trainer and a crack addict. But he is still the apple of his mother’s (and Lowell, MA’s) eye. Micky (played by a subdued Mark Wahlberg) fights on, as an afterthought. His career started well, but with the family distracted by Dicky’s antics (his mother is Micky’s manager) his career has taken a decided downturn. Micky finds himself at a cross roads: will he be brought to nothing by his brother’s problems and the dysfunction represented by his mother and white trash half-sisters ( they add an authentic and hilarious element to the movie).
In his book Children at the Lord’s Table?, Cornelius Venema includes an appendix on the issue of baptism. This appendix, he notes, is his chapter in The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism edited by Gregg Strawbridge. This is an interesting irony since Gregg is one of the people mentioned who advocates for infant communion in the PCA.
“The argument in a nutshell is simply this: God established His church in the days of Abraham and put children into it. They must remain there until He puts them out. He has nowhere put them out. They are still then members of His Church and as such entitled to its ordinances.” B.B. Warfield
Venema rightly goes after the presuppositions that operate in this discussion. The case is not won on the basis of proof-texts because each side brings different presuppositions regarding the nature of the covenant of grace in its varying administrations. This appendix is here because Venema also sees this problem as the basis for the infant communion debate. He uses the appendix to spend more time explaining the proper relationship between the various administrations of the covenant of grace.
Venema admits both sides have arguments from silence. Just as there is no statement explicitly keeping children in the covenant community (no command to baptize them), there is no statement explicitly removing them from the covenant community. If there was, the would have been a serious battle in the church shortly after Pentecost. We don’t see this. Rather, we do see, from the beginning, the repetition of the phrase “this promise is for you and your children”. Peter continues to expand it to the Gentiles. Peter is speaking the language of Genesis 12, 15 & 17 in the context of the sign of initiation into the covenant community (just like Genesis 17). But, I get ahead of myself.
Unlike many other lists, this one is not limited to books written in 2011. I’m not “up to date” enough. This is the best books I read in 2011, regardless of when they were written. Are you down with that, ‘cos that’s how I roll. I’m trying to be a hipster, but fail miserably.
This list looks shorter than I want since I spent time reviewing books I wouldn’t necessarily read. Some of those books were not good books.
Books About Christianity
A Praying Life by Paul Miller. At times I was encouraged, and times I was uncomfortable, while reading this book. Paul shares from his own life and struggles with prayer. I read this over a long period of time since we read it in our community group, so I sometimes lost the flow of the book. Did the book end my struggles with prayer? No. But it helped me recognize why some of those struggles exist (the Fall affected my ability to communicate with God, for instance). It also helped me recognize the gracious character of prayer, and my own Pharisaic tendencies. So, be challenged.
The Great Work of the Gospel: How We Experience God’s Grace by John Ensor. This book wasn’t exactly what I thought it would be. But is was still a great book. It focuses on how it is God forgives us, why it is important that God forgives, and the implication of being forgiven. As I noted in my original review, it was timely in light of the Rob Bell mess.
What Did You Expect??: Redeeming the Realities of Marriage by Paul Tripp. Hands down one of the top 3 books on marriage I have read. Aside from being uptight about certain bodily functions, Tripp is quite insightful into the human heart and its effect on marriage. Buy it and read it if you haven’t already.
Baptism: Three Views by Anthony Lane, ed. The three views are presented by Sinclair Ferguson, Bruce Ware and Lane. Ferguson’s presentation on infant baptism was among the best I’ve read. His presentation in class all those years ago was not as solid and persuasive as this. What the book reveals is the power of presuppositions in this discussion.
Think: The Life of the Mind and the Love of God by John Piper. Piper walks the line in this book. The mind, and the use of it, is necessary but insufficient to the understanding of Scripture and therefore living the Christian life. He also interacts with some of the implications of postmodernism. Not an easy read, but good things typically don’t come easily.
I’ve got a few other books in process that would make the list, but I’m not done yet. Hopefully they will show up next year.
Books Having Little to Nothing to Do with Christianity
The Search for God and Guinness by Stephen Mansfield. It was a very interesting book about beer and the Guinness family. They had a model of benevolence and care for employees that showed they tried to handle their wealth well.
Choosing to See: A Journey of Strength and Hope by Mary Beth Chapman. This could go above, but it is a book that non-Christians might be interested in reading since it deals with adoption and coping with a tragic loss. There were moments where, as a pastor, I was uncomfortable. But it was an interesting book.
The Original Curse by Sean Deveny explores the question of whether the Chicago Cubs threw the 1918 World Series against the Boston Red Sox. If you love baseball this is a very interesting read. He brings in the context of the history of gambling in baseball as well as the state of the nation as the U.S. entered WWI. I think he builds a good case that they did, in fact, throw the World Series, but as a Sox fan I’ll take it.
The final chapter, though there is an appendix, in Children at the Lord’s Table? has Venema’s concluding observations and an evaluation. Most of the chapter reviews the material presented earlier in the book. It is fairly redundant, as one other reviewer noted.He does remind us that since this view is out of step with the Reformed Confessions, the burden of proof is on them to show from Scripture that they have it right and we’ve gotten it wrong for 500 years (it is possible). But they failed to provide sufficient evidence (in his opinion, and mine).
But his evaluation includes some thoughts about the different view of the covenant that functions under the surface of their arguments. In other words, he moves on to their presuppositions. This is where the disagreement really lies. The subject of infant communion is just the visible evidence of the different presuppositions (the same is true for the infant-believers’ baptism debate).
The advocates of infant communion operate with a view of the covenant that claims that all members of the covenant “enjoy a full and saving union with Christ.” This got me to thinking. It sounds remarkably like the argument for the “pure church” used by many credobaptists. Their argument for paedocommunion is completely consistent with that view of the covenant. But is that a proper view of the covenant? Is the pure church a proper understanding of the covenant community? Why then practice excommunication (apart from being commanded to) if they have a saving relationship with Christ because they’ve been baptized?
This was my first Advance Reading Copy, and I was not sure why I got one. Perhaps I’ll never get another one.
The book is the story of 5 Mexican fishermen who ran out of gas after a fierce storm. The current pulled them westward until the 3 men still alive were picked up by a fishing trawler out of Taiwan. They had spent nearly 10 months at sea spending their days looking for ships and food, gathering rainwater and reading the Bible one of them had brought with him.
The book is also the story of the author who was quite successful selling syndication rights, but very much adrift and lost himself. After his life falls apart, he leans of the fishermen who’d just been rescued and feels called to tell their story to the world.
There are parts of this book that are VERY interesting. I was fascinated by the story of the Mexican fishermen. I want to know more about their story. It sort of reminds me of 127 Hours, which I recently watched.
Joe Kissack’s story was interesting, but not nearly as interesting. I hate to say that- as though how God brings a sinner to saving faith is not interesting. But it is clearly more ordinary- I know hundreds, thousands of saved sinners. But I’ve never met anyone who survived adrift on the Pacific for 10 months. Unlike the people near the end of the story who encouraged Joe to see the 2 stories as one, I was not as enthused by the process. It distracted me. I understand the contrasts, but they just didn’t work for me like they did for others. That’s okay.
I’m not sure why I watched it to begin with. I suppose it was because of the commercials on the Comcast On-Demand this summer. I’m not really into zombies but I thought I’d watch the first episode. And I was hooked. I quickly watched the rest of the first season.
The Walking Dead has zombies in it, but it really isn’t about zombies. It is about people- humanity. What drew me in originally was Rick’s quest to find his family. Rick was a deputy who was shot during an arrest. He woke up from a coma to a whole new world he didn’t understand. His town was a ghost town aside from the walking dead who moved in herds. But he knew his family was alive and took some guns to go looking for them.
The show took some interesting looks at morality in extreme circumstances. This is a situation in which there is no law and order. The creatures who are trying to eat you used to be people. It is not like war where they have a different language, form of government or religion. These people used to be your neighbors. In the premiere, they showed a man conflicted about shooting the zombie who used to be his wife. He wanted to end her misery, but he still saw her. This show is not about killing zombies. It is about the living.
In Children at the Lord’s Table? everything has pretty much been building up to this moment. 1 Corinthians 11 is the key text to the question of whether or not baptized children should partake of the Lord’s Supper prior to a profession of faith. Here is also where the publisher’s commitment to the KJV is the most annoying. Venema does address one of key textual issues, preferring the non-Textus receptus manuscripts.
The Historic Reformed Interpretation
Venema starts with how this text has been interpreted in the Reformed community. The instruction regarding what it means to participate in the sacrament “unworthily” is seen as normative. It was not limited to the situation in Corinth, but is for all churches and Christians, not just those that struggle with the same sins.
In Corinth, there were additional divisions in the church (beyond those in the first chapters) along class lines. These divisions were most clearly expressed during what they thought was the Lord’s Supper. There was little love expressed, but lots of selfishness and pride. In this section Paul uses lots of 2nd person pronouns. It is about their actions.
But then Paul shifts to the 3rd person for his positive instruction. This change to more universal or general language indicates the normative nature of his instruction. Additionally, participation in the sacrament is predicated upon having faith which is able to remember and proclaim the Savior’s death. The people who partake receive and rest upon gospel promises, there is a subjective element to the sign.
Those who participate are also supposed to examine themselves. Some in the Reformed community have neglected the “themselves” part and require examination by the elders before each celebration of the Supper (yes, our Scottish brothers). This text does not require a “complete spiritual physical” either. The idea is whether you genuinely believe in Christ as He is presented in the gospel. The idea that this is a Puritan-like examination of every nook and cranny of your life is not substantiated by the text (I like the Puritans, but they were not perfect either). Venema calls this a strawman argument used by advocates of infant communion. And rightly so.
I wasn’t going to watch Faster. It just seemed like a mess of meaningless violence. But someone said I’d be surprised, to just give it a chance (who were you by the way?).
So I did. And I was.
The movie does move quickly. It jumps right out of the shoot and you aren’t exactly sure what is going on except that The Rock is being released from prison and the warden, played by Tom Berenger (who is looking old) is pleading with him to get help adjusting to life on the outside.
I haven’t done many ‘commercials’ as of late. But sometimes you need to let people know about something. This may be one of those times.
My kids love the Jesus Storybook Bible. I do too. But my daughter is getting a bit old. Don’t tell her but she’ll probably get an NIV for Christmas (Bible Study Fellowship still uses the NIV, though that may change soon since the 1984 is being removed from their catalog). But I don’t see her just sitting down and reading through an “adult” Bible yet.
The Gospel Story Bible looks like a great transitional Bible for my young reader. It has far more stories in it, so it deals with more of the biblical history. But each story is covered in 2 pages and includes a few questions. This can help young readers understand the flow of the Bible and maintain a focus on the Gospel. That’s a good thing, because it is easy for us to lose sight of the gospel in the details.
With a great sale price at WTS Books for the next few days, I’ll be buying a copy. If you have kids, you may want to get one or two as well.
After examining church history, the Reformed Confessions and the Old Testament, Cornelius Venema turns his attention, and ours, to the New Testament in Children at the Lord’s Table?. He is looking to see if the claims for infant communion can be found in the New Testament. Well, most of the New Testament. He saves 1 Corinthians 11 for a chapter of its own since that passage is so important to the discussion. Venema plays his hand on the first page of the chapter by noting that like with the Old Testament, the New does not address the question as clearly as we might want.
He begins with a puzzling thought- “the alleged analogy between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper.” You have to be patient and not pull a knee jerk reaction to the statement. This is one of the most important aspects of the argument for infant communion. He does not deny a connection, but builds a case for it being connected to all the covenant meals. But before we get too far ahead, he surveys the types of NT evidence we encounter. The first are the account of the Lord’s Supper in the synoptic Gospels. Second, there are texts that allude generally to the celebration of the Supper by the new covenant community (descriptive). Third, there are texts that address how it should be observed (prescriptive). Fourth, there are passages describing who should observe it (1 Corinthians 10-11), which is also prescriptive in nature.
The institution of the Lord’s Supper, as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels do not directly address the issue to whether children may participate. There is no mention of a household celebration here. He is reclining at the table with his 12 disciples- all adult males. They had come to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover. But it also differs from the Passover in a few ways. While the Passover was seen as a sign of the covenant, it was not seen as conferring grace. It was a memorial of God’s redemption of Israel. It functioned as a reminder, and a call to trust in this same God. But there did not seem to be a “sacramental” function. Zwingli would be happy. But, as we will see in 1 Corinthians, there is blessing and cursing involved in the Supper. It is no mere memorial (sorry, Zwingli). We also see that Jesus expected them to celebrate it more frequently than once a year. It was to be a regular part of worship for the covenant community. But partaking in the Supper also seem to require “remembrance”. There is a remembering and doing involved here. It seems to require active participation in a way that baptism does not. The language of “blood of the new covenant”, as noted earlier, point us to the covenant ratification ceremony on Sinai (Exodus 24), not simply the Passover.
I’ve written a book on marriage. I can’t seem to get it published, but I wrote one. The last few years have seen some excellent books on marriage published. I currently have a “trinity” of marriage books. My “go to” books are 
Since my current sermon series from Genesis includes the idea of relationships, I decided it would be a good time to read 
Sinclair Ferguson has a booklet called 
The book What is the 
If I were given one word to describe 
Every so often I follow a link, read a blog or an excerpt of a book (or a whole one) which argues against the complementarian view of Scripture and therefore marriage. What I so often find are straw man arguments. They either don’t understand or don’t want to understand the view. They present distortions of the view as the view. That would be like saying Benny Hinn is a mainstream charismatic. He’s not, and to present him as such is unfair. As one writer noted recently on his blog (Kevin DeYoung, I think) you must present your opponent’s view as one they would recognize. Egalitarians, in my experience, have not done this.
While I was a temporary bachelor, I spent an evening watching The Last Man Standing. I had only seen parts of the movie in the past, so I decided to watch the whole thing. It is an updated version of A Fistful of Dollars, which was the basic story line of Kurosawa’s Yojimbo that takes place during prohibition on a Texas border town. The basic story is that of the unknown drifter who enters the town in the midst of a struggle for power between 2 gangs (of different ethnic groups in the Leone and Hill versions). What the drifter notices is the beautiful woman who “belongs” to one of the gang leaders.
I’ve been tired for a long time. I can’t remember when it started, but it was sometime after my daughter was born. I’d come home from work more than tired. I thought it was just getting older. And raising kids. I don’t know. But I couldn’t get enough sleep either. No get up and go. This was beyond being an night owl.
In his book 
This was my first Advance Reading Copy, and I was not sure why I got one. Perhaps I’ll never get another one.
I’m not sure why I watched it to begin with. I suppose it was because of the commercials on the Comcast On-Demand this summer. I’m not really into zombies but I thought I’d watch the first episode. And I was hooked. I quickly watched the rest of the first season.
I haven’t done many ‘commercials’ as of late. But sometimes you need to let people know about something. This may be one of those times.
