Did you know...

that the energy produced in the Sun's core is equivelent to 100 billion nuclear bombs exploding per second? I can't even wrap my mind around this figure!!!

(<-- This is an actual photo)

What Shall be Preached?

Embarking on a journey into the early 20th century with J. Gresham Machen has been quite thrilling, even though I'm only in the early stages of his book Christianity and Liberalism. I began reading Machen in large part because of the current ideological and religious discussions surrounding the post-modern culture. Granted, it may seem a tad contradictory that I decided to read a book that refutes modernism/modernity, the same ideology that post-modernity is attempting to refute, in order to find refutations for post-modernism. But ironically enough, many of the modernists' reactions to Evangelicalism are exactly the same as some of the more recent post-modernists' reactions to Evangelicalism:

(These are just a few)

1. The abandonment of scientific theology
2. The desire to avoid giving offense on account of the Gospel
3. Skepticism regarding creeds
4. The desire for experientialism
5. Emphasis upon the praxis of religion.


The two that intrigue me the most are, "The abandonment of scientific theology" and "Emphasis upon the praxis of religion." For multiple reasons I, as well as Machen, believe that these two reactions cannot coincide in true Christianity. Machen, in reference to Paul, states that "Christianity was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first" (23). Christianity is a way of life based on doctrine. If Christ never rose from the dead objectively then our "faith is in vain" (1 Cor. 1:15). This is just one of the many doctrines upon which Christianity is dependent. All of the teachings (doctrine) about the life and work of Christ, the attributes and work of the Godhead, and a plethora of others are necessary.

Machen finds support for his refutation of the idea that "Christianity is not a doctrine but a life" (20) from Philippians, and then from Galatians:

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true, make him incapable of a magnificent tolerance. One notable example of such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested by the Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul's greatness. As long as he had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place; but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy and strife. In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. "Whether in presence, or in truth," he said, "Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice" (Phil. i. 18). The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broad-minded tolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers. But Paul had no tolerance for them. "But though we," he said, "or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. i. 8). What is the reason for the difference in the apostle's attitude in the two cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false. In neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul's attitude. No doubt the motives of the Judaizers in Galatia were far from pure, and in an incidental way Paul does point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of his opposition. The Judaizers no doubt were morally far from perfect, but Paul's opposition to them would have been exactly the same if they had all been angels from heaven. His opposition was based altogether upon the falsity of their teaching; they were substituting for the one true gospel a false gospel which was no gospel at all. It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers ? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul's lofty view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer's own effort to keep the Law. From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. (21-24)

I believe that Machen's argument is biblically sound and intellectually compelling - but really the former is more important for any defense of Christianity. It is quite apparent that doctrine, in Paul's eyes, was extremely important. So how can we decide to abandon doctrine and still call ourselves faithful? because we live morally decent lives? It's not an either-or issue (praxis or doctrine). It's a both-and issue. We must know the doctrine that governs our actions. Without clear knowledge of God and His demands, we would have no practice at all.

I believe that the study of doctrine and the resulting praxis are two doctrines from the Bible that are inextricably linked (Luke 8:21, 11:28). And what a joy it is to know that we have a Savior who has bought for us delight in God, through intellectual faculties and through experience.

We are saved by grace (Rom. 4:16, 11:6; Eph. 2:5,8), through faith - in a definite object (Hab. 2:4; Luke 18:42; Eph. 2:8), unto good works (Eph. 2:10; 1 Tim. 6:18; Jam. 2:20).

"It appears that the things that are sometimes thought to be hardest to defend are also the things that are most worth defending" - J. Gresham Machen

I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud

This poem by William Wordsworth is a beautiful picture of a man delighting in God's creation:


I wandered lonely as a cloud
That floats on high o'er vales and hills,
When all at once I saw a crowd,
A host, of golden daffodils,
Beside the lake, beneath the trees
Fluttering and dancing in the breeze.

Continuous as the stars that shine
And twinkle on the Milky Way,
They stretched in never-ending line
Along the margin of a bay:
Ten thousand saw I at a glance
Tossing their heads in sprightly dance.

The waves beside them danced, but they
Out-did the sparkling waves in glee: -
A poet could not but be gay
In such a jocund company:
I gazed -and gazed -but little thought
What wealth the show to me had brought.

For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills
And dances with the daffodils.

What Do You Mean?

This is by no means an exhaustive exposition; just some quick thoughts.

Today, my literature professor made the statement, "We are used to speaking in metaphor. We rarely ever say what we literally mean."

What he meant was exaggeration: "I'm starving." It's freezing cold in here." These were two examples that he mentioned.

This got me thinking a bit. Is this generally true of our daily conversations? Do we often exaggerate and use metaphor in our speech? And if so, is this really how we think (fictitiously and metaphorically)? And when we use such language, is it beneficial or detrimental?

Honestly, I can admit that I have a tendency to over-dramatize actual events. This is something that never seemed like much of an issue until recently. But now I realize that exaggeration is simply another form of lying. And I, by the grace of God, truly desire that my speech and my thoughts would be sincere in all respects so that I might better glorify Him.

After reflection, my perception of metaphoric language - in myself and others - is that it is not beneficial; but rather, it is quite detrimental. How often have you been in a conversation with someone and they have made the claim, "I hate that...(insert noun of choice)!"? Does that person really hate the object of distaste? Or is he or she merely momentarily embittered? By using the word "hate" - or any exaggerated clause or phrase - a cloud of confusion has automatically ascended over the conversation. Granted, the example I have given is weak. But I hope that you can understand my point.

So many conflicts have arisen theologically, politically, relationally, etc. due to the imprecise nature of our language usage. This is something that I see as unnecessary conflict. Our language is beautiful and very concise, if used properly.

Perhaps this has to do with the departure of reading. Instead of reading, we, America in particular, have become a movie-going people. We are shaped by the culture to which we are exposed. And since we are often exposed to "casual" conversations and extraordinary events, we don't know how to carry on formal conversations about actual events. And over time, the casual conversations transpire into thoughts. Perhaps we don't even think clearly - which I believe is absolutely true - because of our lack of conversational clarity. After all, our words are first formed in our minds...

Scripture and Plain Reason

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other. - Martin Luther

This is a good (short) article by John MacArthur.

HT: Shepherds' Fellowship

Pink Wednesday

The foundation of all true knowledge of God must be a clear mental apprehension of His perfections as revealed in Holy Scripture. An unknown God can neither be trusted, served, nor worshipped.

These astute words, uttered by Arthur W. Pink, are foundational to Christianity. We must know our God - as He has chosen to reveal Himself - if we are to worship Him as we ought. I trust that there are many Christians out there in the blogosphere in whom the Spirit has cultivated a deep passion for the knowledge of God. Yet still, there are others that have not yet been exposed to the riches of His grace - something upon which we all need to often meditate.

When the Spirit graciously revealed the glory of Christ to me, my father, being the godly man-of-concern that he is, suggested that I read The Attributes of God by A.W. Pink so that the foundation upon which my Christian life was built would be a deep, biblical, awful, glorious understanding of the riches of the eternal God, His essence, and His activity. This is one of those works to which I will often return. And I trust that it will benefit you as well.

Here is Chapter one of The Attributes of God, "The Solitariness of God."

And here is a quick excerpt:

"In the beginning, God" (Gen. 1:1). There was a time, if "time" is could be called, when God, in the unity of His nature (though subsisting equally in three Divine Persons), dwelt all alone. "In the beginning, God." There was no heaven, where His glory is now particularly manifested. There was no earth to engage His attention. There were no angels to hymn His praises; no universe to be upheld by the word of His power. There was nothing, no one, but God; and that, not for a day, a year, or an age, but "from everlasting." During a past eternity, God was alone: self-contained, self-sufficient, self-satisfied; in need of nothing. Had a universe, had angels, had human beings been necessary to Him in any way, they also had been called into existence from all eternity. The creating of them when He did, added nothing to God essentially. He changes not (Mal. 3:6), therefore His essential glory can be neither augmented nor diminished.

According to the Statistics...

...the rapture really could occur at any time.

HT: Riddleblog

How to Defend Logic

This is an interesting apologetic tactic. By the way, I don't recommend it. But it's still funny.

HT: Soli Deo Gloria

The Pleasantness of a Religious Life...

Recently I have been reading Matthew Henry's The Pleasantness of a Religious Life. What a joy this book has been to my soul!

The current discussion over evangelizing to the emerging culture has caused me to think often about the methods by which we preach the Gospel. And I have stated previously that I am generally in favor, or at the very least semi-supportive, of using modern methods to bring the Gospel to the unreached peoples of the world. However, last night Matthew Henry made me re-think some things.

Pleasure is a tempting thing: what yields delight, cannot but attract desire; it is next to necessity, so strongly doth it urge. Surely, if we were but fully persuaded of this, that religion [Christianity] hath pleasure on its side, we would be wrought upon by the allurement of that to be religious (pg. 49).

Henry understood the joy that is found only in Christ. He knew that if others could also grasp the idea that Christianity is the only thing in the world that produces long-lasting, immeasurable joy then there would be a strong sense of "allurement" constantly pulling and tugging at one's soul toward God. He goes on to say,

There is no pleasure in any learning like that of learning Christ, and the things that belong to our everlasting peace; for that which is known is not small and trivial, is not doubtful and uncertain, is not foreign to us, and which we are not concerned in; which are things that may much diminish the pleasure of any knowledge; but it is great and sure, and of the last importance to us, and the knowledge of it gives us satisfaction: here we may rest our souls. To know the perfections of the divine nature, the unsearchable riches of divine grace, to be led into the mystery of our redemption and reconciliation by Christ, this is food; such knowledge as this is a feast to the soul; it is meat indeed, and drink indeed...If the knowledge of the law of God was so sweet to David, 'sweeter than honey to his taste' (Pss. 19:10; 119:103), how much more so should the knowledge of the gospel of Christ be to us? (pg. 54).

Granted, Henry is speaking directly to believers in an attempt to strengthen their faith and love in Christ. But I think this can also apply to unbelievers. Often times they perceive Christianity as a way to get someone to stop drinking, or stop smoking, or quit some other "bad habit." And many times churches preach this type of Gospel: "Try Jesus and he will give you a better life."

The Gospel is not that your life will necessarily be better in the immediate sense. But rather, that the joy that will be produced from knowing God and knowing the depths of His riches and Grace will be eternal.

This is how I believe the Gospel ought to be presented. Yes, present the law. Yes, a sinner must come to an accurate assessment of his or her depravity before true repentance will occur. But then we must insert the "but God." After showing the sinful nature of the person, then the grace of God must be lifted up, then the glory of Christ must be explained, then the finality of His sacrifice must be preached, and then the future glory and joy of the believer ought to be presented.

As one who is of the proper age to be categorized as belonging to the post-modern, emerging culture, I can say that I personally didn't need to be reached by any sort of fancy methodology to get a hold of me with the Gospel. The Gospel was preached and then the Spirit went to work for a few years until finally the truth was made known to me. I understand that everyone is different. But my point is that it is the Gospel that saves, not our clever arguments or style adaptations. It is the glory of Christ and the work of the Spirit that brings about true saving faith.

Changing the Message with the Method

There has been much discussion and controversy over the "emergent movement." I understand that many of the "forefathers" don't like to call it a movement. But I think it's a little late for that. Whether it was their desire to start a movement or not, it has happened. One of the major problems with debating about this "movement" is that there are no concrete confessions or authorities that state what the emerging church actually believes. Yes, Mclaren has written quite a bit on the subject. But Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Dan Kimball - among others - all seem to have their own ideas regarding what they want to accomplish.

But one of the questions that most proponents of the emerging movement have agreed upon is in regards to evangelizing: "How do we reach a post-modern culture with the message of Jesus Christ?" I think that this is a real concern. Being a student, I can attest to the effects that post-modernity is having (has had) upon the college crowd. Truth has become "a strange sort of fiction" (as Greg Koukl mentioned in his recent lecture during STR's Master's Series last month).

I hope we can all agree that the emerging culture needs to hear the Gospel, right? So, how can we, Christians in general, reach generation "e"? Well, the emergent answer is to change the method by which the Gospel is presented; make it more geared toward to the emerging culture's way of thinking. And I think that the motives behind this answer are valid. But the problem that I am seeing is that in the process of changing the method, often times, the message is also being changed.

This is something that simply cannot happen. If we are going to try to reach the emerging culture, one thing we cannot do is change the message. The message is very clear throughout Scripture: "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved" (Act 4:12). This is something that we simply cannot compromise. Christians are called to weather the storms and stand in the way of ideological oppostion, all the while boldly proclaiming the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which, like Him, is unchanging. When new philosophical ideologies arise, the message must stay the same. Our faith does not "rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God" (1 Cor. 2:5). And post-modernity is just that, "wisdom of men." It is a philosophical construct designed to question how knowledge is ascertained. And very often it denies absolute truth.

Granted, modernity was also a flawed humanistic philosophical ideology. I am in no way arguing that reason alone is a viable alternative to post-modernism. For it is by faith that "we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God" (Heb 11:3). But what I am saying is that the message of Jesus Christ will never be accurately preached if it is blended with post-modernism. Truth is something that by its very nature cannot be subjective. There are subjective beliefs. But truth, by definition, is something that is a fact. And either Jesus is "the Truth" or He is not. He left no room for debate.

So while I don't mind the removal of pews, the use of candle lit services, the massive consumption of Starbucks coffee, or the desire for spiritual "conversations," I do find it problematic that the message is sometimes being changed with the method.