Roman Catholic Priesthood

“The priest speaks, and Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”

- “Father” John O’Brien

The Faith of Millions

“Jesus died to institute the priesthood. Had he not died, where should we find the victim that the priests now offer? It was not necessary for the Redeemer to die in order to save the world; a drop of his blood, a single tear, or prayer, was sufficient to procure salvation for all . . . but to institute the priesthood, the death of Jesus Christ was necessary.”

- Alphonsus Ligouri

The Dignity and Duties of the Priest

Can you tell anything wrong with this?

Subjective Impressions, ESP, and Reverse Deja Vu

From Phil Johnson at Pyromaniacs:

Everyone has unexplained thoughts that seem to leap from nowhere into the mind. (Note: When I say "everyone," I mean believers and unbelievers alike; I don't necessarily mean "every single individual." I've met a few less-than-completely sentient people who seem incapable of any original thought whatsoever. They prolly never get spontaneous notions of anything. Let's leave those folks out of this discussion.)


Most people likewise have a sense of intuition, where at times you just feel like you know a thing is true and you can't give an account for how you arrived at that knowledge rationally. It may even seem like you have ESP, or ESPN2, or whatever. It's a lot like deja vu, only backwards. I happen to think that sense of intuition is probably more rational than we can explain. In any case, I'm quite sure it's not really a supernatural spiritual gift from God, because it has such a poor track record. Besides, I had the same intuitive abilities before I was converted as I have now.

My sense of intuition is sort of like a stopped clock that was designed to measure time in months instead of hours. Once or twice a year (on average) it's right. And when it's right, it can seem quite impressive. I've had some moments of intuition that I could have parlayed into a fortune, if I were the type of charlatan who is willing to claim he has a prophetic gift even when he knows he really doesn't. I certainly have no such gift. For the most part, my intuition is grossly fallible and ordinarily wrong. I don't trust it at all, even though my experience is probably a lot like yours: there are times when I feel compelled to follow my intuition.

To be clear: I usually "feel compelled to follow" my intuition only when I don't have a better rational or sensible idea of what to do. Maturity has taught me to hold off on trusting intuition and try to understand facts and reasons and the potential results of my actions before I act. In fact, I'd say that's what maturity is all about, to a very large degree.

But, how do we understand that inner sense, especially when God seems to use it to prompt us to pray, or witness, or duck and run at precisely the right moment? Because let's be honest, here: that kind of thing does happen to most of us from time to time.

As I said in a comment-thread [once upon a time] (see below), we need to regard those occasions as remarkable Providences, not inspired prophecy. God might use a spontaneous thought in my head providentially. In fact, as a Calvinist, I don't hesitate to say that He ultimately controls and uses everything providentially. But that's as true of my sins as it is of the thoughts in my head. God can use them all for His own purposes. The fact that He uses an idea in my mind to achieve some good purpose doesn't make the idea itself inspired.

That's the point we are trying to make in all these various threads about prophecy and cessationism. It's an important point. We're not trying to step on the charismatic air-hose just because it's fun.

So please give these things some serious thought before you react this time.

Four lessons:
1. If intuition is fallible (and everyone except the out-and-out-charlatan seems to agree that it is), it cannot be considered "revelation," even when it happens to be uncannily right in an instance or two.

2. Since intuition is so fallible—and most would agree that it is actually far more often wrong than right—we shouldn't make much of it.

3. Those who think those moments of intuition are God speaking with a private message invariably become extremely superstitious; they foolishly order their lives by their feelings; they commit the sin of trusting too much in their own hearts; and they diminish the more sure Word of prophecy. No one who knows church history, and no one who truly understands the concept of spiritual maturity can deny that Christians who follow the voice in their heads fall into those errors all the time, and it can be (and often is) spiritually disastrous.

4. Since our intuitive sense is so grossly fallible, and since every sane, biblical Christian would acknowledge that it's dangerous to pay much attention to it, we should not try to elevate it to the level of a supernatural "spiritual gift." It most certainly does not resemble any of the spiritual gifts—much less the gift of "prophecy"— as we see those gifts functioning in the New Testament.

Here's that comment I made in the meta [once upon a time]:

I'm tied up with meetings today and unable to participate in the blog-discussion, but a couple of people have e-mailed me privately with the same question about this thread. One begged me for an answer; the other accused me of dodging the question.

So here's the question and my short answer:

Q: If God doesn't speak to you directly, how does he "lead" you to do anything? How, for example, did you know Darlene was the right person to marry?; how did you know you were called to ministry?; and how do you explain it when a thought pops into your head and prompts you to pray for someone?

Short answer: I trust the providence of God. I can't necessarily interpret the providence of God infallibly, though.

So if (for example) I suddenly think to pray for the safety or holiness of one of my children, I don't need to interpret that as a prophetic message from God that Pecadillo or one of his brothers is in immediate danger. But I pray for them nonetheless, though I can't possibly understand why that thought popped into my head or even discern correctly whether it originated in my own imagination or was immediately infused into my brain by the Holy Spirit.

If it turns out later that I prayed at exactly the right moment when some specific danger befell one of my kids, I praise God for a remarkable providence.

I DON'T, however, twist it into some kind of quasi-revelation and use it as an excuse to trust my own heart. Scripture says those who do that are fools (Proverbs 28:26).

Here's the thing: I trust Providence enough to believe that God ordained that I should pray, and He will answer my prayer for His glory and my good, even if the thought that prompted the prayer was out of my own imagination.

But it would be a sin for me to claim God "told" me to pray about that particular thing at that particular time when He did no such thing.

Providence, people. Go and learn what that means, and we can avoid having this debate every 6 weeks or so.

Here's a book, written by a good friend of mine, that deals with this issue well.

Words From God

From Dan Phillips at Pyromaniacs:

It is a central tenet of Christian faith that there is such a thing as a word from God (Gen. 1:1; 15:1; Jn. 1:1, 14, 18; 3:34, etc.). Without that assertion, made and affirmed, there simply and literally is no Christian faith (Rom. 10:17).

So, HSAT, let's think through some questions about words from God:

1. Does it change anything, if there is a word from God?
2. Does it change everything, if there is a word from God?
3. Does the Bible ever depict the arrival of a fresh word from God as intended to be welcomed as a casual, business-as-usual affair?
4. Is there such a thing as a word from God that is not inherently fully true, and thus inerrant?
5. Is there such a thing as a word from God that is not instantly, inherently and absolutely morally-binding?
6. Even in the cases of words from God that do not directme to do something (i.e. Jer. 18:1; Jn. 1:14), are they not still inherently and instantly and universally morally-binding in that believers must affirm that they are God's words, and must believe them?
7. Does not the very existence of tests of prophecy (i.e. Deut. 13:1ff.; 18:15ff.) underscore the fact that, if it is a word from God, all people are obliged to embrace it appropriately?
8. If the elder(s) of a local church knew of anyone in the congregation that was in rebellion against a word from God, either by refusing to do what the word said to do, or refusing to believe that the word was God's word, would they not be obliged to confront and discipline that person, and ultimately to expel him or her as an unbeliever, absent repentance?
9. Can a body of believers be in the regular practice of disobeying, ignoring, or being ambivalent about words from God, without disastrous spiritual consequences?

There. Now I'll ask and answer one more question:

Say... isn't that an awfully basic list of awfully easy questions?

(Answer: in "evangelicalism" today? It should be, yes. Would to God that it were. But no, evidently it is not.)

Slain in the Spirit

From Cripplegate:

The Holy Spirit gets blamed for a lot of bizarre human behavior within the broader Pentecostal and Charismatic movements — barking, jumping, dipping, rolling, laughing, and of course, falling over during church services.

I was reminded of that sad reality recently when I came across this article from ABC News, explaining that a charismatic church was being sued because a bystander got hurt when a church member was slain in the Spirit.

Here’s how that article began:

A parishioner at the Disciple Fellowship Christian Church in East St. Louis, Ill., claims the spirit moved another worshiper so much during service that she caused others to tumble over backwards into her, causing injuries. Now she’s suing the church for damages.

The report goes on to explain that, because of the spiritual nature of “being touched” by the Holy Spirit, lawyers are going to have a tough time proving negligence on the part of the slain church member. Yet, the plaintiff is undeterred. She wants the church to pay for her medical bills.

Of course, if this church had not promoted such an unbiblical practice in the first place, all of this nonsense would have simply been avoided.

So, what are we to think about being slain in the Spirit? Since ABC News brought the practice to my attention this week, I thought it might be helpful to share a few thoughts.

The Biblical Teaching

The actual term “slain in the Spirit” is never used in Scripture. Some charismatics admit that the practice has no Scriptural backing, but rather that it arose out of the Methodist camp meetings of the Second Great Awakening. Others disagree—appealing to various Scriptures for support and arguing that the experience should be judged on the basis of its supposed fruit.

Possible biblical intimations are drawn from a number of passages. Here are ten of the leading candidates:

1. In Genesis 15:12 Abram falls into a deep sleep as God makes a covenant with Himself.

2. In 1 Samuel 19:23–24, Saul, while pursuing David, begins prophesying and lays down for a day and a night.

3. In Ezekiel 1:28 and 3:23, Ezekiel falls face down when confronted with the glory of the Lord.

4. In Daniel 8:17 and 10:9, Daniel falls face down when met by the angel Gabriel.

5. In Matthew 17:6, Peter, James, and John fall prostrate at the Transfiguration.

6. In John 18:6, the soldiers arresting Jesus fall flat when He says, “I Am.”

7. In Acts 9:4, Paul, on the road to Damascus, falls down when confronted by the risen Jesus. This event is recounted by Paul in Acts 26:14.

8. In Acts 10:10, Peter falls into a trance on the rooftop before meeting Cornelius’ men.

9. In 2 Corinthians 12:1–4, Paul tells of a vision of paradise which he is privileged to see.

10. In Revelation 1:10, 17, the Apostle John falls flat at the feet of Jesus.

A careful look at these verses, however, indicates that they do not support the contemporary practice of slaying people in the Spirit.

Here are a few observations from the biblical data:

1. The absence of a middle man (as is common in pentecostal and charismatic practice). None of the Scriptural proof-texts depict an intermediary human involved in the “slaying.” It is always God (or an angel from God — Daniel 8, 10) who, because of His glory, causes men to fall on their face. The only human involved in biblically “slaying” anyone else was Christ, yet His dual nature (as God in human flesh) makes Him the exception, not the rule.

2. The “slain” remain conscious. In all but three of the above instances, the people were cognizant the entire time. For example, although Paul’s conversion experience in Acts 9 involved falling down, he remained alert and awake, even conversing with Christ. This general pattern runs contrary to the unconscious ecstasy of the modern charismatic experience.

3. The spiritual condition of the “slain.” Quite clearly, God’s Word depicts both believers and unbelievers as those who are “slain.” Thus, charismatics cannot assert that the experience is a mark of true Christianity. For that matter, the soldiers who arrested Christ were in the process of sinning when they were knocked down.

4. Its absence from the lists of spiritual gifts. Conspicuously, the “gift” of slaying in the Spirit is never included in any list of gifts in the New Testament nor is anyone ever presented as possessing such a gift. Despite the modern hubbub, there is no record that any early church leader had the ability to knock people over by the power of the Spirit. Surely, such a vital Christian experience would warrant direct Biblical mention.

5. The nature of the “slaying.” Although a minor point, the “slain” in Scripture fell forward (when the direction of their fall is recorded), rather than flat on their backs. Hence, the idea of a “catcher” standing behind a person to ensure their safety is foreign to the Biblical texts.

6. Its anti-Christian nature. The lack of control that accompanies being “slain in the Spirit” is actually more characteristic of paganism than true Christianity. Galatians 5:22-23 says that the fruit of the Spirit includes self-control (cf. 1 Cor. 14:32), while 1 Corinthians 14:40 prescribes orderly congregational worship. First Peter 1:13 commands believers to gird their minds for action (not to bypass their minds in ectasy); and Ephesians 5:18 reports that the fruit of being filled with the spirit is content-filled singing and Christ-honoring relationships (not falling like a dead man to the ground).

What is Really Happening?

Despite the dearth of Biblical evidence, some pentecostal/charismatic pastors still claim to be able to slay people in the Spirit. A well-known proponent of this view is Benny Hinn.

That people fall over at Hinn’s services cannot be questioned. What can be questioned, however, is what force lies behind the phenomenon. The answer is certainly not the Holy Spirit—since He promotes both orderly worship and individual self-control.

Then what “spirit” is involved? Several answers seem possible.

1. The power of human emotional “spirit.” Some, such as G. Richard Fisher, believe that part of Hinn’s “slaying” success comes from the emotional expectations of the audience. In other words, because they have seen others “slain in the Spirit,” because they have great respect for Mr. Hinn, and because their emotions are worked up, they willingly fall when Hinn “throws” the Spirit in their direction. Moreover, the peer-pressure stemming from the majority around them persuades any dissenters to fall in line with the rest of the group. (Pentecostal soteriology adds to this pressure because the ”baptism of the Spirit” is associated with things like tongues and being slain in the Spirit.)

2. The power of the leader’s “spirit.” Fisher, furthermore, points out that the influence of Mr. Hinn, himself, as a respected Christian leader (as perceived by those in the audience), encourages people to comply. In other words, because Mr. Hinn speaks for God, he must possess divinely-given power. Thus, his audiences, deeply wanting to experience such power, gladly “go with the flow” when “slain in the Spirit.” In such cases, being “slain in the Spirit” is nothing more than an experiential delusion made possible by Hinn’s ability to manipulate a crowd.

3. The power of demonic “spirit.” To what extent demonic power is involved in the process is impossible to know. However, being “slain” closely resembles certain elements of the occult — a realm highly influenced by the demonic. Furthermore, false teaching is defined in Scripture as the “doctrine of demons,” especially when it obscures or distracts from the truth of the gospel (1 Tim 4:1). In any case, “being slain in the Spirit” looks a lot more like the fruit of sinful flesh, than the fruit of the Holy Spirit (see Gal 5:19-23).

Conclusion

Because it is never condoned in Scripture but actually runs contrary to it (by promoting mindless and disruptive behavior), the modern practice of “being slain in the Spirit” ought to be avoided.

But, just in case being unbiblical isn’t enough … we can now add another reason for staying away from the practice.

If you fall and hit someone, you might get sued.

Should We Answer the Questions People Are Asking?

Ed Stetzer’s most recent research found a significant change in the kinds of spiritual questions people are asking.

Very few are asking questions about heaven:

• Just 8% say they wonder about heaven every day (down from 20% just five years ago)



• While 46% say they never do

More are asking about meaning and purpose:

• 18% say they wonder about meaning and purpose every day



• Only 28% say they never do

Ed’s Conclusions
1. Christianity has the answer to the questions people are asking. Through Jesus Christ, people can have both meaning on earth and eternal life in heaven

2. As People are now more concerned about how to get happiness in this life than in the afterlife, the church should start at this point in evangelism.
As Ed says, “Knowing people’s questions and the gospel answer is a key part of clear evangelistic communication.”

My Question
While I appreciate Ed’s research, and I think the church should heed it and learn from it, I do wonder if unbelievers are really the best judges of the questions they should be asking? (I certainly wasn’t) Is it not a bit like asking an Inuit (an “Eskimo” for the non-politically correct) if they have any questions about gardening in the Sahara?

I’m not saying we should ignore the questions of unbelievers. As Ed says, they can be a starting point. But having answered them, perhaps we should go on to say, “Now these are important questions you’ve asked, and I’ve tried to give you serious answers. But there are even more important question you should be asking, like, “How can I get my sins forgiven? How can I get right with God? How can I be changed from within? How can I be born-again?” If an unbeliever isn’t interested in these questions, he/she has not begun to understand the seriousness of their state.

When the rich young ruler came with questions about the lack in his life and about how to gain eternal life, Jesus did not answer him directly. Instead, He started asking him about the commandments. It’s almost as if he was saying, “Wrong questions! Here, let me supply the ones you should be concerned about.”

Again with Nicodemus, Jesus interrupted Nicodemus’s introduction with a question that Nicodemus had clearly never even thought of before.

Sometimes we have to destroy the unbelievers’ bridges to nowhere, and start boring tunnels into their deepest problems.

Quote of the Day

People tell me ‘Judge not lest ye be judged.’

I always tell them, ‘Twist not scripture lest ye be like Satan.’

—Paul Washer

Self Examination and Resolutions

While some may scoff at a New Year’s Resolutions, I embrace them. The scriptures are filled with various challenges to examine ourselves, and to see where we fall short God’s standards. Introspection is a healthy part of our relationship with the Lord.

Before a believer takes communion, he is to “examine himself” (1 Corinthians 11:28). Paul, in a rebuke to the Corinthians, told them to “examine yourselves” (2 Corinthians 13:5). Colossians 3 presents a pattern of putting off sin and putting on conduct becoming of those who love the Messiah. And in Colossians 3, Paul culminates his description of sanctification with this charge: “whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17).

Normative Christian living contains self-examination. There is a morbid introspection that goes too far; we all know those who are Christian Eeyores, moping about, striving to uncover any hidden motive behind every action. That sort of spiritual depression is not what I am talking about. But there is a healthy self-examination that should be part of the Christian life. Self-assessment can be extremely beneficial in our quest for godliness.

And if we are honest, it is often difficult to gauge our spiritual health on a daily basis. The urgency of life clamors, and daily demands can drown out solitude and prayer. That is one of the benefits of self-examination at communion; there is a certain ceremonial stillness that forces us to ask “how have I lived this week? This month?”

For that reason, I find that an annual spiritual inventory more helpful than daily spiritual contemplation. I ask myself, “How am I doing this year? What have I read this year in the Bible? How did I lead my wife this year? What was my prayer life like? What sins have I battled this year? Am I putting to death the deeds of the flesh, or is sin winning the battle?”

This kind of annual approach avoids the normal ups and downs common in this fallen world. Excuses are muted by the wide angel lens of looking over the past twelve months. Failures are more obvious, and scapegoats more scarce.

The prophet Haggai confronted Israel when they were in the middle of a 14-year spiritual skid. The demands of daily post-exilic life had stifled the initial excitement of temple building. Israel, over a decade after their return to the land, had imported a Persian consumerist mindset, and they cultivated materialism reminiscent of America.

Haggai stepped into this world of paneled houses and lined pockets, and demanded something of the people. Four times in the tiny book of Haggai, the prophet implores the Israelites to “consider” their ways. They were to look at how they were living, look at the abandoned scaffolding of the temple, and to ask themselves “how am I living? Is God pleased?”

They were not merely to consider the past, but Haggai pointed them forward. He told them “Consider carefully from this day forward…” and he told them about the future. In light of God’s promises, how were they supposed to live?

My personal application of Haggai’s sermons is to look at the last year of my life, and ask if I am going in the right direction. What can change, how can it change, and who can help me? If I see areas of success and triumph in Christ, I mark them in my heart with mental Ebenezers. Where there are failures, I repent, and pray for grace to do better this year. And where there are possibilities, I make goals and I plan in my heart how to make the most of where God has led me over the past year.

How about you? What do you do for New Year’s resolutions? Do you make them, or mock them?

An Unwed Teen with an Unplanned Pregnancy

There is a murderous logic to those who advocate aborting children with disabilities. It goes something like this:
• People with disabilities suffer in this world. Abortion is a kindness that prevents such suffering.
• The caregivers (primarily parents) of children with disabilities also suffer. Abortion is a kindness that prevents their suffering, too.
• Society suffers. Financially and administratively, the burden on society is significant. Abortion is a kindness to the rest of society to prevent such a burden from existing.

The argument has become more sophisticated over time, but the main point is this idea of preventing hardship. Everybody just wants to be comfortable. We like things easy, and cheap — the American and British eugenics movement in the early 1900s had no trouble focusing on the monetary costs to society as sufficient reason to limit the births of undesirable children.

Now, why such a depressing thought in the Christmas season? Because Mary, the mother of Jesus, shows us a different way to think about hardship.

Her circumstances weren't great. She was an unwed teenager with an unplanned pregnancy. Her betrothed was seeking to divorce her. And more than that, her son was the "man of sorrows and acquainted with grief." She was told that a "sword will pierce through your own soul also" (Luke 2:35).

How did she respond? She trusted in the Lord. She knew she was his servant and she could depend upon his word. She rejoiced in God, her Savior (Luke 1:38, 46–47).

To embrace the sovereignty of God over all things means that we can also embrace his sovereignty over every kind of hardship in our own lives. God gives meaning to all suffering, and only he knows the future. The fact that we can’t understand or see what's ahead can be difficult, but God knows and we can trust him.

May we rest in God like Mary did. For she magnified the Lord,

He has shown strength with his arm;

he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;

he has brought down the mighty from their thrones

and exalted those of humble estate;

he has filled the hungry with good things,

and the rich he has sent away empty 

(Luke 1:51–53).

Where Is Your Treasure?

“Many Christians dread the thought of leaving this world. Why? Because so many have stored up their treasures on earth, not in heaven. Each day brings us closer to death. If your treasures are on earth, that means each day brings you closer to losing your treasures. He who lays up treasures on earth spends his life backing away from his treasures. To him, death is loss.

He who lays up treasures in heaven looks forward to eternity; he’s moving daily toward his treasures. To him, death is gain. He who spends his life moving toward his treasures has reason to rejoice. Are you despairing or rejoicing?”

– Randy Alcorn

Why We Need Jesus

Michael Horton has an article in the December issue of Christianity Today. He says that reason and morality cannot show us a good and gracious God. For that, we need the Incarnation.

Keep Reading...

Does Writing "Xmas" Take Christ Out of Christmas?

Some of our more quick-to-protest brothers and sisters would do well to read this article from RC Sproul.

Does Writing "Xmas" Take Christ Out of Christmas?

Stop Submitting to Men

Russell Moore: “Those of us who hold to so-called “traditional gender roles” are often assumed to believe that women should submit to men. This isn’t true. Indeed, a primary problem in our culture and in our churches isn’t that women aren’t submissive enough to men, but instead that they are far too submissive.”

Keep Reading...

One of the Most Important Principles When Reading the Bible

Sometimes readers of the Bible see the conditions that God lays down for his blessing and they conclude from these conditions that our action is first and decisive, then God responds to bless us.

That is not right.

There are indeed real conditions that God often commands. We must meet them for the promised blessing to come. But that does not mean that we are left to ourselves to meet the conditions or that our action is first and decisive.

Here is one example to show what I mean.

In Jeremiah 29:13 God says to the exiles in Babylon, “You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.” So there is a condition: When you seek me with all your heart, then you will find me. So we must seek the Lord. That is the condition of finding him.

True.

But does that mean that we are left to ourselves to seek the Lord? Does it mean that our action of seeking him is first and decisive? Does it mean that God only acts after our seeking?

No.

Listen to what God says in Jeremiah 24:7 to those same exiles in Babylon: “I will give them a heart to know that I am the Lord, and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart.”

So the people will meet the condition of returning to God with their whole heart. God will respond by being their God in the fullest blessing. But the reason they returned with their whole heart is that God gave them a heart to know him. His action was first and decisive.

So now connect that with Jeremiah 29:13. The condition there was that they seek the Lord with their whole heart. Then God will be found by them. But now we see that the promise in Jeremiah 24:7 is that God himself will give them such a heart so that they will return to him with their whole heart.

This is one of the most basic things people need to see about the Bible. It is full of conditions we must meet for God’s blessings. But God does not leave us to meet them on our own. The first and decisive work before and in our willing is God’s prior grace. Without this insight, hundreds of conditional statements in the Bible will lead us astray.

Let this be the key to all Biblical conditions and commands: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13). Yes, we work. But our work is not first or decisive. God’s is. “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me” (1 Corinthians 15:10).

Quote of the Day

There are three things that earthly riches can never do; they can never satisfy divine justice, they can never pacify divine wrath, nor can they every quiet a guilty conscience.

- Thomas Brooks

1608 – 1680

Apostolic Preaching of the Gospel

God’s love for the world was demonstrated by the giving of His Son so that all who believe in Him will in no way perish, but instead, have everlasting life.

The majority of American evangelism is reduced to “God Loves You and has a wonderful plan for your life.” But was the love of God even part of the Gospel that the Apostles preached in the Book of Acts?

What was the emphasis in the evangelistic preaching of the Apostles as recorded in the book of Acts? Does the record of Acts support the notion that the central focus of Christianity is one’s love relationship with God and personal life enhancement? Or did these disciples of Christ focus on something else?

The list below includes every instance of evangelistic preaching in the book of Acts, a summary of content, and an analysis of emphasis (©1999 Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only. For more information, contact Stand to Reason at 1438 East 33rd St., Signal Hill, CA 90755
(800) 2-REASON (562) 595-7333).

1. Pentecost, Acts 2:14-39
Peter notes the manifestations of the Holy Spirit that all had been witnessing, then ties them to the fulfillment of prophecy of Joel about the last days. He then preaches Jesus as the Messiah–attested to by miracles and by the resurrection which was prophesied by David–and the guilt of the crowd for the crucifixion.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship with Him.

2. Peter at the Gate Beautiful, Acts 3:12-26
After Peter and John healed a man lame from birth, Peter placed the blame for Jesus’ death on the shoulders of the listeners. He then appealed to fulfilled prophecy and told them either to believe and return and thus receive forgiveness and times of refreshing, or be destroyed.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship with Him.

3. Peter before the High Priest, Acts 4:8-12
Peter attributes the healing of the man lame from birth to Jesus the Messiah, whom the Jews had crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead. He quotes prophecy and says there is no other means of salvation but through Jesus. Peter then refuses to be silent about the Gospel.

The emphasis is on forgiveness of sin by Jesus the Messiah. There is no mention of God’s love or a relationship with him.

4. Peter’s Defense a Second Time before the Council, Acts 5:29-32
Peter proclaims the resurrected Christ as Prince and Savior who brings forgiveness of sin and gives the gift of the Holy Spirit. He accuses the Council of putting Jesus to death. They are so infuriated they want to kill the Apostles. Instead, on the advice of Gamaliel, the believers are flogged and released.

There is no mention of God’s love or any kind of tender relationship with Him.

5. Stephen’s Defense before the Council, Acts 7:1-60
Stephen recounts the history of the Jews in which they constantly rebel, rejecting God’s deliverer. He accuses the Jews of being stiff-necked, resisting the Holy Spirit just as their forefathers had. He accuses them also of betraying and murdering the Righteous One, the Messiah. They are so filled with rage they murder him.

Emphasis is on the guilt of the Jews. There is no mention of God’s love.

[Note: When God speaks to Saul about his future during the events surrounding Saul's conversion (Acts 9), there is no mention of an intimate relationship, only that Paul would suffer much for the sake of Christ.]

6. Peter’s Message to the Household of Cornelius, Acts 10:34-43
Peter talks of the ministry of Jesus, His miracles, death on the cross, and resurrection. Peter tells the Gentiles it is his job to solemnly testify that Jesus is the One appointed by God to judge the world, that Jesus’ coming was prophesied, and that belief in Him brings forgiveness of sin.

The emphasis is on Jesus, the prophesied Messiah who either brings judgment or forgives of sin. There is no mention of God’s love.

7. Paul’s Message to the Jews in the Synagogue at Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13:16-41
Paul preaches Jesus as the anticipated Savior, affirmed by John the Baptist, crucified by the Jews, who rose from the dead in fulfillment of prophesy. Paul then proclaims forgiveness of sin and freedom from the Law for all who believe.

Paul proclaims Jesus the prophesied Messiah crucified and resurrected. His emphasis is on forgiveness amidst warning.

8. Paul at the Areopagus in Athens, Acts 17:22-31
Paul discloses the nature of the “unknown God,” One who is responsible for all creation, and in whom we all depend for our very existence. He calls all men to repent, because God has appointed a judge, a man who has risen from the dead.

Emphasis is on the nature of God, and the reality of judgment. There is no mention of relationship or God’s love.

9. Paul’s Defense before the Jews in Jerusalem, Acts 22:1-21
Paul gives his testimony, detailing his persecution of Christians motivated by his zeal toward God, his conversion on the road to Damascus, and how his sins were washed away in Jesus’ name. When he mentions his mission to the Gentiles, however, the Jews protested violently.

Emphasis is on Paul’s personal encounter with Christ, his own forgiveness from sin, and his subsequent mission. There is no offer of personal relationship with God or mention of God’s love.

10. Paul’s Defense before the Sanhedrin, Acts 23:1-6
Paul says he is on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead. There is no mention of the love of God.

11. Paul’s Defense before the governor, Felix, Acts 24:10-21
Paul establishes his innocence regarding the Jews’ charges, then affirms the Law and the Prophets and the general resurrection of both righteous and wicked, a belief for which he says he is on trial.

There is no mention of God’s love or even of forgiveness.

12. Paul before Felix and Drusilla, Acts 24:24-25
Paul speaks of righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come which frightens Felix who then sends Paul away. There is no mention of God’s love or of a personal relationship with Him.

13. Paul’s Defense before the Agrippa, Acts 26:1-29
Paul gives his testimony, noting the importance of the resurrection. He tells of the commission Jesus had given him, proclaiming the Gospel with a goal of deliverance from Satanic darkness to receiving forgiveness and an inheritance from God. Paul claims his message is the same as the prophets regarding the Messiah’s suffering and resurrection.

Emphasis is on the resurrection of Christ, prophetic fulfillment and forgiveness, and Paul’s responsibility to preach the Gospel. There is no mention of love or a relationship with God.

The love of God is never mentioned a single time in the entire book of Acts.

Concerning this, Steven Langella observed, “What we do see is God’s love continually mentioned over and over in the epistles, letters written to Christians. But we really do not see it in any of the evangelistic outreaches of the apostles. Yet most gospel messages today are nothing but “God loves you,” with no mention of judgment, repentance, the work of Christ on the cross, etc… Just do your own survey. Stand on any street corner in your city and ask 50 people what they think about God. I am sure that the majority will say “God is a loving God”. The love of God has been elevated above all the other attributes of God. People will be quick to tell you “God is love”. But the Bible also says “God is Holy”. In fact the bible never says God is “Love, Love, Love.” But it does say God is “Holy, Holy, Holy”.

So what am I saying? To not speak of God’s love? Not at all, but to ONLY Speak of God’s love is doing a great injustice to the Gospel. I believe we need to preach the love of God which is displayed through His Son Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the Cross.”

Signs You Have Not Experienced Gospel Wakefulness

From Reformation Theology...

From Jared Wilson's new book, Gospel Wakefulness, here are 11 signs (pgs 72-73) you haven't experienced gospel wakefulness...

1. The gospel doesn't interest you--or it does, but not as much as other religious subjects.
2. You take nearly everything personally.
3. You frequently worry about what other people think.
4. You treat inconveniences like minor (or major) tragedies.
5. You are impatient with people.
6. In general, you have trouble seeing the fruit of the Spirit in your life (Gal 5:22-23).
7. The Word of God holds little interest.
8. You have great difficulty forgiving.
9. You are told frequently by a spouse, close friend, or other family members that you are too "clingy" or too controlling.
10. You think someone besides yourself is the worst sinner you know.
11. The idea of gospel centrality makes no sense to you.

Hearing God's Whisper

Yesterday I posted an article about Herman Cain hearing from God.

Books like Dallas Willard’s Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God and Bill Hybels’s The Power of a Whisper: Hearing God, Having the Guts to Respond and Henry and Richard Blackaby’s Hearing God’s Voice continue to popularize the idea that a true relationship of intimacy with God requires ongoing private and personal revelations as a normative part of the Christian life.

In the latest issues of Solid Ground Greg Koukl—who is not a cessationist—looks carefully at the biblical texts offered in defense of this idea. He writes:

Virtually everyone seems to be “hearing from God” in some fashion these days—pastors, writers, worship leaders, even the regular folks at our weekly Bible studies—so the basic idea must be right.

But is it? Must I “hear the voice of God” in order to know what He wants from me. . . Is this what Jesus meant by, “My sheep hear My voice,” or what Paul meant by being “led by the Spirit”? And what if I hear nothing but silence when I listen? Does this say something about my spiritual well-being? Am I living a substandard Christian life if I don’t have a hot-line to God? . . .

In my mind, there’s only one way to address such questions. They cannot be answered by appealing to personal experiences, but only by appealing carefully to the text. What does Scripture teach.

See Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. You can access all of the issues here.

Did God Tell Herman Cain to Run for President?

I don't usually talk about politics here but I could not pass this up.

It seems presidential hopeful Herman Cain is a modern Moses:

Herman Cain returned to his home state for a brief campaign stop Saturday, telling a cheering group of young Republicans in Atlanta that God told him to run for president and that he was "in it to win it."

"I prayed and prayed and prayed. I am a man of faith," Cain told the Young Republican National Federation at the Westin Peachtree Plaza. "I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I have ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses: 'You have got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?' ... Once I made the decision, I did not look back."

So what should I do if God told me not to vote for any candidate who claims to have been told by God to run for president?

Remorse vs. Repentance

Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me. —Psalm 51:11

Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the nature of genuine repentance, as seen in Psalm 51:

I do not hesitate to assert that this is perhaps the most subtle and delicate test as to whether we have repented, or where we are: our attitude towards God. Have you noticed it in the psalm? The one against whom David has sinned is God, and yet the one he desires above all is God. That is the difference between remorse and repentance. The man who has not repented, but who is only experiencing remorse, when he realizes he has done something against God, avoids God. . . . The man who has not been dealt with by the Spirit of God and has not been convinced and convicted, tries to get away from God, to avoid him at all costs. He does not think, he does not read the Bible, he does not pray; he does everything he can not to think about these things. But the extraordinary thing about the man who is convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit is that though he knows he has sinned against God, it is God he wants—“Be merciful to me, O God.” He wants to be with God—that is the peculiar paradox of repentance, wanting the one I have offended!

The Sin of Counting

I’ll admit to being weary, to the point of irritation, whenever I hear ministers of the gospel reporting their statistics as external evidences of success. And I know I’m not the only one. (The first minute-and-a-half of this video makes the point.)

Enough already.

I’m not saying I’m less tempted than the next guy to hope for big numbers and stats, the apparent signs of God’s blessing on my ministry. I am. But I’ve seen the focus on numbers as a temptation to be resisted, not something to be embraced. And when preachers find a way to mention the numbers in public, and often, it comes across as bragging; it’s worldly and unbecoming of Christians who are to be characterized by humility and meekness.

One of the worst plagues to hit Israel came about when David numbered his troops, taking pride in his military might. For all the external, visible signs of success David could see and count on a human level, only God could knew the true condition of Israel. Widespread spiritual decay would soon divide David’s kingdom and eventually expel the people of Israel and Judah from the land of promise.

Counting isn’t always pride, right? God commanded Moses to take a census of the people (Num. 1, 26), and for very practical reasons (e.g., to register the fighting men, to determine per-tribe ransom for servicing the temple). Here at Grace to You, we have to keep track of certain numbers to make sure we’re good stewards of the resources God entrusts to us.

But just like David’s pride in counting the troops, we too can tend to grow proud when we look at the stats—baptism numbers, conference attendees, book sales, etc. It can get ugly pretty fast. Big numbers, or maybe just upward-tending numbers, can flatter. They’re like the applause of a crowd, patting you on the back and making you feel good about what you’re doing. Numbers can easily lull you into a false sense of security, keeping you from the hard and painful work of self-examination before the Word of God.

Our modern preoccupation with numbers—the emphasis on the visible, external, measurable—reminds me of a few theses in Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, which proved to be at the theological center of the Reformation.

19 That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened.

22 That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.

Without getting into the details, the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church justified themselves by pointing to external, visible signs of success. They assumed, as Luther pointed out, that God’s work (which is invisible) are visibly manifest, something that could be perceived, measured, and counted. Simply put, if it worked, if it was successful, if it was mighty, if it was manifestly glorious, then God was in it. Luther called that a theology of glory, meaning a theology that is focused, not on the true glory of God, but on what appeared to be glorious in the estimation of man.

The error of the theologians of glory is the same as the pragmatists of our day. They assume they can perceive, measure, count, and glory in the invisible things of God, things that are truly imperceptible and uncountable. That kind of thinking, as Luther said, “is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.”

As he confronted the heart of Roman Catholic theology, Luther pit the theology of glory against the theology of the cross. Here’s how he put it in thesis 20:

20 He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

The theology of the cross recognizes God’s work as a subverting work, one that overturns human pride, thwarts human wisdom, and acts opposite of human expectation. The suffering of the cross—what is truly visible and manifest about God—is not impressive by any measure of man. That which is humble and weak and low and unimpressive—namely, the stuff of suffering—is not something that grabs attention, fills your conference, gains a following, or builds your fan base. But that’s the way of the cross, which is God’s true work, demonstrated “in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor.1:30).

The theology of the cross is not the message of pragmatic growth methodology, whether we’re talking about old-school Seeker or today’s more fashionable, hipster version. Pragmatists are like Luther’s theologians of glory, practitioners of methodologies that “work.” And the preoccupation with signs of visible success is making many Christian leaders, as Luther saw in his day, “completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.”

It’s embarrassing to hear them couch their growth stats in pious sounding phrases like, “It’s so amazing how many churches God is planting through us,” or, “I’m so humbled to see that ___ people made decisions for Christ,” or, “I was humbled to be speaking to ___-thousand people last week,” and on and on. Parading acts of personal piety, completely contrary to Jesus’ teaching in Matt. 6, is proof positive of being puffed up. Those who are puffed up are blinded to their error and hardened to any correction.

None of us is completely free of the charge of pragmatism. Pragmatism is only a matter of degree, isn’t it. But being sullied by the error of pragmatism doesn’t exonerate us; it just shows how utterly in need of grace we really are.

That’s what David learned, when God brought swift and deadly judgment against the people. “Behold, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly. But these sheep, what have they done?” (2 Sam.24:17). Would that today’s church leaders would not only repent of their own sin of counting, but take a keener, more heartfelt interest in the good of the Lord’s sheep.

Let us all strive to “cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor.7:1). In an attitude of humility and repentance, we’ll truly find the grace and blessing of God.