Death of a Giant

On April 27th this year, David Wilkerson died in a car accident.  Most famous for 'The Cross and the Switchblade' his ministry touched many thousands.  This is how his son Gary writes of him

On Wednesday afternoon my father, David Wilkerson, passed away in a car accident. We grieve the loss of a beloved father, a faithful husband and a holy man of God. My mother, Gwen, his wife of 57 years, was in the car also, but we are told she will recover fully.

Dad’s 60-plus years of ministry have impacted the lives of those closest to him and extended to millions around the world. Today we feel a personal loss, but at the same time we rejoice knowing Dad lived life to the fullest, obeying God with devotion and loving Jesus radically.

He was known for his unlimited faith. He believed God could change the lives of gang members and transform the most desperate drug addicts. He believed that a dynamic church could be launched in the heart of Times Square, New York City. He believed he could be a man who loved his wife and children well. And he did.

Dad was not one for fanfare, acclaim or ceremony. He turned down invitations to meet with world leaders yet would give everything he owned to support a poor orphan or a widow in distress.

Like King David of old, Dad served God’s purposes in his generation. He preached with uncompromising passion and relentless grace. He wrote with amazing insight, clarity and conviction. He ran his race well and when his work was done, he was called home.


That's some testimony, isn't it?  "He turned down invitations to meet with world leaders yet would give everything he owned to support a poor orphan or a widow in distress."

Mind, Heart, Will - Lloyd-Jones

There is a form of preaching that specializes in appeals to the will.  It possesses little intellectual and doctrinal content, and there is nothing about it that ever moves the emotions; but tremendous pressure is brought to bear on people in the realm of their wills.  They are made to ‘decide’, and to do something – all the pressure is on the will.  The point I am making is that any of these partial emphases is unworthy of the name of the Gospel, this Gospel which the Apostle describes elsewhere as ‘the glorious gospel of the blessed God’ [1 Timothy 1:11].  It is so big, it is so great, that it takes in the whole man, it engages the entire personality.  If our minds and hearts and wills are not engaged we are not Christians.  ‘Thank God’, says the Apostle, ‘ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine that was delivered you’.  The whole personality of these Romans was involved in this change.  You cannot be converted in your mind only, you cannot be converted in your heart only, you cannot be converted in your will only; if you are truly converted and born again, the three are involved, the whole man is involved.[1]

---

[1] The New Man, 208/9

Message to Richard Dawkins

Don’t be intimidated!

The Daily Telegraph has reported that you will not debate with a foremost Christian apologist, William Lane Craig.  It has even reported that one of your fellow Oxford atheists – Doctor Daniel Came – has suggested it looks like cowardice on your part.

Cranmer – once an Anglican Archbishop, now a Catholic blogger – has even gone so far (scroll down to May 15th) as to attack your credentials:

• So, when we hear the shrill voice of Dr Richard Dawkins bleating about Professor Craig’s ‘relentless drive for self-promotion’, and rejecting the debasement of his eminent CV by debating with the distinguished Christian apologist, we should remember this: Richard Dawkins never contributed much to science; his Oxford chair was bought for him by a rich admirer; and the scientific ideas upon which he built his reputation are increasingly discredited. Those beguiled by his diatribes are listening neither to the voice of reason nor science.

Well, Dr Dawkins – here’s my advice.  Don’t be intimidated; don’t let these people bully you into the debate.

It is better by far to refuse to debate and let people think you’re a coward, than to debate and let them know without doubt that your arguments (not to say your credentials) don’t stack up. 

What God doesn't know

Tim Keller, preaching on Exodus 14 at the 2011 Gospel Coalition Conference, quotes a hymn I've never heard:

Well may the accuser roar

Of sins that I have done

I know them all - 

And thousands more -

Jehovah knoweth NONE!

He also points out that 'Stand still and see the salvation of the Lord' is, in Hebrew, basically 'Stand still and see the Yeshua (Jesus) of the Lord.'


Worth meditating on.

Virgin Mobile Customer Service - well, I never!

Every now and again we're taken by surprise.  In a world of rudeness, and big companies who don't seem to care for their customers - well, I never.


At the beginning of April we responded to what looked like an excellent deal from Virgin Media on a new mobile phone for Elaine.  When the phone arrived, we couldn't use it to get on the internet, for whatever reason. Just very slow access, I think.  But at the time I thought I was doing something wrong and we'd sort it.  As a result, we let the fourteen-day 'cooling off' period go by.  


But it turned out I was wrong; the internet access on this model was very slow, and there was nothing anyone was going to be able to do to change it.  So I phoned Virgin, and they said - quite reasonably - that the 14 days had passed and there was nothing they could do.  Frustrating - but fair enough; that is (after all) what their contract said.  My bad, as they say.


Still, I thought it was worth another try.  I found an address to write to in Trowbridge, and wrote what I hoped was a nice letter explaining my problem and asked them to reconsider: would they change the handset for a different type that I already knew well and was satisfied with?  


Almost immediately (if you allow for the Bank Holidays) I got a call from a delightful-sounding young lady who identified herself as Chrissie from Virgin Media.  She told me that the folks I'd already spoken to at Virgin were right  (I knew that).  Still, on this occasion they were prepared to help (I've been with VM for a good long while).  Not only did Chrissie give us what we asked for, but also (tell no-one, OK?) she gave us more than we'd asked for.  She offered us a better phone - the one we wanted -  or (if we preferred) just to cancel the contract.


Less than 24 hours later, a new phone arrived; it's all set up now, doing exactly what we want it to do and we're delighted.


I tell you, I'm sticking with Virgin.  If you want good customer service, they're the folks to go to.  


If I knew how to get hold of Richard Branson, I'd be telling him, too.


Well done, that company!

Summer memories

Ah, those were the days.  Clark - remember this?

Back again... The Archies!

I do apologise to my faithful reader; the relentless demands of the Day Job are making blogging somewhat occasional.  I hope today's music my indicate the end of the trend.  Listen carefully for this, until you find deep meaning in the lyrics - and then be sure, be absolutely sure, that you're wrong!  (And it's 36 hours early, just to be friendly)

When the bright are REALLY daft (1)

Don't you just love it when folks we have every reason to believe are intelligent say things that are just plain daft?  I don't know if you saw the news items recently about 'books' found containing - among other things - 'the first portrait of Jesus'?  The books - about 70n in all - are no bigger than a credit card, made out of lead, bound with wire, and - crucially - sealed shut.  Dr Margaret Barker (former President of the Society for Old Testament Study' and therefore very, very bright, obviously) is reported as saying 'The Book of Revelation tells of a sealed book that was opened only by the Messiah.' 


Well, indeed it does.  Here's (some of) the relevant bit:

And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, "Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?"    But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it.   I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside.   Then one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals."   Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the centre of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.   He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.   And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.   And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.   You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth."   Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders.   In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honour and glory and praise!"   Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honour and glory and power, for ever and ever!"   The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.  I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals...

... and then a large part of Revelation is concerned with the opening of the seals.  Tell me, intelligent reader - does this look as if it might, possibly, refer to seventy leaden, credit-card scrolls?  It does?  Then it might also refer to seventy orange carrots!  After all, anything's possible when you've decided that the text means only what you want it to mean...

Back bloggin'

OK - now I'm back; hope to post again on Wednesday.  God willing, as always.

Me and you (nostalgia)

My Favourite Charismatic

Expository Faithfulness from Sovereign Grace Ministries on Vimeo.


CJ is one of the most faithful preachers I've heard.  This is great stuff - but listen, will you, to the way he introduces the Bible reading?  Do we super-reformed types regard the public reading of Scripture with such seriousness?  


Then, take a listen to the extended section when he gets to 'complete patience'.

I'm still not charismatic, Steve

An old friend – Steve Utley – commented on my re-posted ‘Why I am not a charismatic’.  Here’s my open response to him

Hi, Steve. Glad to hear from you.  Actually, I suspected you’d responded last time I posted this, but anonymously – was I right?

Thanks for taking my post seriously.  I’m always glad for any evidence that someone is actually reading them!  I’ll take opportunity here to respond.  Let me begin by saying that a) we’re in agreement about a lot, as you say; b) the gospel is bigger than this, and I quite understand that your church feels closer to some non-Charismatic churches than to some Charismatic churches who’re soft on the gospel, and c) you only took up one point in my post! 

You write:

Unlike you, I am not convinced by the argument Stuart Olyott makes for 1 Corinthians 13:10. Much as I appreciate his work, I think that his exegesis of verse 10 does not stand comfortably within the passage.

My main objections to this exegesis would be that:
1. The context of the passage is 'the supremacy of love'
2. V.12 seems to qualify V.10 by stating that it will be when we see 'Face to face' we will know in full, until then we continue in part.
3. Immediately following this passage and upholding love as supreme, Paul then enters into a very explicit discourse on the use and administration of gifts without the slightest hint that they will disappear.

OK: one at a time.

1. Yes, the context is ‘the supremacy of love’ but that doesn’t mean that what he says about the gifts is not to be taken seriously.  Love is supreme precisely because it continues when most other gifts have ended.  There will be a time, says Paul, when only ‘faith, hope and love’ remain (verse 13).  That ‘time’ cannot be a reference to heaven: for ‘faith’ is ‘being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see’ (Hebrews 11:1) and is explicitly contrasted with sight – the sight of heaven – in 2 Cor 5:7.  And hope – ‘hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?’ (Romans 8:24).  Remarkable as it seems at first hearing, if we define faith and hope as the New Testament does there is neither faith nor hope in heaven.  But if that ‘time’ is not heaven, when is it?  How can the sign gifts remain right until the end of the age?

2. Indeed, the phrase ‘face to face’ is very important.  But it’s important to remember Paul’s Biblical background – he has not just plucked this phrase out of the air.  He is alluding to Numbers 12:8 where Moses uses both the concept of ‘face to face’ and ‘dark speech’ (it’s translated ‘riddles’ in the NIV, not very helpfully).  ‘Darkly’ or ‘dimly’ is also omitted from the NIV (what a nuisance that translation is at times!) but check in other translations.  The close use of both concepts makes it very clear that Paul is alluding to Numbers: so what does the passage in Numbers speak of?  It speaks of two different earthly revelations, and of the superiority of Moses’ revelation to that of other prophets.  In other words, it not only fits with the idea that 1 Corinthians 13 is comparing the incomplete revelation of the prophets with the complete and clearer revelation of Scripture: it requires it.  Nothing else makes sense of the allusion.  And if you object ‘but he says we will know fully, even as we are known, and that can only refer to heaven’ think about it.  We will never – not even in heaven after an eternity of eternities – know God as fully as he knows us; we don’t have the capacity for that.  He is using the phrase though to contrast the lesser with the greater – NT prophecy (the lesser) with full Scriptural revelation (the greater).

3. As for him entering into an explicit discourse in chapter 14 without the slightest hint that they’ll disappear – he’s just told them that!  What do you want him to do – end every paragraph with ‘and don’t forget – shortly after you’re dead, these gifts will disappear anyway; I just need to keep saying it in case somebody in two millennia misses it’!?

‘The New Testament has much to say on gifts, signs and wonders…’ you say.  Well, no actually.  Not that much.  It has a fair bit to say on circumcision, too.  My position doesn’t negate the passages that are there – it just understands them in the whole NT context.   There’s no authority beyond the New Testament – we’re agreed on that.  And I don’t appeal to any authority other than that – do I?  You may not agree with my understanding of 1 Corinthians 13, but at least we both accept that it’s part of the New Testament!

Did you know I was present when Wendy was healed of epilepsy?  I remember that Sunday morning so very clearly.  I wouldn’t want to doubt that it was a most remarkable answer to prayer.  Was it a miracle?  I don’t know; I remember too that she had at least one further attack after that morning before they disappeared completely.  And I know too that some forms of epilepsy do pass eventually.  So I’m hesitant to use the word ‘miracle’ (which I think has a very narrow definition); but not remotely hesitant to say that it is one of the most remarkable answers to prayer I’ve ever seen.  And yes, I’ve seen other, similar, answers.  My position on healing is, I think, roughly the same as Lloyd-Jones’: God still heals, but there are no healers.  (And I remember that Lloyd-Jones always insisted that he had never seen a genuine miracle).  As for ‘real, tangible healings at Citygate’ I’ve no reason to deny it – my theology doesn’t require it!  BUT I would caution you: be sure the people who seem to have been healed were actually sick with an organic – rather than psycho-somatic - illness, and had been properly and reliably diagnosed as such.  Then be sure that they’re actually healed, and healed without medical intervention.  Only then can you even begin to think of using the word ‘miracle’; the Roman Catholic Church, to its credit, examines all of Lourdes’ ‘healings’ in this scrupulous way.  Such caution IS necessary; twenty years or so ago a well-known Christian woman hit the secular press with accounts of her miraculous healing and, sure enough, all tests revealed no trace of the disease she said she had had.  It was only when a sceptical evangelical doctor eventually gained access to her medical records that it was shown she never had had the disease; she had self-diagnosed, and been mistaken.

Finally (for now!) you say

• I find that most rejection comes down to a personal experience (as did I) which we just know in our bones is not authentic. But is that the right thing to do?

Well, no it’s not.  But my reply would be that it’s the other way round: most people come to the Bible convinced that they’ve seen healings/tongues/prophecies etc and are therefore insistent that the Bible can’t mean what it says – and what Bible believers have believed it to say for most of the last two millennia.

Where, Steve, are the tongues that are not ‘angelish’?  Where are the organic healings that make the medical profession and the world sit up and take notice?  Why did no-one respond to the Pyromaniacs’ challenge for a well-attested, significant and accurate prophecy?  Why did John Wimber – the most remarkable and famous charismatic of his day – promise David Watson (the most remarkable, famous British charismatic of his day) that his cancer would be healed (just before he died of it!)  Why did people all over the world write to Watson with the same prophecy?  Why was there not a single voice saying ‘I have heard from the Lord, and this sickness is to death’?  Is it possible that the supreme and sovereign Lord allowed this so that we could face the facts – there are no true prophets today?

Well, blessings to you.  We’ll have to meet up some time and have a coffee, instead of bumping into one another by accident.  Give my love to your Mum and Dad.

Back with a Bang!

Thanks to Adrian Warnock for pointing me to this very rare (and all too brief) interview with the good Doctor.

Was Spurgeon a Calvinist?

Was Spurgeon a Calvinist?It seems incredible that the question should be asked, given the amount of literature available on Spurgeon and the clear and repeated statements the man himself made. But last year, two of my friends – both able evangelists, neither of them with much time for Calvinism or Calvinists (and neither of them, I think, really understanding either) – both expressed their admiration for Spurgeon and ended by saying 'But of course he wasn't really a Calvinist.' It isn't a new charge, of course – many of Spurgeon's contemporary Calvinists said the same thing. What is different about my two friends is that it's non-Calvinists who are saying it; and it set me wondering why; why two men should think that about Spurgeon today. What I want to do in this brief article is look at the two different reasons these friends gave and for each one examine whether there is a misunderstanding of Calvinism involved. Then, in conclusion, I want to suggest some lessons that contemporary Calvinists may need to learn.

1. The reasons they gave

Evangelist number one told me that Spurgeon wasn't really a Calvinist because he was willing to say to a mixed congregation – believers and unbelievers – 'Christ died for you.' In context, this followed the statement 'Calvinists are not seeing people converted today because they are unwilling to say to their congregation "Christ died for you."' With this latter statement there are a number of problems; is it true that Calvinists are not seeing people converted today – or, at least, are seeing fewer people converted than non-Calvinists? It may be – but are there any statistics? (Let us leave aside the admittedly vital question, 'How do we judge true conversion?') And if it is true, how do we establish that it is because Calvinists are not saying 'Christ died for you' to unbelievers? Much more importantly, if the statement 'Christ died for you' is so vital to gospel preaching, how do we account for the plain fact that not one of the evangelists in the Acts of the Apostles ever used the phrase – or anything implying it – in any of their recorded sermons? My evangelist friend – one of the most gifted and able men I know – went quiet at this point; it had never occurred to him (such is the power of presuppositions – ours too, of course, not just 'theirs'!). 'Don't they?' he asked. And then 'What about Isaiah? "The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."' What indeed? Isaiah of course is not a New Testament evangelist and an Old Testament sermon to a rebellious but covenant community cannot be applied willy-nilly in preaching to pagans. But, just in case any should doubt Isaiah's doctrine of the atonement, the prophet tells us 'He bore the sin of many,' and no Calvinist doubts that.

But what of Spurgeon? Without doubt, he did believe in the doctrine of limited atonement which, properly speaking, does make it impossible to say to a mixed crowd or to a particular unconverted sinner 'Christ died for you.' Then too, he did sometimes – in his closing appeals – seem to invite people to Christ on the basis that Christ had died for them. But, let it be said, not very often. It is equally true that he sometimes invited people to Christ in terms that made him sound like a hyper-Calvinist (A hyper-Calvinist, in the sense in which I am using the word here, believes that the warrant of faith is within the sinner himself; that is, an unconverted person may believe that the gospel promises are for him or her if and only if he or she finds certain qualifications in his or her own self.) It is certainly true that, much more often, Spurgeon invited folks to Christ in terms that did not compromise his Calvinism in either direction.

What then shall we say of the 'lapses'? It is possible, of course, that they are editorial additions, since we know that his secretary Joseph Harrold often edited the sermons and was solely responsible for their editing after Spurgeon died. It is possible, then – but not, I think, likely. In fact, it is much more likely to be quite the reverse: because Spurgeon edited most of his own sermons, we cannot say these phrases were uttered incautiously in the heat of the moment, or taken down wrongly by stenographers. When Spurgeon himself reviewed the manuscript, he let the phrases stand. Why? Surely it is because the preacher was too concerned that sinners be commanded, invited and encouraged to come to Christ in terms that they could understand to worry about possible misunderstandings that people might read into his words? In this, he followed the apostle John – John 3:16, 1 John 2:2 for example.

When evangelist number two expressed his convictions about Spurgeon, I asked him to justify it, and he attempted to do so by referring to a sermon of Spurgeon's on Matthew 23:37 (Volume 45.2630). In the introduction to this sermon Spurgeon – obviously aware that his interpretation will be regarded by some as non-Calvinist, says 'I have long been content to take God’s Word just as I find it.' That, thinks my friend, proves that Spurgeon is not a Calvinist, or at least not a proper one, for he has not come to this scripture with his theology as a mould into which it must fit! Indeed, Spurgeon goes on '…and when, at any time, I have been accused of contradicting myself through keeping to my text, I have always felt perfectly safe about that matter. The last thing I care about is being consistent with myself. Why should I be anxious about that? I would rather be consistent with Christ fifty times over, or be consistent with the Word of God; but as to being for ever consistent with oneself, it might turn out that one was consistently wrong, consistently narrow-minded, and consistently unwilling to believe what God would teach. So we will just take the text as we find it; and it seems to say to me that, if Jerusalem was not saved,— if her children were not gathered together in safety as a brood of chickens is gathered beneath the hen,— if Christ did not gather them, and protect them, it was not because there was any unwillingness on his part. There was always a willingness in his heart to bless Jerusalem, and, therefore he could truly say, “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings!” From this utterance of our Lord, I learn that, if any man be not saved, the cause of his non-salvation does not lie in any want of graciousness or want of willingness on the part of God. They who dare to say that it does, venture very far, and are very audacious in their assertions. This text says the very opposite; and so far as it is applicable to the sons of men in general, it declares that God wills not the death of any, but desires that they should turn unto him and live.'

Now, anyone who thinks this does not represent true Calvinism has, I believe, made two vital errors. Those errors, I suspect, are our fault as much as theirs; but I will come to that. First, what are those errors?

The primary one is that Calvinists 'get their system' from somewhere other than Scripture and impose it on the sacred text. I guess we have to admit straight away that some have done and do do that! Many of us have winced at those who want to assure us that when Christ said 'God so loved the world' he meant 'God only loves the elect,' – as if the Saviour did not have the vocabulary to express his meaning properly. But we also have to say that this is not true Biblical, evangelical Calvinism; however well-meaning, and however great its pedigree, it is a perversion. And it's a perversion that is at least as dangerous as Arminianism. By contrast, we would want to insist that the Scriptures alone are our authority; that our Calvinism is clearly taught in the Scriptures; that responsible and careful exegesis of all the Biblical data drives us to our theology – and then to turn the tables on our friends by showing how they impose their own presuppositions and theology on the Scriptures. (For example, what else can we make of Mark 10:45 – the Son of Man came to give his life a ransom for many – other than that the Saviour did not mean 'for all' or he would have said 'for all'?) The Scripture drives and controls our theology, not the reverse. If we are not faithful to the Scriptures – and to all the Scriptures – then let it be shown and we will recant. But (we need to warn our friends) take care; just as we do not abandon our belief in the deity of Christ when heretics point us to 1 Timothy 2:5 ('the man Christ Jesus') so we will not abandon our particular atonement when Christian friends show us (as if we have never seen it!) 1 John 2:2 ('he is the propitiation… for the sins of the whole world'). The cases are exactly parallel; in neither case are we surprised by the text, in neither case do we impose our theology on the text and in neither case is our theology challenged by a proper understanding of the text.

The second error is to think that Calvinists believe that God does not desire the salvation of all. Perhaps there are some (undoubtedly there are some) who call themselves Calvinists who believe this; once again, however, that is not the essence of Calvinism. Calvinists well know that God takes no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather than he should turn and live (Ezekiel 33:11); we know it, and rejoice in it. But faced with all the Scriptural data we see the need to make a distinction between the desire of God and the purpose of God. Plainly, not everyone is saved. Either then God does not have the power to save everyone (which makes God less than God and controverts plain Scriptures ) OR it is not God's purpose that everyone be saved. It is his will, but not his purpose. WHY should God's will be different from his purpose? Who knows? As Bunyan said on another issue, 'Where Scripture has no tongue I have no ears.' We are not told why and it is pointless to speculate; so we maintain both truths – not in tension, but in joy. The tension is only in the minds of those who lament our inconsistency!

2. Contemporary Calvinism is not like Spurgeon's.

But I said earlier that, if our non-Calvinist friends hold these errors it is probably our fault as well as theirs. We may want to say 'Hodge and Warfield and a thousand other Reformed theologians will put you straight if you but read them!' But it is not enough; they are reading us, and see not nearly enough to attract them. May I suggest two major errors of which we need to repent?

Firstly, we do not have the passion for the lost that we should have. That's been said often enough, and it's true. No-one looking at Spurgeon or at Whitefield could deduce that their theology made them cold, or ineffective evangelists. But our Calvinism is not like theirs in at least one important respect: many of us are more in love with our theology than we ever have been with souls. Many of us are more concerned with how other Calvinists see us, or with what Spurgeon called 'a foolish consistency' than we are with reaching the lost. Both Spurgeon and Whitefield preached in ways and did things which caused other Calvinists to question their theology; but we are too careful for that. Perhaps we value our welcome at the Leicester Conference far too much to do anything which might raise eyebrows, still less save souls! Both Spurgeon and Whitefield were different; they were innovative, adventurous and careless about their own reputations. When we are the same, others will have far fewer grounds for hating Calvinism.

Secondly – less importantly but not to be forgotten – we need to be more obviously people of the book. Until we know our Calvinism well and can defend it from Scripture alone; until we know what the most likely objections are and can answer them from the Scriptures alone let us not presume to teach others. Many of us can remember those heady days when first we glimpsed those doctrines of grace, and yearned that others should know them too. And that is right, surely. But immature zeal can do great damage – and anyway, reaching the lost is always more important.

Why I am not a charismatic

Why I am not a charismatic

Because I read my Bible...

You see, it happened like this. I was saved in August 1973. In September that year, I went off to University - one of the oldest and most elite academic insitutions in the country (Bradford). There I met lots of other Christians and began to go to an Elim Pentecostal church. Everybody - but everybody - seemed to be speaking in tongues. It seemed like a good idea... so I began to pray for it. I got lots of guidance (apparently you can be taught this supernatural gift) and, eventually, I began to speak in gibber... er, the tongues of angels.

Straight away I knew that I was now spiritually superior to those of my friends who didn't gibb - er, speak in tongues. And deep down, that bothered me; if a gift was genuinely of God, I thought, it shouldn't make me feel superior. So I began to wonder. I don't think it took more than ten days for me to decide my own experience was spurious, and I gave up g - er, you know.

Now I'm not daft enough (and wasn't daft enough even then) to think that my false experience meant that everyone else's experience was false, too. But it did open the possibility up in my mind. I read one or two books - Signs of the apostles, for example. But mostly, I read my Bible. And the gifts in the Bible just didn't look like the gifts in the Elim church.

I really wasn't impressed by the 'prophecies'. I mean, there are prophecies in the Bible, right? And they're pretty dramatic. And they're accurate. The prophecies I heard weren't even interesting.

But it was really 'tongues' that got me. Why was the most prolific gift the one gift that couldn't be tested, I wondered? I mean, my friends told me that some gifts of tongues were human languages, and some were the languages of angels (1 Corinthians 13:1). But I only heard the ones that - well, weren't human. Why? Could it be that all these people were fooling themselves?

And anyway, I understand English. I'm pretty good at it. I know a figure of speech when I see one. 'Though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels' didn't read like a prescription to me, or even a description; it read like a sarcastic comment: 'I don't care if you speak Latin, French, English and Klingon - or even Angelish - if you don't have love I don't want to know.' But my friends were ever so, ever so excited about speaking Angelish, and I couldn't understand it.

And then, of course, the 'tongues' in the New Testament were never Angelish. They were always human languages - someone even pointed out to me, eventually, that the languages (tongues) spoken in Acts 2 were all named. Angelish wasn't any of them. Hmmm.

And so I kept reading my Bible, and kept watching. I realised that though the 'gifts' being used in the church were given the same namesas the gifts in the New Testament, that was all they had in common. I realised that I could call myself Elvis Presley, but it wouldn't make my voice the real thing. The only problem left: where were the gifts today, then?

It may have been as late as 1977 that I discovered the answer; Stuart Olyott explained to me what 1 Corinthians 13:10 meant, and it made sense. I know this is a controversial passage. Hey, those who are in the wrong find any Scripture passage that proves they're wrong controversial! If you already believe that 'the gifts' are being exercised in the church, perhaps 1 Corinthians 13:10 might not persuade you otherwise. But when you've already realised the truth - well, that's different.

Nearly 30 years later, I'm still persuaded. There were sign gifts - foundations for the whole church. Once the foundations were laid, those gifts were no longer necessary. I've never - not even once - seen anything 'enough like' a New Testament sign gift to make me wonder if I might have got it wrong. And I watched with fascinated interest while the Pyromaniac asked for one well-attested prophecy that the Charismatics had got right. The rude people slandered him; the polite people challenged his exegesis. (You can read about it starting hereand here) None of them gave the answer he'd asked for. QED, as they never actually said in my geometry lessons.


(This post originally appeared way back, and is reposted as a) still reflecting my opinions and b) part of the re-post program for February)

The Ultimate Camp Song

One week into my study leave, here's a song from my childhood for all those of you that are already thinking about Summer Camp.

Have a break...

From today, I'll be taking a break from blogging - for the whole month of February.  I've been working since Adam was a lad on a DMin on the evangelistic preaching of Lloyd-Jones, especially from the book of Acts - his long, last series at Westminster Chapel.  Now, I need to get it done.


The elders and church here have kindly granted me two months' study leave, one month at a time, to try and 'break the back' of the thesis: February is the first of those months.  But fear not - I'm scheduling a few repeat posts to keep you going during the month.


And I'll be back on the first of March, God willing.  I hope you'll both be back with me then.

Shadow Dancing

After last week's wonderful example of pop-music dancing (!) I tried really hard to find a clip of the Shadows doing their famous walk-dance.  But I failed, and there's only so much time you can give to these things.


So here are the Shadows anyway - magnificent in its way!

Ryle on baptism

Found this on  http://churchsociety.org/publications/tracts/CAT193_RyleBaptism.pdf: (Thanks to Dan Phillips on Team Pyro, once more)


11. But does not St. Paul say in his Epistles that Christians are “buried with Christ in baptism;” and
that baptized persons have “put on Christ”? (Gal. iii. 27; Col. ii. 12.)


No doubt St. Paul says so. But the persons of whom he said this, in all human probability, were not
baptized in infancy, but when they were grown up, and in days too when faith and baptism were so
closely connected that the moment a man believed he confessed his faith publicly by baptism. But
there is not a single passage in the New Testament which describes at length the effect of baptism
on an  infant, nor a single text which says that all  infants are born again, or regenerated, or buried
with  Christ in  baptism. As Canon  Mozley says, “Scripture  nowhere  asserts, either  explicitly or
implicitly, the regeneration of infants in baptism.”  (Mozley’s Baptismal Controversy, p. 34.) Beside
this, we are expressly told  that Simon  the sorcerer, after his baptism, had “no part”  in Christ, and
his “heart was not right in the sight of God.” Simon, therefore, could not have been regenerated, or 
born again in baptism. (Acts viii. 21.)


Gentle reader, do you think there may be a reason why 'there is not a single passage in the New Testament which describes at length [or at short, for that matter] the effect of baptism on an infant'?  Just wondering...

Temptations to Discouragement

Where in ministry are you most regularly tempted to discouragement?

Have I failed as a husband and a dad? Have I preached the whole counsel of God? Why do I still struggle with the same sins with which I fought on the day I first believed? Do I really care enough for the people in my church? Is my teaching leading people to Christ or away from him? Am I driven solely by a desire to raise my own profile? These kind of questions periodically strike me down. 



This is Carl Trueman being interviewed by CJ Mahaney; and to which I can only respond 'me too.'


I'm particularly (and perversely) encouraged by his admission that he still struggles with the same old sins.  I remember 'confessing' that to Roger Carswell.  Confession's good for the soul, yes?  No, not always.  Roger expressed such surprise that I came to the serious and long-term conclusion that I obviously wasn't really converted...

When music was fun

Freddie and the Dreamers: 'You were made for me'

Back in these days, music was fun.  And clock out that dancing!  F and TD never took themselves too seriously.  He died in 2006, aged 69.
Oh - and while you're watching - what an early episode of Blue Peter, with Chris Trace and Valerie Singleton.  I can just about remember those days - and is that the famous Petra in the opening seconds?  Surely, it is!

Liz Murray - Breaking Night

I was very impressed with this young lady on this morning's BBC Breakfast News - I've ordered her autobiography, and will let you know if it's as impressive as I think it may be.

Wiersbe on Calvinism

This miracle [the new birth] all began with God: we were chosen by the Father (Eph. 1:3-4).  This took place in the deep counsels of eternity, and we knew nothing about it until it was revealed to us in the Word of God.  This election was not based on anything we had done, because we were not even on the scene.  Nor was it based on anything God saw that we would be or do.  God's election was based wholly on His grace and love.  We cannot explain it (Rom. 11:33-36), but we can rejoice in it.


'Foreknowledge' does not suggest that God merely knew ahead of time that we would believe, and therefore He chose us.  This would raise the question.'Who or what made us decide for Christ?'  and would take our salvation completely out of God's hands.  In the Bible, 'to foreknow' means 'to set on's love upon a person pr persons in a personal way.'  It is used this way in Amos 3:2: 'You only have I known of all the families of the earth.'  God set His electing love on the nation of Israel.  Other verses that use 'know' in this special sense are 1 Corinthians 8:3, John 10:14, 27; Matthew 7:23; and Psalm 1:6.


But the plan of salvation includes more than the Father's electing love; it also includes the work of the Spirit in convicting the sinner and bringing him to faith in Christ.  The best commentary on this is 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.  Also, the Son of God had to die on the cross for our sins, or there could be no salvation.  We have been chosen by the Father, purchased by the Son, and set apart by the Spirit.  It takes all three if there is to be a true experience of salvation.


I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I rather suspect that Dr Wiersbe (incidentally one of the most gracious men I have ever met) would not want the label 'Calvinist'.  And there's no reason why he should; we don't contend for labels but for truth.  Nonetheless, this extract from his little commentary on 1 Peter ('Be hopeful') shows his commitment to unconditional election, does more than hint at effectual calling and is consistent with definite redemption.  Good on 'im!

Happy Birthday, Shirley

Dame Shirley Bassey - like Elvis and David Bowie - celebrates a birthday on January 8th.  Always a powerful performer, she achieved her peak, some would say, with the assistance of two most helpful props men...

Where have all the preachers gone - again (continued)

It's interesting to note that Carl Trueman assumes that those of us who care about the Exodus to the US  - including Paul Levy on the same blog - are thinking uncharitable things about those who go.  Particularly, he thinks we think that they go for the money.  (And, if I read him right, HE thinks they go for the money too, and that's OK!)


Actually, I've said no such thing.  I'm concerned about what's happening in the UK, not about why those who go, do go.  OK?  If I get chance, I'll try and do some blogging on the 'why' question sometime.


And for the record - again! - I've never been a pastor of a church in the North of England and defected to the South, which would be the proper parallel.  Nor have I ever been approached by a church in the North interested in having me as their pastor.  I'm quite happy to assume that this is an indication of the superior discernment of Northern Christians.  It certainly isn't, though, a case of my hunting with the hounds while running with the hares.

Where have all the preachers gone? (Again)

Do you remember this?  And this?  And this?

It's a running sore: so many of our preachers are going to America.  And today, I hear that Liam's probably going, too.  Worse still, it's Philadelphia - again.  One city taking two of our better preachers in two consecutive years.


I'm not going to complain.  But is it OK if I pray that the church will say a resounding 'No!'?


PS Furthermore, see this - put even better than I put it myself.

Manslator!

At last - help for all men everywhere.  Straight from Dan Phillips, this is designed to keep you going 'til I get back on track,

Mud on the Road

Little bit late with Monday Music today - blame the snow, and the mud.

Monday Music Plus! (How to be a one-buttock liver!)

This is still music, but it's rather more.  The whole thing is well worth a watch.  I'd not heard of this guy (Benjamin Zander) before - my ignorance, I'm sure.  This video says a great deal about life and leadership.

Douglas MacMillan

Here and here Reformation 21 (in the persons of Paul Levy and Carl Trueman) celebrates the ministry of the late Douglas MacMillan, the best preacher I ever heard.  I'd never heard OF him when I was present at the Aberystwyth Conference back in 1979.  He preached the now-legendary series on Psalm 23; this former Highland Shepherd and giant of a man made the whole psalm live.  As an expositor, Lloyd-Jones was better; but as a preacher, MacMillan left him standing.


Not many years later, I met him.  I'd gone for the very first time to the Bala Ministers' Conference.  I'd only graduated from LTS two days earlier, but I really wanted to hear this man again.  I remember going in to the dining room (sensibly, the conference began with lunch) and seeing that all the tables were already filling up.  On each of them was a minister I was still inclined to call 'Mr' - Graham Harrison on one, Hywel Jones on another, Hugh Morgan, Andrew Davies...  How could I possibly sit with them.  (I'm a very shy man.)  Oh, bless the Lord!  There's one table with no-one sitting at it at all.  Quick, Gary.


So I sat down, and was aware as I sat that someone had followed me and was sitting opposite me.  Looking up, there was Big Douglas, stretching out a massive hand to me and saying 'Hello, I'm Douglas.  Who are you?'  (I'm not sure I could remember at that point!)


I've never forgotten that.  As he walked into the dining room he must have seen those men - his friends.  But he saw one young, lonely, nervous preacher sitting alone.  He ignored his friends, and sat with me.  He was a Big Man.


You've never heard him preach?  In the words of the song, 'betcha by golly, wow!  Some of his sermons are on the web; you could try this one, from a different 'Aber.'  But really you need to get hold of his sermons on Psalm 23.  The book's worth reading - but hear the sermons first, if you can.  How about pestering the Evangelical Movement of Wales to put them on line?  And the Free Church of Scotland to make many, many more available?

Unexpected Messiah

Yep, most of you have seen this.  Watch it again.  At approximately 1:58 is, for me, the most amazing, spine-tingling moment in all of music anywhere.  It gets me every time; and it's true, too!

It's hard to be honest...

I pay for my prescriptions in advance; it's (marginally) cheaper since I have ongoing medication for migraines.


I've got a prescription waiting for me at the Pharmacy.  Couldn't find my prepayment card, so phoned the Prepayment Office in Newcastle to find out if my last card was still valid.  Whoops - no.  It expired at the end of August.  No problem, though - the nice people at the P-O are quite happy to take my money over the phone and issue me with a card that I can use from today.  So I can pick my prescription up immediately.  When the snow clears, that is.


But as I settle down to a nice cuppa, I think. And what I think is this - I'm sure I've had a prescription - without paying for it - since August.  Check records and yes!  I've had two.  Oh well; nobody's likely to find out.  Except God of course.  Nobody's likely to call me to account.  Except God of course.


Hmm.  Better put the cuppa down and sort it.  So I phone the P-O again and explain.  Nice lady puts me through to a colleague.  'Oh, no - we don't deal with that.  You'll need to phone your local health care trust.'  Kindly, she gives me the number in Poole.


Phone the number in Poole.  Another nice lady, who transfers me to yet another nice lady.  Plainly, only nice ladies have got through the snow today.  Anyway, this one says,  'Oh, no.  We don't deal with that.  You'll need to phone a number in Ferndown.'  So I phone a number in Ferndown and get through to a lady - nice one - with a bit of an accent.  (I should explain: it sounded very slightly foreign - Indian, perhaps.  But the nice lady in Newcastle - now she HAD an accent.  But it doesn't count, 'cos it's an English accent.  And no doubt it'll improve - when the boat comes in.)


Anyway, I'm now talking to a nice lady in Ferndown - just up the road.  And she says (can you guess?) 'Oh, no.  We don't deal with that.  You'll need to phone a number in Newcastle.'  She gives it me. And it's the one I phoned to start with. I explain.


'Oh, OK then.  I'll talk to my manager.  Just a minute.'  Manager comes on - she seems a nice lady, too.  'How can I help?'  So I explain.


'OK then,' she says.  'Just give my your address and we'll send you an invoice for the prescriptions you haven't paid for.'


I don't mind the run-around; after all, I did it from my own home and it only took a few minutes. (About 20, I'd say.)  But what strikes me - and it's struck me before - officialdom has no well-understood procedure in place to deal with honesty.


Don't you think that's odd?

W o l v e s

Mt. 7:15  "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.  16  By their fruit you will recognize them.

Acts 20:28  Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.  29  I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.  30  Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.  31  So be on your guard!

Titus 3:10  Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.  11  You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

For various reasons, the leadership here at MBC has had to consider what 'wolves' look like, in Christian terms.  Here are some basic conclusions of mine based on the above texts: 

1. Wolves are not a theoretical problem, but a real one

 I think we can take it for granted that neither Paul nor the Lord Jesus are saying: 'For your information, there are wolves.  But don't worry, you'll never meet one.'  How can we take that for granted?  Because the Lord says 'Watch out' and Paul says 'be on your guard'!

2. They are dangerous

Wolves eat sheep.  When a church has wolves prowling around, the sheep are in danger.  (Obvious, eh?  Yep; sometimes the art of Bible teaching is 'stating the obvious'.  Then illustrate, and apply.)

 

3. They are hard to recognise

That is, they are in sheep's clothing.  They (apparently) bear many marks - or at least some of the marks - of the true believer.

4. It is possible to recognise them

Otherwise, there'd be no point being told to 'watch out'.  They are not easy to spot, but the alert shepherd can spot them.

5. It’s the duty of the shepherds to recognise them

This is an area where greater discernment than the 'average' church member has is needed.  Many church members never get beyond the mythical beatitude 'Blessed are the Nice.'  But shepherds - elders, pastors, overseers - are to be chosen on the basis of spiritual wisdom and maturity. Discernment is part of that.

6. They are recognised by the effect that they have

That's the clear teaching of Matthew 7:16 (above), where Jesus mixes his metaphors.  We recognise wolves not by their intentions - still less by what they say their intentions are - but by what they actually do and the impact that it has.  This is a vital point to grasp.

7. Once they are recognised the shepherds must deal with them

Once again, it’s clear that neither Paul nor Jesus means ‘look out for them – and then do nothing about them.’  David (1 Samuel 17:34-37) describes the responsibility of the (literal) shepherd when the flock is threatened, and the (spiritual) shepherd learns his responsibility from the parallel.  Often, though, that can be difficult, not least because...

8. They have friends on the leadership

‘From your own number’ (Acts 20:30) means they will have worked closely with other leaders, which makes them difficult to identify and painful to deal with.  They have worked themselves onto the leadership somehow - obviously with an appearance of grace and orthodoxy and probably with genuine leadership gifts.  Friendship is a good thing; but it may cloud our judgement.  'He can't possibly be a wolf - our children grew up together, we've spent holidays together, we get on really well.'  Yes - but what do they do?  (See point 6, above)

9. They are not just false teachers

Much of the stress seems throughout the New Testament is on false teaching, but some verses (e.g. Titus 3.10) make it clear that this is not always the problem.  False teaching is certainly dangerous and divisive - but there are other ways of being divisive, other ways of damaging the flock.  Even the false teachers, though, manage an appearance of orthodoxy, enough to be appointed to the leadership of the church.

Psst.  Wanna hear a sermon?  

Try Steve Levy: http://gracebaptist.org.uk/wp/?page_id=204&sermon_id=49 and let me know what you think.

Today's the Day to pray for Kezia.

I don't know whether there are many/any readers of my blog who don't also see Martin Downes' 'Against Heresies' blog.  Today's the day to pray for his nine-year-old daughter Kezia who was recently discovered to have a brain tumour and will be operated on today.


It's also a very good day to see what faith in the fire looks like.  


God bless you today, Kezia.  And your Mum and Dad, too.