I just recieved MacArthur's latest book (The Truth War) and it has been really, really good thus far. I think it may be one of his best works yet (we'll see). I read a few books on finances/stewardship matters for our SYM Sunday School class. I also read through large portions of books on Baptist History for a project I'm doing for Pastor Flatt.
So here is the latest update of the stuff i am trying to read outside of Scripture... What have you guys been reading?
Books I am currently reading:
The Truth War (By John MacArthur)
The Message of the O.T. (by Mark Dever)
Knowing God (By JI Packer) (Ch 19)
What Jesus Demands from the World (by John Piper)
Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1 (by John Calvin) (Book 1, Ch 6)
Numerous Jude commentaries (for sermon preperation)
Books I’ve finished in the last year or so:
No Place for the Truth (by David F. Wells).
The Cross and Christian Ministry (by D.A. Carson).
Women's Ministry in the Local Church (by Ligon Duncan/Susan Hunt)
The Holiness of God (by R.C. Sproul)
Growing Up Christian (by Paul Graustein)
How America Lost Her Innocence (By Steve Gallagher)
From Pride to Humility (pamphlet by Dr. Stuart Scott)
Humility: True Greatness (by C.J. Mahaney)
Biblical Eldership (by A. Strauch)
Expository Preaching With Word Pictures: With Illustrations from the Sermons of Thomas Watson (by Dr. Jack Hughes).
The Reformed Pastor (by Richard Baxter)
Legacy of Sovereign Joy (by John Piper)
Whose Money Is It Anyways (By John MacArthur)
The Treasure Principle (by Randy Alcorn)
Baptist Life and Thought (By William Brackney) I read large sections of this book.
By His Grace and For His Glory (Dr. Nettles) I read portions of this book.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Piper on TV
By prepared to say OUCH and join me in repenting. This is from desiringgod.org Dr. John Piper's website/blogsite.
From "Justification by Faith":
There are millions who are numb to hope because of the God-belittling things they have done and how ugly they have become. They don’t lift lofty arguments against God’s Truth; they shrug and feel irretrievably outside. They don’t defy God consciously; they default to cake and television.
From "Take Care How You Listen! Part 2":
It astonishes me how many Christians watch the same banal, empty, silly, trivial, titillating, suggestive, immodest TV shows that most unbelievers watch--and then wonder why their spiritual lives are weak and their worship experience is shallow with no intensity.
From "Advice to Pastors: How to Help Your People Be More Satisfied in God":
Help your people to turn off the television. Few things in our culture are more spiritually numbing than the television. Even the so-called "good" shows are by and large banal and low-minded and anything but cultivating of a rich, deep capacity to enjoy God. And when you add to that the barrage of suggestive advertisements that accompany virtually every program, I do not wonder why so many of our professing Christians are spiritually incapable of experiencing high thoughts and deep emotions.
From "The Children, The Church, and the Chosen":
Fathers are worked to a frazzle and so are too dogged to spend quality time with children; mothers are lured away from their little children to the work force; children have their own activities, and the one thing that pulls them all to the same room makes zombies out of them all: the television.
From "Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism":
One of the curses of our culture is banality, cuteness, cleverness. Television is the main sustainer of our addiction to superficiality and triviality.
From "A Prayer for Our Church":
O Lord, by the truth of your Word, and the power of your Spirit and the ministry of your body, build men and women at Bethlehem... who don't feed their minds on TV each night.
From "Justification by Faith":
There are millions who are numb to hope because of the God-belittling things they have done and how ugly they have become. They don’t lift lofty arguments against God’s Truth; they shrug and feel irretrievably outside. They don’t defy God consciously; they default to cake and television.
From "Take Care How You Listen! Part 2":
It astonishes me how many Christians watch the same banal, empty, silly, trivial, titillating, suggestive, immodest TV shows that most unbelievers watch--and then wonder why their spiritual lives are weak and their worship experience is shallow with no intensity.
From "Advice to Pastors: How to Help Your People Be More Satisfied in God":
Help your people to turn off the television. Few things in our culture are more spiritually numbing than the television. Even the so-called "good" shows are by and large banal and low-minded and anything but cultivating of a rich, deep capacity to enjoy God. And when you add to that the barrage of suggestive advertisements that accompany virtually every program, I do not wonder why so many of our professing Christians are spiritually incapable of experiencing high thoughts and deep emotions.
From "The Children, The Church, and the Chosen":
Fathers are worked to a frazzle and so are too dogged to spend quality time with children; mothers are lured away from their little children to the work force; children have their own activities, and the one thing that pulls them all to the same room makes zombies out of them all: the television.
From "Ten Effects of Believing in the Five Points of Calvinism":
One of the curses of our culture is banality, cuteness, cleverness. Television is the main sustainer of our addiction to superficiality and triviality.
From "A Prayer for Our Church":
O Lord, by the truth of your Word, and the power of your Spirit and the ministry of your body, build men and women at Bethlehem... who don't feed their minds on TV each night.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
End Times (Part 2)
My friend Dr. Nate Busenitz closed his post with this comment...
"My closing thoughts on this discussion:
First, I would very much like to thank our amillennial and postmillennial brothers for joining in this discussion – and for doing so in a gracious and cordial way. I believe the love of Christ is put on display, and Christ Himself is honored, when we discuss our disagreements (over secondary issues) in a way that preserves our Christian testimony. As has been noted numerous times throughout this discussion, we will all spend eternity together worshipping the Risen Lamb.
Second, I would like to emphasize the many points of agreement that we share. Obviously, we are united on the gospel. It is this foundational level that allows us to fellowship together and to stand united for the truth. But even in eschatology, we share much in common. We all cling tenaciously to the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:11–14). We all look forward to our future resurrection, based on the historic resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15). We all anticipate the heavenly reward we will receive for our faithfulness on earth (cf. 2 Tim. 4:6-8). We all await our heavenly rest (Heb. 4), and the wonders of heavenly worship (Rev. 4–5), when we will see our Savior face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). The essence and foundation of our hope does not differ, even if our eschatological timelines might.
This is not to say, of course, that eschatology is unimportant. Nor does it gives us the right to give up on the topic – and join the ranks of “pan-millennialism” (where it all “pans out” in the end). We recognize that there are things “hard to understand” (as Peter wrote of Paul’s letters — 2 Pet 3:16), yet we continue to diligently apply ourselves to the task of study and application. We believe, as Christ promised, that if we apply ourselves to understanding even the prophetic portions of Scripture, we will be blessed (Rev. 1:3; 22:7).
But why make such a big deal about eschatology? I like Darrell Bock’s answer: “At stake are God’s promises and the trustworthiness of His Word in commitment to Israel about a land and a kingdom” (Coming Millennial Kingdom, 190). For me this is (and remains) the issue. God proved His faithfulness by literally fulfilling prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming (cf. Matt 2:5-6; John 7:42), and we are confident that He will literally fulfill His promises to the church. So why would OT promises regarding Christ’s second coming be any different? We don’t believe that they are. We believe that God keeps His Word to the letter, having made His promises in a straight-forward manner. Hence, we are premillennialists.
For those interested in studying the premillennial perspective in more depth, please see the links we posted at the beginning of this series (on Monday) and throughout. For those who want a good laugh at the expense of dispensationalists, please see this link.
May the Lord be honored with us all, as we pursue Him in faithfulness and eagerly wait for His return. Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus. "
By Dr. Nate Busenitz
"My closing thoughts on this discussion:
First, I would very much like to thank our amillennial and postmillennial brothers for joining in this discussion – and for doing so in a gracious and cordial way. I believe the love of Christ is put on display, and Christ Himself is honored, when we discuss our disagreements (over secondary issues) in a way that preserves our Christian testimony. As has been noted numerous times throughout this discussion, we will all spend eternity together worshipping the Risen Lamb.
Second, I would like to emphasize the many points of agreement that we share. Obviously, we are united on the gospel. It is this foundational level that allows us to fellowship together and to stand united for the truth. But even in eschatology, we share much in common. We all cling tenaciously to the blessed hope, the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (Titus 2:11–14). We all look forward to our future resurrection, based on the historic resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15). We all anticipate the heavenly reward we will receive for our faithfulness on earth (cf. 2 Tim. 4:6-8). We all await our heavenly rest (Heb. 4), and the wonders of heavenly worship (Rev. 4–5), when we will see our Savior face to face (1 Cor. 13:12). The essence and foundation of our hope does not differ, even if our eschatological timelines might.
This is not to say, of course, that eschatology is unimportant. Nor does it gives us the right to give up on the topic – and join the ranks of “pan-millennialism” (where it all “pans out” in the end). We recognize that there are things “hard to understand” (as Peter wrote of Paul’s letters — 2 Pet 3:16), yet we continue to diligently apply ourselves to the task of study and application. We believe, as Christ promised, that if we apply ourselves to understanding even the prophetic portions of Scripture, we will be blessed (Rev. 1:3; 22:7).
But why make such a big deal about eschatology? I like Darrell Bock’s answer: “At stake are God’s promises and the trustworthiness of His Word in commitment to Israel about a land and a kingdom” (Coming Millennial Kingdom, 190). For me this is (and remains) the issue. God proved His faithfulness by literally fulfilling prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming (cf. Matt 2:5-6; John 7:42), and we are confident that He will literally fulfill His promises to the church. So why would OT promises regarding Christ’s second coming be any different? We don’t believe that they are. We believe that God keeps His Word to the letter, having made His promises in a straight-forward manner. Hence, we are premillennialists.
For those interested in studying the premillennial perspective in more depth, please see the links we posted at the beginning of this series (on Monday) and throughout. For those who want a good laugh at the expense of dispensationalists, please see this link.
May the Lord be honored with us all, as we pursue Him in faithfulness and eagerly wait for His return. Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus. "
By Dr. Nate Busenitz
Friday, March 16, 2007
Eschatology
My good friend Nate Busenitz has been talking alot about eschatology and he's been sharing his biblical convictions on this topic at http://www.sfpulpit.com/ You may disagree with him but i think his posts are worth your time.
I find myself falling into a more progressive dispensational understanding of eschatology (in certain areas atleast), but i am certainly premillennial. I wavered on this topic during college (in part due to my immense respect for so many Covenant theologians). It was basically my bible study through the minor prophets and Romans 9-11 that convinced me of my current position.
Eschatology of course is a secondary matter of theology, but let us not forget, prophecy does make up atleast 25% of our Bibles.
Phil Johnson wrote one post on this topic at http://teampyro.blogspot.com/ (see March 16th post). He makes some good points here.
My friends at Expository Thoughts are also writing some great posts on this subject at http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/
Why Premill theology?
By Nathan Busenitz
"Why Premillennialism? With all the theological garbage that parades itself under the name 'dispensational premillennialism,' I think this is a fair question. (I for one certainly wouldn’t mind thinking up a new label.) So — why would anyone be a premillennialist? Is it because of the colorful charts? Or maybe the fast-paced novels? Maybe it’s the funky hair-dos on all those prophecy TV programs.
Actually… it’s not any of those. In fact, for me it’s not ultimately about eschatology at all. It’s about the clarity of Scripture and the irrevocable nature of God’s promises.
If I were asked to give a brief defense of why I am a premillennialist, I would say that it ultimately comes down to those two things. In other words —
(1) God cannot lie and He can communicate clearly — Thus, when I read the Old Testament, taking His promises at face-value, I come away a premillennialist. In the same way that the prophecies regarding Christ’s first coming were fulfilled literally, so (I believe) the prophecies surrounding Christ’s second coming should be also taken at face value. The New Testament does not annull the OT promises (but rather affirms them — in passages like Acts 1:6-8; Romans 9-11; and Rev. 20:4-6). The burden of proof, then, falls on the amillennialist — to demonstrate that what God promised is (in actuality) somehow different than what He will bring to pass.
Amillennialists will perhaps reply that they are interpreting the Old Testament in the way the NT authors interpreted it. But this becomes very difficult in light of the fact that the NT authors do not approach the Old Testament in a consistent way, nor do they give us normative instruction to spiritualize the OT.
For that matter, if later revelation is to be read into earlier revelation (as amillennialism suggests), then why is Revelation 20:4-6 so quickly discounted? As Craig Blaising asks:
Considering that this book [Revelation] is a late revelation from the Lord himself to the churches (Rev. 1:1; 22:16), with the admonition that the words are “faithful and true” (22:6), we ask, is this wise [to discount it]? Should not one be open to what the Lord himself says about how (i.e., the manner and the time) he will fulfill those things that he has previously revealed, especially as it is the most detailed explanation given on the topic? (Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, 151-52).
In any case, I’m trying to be brief… so I’ll move on to my second point:
(2) God’s unconditional covenants with the nation of Israel are irrevocable — This includes the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New Covenants. As Arnold Fruchtenbaum demonstrates in this article, these unconditional promises necessitate a physical kingdom on this earth for the nation of Israel.
If the promises given in the Old Testament could not be taken at face value by those who received them, then what guarantee do I have when I take the New Testament promises at face value? This is an honest question that I would ask my amillennial brothers. Isn’t it possible that New Testament prophecy (like Old Testament prophecy) doesn’t really mean what it says? How much stock can I put in the literalness of 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Peter 3; or Revelation 21-22 if it’s possible that those prophecies were never intended as literal?
Well, anyway… those are honest questions. I don’t claim to have everything figured out on my own eschatological chart. Nor would I ever question the intelligence or sincerity of my amill and post-mill brethren. But, at the end of the day – without overwhelming evidence to the contrary — I’m left with no other choice than to believe that God will do exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He said He would do it.
As those who are soteriologically reformed, we take God’s promises very seriously. In fact, we stake our eternities on them. That’s why Dr. MacArthur titled his message, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist.” It wasn’t a dig, so much as a call to really consider the basis for premillennialism — the very promises of God. If those promises did not hold literally true for the nation of Israel, why would we expect them to hold literally true for us? "
I find myself falling into a more progressive dispensational understanding of eschatology (in certain areas atleast), but i am certainly premillennial. I wavered on this topic during college (in part due to my immense respect for so many Covenant theologians). It was basically my bible study through the minor prophets and Romans 9-11 that convinced me of my current position.
Eschatology of course is a secondary matter of theology, but let us not forget, prophecy does make up atleast 25% of our Bibles.
Phil Johnson wrote one post on this topic at http://teampyro.blogspot.com/ (see March 16th post). He makes some good points here.
My friends at Expository Thoughts are also writing some great posts on this subject at http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/
Why Premill theology?
By Nathan Busenitz
"Why Premillennialism? With all the theological garbage that parades itself under the name 'dispensational premillennialism,' I think this is a fair question. (I for one certainly wouldn’t mind thinking up a new label.) So — why would anyone be a premillennialist? Is it because of the colorful charts? Or maybe the fast-paced novels? Maybe it’s the funky hair-dos on all those prophecy TV programs.
Actually… it’s not any of those. In fact, for me it’s not ultimately about eschatology at all. It’s about the clarity of Scripture and the irrevocable nature of God’s promises.
If I were asked to give a brief defense of why I am a premillennialist, I would say that it ultimately comes down to those two things. In other words —
(1) God cannot lie and He can communicate clearly — Thus, when I read the Old Testament, taking His promises at face-value, I come away a premillennialist. In the same way that the prophecies regarding Christ’s first coming were fulfilled literally, so (I believe) the prophecies surrounding Christ’s second coming should be also taken at face value. The New Testament does not annull the OT promises (but rather affirms them — in passages like Acts 1:6-8; Romans 9-11; and Rev. 20:4-6). The burden of proof, then, falls on the amillennialist — to demonstrate that what God promised is (in actuality) somehow different than what He will bring to pass.
Amillennialists will perhaps reply that they are interpreting the Old Testament in the way the NT authors interpreted it. But this becomes very difficult in light of the fact that the NT authors do not approach the Old Testament in a consistent way, nor do they give us normative instruction to spiritualize the OT.
For that matter, if later revelation is to be read into earlier revelation (as amillennialism suggests), then why is Revelation 20:4-6 so quickly discounted? As Craig Blaising asks:
Considering that this book [Revelation] is a late revelation from the Lord himself to the churches (Rev. 1:1; 22:16), with the admonition that the words are “faithful and true” (22:6), we ask, is this wise [to discount it]? Should not one be open to what the Lord himself says about how (i.e., the manner and the time) he will fulfill those things that he has previously revealed, especially as it is the most detailed explanation given on the topic? (Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, 151-52).
In any case, I’m trying to be brief… so I’ll move on to my second point:
(2) God’s unconditional covenants with the nation of Israel are irrevocable — This includes the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New Covenants. As Arnold Fruchtenbaum demonstrates in this article, these unconditional promises necessitate a physical kingdom on this earth for the nation of Israel.
If the promises given in the Old Testament could not be taken at face value by those who received them, then what guarantee do I have when I take the New Testament promises at face value? This is an honest question that I would ask my amillennial brothers. Isn’t it possible that New Testament prophecy (like Old Testament prophecy) doesn’t really mean what it says? How much stock can I put in the literalness of 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Peter 3; or Revelation 21-22 if it’s possible that those prophecies were never intended as literal?
Well, anyway… those are honest questions. I don’t claim to have everything figured out on my own eschatological chart. Nor would I ever question the intelligence or sincerity of my amill and post-mill brethren. But, at the end of the day – without overwhelming evidence to the contrary — I’m left with no other choice than to believe that God will do exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He said He would do it.
As those who are soteriologically reformed, we take God’s promises very seriously. In fact, we stake our eternities on them. That’s why Dr. MacArthur titled his message, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist.” It wasn’t a dig, so much as a call to really consider the basis for premillennialism — the very promises of God. If those promises did not hold literally true for the nation of Israel, why would we expect them to hold literally true for us? "
Monday, March 12, 2007
Spurgeon on the End Times
Alot of people are blogging about the end times in part due to John MacArthur's opening address at the 2007 Shepherd's conference.
The men at Expository Thoughts remind us why the "blog world" can be a dangerous place esp. when dealing with secondary issues that are hotly debated among the scholars. Their is often alot of hot air produced in mass volumes when it comes to Christian Blogging... Anyways, please check out http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/
Tim Challies has done a wonderful job highlighting all the lectures/sermons from the Shepherd's conference and you can find his work here http://www.challies.com/
Phil Johnson posted the following sermon by C.H. Spurgeon at http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
"I am not given to prophesying, and I fear that the fixing of dates and periods has been exceedingly injurious to the whole system of premillennial teaching; but I think I clearly see in Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ will come—so far I go, and take my stand—that he will come personally to reign upon this earth.At his coming it appears clear to me that he will gather together the Jewish people, that Jerusalem shall become the metropolis of the new empire which shall then extend from pole to pole, from the river even to the ends of the earth. If this be a correct interpretation of prophecy, you may read the whole of Zechariah 2 through and understand it; you have the key to every sentence: without such a belief; I see not how to interpret the prophet’s meaning.Dear friends, we may sometimes refresh our minds with a prospect of the kingdom which is soon to cover all lands, and make the sun and moon ashamed by its superior glory. We are not to indulge in prophesyings as some do, making them our spiritual food, our meat and drink; but still we may take them as choice morsels, and special delicacies set upon the table; they are condiments which may often give a sweeter taste, or, if you will, a greater pungency and savor to other doctrines; prophetic views light up the crown of Jesus with a superior splendor; they make his manhood appear illustrious as we see him still in connection with the earth: to have a kingdom here as well as there; to sit upon a throne here as well as in yonder skies; to subdue his adversaries even upon this Aceldama, as in the realm of spirits; to make even this poor earth upon which the trail of the serpent is so manifest, a place where the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.If our view of prophecy be the correct one, it seems to be in perfect harmony with all the doctrines of the gospel. God certainly did elect his people the Jews; he made a covenant with his servant Abraham, and albeit you will remind us that this was only a temporal covenant, I would remind you that it was the type of the spiritual one, and it would be an unhappy reflection for us if the typical covenant should prove to be only temporary as well as temporal; if that came to an end, and if God cast away, in any sense, the people whom he did foreknow, it might augur to us the ill foreboding that mayhap he might cast away his spiritual seed also, and that those who were chosen as the spiritual seed of Abraham, might yet be cut off from the olive into which they had been grafted. If the natural branches are cast away for ever, why not the grafted branches too?But here is our joy, the God who sware unto his servant Abraham that to him and to his seed would he give the land for ever, hath not gone back from his word; they shall possess the land; their feet shall joyously tread its fruitful acres yet again; they shall sit every man under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and none shall make them afraid; and so the spiritual seed to whom the spiritual heritage is given as by a covenant of salt, they also shall possess their heritage for ever, and of their rightful portion no robber shall despoil them."
If you want to join the conversation please check out my friend Nathan's site at http://www.sfpulpit.com/
The men at Expository Thoughts remind us why the "blog world" can be a dangerous place esp. when dealing with secondary issues that are hotly debated among the scholars. Their is often alot of hot air produced in mass volumes when it comes to Christian Blogging... Anyways, please check out http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/
Tim Challies has done a wonderful job highlighting all the lectures/sermons from the Shepherd's conference and you can find his work here http://www.challies.com/
Phil Johnson posted the following sermon by C.H. Spurgeon at http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
"I am not given to prophesying, and I fear that the fixing of dates and periods has been exceedingly injurious to the whole system of premillennial teaching; but I think I clearly see in Scripture that the Lord Jesus Christ will come—so far I go, and take my stand—that he will come personally to reign upon this earth.At his coming it appears clear to me that he will gather together the Jewish people, that Jerusalem shall become the metropolis of the new empire which shall then extend from pole to pole, from the river even to the ends of the earth. If this be a correct interpretation of prophecy, you may read the whole of Zechariah 2 through and understand it; you have the key to every sentence: without such a belief; I see not how to interpret the prophet’s meaning.Dear friends, we may sometimes refresh our minds with a prospect of the kingdom which is soon to cover all lands, and make the sun and moon ashamed by its superior glory. We are not to indulge in prophesyings as some do, making them our spiritual food, our meat and drink; but still we may take them as choice morsels, and special delicacies set upon the table; they are condiments which may often give a sweeter taste, or, if you will, a greater pungency and savor to other doctrines; prophetic views light up the crown of Jesus with a superior splendor; they make his manhood appear illustrious as we see him still in connection with the earth: to have a kingdom here as well as there; to sit upon a throne here as well as in yonder skies; to subdue his adversaries even upon this Aceldama, as in the realm of spirits; to make even this poor earth upon which the trail of the serpent is so manifest, a place where the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.If our view of prophecy be the correct one, it seems to be in perfect harmony with all the doctrines of the gospel. God certainly did elect his people the Jews; he made a covenant with his servant Abraham, and albeit you will remind us that this was only a temporal covenant, I would remind you that it was the type of the spiritual one, and it would be an unhappy reflection for us if the typical covenant should prove to be only temporary as well as temporal; if that came to an end, and if God cast away, in any sense, the people whom he did foreknow, it might augur to us the ill foreboding that mayhap he might cast away his spiritual seed also, and that those who were chosen as the spiritual seed of Abraham, might yet be cut off from the olive into which they had been grafted. If the natural branches are cast away for ever, why not the grafted branches too?But here is our joy, the God who sware unto his servant Abraham that to him and to his seed would he give the land for ever, hath not gone back from his word; they shall possess the land; their feet shall joyously tread its fruitful acres yet again; they shall sit every man under his own vine and under his own fig tree, and none shall make them afraid; and so the spiritual seed to whom the spiritual heritage is given as by a covenant of salt, they also shall possess their heritage for ever, and of their rightful portion no robber shall despoil them."
If you want to join the conversation please check out my friend Nathan's site at http://www.sfpulpit.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)