Archives for 2007

I am just about through with my latest issue of Biblical Archaelogical Review. The magazine can’t really be classified as a Christian magazine, though the articles usually relate to Bible topics. The general editor and the vast majority of contributors appear to come from at best a fairly liberal position, which is to say an unbelieving position. The editorial pages are especially galling, and I have to remind myself that I don’t subscribe for the editorials!

The content of the articles is usually a fairly objective discussion of the facts along with argumentation oriented to one archaelogical theory or another. Occasionally there are liberal notions present and the galling dating system BCE/CE. I mostly am looking for background information concerning the biblical record from this magazine and on that score it delivers.

For example, the recent issue has an article on Joseph, asking a question about the passage in Gen 41.14 where Joseph is said to have shaved prior to his first audience with Pharaoh. The auther asks why would Joseph do this? The suggested answer is that the Pharaoh would be considered a god in the Egyptian system and as such could only be attended by people who were ‘clean’. In the Egyptian system, the priests were completely shaven, all bodily hair removed, as a sign of their cleanness entering into the courts of their gods (i.e., the temples, including the palace). The reference in Genesis, one I noticed again just the other day in my regular reading, is fairly obscure and perhaps isn’t intended to convey a lot of meaning. But understanding the context of this ‘by the way’ type of remark might cast some light on the whole story, including the relationship between Pharaoh and Joseph and contributes to a better understanding of why Joseph’s brothers did not recognize him at all. He would have appeared comepletely other-worldly to them, if indeed his hair, beard, etc, were all completely shaved off in his position as second in command to Pharaoh.

The previous issue contained a particularly distressing article on the loss of faith. Four archaeological scholars were interviewed, two who claimed to have lost their faith, two who claimed not. Given BAR‘s slant, it is not surprising that it appears none of these men actually ever have had saving faith. Those who claimed to have lost faith came from fairly conservative evangelical backgrounds, but their current testimonies show they never exercised living faith. Such stories are heartbreaking.

Resources like BAR can be useful, but they must be handled with care. There be dragons [of unbelief] there.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I have mostly finished my first look at the modern Sword and Trowel. If this issue is typical, the magazine is worth receiving. The second article by Peter Masters is also excellent. Entitled ‘Paul’s Positive Plan for Holiness’, Masters outlines from Rm 7-8 eight essential steps for pursuing personal holiness. Masters critiqued John Piper’s theories elsewhere for his denial of personal effort in sanctification. I agree with Masters on this point. Piper is guilty of a neo-Keswickian view of sanctification which distorts the Christian life.

Here is a summary of Masters’ eight points:

• Recognize the Problem – I still have a sin nature, defeated by the cross, but still alive and a powerful force in my soul, if I allow it.

“A serious determination to struggle against sin is the only way to live as a Christian, yet it is a stance that modern evangelicalism, saturated in worldliness and show-business informality and entertainment, does not want to take.”

• Have Positive Aims – have a goal of godliness, an objective to strive after, a ‘good I would’ do, much as an athlete sets objectives for his physical progress, so too we must set objectives for spiritual progress.

• Plan to Avoid Sin – the antithesis of point two: have an objective NOT to sin, an evil ‘I would not’.

“Sin will not be broken and overcome without a longing to avoid it, and the preparation of a prior battle-plan of intentions.”

• Keep Up Self-Examination – constantly put yourself under scrutiny from the objective perspective of God’s word. Be ready and quick to confess sin that is exposed.

• Long for Overall Improvement – longing for improvement stretches out towards the goal, presses on to victory as in Phil 3.13-14. This is a daily dedication to holiness.

• Seek Spiritual Help – by this Masters means the help that is readily available from God, even as the Lord taught us to pray ‘Lead us not into temptation’.

“Daily we pray for a lively conscience and a fresh realization that we are observed by the Lord. Strong and besetting sins always yeld following earnest prayer, because the Spirit gives power to resist them, often along with a sense of revulsion against sin.”

• Mind Heavenly Things – actively direct your thoughts to spiritual things, mind the things of the Spirit, set your affections on things above. Masters points out that we are often too much minded with earthly things. Like sports, for example.

“Whatever engages the believer most will shape that person’s heart and outlook, in line with the words of Christ, ‘For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also’ (Matthew 6.21).”

• Mortify Sin

“Mortification means putting to death these aspirations, and quenching sinful moods, tempers, words and acts. … Not one of these steps may be overlooked, but this eighth is probably the decisive one. Grasping the help of God, by prayer, we put the sin to death and redirect the thoughts to something higher and better.”

~~~

I hope you find this helpful. The whole article is well worth your reading if you can find a copy. Subscription info can be found here.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I received the latest copy of Frontline today. This is the one that includes the articles accompanying the annual resolutions. Earlier, I was quite critical of the last sentence of the resolution.

The article is much better than the resolution and clearly spells out some of the ethical (and possibly legal) pitfalls dealing with illegal aliens who might be converted and attempt to be involved in a local church.

Nevertheless, I still remain convinced that the concluding sentence of the resolution is too weak.

Ministry to illegal people of any kind involves huge stumbling blocks immediately. If a person repents and comes to Christ, they must really bring forth works fit for repentance. For a person guilty of a crime (any crime, including illegal immigration) the number one stumbling block is to make their crime right, whatever the consequences to themselves.

Ministry to illegal aliens is fraught with difficulty at the point of conversion because of this stumbling block. In my view, real faith in Christ will evidence itself if the convert is willing to repent of his lawbreaking and make things right.

Ministry to professing Christian illegal aliens is hard as well – they may be genuinely converted, but may have foolishly justified illegal activity for one reason or another. Regardless of the situation, I don’t believe tolerating these offenses is any help to brethren guilty of them.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

My third installment in the series Law, Legalism, and Life examines The Place of Law [Morning Message, 7.1.07]. I was working on this proposition: ‘The goal in preaching Christian standards is not to impose law on the Christian church – no law can achieve the goals of sanctification and personal devotion.’

First, law, especially God’s Law, is defined. God has authority to impose law and his people yield their wills to God’s authority.

Second, the design of law is to protect sovereignty and promote the general good. Likewise, God’s Law protect’s God’s glory and promotes order and well-being in society, but it is designed for more than that. God’s law imposes a spiritual dimension and accountability to God in the mix. When God’s laws are broken, man is spiritually accountable, for he has sinned. In the end, we need to see that God’s Law is designed for man’s good, not man’s grief.

Finally, however, we come to the crux of the matter with respect to law. Law has a defect – it can call us to account (conviction) but it cannot change us (conversion). I noted four defects that manifest the inability of law to change hearts: First, men cannot keep the law. ‘Most of the time’ isn’t good enough. The Law demands perfection. Second, there is a danger of making the law an end in itself. The keeping of the law becomes an idol and men construct a labyrinth of means to keep from breaking the letter of the law (Pharisaism). Third, as mentioned, it is impossible for the Law to make man righteous. Law is imposed by power (authority). If I have the power, I can make a man conform to my law, but I cannot change his heart. He can still be ‘standing up on the inside’ to cite an old illustration of a little boy made to sit in the corner by his mother. For the power of law to have any lasting effect, something has to happen to the heart first. Fourth, the Law is not enough. In other words, the Law actually only expresses a minimum standard. The Ten Commandments say, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Is that all there is to the standard? That is the bare minimum! God says, be ye holy as I am holy. Jesus said that if you hate, you are guilty. The law isn’t enough. Don’t congratulate yourself if you can keep a law or two, you need to be perfectly holy, just like God.

In the end, we need to learn the lesson of repentance, just like Job. Laws are good and are meant for good, but the real lesson we need to learn is not to congratulate ourselves for law-keeping but to fall on our faces before our holy God and shut our mouths. We have nothing to say to him with whom we have to do. We must bow our hearts in repentance and ask for God to change us. No amount of lawkeeping will bring about the change we need.

Next week I will look at what God thinks of our good works.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I am a member and enthusiastic supporter of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International. I am pleased with the direction it is taking and was especially pleased recently by the inclusion of Clarence Sexton as one of the speakers at the annual meeting just a few weeks ago, despite the criticism of naysayers [see my comments in the comments section there].

Having said that, let me offer a criticism of one of the 2007 resolutions as published at the FBF website here. The resolution concerns illegal aliens. I think the general meaning of the resolution is correct, but that the resolution doesn’t go far enough. Here is the resolution in question:

Resolution 07-02: Concerning Ministry to Illegal Immigrants.

Recognizing the New Testament church’s obligation to win and disciple the world, the FBFI acknowledges the responsibility of fundamental Baptist churches to reach the growing number of immigrants in our communities regardless of their legal status. We urge churches to avoid making legal status, in any way, a condition of evangelism. But we also urge churches to practice and teach submission to human governmental authority as an essential aspect of Christian growth. Churches should act consistently in the matter, not treating the legal status of an immigrant differently from other issues of equivalent moral and spiritual import in the lives of church members. We recognize the autonomy of each local church to implement these principles in harmony with its own understanding and application of church polity.

The problem I have with this resolution is the last sentence. Yes, local churches are autonomous, but we as believers ought to call our autonomous brethren into account concerning their obedience to Scripture.

I am especially concerned with ‘Spanish’ churches who claim to be fundamentalist but at the same time knowingly use illegal aliens in any capacity of ministry. Do they ever preach Romans 13? What about 1 Peter 2? Should illegal aliens serve as deacons in any local church? Should they teach Sunday School? Should they serve in any capacity or even be admitted to membership?

There are all kinds of stories offered concerning the hardship that individuals experience in their home countries. I appreciate the difficulty people have in some countries, but these stories of hardship are meant to justify lawbreaking. The solution to problems for believers can’t be to simply flout the laws of more prosperous countries. The excuses of illegal aliens are not persuasive. I recall a chapel speaker many years ago uttering the line, ‘an excuse is the skin of a reason stuffed with a lie.’

I say this as the descendant of immigrants, as a friend of immigrants, and in particular as a friend and former pastor to some whom I know are persisting as illegal aliens in the USA. I have counseled my friends to get themselves legal. I am told that I don’t know the ‘prejudice’ in the system, that the cost is very high, etc, etc. I really can’t buy that argument. It is right to do right and we ought to do it.

And the so-called Fundamental Baptist churches that tolerate illegal aliens need to read their Bibles and submit to the Word of God. They should encourage converts to get legal, whatever the cost, or go home and serve God there. Excuse making needs to come to an end.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Did you know that the Sword & Trowel still exists? The S & T was Spurgeon’s magazine. During his ministry it enjoyed a wide circulation. The magazine declined on his passing and went out of publication for a time, I believe. The current pastor of the venerable Metropolitan Tabernacle, Spurgeon’s former church, Dr. Peter Masters, revived the magazine some time back. It is now published four times a year and includes a book with each issue.

I thought of subscribing for some time and finally took the plunge this year. Just last week, my first copy arrived, S & T 2007, No. 1. On the cover is a picture of the first issue in 1865. The book included is a publication of The Suffering Letters of C. H. Spurgeon. The letters are some Spurgeon wrote to his congregation at various points during his ministry, especially when he was kept away from the pulpit by sickness or some other suffering.

The magazine contains four articles, two by Peter Masters and two by others. It also contains reports from various mission works around the world. Apparently, these are the work of men supported by the Tabernacle. Masters’ first article is “The Christian’s Personal Struggle”, ‘a simplified view of Romans 6 to 8, showing how to overcome trial and temptation’.

I thought I might share some of Masters’ observations with you. Some of what he says is quite familiar, but he makes some suggestions concerning the passage that are quite profound, especially in light of the series I am working on concerning Legalism and Christian standards.

One thing that Masters’ points out is something he calls ‘getting the scale right’. When we think of Rm 6.1, [What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?] we typically have in mind ‘big’ sins. Masters says we have the scale wrong:

The key to understanding these words is to get the scale right. Some Christians think that Paul has in mind people who commit scandalous sins without care or conscience, presuming on the grace of God to pardon them. This idea, howver, has the scale all wrong, because Paul is writing to typical Christians who would not dream of murdering anyone, living adulterous lives, or stealing. Paul surely has in mind the higher standards required of Christians, saying, ‘Shall we be casual about holiness, and rest on the fact that grace will save us anyway?’

The challenge is necessary, because believers are frequently much too relaxed about holy living. We tend to lower our guard, allowing ourselves to give way to ‘lesser’ sins, such as a little covetousness, or a small measure of selfishness, or a spot of peevishness, or a moment of pride, or spasmodic skipping of devotions. Moods and tempers (though, of course, not too extreme in scale) are allowed to go unbridled, and perhaps ‘white lies’ and exaggerations also, or fragments of unkind, harmful gossip, and many other slithers and scraps of pre-conversion life.

Masters talks about scale again when he comments on 7.14 where Paul says ‘I am carnal, sold under sin.’:

As with chapter six, the key to the passage is to get the scale right, because Paul is not thinking about sins such as murder, adultery or extreme uncleanness. He has in mind the standards of the Christian life, where the aim is much higher. He requires in himself complete honesty, total unselfishness, the absence of pride or self-consideration, unlimited kindness, abounding love for God, and complete, unwavering trust in Him in all circumstances.

Have you ever thought of these passages this way? I have to confess that I have always thought of them as referring to the major sorts of sins, but I think that Dr. Masters is correct in saying that Paul primarily has in view the deeper Christian understanding of sin in these passages. By deeper Christian understanding, I mean that as we go along in our Christian life, we grow in our understanding of the pervasiveness of sin in us and how much we offend God with those things the world may dismiss as ‘little’ sins or, more probably, not sins at all. Pride, ambition, covetousness and the like are often seen by the world as virtues, not vices. When we consider Christian standards, we need to have a deeper understanding of sin in our minds as we set standards for ourselves. The world builds fences for itself to keep it from what it considers to be sin – not much, but of course all agree that murder is wrong, etc. The Christian realizes sin is much deeper than that and must build fences to keep himself as much as possible from the life that dishonours God.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

During our prayer request time at church this evening, mention was made of my son Rory having his wisdom teeth taken out yesterday. He is quite the chipmunk these days! I remarked that I still have three of my wisdom teeth, so I must be much wiser than him.

Rory quickly responded, “Yes, but I am hole-ier than you.”

I thought that was a pretty good come back.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I picked up a book in 1991 edited by E. G. Selwyn. I recall discovering it when looking for a commentary on 1 Peter by the same man. I don’t think I ever found the commentary, but I found this little book: A Short History of Christian Thought. The book is a collection of eight essays on the development of doctrine through the ages. Selwyn was Dean of Winchester, an Anglican clergyman. The author of the first essay was Gregory Dix, a man who had significant influence on Anglican liturgy and appears to have been a very high-church Anglican. As such his views are somewhat suspect, but his reputation as a scholar is high.

Gregory Dix’ essay is entitled “The First Four Centuries: Hellenism, Judaism, and Christianity”. In the second paragraph he makes this interesting observation:

The decade AD 30-40 saw the public proclamation of Jesus of Nazareth as ‘Messiah’ within the Semitic world of Syrian Judaism. The next found the infant Church embarked on the much greater audacity of a direct assault upon the dominant Hellenistic culture of the pagan Roman Empire. By AD 50 Christian propaganda among the Gentiles was becoming organized and deliberate, and in some circles was already spreading fast. By AD 65 the imperial government of the strongest police-state the world had known was finding itself impotent to put a stop to it, even in the capital, either by spasmodic violence or the steady pressure of prohibitory laws. … After AD 70 the direction of Christian expansion lies, apart from the Far East, overwhelmingly among the Gentiles. But it is a cardinal fact for the whole future history of Christian thought that this virtual transference of Christianity from its original Judaic matrix into the Greco-Roman world was a swift and sudden thing, the astonishing achievement of the first — the single ‘Apostolic’ Christian generation.

The thing that struck me from this observation is how striking the sudden advance into the Gentile world was. Is there any other religious development in history that really can parallel with this peaceful conquest? Isn’t it amazing that a group of 12 frightened men at the Crucifixion had expanded to a body of churches from Jerusalem to Rome and beyond in only 35 years?

When Revelation describes the foundation of the heavenly city as comprised of twelve stones on which is inscribed the names of the apostles, it is a fitting tribute. These men were God’s ROCKS on which the entire church is built. We owe a great deal of gratitude to the Lord for his gifts of the apostles. Praise the Lord for his grace to us who would be in darkness had the apostles not gone forth to establish Christ’s church.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I began a new series of sermons last week. Our subject is prompted by a paper by David Hesselgrave, available on Bob Bixby’s site, Pensees. Hesselgrave’s article, “CONVERSING WITH GEN-XERS AND MILLENIALS CONCERNING LAW AND GRACE, LEGALISM AND LIBERTY” was prompted by the queries of two young people concerning the imposition of a ‘code of conduct’ by Christian colleges.

The article is excellent, though of course I have a few small quibbles at a couple of points. I decided to use it as an outline for a series of sermons on the subject of Christians and establishing codes of conduct, especially by local churches.

The first message came last week, 6/17/07, Christian Standards: an historical appreciation. The main idea of this message is that Bible believing Christians from the very first ages of the church until now have always maintained a stance of aggressive separation from the world. The notion that you can be an orthodox Christian while lowering your standards of conduct to match the standards of the world is an innovation. I advanced this proposition as the direction churches ought to take in their pursuit of a pure Christian testimony: ‘Christian churches stand against the tide of advancing evil by emphasizing personal purity as a mark of faithful Christianity.’

Our second message in the series was yesterday, 6/24/07, The Gospel of Grace: do Christian standards rob the Gospel of grace?. One of the accusations of modern antinomians is that those who promote Christian standards actually rob the gospel of grace, making Christianity works-oriented and man-centered. I pointed out that both salvation and sanctification involve God’s grace. I used Hesselgrave’s definitions of various forms of legalism, including something he suggests as a kind of ‘positive’ legalism. The categories are ‘salvation-by-works’ legalism, ‘excessive-conformity’ legalism (basically Pharisaism), and something Hesselgrave calls ‘reactive nomism’, i.e., a positive response to God and God’s laws because of gratitude for God’s grace. I call this third category ‘personal devotion’ to get to a less awkward and more descriptive term. The point of this message is: ‘My reaction to the gospel involves devotion to the grace God has given me for my personal sanctification.’

I hope to continue to develop these messages through the next few weeks. Next Sunday we will be expanding on God’s viewpoint of the three types of responses to God’s law.

Our afternoon services continue to feature the preaching of my 19 year old preacher boy. Rory is working on a series on the Love of God from 1 John. On 6/17/07, he preached ‘Responsive Love’ on the idea that we should respond to God’s love since God first loved us. Yesterday, he preached ‘Directed Love’ on the idea that our love for God is only seen when it is directed towards others. Rory is working hard on these messages and is developing into a fine preacher.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Fred Thompson appears set to announce his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States of America. While not an American citizen, I am married to one and happen to be the father of five of them. As a Canadian, the politics of the United States are very important to us. One of our former prime ministers (not one of my favorites) described our nervous relationship with the USA as ‘like being in bed with an elephant … its fine as long as the elephant doesn’t roll over’.

Of the Republican candidates for president Fred Thompson has a lot of attractive qualities. He seems to best embody the political principles that I believe in. But today I ran across an article that didn’t inspire a lot of confidence. Thompson is a lawyer [I suppose that by itself is not a disqualification…] who also has been involved in various Hollywood productions as an actor. The article, “Old girlfriends cast their vote for Thompson” comes from the Sunday Times, a product of the Times of London, I think. Thompson’s marital history is the subject of the article, including interviews with several girlfriends from his days between his divorce of his first wife (after 26 years) and his marriage to his second wife, a woman 24 years his junior.

One of his former girlfriends, Georgette Mosbacher, a Republican fundraiser, had this comment on Thompson’s character:

“It says a lot about his character that his ex-wife and ex-girlfriends think he is fabulous,” said Mosbacher. “Character is important in a president.”

Womanizing is a sign of character if all your former women think you are fabulous?

What are we to do? Every one of the other major Republican candidates have major problems for Christians to give their support. Giuliani is far to the left on too many social issues. Romney is a Mormon. McCain is McCain, an unprincipled maverick who masquerades as a conservative but is really driven by self rather than ideology. Thompson, on the other hand has generally espoused conservative political philosophies during his previous time in office (though his record is not as strong as one might like). Are his marital issues a deal-breaker for Christians?

This particular story seems to fit the strategy of getting the bad news out early so the public can get used to it by the time voting day comes. We are about to be manipulated once again.

I am afraid that the coming election will be one of those ‘hold your nose and vote’ situations for conservative Christians. There are no really great candidates out there, but there are some truly awful ones. Christian voters may be voting against several bad choices in order to select the lesser of evils.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3