Pete's Blog

Labels: Bible, Blogs, Characters, Miscellaneous

Labels: Abbreviations, Miscellaneous, Resources

I read this article yesterday on an issue that's being put on the ballot in the American election in November.

A proposal to define a fertilized human egg as a person will land on Colorado's ballot this November, marking the first time that the question of when life begins will go before voters anywhere in the nation.

Labels: Politics, Prayer, Resources

(Unnecessary introduction.)
Mark Dever is probably the popular figure I relate most to right now. I agree with almost all of his theology (he's pushing for his church not to baptize people until they turn 18, where I only see the command in Scripture to make disciples and baptize them [Mt. 28:19], not, "Go and convert 'em and then wait a decade to dunk 'em" as pragmatic as that may sound). He and I are Calvinists, complimentarians, continualists weary of charismatics, and baptists. As baptists, we agree that "the local church is the hope of the world." We agree that the local church should be elder-led and congregationally-ruled. We agree that the normative pattern of the local church should be having one Sunday morning worship service where all of your members are in attendance. We agree that the Gospel should be presented in every sermon.

The guy jokes with paedo-baptists about baptism. He loves politics. He loves history. He sees the importance of evangelism. He graciously disagrees with people and doesn't turn polemics into feuds. The sort of conversations that he pursues in his 9Marks Interviews make me think that he and I would have a ton to talk about (consider especially his interview with Mac). I admire and respect the man so much. Certainly enough to praise him, in depth, in two different posts. I thank God that He has blessed the Church with Dr. Dever.

(Transition to body.)
This makes me think about how much I would love to have his job (I think; it's really easy to covet something while you are unaware of the downsides of the object of desire). He gets to preach the Bible. He gets to train leaders. He gets to interview the smartest men in evangelicalism. He went to seminary at Southern (the number one recommended seminary by Piper), not even to mention, at the same time as Mohler! (Although, that's of the past and I wouldn't get to relive it if I just took Dever's job.) He has politicians who go to his church and ask him for time up front to talk about elections. Of course, he says, "no," to them. But he's in a hot spot of activity having a church in Washington, D.C. That's the best of both worlds, ministry and politics. Kind of like the Christian Embassy, but better, since it has a focus on training pastors as well.

(The meat of the post.)
On the subject of politics, I wanted to make an observation. In the U.S., there have been forty two presidents (lists often say forty three, but I am not counting the multiplicity of Grover Cleveland), among whom, fifteen were at one point senators and seventeen were at one point governors. That said, if I had the prime minister's office as my ambition, the first thing I would try to do is become premier of one of the provinces. That just doesn't really happen in Canada, though. I wonder why. The closest thing in my lifetime that resembled it was Mike Harris. He had just resigned from being premier of Ontario (to try to work on his marriage) and my father kept telling me to watch, that he would someday run for prime minister. In fact, in my first year, I used to write under my name in all my emails either "Bush '04" or "Harris '05". Obviously, that never happened. I still wonder why. Anyway, that would be my advice to an aspiring politician in the making. Go become the premier of a province. If you fail, oh well, you've only destroyed a province, not the country. But if you succeed, especially in Ontario, you'll be remembered come the day you run for federal office.

(Epilogue.)
When I was in second year I said that I wanted to STINT in South America. (I hadn't told many people this, probably two. I wonder whether they remember.) From my third year to mid-fifth year, I wanted to plant a church in Muslim Africa. Though that still appeals to me, Tanz-STINT not happening this year coupled with me committing to four years in Quebec have left my vision for Africa waning these days. I may see a shift in my future plans year again. Maybe I'll plant a church in Gatineau (or take on a pastorate at a church in need of its own reformation, like what Dever, MacArthur and Piper have done at the churches they're now at) and see whether the Lord grants me a ministry to politicians.

In Christ there are so many blessed opportunities. One of the few (maybe many, e.g., God's glory [Rm. 9:22, 23]) good things about the world being so fallen is that there are endless directions you can go in order to help fulfill the Great Commission. Pray that I would go in the direction that I can have the greatest impact for Christ, be challenged most in my faith, and be most faithful.

Labels: Ministry, Politics, Resources

Al Mohler has been asked (question begins at 21:30 in the audio) before how he would argue the inerrancy of the Scriptures to an atheist. He came out and said that it will become a circular argument. The Bible says that it's perfect. That's how we know. The Westminster Confessions say, "And the heavenliness of the matter [the Word of God], the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." That's very circular to a non-Christian who doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit. But, Mohler says not to give up there. He says to remember that our existence is an unproven assumption.

The Bible is able to testify to itself. If someone asks why he should trust the Bible Al Mohler and Russell Moore, probably John MacArthur, would say to just read it and see for himself that it is perfect. I really believe this is true with all my heart. I believe that the Bible is amazingly harmonious (i.e., despite having more than forty authors written over more than a millenium and a half it has no contradictions and has one over-arching message). I think the way that the Bible reports on the fulfillment of prophecy are great for affirming its divineness. Especially as my testimony bears witness to, I believe that reading the Bible can bring faith (Rm. 10:17).

As an aside before moving on from this point, I am not saying that other outside evidence of the greatness of the Scriptures is to be avoided (e.g., the number of manuscripts, the perfect alignment with historical events and archaeology, etc.), I just don't think that they convert a person. God does through His Son's Gospel. We must, however, be ready to stand up for Truth (1P. 3:15).

Now, moving on, I was listening to a Mark Dever interview with Josh Harris (who Kissed Dating Goodbye) and Mohler on dating. Mohler was talking about how some men are called to celibacy, either short term while fulfilling a certain role such as military service in a foreign nation, or long term. As an example of someone called to long term celibacy he described how in 2002 he was called by a missionary organization and asked for the names of seven single men he would recommend from his seminary. I thought that was one of the most exciting things that I'd heard in a long time. He was talking about how these men would be sent off to one of the Stan countries (e.g., Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) and that they might not come back, so it would be irresponsible to send a married man.

First, I'm single, so I thought about how great it would be if I could be used in that capacity. But, more alluring was the idea of going to a place where the Bible's never been read before - not to mention, never had its reputation smeared before. What do you think the average person would say if you (a Christian) asked him to read it and see what he thought of it? He'd probably say (though, perhaps not in this language) that there's no point since 1) it's ancient and doesn't apply today, 2) it's not even accurate, 3) it was written by people not God, so it's not even Truth, and 4) that it's too boring, all that, without even having read it. It would be so great to go to a place and let them read the Word and hear God speak.

Upon writing this, I've now decided that along with my daily petitions for God to save my parents and brother, I am going to pray that He would get them reading His Word, before or after He saves them. I would love for my brother to read the book of Romans and talk with me about a Christian worldview of war and peace. I would love for my mother to read 1 Peter and ask me what it means to cast all her anxieties upon Him. I would love for my father to read Philippians and the Gospel of John and ask me how the most power being in existence could bow down and help someone less worthy than Himself. The Bible is so applicable today! Let me cut myself off before I start criticizing the seeker sensitive movement for their abadonment of the Word, to say that alongside what I said my family could find for themselves to read in their, they could also read about God's love and salvation, and be saved. The message of the Bible is their hope, but not only theirs, but that of the whole world.

Thanks for reading/skimming my rant on how great the Word is and how evil/ignorant the world is.

--

I mentioned a Dever interview with Harris and Mohler. I highly, highly, highly recommend it for singles and couples; for all Christians. There's one thought in there, put forward by Mohler, that I've never thought of before, nor heard of it before. He actually says that adulthood should be equated with marriage except in the special cases. That boys should not only be raised to be men, but to be husbands and fathers. If for no other reason, listen to it to hear Mohler laugh at the question of Christian online dating and give an unequivocating, "No."

Labels: Bible, Long, Ministry, Resources

(This post is the result of the comment thread of a post that Jer made on his blog.)

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. (Romans 14:1-6)

Right here I think that Paul is talking about issues that are not areas of sin. Paul never in Romans 14 says that this case of avoiding food is wrong, nor does he ever say that taking a single day every week and setting it apart to the Lord as a Sabbath is a sin. Furthermore, Paul gives permission in this chapter for it to be done. Before explaining what I think is really at the heart of Romans 14, let me give the illustration I typically use when trying to explain this passage.

Is kissing a sin? I believe that the Scriptures are authoritative and that they are sufficient to guide me into all godliness (2Ti. 3:16, 17), and they never say that kissing is wrong. That said, they say not to lust (Mt. 5:28) and I, as a single, am given the boundary not to have premarital sex (i.e., sexual immorality, e.g., in 1 Thessalonians 4:3). So, to protect myself from sinning, I have decided that I am not going to make out with my girlfriend (provided I someday have one) before we get married. However, for those Christian singles who are able to kiss without it leading to lust or sexual intercourse are not sinning and I don't think they are in the wrong. (This applies to BGR, so, given that I've never been in a relationship before, I am speaking without experience. Feel free to offer advice in the comments if you think that my conviction is wrong. But, while it is true at this moment, it is primarily used here as an illustration.)

Piper's illustration (at time 37:52, one of the few instances I'll refer you to an audio resource of Piper when a written counterpart is available) is that of elbows on the table at the dinner table. Clearly, the Bible doesn't speak on this, yet there can be disagreement.

I think that my illustration has done most of the work, so I'm going to finish off by looking at the text. There are two sides, each possibly saying the position they each hold to is of Gospel concern. For example, the strong side might say, "By saying you may not eat meat you're adding to 'faith alone'." Or the other side (the weak) might say, "By eating meat you're sinning intentionally without repentance. You might not be saved." They're each doing what they're doing within the bounds of "by grace alone, through grace alone", otherwise Paul would have rebuked them because all sin is serious. So they're each wrong. They're each simply trying to protect themselves from sinning.

This is called the believer's freedom. The Jews were heaping rules on top of what Moses had commanded to protect themselves from sinning and then they enforced these too. Christ decries this in Matthew 12 when the Pharisees accuse the disciples of breaking the Sabbath by picking grain to eat from a field on the Sabbath. Considering that Jesus kept the Sabbath perfectly and didn't accuse His disciples of having broken the Sabbath, they probably weren't in the wrong. Jesus decries them adding to the Law. So obey God when He says something's sin in the Word. If it's not there, it's not sin. Though, be warned, "not all things are helpful" (1Co. 6:12). For more on this, I found this article written by Mark Dever very helpful.

A word, now, on the application of this passage. I've given two already. Don't judge faithful, obedient Christian singles who kiss. And don't judge the person who eats with his elbows on the table at dinner because he doesn't know that's a custom. I don't think that this applies to doctrine. Doctrine matters. God didn't ordain, "Thou shalt not eat with thy elbows on the table." He did ordain that women not hold leadership in a local church. (Or He didn't, one may argue. I'm certainly in the position to believe that the Bible goes with the former on this.) This is something that the Bible speaks on. We still need to strive to honour God within the context of His revealed Word. Doctrine matters. Refine yourself, and renew your mind. Now, you shouldn't let doctrine divide (i.e., cause you to call those who disagree with you unbelievers), but don't let believer's freedom let you become apathetic to doctrinal Truth.

Labels: Bible, Friends, Miscellaneous, Resources

I've been thinking about how pretty much any orthodox statement of faith includes a good chunk concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. Since statements of faith usually exist in order to make explicit where an organization (church or para-church) draws the line on where it extends the hand of fellowship and where it extends a hand holding the Four Spiritual Laws. So, the natural question is, why is the Trinity on those statements of faith. Because without holding to that doctrine there is no Christian fellowship. But I wonder, is it a Gospel issue?

At this point I'm worried that I'll be lumped in the same category as heretic Rob Bell. (Rob Bell, while claiming to affirm the virgin birth of the Lord, says that it is not an essential tenet of the faith.) I am not, at this point, saying that Trinity deniers can be saved. I am simply asking the question.

Obviously the hypostatic union (i.e., the dual nature of Christ - God and man) is essential to the Gospel. If Christ weren't man He couldn't have been our Mediator, our Representative, our Perfect Offering. And if He wasn't perfectly divine, if He were created, He wouldn't have been able to resist sin, and the sacrifice would have been meaningless (imagine me killing someone, then carving from wood a manikin and letting it serve the sentence).

Now, for full disclosure, the way things work out, the Holy Spirit regenerates people (Jn. 3:6-8) so that they can see that they are sinners (1Th. 1:5) in need of Christ, and God the Father is the Head of the plan of man's redemption (Ep. 1:3-14). So, realistically, after you've read the Bible, even if you come to the conclusion that you can be saved without believing in the doctrine of the Trinity, you would quickly come to the conclusion that it is true and you would have a very difficult time avoiding it.

I simply wonder whether that doctrine is necessary to have faith in at the time of rebirth since I don't see the whole Trinity (explicitly) at work on the cross. What was the Spirit's part at the cross? I don't know. I think that I'm wondering about the importance of the Trinity because I don't see what the Spirit's work at the cross was. This probably requires more study to know that He was taking part in it. That will be enough to convince me that the Trinity is a doctrine essential to salvation.

All that make sense? Oh, and I do affirm the doctrine of the Trinity (Mt. 28:19; Pp. 1:2; Ti. 2:13; 2Co. 3:17).

Update: I've kept thinking about this. We read in 1 Peter 3:18 that Jesus died to bring us to God ("For Christ also suffered once for sins...that he might bring us to God"). If we are to have faith in the cross, we probably need to have faith in the true accomplishment of the cross. If the cross brought us to God, then we probably need to know who He is in order to have faith in what Jesus did. Still not done thinking about this in general, and still trying to figure out where the Spirit was in the act of redemption at the cross.

Labels: Bible, Resources, WARNING

This is such good news coming out of the US! There was a truck driving around a school in Los Angeles with pictures of babies in their first trimester in the womb that the cops told to leave the area. One level of court agreed, but ultimately, a higher federal court overruled the decision. That's awesome!

My fear is that while more and more people begin to believe that abortion is acceptable, that they won't want anyone to know anything about the pro-life movement. But the court didn't let that happen this time (although the damage had already been done). There is a real baby growing in the mother's womb. Murder is unquestionably wrong. I'm praising God in my heart that He didn't let the cops end the legitimacy of driving the pro-life message (no pun intended).

Labels: Politics