I apologize that I have not posted much lately. Just when it seemed that this blog was beginning to gain some momentum (as far as number of visitors) I found myself ridiculously busy, and unable to post much. Hopefully, today that will change.

There are two recent sermons that are now available online. The first one is the introduction to our new series on Colossians. The introduction and conclusion are under-developed in the written version that is available; for that I apologize. The body of the sermon is, however, very much intact. Although it was probably preached a little different than this "uncut" sermon. You can find it here.

The second sermon that is available is the one that was preached last night. It is on Colossians 1:3-8, You can find it here.

Trevin Wax discusses the influence of Calvinism at Southern Seminary (SBTS). I particularly like this paragraph: "Perhaps there are some who fit the category of “hyperactive” Calvinists - students who are still in the proverbial “cage-stage” of Calvinism and who are actively seeking to convert all other Christians to their doctrinal viewpoint. The problem with the hyperactive strain of Calvinism is not theology, but sin, particularly the sin of pride and arrogance. It is the same sin that lies at the root of Church Growth controversies, when a young pastor enthralled with Bill Hybels proceeds to divide a church by throwing out all hymns and organs. Immaturity and selfishness comes in all forms, not merely Calvinist."

As one that has unbelieving family members (most are "nominal" at best) this post by Chris Daukas is phenomenal: Jesus, Meet My Unbelieving Family Members

Marc Backes has an excellent point on leadership. He, like myself, spent years devouring books by leadership gurus. He has came to the same conclusion that I have: "Put the man made leadership laws down and get on your knees before Jesus and ask Him to break you and mold you. Man doesn't make a leader. Jesus breaks a leader."

I am so happy that Ligonier Ministries is now blogging. Check out their most recent interview with Sinclair Ferguson. (I really want to start reading Ferguson's stuff, any suggestions on where I should start?)

Can you really develop a sermon in 279 words? One pastor is going to apply the Gettysburg Principle. I actually think I am going to try this. If I can make a sermon this concise then I probably "get" the text. (HT: Abraham Piper)

I have a confession to make. I've never really read much of anything by Tim Keller. I know he's one of the elite. I know I should read his stuff. I just haven't. At least not much. Until tonight. I dedicated time to my first article by Keller. You can read it here. It discusses Evangelistic Worship. One of Keller's points is that we ought to make our worship service comprehensible to the unbeliever. Here are his seven sub-points on how we make the worship service comprehensible:

1. Worship and preaching ought to be in the "vernacular"
2. Explain the service as you go along
3. Directly address and welcome unbelievers
4. Have quality aesthetics
5. Celebrate deeds of mercy and justice
6. Present the sacraments so as to make the gospel clear
7. Preach grace

What do you think? Be certain to read the article, focus on page 4-10. Is it necessary to preach in the vernacular? Ought we change words like propitiation, to make them more "clear"? Are quality aesthetics necessary? Is this trying to be too smooth? Should the church toot her own horn, for unbelievers? Is this not letting our deeds be known before men? Are the sacraments for unbelievers, believers, or both? How will we edify the body if we "preach grace" every Sunday? Don't we need to move on from these elementary things?

I am pretty certain that I know what I believe on these issues. I am interested, though, to learn what you think? Is Keller on target? Should we even make the worship "comprehensible" for unbelievers? Isn't the service for the believer and God?

The Canvas:

The first task in painting (unless of course you are Bob Ross) is to set the parameters for what you are painting. Watson does this in the beginning by answering "What is godliness"? If we are going to paint a picture of godliness, then it makes sense to define what we mean by godliness. Watson defines it as, "the sacred impression and workmanship of God in a man, whereby from being carnal he is made spiritual". He then lays down for us 7 maxims:

1. Godliness is a real thing ("It is not a fancy but a fact")
2. Godliness is an intrinsic thing ("It lies chiefly in the heart")
3. Godliness is a supernatural thing (It comes from God)
4. Godliness is an extensive thing ("It...spreads itself into the whole soul")
5. Godliness is an intense thing ("It is vigorous and flaming")
6. Godliness is a glorious thing (It is beautiful)
7. Godliness is a permanent thing (It is a "fixed thing")

Discussion:

This has no life-altering quality, but the coolest word is in this chapter--bespangling. It basically means glittering. What a fun word to say. I think I should go tell my wife that her eyes are bespangling.

Did you find this statement strange: "though he is regenerate only in part, yet it is in every part"? What do you think Watson means by being "regenerate" only in part? Is that biblical? For those that are not reading the book, let me put it in context. This comes in Watson's fourth maxim. He is discussing that godliness spreads to the whole soul. It appears to me that he is saying that we are not totally regenerate (perhaps sanctified would have been a better word), yet our new nature spreads to every area of our life. What do you think?

Strokes of Genius:

"A man has no more power to change himself than to create himself." (p13)

"He who is good only in some part is not godly." (p13)

"He whose devotion is inflamed is godly and his heart boils over in holy affections." (p13)

"There is a great deal of difference between a stake in the hedge and a tree in the garden." (p14)

The point of this book is simple, to paint for us a picture of what a godly man looks like. Thomas Watson will be our Bob Ross. He will begin by explaining the picture that he is going to paint, then paint it, then tell us how to paint it. It will be an exciting journey. In each section we will give a summary of the chapter (The Canvas), provide discussion, and enjoy a few especially vivid quotes (Strokes of Genius).

The Canvas:

Because forgiveness "lays the foundation for all other mercies", Watson will begin here. In a short chapter Watson provides 5 points concerning forgiveness:

1. Forgiveness of sin is an act of God's free grace
2. God, in forgiving sin, remits the guilt and penalty
3. Forgiveness of sin is through the blood of Christ
4. Before sin is forgiven, it must be repented of
5. God having forgiven sin, he will no longer call it to remembrance

He closes the chapter with two simple points: it' s deplorable not to be forgiven and precious to have forgiveness.

Discussion:

What do you think Watson means when he says, "When the Lord pardons a sinner, he does not pay a debt, but gives a legacy"? What is this legacy?

Strokes of Genius:

"He who is humbled for sin will value pardoning mercy the more." (p10)

"Sin shall not be cast in like cork which rises up again, but like lead which sinks to the bottom." (p10)

"The pardoned soul is out of the gunshot of hell." (p11)

"Guilt clips the wings of prayer so that it cannot fly to the throne of grace, but forgiveness breeds confidence" (p11)

Brian Thornton has an intriguing quote. Who do you think said it?

This could be a watershed decision by an appeals court in California. The court has ruled that parents have no constitutional right to homeschool their children. I can not articulate a comment on this as effective as Dr. Mohler. I would simply say, "that is just dumb". Dr. Mohler is a little more articulate, read his take here.

Great story of witnessing and faithfulness to the gospel by Timmy Brister: The Cross Isn't Sexy.

Michael Spencer, the IMonk, has compiled a list of 10 Reasons He Doesn't Read Your Blog. It would very helpful to me if my readers would read this article, and e-mail me any suggestions in how I may improve this blog.

I failed to mention this last week. Abraham Piper has a new blog called 22 Words. It is very intriguing. And it takes about 15 seconds to read each post.

There is a very important discussion going on between Rick Love, John Piper, Justin Taylor and a few others. The eye of this hurricaine is found in Love's signing of A Common Word. He gives reasons why, Piper, Taylor, and others do not quite buy it. Here is Love's latest explanation. Here is Frank Turk's (of Team Pyro) response to Love.

Trevin Wax points us to a phenomenal Spurgeon quote admonishing pastors and people alike, to read.

This is a phenomenal post by Ray Ortlund. His central thesis is this: "In the heart of God, moral fervor is beautiful. In the heart of a sinner, moral fervor is complicated." He then offers a few diagnostics to monitor whether or not he is slipping into moral fervor. Wonderful post.

There is a Real Preachers of Genius video floating around. I thought this one was pretty funny (and sadly true) also:

I really disprove of the title of this post. It offends its author. In my mind saying I am not a Calvinist is almost like saying I do not believe in the biblical gospel. Lest I be misunderstood, I am not saying that Calvinism=the gospel. It does not. But soteriologically speaking I am a Calvinist through and through, therefore to me the issue is very near to the gospel. It pains me to think that many people read the title of this and I get lumped in with those I disagree with theologically. But I deserve the association. I am exploring in this series the truth that even though in my soteriology I may be Reformed, in my practice I am not certain I deserve such a title. Today we will discuss the second petal of the TULIP: Unconditional Election.

In the Westminster Confession (Chapter 3, Sections 3-7) it states:

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.

These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

In other words before the foundation of the world God has chosen, for His good pleasure, those whom He would redeem and those He would not. It is an unchangeable decree. It is not based on His foreknowledge. It is not conditional. It's basis is in the free sovereign pleasure of the Almighty.

This is a very difficult doctrine to swallow. No doubt some of my readers will balk at such arbitrary choosing on the part of God. Yet, I must repeat that I will not discuss the merit or demerit of such a position. I do affirm what is stated here. My concern in this post is not to discuss whether this is true or not. My concern is to determine whether or not the fruits of believing this doctrine are evident in my life. Honestly some are. I am probably exaggerating my faults in some areas and diminishing my faults in others. The truth is, I am the biggest sinner I know. Growth in these areas will only come by the grace of God.

Those that believe in unconditional election ought to be marked by certain fruits. As J.I. Packer helps us see in his Concise Theology that this doctrine is primarily pastoral. As he says, "in Scripture it is a pastoral doctrine, brought in to help Christians see how great is the grace that saves them, and to move them to humility, confidence, joy, praise, faithfulness, and holiness in response". (149-150) If the biblical doctrine of unconditional election has really penetrated my soul, and if Packer is correct, then I ought to be marked by humility, confidence, joy, praise, faithfulness, and holiness. I ought to be consistently astonished by the grace of God in my life. Am I? Do I REALLY believe this doctrine?

• This doctrine should also have a bearing on the way that I deal with believers that disagree with this doctrine. If I really believe that God dispenses salvation freely. Is it really right for me to believe that I am a Calvinist because I'm "smart and believe the Bible"? Is it possible that my interaction with Arminians (and those that are somewhere in-between) ought to be marked by humility instead of spiritual elitism? Far too often, I'm right and they are wrong. I can be way too militant in my Calvinism. Therefore, I probably ought to shut my mouth and quit debasing such a doctrine with actions unfitting to its assertions.
• Do I believe this doctrine when I preach? Do I have a joy in my heart and a confidence that God WILL draw out His elect? Do I believe that one of those "means thereunto" that God has chosen to draw people is the preaching of His glorious Word? If this doctrine is true and it is the "due season" which the Spirit will draw then they WILL come. Ought I not to have confidence in prayer and preaching? Yet sometimes my heart is in such a melancholy state that I must not truly believe this doctrine.
• A person that believes this doctrine ought to live a life that reflects continual astonishment at the grace of God. I ought to be overwhelmed that He chose me, for no reason other than His good pleasure. I ought to remember that He could have just as easily passed me over, and been fully justice. Yet, I secretly live my life as if I deserve mercy and as if God made a really good choice. Oh, what disgusting pride. A believer in this doctrine ought to never have pride but only a trembling joy. I have pride.
• If I really understood this doctrine then sin would not look good. I would be so enamored by the grace of God that picked me out of hell that I would not desire to "present my members again to unrighteousness". Yet, how often do I forget the amazing grace of God?
• One that is a recipient of such grace, and one that truly believes and understands such grace, ought to be gracious himself. I am not so certain that I am. If I really understand that grace is undeserved then I would stop giving "grace" only to those that "deserve" it. I would be seeking out sinners instead of avoiding them. I do not truly understand grace.

Here is my simple assertion. Calvinists ought to be the most humble, gracious, irenic, confident, joyous, and holy people. Calvinists ought to have speech that is seasoned with the salt of grace and praise should consistently be pouring forth from our lips. Yet what are Calvinists most known by? Our pride, our passion for truth at the expense of people, and our lack of all those graces just mentioned. I am no exception. So, until I begin to more consistently model those graces, maybe I ought not to call myself a Calvinist.

Dear God make me in attitude what I claim to be in doctrine!