Blog Archives

What is the Gospel - Burk Parsons

1/12/2015

Below is an article that appears on the Ligonier website. Ligonier Ministries is the name of RC Sproul's ministry. Part of the ministry resources is the Tabletalk magazine. I have been a subscriber for years, as well as a monthly supporter of this ministry.

Burk Parson's is the Executive Editor of the magazine, as well as the Co-Pastor with RC Sproul at Saint Andrew's Chapel in Sanford, FL.

I love RC Sproul. God has used him and his ministry mightily in my life. I also greatly appreciate Burk Parsons. He wrote the article below that appeared in this month's Tabletalk. It focuses on the Gospel. I hope it will be a blessing to you.

-------------------------------------------------------

The great nineteenth-century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge said, “The gospel is so simple that small children can understand it, and it is so profound that studies by the wisest theologians will never exhaust its riches.” The gospel is absolutely fundamental to everything we believe. It is at the very core of who we are as Christians. However, many professing Christians struggle to answer the question: What is the gospel? When I teach, I am astounded by how many of my students are unable to provide a biblically accurate explanation of what the gospel is, and, what’s more, what the gospel is not. If we don’t know what the gospel is, we are of all people the most to be pitied—for we not only can’t proclaim the gospel in evangelism so that sinners might be saved, but we in fact may not be saved ourselves.

In our day, there are countless counterfeit gospels, both inside and outside the church. Much of what is on Christian television and on the shelves of Christian bookstores completely obscures the gospel, thereby making it another gospel, which is no gospel whatsoever. English pastor J.C. Ryle wrote, “Since Satan cannot destroy the gospel, he has too often neutralized its usefulness by addition, subtraction, or substitution.” It is vital we understand that just because a preacher talks about Jesus, the cross, and heaven, does not mean he is preaching the gospel. And just because there is a church on every corner does not mean the gospel is preached on every corner.

Fundamentally, the gospel is news. It’s good news--the good news about what our triune God has accomplished for His people: the Father’s sending His Son, the incarnate Jesus Christ, to live perfectly, fulfill the law, and die sacrificially, satisfying God’s wrath against us that we might not face hell, thereby atoning for our sins; and raising Him from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is the victorious announcement that God saves sinners. And even though the call of Jesus to “take up your cross and follow me,” “repent and believe,” “deny yourself,” and “keep my commandments” are necessary commands that directly follow the proclamation of the gospel, they are not in themselves the good news of what Jesus has accomplished. The gospel is not a summons to work harder to reach God; it’s the grand message of how God worked all things together for good to reach us. The gospel is good news, not good advice or good instructions, just as J. Gresham Machen wrote: “What I need first of all is not exhortation, but a gospel, not directions for saving myself but knowledge of how God has saved me. Have you any good news? That is the question that I ask of you.”

0 Comments

The unchangeable method of God! - Devotional thought

1/9/2015

0 Comments

(Matthew Mead, "The Almost Christian" 1661)

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Luke 5:32. That is--such as see themselves as sinners, and thereby in a lost condition.

God will have the soul truly sensible of the bitterness of sin--before it shall taste the sweetness of mercy. Theplough of conviction must go deep, and make deep furrows in the heart, before God will sow the precious seed of grace there--so that it may have depth of earth to grow in.

This is the unchangeable method of God in bestowing grace--to begin with conviction of sin.
First to show man his sin--then his Savior;
first his danger--then his Redeemer;
first his wound--then his cure;
first his own vileness--then Christ's righteousness.

The sinner must see the worthlessness and vileness of his own righteousness--before he can be saved byChrist's righteousness. The Israelites are first stung with the fiery serpents--and then the brazen serpent is set up to heal them.

We must see the leprosy of our righteousness, and be brought to cry out, "Unclean, unclean!" We must mourn for Him whom we have pierced--and then He sets open for us "a fountain to cleanse us from all sin and impurity." Zechariah 12:10, 13:1

Be convinced of the evil of sin--the filthy and heinous nature of it. Sin is the greatest evil in the world--
it wrongs God;
it wounds Christ;
it grieves the Holy Spirit;
it damns a precious soul!
All other evils cannot be compared with this. Though to DO sin is the worst work--yet to SEE sin is the best sight!

Sin discovered in its vileness--makes Christ to be desired in His fullness!

Alas! it is Christ's infinite righteousness which must atone for our sins--for it is an infinite God whom we have sinned against!

If ever your sin is pardoned--it is Christ's infinite mercy which must pardon it!

If ever you are reconciled to God--it is Christ's infinite merit which must do it!

If ever your heart is changed--it is Christ's infinite power which must effect it!

If ever your soul escapes Hell, and is saved at last--it is Christ's infinite grace which must save it!

"For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save the lost." Luke 19:10

0 Comments

Theological Extremism in a Secular Age - Al Mohler

1/9/2015

0 Comments

I copied this directly from Dr. Al Mohler's website. - It can be found here

Thursday • January 8, 2015
This is an edited transcript of The Briefing podcast from early Thursday morning, January 8, 2015.

The war on terror took on a savage new face yesterday when two gunmen entered the headquarters of a French satirical newspaper known as Charlie Hebdoand opened fire, killing 12 people—10 people connected with the newspaper and two police officers.

TheWashington Postreported this morning, “France’s deadliest terrorist attack in modern memory unfolded with chilling precision here Wednesday as gunmen speaking fluent French burst into a satirical newspaper’s weekly staff meeting and raked the room with bullets, leaving behind what one witness described as ‘absolute carnage.’”

Reporters Griff Witte and Anthony Faiola also reported, “After shooting dead their final victim, the exultant killers calmly fled the scene, sparking a manhunt that extended across this capital city and deep into its suburbs… France raised its security alarm to the highest level and mobilized teams on foot, by air and in vehicles seeking the three masked assailants, who carried out the assault shouting the Arabic call of ‘Allahu Akbar,’ or ‘God is great,’ amid the gunfire.”

Charlie Hebdo--which means “Charlie Weekly”— is well-known in French culture as a far left satirical magazine. In fact, at one point in its history Charlie Hebdohad been put out of business by the French government due to inflammatory comments made in the aftermath of the death of the late French President Charles de Gaulle. But the magazine re-started in 1992 and, in recent years, has become world-famous for running satirical cartoons—including cartoons against the prophet Mohammed.

The scene of carnage in the headquarters of Charlie Hebdo was yet another sign that the Islamic culture, at least as represented by these terrorists, is ready to take whatever steps necessary to put an end to what they consider blasphemy.

French President François Hollande very clearly indicated that he considered this “a terrorist attack, without a doubt.” The French president also stated, “Journalists and police officers have been assassinated in cowardly fashion….France is in a state of shock.”

The attack on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters was hardly unprecedented. In 2011 the headquarters were firebombed after running a similar cartoon satirizing the prophet Mohammed. As theWashington Postreported, “Charlie Hebdo’s iconoclastic style frequently pushed the envelope. The newspaper was already under regular police guard after being targeted in the past.”

As the news of the massacre unfolded, I immediately thought of an editorial that ran in the final edition theWall Street Journalin 2014. That editorial, entitled “Progressives and Disorder,” pointed to the fact that Western elites are often relatively unwilling or unable to deal with the disorder that has now emerged on the world scene. Western elites believe and insist that humanity operates on basically rational terms. No one better illustrates this rationalist approach to world affairs than President Barack Obama. But as theWall Street Journaleditors made clear, those Western elites are relatively helpless when it comes to dealing with the world that will not operate by the same rules of rational order and rational discourse.

The massacre in Paris is yet another sign that a a good portion of the world’s population operates by a very different worldview and by a very different moral code. There is a form of rationality evident in the Islamic attacks, in the larger context of Islamic terrorism, and in particular in the attack upon the newspaperCharlie Hebdo. But that rationality is the rationality of Islam, not of the Western worldview; certainly not of the modern Western secular worldview.

An example of the West’s confusion is demonstrated in an article that appears in this morning’s edition of theNew York Times entitled “‘Dangerous Moment’ for Europe, as Fear and Resentment Grow,” written by Steven Erlanger and Katrin Bennhold. The article cites Olivier Roy, a French scholar of Islam and Islamic radicalism, who defined the Paris assault as “a quantitative and therefore qualitative turning point…This was a maximum-impact attack. They did this to shock the public, and in that sense they succeeded.”

But theNew York Timesarticle is notable for the fact that it lacks any moral clarity about how to understand this massacre. The article cites Andrew Hussey, identified as a Paris-based professor of post-colonial studies, who noted, “Politically, the official left in France has been in denial of the conflict between France and the Arab world. But the French in general sense it.”

One of the fundamental problems among Western elites is that they cannot understand a theological worldview—particularly the theological worldview of Islam. Being basically rational and secular in their own worldview, Western elites find it almost impossible to understand the radical actions taken by Islamic terrorists.

For example, Islamic teaching distinguishes the house of Islam (Dar al_Islam)—that part of the world which is under submission to the Quran and Sharia law—from the house of war (Dar al-Harb)—that portion of the world that is not yet brought under Sharia rule. That logic is simply something that the modern secular mind really cannot understand and the American government seems almost resolutely determined to ignore or even to deny.

Speaking on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program yesterday, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina indicated that he believes that what we are witnessing is a religious war. But that statement is not echoed by other sectors of the American government—in particular, the United States State Department and, even more pointedly, the American White House. President Obama continues to refer to the group that calls itself the Islamic State by the acronym ISIL—trying to do anything to avoid mentioning the word Islam.

Similar efforts have been undertaken, very categorically, by the United States State Department and by governments in Great Britain and also in France. Even though France has been on the front lines of the war on terror, in terms of its military engagement, French leaders have been unwilling to take on Islam as a cultural challenge, a theological challenge, and, more importantly, a worldview challenge.

In an absolutely stunning development this morning,USA Todayran an article by an extremist Muslim cleric in Britain, Anjem Choudary, who wrote, “Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.”

He went on to write, “Although Muslims may not agree about the idea of freedom of expression, even non-Muslims who espouse it say it comes with responsibilities. In an increasingly unstable and insecure world, the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.”

Choudary went on basically to defend the massacre in Paris. He wrote, “Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, ‘Whoever insults a Prophet, kill him.’”

To my knowledge, this is the first time a major American newspaper has run an editorial column by a radical extremist actually calling for the death of those who insult the honor of the prophet Mohammed. In its tagline for the articleUSA Todayactually stated that Choudary “is a radical Muslim cleric in London and a lecturer in sharia.”

But as theWashington Post reported on October 11, 2014, there is no doubt about Choudary’s actual ties to Islamic terrorism and the fact that he has proven very elusive to British authorities. In that article The Postreported, “Iraq and Syria, Choudary says confidently, are only the beginning. The Islamic State’s signature black flag will fly over 10 Downing Street, not to mention the White House. And it won’t happen peacefully, but only after a great battle that is now underway.”

The article cites Choudary as saying, “We believe there will be complete domination of the world by Islam. That may sound like some kind of James Bond movie—you know, Dr. No and world domination and all that. But we believe it.”

Witte then wrote, “With such grandiose proclamations, it is tempting to dismiss Choudary as a cartoonish hate preacher straight out of central casting. Many do. But harder to ignore is his record of inspiring impressionable young men to carry out violence in the name of Islam—both in Britain and overseas.”

I cannot think of a precedent whereby a major American newspaper has given this kind of extremist this kind of voice in the pages of its own newspaper.

Blasphemy and the Christian Worldview

From a Christian worldview perspective there are a couple of very crucial issues for us to consider. First is the issue of blasphemy. Islam considers blasphemy a capital crime and defines blasphemy as an insult to the Quran, to Islam, and most specifically and personally, to the prophet Mohammed. Christianity also has a concern about blasphemy, but as a spiritual crime—as a sin against God, not as a matter of civic law.

As a matter of fact, Christians recognize that Jesus Christ himself suffered insults and blasphemy on our behalf. Further, Christ deterred the church from pursuing violence when he told Peter to put his sword away. Christ did not revile those who blasphemed him by calling for violence, but rather he accepted the blasphemy as part of the suffering he was called to endure. That is a stunning difference between blasphemy in the Christian worldview and the understanding of blasphemy in the Islamic worldview.

As Choudary made very clear in his article inUSA Today, Muslims have a basic responsibility to protect—by violence if necessary—any insult to Islam or the prophet Mohammed. After citing Mohammed to say, “Whoever insults a prophet, kill him,” Choudary wrote,in USA Today, “However, because the honor of the Prophet is something which all Muslims want to defend, many will take the law into their own hands, as we often see.” Indeed, as we saw quite murderously in Paris yesterday.

It is very important that Christians understand that it is not our responsibility to defend the honor of Jesus Christ. As the Bible indicates, Christ will do that himself. Our responsibility is to bear testimony to Christ and, in following his example, bear scorn where necessary in his own name. For this reason, Christians support freedom of expression; understanding that to be a basic human right and not one granted merely by the secular state. Rather freedom of conscience and freedom of expression is bound up in the fact that God has created us in his own image. Christians must therefore defend freedom of expression even while we engage in the public square and bear testimony to the lordship of Christ.

As Christians we understand that every word—indeed every blasphemous word—will eventually stand under divine judgment. There is absolutely nothing to celebrate in blasphemy. But, even as Christians understand the grave consequences of blasphemy, we do not consider it our responsibility to punish the blasphemer. That’s a very important issue and one that is in keeping with the example of our Lord Jesus Christ himself.

Theological Extremism and The Secular Worldview

Andrew Hussey’s insightful comment in the New York Times is worth repeating: “Politically, the official left in France has been in denial of the conflict between France and the Arab world. But the French in general sense it.”

The reality is that secular elites in general find it incomprehensible to discernwhy the events in Paris yesterday took place. The denial that this type of terrorism is tied to a theological worldview, present in so many Western intellectual circles, is going to be far harder to hold in light of this kind of massacre. Even as the manhunt for the two assailants spreads throughout France and into much of Europe, the reality is that French intellectuals, European intellectuals, and their American compatriots, are finding themselves hard-pressed to deny that this is indeed a religious war—there is a theological dimension here that simply must be accepted.

It is true, of course, that not all Muslims are radicalized or extremist. It is true that many Muslims, especially in the West, have nothing to do with these kinds of terrorist attacks—either in plotting it or in supporting it. It is also true that most of the Muslims around the world, even if they hold to a theological worldview that justifies these kinds of actions, will never be involved in them. But the other side of the equation is that the Western world now finds itself at war with at least a very large sector of Islam.

Indeed, there is evidence that Islamic terrorism is growing. Keep in mind the report in theWashington Postthat over 2000 young Muslims in France have joined the jihad in the Middle East. To those numbers must be added similar figures of young Muslims joining the jihad from the United Kingdom and from other European countries. Further, there are reports of at least several hundred young Muslims leaving the United States from cities including Minneapolis, Minnesota to join the jihad as well.

The Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris was known for satirically attacking just about every form of religious expression – including Orthodox Judaism and Christianity. But that newspaper did not have to fear any kind of terrorism from Orthodox Jews or from Christians. Both Jews and Christians take blasphemy to be a grave sin but not in the same sense as Islam. French elites and the French people have now been informed of exactly what kind of jihad has been declared against them as a nation, against them as a people, and against freedom of expression.

There is a role for satire in the Christian worldview, even within the Bible. Just think of Isaiah 44’s satirical description of the folly of human idolatry. But that is not warrant for Christians to enter into any kind of irresponsible and intentionally offensive form of satire. Consider the example of the Apostle Paul in Acts 17 who, standing at Mars Hill in the context of religious pluralism, did not resort to satire or ridicule. Instead, he boldly declared Christ and he did so in a way that was calculated to make a very clear distinction between the worship of Jesus Christ and the worship of idols. He did so in a way that should serve as an example to all Christians, especially in our contemporary context of radical religious pluralism.

We are living in a world growing more dangerous by the day. That world — the real world — is a world of clashing ideologies and conflicting worldviews. The real world is also a world in which theology always matters, and a world in which an empty secular worldview is no match for an Islamic theology set on conquest and driven by revenge.

0 Comments

Both apostles are right! - Devotional thought by William Bacon Stevens

1/8/2015

0 Comments

(William Bacon Stevens, "Waiting and Watching!")

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" James2:14

The religion of Jesus Christ is made up of two parts--faith and works.
Faith is the root of works.
Works are the fruit of faith.

A belief, however true and pure, if it is accepted only by the intellect, and is not carried out into practice--translating the faith held by the mind, into active duties--is a barren faith, which will not be accepted by God, and which will not secure salvation.

On the other hand, works, however good, which do not spring out of faith in the Lord Jesus, but which are done merely from human and worldly motives--are of no avail before God, because "whatever is not of faith, is sin."

Thrice has James told us, "Faith without works is dead!"
And just as distinctly has Paul declared, "By the works of the law, shall no flesh be justified in His sight."

Both apostles are right!

Works without faith--have no living root.
Faith without works--has no authenticating fruit.

They are the two parts of the one tree, namely, the root and the fruit. They are the two halves of the one whole--together they make up the true Christian.

"In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by works, is dead!" James 2:17

0 Comments

A Solemn Sham and Impudent Mockery - Charles Spurgeon

1/6/2015

0 Comments

"Rend your heart--and not your garments!" Joel 2:13

Garment-rending and other external signs of religious emotion, are easily manifested, and are frequently hypocritical. True repentance is far more difficult, and consequently far less common. Unsaved men will attend to the most multiplied and minute religious ceremonies and regulations--for such things are pleasing to their flesh. But true godliness is too humbling, too heart-searching, too spiritual for the tastes of carnal men! They prefer something more ostentatious, flimsy, and worldly.

External religious rituals are temporarily comfortable; eye and ear are pleased; self-conceit is fed, and self-righteousness is puffed up. But they are ultimately delusive, for at the day of judgment, the soul needs something more substantial thanreligious ceremonies and rituals to lean upon.

Apart from vital godliness--all religion is utterly vain! When offered without a sincere heart, every form of religious worship isa solemn sham and an impudent mockery of the majesty of God!

Heart-rending is divinely wrought--and solemnly felt. It is a secret grief which is personally experienced, not in mere form--but as a deep, soul-moving work of the Holy Spirit upon the inmost heart of each believer. It is not a matter to be merely talked of--but keenly and sensitively felt in every living child of the living God. It is powerfully humiliating and sin-purging! But also, it is sweetly preparative for those gracious consolations which proud unhumbled souls are unable to receive! This heart-rending distinctly belongs to the elect of God--and to them alone.

The text commands us to rend our hearts--but they are naturally as hard as marble! How then, can this be done? We must take them to Calvary! A dying Savior's voice rent the rocks once--and it is just as powerful now. O blessed Spirit, let us effectually hear the death-cries of Jesus--and our hearts shall be rent!

0 Comments

Forward>>

What is the Gospel - Burk Parsons

The unchangeable method of God! - Devotional thought

Theological Extremism in a Secular Age - Al Mohler

Both apostles are right! - Devotional thought by William Bacon Stevens

A Solemn Sham and Impudent Mockery - Charles Spurgeon

Author

Archives

Categories

What is the Gospel - Burk Parsons﻿

The unchangeable method of God! - Devotional thought

﻿Theological Extremism in a Secular Age - Al Mohler

Both apostles are right! - Devotional thought by William Bacon Stevens

A Solemn Sham and Impudent Mockery - Charles Spurgeon

Author

Archives

Categories

What is the Gospel - Burk Parsons

Theological Extremism in a Secular Age - Al Mohler