Why the Stone was Rolled Back

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. [Matthew 28:2]

Perhaps a question not many ask themselves, when coming across this verse, is: why did an angel roll the stone back? Consider, for a moment, shortly after the resurrection, that when the disciples were gathered together in a closed room, Christ appeared to them without a problem (Jn 20:26). Why didn't he do the same with the stone? Why was it necessary for an angel to come down and roll the stone back?

Perhaps a few explanations could be considered as to exactly why:

Firstly, the stone was rolled back so that the women, approaching that morning (Mt 28:1; Mk 16:1-2; Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1), might see that Christ was gone, and could be told by the angels to go tell the apostles that the resurrection had occurred.

Secondly, the stone was rolled back to demonstrate the sovereignty of God over the sovereignty of man. The Roman soldiers positioned at the tomb had placed a seal on the stone (Mt 27:66), which served a two-fold function: 1) if the stone was moved back, the seal would be broken, and be prove of wrongdoing if the stone was moved back in place; 2) it was a way of telling potential thieves "Property of the Roman Empire - Keep Out." By the angel coming down and rolling the stone aside, he not only challenged the authority of the seal (as well as the nearby guard), but showed that no power of man on earth is able to stop the will of God.

Thirdly, the stone represented the ultimate separation between those who have passed on and those are still living. Death separated man from God, but in Jesus are men granted eternal life, as the apostle Paul wrote: "for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 6:23). With the rolling back of the stone, the end of that separation was realized, and Christ's resurrection gave hope for those struggling with the pains of death, seeking eternal life.

Fourthly and finally, the rolling back of the stone signified that Christ had been acquitted of all charges laid against him, and was now free to go. For those who killed him, he was guilty of two crimes: from the Jews, blasphemy (Mt 26:65-66); from the Romans, treachery (Lk 23:2). However, for the purposes of God, he was convicted of greater crimes...namely, the crimes of all those who would believe in his name. The apostle Paul wrote that it was "for our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin" (2 Co 5:21), and the prophet Isaiah had foretold that the suffering servant would be "pierced for our transgressions" and "crushed for our iniquities," and that the LORD would lay on him "the iniquity of us all" (Isa 53:5-6).

This final point has greater significance, for in being let out and declared free of all charge against sin, God's sheep likewise were cleared of all charges. Christ paid the ultimate price for the sins of his people, and our guilt he took on. Every sin we ever committed, are committing, and would commit, was paid for on the cross, and we were declared innocent in Christ the minute that stone was rolled aside. As we ponder and meditate on Resurrection Sunday, and think of what it means when Christ walked out of that tomb, let us remember that he was the Good Shepherd, and those who did follow, are following, and shall follow him out of that tomb are his sheep.

If you are reading this, and you are outside of Christ, then the Resurrection still has relevance for you. There will come a day when God will judge you for every sin you committed: every lie you told, every curse against your fellow man, every lustful thought, everything you stole, and on and on. For those outside of Christ, the wrath of God abides (cf. Jn 3:36), and their guilt remains. If you have not considered eternity, my friend, then let me exhort you to consider eternity, for when the time comes, there will be no opportunity for second thoughts or pondering - that will be it. Consider seriously, then, the situation you are in, and look to the open tomb of Christ. It shows to you that the resurrection was a reality, and that there will come a time when Christ shall resurrect the dead and bring forth the living for a reckoning. What will you say when all your sins are laid before you?

There is, however, the gift of eternal life available for you. Those who repent and believe and lean upon Christ for salvation shall find a Savior who "is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him" (Heb 7:25). In Christ all your sins shall be atoned, and before God you shall be declared innocent. You shall have peace in the knowledge that you are in Christ, from which no one can snatch you (Jn 10:29). You will be declared as innocent as Christ when he went forth from the tomb, and you shall join him in the company of saints on the day of resurrection. Consider these holy things seriously, for these are serious things to consider. You are being called to repent, and the chance is now for you to see the gravity of your sins and the love of Christ in those who believe.

God bless.

What the Crucifixion Meant

The following is from Michael Horton's preface to the 2009 publication of Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible. It comes after his quotation of Romans 1:18a: "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing."

But in our day, preaching cannot be foolish. It must be "relevant," which is the word we have drafted into the service of market-driven approaches. However, the message of the cross assumes the terror of the law, divine wrath toward sinners (and not just their sins), and the need for a substitutionary sacrifice to assuage divine justice. It assumes that the greatest problem facing humanity is original and actual sin - personal rebellion against a holy God - not stress, low self-esteem, and a failure to realize one's full potential. [pg. ix]

Three Days and Three Nights?

The following is quoted from the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

Matthew 12:40: On which day of the week was Christ crucified?

Matthew 12:40 states: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” If the general tradition—that Christ was crucified on Friday of Holy Week, died at 3:00 P.M. (the “ninth hour” of the day), and then rose again from the dead on Sunday at dawn—is correct, how can it be said that Jesus was three days and three nights in the grave? He was interred about 6:00 P.M., according to Luke 23:54. (“And it was the day of preparation [hemera paraskeues] and the Sabbath was coming on [epephosken].”) This would mean that the period of interment was only from Friday night to Saturday night before the Resurrection on the dawn of Sunday; and it would also mean only one dawn-to-sunset day, namely Saturday, had passed. How do we get “three days and three nights” out of two nights and one day? Must not the actual day of crucifixion have been Thursday or even Wednesday?

It is perfectly true that a Friday Crucifixion will not yield three full twenty-four-hour days. But neither will a Thursday afternoon Crucifixion, nor a Wednesday afternoon Crucifixion either. This results from the fact that Jesus died at 3:00 P.M. and rose at or about 6:00 A.M. The only way you can come out with three twenty-four-hour days is if He rose at the same hour (three days later, of course) that He was crucified, namely, 3:00 P.M. Actually, however, He rose “on the third day” (1 Cor. 15:4). Obviously, if He rose on the third day, He could not already have been buried for three whole nights and three whole days. That would have required His resurrection to be at the beginning of the fourth day.

What, then, is the meaning of the expression in Matthew 12:40: “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”? (NASB). This can only refer to three twenty-four-hour days in part or in whole. That is to say, Jesus expired at 3:00 P.M. near the close of Friday (according to the Hebrew method of reckoning each day as beginning at sundown), which would be one day. Then Friday 6:00 P.M. to Saturday 6:00 P.M. would be the second day, and Saturday 6:00 P.M. to Sunday 6:00 P.M. would constitute the third day—during which (i.e., Sunday 6:00 A.M. or a little before) Christ arose. Christ rested in hades (where paradise, or “Abraham’s Bosom,” still was, according to the indications of Luke 16:22-26; cf. Luke 23:43) for a portion of the three days: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The same would be true, or course, if the Evangelists had been reckoning according to the Roman method, from midnight to midnight.

Why then are three portions of day referred to in Matthew 12:40 as “three days and three nights”? The simple answer is that the only way “day” in the sense of dawn-to-dusk sunlight could be distinguished from the full twenty-four-hour cycle sense of “day” was to speak of the latter as “a night and a day” (i.e., an interval between 6:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. of the day following). In other words Friday as a twenty-four-hour unit began on Thursday 6:00 P.M. and lasted until Friday 6:00 P.M. Correspondingly, Sunday began at 6:00 P.M. Saturday, according to Hebrew reckoning (but 12:00 P.M. Saturday according to Roman reckoning). According to ancient parlance, then, when you wished to refer to three separate twenty-four-hour days, you said, “Three days and three nights”—even though only a portion of the first and third days might be involved.

A similar usage is apparent from the narrative in 1 Samuel 30:12, where “he had not eaten bread or drunk water for three days and three nights” is equated in v.13 with hayyom se losah (“three days ago”)—which could only mean “day before yesterday.” But if the Egyptian slave fell ill on the day before yesterday (with relationship to the day on which David found him), then he could not have remained without food or water for three entire twenty-four-hour days. We simply have to get used to slightly different ways of expressing time intervals. (“Similarly the Feast of Pentecost was originally called the “Feast of Weeks” because it fell on the forty-ninth day after the offering of the wave sheaf on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Yet it was known actually as the Fiftieth Day— Pentecoste in Greek.)

How to Speak to Your Calvinist Friend

The following are just some tips in how to speak to your Calvinist friend - mostly dealing with presuppositions I've often encountered in discussions with people.

Tip #1: Don't bring up passages of scripture that involve human action.

It seems like the false presupposition among many who interact with Calvinist theology (even if this is unintentional) is that Calvinism excludes any form of human action. Hence many, believing they refuting Calvinism, will run to passages in the Bible that ask people to confess their faith. "Ah, see," they'll say, "scripture says we have to do something, and since it asks us to do something, that must mean effectual grace is not involved."

Part of this may be the presupposition among some synergists that monergists (Calvinist, Lutheran, what have you) essentially believe that man is a robot, and all God has to do is hit a button and ZAP! man believes and is a good Christian. This, however, isn't the case. Some might be shocked to learn that monergists, be they Calvinist or otherwise, actually believe that man has a will. The question, however, is what we believe regarding the status of that will. That is, is it completely and absolutely free, or (as monergists and orthodox synergists believe) is it enslaved to sin? I could hold up a brick and say, "You are free to go up or down!", but so long as that brick is enslaved to the force of gravity and has nothing to free it from its grip, it will continue to go down the minute I let go. Hence we believe (as scripture teaches) that God's grace is required to free a man's will from the bondage of sin. That grace will then enable the man's will to be turned towards God, just as the Lord Christ said, "No one can come [literally has the power to come in the original Greek] to me unless the Father who sent me draws him..." (John 6:44).

So if a person throws a verse dealing with human action at a Calvinist, the Calvinist can only say, "Yes, I know, I agree with that." The question that must then be addressed, however, is where the ability for that action comes from. If you wish to have a discussion with your Calvinist friend, I might suggest coming from this angle.

Tip #2: Don't bring up popular passages to use against Calvinism.

This is a follow up of the previous post, but for a more specific problem. A lot of people, when they first encounter a Calvinist, want to throw out all the usual passages at them: John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; etc. If you have a Calvinist friend, or become acquainted with a Calvinist, I might suggest not throwing those verses at them. Not because they don't have an answer, mind you...rather, it's because they've probably dealt with all those verses at least a hundred times already. At the very least, you should not throw these verses at your Calvinist friend with the attitude of, "Aha! I've got you! This disproves your theology! Instakill!"

At the very least, what you could do is ask your Calvinist friend, "How do you explain these verses?" or something of that nature - by doing this, you'll come across as curious about their beliefs, and explaining the verses will be easier for them. If you want to go a step further for your friend, do some research on how Calvinists have been responding to these verses for literally centuries. You will then at least be able to adjust your arguments and not come across as someone who did their homework rather than just repeat what they heard a pastor say somewhere.

Tip #3: Don't ask them how they can do evangelism.

Another false presupposition is that, because God has predestined those who will be saved, evangelism is worthless and it's nonsensical for a Calvinist to evangelize. As I've discussed on this blog before, this notion that Calvinists can't consistently evangelize or do missionary work is contradicted by two things:

1) The precedent of history. Some of the greatest evangelists in history (John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon and countless others) were also Calvinists, and their theological beliefs offered no conflict with their missionary work or evangelism.

2) The simple facts behind our knowledge of God's election. That is, many people seem to forget that Calvinists don't know the identity of the elect. Many might be familiar with the John Carpenter film They Live, starring professional wrestler "Rowdy Roddy" Piper. In it, Piper plays a man who discovers sunglasses that permit him to identify aliens maintaining control over the earth. In a similar fashion, many people seem to think that Calvinists have special sunglasses which, putting them on, help them to see who are the elect and who are not. As we said before, this isn't the case. Calvinists don't have special glasses that they put on and then go into a crowded room to say, "I have come here to save God's elect and chew bubble gum...and I'm all out of bubble gum."

This might surprise some people, but all we do is follow God's command: we go out and preach the gospel to all people, knowing that God, by His grace, will save His sheep. In this manner, a Calvinist can evangelize or do missionary work and not feel his theology threatened in any way, shape or form.

Tip #4: Don't assume God's grace is forced on anyone.

Some people seem to be able to recognize both total depravity and irresistible grace, and yet seem unable to understand how the one relates to the other. That is, they seem to perceive that when a person is irresistibly called, that "irresistibleness" is reliant more upon force than it is upon enabling. This is where you get people saying that Calvinism believes people are "dragged into the kingdom," or that it is "divine rape," or even where people give that goofy bridge metaphor which says Calvinism believes there's a bridge to heaven and people are dragged kicking and screaming over that bridge.

This forgets that (as stated in the previous tip) part of irresistible grace is the idea that man's will is turned towards God. The regenerated heart will no longer have the God-hating inner nature of those still unregenerate. They will not be dragged kicking and screaming into heaven, but will earnestly desire heaven. That initial resistance to God will no longer be a dilemma, and to believe that it will is to misunderstand the morphing power of the Spirit upon the human heart.

In short, Calvinists do not believe God "forces" salvation upon anyone; God's grace serves to regenerate a person to have a heart of flesh rather than a heart of stone.

Tip #5: Don't assume the doctrines of grace end at the effectual calling.

Many people seem to assume that the doctrines of grace only involve the election and/or calling of the individual. I've had people ask me, if I'm elected, why don't I go out and murder somebody, since I'll be off the hook.

Of course, this fits more with the concept of "easy believism" than it does Reformed theology. The Doctrines of Grace do not teach that we are saved by prayers or a one-time human event, and on that one basis alone someone will be justified before God. Part of the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is the sanctification of the individual believer towards glorification, which will, of course, be perfect after the resurrection.

Tip #6: Don't call God maleficent, evil, wicked, mean, cruel, etc.

You may not like Calvinist soteriology, and you might have valid objections to bring up...however, you will get nowhere by name calling and declaring that Calvinists worship a different God entirely. I recognize there are many misrepresentations of Calvinism out there, however if you were to speak honestly with your Calvinist friend (or any knowledgeable Calvinist in general) to explain their concept of God, and you listen with an open and calm mind, you will find that their concept of God is no different than yours - if not more or just as Biblical. Your Calvinist friend will also demonstrate how he does not believe in a maleficent, evil, wicked, mean or cruel God.

Tip #7: Don't keep name-dropping Calvinist personalities.

Yes, we know about John Calvin. Yes, we know about John Piper. Yes, we know about James White, John MacArthur, and a lot of other big names in Calvinism, past and present. Maybe you don't agree with everything they say - that's fine, you'll discover a lot of Calvinists don't agree with everything they say.

However, don't throw them at your Calvinist friend as if you're refuting or defaming Calvinism in toto. Don't treat your friend as the whipping boy for any contentions you may have for another individual.

An Atheist versus a Cafeteria Catholic

Todd Friel of Wretched showcases an example of why it's important to remain consistent in your position: an atheist argues like a Roman Catholic, and a self-proclaimed Roman Catholic argues like a Lutheran.

Why Men Don't Want a Resurrection

The Resurrection, by Gustav Dore

We are nearing the celebration of Resurrection Sunday, a day which also remembers one of the most debated subjects regarding the Christian religion. What is the debate? Namely, whether or not Christ truly rose from the grave. Men have been at war with the concept of the resurrection since the earliest days of the church, when enemies of Christ suggested that either the entire thing was made up, or that the apostles fabricated it all. Even during the time of the apostles it was an issue, as the apostle Paul wrote: "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (1 Co 15:14).

It continues to this day, with every theory in existence. Some claim Christ was dug up by dogs and eaten. Some claim that the resurrection was just a copy of pagan myths. Some claim Christ just fainted and got better. Either way, many desire to disprove and deny that the resurrection ever took place, and therefore belief and celebration of it is entirely irrelevant in our day-to-day affair.

Why is this? Why do so many protest the resurrection? What is underlying it all? Let's imagine, just for the sake of argument, that the resurrection happened beyond all question. What would that mean?

If there was a resurrection, it means the events around the resurrection are true.

If there was a resurrection, it means that Christ was raised from the dead.

If there was a resurrection, it means Christ truly did appear to the disciples and countless others.

If there was a resurrection, it means Christ truly did ascend to the heavens and sit at the right hand of the Father.

If there was a resurrection, it means Christ's claims of divinity were true.

If there was a resurrection, it means Christ is King and Lord of all.

If there was a resurrection, it means that God exists.

If there was a resurrection, it means that men will one day be held accountable to God for their sins.

...and there, underlying it all, is why men do not want a resurrected Christ...because it means they will have to submit to God and follow Him rather than their own passions. God bless.

The Homophobia Card

Over the past few weeks, I've noticed a certain abuse of the term homophobia. At it's very core meaning, homophobia would normally refer to someone who has an irrational fear of homosexuals. In common application, it refers to someone who hates homosexuals. In its most popular application, it refers to someone who might even just disagree with homosexuality or same sex marriage. This is what one might call the "homophobia card."

Perhaps the problem with the term homophobia is the same problem found in the use by some of the term anti-Catholic - that is, it is used in such a broad way that it encompasses several viewpoints while failing to distinguish between them. Therefore, the irrational hatred against homosexuals by groups such as the Westboro Baptist cult is put on the same level as those with more rational arguments, such as Christian apologists James White and Matt Slick. What this permits people to do is, instead of being able to identify the different issues and arguments to prepare a better defense of their position, they rather invent an umbrella term against which they can vent emotional arguments. It's a borderline straw man argument that most people would probably feel far more comfortable arguing with instead of developing their own position and learning to respond to what the other side has to offer.

Our society is quickly turning into one in which there is no distinction between tolerance and acceptance, or between simply disagreeing and vitriolic hatred. The coming generation is not being trained to understand two differing viewpoints and be able to respond as if you could defend both, but rather are being trained to respond emotionally for their own case, with no other recourse but insults and repeated arguments. If it continues this way, it does not bode well for our society.

Is the International House of Prayer truly Sola Scriptura?

Over and over again, faculty and staff at the International House of Prayer in Kansas City (IHOP-KC) state that they hold scripture up to its highest standard. The Statement of Faith on IHOP-KC's website states: "The Bible is the final authority for all we believe and for how we are to live" (source). Another section of the website likewise states:

We deny that subjective prophetic experiences are equal to the inspired Word of God. In other words, all personal prophecy must uphold and honor the Scripture. [source]

Mike Bickle stated at Session 8 of the 2013 Prayer and Prophetic Conference that IHOP-KC doesn't "honor a dream or vision that doesn't honor the written word of God" (source). In his book on the prophetic movement, Mike Bickle likewise writes:

We value seeing ministry of the gifts of the Holy Spirit operate in relation to the written Word of God. This is a nonnegotiable aspect of the IHOP Missions Base quest to grow in the prophetic. [pg. 4, Prophetic]

The question we must ask, however, is if this is true. It is one thing to say you hold scripture up to a high standard, and another to actually follow this statement in application. For example, Roman Catholics might argue that they honor the word of God, but this is only in accordance with the teachings of their church. If a doctrine taught by their church is either completely absent from scripture, or is actually contradicted by scripture, then the authority of the church gets the upper hand over and against scripture.

The question must thus be asked: upon what does IHOP-KC base not only its existence, but the vast majority of its theology? As I demonstrated in a previous post, everything that IHOP-KC does and believes is based on personal revelation. IHOP-KC exists because Mike Bickle claims that God spoke to him in Cairo in 1982, and instructed him about what he was going to do with Christianity in the coming generation. IHOP-KC's vision of the end times - which fuels the theology, actions and purpose of the prayer room - comes from a direct revelation from God. Even the acronym "IHOP" is claimed by Bickle and others to have come directly from God.

Even more alarming is that interpretation of scripture is read not from an understanding of its original context, but rather through the lens of the personal revelation given. One big example of this, which I've given before, was Bickle's handling of Acts 2, where he cut up verses in half, ignored the larger context, and applied it to what IHOP-KC was doing. Another example, and one very telling, is found in a presentation given by Mike Bickle regarding the founding of IHOP-KC:

Sixteen years go by, it is now January 1999. Again, we have got more detail on the notes here. A man came to me on Sunday morning, on January 24, 1999, and he gave me Haggai 1:2. Let’s read it:

“This people says, ‘The time has not come, the time that the Lord’s house should be built.’” It says: these people say in their heart that the time has not yet come that the house of the Lord should be built.

He looked at me, and he said, “Don’t say in your heart, from Haggai 1:2, do not say . . .” He opened the Bible, pointed, and he said, “Don’t say it is not time to build this twenty-four-hour house of prayer.”

I said, “Well, I don’t think it is time.”

He said, “Yes, but you are not supposed to say that.”

I said, “Well, it doesn’t really work that way, though I appreciate your sincerity.” I was thinking of just the immense amount of work, labor, and I decided to say no. “In the future for sure, we are going to do it.” We had a sign on the wall for most of the sixteen years that said “24-hour prayer in the spirit of the tabernacle of David.” We had it on the wall, and everybody saw it for years and years. He said, “It is time to build it.”

I said, “I don’t know. I don’t think so.” Then, I got on the airplane that day and went to Colorado Springs, and there was a prophetic conference. On Wednesday in Colorado Springs, a man named Kingsley Fletcher came to me. I did not know him. I had heard of him, but had never met him. He came up to me, and I was with a group of guys talking. He points his finger at me, and he is smiling at me as if he knows something I do not know. I know that he is prophetic, and I am smiling, as he is smiling. He closed his eyes; he says, “Do not say in your heart it is not time to build the house of the Lord, Haggai 1:2.”

Let's pause here a moment: has anyone in Christian history, up until this moment, interpreted Haggai 1:2 as referencing the founding of the International House of Prayer? On the contrary, Haggai is speaking of the reconstruction of the Second Temple - any one who simply reads the book of Haggai would understand that. Avoiding any complicated discussion on the original Hebrew, systematic theology, etc., let's simply read the previous verse:

In the second year of Darius the king, in the sixth month, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came by the hand of Haggai the prophet to Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and to Joshua the son of Jehozadak, the high priest [Haggai 1:1]

Was the International House of Prayer founded in the second year of Darius [Hystaspis] the king, in the sixth month (Elul, roughly our July or August), on the first day of the month? Is Mike Bickle the prophet Haggai? Did he speak these words to Zerubbabel and Joshua? Did Mike Bickle speak to ancient Jews (the "these people" of verse 2)? If we answered no to any of these questions, then this verse is not about the International House of Prayer and its founding. Some might contend that the apostles often found dual fulfillment in ancient prophecies - however, the apostles had been granted the special ability by Christ to see him in the scriptures (Lk 24:44-47). Therefore, if we are attempting to grant Mike Bickle and his associates this ability, we are putting them on equals with the apostles, and granting them the same ability. The fact is, Bickle abused God's word, and distorted its context to substantiate the supposed revelation. He interpreted God's word not from the immediate context or how scripture itself interpreted it, but how his so-called "prophetic" experiences interpreted it.

Contrary to Bickle's earlier quoted assurances, all this is not "upholding and honoring" scripture, but twisting scripture to suit the "subjective prophetic experiences" which you claim were given to you by God. In other words, you're placing something else as a higher authority than scripture. When one says "scripture defines scripture," what they mean is that the ultimate meaning of God's word is understood by how God, the author of Holy Writ, explains it himself. Any time you give someone other than God that authority - whether it's a church, a single person, or personal experiences - then you are superseding God's authority, and raising an authority higher than His word.

From all this, we can see that, as a matter of fact, IHOP-KC's final authority is not scripture, and they do not uphold the historical doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
---------------------------------
Bickle, Mike. Growing in the Prophetic. Lake Mary: Charisma House, 2008.

Letter to a Young Christian

The following is from a letter sent by Jonathan Edwards to a young woman newly converted, and who was curious about maintaining a religious life.

As you desired me to send you, in writing, some directions how to conduct yourself in your christian course, I would now answer your request. The sweet remembrance of the great things I have lately seen at S——, inclines me to do any thing in my power, to contribute to the spiritual joy and prosperity of God’s people there. 

1. I would advise you to keep up as great a strife and earnestness in religion, as if you knew yourself to be in a state of nature, and were seeking conversion. We advise persons under conviction, to be earnest and violent for the kingdom of heaven; but when they have attained to conversion, they ought not to be the less watchful, laborious, and earnest, in the whole work of religion, but the more so; for they are under infinitely greater obligations. For want of this, many persons, in a few months after their conversion, have begun to lose their sweet and lively sense of spiritual things, and to grow cold and dark, and have ‘pierced themselves through with many sorrows;’ whereas, if they had done as the apostle did, (Phil. iii. 12-14.) their path would have been ‘as the shining light, that shines more and more unto the perfect day.’ 

2. Do not leave off seeking, striving, and praying for the very same things that we exhort unconverted persons to strive for, and a degree of which you have had already in conversion. Pray that your eyes may be opened, that you may receive sight, that you may know yourself, and be brought to God’s footstool; and that you may see the glory of God and Christ, and may be raised from the dead, and have the love of Christ shed abroad in your heart. Those who have most of these things, have need still to pray for them; for there is so much blindness and hardness, pride and death remaining, that they still need to have that work of God wrought upon them, further to enlighten and enliven them, that shall be bringing them out of darkness into God’s marvellous light, and be a kind of new conversion and resurrection from the dead. There are very few requests that are proper for an impenitent man, that are not also, in some sense, proper for the godly. 

3. When you hear a sermon, hear for yourself. Though what is spoken may be more especially directed to the unconverted, or to those that, in other respects, are in different circumstances from yourself; yet, let the chief intent of your mind be to consider, ‘In what respect is this applicable to me? and what improvement ought I to make of this, for my own soul’s good?’ 

4. Though God has forgiven and forgotten your past sins, yet do not forget them yourself: often remember, what a wretched bond-slave you were in the land of Egypt. Often bring to mind your particular acts of sin before conversion; as the blessed apostle Paul is often mentioning his old blaspheming, persecuting spirit, and his injuriousness to the renewed; humbling his heart, and acknowledging that he was ‘the least of the apostles,’ and not worthy ‘to be called an apostle,’ and the ‘least of all saints,’ and the ‘chief of sinners;’ and be often confessing your old sins to God, and let that text be often in your mind, (Ezek. xvi. 63.) ‘that thou mayest remember and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more, because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou has done, saith the Lord God.’

5. Remember, that you have more cause, on some accounts, a thousand times, to lament and humble yourself for sins that have been committed since conversion, than before, because of the infinitely greater obligations that are upon you to live to God, and to look upon the faithfulness of Christ, in unchangeably continuing his loving-kindness, notwithstanding all your great unworthiness since your conversion. 

6. Be always greatly abased for your remaining sin, and never think that you lie low enough for it; but yet be not discouraged or disheartened by it; for, though we are exceeding sinful, yet we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; the preciousness of whose blood, the merit of whose righteousness, and the greatness of whose love and faithfulness, infinitely overtop the highest mountains of our sins. 

7. When you engage in the duty of prayer, or come to the Lord’s supper, or attend any other duty of divine worship, come to Christ as Mary Magdalen did; (Luke vii. 37, 38.) come, and cast yourself at his feet, and kiss them, and pour forth upon him the sweet perfumed ointment of divine love, out of a pure and broken heart, as she poured the precious ointment out of her pure broken alabaster box. 

8. Remember, that pride is the worst viper that is in the heart, the greatest disturber of the soul’s peace, and of sweet communion with Christ: it was the first sin committed, and lies lowest in the foundation of Satan’s whole building, and is with the greatest difficulty rooted out, and is the most hidden, secret, and deceitful of all lusts, and often creeps insensibly into the midst of religion, even, sometimes, under the disguise of humility itself. 

9. That you may pass a correct judgment concerning yourself, always look upon those as the best discoveries, and the best comforts, that have most of these two effects: those that make you least and lowest, and most like a child; and those that most engage and fix your heart, in a full and firm disposition to deny yourself for God, and to spend and be spent for him. 

10. If at any time you fall into doubts about the state of your soul, in dark and dull frames of mind, it is proper to review your past experience; but do not consume too much time and strength in this way: rather apply yourself, with all your might, to an earnest pursuit after renewed experience, new light, and new lively acts of faith and love. One new discovery of the glory of Christ’s face, will do more toward scattering clouds of darkness in one minute, than examining old experience, by the best marks that can be given, through a whole year. 

11. When the exercise of grace is low, and corruption prevails, and by that means fear prevails; do not desire to have fear cast out any other way, than by the reviving and prevailing of love in the heart: by this, fear will be effectually expelled, as darkness in a room vanishes away, when the pleasant beams of the sun are let into it. 

12. When you counsel and warn others, do it earnestly, and affectionately, and thoroughly; and when you are speaking to your equals, let your warnings be intermixed with expressions of your sense of your own unworthiness, and of the sovereign grace that makes you differ. 

13. If you would set up religious meetings of young women by yourselves, to be attended once in a while, besides the other meetings that you attend, I should think it would be very proper and profitable. 

14. Under special difficulties, or when in great need of, or great longings after, any particular mercy, for yourself or others, set apart a day for secret prayer and fasting by yourself alone; and let the day be spent, not only in petitions for the mercies you desire, but in searching your heart, and in looking over your past life, and confessing your sins before God, not as is wont to be done in public prayer, but by a very particular rehearsal before God of the sins of your past life, from your childhood hitherto, before and after conversion, with the circumstances and aggravations attending them, and spreading all the abominations of your heart very particularly, and fully as possible, before him. 

15. Do not let the adversaries of the cross have occasion to reproach religion on your account. How holily should the children of God, the redeemed and the beloved of the Son of God, behave themselves. Therefore, ‘walk as children of the light, and of the day,’ and ‘adorn the doctrine of God your Saviour;’ and especially, abound in what are called the christian virtues, and make you like the Lamb of God: be meek and lowly of heart, and full of pure, heavenly, and humble love to all; abound in deeds of love to others, and self-denial for others; and let there be in you a disposition to account others better than yourself. 

16. In all your course, walk with God, and follow Christ, as a little, poor, helpless child, taking hold of Christ’s hand, keeping your eye on the marks of the wounds in his hands and side, whence came the blood that cleanses you from sin, and hiding your nakedness under the skirt of the white shining robes of his righteousness. 

17. Pray much for the ministers and the church of God; especially, that he would carry on his glorious work which he has now begun, till the world shall be full of his glory.” [source]

Isaiah 14:27 and Therapeutic Theology

I saw the image on the left shared on Facebook. As those who read my blog post know, I have a great distaste for theology which seeks to turn God into something therapeutic or "feel good." For further reading, read how I feel about Jeremiah 29:11 (and see this image about it for good measure). So when I came across this image, I had a feeling that more therapeutic theology was being pushed upon people, sacrificing the original meaning of God's word for a few seconds of heart tugging, feel good nonsense.

Let's first tackle the question: is this actually what Isaiah 14:27 says? Here's the original quote:

For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? [Isaiah 14:27]

All right, so our immediate problem is that it says nothing about God's plan for my life. Yes, it talks of what God "has purposed," and his hand being "stretched out," but this could be about anything. I checked a few translations to see if any worded the verse differently, but even The Message managed to get it fairly correct (amazingly enough as that is).

So here's the immediate question: what's the full context of the verse? Let's take a look and find out:

The LORD of hosts has sworn: “As I have planned, so shall it be, and as I have purposed, so shall it stand, that I will break the Assyrian in my land, and on my mountains trample him underfoot; and his yoke shall depart from them, and his burden from their shoulder.” This is the purpose that is purposed concerning the whole earth, and this is the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. For the LORD of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back? [Isaiah 14:24-27]

Um...wow. Is this at all about God's plan for my life? Actually no, it's about God's judgment upon Assyria. This image has removed the verse as far away from the original context as possible. You could have picked any verse out of the Bible and slapped it under the text, and it would have made about as much sense.

This is yet another example where context and the true meaning of God's word is sacrificed for emotionalism and therapeutic theology.

Baptists in Early Virginia

The following is taken from Encyclopedia Virginia.

While the Anglican authorities often perceived the Presbyterians as damaging to church and society, the Presbyterians' attempts to portray themselves as moderate, serious Christians worked well, and by late in the 1750s the Presbyterians had become a grudgingly accepted presence within the colony. Colonial officials did not look so kindly, however, on the second wave of evangelicals to hit the colony: the radical and contentious Baptists. Baptists had existed in the colonies since the early settlement of New England, but the Great Awakening effectively spawned a new Baptist movement, born out of radical Separate churches that illegally broke away from the established Congregationalist churches of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Some of these Separates began to ask whether the widespread Christian practice of infant baptism was really biblical. Some decided to reserve baptism only for those old enough to experience conversion personally.

Some Separate Baptists in New England became interested in spreading their gospel to the South. Minister Shubal Stearns established the most influential Baptist congregation in the colonial South at Sandy Creek, North Carolina, in 1755. From there, Baptist preachers radiated into the rest of the coastal South, including Virginia, where Stearns's brother-in-law Daniel Marshall began preaching late in the 1750s. A Separate Baptist congregation was founded in 1760 on the Dan River in Virginia. By late in the 1760s the Baptists had begun to expand throughout the colony.

The quick growth of the Baptists, their challenge to the Anglican establishment, and their unwillingness to seek official licenses to preach, brought down the wrath of Virginia authorities, leading to an intense season of persecution early in the 1770s. In 1771 an Anglican minister disrupted a Baptist service by beating the preacher at the pulpit and dragging him outside, where the sheriff of Caroline County gave him twenty lashes with a bullwhip. About thirty-four Baptist preachers were jailed for disturbing the peace and for holding unlawful assemblies. But this seemed only to steel their resolve. Pastor James Ireland was imprisoned in Culpeper, yet he continued to preach to followers through a grate. Ruffians harassed Ireland, however, and some even urinated on him as he attempted to address the crowd. His antagonists also burned brimstone and pepper to try to suffocate him.

One of the reasons that the Baptists generated so much controversy was their loose handling of conventional social bounds of race and gender. They always included African Americans in their congregations, and some white Baptist leaders actually spoke out against slavery. The first Separate Baptist congregation in Virginia, albeit a short-lived one, may have been formed among slaves on the plantation of William Byrd III in 1758. African American and Virginia Indian men occasionally served as exhorters, deacons, and even elders (the highest office of leadership among Baptists) in mixed-race congregations. Women, too, found new positions of authority among the Baptists as "deaconesses," and often received opportunities to testify about their experiences with God.

Blacks had the right to bring charges against whites in Baptist disciplinary proceedings. While these actions had predictable limitations and often seemed to favor whites' testimony over blacks', they were the only judicial formats in colonial Virginia in which slaves could expect their grievances to be taken seriously. Occasionally, white masters were punished for treating their slaves harshly, as in a 1772 case at the Meherrin Baptist Church in Lunenburg County when master Charles Cook was rebuked for burning one of his slaves. But Cook gained readmission to the congregation a month later when he asked for forgiveness before the membership, presumably including the blacks. [source]

Enmity Against the True God

The following is a section from Jonathan Edwards that deals with those who create a God of their own mind, and the hostility they display when the true God is revealed. In fact, he calls it a rejection of God entire.

If you think that there is a God, yet you do not realize it, that he is such a God as he really is. You do not realize it, that he is so holy as he is; that he has such a hatred of sin as indeed he has; that he is so just a God as he is, who will by no means clear the guilty. But that in the Psalms is applicable to you: “these things hast thou done, and I kept silence: thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself.” Psalm 1. 21. So that your atheism appears in this, as well as in thinking there is no God. So that your objection arises from this, that you do not find such a sensible hatred against that god which you have formed, to suit yourself; a god that you like better than the true God. But this is no argument that you have not bitter enmity against the true God; for it was your enmity against the true God, and your not liking him, that has put you upon forming up another in your imagination, that you like better. It is your enmity against those attributes of God’s holiness and justice, and the like, that has put you upon conceiting another, who is not so holy as he is, and does not hate sin so much, and will not be so strictly just in punishing it; and whose wrath against sin is not so terrible.

But if you were sensible of the vanity of your own conceits, and that God was not such an one as you have imagined; but that he is, as he is indeed, an infinitely holy, just, sin hating and sin revenging God, who will not tolerate nor endure the worship of idols, you would be much more liable to feel the sensible exercises of enmity against him, than you are now. And this experience confirms. For we see that when men come to be under convictions, and to be made sensible that God is not as they have heretofore imagined; but that he is such a jealous, sin hating God, and whose wrath against sin is so dreadful, they are much more apt to have sensible exercises of enmity against him than before.

Your having always been taught that God is infinitely above you, and out of your reach, has prevented your enmity” being exercised in those ways, that otherwise it would have been. And hence your enmity has not been exercised in revengeful thoughts; because revenge has never found any room here; it has never found any handle to take hold of: there has been no conception of any such thing, and hence it has lain still. A serpent will not bite, or spit poison, at that which it sees at a great distance; which if it saw near, would do it immediately. Opportunity often shows what men are, whether friends or enemies. Opportunity to do puts men in mind of doing; wakens up such principles as lay dormant before. Opportunity stirs up desire to do, where there was before a disposition, that without opportunity would have lain still. If a man has had an old grudge against another, and has a fair opportunity to be revenged, this will revive his malice, and waken up a desire of revenge. [source]

Does God give new revelation?

Special H/T to Apprising Ministries for this tidbit from Charles Spurgeon.

Now there are some persons who make a great mistake about the influence of the Holy Spirit. A foolish man, who had fancy to preach in a certain pulpit, though in truth he was quite incapable of the duty, called upon the minister, and assured him solemnly that it had been revealed to him by the Holy Ghost, that he was to preach in his pulpit.

“Very well,” said the minister, “I suppose I must not doubt your assertion, but as it has not been revealed to me that I am to let you preach, you must go your way until it is.” I have heard many fanatical persons say the Holy Spirit revealed this and that to them. Now that is very generally revealed nonsense.

The Holy Ghost does not reveal anything fresh now. He brings old things to our remembrance. “He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance whatsoever I have told you.” The canon of revelation is closed; there is no more to be added.

God does not give a fresh revelation, but he rivets the old one. When it has been forgotten, and laid in the dusty chamber of our memory, he fetches it out and cleans the picture, but does not paint a new one.

There are no new doctrines, but the old ones are often revived. It is not, I say, by any new revelation that the Spirit comforts. He does so by telling us old things over again; he brings a fresh lamp to manifest the treasures hidden in Scripture; he unlocks the strong chests in which the truth had long lain, and he points to secret chambers filled with untold riches; but he comes no more, for enough is done.

Believer! there is enough in the Bible for thee to live upon for ever. If thou shouldst outnumber the years of Methusaleh, there would be no need for a fresh revelation; if thou shouldst live till Christ should come upon the earth, there would be no necessity for the addition of a single word.

If thou shouldst go down as deep as Jonah, or even descend as David said he did, into the belly of hell, still there would be enough in the Bible to comfort thee without a supplementary sentence.

But Christ says, “He shall take of mine and shall show it unto you.”