Monday, July 20, 2015

Gurnall on those who change their "convictions" according to the fashion of the day

Gurnall has been talking about the belt of truth and the need to work hard to get ourselves well-grounded in the truth. Then he says this:
...This might well chastise the strange fickleness and unsettledness of judgment which many labour with in this unconstant age.
Truths in many professors’ minds are not as stars fixed in the heavens, but like meteors, that dance in the air; they are not as characters engraven in marble, but writ in the dust, which every wind and idle breath of seducers deface; many entertain opinions, as some entertain suitors, not that they mean to marry them, but cast them oft as soon as new ones come.
Never was there a more giddy age than ours. What is said of fashion-mongers, that some men, should they see their pictures in that habit which they wore a few years past, would hardly know themselves in their present garb, it is most true in regard of their opinions; should many that have been great professors take a view of their religious principles a dozen years ago, and compare them with their present, they would be found not the same men. They have so chopped and changed, that they seem to have forsaken their old faith.
Not that the old which they renounce was false, or the new which they espouse is true; but because they were either ignorant of the truth they first professed, or were insincere in the profession of it; and it is no wonder that the one should upon easy terms part with that, which he first took upon as weak grounds as now he leaves it; or that the other, who did not love or improve the truth he professed, should be given up of God to change it for an error.
If the heathen, who did not glorify God with the light of nature they had, were righteously given up to a reprobate, injudicious mind to do that which was inconvenient, and morally absurd; then they who dishonour God with the revealed light of Scripture truth much more deserve that they should be given up to that which is spiritually wicked, even to believe lies and errors for truth. A heavy curse, did we rightly judge of it, to wander and wilder in a maze of error, and yet think they are walking in the way of truth.
[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 212-213. Broken into paragraphs]

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Gurnall on the tenacity of people who cling to their error at all costs

This is priceless, and so well-put:
I am persuaded some men take more pains to furnish themselves with arguments to defend some one error they have taken up, than they do for the most saving truths in the Bible; yea, they could sooner die at a stake to defend one error they hold, than all the truths they profess.
Austin [Augustine] saith of himself when he was a Manichæan, Non tu eras, sed error meus erat Deus meus: ‘Thou, O Lord, were not, but my error was my god.’
O, it is hard to reduce a person deeply engaged in the defence of an error; how oft had the Pharisees their mouths stopped by our Saviour, yet few or none reclaimed! Their spirits were too proud to recant. What, they lay down the bucklers, come down from Moses’ chair, and confess what they might have taught the people for an oracle is now false! They will rather go on, and brave it out as well as they can, than come back with shame, though the shame was not to be ashamed of their error, but ashamed to confess it.
The cynic answered smartly, who, coming out of a brothel house, was asked whether he was not ashamed to be seen coming out of such a naughty house, said, No, the shame was to go in, but honesty to come out. O, sirs, it is bad enough to fall into an error, but worse to persist. The first shews thee a weak man, humanum est errare; but the other makes thee too like the devil, who is to this day of the same mind he was at his first fall.
[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 212. Broken into paragraphs]

Friday, June 05, 2015

"Beyond the Mask" — movie review

Movie: Beyond the Mask
Length
: 103 min
Rated: PG
Starring: Andrew Cheney, Kara Kilmer, John Rys-Davis
 
Director: Chad Burns
Producers: Aaron Burns
Screenplay: Paul McCusker

Preface: Almost six years ago I reviewed an earlier Burns Family Studios production titled Pendragon: Sword of His Father. This was an independent and completely in-house production, seemingly populated by every Burns family member in creation. For all that, it was a really good effort. Some continuity issues and unprofessional acting vied for attention with other decent actors, an interesting plot, decent effects, and a true eye for beauty that resulted in memorable scenes beautifully framed.

Now the same studio makes a full-court press with Beyond the Mask. It still has plenty of Burnses involved, but the screenplay is by Paul McCusker, an accomplished writer known to Christians for his work with Adventures in Odyssey — who, since then, has sadly apostatized to Roman Catholicism.

The three lead roles are also professional actors, probably most famous of them being John Rhys-Davis, known as Sulla in the Indiana Jones movies, Gimli in the Lord of the Rings movies, and many other roles.

So what of this effort?

Bottom Line: I watched it with my family and in-laws. The six of us ranged in ages from 15 to 79. We all enjoyed it, many very enthusiastically so. We all would recommend it to anyone. It's a good, well-done family movie.

Review: the story begins in the timeframe of the signing of America's Declaration of Independence. As the movie opens, we hear the voice of the main character, William Reynolds, introducing us to "this monster called the East India Company." He is speaking guiltily to "Charlotte" — who? Why? We were intrigued.

When watching an independent production, one always begins with bated breath. Production quality is often low, if well-intentioned. First impressions cast a shadow over the rest of the experience.

In this case, opening scenes immediately and ably take us to England in 1775 and introduce us to the speaker, William Reynolds (Andrew Cheney), who serves as an assassin and intriguer for that organization. With relief, we see that the hand behind this movie has an expert eye for a beautifully-framed scene, as we often observed and remarked in reviewing Pendragon. This is our first, night-time view:

CLICK TO ENLARGE
It is the first of many beautifully framed period shots sparkling throughout the film. Later, we're shown revolutionary-era Philadelphia:


Back to the start: this peaceful view immediately bursts into action, in almost a steampunk sniper situation. Protagonist Reynolds and his assistant briskly set up and launch a mission to replace critical documents that would have been damaging to the EIC. After this Reynolds hands over the unfavorable report to EIC employer, Charles Kemp (John Rhys-Davies). We learn that Reynolds wants out; he's had enough of his life as an assassin, and wants to live a new life enjoying the rewards that Kemp promised him. Kemp pleads with him to stay on and be his man in America, but Reynolds is resolute.

As it turns out, the EIC's retirement plan for Reynolds involves planting a bomb on the carriage that he thinks will bear him to his new life. However, on the road, a clergyman-to-be sees the bomb's sparks, and rides in pursuit to warn the carriage. In the ensuing action, Reynolds' rescuer is killed and Reynolds is wounded. He takes on the identity of the erstwhile vicar, and rides to the vicar's new church, to take on his duties and his life.

When he arrives, he is half-dead, and must be rescued by the lovely Charlotte Holloway (Kara Killmer). In the ensuing developments, Reynolds recovers and makes a shaky start as vicar to a very (very!) gracious little congregation, and his relationship with and feelings for Charlotte blossoms.

Reynolds eventually wants to marry Charlotte, but he has not been honest about his past. When his old boss learns he's not dead yet, our hero once again is targeted, and eventually flees. Reynolds means to earn Charlotte's love by undoing some of his wrongs and becoming a hero to the patriots in America. He becomes a sort of Zorro figure, a masked man on a horse, rescuing those in peril and thwarting the violence of the East India Company conspirators.


Reynolds eventually thwarts an assassination attempt, but in the effort he is himself framed as the assassin, which is all too easy to do, given his past. All looks dim. Reynolds has lied to Charlotte, he's failed in his attempt to earn grace, and he's about to be hanged. What will happen?

At this point, to continue the narrative would be to spoil the plot. So:

What's great about the movie? Scene after scene, as I've mentioned, is simply beautiful. Since the movie was all shot in modern Michigan, obviously some must be CGI — yet it's done flawlessly and well. The CGI has to be supplemented with real sets and, as in Pendragon, they are all very well-done and authentic as well.

There are many action sequences, involving pursuits, fist-fights, sword-fights, shooting, and explosions. They're all done really excellently, top-notch. There's even a rooftop pursuit:


This is no small matter. I've recently seen studio movies, fully financed and done by "professionals," which fudge the action scenes by nauseatingly shaky-camera shots, or snip-snip-snip over-editing. This movie does neither. The climactic scenes even go steam-punk on us, in a mostly-successful (more in a moment) reach.


The acting of the principals is all well done, including the actor who plays Benjamin Franklin (!). There are no distracting dead-notes as there were in Pendragon. The dialogue is largely believable and largely natural. There are touches of humor, and a number of surprising plot-twists.

In most scenes the music is lush and appropriate, and highlights either the action or the mood of the scene.

The plot is interesting and involving, and largely moves right along to resolution, holding our interest.

What's less great? There are no elements that spoil the movie, though if I didn't mention a quibble or two, you'd think it wasn't me. For my part, I kept being taken a bit out of the lovely scenes by the lighting. These were outdoor or indoor scenes, yet the actors faces and clothes would shine brightly white on the sides with what was clearly theatrical lighting, not anything like ambient light. It was so pronounced as to distract me several times.


My dear wife noted that, though the last part of the movie was June-July, the actors' breath made steam, even indoors. She also wondered where the rather anachronistic cabling came from in a strategic sequence.

My older son Josiah, with his eye for detail on all matters relating to weaponry, squawked a couple of times when actors holding what were supposed to be flintlock pistols carried them aimed straight into the air. That's the proper way to carry a modern pistol; it would have been disastrous with a flintlock pistol.

I felt the whole imposter-vicar portion of the movie was brushed by. After the initial scene, we were given nothing to help us understand how a fellow who clearly knew nothing about religion carried off this

Is there Gospel? Yes, clearly enough but very briefly. It's a Christian movie, or Christianoid — given that the writer is a Roman Catholic; but it's not a movie about Christianity.

Do you recommend it? Yes, very enthusiastically so. As I said, we all enjoyed it, men and women, young teens and almost-eighty. It's very well-done from start to finish.

This movie is being released to theaters today, June 5. If it is playing near you and you're looking for a family movie, this is a great pick. It will be even better on a big screen with big sound.

The Burns Family Studios continues to strive for excellence in moviemaking. I look forward to future productions!

Friday, March 13, 2015

Gurnall on those who sleep during sermons

Gurnall makes the point that anyone who wants divine knowledge must wait on the ministry of the word, including at the places of instruction God ordained for learning (i.e. church). He adds, "But it is not enough to sit under the means; woful experience teacheth us this; there are some no sun will tan; they keep their own complexion under the most shining and burning light of the word preached, as ignorant and profane as those that never saw gospel-day; and therefore if thou wilt receive any spiritual advantage by the word, take heed how thou hearest."

In that vein, his first bit of advice is to be
a wakeful hearer. Is it any wonder he should go away from the sermon no wiser than he came, that sleeps the greatest part of it away, or hears between sleeping and waking? It must be in a dream sure, if God reveals anything of his mind to him. So indeed God did to the fathers of old; but it was not as they profanely slept under an ordinance. O take heed of such irreverence. He that composeth himself to sleep, as some do, at such a time, or he that is not humbled for it, and that deeply, both of them betray a base and low esteem they have of the ordinance. Surely thou thinkest but meanly of [i.e. do not place much value on] what is delivered, if it will not keep thee awake; yea, of God himself, whose message it is. See how thou art reproved by the awful carriage of a heathen, and that a king; Ehud did but say to Eglon, ‘I have a message from God unto thee, and he arose out of his seat,’ Judg. 3:20. And thou clappest down on thy seat to sleep! O how darest thou put such an affront upon the great God? How oft did you fall asleep at dinner, or telling your money? And is not the word of God worth more than these? I should wonder if such sermon-sleepers do dream of anything but hell-fire. It is dangerous you know to fall asleep with a candle burning by our side; some have been so burnt in their beds: but more dangerous to sleep while the candle of the word is shining so near us. What if you should sink down dead, like Eutychus? here is no Paul to raise you as he had; and that you shall not, where is your security?
[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 123. Emphases added.]

Friday, February 13, 2015

Gurnall Another reason the Christian should thank God constantly

"...Satan’s power is so limited, that he shall not do what he can: God lets out so much of his wrath as shall praise him, and be as a stream to set his purpose of love to his saints at work, and then lets down the flood-gate, by restraining the residue thereof. God ever takes him off before he can finish his work on a saint. He can, if God suffers him, rob the Christian of much of his joy, and disturb his peace by his cunning insinuation; but he is under command; he stands like a dog by the table, while the saints sit at this sweet feast of comfort, but dares not stir to disturb their cheer; his Master’s eye is on him. The want of this consideration loseth God his praise, and us our comfort, God having locked up our comfort in the performance of our duty. Did the Christian consider what Satan’s power is, and who dams it up, this would always be a song of praise in his mouth. Hath Satan power to rob and burn, kill and slay, torment the body, distress the mind? Whom may I thank that I am in any of these out of his hands? Doth Satan love one better than Job? or am I out of sight, or beside his walk? Is his courage cooled, or his wrath appeased, that I escape so well? No, none of these; his wrath is not against one, but all the saints; his eye is on thee, and his arm can reach thee; his spirit is not cowed, nor his stomach stayed with those millions he hath devoured, but keen as ever, yea, sharper, because now he sees God ready to take away, and the end of the world drawing on so fast. It is thy God alone whom thou art beholden to for all this; his eye keepeth thee; when Satan finds the good man asleep, then he finds our good God awake; therefore thou art not consumed, because he changeth not. Did his eye slumber or wander one moment, there would need no other flood to drown thee, yea, the whole world, than what would come out of this dragon’s mouth."
[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 102.]

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Gurnall on the way we should feel about glib, popular false teachers

Years ago I was very bitterly angry over a prominent politician who seemed invincible, who could get away with literally anything, and could do it with a sneer and a wink and a swagger. A pastor friend said "Dan, pity him. He has this, and this is all he has. Then he spends eternity in Hell under the wrath of God."

That put it in perspective.

As does Gurnall here at length, talking about evil men who are used by Satan to oppose the truths of God:
Do you see any driving furiously against the truths or servants of Christ; O pity them as the most miserable wretches in the world; fear not their power, admire not their parts; they are men possessed of and acted by the devil, they are his drudges and slaughter-slaves, as a martyr called them. Augustine, in his epistle to Lycinius, one of excellent parts, but wicked, who once was his scholar, speaks thus pathetically to him: O how I could weep and mourn over thee, to see such a sparkling wit prostituted to the devil’s service! if thou hadst found a golden chalice, thou wouldst have given it to the church; but God hath given thee a golden head, parts and wit, and in this, propinas leipsum diabolo, thou drinkest thyself to the devil. When you see men of power or parts using them against God that gave them, weep over them; better they had lived and died, the one slaves, the other fools, than do the devil such service with them.
[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 89.]

Thursday, January 08, 2015

Spurgeon's first preaching "assignment"

I just saw, and loved, Through The Eyes of Spurgeon. Great film, joy to watch. I recommend it heartily. I would pick a nit, here. The film suggests that "Bishop Vinter" lied to Spurgeon and his companion, telling each that the other would preach. The real story is much more charming. In Spurgeon's own words, relating the incident not long after his sixteenth birthday:
There is a Preachers’ Association in Cambridge, connected with St. Andrew’s Street Chapel, once the scene of the ministry of Robert Robinson and Robert Hall. A number of worthy brethren preach the gospel in the various villages surrounding Cambridge, taking each one his turn according to plan. In my day, the presiding genius was the venerable Mr. James Vinter, whom we were wont to address as Bishop Vinter. His genial soul, warm heart, and kindly manner were enough to keep a whole fraternity stocked with love; and, accordingly, a goodly company of zealous workers belonged to the Association, and laboured as true yoke-fellows. My suspicion is, that he not only preached himself, and helped his brethren, but that he was a sort of recruiting sergeant, and drew in young men to keep up the number of the host; at least, I can speak from personal experience as to one case 
I had, one Saturday, finished morning school, and the boys were all going home for the half-holiday, when in came the aforesaid “Bishop” to ask me to go over to Teversham, the next evening, for a young man was to preach there who was not much used to services, and very likely would be glad of company. That was a cunningly-devised sentence, if I remember it rightly, and I think I do; for, at the time, in the light of that Sunday evening’s revelation, I turned it over, and vastly admired its ingenuity. A request to go and preach, would have met with a decided negative; but merely to act as company to a good brother who did not like to be lonely, and perhaps might ask me to give out a hymn or to pray, was not at all a difficult matter, and the request, understood in that fashion, was cheerfully complied with. Little did the lad know what Jonathan and David were doing when he was made to run for the arrow, and as little did I know when I was cajoled into accompanying a young man to Teversham. 
My Sunday-school work was over, tea had been taken, and I set off through Barnwell, and away along the Newmarket Road, with a gentleman some few years my senior. We talked of good things, and at last I expressed my hope that he would feel the presence of God while preaching. He seemed to start, and assured me that he had never preached in his life, and could not attempt such a thing; he was looking to his young friend, Mr. Spurgeon, for that. This was a new view of the situation, and I could only reply that I was no minister; and that, even if I had been, I was quite unprepared. My companion only repeated that he, in a still more emphatic sense, was not a preacher, that he would help me in any other part of the service, but that there would be no sermon unless I delivered one. He told me that, if I repeated one of my Sunday-school addresses, it would just suit the poor people, and would probably give them more satisfaction than the studied sermon of a learned divine. I felt that I was fairly committed to do my best. I walked along quietly, lifting up my soul to God, and it seemed to me that I could surely tell a few poor cottagers of the sweetness and love of Jesus, for I felt them in my own soul. Praying for Divine help, I resolved to make the attempt. My text should be, “Unto you therefore which believe He is precious,” and I would trust the Lord to open my mouth in honour of His dear Son. It seemed a great risk and a serious trial; but depending upon the power of the Holy Ghost, I would at least tell out the story of the cross, and not allow the people to go home without a word.
[C. H. Spurgeon, C. H. Spurgeon’s Autobiography, Compiled from His Diary, Letters, and Records, by His Wife and His Private Secretary, 1834–1854, vol. 1 (Cincinatti; Chicago; St. Louis: Curts & Jennings, 1898), 200–201.]


Friday, January 02, 2015

Gurnall: encouragement for Christians amid the battle's ebbs and flows

"This gives a strong cordial to our fainting faith, in the behalf of the church of Christ. If all the devil’s wits and wiles will not serve him to overcome one single soldier in Christ’s camp, much less shall he ever ruin the whole army.

These are days of great confusions in the Christian world; and the chief fear of a gracious heart is for the ark, lest that should fall into the enemy’s hand, and when this palladium is taken, the city of God (his church) be trod under the feet of pride. I confess Satan seems to get ground daily; he hath strangely wriggled into the bosoms and principles of many, who, by the fame of their profession and zeal, had obtained, in the opinion of others, to be reckoned among the chief of Christ’s worthies in their generation.

"...And now, Christian, may be their confidence, together with the distracted state of Christ’s affairs in the world, may discompose thy spirit concerning the issue of these rolling providences that are over our heads; but be still, poor heart, and know that the contest is not between the church and Satan, but between Christ and him; these are the two champions.

"Stand now, O ye army of saints, still by faith, to see the all-wise God wrestle with the subtle devil. If you live not to see the period of these great confusions, yet generations after you shall behold the Almighty smite off this Goliath’s head with his own sword, and take this cunning hunter in the toil of his own policies; that faith, which ascribes greatness and wisdom to God, will shrink up Satan’s subtilty into a nigrum nihil, a thing of nothing. Increduli timent diabolum, quusi leonem, qui fide fortes despiciunt quasi vermiculum.—Bern. Unbelief fears Satan as a lion; faith treads on him as a worm. Behold, therefore, thy God at work, and promise thyself, that what he is about will be an excellent piece; none can drive him from his work.

"...A pinch may come, when it is as vain to say, Help, O king, as Help, O beggar; man’s wisdom may be levelled with folly, but God is never interrupted. All the plots of hell and commotions on earth, have not so much as shaked God’s hand, to spoil one letter or line that he hath been drawing. The mysteriousness of his providence may hang a curtain before his work, that we cannot see what he is doing; but then ‘when darkness is about him, righteousness is the seat of his throne for ever.’

"O where is our faith, sirs? let God be wise, and all men and devils fools. What, though thou seest a Babel more likely to go up, than a Babylon to be pulled down, yet believe God is making his secret approaches, and will clap his ladders on a sudden to the walls thereof. Suppose truth were prisoner with Joseph, and error the courtier, to have its head lift up by the favour of the times, yet dost not remember that the way to truth’s perferment lies through the prison? yea, what though the church were like Jonah in the whale’s belly, swallowed up to the eye of reason, by the fury of men; yet dost not remember the whale had not power to digest the prophet?

"O be not too quick to bury the church before she be dead. Stay while Christ tries his skill before you give it over; bring Christ by your prayers to its grave, to speak a resurrection word.

"Admirable hath the saints’ faith been in such straits; as Joseph’s, who pawned his bones that God would visit his brethren, willing them to lay him where he believed they should he brought. Jeremiah purchaseth a field of his uncle, and pays down the money for it; and this when the Chaldean army quartered about Jerusalem, ready to take the city, and carry him with the rest into Babylon! and all this by God’s appointment, Jer. 22:6–8, that he might show the Jews by this, how undoubtedly he, in that sad juncture of time, did believe the performance of the promise for their return out of captivity.

"Indeed God counts himself exceedingly disparaged in the thoughts of his people, (though at the lowest ebb of his church’s affairs,) if his naked word, and the single bond of his promise, will not be taken as sufficient security to their faith for its deliverance."

[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 75–76.]

Monday, December 29, 2014

Monday Music - Sultans of Swing... on ukulele?

"Eclectic" means it can even go beyond my taste. Not a big fan of this song, the original group, or the ukulele... yet what this gent does is pretty wonderful. Thanks to reader Randy Talley for the tip:

Friday, December 26, 2014

Warfield's masterful statement on the Trinity in the NT

In case you've never read it, here is superb theologian/scholar Benjamin B. Warfield's statement on how we find the doctrine of the Triune God in the New Testament:

It is an old saying that what becomes patent in the New Testament was latent in the Old Testament. And it is important that the continuity of the revelation of God contained in the two Testaments should not be overlooked or obscured. If we find some difficulty in perceiving for ourselves, in the Old Testament, definite points of attachment for the revelation of the Trinity, we cannot help perceiving with great clearness in the New Testament abundant evidence that its writers felt no incongruity whatever between their doctrine of the Trinity and the Old Testament conception of God. The New Testament writers certainly were not conscious of being “setters forth of strange gods.” To their own apprehension they worshipped and proclaimed just the God of Israel; and they laid no less stress than the Old Testament itself upon His unity (Jn. 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:4; 1 Tim. 2:5). They do not, then, place two new gods by the side of Jehovah as alike with Him to be served and worshipped; they conceive Jehovah as Himself at once Father, Son and Spirit. In presenting this one Jehovah as Father, Son and Spirit, they do not even betray any lurking feeling that they are making innovations. Without apparent misgiving they take over Old Testament passages and apply them to Father, Son and Spirit indifferently. Obviously they understand themselves, and wish to be understood, as setting forth in the Father, Son and Spirit just the one God that the God of the Old Testament revelation is; and they are as far as possible from recognizing any breach between themselves and the Fathers in presenting their enlarged conception of the Divine Being. This may not amount to saying that they saw the doctrine of the Trinity everywhere taught in the Old Testament. It certainly amounts to saying that they saw the Triune God whom they worshipped in the God of the Old   p 143  Testament revelation, and felt no incongruity in speaking of their Triune God in the terms of the Old Testament revelation. The God of the Old Testament was their God, and their God was a Trinity, and their sense of the identity of the two was so complete that no question as to it was raised in their minds.
The simplicity and assurance with which the New Testament writers speak of God as a Trinity have, however, a further implication. If they betray no sense of novelty in so speaking of Him, this is undoubtedly in part because it was no longer a novelty so to speak of Him. It is clear, in other words, that, as we read the New Testament, we are not witnessing the birth of a new conception of God. What we meet with in its pages is a firmly established conception of God underlying and giving its tone to the whole fabric. It is not in a text here and there that the New Testament bears its testimony to the doctrine of the Trinity. The whole book is Trinitarian to the core; all its teaching is built on the assumption of the Trinity; and its allusions to the Trinity are frequent, cursory, easy and confident. It is with a view to the cursoriness of the allusions to it in the New Testament that it has been remarked that “the doctrine of the Trinity is not so much heard as overheard in the statements of Scripture.” It would be more exact to say that it is not so much inculcated as presupposed. The doctrine of the Trinity does not appear in the New Testament in the making, but as already made. It takes its place in its pages, as Gunkel phrases it, with an air almost of complaint, already “in full completeness” (völlig fertig), leaving no trace of its growth. “There is nothing more wonderful in the history of human thought,” says Sanday, with his eye on the appearance of the doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament, “than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine, to us so difficult, took its place without struggle—and without controversy—among accepted Christian truths.” The explanation of this remarkable phenomenon is, however, simple. Our New Testament is not a record of the development of the doctrine or of its assimilation. It everywhere presupposes the doctrine as the fixed possession of the Christian community; and   p 144  the process by which it became the possession of the Christian community lies behind the New Testament.

[Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Biblical Doctrines, vol. 2 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 142–144.]

Monday, December 22, 2014

Monday Music - Bela Fleck's Christmas music feast

It's been a very Flecky, banjo-y month, so we close with a really terrific assortment of Christmas songs by banjo virtuoso Bela Fleck. Enjoy!

Music starts about 0:58.

Friday, December 19, 2014

The rapture, unmanned cars, and absurd scenarios

I am reading through Craig Blomberg's commentary on Matthew, with varying degrees of enjoyment and profit.

Commenting on Matthew 24:40-41, he said this:
Some have seen a “secret rapture” in view here (in which believers mysteriously disappear from earth, leaving everyone else to wonder what happened), which often leads to absurd scenarios (e.g., the modern-day notion of cars suddenly without drivers). But the only coming of the Son of Man described so far has been the climactic universal return of Christ in v. 27. The imagery of vv. 38–41 does not suggest anything different.
[Craig Blomberg, Matthew, vol. 22, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1992), 366.]
When the scare-quotes are used for "secret rapture," you know you're reading a detractor of the doctrine.

But what really catches my eye is his snorting at "absurd scenarios," like "cars suddenly without drivers." I pair that with brothers I hear sneering that they "don't believe in the rapture."

You don't? Then you're almost assuredly not a Christian.

Note: I did not say pre-tribulation rapture, or mid-tribulation rapture, or any other particular position on the timing of the rapture. Yet that's what I hear, again and again: "I don't believe in the rapture."

But if you're a Christian, you do believe in the rapture.

What is "the rapture"? It's the resurrection of believers, which involves raising the dead and glorifying those who are alive at that time (see 1 Cor 15:51-57; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17). Non-pretrib theologian Wayne Grudem defines it thus:
rapture: The “taking up” or snatching up (from Latin rapio, “seize, snatch, carry away”) of believers to be with Christ....
[Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004), 1253. Grudem concludes the sentence "when he returns to the earth," which is the point of contention.]
All Christians believe in this. This is not a point of division.

When does this happen, in relation to the Tribulation? Ah, that is where we part company.

But back to sneering Dr. Blomberg. If in conversation, I'd ask him: when Jesus comes and living believers are caught up to meet Him in the air... do cars exist? And, if they do, is it possible that some Christians will be driving cars? And if they are, and the Lord catches them away to meet him in the air...?

Well, if Dr. Blomberg thinks that an unmanned car is an "absurd scenario," then one can only assume that he thinks some sort of notice will be given in advance. Perhaps something like, "The rapture will occur in five minutes. Will genuine regenerate Christians please pull over to the side, park, and get out of their cars?"

Tell me: which one is the absurd scenario, again?


Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Gurnall on how Satan induces paralyzing guilt

In a wonderful section which I'll only partly reproduce, Gurnall talks about how Satan troubles the Christian by trying to sound like the Holy Spirit, and pointing the Christian to the greatness of his sin. "He vexeth the Christian by laying his brats at the saint’s door, and charging him with that which is his own creature," Gurnall says — in other words, Satan both fathers, and accuses the believer for, these sins (William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg: 1845, 57). He also makes a great big fuss about the terrible nature of the saint's sins, though "not," Gurnall notes, "that he hates the sin, but the saint."

So he will focus us on what a wretched job we do of walking with God, how half-hearted we are, how poor our obedience, how half-baked our works. I'll quote at length two of Gurnall's proposed remedies in pointing to the fallacies of Satan's arguments, because they're pretty wonderful:
First, He will persuade thee that thy duty and thyself are hypocritical, proud, formal, &c., because something of these sins are to be found in thy duty. Now, Christian, learn to distinguish between pride in a duty, and a proud duty; hypocrisy in a person, and a hypocrite; wine in a man, and a man in wine. The best of saints have the stirrings of such corruptions in them, and in their services; these birds will light on an Abraham’s sacrifice; but comfort thyself with this, that if thou findest a party within thy bosom pleading for God, and entering its protest against these, thou and thy services are evangelically perfect. God beholds these as the weaknesses of thy sickly state here below, and pities thee, as thou wouldest do thy lame child. How odious is he to us that mocks one for natural defects, a blear eye or a stammering tongue? Such are these in thy new nature. Observable is that in Christ’s prayer against Satan, Zech. 3:3, ‘The Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee; is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?’ As if Christ had said, Lord, wilt thou suffer this envious spirit to twit thy poor child with, and charge him for, those infirmities that cleave to his imperfect state? he is but new plucked out of the fire, no wonder there are some sparks unquenched, some corruptions unmortified, some disorders unreformed in his place and calling. And what Christ did for Joshua, he doth incessantly for all his saints, apologising for their infirmities with his Father.
Secondly, His other fallacy is in arguing from the sin that is in our duties to the non-acceptance of them. Will God, saith he, thinkest thou, take such broken groats at thy hand? Is he not a holy God? Now here, Christian, learn to distinguish and answer Satan. There is a double acceptance. There is an acceptance of a thing by way of payment of debt, and there is an acceptance of a thing offered as a token of love and a testimony of gratitude. He that will not accept of broken money, or half the sum for payment of a debt; the same man, if his friend sends him, though but a bent sixpence, in token of his love, will take it kindly. It is true, Christian, the debt thou owest to God must be paid in good and lawful money; but, for thy comfort, here Christ is thy paymaster; send Satan to him, bid him bring his charge against Christ, who is ready at God’s right hand to clear his accounts, and shew his discharge for the whole debt. But now thy performances and obedience come under another notion, as tokens of thy love and thankfulness to God; and such is the gracious disposition of thy heavenly Father, that he accepts thy mite: love refuseth nothing that love sends. It is not the weight or worth of the gift, but ‘the desire of a man is his kindness,’ Prov. 19:22.
[William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 59–60. Bolding added]
Love this book. Also available in a paperback set.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Monday Music - Victor Wooten's Christmas jam from 2009

As with classic Chicago, each musician in Bela Fleck and the Flecktones is amazingly talented. Not one whit less than Bela himself, Victor Wooten is an absolutely amazing bass player.

Sorry this is an audience recording, with all the rude and inconsiderate chatter, but hear Wooten's Christmas jam from 2009: