There's a Norman Geisler Clock!

Who knew?

Calvinist Gadfly has a Norman Geisler Clock, ticking off the time during which James White has been waiting for a response to his challenge to a debate on Calvinism.

It rather surprises me. I had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing Dr. Geisler when I edited the school paper at Talbot Theological Seminary. Nice man, very sharp.

I think on this issue White would probably mop the floor with him, but I also think James would have his hands full. It would be no cake-walk. Geisler is well-read, very incisive, and adept at putting things sharply, briefly, pointedly.

So the suggestion that Geisler is playing the chicken on this issue surprises me.

That Dave Hunt is doing so, doesn't.

Penn Jillette is a fool

Proclaiming himself to have gone beyond atheism ("not believing in God"), magician/bad boy Penn Jillette says that he positively believes that there is no God. The "case" he makes is the same sniggery pastiche of cliches every mildly precocious juvenile at the back of the class in high school has made himself feel big with since classrooms first had backs.

Bolder than most, Jillette admits that his position requires a leap of faith, but he insists it makes a better, freer, more moral life for him. And he says this via National Public Radio (your tax dollars at work).

Jillette is wrong, of course. I'm not saying that he's wrong about God; that's a given. He's wrong in saying that he believes there is no God. He certainly does believe in a god. That god's name is Penn Jillette. His all-trumping devotion to that god is why his universe has no room for the real and living God. "Evidence" has nothing to do with it.

What a sad, bad bet Jillette's playing out. Pray he bails on it, while he still can.

UPDATE: Doug TenNapel interacts much more fully with Jillette; definitely worth reading.

My "sine qua non" reason for thanks

Sine qua non means "that without which there is nothing." Among my many blessings, only one is the sine qua non.

There are a thousand things for which I can and should thank God: family, friends, health, a degree of liberty, good food, housing, our president, the brave men and women guarding our liberty, a great pastor, a good church, really terrific bloggers like Phil Johnson, La Shawn Barber, the Discoshaman, and scads of others. The list of blessings could go on endlessly.

It is good and fitting to be thankful for these, as they are gifts of God (1 Timothy 4:4-5), and ingratitude is a sure sign of unbelief (Romans 1:21).

But all these gifts have one thing in common: they are fragile. Any one of them can be lost in a moment; and many of them will be lost, if I live long enough.

There is only one gift of God that is infinitely better in quality than the best of this list, and which will be mine for all eternity. That is Jesus Christ.

In Him I am reconciled to God. My sins are dealt with once and for all time, my hatred for God is turned to love, my death to life, my estrangement to adoption, my defilement to righteousness. God's name is written on me, and my name is written on Christ's heart. He holds me in the love of God, He will never let go, and no created thing has the power to separate me from His love.

Heartaches will come, old(er) age may come, loved ones will be parted from me, my health may fail, our country may fall -- but Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. In Him alone all the unfilled hopes and promises of the Old Testament are saved from being pious nonsense, and are brought to full realization; in Him alone all the real miseries of the human condition are met, reversed, and replaced with God's own glory.

I am terribly thankful for all the blessings in my life. But above them all, I am thankful for Jesus. Without Him, it all would be vanity of vanities, vexation of spirit, and striving after the wind -- on the best day!

(For more, please see Why I Am (Still) a Christian, and How Can I Know God?)

Boycott "Turkey Day"

Just a quick thought.

It makes me cringe when I hear professing Christians say "Turkey Day." When The World does it, it is because they are ungrateful. It is more important to them to appear cynical, jaded, above-it-all, than to acknowledge that everything they enjoy in life is a gift. They're Bart Simpson, "praying" his prayer, "Dear God, we paid for all this stuff ourselves, so thanks for nothing."

So I understand why non-Christians do it. They do it because they're non-Christians. It is in their nature to be ungrateful (Romans 1:21).

But why do we do it? To be cool? To be accepted? To show how jaded and cynical we are, too?

We really shouldn't.

So don't.

(Later this same season: I'll take on "Happy Holidays" -- oy!)

Mark your calendars: I say something nice about The Sacramento Bee

I loathe our local newspaper. It's a prime example of the worst in unimaginative, lockstep, straight-from-the-DNC/ACLU-fax-to-you journalism. Their refusal to do any actual investigative, independent reporting during Clinton's Reign of Error has earned them lasting shame. I believe I've (unintentionally) sent their salespeople away close to tears.

Not that I have an opinion about what I lovingly call The Sacramento Eff, mind you.

I won't say that no amount of money could persuade me to subscribe... but it'd take a lot!

The one exception over the years, surprisingly, was where you'd least expect to find it: their excellent religion editor, Paul Clegg. I have no real idea what his religious convictions were. He kept it out of his job. I wrote a number of essays during Paul's stay, and you can read them here. He never, ever edited me for content. But that was years ago, and he is no longer their religion editor.

Now comes this hysterical review of... well, of a man who I just don't want to name, because that'd be playing into his one great goal in life. He is a man who wants to turn his unresolved personal issues into the nation's wrongly-resolved issues. He tried to add to his resume an entry titled "performer" -- and I gather the results were horrendous. Even if you don't care, read the review: it's pretty funny, given who this poor soul is.

Interview with Narnia's writer-director leaves me a bit concerned

When I heard that Andrew Adamson was selected to write and direct The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, I wasn't thrilled. He was a director on Shrek and Shrek 2, neither of which is a favorite of mine. Both movies are a bit too smug and cynical for me to love, though some of the scenes are wonderful.

And then there's the Disney involvement in Chronicles. Brr-r-r-r-r-r! How would they ruin it?

On the other hand, almost everything I've seen about this production since then has impressed me, and has all been good. The trailers send chills up my spine, they're so good; the kids look perfect; C. S. Lewis' stepson Douglas is an enthusiast; all the pre-screenings have been positive. Everything looks good.

And then I read this interview with Adamson on Dark Horizons.

I can't imagine anything making me not go, and all the other reasons still are solid reasons for being optimistic -- but some things Adamson says... just yikes.

Start with something relatively trivial, yet still disconcerting.

Adamson: ...when Father Christmas gives weapons to the kids, and says to the girls, I don't intend you to use them because weapons are ugly when women fight. I just came off doing two films which I think were empowering to girls -- the Princess Fiona character I think is an empowering character -- and I said to Doug [Grisham, Lewis' stepson], I understand that C.S. Lewis might have had these dated ideals, but at the same time there's no way I could put that in a film . . .

"No way," Adamson says. Why "no way"? Because they aren't politically correct, and don't fit in well with Adamson's own version of feminism. In other words, they may very well be the worldview of the classic, internationally-adored works themselves, but Adamson's ideology trumps that. He doesn't like it, so he won't do it.

An aside: I wasn't thrilled with Peter Jackson being chosen for Lord of the Rings, either. Nothing in his filmography nor lifestyle suggested he was up to it -- yet he did a wonderful job. Having said that, though, I think his worldview and those of his associates did stop them short, in several respects, from doing Tolkien's story the full justice it deserved. But it is far, far better than I feared, and I remind myself of that in re. Adamson.

Nor is this particular item (what Father Christmas says) of any great moment in the story. It isn't that which concerns me. It's Adamson's unhesitating decision not to do something because it offends his worldview. Yet directors all the time put out horrible, repulsive movies, and defend them as being bold, uncompromising, or demanded by the source material. But Adamson can't bear this little passing ding on his feminist creds by a passing remark from a relatively minor character.

How might that willingness to impose his template on Lewis affect greater plot points? Maybe a lot.

Consider these remarks, emphases added:

Question: What about the religious element?

Adamson: I think the ideas of good, evil, forgiveness and sacrifice are very present in the book, and I think that's what makes it so universally appealing. I think the idea of forgiveness is a human condition regardless of your belief or religion . . . it's just something that -- it's an easy thing to say that the world would be a better place with a lot more forgiveness. I didn't think a lot about the religious aspect of the film. I know people have interpreted the book in many different ways over different years. ...I don't know if C.S. Lewis really intended it to be allegorical, but he definitely wrote from a place of his own belief. And a lot of people get that from the book. ...[People] can apply their personal belief and interpret the movie the same way they interpreted the book.

Question: What about the religious references in the film's climatic final battle and that line, 'it is finished.' That's taken straight from the bible.

Adamson: No not intentionally.

Question: It is Finished are words from the Cross.

Adamson: I actually honestly didn't know that. Seriously, I can't believe I didn't know that. The thing that I wanted and the thing I was really going for is for Aslan's sadness and having to get to this point -- there's a moment where Aslan and the White Witch stare at each other at the end as if they're both accepting their fate. He's going to have to kill her. She accepts that she's going to be killed. And to me I didn't want to send home the message that war is an ideal solution. I wanted Aslan to actually regret the fact that he's going to have to kill the White Witch. I wanted a line that he could turn to and really just say -- it's over. It's done.

So, Adamson clearly does not seem to know the first thing about the Bible or Christianity, and feels free to impose his worldview on Lewis' work. These aren't happy discoveries.

On the resurrection factor in the story:

Obviously C.S. Lewis wrote from a point of view based on his own personal beliefs. And the resurrection story is there. But I think it's open to interpretation. I think it's really up to the individual and their own personal beliefs as to how they will receive this film.

How classically post-modern. Adamson generously allows that Lewis had his beliefs and worldview -- but then says that his own story is "up to the individual," and "open to interpretation." In other words, there is no doubt what Lewis meant by his story -- but it's okay for us to make it mean whatever we want.

What troubles me is the lack of humility in approaching such a source. When Adamson produces a body of literature that are still touching, changing and helping hearts and minds after five, six decades -- then maybe I'll accept his right to make such pronouncements. Doing the Shrek movies doesn't even make the needle on tha gauge tremble a little.

Peter Jackson was at his best when he and his partners respected the source, which they mostly did. Listening to their comments on the DVD's, this attitude stands out. When they felt that they had to vary, they really struggled with it, and even occasionally express some misgivings about having done so (i.e. the extreme change to Faramir's character).

Adamson, in these remarks, doesn't display such humility or reverence. He read the books when he was eight, and he feels it's his right to impose his memory and his current template on the books.

To what degree he does so, and with how much violence -- these will determine the film's quality. Grisham's interviews reassure me. Adamson's remarks do not.

POSTSCRIPT: Why does Adamson's hubris in "improving" Lewis remind me of this scene in Braveheart?

Prince Edward's homosexual "lover" has just spoken up and told Longshanks (King Edward I) what he should do. Longshanks asks,

"Who is this person who speaks to me as though I needed his advice?"

Then the king throws him out the window.

Satan and the Democrats

It boggles the mind to think that Satan evidently thinks he actually has a shot, actually runs the show, actually might win. One of the most astonishing narratives in history has to be Matthew 4. In this chapter, Satan tries to tempt the Lord Jesus to commit Deicide and suicide at the same time. (Give yourself a moment to mull that one over.)

And then he tries again.

And then he tries again.

You think that's insane, and I agree. But with that thought, a second has ruefully followed: given the way most professing believers think and live, can you really blame him? Here we are, however-many-thousands of years later than Genesis 3 -- and we're still falling for the same old line, like a trout striking at the same lure a painful second and third time. The sequence plays out every day: Tempt/fall! Tempt/fall! Tempt/fall!

With so many of us playing the gullible fool so readily and so cheaply, how could he not think he was doing pretty well?

I think of this when I see how the Democrats are pretty much running the House and the Senate these days.

How can they think they talk and act as if they were in charge, in spite of electoral loss after electoral loss, and increasing ideological self-marginalization and repeated humiliations in every arena?

Then, bitterly, comes the second and better question: given the way the (oxymoron alert) "Republican leadership" comports itself, how can they not?

Phil Johnson makes my day -- twice in a row!

First, Wednesday, Phil says incredibly gracious things about my Bill Clinton and the woefully-misnamed "continuationalists" post. This is just a little like preaching a sermon, then having Charles Spurgeon pop up afterwards, shake your hand and say, "Not bad, kid."

Then today, I'm listening to my CD of Phil's historical survey on The Story of Calvinism. In the course of his talk, Phil almost offhandedly remarked that Augustine was 56 years old when he began doing his most important and lastingly significant work. Phil -- for reasons I can't begin to image, given his accomplishments -- said that he finds that fact encouraging.

Not as encouraging as this pentegenarian, I'm pretty sure.

Will Phil do it again tomorrow?

UPDATE: Yes! He did! I made it to Phil's "Interesting" blogroll! Woo hoo! And it's the weekend! Does it get any better than this? (Well, OK, yes -- but this is pretty danged cool!)

Bill Clinton and the woefully-misnamed "continuationalists"

So, if "continuationalists" were really "continuationalists," wouldn't that mean that they believe in the continuation of revelatory and attestational gifts just like in Biblical days?

If they believe in any discontinuity, then isn't it the case that they are not really "continuationalists"?

And if that is true, then isn't it really the fact that all Christians are "cessationists"?

And doesn't it then become a question of how much cessation we see, and why?

That would seem to me to be the Biblical and logical choice.

But then there is the Bill Clinton option, and that's the one for which most continuationalists opt today.

I take it as a premise that no sane, Bible-believing Christian really, seriously tries to argue that it is commonly happening today just as it happened in the apostles' day. Inerrant, canonical Scripture is not being written (pace 1 Corinthians 14:37; 2 Peter 3:15-16, etc.). And however many people may or may not be regaining their sense of smell or getting over back-aches, it certainly is not the case that the preponderant and undeniable nature and quantity of bona fide miracles are leaving unbelievers scrambling for an explanation (Matthew 12:24; Acts 4:16). Rather, it is the believers who are falling all over themselves trying to explain why these things are not happening.

So folks are left with basically two options: admit that there is a chasm, a cessation, and deal with it -- OR the Bill Clinton option.

What's the Bill Clinton option?

Well, before he even lied his way into the Presidency, Bill Clinton was hounded by reports of his unwillingness to keep a promise — specifically, the promise he made to his wife, when they wed. Now, he could have admitted that fact, and dealt with it by repentance and genuine Christian faith. Or he could have admitted it, said he had no intention of dealing with it, and if folks didn't like it, that was just tough for them.

Instead, what he did was to drag down all other Presidents and leaders to his level. That's what it means to "Clinton down": to appear bigger, by making the truly-big appear small.

What he did (and still does! I just heard him do it!) is say, "Now you listen! If you want to say I'm not fit to be President/wasn't a great President, then you'll have to say all these other Presidents aren't great either -- because they all did it too!"

And so he made/makes himself great, by making everyone else small, contemptible, and shabby -- like himself.

Thus, what "continuationalists" have tried to do in recent times is say that the miracles of the apostles, and the prophecies of the prophets, weren't really that great after all. Denying the clear and pan-Biblical definition of prophet (grounded in Deuteronomy 18, and a few hundred other locii), as well as the overall impact of apostolic signs and wonders, they say the apostles and prophets failed, and they made mistakes, too. They're just like the modern aspirants.

So they, like Bill Clinton, raise themselves up by dragging others down. Their "miracles" are legit, because the real articles weren't such a big deal after all.

And in so doing, the hope evidently is that all of us will simply overlook what Phil Johnson has pointed out in his way (here, and here, and here) , and what I have pointed out in mine (here, and here): that their movement has never produced anything genuinely of apostolic class. Never!

Not much of a "continuation," is it?

And certainly no gain for the Body of Christ, at all.

Maybe we should just busy ourselves with reading, studying, learning, believing, doing, teaching and proclaiming God's inerrant and abiding Word. Novel thought, eh?

Not really (John 8:31-32; Matthew 28:18-20).

Book Review: God Is the Gospel, by John Piper

God Is the Gospel: meditations on God's love as the gift of himself,

by John Piper. Crossway Books: 2005; 190pp.

John Piper's writing has had a great and uplifting impact on my Christian life. His book Future Grace was used by God to lift me out of a deep pattern of depression. I've also benefited from Desiring God, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy, and others of his writings.

This book is subtitled "Meditations on God's Love as the Gift of Himself." Its contents are pretty well summed-up between the title and the subtitle.

The Good. One of the first factors to strike me about this book was the saying, "It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness."

There is definitely a crucial role for writing books and essays leveling Biblical criticisms against bad teaching and bad trends. Certainly the examples of the apostles and prophets bears this out fully. Part of a shepherd's job is to warn against wolves, and steer the sheep in the opposite direction. So I fully endorse truthful, humbly-bold Biblical assessments of destructive and dangerous trends, naming names and citing sources.

But Piper here has, I think, taken the other option. He shows us that it can be a very good option, too. He rarely if ever quotes a false or defective teacher, yet it is plain that at least part of what he is doing is meant to counter the me-centered, sinner-sensitive, faddish, man-exalting ministries of -- well, Piper didn't want to name anyone, so I won't either. Names aren't the point here, anyway.

What Piper does instead is to light one big, blazing candle: the fact that the whole point of the Gospel, in its entirety as well as in its several parts, is to bring us to God. The Gospel tells how Christ came to redeem a people for His Father, to accomplish forgiveness, redemption, regeneration, propitiation, adoption, justification -- so that we can stand before God forgiven, freed, and clothed with His own righteousness. The first citation is of 1 Peter 3:18, "Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God." That sounds his theme excellently.

And so again and again, Piper shows us Biblically that the point of the Gospel is not that we be forgiven, redeemed, justified, sanctified -- in isolation. It is that those realities be made ours by Christ so that we can have a relationship with God, in which He is our life, our light, our glory, our fascination, our God.

Here are some notable passages from the book:

My burden in this book is to make as clear as I can that preachers can preach on these great aspects of the gospel and yet never take people to the goal of the gospel. Preachers can say dozens of true and wonderful things about the gospel and not lead people to where the gospel is leading (p. 41)

Propitiation, redemption, forgiveness, imputation, sanctification, liberation, healing, heaven -- none of these is good news except for one reason: they bring us to God for our everlasting enjoyment of him (p. 47)

...people who would be happy in heaven if Christ were not there, will not be there. The gospel is not a way to get people to heaven; it is a way to get people to God. It's a way of overcoming every obstacle to everlasting joy in God. If we don't want God above all things, we have not been converted by the gospel (p. 47)

Conversion is the spiritual discovery that being loved by God is not the divine endorsement of our passion for self-exaltation (p. 151)

There are a lot of other things I really like about this book as well, of varying import.

Piper (or someone) has repented of the "sin" marring his other books, of indulging in endnotes. There simply is no excuse, anymore, for endnotes. Ever. If it doesn't need to be said, don't say it. If it must be said, put it right there, on the page, for the reader to see. If the reader doesn't want to see it, he doesn't have to. If he does want to read it, he shouldn't have to keep two bookmarks, and keep turning back and forth. I do hope Piper and his publishers stick to this newfound virtue.

Also, Piper or someone has repented of the sin of changing God's name in Bible quotations. If a writer regularly changed passages that called Jesus "Jesus" into "Lord" or "Christ," it would be bothersome. No less so in OT quotations. It's bad enough that English translations perpetuate the unbelieving Jewish superstition of hiding "Yahweh" behind "LORD." Worse, in his earlier books, Piper (or his publisher) would work a second change, converting "LORD" to "Lord," so that the reader had NO way of knowing that the original text referenced Yahweh instead of 'adonay ("Lord"). He could not trust Piper's quotation, and that is bad. Glad to see it changed in this book.

Also, every other paragraph doesn't mention "Christian hedonism" anymore. I'm glad if the excellent Dr. Piper has gotten that out of his system. I doubt he's dropped the phrase, which is (in my humble opinion) a bad label for a good idea; but he may have outgrown the need to machine-gun it into our vocabulary. And that's a good thing.

The Bad. "This was especially relevant to my wife and I"(p. 133) Ouch! That's what editors get paid to catch. Someone did not earn his pay.

The, Well, Could-Be-Better. Suppose Dr. Piper were to drop by my home and take me aside. Suppose he were to begin, "Daniel, my brother, you are other than me." I'd be too shocked to correct his grammar, of course, and would nod for him to continue. Suppose he said, "I feel stagnant as a writer. I feel I'm repeating myself, rutted, not stretching and growing. What should I do? Do you have any suggestions?" I'd say sure, I have some suggestions... if you really, really want to hear them. If he said he did, I'd say something like this:

"I think you may be right. You are repeating yourself, and I think you could benefit by rising to a challenge. So, for the next book you write, make four resolutions, brother, and stick to them.

"First, do not reprint or retread any of your other books. Just say 'no' to self-reference. Dude, in this book you re-tread previous writings at least six times! I counted! 'The next three pages are taken from my book, _____.' 'The next two paragraphs are from my book, _____.' Goodness, you even pre-tread a book that isn't published yet, on page 162! On top of that, you refer readers to your other books at least eleven times. Your index shows references to 'Piper, John' on seventeen pages.

"John, buddy, brother -- if you haven't anything new to say, just don't. Write fresh material. Append an annotated bibliography of your other books, if you have to get that out of your system. Goodness, F. F. Bruce wrote about fifty-eight thousand books and articles, but I don't remember his writings being pockmarked with constant allusions to them. My memory may be faulty, or it may have been British modesty on the late Dr. Bruce's part, but it was a good practice.

"Second, try writing a whole book without using any form of the word 'savor' even once. I know you love that word. Heavens above, we all know you love that word. But overuse has made it lose its impact in your writings. Use your thesaurus, and find another five or six words or phrases to use, instead -- and use them. Your readers are losing the savor for 'savor.'

"Third, unless you want to title your book 'What Jonathan Edwards Said About ______,' don't quote Edwards anymore. We all know you love him. If we didn't know it before, this book would surely convince us. Your index shows thirty-one pages referring to him, and I think even that is short.

"So it's okay, you've made your point, you really, really love Jonathan Edwards. You're on record. Now say what you have to say. Don't be like the scribes and elders, telling us 'Rabbi X said....'

"And just between you and me, you're actually a better writer than the admirable but bloodless Edwards, anyway. So speak in your own voice.

"Fourth, I'll pass along to you the one idea of abiding value that I got out of my Pastoral Ministry class at Talbot. Picture a reader out there, outlandishly dressed, weird-looking, someone who captures your attention. He's a foreigner. He may even be an alien from another planet. He only has your next book to read. What's more, he only knows three words in English, and he keeps saying them over and over as he reads your book.

"They are, 'Tell me how!'

"See, brother, you've been a pastor a long time. Surely you've ministered, in person, to actual flesh-and-blood individuals whose lives have been changed by being gripped by the truths you preach. Surely you have some illustrations that will put shoe-leather on those truths, and tell us how they walk and talk. The Bible certainly does that, both laying things down prescriptively, and fleshing them out descriptively, in story after story.

"If you're reluctant about telling other people's stories, remember that the Bible isn't. Do what James Herriott (-- not even the author's real name!) did in his All Creatures Great and Small books. He told dozens of other people's stories, but he fiddled with the names and places so that no one would be embarrassed. Do that.

"By the way, that's one of George Lucas' shortcomings as a filmmaker. Mark Steyn pithily observed that Lucas has to have his characters say things like, 'I love you," because he's incapable of showing us. Don't just tell us we need to do those things -- show us.

"Now, of course, in that last point, I'm assuming that it is the case. You seem like a people-person, as a pastor must be. I'm assuming that you aren't like my impression of another very well-known pastor-writer, who (I've been given to understand) 'has people to deal with people.' In my opinion, his speaking and writing really show that fact, and they're the worse for it. I almost totally agree with him doctrinally, but I have to preface everything he says with 'Theoretically....'

"You don't want to be like that. A good shepherd knows his sheep. He doesn't just know people who know his sheep. He lives with them, he feeds them, he leads them, he protects them, and if need be he lays down his life for them.

"If your success has gotten you into that position of isolation, I'd recommend that you change your schedule. Switch roles with some lesser being for a few years. Deal with people, and see more how the truths you write about are lived out.

'Then tell us about it, in your next book, even if we have to wait five years for it."

In sum, I do recommend this book. It's God-honoring, Christ-exalting, and Biblically-based. Having said that, I do hope Pastor Piper perhaps slows his production, and puts a bit more into his future works. The church will be the better for it.

NOTE: I received this book as a gift from the publisher through Mind & Media. This is the first time I've done a review for that site.

"Cessationism": ragged dress for a rich lady

Why is it that the better words, names, titles are always held by the poorer positions? Why are the better positions so often forced to take leftovers, or tarred by negative words, words that define the position by what it isn't, or by what it rejects?

Take the matter of abortion. If the thought of ripping a living baby to pieces for the high crime of being imperfect or inconvenient doesn't trouble you, what are you? Anti-life? No. Anti-baby? No. Pro-infanticide? No. You're pro-choice. That sounds like a nice, uplifting, affirming, positive thing.

And if you think that babies should be valued and protected, that people really should not be allowed to have babies killed thus, what are you? Pro-life? Well, yes, to yourself. But to most of the world you're anti, you're defined by what you oppose. You're anti-abortion, or even anti-choice.

Take some of the better church names. All of these are great, Biblical names owned by groups either with cultish or at least defective doctrine(s):

The Way
The Church of Christ
The Church of God
Jehovah's Witnesses
Children of God

Assemblies of God
Latter-Day Saints

Churches with more Biblical doctrine are left to style themselves by names highlighting relatively minor issues. Baptist. Presbyterian. Independent Fundamentalist. Evangelical Free. Lutheran.

All this brings me to cessationism.

For years, since leaving Charismatic (ah! another lovely, positive-sounding label!) doctrine for what I believe to be a more Biblical position, I had nothing at all to call myself. I had to describe myself, without a label. That's not altogether bad, of course, but it's not so catchy or memorable. That, or I had to use a negative: non-Charismatic. Thus I couldn't describe what I did believe; I had to describe myself by what I no longer believed.

Then along comes -- drumroll -- "Cessationism." And so yet again, I'm describing myself by what I don't believe, or by what I believe is no longer happening, or used-to-happen-but-no-longer-does. Sigh.

This is sad, to me, because I believe that it is a robust, fulsome, wonderful position. It is the position held by most Biblically-oriented Christians throughout the ages, insofar as they thought about it at all.

Of course, for most of church history they didn't have to get into it too deeply. Prior to 1906, no Christian group seriously argued that revelational gifts were to be expected in Christian circles. Like the modern position that God has a pinpoint will, that if you didn't listen to that still, small voice of the Holy Spirit that the Bible never calls us to seek after, you would buy the wrong brand of beans and end up out of God's three-atom-wide will forever.

So you don't see, in earlier writers, the sort of precise re-examination of texts like 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 that modern times have mae necessary. I don't know if John Owen ever said "Duh!" in his life, but if you'd asked him whether or not the Bible really contains all we need as Christians to know, serve, and glorify God, he might have been tempted to invent it.

But now, tragically (in my view), all this has changed. The notion that the Bible isn't quite complete, isn't quite sufficient; that it contains "[p]robably [only] 95 per cent of all the guidance we need as Christians" (as Pat Robertson wrote), has spread in Christian churches like a nasty rash. No longer is the wildfire advocate on the defensive, expected to defend his position; it is the man or woman who affirms the Bible's sufficiency who is thought extreme and radical and out-of-it.

And we're stuck with the label "Cessationist." Pathetic.

Listen to how I defined the doctrine of Scripture, when I authored a Statement of Faith for a church I labored to plant:

The thirty-nine books known as the Hebrew Old Testament are God-breathed, products of the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, and thus free from error in all that they affirm (cf. Deuteronomy 18:18, 19; Psalms 19:7, 8; 119:89, 142, 151, 160; Matthew 5:17-19; John 10:35; 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21).

Similarly, the twenty-seven books known as the Greek New Testament are the eternally abiding words of Jesus Christ (Matthew 24:35), and are thus the words of God (John 7:16; 12:49). The Holy Spirit enabled the writers both to recall what the Lord said (John 14:26), and to continue to receive His revelation (John 16: 12-15). As a result, the writings of the New Testament are the commandment of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37), are Scripture (2 Peter 3:15, 16), and are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16).

For this reason, the sinner finds the way of salvation through Scripture (Romans 10:17; 2 Timothy 3:15; Hebrews 2: 1-3). The believer is made fruitful (Psalm 1:2, 3) and successful in the will of God (Joshua 1:8), warned and kept from sin (Psalms 19:11; 119:9,11), made holy (John 17:17), given wisdom (Psalm 9:7) and freeing knowledge of the truth (John 8: 31, 32), taught the fear of God (Psalm 119:38), counseled (Psalm 119:24), taught, reproved, corrected, and disciplined in the way of righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) by Scripture. Scripture is, in short, the fully adequate revelation of the person, ways, and will of God.

Does that sound like a negative, or even a defensive position? Does that sound like a what-I-don't-believe position? After all, all it really is is a summarizing, a weaving-together of what the Bible says about itself, what all of us as Christians are called and bound to believe. These Biblical truths are magnificent, glorious, joyous claims that should excite, thrill, bless, embolden, and motivate every Christian to deepening confidence in and reliance upon the Word of God.

In fact, read that over again. Or just read 2 Timothy 3:15-17 alone. Then ask yourself these questions -- which, itself, I think are fatal to the open-Canon position necessarily held de facto by Charismaticism: "What more do I need? What did God leave out? What did He neglect to say?"

After you've seriously thought those through, ask yourself this: "What has almost one hundred years of Charismatic/Pentecostal/open-Canon blithering added to Biblical revelation?"

Let me unpack that a bit. Every day of the week, on TV and in churches and in home fellowships, people are claiming to hear God speak apart from Scripture. People are speaking in God's name. People impersonate God and speak as Isaiah and Jeremiah did: "Thus saith the Lord" (God often still uses Jacobean English, apparently).

What syllable of necessary truth has one hundred years of this nonsense added to Christendom? What new doctrine, what light on an old doctrine, has ever been added by these supposedly revelational activities?

Note, I do not ask what Charismatics have added. There are and have been many fine folks who, in my opinion, are mistaken in this one area, but who have contributed some wonderful labor and teaching, in spite of their Charismaticism. Take Wayne Grudem. When he's not spouting nonsense about semi-hemi-demi revelations still going on through erring-but-genuine prophets, he teaches some wonderful, Biblical doctrine. His Systematic Theology is a great book.
But what have literally hundreds of millions of supposedly prophetic experiences added to the Bible? Have they really filled in that missing 5% that Robertson sees?

Think of it. I just got home from church, where the pastor preached from something written almost 2000 years ago (Ephesians 4). If the Lord tarries, pastors will still preach from that same text 2000 years from now.

But during that same hour, in countless other churches, "the Lord" was "speaking" apart from the Scriptures. Yet I would put good money on the proposition that not one word that "He" "said" will be remembered one year from now, let alone one hundred, or one thousand.

This "open-Canon" position has produced nothing in the last century but meaningless trivia or rehashes of Scripture at best, or distractions and false prophecy at worst. Not a good track record, when the argument is made that the same august Spirit who breathed Genesis 1, Psalm 23, Isaiah 40, and Romans 8 is supposedly speaking through these prophets -- or, as I prefer to call them, "pop-offets."

So, given the richness and fulsomeness of the position, why are we stuck with such a pallid, puny label? Can't someone come up with a better one?

I've been unable. The "closed-Canon" position sounds equally negative, and the same folks who are de facto open-Canoners are de jure closed-Canoners. "Really-closed-Canon"? Nah. How about "sufficient Scripture"? Again, formally many Charismatics affirm that position, whileactually undermining it in fact with every argument for their stance. "Really-sufficient-Scripture"? Nah. "Completed revelation"? Better, but clumsy.

Maybe some unheard-of faithful laborer with a flock of 27 in Nowhere, Missouri has the perfect term. If so, brother, tell me, and I'll spread the word. Because this beautiful lady deserves a beautiful garment, not a burlap bag.

[NOTE: my mind ran down these lines partly due the Phil Johnson starting a related (but different) thread of thought, first with Invasion of the evangelical soothsayers, and then with Rubber prophecies. Be sure to track Phil's upcoming posts on this subject. Don't know whether he's as "hardcore" as I on this issue, but I am sure he'll be worth reading.]

UPDATE: I love the way Dave Ulrick styles the modern Charismatic's un-Biblical notion of prophecy as Two tiers of inspiration. Great read -- go there. In fact, you could say the same for every revelatory or sign gift attested in the New Testament, and anemically imitated today: "you can't have that, but" -- moderns have a pale facsimile, complete with "explanation." They're all "two-tier": the real item, and the modern cheap knock-off.

Jollyblogger wades in as well, bringing the discussion forward with some links, as well as comments of his own.

Phil himself rises from his sneezebed to contribute Spurgeon on private prophecies and new revelation. This Spurgeon-lover found it a fascinating read. Phil both provides passages from CHS used by charismatics to indicate that the great man was in their camp, as well as flat denials that we should look anywhere but to Scripture, or give over the use of our judgment, in walking with the Lord. None of the passages used by the open-Canon set indicate any such thing. At the most, they are times when Spurgeon later came to see that something he did or said was providentially used by God. Not one is an instance of him setting aside his Bible, slapping his mental gearshift into Neutral, and looking to peeps and mutters to tell him what to do.

UPDATE II: Ray over at Observations and Opinions issues A Call to Brotherhood, reminding us to watch our tone in this discussion. It is worth the read if only for this well-worded apothegm: "We are known by our fruits, NOT by our gifts."

UPDATE III: Jollyblogger makes a great contribution on the topic of providence, reflecting a bit of what I said just above but from a slightly different angle, in The Doctrine of Providence and the Charismatic Debate (h-t to the indispensable Phil Johnson who -- and this is really getting on my nerves -- has yet more helpful comments, with specific illustrations (and photos!) to the discussion).

UPDATE IV: Rob Wilkerson has a ton of links to contributions to this discussion in A Running and Terribly Disorganized List of Online Resources for the Charismatic Pillow Fight and A Theological Pillow Fight (Updated 11/11/05) . (Somehow, in all his comprehensiveness, he missed my little widow's mite. Sniff!)

Dude... finish your sentence (if you're not too chicken)

So here's Robert Gordon, on Slate, raising the alarm that Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., will actually be more conservative than Justice Scalia. Music to my ears, of course, but perhaps a funeral dirge to Gordon's.

One sentence stood out like a pimple on a teenager's forehead:

Both men [Scalia and Alito] tout their own restraint in deferring to majorities that step on individual rights (including a woman's decision whether to bear a child).

Muse on that one, that last fragment: "...a woman's decision whether to bear a child." It's a child, Gordon admits. (Oopsie.) The woman has a "decision" about that child: "whether to bear" the "child."

That thought is incomplete, though, isn't it? She has a decision "whether to bear" the child -- or what? Whether to bear it or what?

Or have it killed.

But Mr. Gordon doesn't finish his own thought. Maybe he can't. It appears that the former law clerk for pro-abort Justice Ruth "Darth" Bader ("Luke -- I will not be your mother!") Ginsburg has a shameful position, a position that cannot be defended in the full light of day. He has to phrase it just so, or the jig is up, the curtain is pulled aside, and it's all over for the pro-babykilling set. Most Americans don't favor the indiscriminate killing of inconvenient or imperfect babies.

Watch for that, and you'll notice The Missing "Or" in all pro-abort rhetoric. The pro-abortion stance is a position that has to be assumed, chanted, or forced. It cannot be explained, examined, and defended.

Jesus said it, and of course He was right. Build your house on His words, and it will stand. Don't, and it won't (Matthew 7).

Gordon's won't.