The Big Problem With Sin

Okay, so I've been seeing this really odd (read: completely false) doctrine about sin going around lately. Now, any doctrine about sin is going to be central to any form of Christian theology because the entirety of Christianity is centered on Jesus dying for the sins of His people. Why exactly did Jesus have to die for our sins? Our understanding of sin will influence our answer to this question.

The doctrine, or I suppose idea, about sin I've seen going around is basically that God's wrath is not on sinners but on sin itself. He hates sin because of what it does to us. People aren't punished because of their sin, they're punished by their sin, and that's why God hates sin.

So, what are the implications of this doctrine? Well, on one hand God is apparently so angry with sin He feels the need to take it out on people who are its apparent victims. Sin is some evil thing that God hates so much that people die in the wake of His trying to stop it. Just read the Old Testament. How many people die because of sin?

Either that or sin is not under God's sovereignty. In Acts 5 (New Testament, for those of you who disregard the Old), Ananias and Sapphira lied to God by saying they gave all of the money they earned when in reality they only gave some. What happened? They died. If God doesn't punish people for their sin, then we can only conclude that sin in its apparently mighty power killed them. It's either that or God killed them because He hates that sin punishes people. If you're confused, don't worry. So am I.

So if sin is just something that God hates because it's a bad thing that hurts people, why did Jesus have to die for it? Couldn't God have just said to us, "Hey, don't worry about it, that nasty old sin is just mean to you"? "You just made a mistake and sin punished you for it, but I'm gonna make it all better"? Or was sin just so powerful that Jesus had to go on the cross to take the punishment that mean old sin was going to give us? Did sin kill Jesus?

Let's think Biblically for a second. Isaiah 53:10 gives us the answer to this question: "Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; he has put him to grief." Whose will was it that Jesus would die? God's will. Not only did God will it, but He is the one who crushed Him! Sin didn't kill Jesus, God did.

So the question then becomes this: "Why did God kill Jesus?" Was He just so angry at sin that He had to kill something? No. "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). When we sin, we earn death. That's what a wage is, it's something we earn for what we do. But who do we earn it from? Sin? Satan? No, God. Romans 1:29-32 tells us that God has declared that those who sin deserve to die. Why would we deserve to die when we sin if God only hates sin because of what it does to us? Couldn't He declare that "Sin deserves to die" without having to kill sin's poor, helpless victims? Or is God so inept that He has to kill sinners because of what sin has done in order to stop it? (I have a hard time even writing that.)

Now of course sin deserves to die. The Bible tells us to kill our sin. And I'm certain God hates what sin does to us, how it separates us from Him. But is that ultimately why He hates sin?

No. God hates sin because He is a holy and just and good God. God's very nature demands justice in response to evil. He is offended by sin because it violates His perfect sense of justice and His created order. He can't even be in the presence of sin, lest those who sin die. Why else would God judge, not just sin, but the world itself and the people in it? The wages of sin is death, and God takes that very seriously. He takes it so seriously, in fact, that He sent Jesus to live a perfect life, killed Him in our place rather than kill us for our sin and, through a great mystery, exchanged our sin for His righteousness and perfection.

That leads to the next problem. Yes, God hates sin. But how does sin happen? We sin. We are the sinners. We are the objects of God's wrath. One proponent of the false doctrine of sin says that every time God's wrath is displayed, it is directed at sin, not at people. I wonder, then, how he would explain this:

Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble, and as dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom go up like dust; for they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts, and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel. Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against his people, and he stretched out his hand against them and struck them, and the mountains quaked; and their corpses were as refuse in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger has not turned away, and his hand is stretched out still. (Isaiah 5:24-25, emphasis added)

Notice here that God is clearly displaying His wrath, not just towards sin, but "his people." He is angry with people for their heinous sins, and He acts justly towards it.

Someone will probably say something about how, since that's the Old Testament, it doesn't apply to us. But does God change? Is God wrathful towards people in one era and then has no wrath in the next? Why then the final judgment? What needs to be judged if there's no wrath? What do you do with the fact that people are still going to hell? God is the one sending people to hell, not sin (Matthew 13:41-42, New Testament). Certainly it is because of sin that people are going to hell, but don't say that sin is so powerful that it sends people to hell and God has nothing to do with it.

People will probably accuse me of preaching law instead of grace or something like that. "Where's the love, man?" Well, I would say I am being loving by exposing this false and harmful teaching for what it is: wrong. People need to know the truth. For the Gospel to be taught correctly, people need to know that they deserve hell. God is, in fact, angry at sin and sinners. They need to know that God, knowing our helplessness, has given us a way to be saved and redeemed despite not deserving it: His Son, Jesus Christ. God loves sinners. It is very easy to both love and be angry with someone at the same time. Any marriage, any parent-child relationship will tell you that. People also need to know that, after being saved, they need to live like it, not to stay saved, but because they already are saved. If they refuse to live like saved people, then are they actually saved?

I'm tired of half-Gospels being preached all the time by mainstream Christianity. We need the real, full Gospel. People will not be saved otherwise. Jesus did not care about offending anyone or harming anyone's sensibilities. He taught the truth, the whole truth.

DYF: Hume's Critique of Causality and the Basic Reliability of Sense Perception - My Thoughts

Phew! That post title is a doozy!

Despite its long title, the chapter actually turned out to be a fairly simple one. As the title indicates, Sproul talks about David Hume's critique of causality and the basic reliability of sense perception. Although it originally sounded like it was going to be about two different topics, it was actually about two connected topics: the reliability of the five senses.

Hume made a critique about causality that, apparently like most arguments that philosophers made, wound up being very misunderstood. A lot of people held and still hold that Hume argued against causality in general, and believe that he disproved and demolished it. But actually, he didn't so much argue against causality as he did against sense perception.

Hume argued that, while effects do have causes, we cannot truly perceive those causes with our five senses. He said that we only see things and then make assumptions about them. We only assume that it's the rain that makes the grass wet. We only assume that someone punching a guy in the face broke the guy's nose. But our senses aren't truly reliable. They are severely limited and can't tell us what really caused what.

Sproul's argument for the basic reliability of our senses is a lot simpler than I expected. He says, along with Immanuel Kant, that if our senses are unreliable, we can't know anything. If our senses aren't reliable, all of science falls apart because science is about making observations. He doesn't argue that our senses are infallible; they can certainly deceive us. But he argues that they are basically reliable. They must be because they are the only window we have to the physical world. We have to rely on them. Hume is correct in that our senses are limited in what they can perceive. But they are not unreliable.

This is Biblical as well. Sproul cites 2 Peter 1:16-18 as Biblical evidence for the reliability of eyewitness testimony:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased," we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

Notice the wording Peter uses here. "We did not follow cleverly devised myths...we were eyewitnesses of his majesty...we ourselves heard this very voice borne for heaven...we were with him on the mountain." Peter is arguing that he heard and saw the glory of Christ with his own eyes and ears, and that was proof to him that this whole Jesus thing wasn't some kind of crazy made-up story. If his senses were unreliable, then this would mean absolutely nothing. But clearly this has to hold weight for us Christians, because otherwise this passage of Scripture means nothing to us.

So our senses aren't perfect, nor are they absolutely transcendent. But they are reliable. They need to be. We need them to be. Otherwise, how can we know anything about the world around us? How could prophets and apostles know what God spoke to them? How can we know a God who gave us a book through which He communicates with us? If our senses are unreliable, how can we understand this book? How could the apostles and prophets hear God and know what He said? If our senses are unreliable, we couldn't understand the Bible. The apostles and prophets could not have understood God properly. But if our senses are reliable, then we can understand. We can "taste and see that the LORD is good" (Psalm 34:8).

God Knows What We Need

Observations From My Study (Mark 11:25-30)

Earlier this week I wrote about cross references and their usefulness for correctly interpreting Scripture. Today I've got a short Bible study built on the usage of cross references that was a real eye-opener to me on how important prayer really is.

Let's take a look at today's passage:

As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said to him, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed has withered." And Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God. Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." (Mark 11:25-30)

So this passage is about faith in God and faith through prayer. We are to be faithful in our prayers, knowing that God hears and answers. The main point that I'm trying to make is based off of a cross reference in verse 24 to Matthew 6:8: "[Y]our Father knows what you need before you ask him." Now, think about that. God, the Almighty, the Lord of the Universe, knows what we, the church, need before we even ask. That doesn't mean we shouldn't ask; it means we should, and we should rest assured that God knows what we need and will provide.

God doesn't always answer "Yes." Sometimes we pray for something that is not what God wills. Sometimes God answers "Yes" but it takes time or He answers in a manner we don't expect. The point is that God knows what we need and will always provide that for us, because He knows what we need. He made us! And it's important to remember that there's a difference between what we need and what we think we need. God knows what we truly need, and He will always, always provide.

DYF: The Law of Causality - My Thoughts

This chapter introduces the reader to the law of causality, the idea of causes and effects.

Now, before I continue, I have an apology to make. A few posts ago I defined the law of causality as simply everything having a cause. As it turns out, however, that definition is wrong, and I'm sorry I misinformed you. What this law really states is that "Every effect has a cause." This is important, and I'll get to that in a minute. Once again Sproul's basis for this seems to be Aristotle, though I suppose Aristotle is probably a good basis to work off of what it comes to logic, seeing as he defined it.

One very important facet of this idea is that it's true by definition. An effect, by definition, is caused by something; it always has a cause, something or someone that caused it to be. Likewise, a cause, by definition, is something or someone that brings something about. A cause literally causes something, it always results in an effect of some kind. So every effect has a cause, and every cause has an effect. Neither can exist without the other.

Now, the reason this is important is because it gives us a reason why we don't need to say what caused God to exist unless we can define God as an "effect" of something. If God is eternal, then He has always existed, and thus nothing could have caused Him to come into being, thus He is not an effect. How can He be eternal if something brought Him into existence? If that were the case, then whatever brought God into existence is the truly eternal thing, and God is no longer the everlasting God (and thus, not God). So logically, the Biblical account of God's existence - that is, that He has always existed - seems to be a totally valid option.

This law has been historically misunderstood by some people trying to argue that it doesn't exist, or is otherwise not necessary. John Stuart Mill in particular made the same error I did when he argued against it; he believed the law of causality stated that everything had to have a cause. The problem with that, he argued, is that it leads to a never-ending cycle of causes. If something caused the universe to come into being, what caused that something to exist? Then, what caused that something that caused that something to exist? One could continue that cycle for eternity. But since that's not what the law states, one doesn't have to do that. Logic allows for some eternal something or someone.

This leaves open one question, at least in my mind. There are those who argue, or have argued, that the universe has simply always existed. Nothing caused it; it has just always been. So far as I can tell, this law by itself allows for such a thing. But Biblically, that's not what happened. God created the universe. So how does one argue for an eternal God instead? I know this question is answered later in the book, so I look forward to finding out.

DYF: Contradiction, Paradox, and Mystery - My Thoughts

This chapter turned out to be much easier to grasp than the last one, probably because rather than trying to argue a point, the author was merely defining a few terms: contradiction, paradox, and mystery. It's a pretty simple distinction to make, honestly, and an important one.

According to Sproul, the first two words, contradiction and paradox, are commonly used interchangeably. This, he says, is a mistake, as they mean two different things. While our contemporary definition shows them as synonyms, Sproul argues that this is only resulted from general misuse of the terms. He gives the correct, historical definitions for this chapter.

Contradiction

A contradiction is a logical error, something that simply does not make sense and cannot be understood to be meaningful because of its absurdity. This is like saying that the iPad I'm typing both is and isn't an iPad. It's either one or the other; it can't be both. We can't understand how it can possibly be both an iPad and not an iPad at the same time because that's a contradiction. It can't be resolved at all.

Paradox

A paradox is something that, while seeming to be a contradiction at first glance, really isn't a contradiction at all. The best paradox I can think of is one that Sproul uses himself in this chapter: the doctrine of the Trinity.

The doctrine of the Trinity holds that God is one God yet three persons. He is both one and three. That sounds like a contradiction, right? Well, on closer inspection we discover it's not. God is one in essence but three in person. He is one in one way and three in a completely different way. This is not a contradiction at all, only a paradox.

Mystery

Finally, there is mystery. A mystery is simply something that is logical, but is not known at the time. It may be that it can't be known or fully understood; God is an infinite being, and we as finite beings can never fully understand Him. However, it may be that a mystery can be known with further investigation and study. Either way, it's something that makes logical sense. That differentiates it from a contradiction, which cannot be known or understood because it makes no logical sense.

So, contradiction, paradox, and mystery. All of them are important things for us to understand if we wish to logically discuss the Gospel, or anything in general. At least Sproul says so. I'm not far into the book, so we haven't got to the part about defending the Gospel yet. I look forward to that.

Cross References

I've given suggestions on Bible study tools in the past. I've also talked about how there are many tools for the layman and how the Bible was not written only for "professional Christians" but for the entire church. But today I'm going to talk about the one man-made Bible study tool I would recommend to everyone.

Due to my general lack of blog post creativity, you probably already know what I'm talking about: cross references!

You may have seen them before in your Bible. You know all those little letters in the middle of words in the Bible verses? If you see them, you may also see those letters with verse numbers next to them. Here's a picture uploaded by St. Luke's Lutheran Church to demonstrate:

Well, those are a handy reference system given to help you out. What this reference system is doing is pointing the reader to other verses with similarities to the verse being read. In the above case, we see that in verse 16 (indicated by the number in bold), the phrase "God so loved" (indicated by the letter "p" next to the verse reference and in the verse itself) is being cross references with Romans 5:8, Ephesians 2:4, 2 Thessalonians 2:16, and 1 John 3:1 and 4:9-10. Let's look up those verses to see what they have to do with the phrase "God so loved."

Romans 5:8: "But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Ephesians 2:4: "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us"

2 Thessalonians 2:16: "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace,"

1 John 3:1: "See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him."

1 John 4:9-10: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

For some of them (like Ephesians 2:4), the reader may need to read a few more verses (like Ephesians 2:5) to get the picture. But you see what I mean.

So why do I recommend this? Because Scripture is Scripture's best interpreter. We can find common themes through the Bible, we can figure out what is meant by a verse more precisely. And it's available in most regular Bibles (i.e. not study Bibles, though some study Bibles have them too). It's extremely useful and very edifying, if you ask me.

The Bible is God's Word. We should know what it says about itself - that is, what God has to say about it.

Demanding Lord and Delivering Savior

Quotes from Old, Dead Dudes (3/23/2012)

The following quote is from Jim Elliot, a missionary to Ecuador who was martyred by the Waodani Indians in 1956. This quote is taken from a journal entry where he is commenting on the beginning of Jude.

Certain men in the group to whom Jude wrote had turned the grace of God into loose living, denying the only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. This was written for my day: For today I hear of men preaching that grace means freedom to live unrestrained lives apart from any standard of moral purity, declaring "we are not under law, we are under grace." Grace turned into ἀσέλγεια ["licentiousness"]! Combined with this is the twentieth-century heresy that Christ is Savior only by right, Lord by "option" of the "believer." This denial of the only Master and Lord, preach[es] only half of His person, declaring only partially the truth as it is in Jesus Christ[.] [The gospel] must be preached with the full apprehension of who He is, the demanding Lord as well as the delivering Savior. . . . Denial of the lordship of the Lord. That is disobedience which in any way makes pliable the requirement of God, for it makes God not God.

Source: MacArthur, John F. Slave. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010. Print.

- Posted from my blog, Worshiping a Sovereign Lord

 

DYF: The Law of Noncontradiction - My Thoughts

In this chapter, Dr. Sproul begins to talk about the law of noncontradiction, one of the logical rules that must be in place before we can know something. The most important idea is probably the idea of absolute vs. relative truth.

The primary argument for the law of noncontradiction in this chapter is that, without it, we have no way of knowing what is true or false, right or wrong (the moral relativists will love that). In Christianity in particular, without the law of noncontradiction, the entire Bible would be useless to us. If God commands us to do something, we can't disregard it. In the same way, if God commands us not to do something, we can't just go out and do it. That's a Biblical given. But, if the law of noncontradiction didn't exist, who's to say these are absolute commands? How do we know what God's commands are? How do we even know what He is like? Can Jesus have died and not died at the same time? When the Bible says He rose from the grave, could He have not risen from the grave? So we see the law of noncontradiction's necessity to our faith.

Now, the law of contradiction doesn't prove Christianity. All it does is give us a concept of how to think, how to view the world. It gives us a framework for understanding the universe. It's the law that states that I can't be both Sarrah's husband and not be her husband at the same time. To be both would be a clear contradiction. But without the law of noncontradiction, who's to say I can't do that? Or God can't not be God, or not fulfill His attributes. He is an absolute God and a God of absolutes.

This chapter also talks about the problems with relativism (believing something to be true or right for some people and not for others). Sproul also points out that one cannot be a consistent relativist, believing that all truth is relative. For one thing, the idea that all truth is relative (meaning there are no absolutes) is itself an absolute, and the whole idea behind relativism is that it denies absolutes. For it to not be an absolute, one would have to say that only some things are relative, which would mean that some other things are absolute. You see the dilemma? I suppose one could say that there are some relatives and some absolutes. But the fact remains that there are absolutes in our world.

This is also the law that allows us to make certain observations. Sproul gives the example of the phrase "All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal." Logic allows us to add this up and see this to be true. This kind of idea could be applied to a lot of things, like "Heights scare me; the Space Needle is very tall; therefore going on the Space Needle would scare me."

Sproul points out that logic in general wasn't invented by man. When he talks about Aristotle's ideas about logic, he is careful to point out that "Aristotle didn't invent logic; rather he defined it. He argued that logic is a necessary tool for human thinking and communication, as well as a means for us to comprehend the rational structure of the universe." Aristotle did, in fact, affirm the law of noncontradiction in his writing Metaphysics, saying that it is "impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject" (IV.3.8). The reason it is important to note that Aristotle didn't invent logic is because, back in those times (and still today even), there are those that argued that Greek philosophy and what they called "Aristotelian logic" should never be used in conjunction with Christianity. At the time the use of such things was commonly intended to try to prove heresy, and of course it should never be used for that. But why can't logic be used to prove Christianity? Is our faith irrational? Is it based on a blind leap of faith? Some Christians would actually say so. But doesn't the Bible tell us that the one who says there is no God is a fool? (Psalm 14:1, 53:1) Wouldn't the fool be more apt to follow the "irrational" idea that there is a God? By saying Christianity is inherently irrational, we are calling all of the church a bunch of fools! But, Biblically, it is the non-Christians who are foolish, not the Christians.

All in all, this chapter had a lot to absorb. I had to think and re-think about it to grasp it, and that fact means I may not be able to simply write about each chapter every day. There are still three more laws to cover, and this I understand, this one I've always agreed with. So I may be a bit slower in continuing to write about this book, but I'll get it done.

DYF: Introducing the Four Principles - My Thoughts

Now Dr. Sproul introduces what he calls "the four principles of knowledge." What he basically argues is that these four principles are assumed in Scripture, so they are essential to knowledge.

The key seems to be that these four principles need to be shown valid. According to Sproul, the most formidable atheist thinkers have historically argued that at least one of these principles is invalid. Sproul states that if we can show these principles to be valid and essential to knowledge, the atheist will be hard pressed to argue against God without contradicting them, thus falling into irrationality. How can an argument be rational if it denies something required for knowledge of something?

The four principles are:

1. The law of noncontradiction (A cannot be both A and not-A at the same time)
2. The law of causalty (everything has a cause)
3. The basic reliability of sense perception (our senses, while they can deceive us, are generally reliable), and
4. The analogical use of language (while God is separate from us and divine, our human language can make analogies that say meaningful things about Him)

Confused? I am too. The law of contradiction I definitely agree with; I definitely know absolutes exist in this world. Same with the basic reliability of sense perception, although I wonder how this will fit in if God generally can't be seen or heard. It probably has something to do with the eyewitness accounts of the writers of Scripture.

I think the one I'm most interested in is the law of causality. I've heard the argument that everything has a cause many times before. Many Christians say that the universe can't have created itself. But lately I've wondered about a possible atheist counter-argument: what created God? And then if we say He's just always existed (which I wholeheartedly believe), aren't we seemingly contradicting ourselves since there is something (someone) with no cause for existence? I know Sproul talks about this later, so I'm really looking forward to the answer.

Analogical use of language needs some explanation. According to Sproul, there are many thinkers, theologians, and philosophers who have argued that, since God is separate and divine, our human language cannot begin to comprehend Him, so it's impossible to have any meaningful discussion about Him. To that I say "Poppycock," but I don't have a logical reason for saying that. So I'm curious as to Sproul's counter to the argument.

I'm really glad each of these has it's own chapter, because I really need some explanation of these concepts.

DYF: Apologetics and Saving Faith - My Thoughts

Chapter 2 of Defending Your Faith continues along the lines of the purpose of apologetics, specifically laying out its role in leading people to salvation.

As stated in the previous post, apologetics by itself has no ability to save people. However, as Dr. Sproul lays out in this chapter, it does have a role in leading people down the road to salvation.

What's the difference, you ask? As Sproul states:

The thinkers of the sixteenth century distinguished among several actual nuances or levels or elements of faith that together comprise saving faith. The three main levels of faith, they said, were notitia (sometimes called the notei), assensus, and fiducia.

This idea of different levels of faith could also be illustrated by the people in the parable of the sower. A man sows seed (the Word of God). That seed falls on four places: the path, where birds snatch it up; rocky soil, where a plant with a shallow root instantly sprouts but is scorched; among thorns, which choke the plant that tries to grow; and in good soil, where it produces much fruit.

Notitia

Notitia basically means a knowledge of something. This knowledge, while it can lead to saving faith, doesn't always do so. This could be the guy who studies Christianity out of an academic interest, but doesn't really believe any of what he's researching to be true. Maybe there's a god of some kind, this man might say, but certainly not this God.

This man can be represented by the path. The path is a person with a hard heart that Satan snatches the Word out of before it can grow.

Assensus

Assensus is an assent to the truth. This person believes the Word he has heard to be true, but doesn't necessarily respond with saving faith and trust. You can't have this level of faith without the first one, but you can have it without the third one.

In the parable, this could be represented by either the shallow or the thorny soil. The shallow soil is someone who hears the Word and seems to accept it with joy, but falls away from the faith after some kind of trial. The thorny soil is someone who hears and seems to accept, but is caught up in worldly things and ultimately proves unsaved.

I knew a guy who told me he believed in the Christian God and Satan, but wasn't a follower of either. He would fall into this category as well.

Fiducia

Lastly, we have fiducia. Fiducia is personal trust and reliance. It's the response of loving God after hearing the Word (notitia) and accepting it to be true (assensus). Essentially, this is the response of saving faith to the Gospel that comes by the work of the Holy Spirit. and you can't have it without the first two levels of faith.

The good soil represents this person. This person hears the Gospel, accepts, is renewed, and produces fruit.

The task of apologetics is to produce the first two levels of faith, hearing and accepting the Word of God to be true. But it must be noted that the third level of faith - trust, reliance, submission - cannot be brought out by apologetics unless the Holy Spirit changes a person's heart and mind.

In the end, I suppose that's similar to all preaching. Human effort can cause someone to hear the Word, and even lead them to believe it to be true. But only the Holy Spirit can bring them to real, saving faith.

DYF: The Task of Apologetics - My Thoughts

In Chapter 1 of Defending Your Faith, R.C. Sproul argues that it is the Christian's duty to defend the faith. And so it is (1 Peter 3:14-16; Jude 3). But I wonder, how should one do that? Is appealing to logic necessarily the best way to go about it? As Sproul says himself, apologetics by itself has no saving power apart from the Holy Spirit's work in someone's heart. But it does have the power to prove false accusations against Christians and Christianity wrong, which can also build up other Christians who see no logical basis for their faith. It can also lead an unbeliever to Christ...by only if the Holy Spirit intervenes.

Some would argue that, when we defend the faith, we should argue from the perspective that the Bible is true and just assume that it's a given. That's certainly valid in some cases; the Word of God has power to save without our defense.

But what if you are in a debate with someone who doesn't want to believe? Sproul would say, in this case, that we should prove God's existence and the authority of the Bible to this person. Doing so makes the task of apologetics a lot easier, because if you can prove the Bible to be true and God to be real, you can argue Christian truth from the Bible.

But Sproul also points out that, even if you prove the Christian faith true to someone, they may simply be unwilling to be persuaded. People have hard, rebellious hearts. The Bible says that we cannot understand the things of God by ourselves. We can't expect everyone to be saved by an apologetic debate. All we can really do is preach the Gospel, show it to be rational and true, and let God work in the hearts of those He wills.

We Will Cordially Unite/No Hope But In Him

Quotes from Old, Dead Dudes (3/16/12)

The following is a conversation between Charles Simeon and John Welsey. The original quote on desiringgod.org doesn't give the names in front of each quote, but it's obvious in context who is who. Since their permission policy does not allow me to alter any quotes taken from their website, I have chosen to color all of Simeon's quotes orange while all of Welsey's words are normal.

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.

Source: H.C.G. Moule, Charles Simeon, London: InterVarsity, 1948, 79f; quoted from: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/biographies/brothers-we-must-not-mind-a-little-suffering

Writing Through R.C. Sproul's "Defending Your Faith"

On Sunday night I bought Defending Your Faith by R.C. Sproul (hence the title). It's a book about apologetics, something that Dr. Sproul himself is well-known for. For those who don't know, apologetics is basically the practice of making a case to both defend and prove something. In the case of this book, that something is the Christian faith.

In this book, Dr. Sproul is concerned with multiple things:

1. Making a case for the existence of God and the authority of the Bible
2. Showing that Christianity, contrary to popular belief, is based on both faith and reason
3. Teaching the reader how to defend the faith

Before getting this book, I kind of thought it would be fun to blog my through it one chapter at a time. I figure it will help me absorb the information better, and Sproul argues that this book contains very important information. Plus, it would give me more to write about; that way, you, the reader, are kept happy.

So, starting Monday, I'm gonna blog my way through Defending Your Faith. The posts may not all be consecutive, meaning I'll probably still post other things on different topics now and again. And I'm not starting tomorrow because I already have tomorrow's old, dead dude quote queued up.

Speaking of which, does anyone like the old, dead dude quotes? So far the only comment I've heard about them is to stop because that particular reader doesn't want to read quotes; she wants to read what I have to say. So, any thoughts? If no one wants me to continue them, I'll stop.

Running Ahead of a Boat

Observations From My Study (Mark 6:30-33)

You've probably heard that famous Bible story where Jesus feeds five thousand men (plus women and children) with just five loaves of bread and two fish. Well, I'm not gonna talk about that. However, today's text is right out of that story, taking place just before Jesus does the actual feeding:

The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught. And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. And they went away in the boat to a desolate place by themselves. Now many saw them going and recognized them, and they ran there on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. (Mark 6:30-33)

What interests me about this passage is the fact that they ran to the place that Jesus and his disciples went to by boat. Now, these boats probably weren't propelled by anything but wind and waves, but still. These people were desperate enough to either hear or see Jesus that they chased after Him!

Were these people saved? This text doesn't say. A lot of people only followed Jesus because He performed miracles, not because they cared about salvation. Maybe that's all these people wanted. If that was it, I'd say they weren't saved, meaning they didn't understand the truths of salvation, the reality of judgment, or the justice of God.

Now, if you're a Christian, you do understand those realities, or at least you have a better idea about them than an unsaved person. So I wonder: do you, Christian, pursue God with the same vigor as these people whose salvation is, at best, ambiguous? You know that there are more important things than signs and wonders; the main thrust of Jesus ministry was preaching the truth of salvation, not working miracles (Mark 1:38). You know where the true joy of the church lies. So, shouldn't you be pursuing God even more enthusiastically than a bunch of people seeking miscellaneous miracles? Isn't the true miracle of salvation even greater and worth far more joy and enthusiasm?

 

Red Letter, Black Letter

You may have seen Bibles with red letters in them to differentiate the words that Jesus spoke from the rest of the Bible. In fact, if you have a Bible it probably does have red letters since it's so common.

Red-letter Bibles were first conceived of by Louis Klopsch, editor of Christian Herald magazine back in the late 1800s. The idea to print Jesus' words in red came to him when he read Luke 22:20, the verse where Jesus says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (NIV). Thus, the first red-letter New Testament came out in 1899, followed two years later by the first full-length red-letter Bible.¹

He had good intentions, of course. But eventually this idea led to the establishment of an oddly political and theologically questionable group called "Red-Letter Christians." I say "theologically questionable" because Tony Campolo, the leader of the group, happily advertises the blog of Brian McLaren, one of the leaders of the heretical Emerging Church movement.

Red-Letter Christians are basically what they sound like: they focus on the words of Jesus more than anything else. Now, the intention is certainly a good one, but chew on this for a moment.

Jesus is God, yes? And the Bible, the whole Bible, black and red letters, is the word of God, right? Which means Gos spoke all of the words, not just the red ones. So the black letters of the Bible, the God-breathed words written by Paul, Peter, Jude, Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, and John, are just as important as the red words Jesus spoke Himself.

You cannot have true, Biblical Christianity without the whole Bible. There are things Paul and Peter and John wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Jesus never said. Where would we be without the famous love chapter, 1 Corinthians 13? What about Ephesians 5, which gives us the best and most meaningful marriage instruction on earth? The fact that Jesus didn't say those words during His time on earth is of no consequence; the entire Bible is the word of God, meaning all of it is equally authoritative, important, and relevant.

Footnotes

¹ Crossway Staff. "Origin of Red-Letter Bibles." Crossway Blog. Published March 23, 2006. Accessed March 9, 2012. http://www.crossway.org/blog/2006/03/red-letter-origin/

Prayer is Important

Prayer is important.

Seems kind of like an obvious idea, doesn't it? Isn't prayer how we talk to God? Shouldn't we pray more often for our friends, family, and ourselves?

But I wonder, how often do we pray? We should be praying every day. Prayer is supposed to be a lifestyle for us, never ceasing (1 Thess 5:17). And what do we pray about? Do we follow the model prayer that Jesus gave us, commonly called The Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9-14)? How often do we pray for God's name to be hallowed, or for His Kingdom to come, for people to be saved? How often do we pray for our church and our pastor?

To be honest, my record states "not much."

There's no real excuse for not praying. My only reason for not praying as often as I should is that I'm lazy, which is not a good reason at all.

Now, I'm not saying that we need to be on our knees, head bowed, eyes closed, and hands folded all the time. In fact, I'm not aware of any Biblical command to pray like that. We certainly can, but we don't have to. Jesus always looked up to heaven when He prayed. The tax collector in Jesus' parable was too humbled and ashamed by his sin to look up to heaven when he prayed for forgiveness (Luke 18:13). Paul wrote down prayers in his letters (he had a scribe, so he was saying them aloud to someone, but I think it still stands). You could pray at home while washing the dishes. You could pray at work in your head. You could pray while driving (just don't close your eyes). The point is to be praying and thinking about God and His will all the time, whether we're alone or with people (that's not to say we should be too distracted by praying to interact with those people; just interact in a Godly manner).

If you can indulge a thought or two, I personally find it much easier to pray by writing prayers down. I don't have to be praying aloud to do this; in fact, it's probably better if I don't. But it helps me organize my thoughts better and allows me to really think about and look at the words I'm praying to my Lord. I write them on the spot and, if I feel I've left something out, I add it. It also helps to keep me focused so my mind doesn't wander off.

The main reason I think this is legitimate is because the purpose of prayer is to align our thoughts, minds, actions, hearts, souls, and lives with the will of God. If I'm actively thinking about everything I write, isn't that what I'm doing? I find I learn a lot more and feel much closer to God when I write down my prayers. My heart is full of joy and worship!

So yeah, prayer is important. And if you're having trouble thinking of what to pray about, I would urge you to look at the Lord's prayer. Really dig into it. What is God's Kingdom? What does it mean for His name to be hallowed? Have I sinned in some way I need to confess to God? What is God's will? (Hint: You can answer the last one with John 6:38-40, among other verses). Perhaps reading a passage of Scripture can give you ideas. The other day I prayed out of Mark 10:17-31, the passage about the rich young ruler. I praised God's worth, how it's greater than all our possessions. I prayed that we might be willing to give up everything for the Gospel if need be. I also thanked God for His provision and for saving and sanctifying us, among other things.

Get to it! Keep a journal or a book, write down things you want to pray for...do something that will help you and remind you to pray every day. I don't want to be lazy about prayer anymore and, if you've been lazy, I would love for you to join me in a journey towards a much better, much richer, much more right, and much more fulfilling prayer life.

Troubles Are Helps to Salvation

Quotes from Old, Dead Dudes (3/9/12)

The following quote is from John Calvin, from his commentary on Romans. In this particular quote, he is writing on Romans 8:28: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (KJV)

[Paul] now draws this conclusion from what had been said, that so far are the troubles of this life from hindering our salvation, that, on the contrary, they are helps to it. It is no objection that he sets down an illative particle, for it is no new thing with him to make somewhat an indiscriminate use of adverbs, and yet this conclusion includes what anticipates an objection. For the judgment of the flesh in this case exclaims, that it by no means appears that God hears our prayers, since our afflictions continue the same. Hence the Apostle anticipates this and says, that though God does not immediately succour his people, he yet does not forsake them, for by a wonderful contrivance he turns those things which seem to be evils in such a way as to promote their salvation. If any one prefers to read this verse by itself, as though Paul proceeded to a new argument in order to show that adversities which assist our salvation, ought not to be borne as hard and grievous things, I do not object. At the same time, the design of Paul is not doubtful: “Though the elect and the reprobate are indiscriminately exposed to similar evils, there is yet a great, difference; for God trains up the faithful by afflictions, and thereby promotes their salvation.”

But we must remember that Paul speaks here only of adversities, as though he had said, “All things which happen to the saints are so overruled by God, that what the world regards as evil, the issue shows to be good.” For though what Augustine says is true, that even the sins of the saints are, through the guiding providence of God, so far from doing harm to them, that, on the contrary, they serve to advance their salvation; yet this belongs not to this passage, the subject of which is the cross.

Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.xii.ix.html

God's Patience and Sovereignty on Display

If you've ever heard the story of Samson, you might remember it as the story of a strong man whose power came from his hair. When his hair was cut against his will, he lost all his strength and fell mightily. In the end, however, he died praying to the Lord for strength to kill the Philistines (this villains of this story).

If you've ever read the story of Samson, you probably remember things a bit differently.

For one thing, Samson was not a noble hero. Quite the opposite; he was a depraved, sinful, prideful man. He willfully committed many sins, including marrying a Philistine woman (Judges 14), having sex with a prostitute (Judg 16:1), touching a dead body (Judg 14:8-9), and letting Delilah cut his hair (Judg 16:19). These last two were violations of his Nazirite vow (Num 6:5-6).

He also killed a lot of Philistines and burned their crops. The times he killed Philistines, "the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon him" (Judg 14:19, 15:14), so those were probably legitimate (although one time also seemed to be out of anger). The time he burned their crops was for personal revenge. Now, ultimately God used these incidents was judgments on the Philistines, because they were most definitely evil. But Samson also just had a serious temper and a big pride problem.

There came a time when he fell in love with Delilah, a treacherous woman who had been bribed by the Philistines to seduce him and find out the secret of his strength. She asked him several times, and each time he gave her a false answer, such as binding him "with new ropes that have not been used" (Judg 16:11). She would then enact this method on Samson while the Philistines lay in wait to ambush him. When she declared "The Philistines are upon you, Samson!" (Judg 16:9, 12, 14), he would reveal that he still has his strength.

After three times, she basically whined and asked him over and over until he finally couldn't take it anymore and told her the truth: "A razor has never come upon my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother's womb. If my head is shaved, then my strength will leave me, and I shall become weak and be like any other man" (Judg 16:17). When he finally told Delilah that he would lose his strength when his hair was cut, he had ultimately picked her (and his sanity) over God. And, predictably, he paid the price for it; she had his head shaved, the Philistines captured him and gouged out his eyes, and he became nothing more than a slave and a jester. When his hair was cut, he lost his strength, not because it was the source of his strength, but because "the LORD had left him" (Judg 16:20).

His hair began to grow back. At some point when he was entertaining the Philistines during a celebration, "they made him stand between the pillars" (Judg 16:25). He asked a young man to let him feel the pillars so he could lean on them (remember, he was blind by this point). Then he prayed a prayer: "O Lord GOD, please remember me and please strengthen me only this once, O God, that I may be avenged on the Philistines for my two eyes" (Judg 16:28). This was a prayer for revenge, but God granted it; Samson pushed on the support pillars and knocked the house down, killing himself and all the Philistines in the house, which were "more than those whom he had killed during his life" (Judg 16:30) which, at this point, had been at least more than 1,000. His desire for revenge wound up being used by God to judge the Philistines for their evil ways.

All in all, you come out of the story of Samson seeing that it's not really a story of a noble hero; Samson is not a man we are to emulate. Rather, it's a story of God's patience with his wicked servant and His sovereign ability to use the imperfect and depraved for His perfect and good will. That's what we can learn from this story.

Re-Baptism?

Lately I've started wondering if I need to be rebaptized. I've been trying to pin down the time of my salvation and...I can't.

I was baptized before, a long time ago during my childhood. I've always attended church, except for a period in my life when my family and I just couldn't find one. So I was raised Christian. But I don't know if that means I actually was Christian.

See, about two years ago, I actually realized the truth of the Gospel. I truly felt my unworthiness and realized that, despite that, Jesus died to pay for my sin if only I would believe in Him and accept Him as my Lord and Savior. I had prayed for Him to come into my life a few times. But now I wonder if I was only looking for fire insurance, or if I really knew what I was doing. Saying a prayer does not necessarily equal salvation.

I already knew I was sinful. I already knew I was imperfect. I'd heard the Gospel preached before. But was I saved? That's what I'm having a hard time figuring out, because I don't know for sure anymore. I know I thought I was. I know I am now, but was I when I was baptized all those years ago? Was I just going through the motions, deceiving myself for so many years until I truly understood the Gospel?

Because if I wasn't a believer back when I was baptized, it means I wasn't baptized as a real, true Christian. And if that's true, I think I would need to be baptized as a real, true Christian as a matter of obedience to Jesus.

Perhaps I should talk to my pastor about this.

P.S. Mom and Dad, if you read this, then my wondering whether I was saved is not a reflection on you. Sometimes we kids are just slow.

Bartimaeus' Way

Observations From My Study (Mark 10:46-52)

You know, I never realized how rich and beautiful the Gospel of Mark was until I started studying it in-depth. I always sort of wrote it off as the abridged version of Jesus' life, really rushed and not very detailed. I learned later that it's that way by design; the audience it was written to at the time, the Romans, we're very “get-to-the-point” types of people.

But in all this rushy-rush, one can find a lot of very interesting and deep things. One of them is Mark 10:46-52:

And they came to Jericho. And as he was leaving Jericho with his disciples and a great crowd, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar, the son of Timaeus, was sitting by the roadside. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” And many rebuked him, telling him to be silent. But he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!" And Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart. Get up; he is calling you.” And throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus. And Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” And the blind man said to him, “Rabbi, let me recover my sight.” And Jesus said to him, "Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he recovered his sight and followed him on the way.

This isn't the only story of its kind in the Bible. There are many times when Jesus restores the sight of the blind (one of them being just two chapters earlier). But there are two things I find interesting about this particular passage.

Your Faith Has Done What Now?

At the end of the passage, the English Standard Version shows Jesus as saying, “Your faith has made you well.” But that doesn't get the passage's true point across. The Greek word translated “made you well” is sozo, which actually means “to save.” So the right translation is, “Your faith has saved you.” In other words, in this passage, Bartimaeus was saved! In a sense, his physical blindness is a picture of his spiritual blindness, his lack of salvation. But when he has faith, what happens? It's exactly what Amazing Grace says: he was blind (unsaved), but now he saw (was saved), all because of his faith. Isn't that also what Ephesians 2:8 says? “By grace you have been saved through faith.”

Go Your Way

Right before Jesus said, “Your faith has saved you,” He said, “Go your way.” Right after Bartimaeus' sight is restored, which way did he go? Look at the very end of the passage: “He recovered his sight and followed him [Jesus] on the way.” When Jesus told him to go his way, he followed Jesus! His way was to follow Jesus! Here we see the both the proof and the natural result of Bartimaeus' salvation: submitting to the Lordship of Christ, laying down everything, and following the Lord.

How great is that? This isn't just a story of a man being healed. It's a story of salvation and submission to Jesus, our Lord and Savior. Beautiful, isn't it?

Thus Says...Who?

In recent years there's been a surge in the popularity of some pastors. In some church circles one can barely take two steps without hearing something about Mark Driscoll or John Piper. I think this is mostly thanks to the internet.

So while people have said this before, I feel a need to say it myself. I'm concerned that, if it hasn't already, the church will become more focused on these pastors and their words (among other things) than on Jesus and the Bible.

Let me just give a slightly absurd yet true example. I saw a desk given away on Facebook, and the big selling point was that it was once owned by Mark Driscoll. Now, this was a really nice desk by its own merit. It didn't really need the Mark Driscoll history added to it. But that's the general reason people paid it so much attention, not because it was actually a really nice desk. I later got the chance to see it myself; it's bigger than our kitchen (I've taken to calling it the Driscoll desk).

Now, I'm not criticizing Driscoll or Mars Hill. I think they do good things. But in my age group one witnesses the general hysteria around this guy and his church more often than hysteria around anyone else. I guess my question is this: shouldn't someone be judged by his or her character rather than by what church he or she attends? Just because someone attends Mars Hill, or Bethlehem Baptist, or The Village, doesn't mean they're saved, or better than anyone else, or even have good character.

What About MacArthur?

I don't know if anyone will say this, but I feel like I should address this anyway. One of my biggest heroes of the faith is John MacArthur. I've found him to be very faithful, Biblical, and he doesn't pull any punches. I listen to his radio show, have some of his books, read his blogs, and even have an online version of his study Bible. Shouldn't I be careful and discerning about all that?

If someone asked me that, my answer would be an emphatic "Yes."

Now, I've listened to MacArthur and followed along with his studies enough to know that he's a very trustworthy and Biblically sound man. Because I know he's trustworthy, I've also been willing to listen to him Biblically defend doctrine I wasn't sure about. We don't agree on absolutely everything, which is probably good because it means I'm not a MacArthurite. But I still have to be discerning of his teaching, because no matter how trustworthy a man is, he's still human and subject to mistakes. That's how we need to view and treat all teaching that claims to be Biblical (Acts 17:11).

So where does the priority lie: the Bible and what it says, or the pastor, what he says, and his fame? They aren't always mutually exclusive, but shouldn't we be discerning as to whether or not what a pastor says is Biblical, no matter how good of a reputation he has?

P.S. If ever given the opportunity to get a desk formerly owned by MacArthur, I probably wouldn't go for it because it would likely be in Southern California. But if it were here, I'd have to see it myself to figure out if it's any good, or whether or not it even would fit in our door.

Page CXVI

In recent years there's been a renewed interest in old hymns, particularly in rewriting or rearranging them or putting them to new, more contemporary instruments. Now, if you're like me, this is a great thing, not only because you like music, but because you also really love hymns.

See, in my opinion, hymns are some of the most beautiful songs in the world. To me, that matters. I hear a lot of songs these days that I'd consider corny (not necessarily bad, just corny). But what makes hymns even better is how rich they are in Biblical truth.

Page CXVI agrees, and they've been doing something about it.

About the Band

Page CXVI gets its name from page 116 (i.e.: the Roman numerals) of C.S. Lewis' The Magician's Nephew, the page (in their copy, as they say) where Aslan sings Narnia into existence.

Page CXVI has been working on rewriting old hymns and bringing them back into the public mind again because, in their own words, "they are some of the richest, most meaningful, and moving pieces of music ever written." So far they've released four albums (the aptly named Hymns 1, Hymns 2, Hymns 3, and Hymns 4) and, as far as I can tell, they don't plan on stopping there. I have alsmot all of their albums now (I'm only missing a couple songs off the last one) and would heartily recommend them to you, at least if you don't mind a few changes here and there.

About the Music

Musically, I'm not entirely sure how to classify the band. I think they're along the lines of "indie pop" and "singer/songwriter" (both admittedly vague genres). You can expect to hear a lot of piano and voice backed up by bass guitar, electric guitar, and drums. Not that that really helps, as a lot of genres and musicians use those instruments, but Page CXVI has a unique way of going about it that's hard to describe. You can kind of just tell it's their music.

I think two of my favorite of their renditions are "Nothing But the Blood" (Hymns 1) and "Battle Hymn of the Republic" (Hymns 2). The first one may just be because I really love "Nothing But the Blood," but they've done a really good job of it. As for "Battle Hymn of the Republic," the band took a few liberties with it (like switching it from the original major key to the minor key and adding a few repetitions of words here and there), but I still really enjoy it. I just get the picture of an Army platoon marching off to battle, which sort of fits the song in my opinion.

Some changes, though, are kind of jarring. On Hymns 2, they did their rendition of "How Great Thou Art." For those of you used to the very familiar chorus of this song, be warned: the band changed it. Here's the original:

Then sings my soul, my Saviour God to thee
How great thou art, how great thou art

Now here's the Page CXVI version:

Then sings my soul to my Savior God
How great thou art, how great thou art

Now, it has the exact same meaning, and there's a lot of good to be said about that fact. But if you listen to this and expect the original words and melody, this will catch you off guard a bit. Maybe I'm just too clingy to old ways, but I prefer the original melody and words. But that's just personal preference. I do think the new version translates the meaning of the old one quite well; do we honestly think of the real meaning of all those old words? I think the band succeeded in bringing out the intention of the lyrics.

Lastly, their version of "Joy" (Hymns 1) is very, very different from the old kids song. You may know the bouncy original: "I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart." Well, this version is much more somber. Its idea is more along the lines of finding joy in God in all circumstances, good and bad, no matter how difficult it may be. It took me some time to get used to, but I like it now. They also merged it with a line from "It Is Well with My Soul" (written by Horatio Spafford after several traumatic events in his life), which gets the message across clearly and effectively. So, while it was definitely an artistic decision I didn't anticipate, it was well executed.

So, would I recommend Page CXVI to someone looking for good worship music? Absolutely. I'd probably warn them to expect the results of a few artistic liberties, but those don't really detract from the songs. While you're at it, you should also know that Page CXVI is another band: The Autumn Film. It's comprised of the same people, but it's a different project with original songs (not Christian songs, mind you, but most definitely not bad either). They've got some really beautiful music too, so check them out!

On the King's Highway

Quotes from Old, Dead Dudes (3/2/12)

The following is a quote from Charles Haddon Spurgeon, written in a letter to his father:

Oh, how unprofitable has my past life been! Oh, that I should have been so long time blind to those celestial wonders, which now I can in a measure behold! Who can refrain from speaking of the marvellous love of Jesus which, I hope, has opened mine eyeslNow [sic] I see Him, I can firmly trust to Him for my eternal salvation. Yet soon I doubt again; then I am sorrowful; again faith appears, and I become confident of my interest in Him. I feel now as if I could do everything, and give up everything for Christ, and then I know it would be nothing in comparison with His love. I am hopeless of ever making anything like a return. How sweet is prayer! I would be always engaged in it. How beautiful is the Bible! I never loved it so before; it seems to me as necessary food. I feel that I have not one particle of spiritual life in me but what the Spirit placed there. I feel that I cannot live if He depart; I tremble and fear lest I should grieve Him. I dread lest sloth or pride should overcome me, and I should dishonor the gospel by neglect of prayer, or the Scriptures, or by sinning against God.

Truly, that will be a happy place where we shall get rid of sin and this depraved corrupt nature. When I look at the horrible pit and the hole from which I have been digged, I tremble lest I should fall into it, and yet rejoice that I am on the King's highway.

Source: http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/letters.htm