Jesus the Controversialist… and Twitter

I just read a fun and insightful little post from Pastor Toby Sumpter. He touches on various issues surrounding finitude, sound bites, Jesus, and Twitter. I recommend you give it a read.

As I’ve been preaching through Mark in our services in Scappoose, OR, I’ve been taken aback by how controversial Jesus’ early ministry was. From the stuff that’s fairly obvious to the casual reader (say, casting our screaming demons who know him by name) to a handful of things that don’t quite jump off the page at us. For example, Jesus touched a woman what wasn’t family (Peter’s mother-in-law), who might well have been unclean, he healed on the Sabbath, and he even made physical contact with a leper to heal him. These actions (all of them recorded before we even hit the second chapter!) really are quite scandalous by the standards of Jesus’ day.

While Jesus (like John before him) was anything but a stuffed-shirt preacher, he wasn’t controversial just for the sake of being so. He wasn’t edgy just to be cool. The scandal in Jesus’ ministry was tied in with the fact that he opposed the traditions of men. Not just any traditions, but the ones that needed to be KO’d. Many of these traditions were chewing up and spitting out God’s people, and Jesus came out swingin’. That sort of bold truth-telling will always be controversial. Humans are apt to build traditions; these aren’t necessarily bad. In fact, they can be quite good. But when they run counter to God’s law, but especially when they’re used to strangle God’s people, they need to be exposed and destroyed. That is and always will be controversial work, which work will always be violently opposed by those sons of hell who prefer the traditions of men to the Word of God.

 

Read Full Post »

The Gospel Vibe

I am delighted to see that my pastor from the Olympia Bible Presbyterian Church, Tito Lyro, has begun to post on his blog. He has a pithy little ditty on Aaron Rodgers, Tim Tebow, and Francis of Assisi. Go give that a look-see.

Crazy Preacher Man

Having read Pastor Tito’s post, it occurred to me that Jesus, too, used words to preach the gospel. Mark 1:14-5 says, “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” Mark says that Jesus was “proclaiming” the gospel. This means that he preached, and to do so, he must have used words. In fact, Mark summarizes his words: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Do note that Jesus didn’t come groovin’ up slowly into Galilee and put out the gospel vibe. He didn’t just stand around and exude the good news. He spoke it, preached it, proclaimed and heralded it.

If it can be said of anyone that they lived righteously before men, it can be said of Jesus. He, after all, was (and is!) without sin (2 Cor 5:21). Yet even the perfect life of Jesus Christ is not enough to “preach the gospel,” for preaching the gospel takes words. God gave you a mouth… use it.

Read Full Post »

Down in the ‘Ppoose

I know, I know… I’ve been out of commission for the past number of weeks. Well, I’m now back up and runnin’. There are plenty of things about which I can write. I have a lot of material about covenant, family, worship and much more. I would like, however, to start with a highly significant development in the life of the Prussic family.

It's well-known that Calvin basically wanted to kill everybody.

Now, my oldest son is named Calvin (after John Calvin, that monstrous heretic that burned hundreds of thousands of well-meaning happy people in that theocratic hell called Geneva). Just kidding, but my first-born is named Calvin after John Calvin. In any event, when he was born in April of 2005, I was on my way back from Edmonton, Alberta; I actually missed his birth! I was up in Edmonton meeting with the (then) Northwest Presbytery of the Bible Presbyterian Church. So, for the past six years (marked by the day before Calvin’s birthday) I’ve been licensed to preach the Gospel. I was not, however, ordained to the Gospel ministry.

Recently, by the grace of God, the Columbia Bible Presbyterian Church called me to be their pastor. We moved down to Scappoose, Oregon, in Columbia County, and I’ve begun preaching and teaching. I am not yet a pastor, as I’ve not been ordained by the Presbytery. I have yet to undergo further examinations by the Presbytery, and, if I pass, I hope to be ordained within six months.

The upshot is: rejoice with us! This call to ministry is an answer to a lot of prayer (both on the part of the congregation and on the part of our family). We’ve rejoicing to be at the CBPC. We love the people here and are very excited to minister God’s Word, build up the people here, and grow the church. If you are around the NW Portland area, or if you know people who are in that area, please recommend them to come visit us. Also, check out the church’s website – it’s quite informative and helpful.

Read Full Post »

Why Do Christians Still Have to Die?

Heidelberg Catechism #42

Q: Since Christ has died for us, why do we still have to die?

A: Our death does not pay the debt of our sins. Rather, it puts an end to our sinning and is our entrance into eternal life.

Theological: Christians still die… why? First thing is that Christ has transformed EVERYTHING for Christians. Death is something. Ergo, Christ has transformed death for Christians. Death, for the Christian, might be unknown, and, to that degree, might be scary. Death is not, however, a punishment for the Christian. Death IS a punishment for those outside of Christ. One gets the impression that death for the Christian (that is, when it actually happens) is actually a pleasure. Without doubt, it’s certainly a portal to eternal pleasure. After all, at Yahweh’s right hand are pleasures forevermore (Ps 16:11).  Death is an entrance into those pleasures. The saint will live in those pleasures until the resurrection, when those pleasures will be perfected. Similarly (or maybe conversely), for those outside of Christ, death is punishment and an entrance into eternal punishment, which will be perfected at the resurrection. Christ has removed the sting of death (1 Cor 15), but not its use as a major point of transition.

Practical: You know, everyone’s gotta die… at least for the most part. There will be one generation that doesn’t have to, but, aside from them, we all face death. Steve Job’s comments about death are interesting, but seem flat when compared with eternal joys or punishment. You can see Steve’s full speech here. People outside of Christ should be horrified by death. Typically they are. Sometimes, however, they are act as if they don’t care, or that it doesn’t bother them. These folks are either simply lying (to themselves and/or to others) or are deluded. Death, therefore, is an evangelistic tool… use it. Preach it. Speak about it. If folks accuse you of being morbid, tell them you only speak of death in order to draw attention to the eternal life found only in Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Read Full Post »

Old on the Reformed Baptismal Rite

The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century by Hughes Oliphant Old

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I found this book to be fascinating, greatly informative and easily accessible. Old offers a look at the development of the practice of baptism among the Reformers, but in so doing he gives us much more than that. For anytime one studies the Reformers, one necessarily studies all of church history before the Reformers. This book offers a sweeping (but detailed) view of the baptismal rite from NT times into the early Christian centuries, through the long Middle Ages into the Reformation. Old analyzes changes in the rite of baptism in light of historical, political, and theological developments in the church and the culture generally. He demonstrates how the baptismal rite developed through the centuries and what the Reformers had to work with as they set to reforming the baptismal rite in their own churches. I’ve read a good deal about the Reformed doctrine of baptism, but I was blown away by how much I didn’t know about the Reformed practice of baptism. Further, I am impressed at how conversant the Reformers were (generally, but specifically with regard to baptism) with the early and medieval church. The Reformers (and Old’s presentation of their work and thought) should encourage us to read more broadly and be less provincial. This is an excellent book and is highly recommended for anyone interested in the doctrine and practice of baptism in the Reformed churches.

View all my reviews

Read Full Post »

How Important is Faith?

Heidelberg Catechism #43

Q. What further advantage do we receive from Christ’s sacrifice and death on the cross?

A. Through Christ’s death our old selves are crucified, put to death, and buried with him, so that the evil desires of the flesh may no longer rule us, but that instead we may dedicate ourselves as an offering of gratitude to him.

Theological: Romans 6 (among other passages) teaches us that we were buried with Christ in baptism. The blessings of that baptism are received by faith

Read Full Post »

Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel

What's the Problem?

With all the hubbub surrounding the atonement of late, some comments have surfaced that are quite interesting as to what people think Calvinists think (and say). These comments are telling, as some of them indicate that Calvinism’s being opposed, but  not fully understood. (That, by the way, is a VERY important point, as “Ready! Fire! Aim!” is not the best method.) One of my friends (a genuinely intelligent, well read, and well-intentioned brother in Christ) made this comment:

So once again “everyone who believes” is justified. Reminds me of John’s gospel saying “whosoever will”. Funny how these phrases keep popping up in regard to the unlimited extent of the atonement.

Now, of course it is a non sequitur to think that “whosoever will” implies an “unlimited extent” to the atonement.

Read Full Post »

Why Do Christians Die?

Heidelberg Catechism #42

Q. Since Christ has died for us, why do we still have to die?

A. Our death does not pay the debt of our sins. Rather, it puts an end to our sinning and is our entrance into eternal life.

Theological: For the believer in Jesus Christ, death is transformed. What used to be a just penalty for sin has become a portal into a fuller version of eternal life. O death, where thy sting? O grave, where thy victory? This, like so much Christian verity, must be approached in faith.

Read Full Post »

Evangelism and Manipulation

I want to post a short one (you be the judge!) on how different views of God’s sovereignty in salvation can lead to vastly different methods of evangelism. I have spent some energy to show that divine sovereignty forms the basis for evangelism. Again, that’s not to say that folks who deny the absolute and extensive sovereignty of God cannot or do not evangelize. They can and do, but their thinking about it gets messed up. Messed up thinking can and has led to some very unfortunate methods of “saving souls.”

George Whitefield

First, let’s think about how a Reformed evangelist thinks about his task. He knows that his job is to be faithful. He is a herald. He has faithfully to proclaim what’s been given him to proclaim. It’s his job to make clear what God’s given him to proclaim. He knows that God’s chosen this foolish means (preaching the gospel) to redeem sinners. He trusts in God and in him alone to convert sinners from death to life, and he trusts God to do that through the faithful preaching of his gospel. One sows, another waters, but God gives the increase. Thus, the evangelists is called to sow and trust God with the results. This does not mean that he approaches his task with stoic dispassion. Anyone who knows anything about this history of Reformed evangelism knows that the Reformed have been some of the greatest and most passionate evangelists. The names of

Read Full Post »

Evangelism and Definition

A friend of mine mentioned to me that a series of posts on evangelism might be helpful and edifying. Now, let me be clear upfront that I am no guru when it comes to experiential evangelism. Our King has been pleased to use me in the conversion of a handful of people (for which I’m grateful), but has used me more in a teaching and edifying capacity in his church. So, these posts will be geared toward teaching and edifying the people of God, encouraging them to pray for and speak the Word of Life to those perishing around them. That said, I do have a friend at church (yes, he’s Reformed) that is and has been engaged in various forms of personal evangelism. His thoughts are quite welcome, as are the thoughts of others. Let’s kick this around and make sense of it together.

J.I. Packer

A famous little book on evangelism written by the J.I. Packer comes to mind. It’s called Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, and it is well worth its very low price. Packer’s goals in that wonderful little book are three: to demonstrate that 1) God’s sovereignty and human responsibility are both true, 2) divine sovereignty does not inhibit evangelist, but 3) that it actually gives the only basis on which we can evangelize. To some degree, I will be piggybacking on Packer. I don’t have his book on my shelf anymore, but I have been heavily influence by it.

Right off the bat, I want to clear away at least one persistent caricature of the Reformed segment of the church, but first I’ll offer a necessary word of definition as to what “Reformed” means. I’ve read some folks in the blogosphere say that when people say “Reformed,” they’re being sneaky and really mean “Calvinistic.” There are two ways to think about this. One way is historical. The term “Reformed” refers to a branch of the Reformation that was neither Lutheran nor Anabaptist. Taken in this historical sense, the Reformed include Jacob Arminius and his followers. Arminius, after all, was trained and continued to be a theologian in the Reformed tradition. This sense of the term “Reformed” is not limited to, but is usually found among historians, not theologians. Theologians have typically used the word Reformed in a second sense, a confessional sense. When “Reformed” is used in the confessional sense, it means that the intellectual content of the 16th- and 17th-century Reformed confessions of faith define what being “Reformed” is. The most enduring and important of these confessions are the Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism [1563], Belgic Confession [1567], and the Cannons of Dort [1619]) and the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith, Short and Larger Catechisms [1646-7]). Now, these documents are all highly “Calvinistic” in the sense that, among other things, they make much of the absolute sovereignty of God and the utter helplessness of natural (unconverted) man. These confessions/catechisms hold to and detail what’s come to be known as “Reformed” theology. Now, most people use “Reformed” in this second, confessional sense. I, too, will be using the term in this confessional sense.

Now that we have some definition, I will address a common and very persistent caricature of the Reformed view of evangelism. “The Reformed,” so it goes, “are simply not interested in evangelism. See, they think that God will save only the elect [which, by the way, we do think]. What’s more, they think that God is ‘completely sovereign’ in saving them, so Calvinists don’t need to worry about evangelism. God’ll do it.” Now, raise your hand if you’ve ever heard that bunk. Keep your hand up and make it a fist. Good. Now, shake your fist in the general direction of the person who fed you that line.

The Reformed really do believe that God is 100% sovereign over the salvation of sinners. We do believe that only the elect will be saved. (That, by the way, is not at all distinctly Reformed.) We do believe that God will certainly save every elect person, but we believe that he accomplishes that through ordinary means. The ordinary means of saving a sinner is via the proclamation of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ has commissioned his church to proclaim that gospel and to teach obedience to all nations (Mt 28). In short, God’s set it up in such a way that he uses us. God’s chosen to use his people to save the world, and he doesn’t do it without us. He’s just as sovereign over the means as he is over the end. He will certainly redeem his elect, and he’ll just as certainly use his church to accomplish that end.

Balaam's Instructor

The Reformed are interested in evangelism because 1) we want to be obedient to our King, 2) we want to see the whole world flood into the Kingdom, and 3) we know that (generally speaking) it won’t happen except though our actions. Don’t get me wrong, God can do whatever he wants to do. He can speak through an ass if he wants (I think I’ve heard a couple Arminian preachers that qualified… just kidding!), but preaching asses are quite extraordinary, not his stated, ordinary means.

He uses us. So, let’s get busy!

Having given some definition and set the stage all pretty like, I hope in the next post to address how the sovereignty of God provides the only basis for evangelism, and how, without a firm sense of divine sovereignty, evangelism is too often turns deformed into interpersonal manipulation.

Read Full Post »