Learning on the Road

Okay I said that I would comment on the sermons that I listened to in the car over Thanksgiving break. So here they are. I'm sure that you can search the names of these on the internet. The first six are from various Desiring God conferences. I won't comment on all of them although all of them were very good.

Mark Driscoll "The Supremacy of Christ and the Church in a Postmodern World"
Tim Keller "The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Postmodern World"
D.A. Carson "The Supremacy of Christ and Love in a Postmodern World"
Francis Chan "Think Hard, Stay Humble: The Life of the Mind and the Peril of Pride"
Micahel Oh "Missions as Fasting: The Forsaking of Things Present for the Global Exaltation of Christ"
Mark Dever "Sex and the Single Man"
Ravi Zacharias "The Loss of Truth (Parts 1 & 2)"
Micahel Horton "American Spirituality"
John Piper "Single in Christ: A Name Better Than Sons and Daughters"

Several of these stuck with me. The first two (Driscoll and Keller) were fantastic. Both hit on a point that I have been thinking a lot about lately and that is contextualization of the gospel. I know that is a scary word for a lot of people just because of how often it is misused. Generally people think of changing the message of the gospel to make it sound relevant to someone. That is nothing short of heresy, and Paul says in Galatians 1 that people who do that will be accursed. I'm talking about two things. The first is the method in which you present the gospel. And the second is showing people their need for Christ and his gospel through the avenue of the culture that they are in. Keller's spoke very much to that second point and was extremely helpful. I would encourage any of you who have a couple hours to listen to both of these messages. Here is the link to the page from the 2006 conference.

Francis Chan and Michael Oh's messages were the first two that I listened to on the way back to school. Both men hit me very hard because of the love that they have for those without Christ. Michael Oh's parallel of fasting and missions was mind-blowing for me. Not just because of what I saw in missions but how I see that in so many other areas of life. The title presents it well. Chan is always someone that I have loved listening to because he appeals to so many people. He speaks very plainly and is very easy to understand. These are two that I will probably listen to many more times when I get the chance.

Ravi and Michael Horton had similar messages. I had forgotten how much I love Ravi Zacharias. His message went very well with the topic I've been hit with recently concerning the postmodern culture in which we live. His are both very short, but packed with things that will blow your mind. I catch myself laughing when I listen to him because he shows the ridiculousness of ridiculous things. Michael Horton was also very good, but after listening to Ravi's his was somewhat redundant.

Mark Dever and John Piper both had good talks that were relevant to me right now. Piper had an awesome exposition of Isaiah 56:3-5. It was about the joys of singleness that come from having spiritual children instead of fleshly children. It was very encouraging for me. Dever's was a tag-team thing with some other guys in his church. It was basically about dating and what they believe the Bible says about it. There was a lot that they covered and I am going to have to look into it with the extra resources they gave. It was ground-shaking for me. The way they presented dating/courtship was a way that I had never heard before and taken to an extent I had never heard anyone take it before. They had some great things to say about pre-marital physical intimacy though. It's worth listening to just for that.

So obviously there is still a lot for me to process. I thank God for the ability to learn from these great teachers though. And to learn as I drive no less. This is why I stopped praying for safety on the way to and from school. The deepest desire of my heart is not to get from one place to another without getting a scratch. The deepest desire of my heart is to know Christ more fully and experience the joy found in His presence. That's why I love road trips. Only three more weeks till the next one.

Self-Righteousness

Tullian Tchividjian is a great preacher that I have just recently heard a lot about. He spoke at the Desiring God conference this year and is very much connected with The Gospel Coalition. I just read a blog post that he wrote about self-righteousness. It's a great article and made me realize that I am often self-righteous about not being self-righteous. Read the article to understand what I mean.

The Double-Reach of Self-Righteousness

Truth?

I listened to some Ravi Zacharias on the way back to school this morning. He was talking about postmodernism and how truth is no longer fixed, but relative. In the discussion he quoted an English journalist named Steve Turner. It is really making a joke about relativism. It is funny but at the same time heartbreaking and even disturbing when you see what it leads to. I'll probably post some stuff later about all the great messages that I got to listen to, but I'll leave you with this for now.

Creed
by Steve Turner

We believe in Marx, Freud and Darwin
We believe everything is okay
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is okay.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes
UFO's and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher, though we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it's
compulsory heaven for all,
except perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

We believe in Masters and Johnson
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors.
And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth,
except the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.

If Chance be
the father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear:

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.

The Valley of Vision

I read this prayer in The Valley of Vision today and was just blown away by it. Since is was so good I figured I would relay it to anyone who wants to hear it. And it was too long for facebook, so this seemed to be the best place. This book is great by the way. It is a book of Puritan prayers from men like John Bunyan and Charles Spurgeon. It has been a great encouragement and challenge to me. I hope it is to you as well.

The title of this prayer is Regeneration

O God of the highest heaven,

Occupy the throne of my heart,

take full possession and reign supreme,

lay low every rebel lust,

let no vile passion resist thy holy war;

manifest thy mighty power,

and make me thine for ever.

Thou art worthy to be

praised with my every breath,

loved with my every faculty of soul,

served with my every act of life.

Thou hast loved me, espoused me, received me,

purchased, washed, favoured, clothed,

adorned me,

when I was worthless, vile, soiled, polluted.

I was dead in iniquities,

having no eyes to see thee,

no ears to hear thee,

no taste to relish thy joys,

no intelligence to know thee;

But thy Spirit has quickened me,

has brought me into a new world as a

new creature,

has given me spiritual perception,

has opened to me thy Word as light, guide,

solace, joy.

Thy presence is to me a treasure of unending peace;

No provocation can part me from thy sympathy,

for thou hast drawn me with cords of love,

and dost forgive me daily, hourly.

O help me then to walk worthy of thy love,

of my hopes, and my vocation.

Keep me, for I cannot keep myself;

Protect me that no evil befall me;

Let me lay aside every sin admired of many;

Help me to walk by thy side, lean on thy arm,

hold converse with thee,

That henceforth I may be salt of the earth

and a blessing to all.

It's Been Awhile

I realize that this is the least creative title you have seen. Just bear with me. I'm a bit rusty.

My good friend Joe encouraged me to write some things on here again. So I figured I would oblige him and give a quick update. There are many things that have been going on with me lately. Most relationship things are too personal to post all over the internet so I'll leave those out. Just know that God, in His grace, has given me many close friendships this semester that have served many purposes. I hope that have all served to exalt His name in some way. Other things that have been going on include my new church home, my reading of the Word, my reading of other books, and life experiences that always lead me to Christ and a realization of His greatness and exclusivity as the source of all good things.

My new church is great. It is called Fellowship Bible Church. I have not been able to be nearly as involved as I would have liked, although next semester looks like it's going to bring some good things. I plan on being involved with the youth and hopefully a community group in the spring. Those are still up in the air, but definitely on my mind. The preaching pastor, Doug Grimes, is great. He does a great job of preaching the truth and not avoiding things that are not very fun to talk about (like Hell when going through the sermon on the mount). More than anything though, I have loved being able to go there with many of my Harding friends. It has opened up a lot of good dialogue about things that matter.

My reading of the Word has been awesome (I think Mr. Webster would even approve of the use of that word here). Part of the reason that it has been so great is that most of what I am reading is new to me. I have not had a lot of experience reading the letters and honestly I believe that when I did before, I did not have ears to hear. I feel like my doctrine is shaped and new things are formed with every book that I read. It has become much more of a study than a read-through like it was in the Old Testament and the gospel accounts. I have been writing so much about what I am processing and I still feel like I am skimming. But the themes that I have heard people talk about have been so evident. Just one piece that I will share is the pre-eminence of the gospel in Paul's writings. He just keeps going back to it. My favorite examples are Ephesians 2 and Titus 3. Go read them if you get the chance and just bask in the grace that Christ has given us. (I am in Hebrews right now if you are wondering.)

When I say the other books I am reading, I am specifically talking about Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology. I haven't spent very much time in there at all but the few hours I've gotten have been well worth it. Obviously something that I am very interested in is the sovereignty of God in the world. Chapter 16 of Grudem's book was extremely helpful in hashing out what Scripture had to say about that. It hit me at a time where that comfort was just like God wrapping me up in His arms and reminding me that His wants to do good for me. Much of that encouragement came through promises in Jeremiah 32 and the beginning of Matthew 7 as well. I look forward to the break when I might be able to get to the chapter on the doctrine of election and maybe the doctrine of sin.

The other book that I have been reading is The Valley of Vision. It is a book of Puritan prayers. It is absolutely ridiculous. The writers articulate so well and just have an amazingly high view of God and low (realistic) view of themselves. It is amazing to see and so necessary to be reminded of.

That is about all I have for now. I have to get back to the cookie making. Hopefully I will be updating this more often now. Definitely over Christmas break. Thank you to anyone reading this. I'll leave you with this as a charge.

Knowing Scripture

I just finished a book this morning so I figured I would tell you guys about it. The book was Knowing Scripture by R.C. Sproul. The first thing that I would tell you is that I highly recommend the book. It's short (only 125 pages). It's an easy read. And it's extremely helpful.

Obviously the book is about the Bible. Sproul wrote it for laymen (people who aren't pastors) as an introduction to interpreting the Bible. The first two chapters are basically about why we should want to study the Bible. He quickly defends inerrancy and authority, shooting down common oppositions to them as he goes. He talks about Martin Luther and the fight to give the Bible to common people. But mostly he talks about the benefits (many of which are given in Scripture itself like, in 2 Timothy 3:14-17).

Those chapters were great for me to hear because they reminded me of the reason that I am engaged in studying my Bible. The next two chapters are the ones that blew my top off though. Chapter 3 was "Hermeneutics: The Science of Interpretation" and chapter 4 was "Practical Rules for Biblical Interpretation." Even in a short, introductory book these concepts hit me over the head. Even in chapter 3 he talked about things that I had heard and though of before, though I didn't fully understand. He gave the three basic rules of Hermeneutics: The analogy of faith, interpreting the Bible literally, and the Gramatico-Historical method. Short explanations. Analogy of faith is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Meaning that the Bible does not contradict itself and the best resource we have for understanding something we read is the rest of Scripture. Interpreting the Bible literally is not what it sounds like. It means that we interpret things based on their literary structure, meaning we would read and understand poetry much different than we would historical books. The Gramatico-Historical method focuses on what the text was originally supposed to mean, zeroing in on the history, culture, people, and grammar of the time and place that it was written.

So that was a helpful chapter, but chapter 4 was the meat of this book. Sproul laid out ten basic rules to remember while interpreting the Bible on my own. I'll list them and give short (hopefully) descriptions. But know that these are not enough. If you really want to understand them, which I think is a wise thing to do, just get the book. It's only like ten bucks.

Rule 1: The Bible is to be read like any other book

Now don't read too much into this one. He doesn't mean that it is like any other book. He is simply saying that we should treat it as magical. Meanings don't change with time. A verb is always a verb and a noun is always a noun, just like in a regular book.

Rule 2: Read the Bible existentially

Again, this one could be easily misinterpreted. He does not mean existentialism the way it is thought of today (taking words of the Bible out of context and giving them subjective meaning). What he means is that we have passion and personal interest as we read the Scriptures. He suggests "crawling into the skin" of the characters. Not reading as a textbook that is not applicable and only good for gaining intellect.

Rule 3: Historical narratives are to be interpreted by the didactic

Firstly, the term didactic means to teach. This is one that I grossly overlooked in my reading of the Bible this year. I drew way too many inferences from the records of what people did. They are obviously still Scripture and should be read that way, but the story of David is not a lesson on fleeing from sexual sin. It is simply the story of David. I should base what I am being taught on the books that are meant to teach me how to live, mainly the epistles. (I know this one is hard to understand. I am not explaining it well but I get it in my mind. It is a really important one. Basically the point is not to just take examples of how God deals with people and how people live and create a theology and way of living based off of that.)

Rule 4: The implicit is to be interpreted by the explicit

This one is pretty simple. I can't jump to conclusions just based off of inferences. The example he gave is when people always say that Jesus could walk through walls after the resurrection because it doesn't mention them unlocking and opening the door for him in the upper room. That would be inferring something without it being implicitly stated. Sproul is just saying to be careful with those, and most of all to realize that something that is stated explicitly (obviously, directly) somewhere always overrides something that I am basically just guessing on.

Rule 5: Determine carefully the meaning of words

This one is the one that blew me away. It sounds easy and obvious. But the examples he gave were so good. He talked both about recognizing what words mean when we read them instead of just assuming we know (like with the word glory) and also about words with multiple meanings. Most words have multiple meanings so I can't always assume that a word means one thing. He gave the example of how "justified" is used in Romans (right standing with God) as opposed to James (to demonstrate or vindicate). This is one that I truly cannot describe to you. I'm sure you get the gist of it but the examples are really what gave it weight for me.

Rule 6: Note the presence of parallelisms in the Bible

Parallelism is when two or more lines or clauses are set with each other and correspond in some way. There are synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic parallelisms. I can't get into all of that but basically recognize that it is the kind of thing that comes up in the Psalms and Proverbs all the time (not only there but those have many examples) where the writer says things in a similar way. I just suck at explaining this one, but I'm not going to keep trying. Just read the book.

Rule 7: Note the difference between proverb and law

This is something that may seem easy but people often confuse them. A proverb has to do with wisdom and is not a mandate. Distinguishing between that and commands is important. Otherwise I will become legalistic, imposing my preferences on other people.

Rule 8: Observe the difference between the spirit and the letter of the law

This is also good to remember. There are two ways to screw this up. One is that I obey the letter of the law without obeying the spirit (or intent) of it, and the other is that I think that I am getting the intent of the law while shunning the letter or explicit rule.

Rule 9: Be careful with parables

He gave some tips in here like not assuming that every parable is an analogy. The funny thing about this is that he says parables are really hard to understand, but people act all the time like they are simple. Going to parables before didactic (teaching) passages of Scripture is not a good idea even though it is done all the time. We should search for the meaning in the parables, but not put all are eggs in one basket, which is essentially our best guess.

Rule 10: Be careful with predictive prophecy

There two big errors on opposite ends here. One is acting like none of the predictive prophecy is literal. The other is acting like all of it is literal. Sproul's point is that we shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions. Take your time and be careful.

These rules helped me a lot in realizing how much more I need to learn. The theme of all of them was care. You saw that word and the thought of noticing and distinguishing a lot. I think the biggest thing I took away is that while the Bible is readable and should be read, we shouldn't do it lightly and carelessly. We have a great responsibility in reading and interpreting God's words.

Again, really good book. Obviously this isn't the only book that outlines these ideas. I'm sure there are many more. This is just the first one that I heard about. The reason I would recommend it is because of the examples and application that R.C. Sproul uses. He's a very smart man that knows how to break things down to their core and that showed in the way he wrote this book.

Soli Deo gloria

Being a Man

Well it's been a while since I posted anything so I'll update you on some of what I am learning. I'm through 2 Corinthians now and all ready to start Galatians. I think that things will move pretty fast for awhile since each of the next eight books is only six chapters or less. There are a lot of things just popping up that I see and I'm like, "Hmm, I never knew that." But like I said I want to allow Scripture to interpret Scripture so I'll hold off any huge theological blanket statements until I get the whole of it.

I went to Michigan this weekend and decided that I didn't want to lug all my Bible study stuff since I would only be there for two nights. So I took the opportunity to start "Knowing Scripture" by R.C. Sproul. I got it to read next to my Principles of Biblical Interpretation class this Fall. I figured R.C. was a good resource to have going in to check things against. So far the book is great. I haven't gotten into the science of interpretation yet, but the first couple chapters are basically about why I should study the Bible. It was very convicting. The man loves the Bible and knows a ton about it. I wish everyone I know could read that first chapter because in it he basically smashes all excuses for not studying the Bible. Great stuff.

Also, I have gotten to listen to a bunch of sermons lately because of the rain (I don't work when it rains). I have been listening to Mark Driscoll's series "Religion Saves & 9 Other Misconceptions." That has been really good. He explained Predestination in one of them and I just listened to the one on grace. Really good stuff.

But more to my point is that I have been listening to a lot of Matt Chandler. Matt Chandler is the preaching pastor at The Village Church in Dallas, Texas. I know I have mentioned him on here before, but the reason I love listening to him is because of where he is. Dallas has been called the center of the Evangelical world, or in other terms, the buckle of the Bible Belt. Chandler is always distinguishing between the Gospel and religion. He's always knocking down ideas that come up in the church that are unbiblical. He's very heavy on doctrine and is not shy about how important a right view of God is. I listened to his series on the Church (1/10/09 - 2/21/09) and have been jumping in and out of his Bible Study class called Dwell Deep. But the one the that really hit me recently is the one I listened to in the car on my way home from Michigan. He did a three sermon series on The Role of Men (8/12/07 - 8/26/07). In it he did an amazing job of defining what God's intention was for men. He brought up a lot of things that I had never thought about. Super good stuff. I would beg any of the guys reading this to listen to these sermons. It's definitely worth the two hours or so of listening. But even more than that, I would beg the girls to listen to it. He does a great job of defining a Godly man. And a great job of what kind of man is fit to lead a woman of God. Anyway, I just thought I'd pass that along to you all. I hope you enjoy it.

Soli Deo gloria

Together for the Gospel

I just kind of discovered the Together for the Gospel conferences. I was looking at something on David Platt and it lead me to their website. I think I had heard of it before from Childers or something but I had never really looked at it. It's a great resource of great men who speak the Word of God. I just watched the John MacArthur message and then started in on the R.C. Sproul one (have a dictionary close by if you are going to listen to him). Anyway I just figured I'd throw another resource your way. Many of us will be heading to school in the next couple weeks so this could just be some nice edification for the road.

Soli Deo gloria

P.S. I've also added The Resurgence blog and the 9 Marks blog on my blog list. Just a couple more resources for learning.

Taking a Break

Well obviously I don't have my notes on Romans up yet. I was talking to a friend on Thursday and I don't think that I am going to do them. Don't get me wrong. I loved Romans and gleaned some really good and important things from it. But there are some reasons that I am not going to put up notes on the epistles.

The big reason is that none of the epistles are stand-alone theology books. Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. are writing to specific people in specific times about specific topics. The danger is in taking a book like Romans and saying "There is Christian doctrine." It's not. And so there are some blanket statements that I read in Romans that I think should have the context of the rest of the New Testament before I consider them correct doctrine.

Concerning the specific topics, when these letters were written they were a lot of the time to correct false beliefs of the church that they were written to. For example in Romans the Jews were trying to put their Jewish laws and traditions on the new Gentile Christians. Therefore, Paul emphasizes our freedom from the law and the fact that the law is to show our sin. But I know that in James, he is dealing with people who are sluggards and are not obeying what Jesus commanded. So James emphasizes works that are brought about by the Spirit. My point is that it could be very dangerous for me to take one letter of the New Testament on it's own without the context of the others. So I'm not going to do that.

So I'm not sure how I am going to write notes on here. I may do something at the end where I write down really important things that I learned from the letters to the churches. We'll see. I'm going through them slowly and methodically so it may be awhile before I finish them. But I would encourage the people who read this to go back and read through these letters (basically Romans-Jude). Even if you have been a Christian for 40 years, there are so things in here that are really emphasized that I don't hear talked about too often. And I think it's important to understand them. But who cares what I think. God thinks it's important to understand them, otherwise why would he put them in the Bible.

That actually makes me think of a conversation I was having with my dad last night. I just got Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology book. It's basically a big book that has the basics of nearly every doctrine discussed and explained in it. So I was thumbing through it and talking about it with my dad. I found it interesting that the first section of the book is not the doctrine of God; it is the doctrine of God's Word. As we thought about it that made a lot of sense. If God's Word is not reliable, then the rest of it really doesn't matter. If you don't believe the Scripture, then there is really no reason to read it or try to come up with a belief about God from it. The reason for that is that the Bible believes itself to be true. From Genesis through the end (I've seen it even if I haven't read all of it through) the Bible is written as the Word of God and that is what everyone accepts it as. I've already talked about how Jesus believed that the Scriptures were historically accurate by His references back to Jonah and David and Noah. He talks about them like they were real historical figures. So if they aren't real, then I don't trust Jesus because He was wrong about them.

Here's my point. There are two things that the Bible can be. 1) It can be a book that is not true. 2) It can be a book that is true. If it is not true than it has no purpose besides reading for fun and maybe for some purpose of understanding ancient literature. It's basically of no importance. But if it is true, than it can be taken as nothing less than the words of the Creator of the Universe given to us. And it is of eternal and infinite importance. So the only thing that the Bible cannot be, is kind of important. It is either the most important tangible thing that we have because it reveals who God is or it is of no importance. But it cannot be kind of important.

Just a little rant that my dad and I were having last night. I think that is very important for me to remember though. Everything that I believe stands on the legitimacy of the Bible. If that falls, everything else falls with it.

Soli Deo gloria

Acts

Okay first off, Acts is a narrative. It's very much like one of the historical books in the Old Testament. But it is a narrative dealing primarily with the Church and the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. And that is where we'll start.

Acts is about God. Like every other book in this Bible (yes I'm including Leviticus), Acts is about God. Acts is particularly about the work of the Spirit of God, the third person of the Trinity, after Jesus's ascension into heaven. Now I want to point something out. This is not new. The Holy Spirit didn't magically show up in Acts for the first time in history. We've talked about Him throughout the Bible so far, but more specifically, we talked about His presence in the book of Luke (if you didn't know, Luke and Acts were essentially written as a part 1 and part two of the same story, written by Luke). At the same time, this is an amazing fulfillment of the promise of the Holy Spirit, given by Jesus in John 14.

So here is the work of the Spirit in Acts. First, the Holy Spirit is the origin of Scripture (1:16; 3:18; 4:25; 28:25). This isn't a new thing when we read it in 2 Timothy 3:16 or in 2 Peter 1:20-21. Obviously they knew that the writings of the Old Testament writers (Acts mentions Isaiah, David, and "all the prophets"). Next, God's Spirit causes people to speak in tongues (2:4; 10:46; 19:6). The Spirit gives the apostles the power for many signs and wonders (2:43; 5:12; 6:8; 8:6,13b; 13:9-11; 14:3; 15:12; 16:18; 28:3-6), including healing people (3:7; 5:16b; 8:7; 9:40; 14:9-10; 19:11-12; 28:8-9). Also, the Holy Spirit gives boldness to preach the gospel (4:8,31,33; 6:10), speaks directly to people (8:29; 10:19-20; 11:12; 13:2; 15:28-29; 16:6-7; 20:23; 21:4), and prophesies (11:28; 21:9,11). There are a couple more things like comfort that are mentioned a few times. But for the most part, these are the works of the Holy Spirit in Acts. I'm not going to finish this with a disclaimer like: "but He doesn't work like this anymore" because it doesn't say anything like that. After I finish through the Bible I'm sure I will look at some commentaries on this, but until then, I am just relaying what is said. I know that I have never healed someone, spoken in tongues, cast out a demon, prophesied, or heard the Lord audibly talk to me, but I'm not going to say that it doesn't happen just because it hasn't happened to me. That would be ridiculous and nearsighted.

Now I want to talk about my favorite part in Acts, the way Paul preaches the gospel. Only a few times does it actually show him preaching. Much of the time, he is found reasoning with people and proving to them, through the Scriptures, that Jesus is the Christ (18:4,19; 19:8-9). I think that is so cool. He is sitting down there reasoning with these people and discussing things with them.

There are many other things in Acts concerning the church and what they looked like. Often the apostles are shown "preaching and teaching the word of God." Acts 20:17-38 is one of the most emotionally moving things that I have read in the Bible to this point. He is talking to the Ephesian elders and telling them that he probably won't ever see them again. He's giving them instruction about how to conduct themselves and the church. At the end of it they all knelt down to pray together and it says there was much weeping.

Anyway, there is a lot of good stuff in here but it is in little chunks since it is a narrative. I just wanted to give you the main point of what I thought Acts was giving and I believe that it is the work of the Spirit of the Lord. The rest of the things talked about in here (circumcision, salvation by grace alone, election, elders and deacons) will be discussed in the letters so I know I can discuss it in more detail with you there.

Soli Deo gloria

John

John is going to be very difficult to talk about. The reason is that John writes the reasons for Jesus doing almost every thing that He did. It's very theologically packed. I mean there are libraries full of books written on one or two sentences in John (I know I've used that one before, but it fits). So I could sit here and break down each section and talk about all these really important things that Jesus said and did and the reason that He said and did them. But I'm not going to do that. Firstly, because it would take really long. And secondly, because I really don't know what most of them mean. So you will get the large themes of John along with some things that I am working through and trying to iron out.

Disclaimer: I am talking about some things in here that are hotly debated topics. I am prayerfully talking about them in humility. I don't pretend to know everything that the Bible says. By God's grace (not of my own work) I am starting to understand some things by reading through them. But I am only trying to present to you what God says in His Word. So again, I pray that this can be done in humility.

The most important theme of John is that Jesus is the Son of God and the promised Messiah. John hits this point over and over and over again to the extent that he is hammering it into our heads. He uses Jesus's own claims (1:51; 3:31; 4:25-26; 5:18,27; 6:27,35,41,48,51; 8:12,18,28,58; 9:35-37; 10:11,14,24-25,30,36,38; 11:4,25; 12:23; 13:31; 14:8-11,20; 17:5) along with the claims of the people around Him (1:1,14,29,34,36,4145,49; 4:42; 6:14,69; 7:26,40-41; 10:33; 11:27; 12:13; 19:7; 20:31) to prove this. If you'll read these, you'll notice that a lot of them are Jesus referring to Himself as "the Son of Man." The reason that is a claim to be the Messiah is because He is reaching back to the prophecy in Daniel 7:13-14. Daniel says that the Messiah is "one like a son of man." So when Jesus calls Himself this, all of the Jews would know that He is claiming to be the Messiah. (I heard that first from Phill Knuth and checked it in my sister's ESV Study Bible in John 1:51 and it seems to be very reliable.) Also, a lot of them are "I am" statements (e.g. "I am the bread of life, I am the vine, I am the good shepherd," etc.). All of these are referring back to Exodus 3:13-14 when Yahweh tells Moses that His name is "I am." The people knew what He was saying when He said this. John 8:58 is the best example of this. As soon as He said "I am" they picked up rocks to stone Him. Also throughout the book, but especially in John 10:33 and 19:7, you will notice that Jesus was not arrested and killed because He was doing good things; It was for claiming deity. That is the point that John is hammering home in this entire book.

Next is what keeps coming up about believing and eternal life. Obviously John 3:16 is the well-know example, "that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." That's not the only place that it is found (1:12; 3:36; 5:24; 6:40,47; 8:24; 12:36,46; 16:27; 20:31). So all over the place He is telling us that by believing in Him, we inherit eternal life. But we have to take a broader look at this. Because he says similar statements all throughout the book. In John 3:36, John equates "believing in the Son" to obeying the Son. ("Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.") This does not look at all like John is contrasting the two. He believes that they mean the same thing. In John 6, Jesus keeps saying that whoever believes has eternal life (40,47). Then He says, "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day (6:54)." And in verse 57 and 58, "so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me... Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." (He says this right after He calls Himself the bread of life). Again in 8:51 Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death." In 10:9 He says, "I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and go in and out and find pasture." In 14:15 Jesus says again, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." and then goes on to promise the Holy Spirit to those who love Him. Then just read John 14:21-24 because it describes who loves Jesus. Again in 15:10 He says, "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love." And in verse 14, "You are my friends if you do what I command." And then the last one is in 17:3 as He's praying to the Father, "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

These are the statements Jesus makes in John about eternal life. I'm not saying I know what these mean because I don't. All I am saying is that I grew up basically believing that John 3:16 was the only verse in the Bible that Jesus talked about eternal life. At the same time, I don't believe that Jesus contradicts Himself. So the only logical thing that I can come up with is that believing Jesus, obeying Jesus, abiding in Jesus, and loving Jesus are all the same thing. That's all I've got. I'm not trying to rock the boat. I just want to follow God's Word and not come up with things on my own.

The next large theme is the theme of the elect. It runs all the way through the book. In John 1:12-13 He says, "But to all who did receive Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor the will of man, but of God." In 5:21 Jesus says, "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will." Just read John 6:22-71. It is worth the read and is very important to read it in that context. Notice especially verses 37, 44, 63, and 65 (notice that people are offended at this teaching [v 61] and after that "many of his disciples turned back and no longer waked with him [v 66]). In John 8:47 Jesus says this to the Pharisees right after He tells them the devil is their father, "Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." Chapter 10 talks all about Jesus being the good shepherd and keeps talking about His flock and that some are apart of His flock and some aren't. Just read the chapter. It's important to read it all in context. In 12:39-40 Jesus quotes Isaiah when he talks about God blinding their eyes and hardening their hearts lest they understand and turn and be healed. In 14:17, when Jesus is promising the Holy Spirit, He says, "... even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you." In 15:15-16 Jesus says "... for all that I have heard from the Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you..." (Just a note: I see how that could be debated that He is only talking to the disciples. I'm not hanging my hat on that, I'm just trying to present everything in the book that has that kind of language. Again the same thing could be said in 15:19) In the High Priestly prayer in chapter 17, three times Jesus talks to the Father about those who the Father gave Him out of the world (verses 6,9,24). Verse 9 says, "I am praying for them (referring back to verse 6, whatever that may mean). I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours." And that is the last that we hear from John on this topic.

Obviously I'm trying to be very careful with these Scriptures. The reason is that I realize it is very much against today's culture and against our instinct to believe these things (that the Father chooses who are His and who aren't). What I am trying to do is put all of the Scripture in front of you that talks about this and not just try to give my opinion. I have the advantage of being able to read all of this in context, so I would beg all of you to go back and read it in context. I am not trying to push my agenda. I am trying to be true to the words that God has given us about Himself. At the same time, I have no problem discussing it with anyone, so feel free to shoot me an email or something.

the next big thing is the promise of the Holy Spirit in chapters 14, 15, and 16. I want to point out two things. The first is that Jesus calls the Spirit, "the Helper." I don't know what exactly that means, I just find it interesting. The second thing is that in 16:7, Jesus says that it is to our advantage for Him to leave because that means the Spirit will come. That is amazing. Next is something that I know I have to mention because it jumped out at me. It is in John 14:12, "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works that these will he do, because I am going to the Father." I just find that interesting because I don't know what He is talking about. I know that later in the New Testament Paul talks about healing and gifts like that, but we have pretty much done away with those. We say that they aren't for this culture or time or something. But when Jesus says "whoever believes in me" I assume that that means all times. Like I said, I don't know that this means. I'm just trying to put it all on the table.

Well that's it. Yes I realize that was a lot. John is a very full book. I hope that if nothing else this challenged you to look at the Word and see what it says instead of just assuming that we all know what it says. And I can honestly say that I don't know what most of this means. I'm praying for enlightenment from the Spirit and praying that He gives me understanding, but I don't understand it all. So I am praying that He continues to give me understanding and continues to sanctify me into Christ's image. Now onto the rest of the New Testament.

Soli Deo gloria

I Purpose to Be Absolutely His

"I claim no right to myself - no right to this understanding, this will, these affections that are in me; neither do I have any right to this body or its members - no right to this tongue, to these hands, feet, ears, or eyes. I have given myself clear away and not retained anything of my own. I have been to God this morning and told Him I have given myself wholly to Him. I have given every power, so that for the future I claim no right to myself in any respect. I have expressly promised Him, for by His grace I will not fail. I take Him as my whole portion and felicity (happiness), looking upon nothing else as any part of my happiness. His law is the constant rule of my obedience. I will fight with all my might against the world, the flesh, and the devil to the end of my life. I will adhere to the faith of the Gospel, however hazardous and difficult the profession and practice of it may be. I receive the blessed Spirit as my Teacher, Sanctifier, and only Comforter, and cherish all admonitions to enlighten, purify, confirm, comfort, and assist me. This I have done. I pray God, for the sake of others, to look upon this as a self-dedication, and receive me as His own. Henceforth, I am not to act in any respect as my own. I shall act as my own if I ever make use of any of my powers to do anything that is not to the glory of God, or to fail to make the glorifying of Him my whole and entire business. If I murmur in the least at afflictions; if I am in any way uncharitable; if I revenge my own case; if I do anything purely to please myself, or omit anything because it is a great denial; if I trust to myself; if I take any praise for any good which Christ does by me; or if I am in any way proud, I shall act as my own and not God's. I purpose to be absolutely His." -Jonathan Edwards

Luke

First and foremost, I want to make it clear that Luke is about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus to fulfill the Scriptures (24:44-47). This is slammed into our heads throughout the book, and Luke always comes back to it (9:21-22; 18:31-32; 24:7). And when Jesus talks about proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of God (4:43; 9:2,60; 16:16), I believe that He is the good news that He is talking about (11:20; 17:21). I say all of that because I have a lot of things to say about Luke. They are about what Jesus stresses in the things that He says to His disciples and to the crowds, but know that what He stresses more than anything is that He is the Messiah and He came to proclaim His gospel.

In order to hit that point home a little bit, I'd like to share something that I learned this week. I had been making sure to underline any point in the gospels that Jesus or someone else claimed that He was the Messiah or the Son of God. Then as I was sitting, listening to one of my friends teach a class at church, he brought up this point. Jesus keeps referring to Himself as "the Son of Man." In fact, He calls Himself by that name like 80 times in the gospel accounts. I didn't catch this, but He is referring back to Daniel 7:13-14 (that's not just a guess my friend had, it's well-known apparently). This is a prophecy about the Messiah in which Daniel calls the Ancient of Days "one like a son of man." Apparently this would have been obvious to the people of that day, especially people like the Pharisees would studied every prophecy there ever was about the Messiah. So every time that Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man, He is claiming to them that He is the Messiah.

Now, let's talks about the themes that come out in what Jesus says in Luke. There are many things that keep being referred to, but there are two in particular that just jump out and I want to talk about a little. The first is the theme that has run through the Bible of God working through the weak and poor (We've talked about this before and referenced Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2, go back and look at the third paragraph in my notes on 1 Samuel). This theme is hammered into our heads in Luke. This makes sense because Luke was a Gentile. Actually, he was the only known Gentile to write a book of the Bible. Some of the places that he emphasizes this are 2:10,32; 4:25-29; 7:9; 17:16b; 20:16-17; 21:24. And those are just the passages that talk about the Gentiles. It seems that every single healing was done to someone that society deemed as worthless (lepers, women, widows, blind, cripples, children, poor). And that is only the half of it. He doesn't stop at lifting up the weak; He puts down the strong. The Pharisees are His main opposition throughout the book, and they are probably the most well thought of people in the Jewish community. The Parable of the Banquet is another perfect example, along with the good Samaritan, the rich man and Lazarus, and the rich young ruler of how Jesus puts down people who would be considered good.

Here is my point. The things that Jesus was saying were not intuitive. They were completely unprecedented. That is why all of these sayings are met with awe and bewilderment. The rich were the good people and the poor were not. It would have never occurred to them that God did not think the same way. Did you see the disciples' reaction to the rich young ruler? They couldn't believe it. If the rich can't get into heaven then who can? Jesus continually says these things like "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted (14:11)" and "For he who is least among you all is the one who will be great (9:48b)." He says this all the time to His disciples. This is weird. And I don't just mean it was weird then; it is just as weird today, if not more so. This is weird even among our Christian culture. Even in the "selfless things" I do, they are normally so that people will think well of me and lift me up. I am looking to exalt myself. Jesus is telling us things that are FOOLISH in our minds. People do not think this way. And He says it over and over and over again. To wrap it up, the way that Jesus taught us to view ourselves is completely radical and life-altering. It is impossible to tack Him on and have no change, and it is impossible to be a disciple of Jesus and not look profoundly different than the rest of the world.

The next stress that Jesus has is found in Luke 9:23-26, 57-62, and 14:25-33. This is not talked about very much. We don't like it because it sounds like a works based salvation. Either that or we just don't want to hear it because it would mess some things up for us. Here are the passages:

•And he said to all, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

•As they were going along the road, someone said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." And Jesus said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead. But as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God." Yet another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but let me first say farewell to those at my home." Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."

•Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace. So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple.

Just think about those things that God just said for a minute. I'm not sure about you, but those are not what I see in my life. I haven't given up everything. And we are so quick to say "Well He didn't actually mean you have to give it up. You just have to be willing to give it up." I don't think that's what He's saying. And I don't think that because it's not what He said. He said right there in verse 33 of Luke 14, "So therefore, any one of you who does not renounce everything that he has cannot be my disciple." I have to give it all up. I'm not saying that I have to get rid of all of my stuff, but I have to give it all up. It is not mine anymore. Later in the Bible Paul calls us slaves quite a bit. A slave does not own anything. He takes care of some things, but they belong to his Master. And again we want to say, "No I can keep my stuff, I just have to be willing to give it up." Well that may be true, but I can promise you right now that I have not renounced what I have. Because if I had given it all up to Jesus, I wouldn't buy the things that I buy. I wouldn't spend my time doing the things that I spend my time doing. I wouldn't spend most of my energy trying to attain comfort. Just think about that for a little bit. I know it has been heavy on my mind for the past few days. Pray about it. I'm not offering up any answers to questions. I have plenty of my own questions to answer. The thing that we have to ask is this: Is He worth it? Because this is not a price paid for the gift. It is a reaction that must take place because we have been given a gift that we could not buy. Jesus tells us to look at Him and decide if He is worth it. So is He?

It's kind of hard to transition from that, but I'll just keep going. The other themes from Matthew and Mark are upheld in Luke. Old Testament Scripture is all over the place. Jesus makes it obvious (and even rejoices) that we cannot understand His Gospel unless the Father allows us to (10:21-22).

Something that is different than the other gospel accounts is the emphasis on the Holy Spirit. He is especially prevalent towards the beginning of the book. It is obvious that Jesus lived His life on earth in the power of the Spirit (4:14) which I had not thought about much.

One other thing that is important to note is that Jesus points something out after His resurrection that is vital. On the road to Emmaus (24:25-27) and then when He appears to His disciples (24:44-45), He points out to them that all of the Scriptures (Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms) are about Him. All of it points to Jesus. That is very important. And it's becoming more and more obvious to me as I read.

That's all I have. Obviously Luke was a pretty eye-opening book for me. There were some things that I have seen, but I just didn't notice until now. Obviously the three passages about the cost of discipleship dominated a lot of my feelings on Luke. Since I have read this stuff, I started to look at some of David Platt's sermons because I know he talked about Luke 9:57-62 in that sermon that Dayton sent me. So I found this series that he preached a couple years ago. I've listened to two of them now. He's hitting very good points. I'd recommend that you listen to them, because He explains these things way better than I can. I hope that this challenges you. And I want it to encourage you but I want to be careful about that. I want it to point you toward Christ. The last thing I want to do is encourage people to keep living the way they are living if it doesn't line up with Scripture. So I pray that this points you toward Yahweh.

Soli Deo gloria

Mark

Mark is very different from Matthew in how it is written, but tells the same story and emphasizes the same things for the most part. Mark is extremely concise (only 16 chapters whereas Matthew has 28). The reason for this is probably connected to when they were written. Mark was the first of the gospel accounts (written in about 65 A.D.). So it makes sense that it would be the most to-the-point of the three synoptic (general summary; Matthew, Mark, Luke) gospels. There is a sense of urgency to Mark's story. Forty-one times he begins a sentence with "and immediately." The way that he writes makes everything seem like it is connected.

Mark begins with the most important thing in the book: the book is about Jesus, who is the Son of God (1:1). And right away he shows that prophecy of scripture is being fulfilled. He jumps right into Jesus's ministry as opposed to Matthew or Luke who give a lot of background first.

The biggest thing that I saw in Mark is that everything seemed to center around Jesus suffering, death, and resurrection. Three times He tells His disciples that these things have to happen (8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34), and every time they just don't understand (8:32; 9:32; 10:35-37). And after each time of them not getting it, Jesus talks to either them or the large crowds about having to follow after His humility and suffering (8:34-38; 9:33-37; 10:35-45).

Obviously there are other things in here but those are the things that stuck out to me after reading both Mark and Matthew. I have a few questions for people who have studied these things. First, what is up with the signs of the end of the age (Matthew 24 and Mark 13)? Have these things happened yet? A lot of it seems to not line up in the way that I am looking at it. I just really don't get it. (Yes Jr I am asking you if you know anything about it.) Next is the ending in Mark. I have no idea how trusting I should be of the last twelve verses in brackets in Mark. How much of a question is there regarding that ending? Just a few questions that I was unsure about and I'm sure will come up later on.

Next is Luke. This is the format the rest of the gospel accounts will probably take now, me contrasting what I saw and just noting new things. The themes of fulfilling OT scripture, God using the weak to confound the strong, and God being the one who allows us to come to Him were all still in Mark. I just was looking for different things. I am guessing that I will find a few in Luke since it is so long. And I know that there will be a lot in John because it is so different.

Soli Deo gloria

Matthew

Wow. I could not have prepared myself for the reading of the first gospel. Reading it in light of the entire Old Testament made it so much different than any other time that I have read it. So amazing. Reading the suffering of Jesus in chapter 27 was one of the most emotional things I have ever done. But I will just go through as best I can and hit on some things that stuck out to me. I think that will be the best way of doing this since most of you have heard the story of Jesus over and over again in your life. And honestly me summing up the whole thing wouldn't do it a lick of justice.

The most noticeable thing for me in the entire book was how hard Jesus's teachings are to understand. I could study those for years on end and still never get them. (But I still plan on doing just that.) They are just not things that are common sense type things. The wording in them just seemed to be so difficult to understand. Ones that were really hard for me to follow were 9:14-17; 10:34-39; 12:22-32; 22:1-14. Those were just some that I read and I was like "What the heck does that have to do with anything?" I'm sure more study and prayer will help though. And possibly seeing them in the other gospels will be beneficial too.

The next thing that I noticed was the amazing connections to the Old Testament that both Matthew and Jesus had. Ten times Matthew says "This was to fulfill what was written" and then quotes an Old Testament text (1:22; 2:6,15,17; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9). And eighteen times Jesus quotes the Old Testament (4:4,7,10; 11:10; 13:14-15; 15:4,8-9; 19:5, 18-19; 21:13,16,42; 22:32,37,44; 23:39; 26:31; 27:46). What may mean even more is how he refers to the Old Testament characters. I have heard it said many times that the stories of Jonah and Noah may or may not be historically accurate. And most people say it doesn't really matter whether they are or not. Well I'd say that it matters because Jesus obviously believed them to be true. He spoke of Jonah (12:38-41; 16:4), Solomon (12:42), Daniel (24:15), and Noah (24:37-39) as if they were historical fact and it doesn't even seem debatable. My point is that Jesus believed the Old Testament account to be factual and He put an amazing amount of stock in it.

A theme that is picked up from the entire Old Testament is the theme of Yahweh using the weak or lowly to confound the strong or self-righteous (this is found most explicitly in Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2). Jesus goes to the children, the tax collectors, the sick, the poor, the diseased, even the Gentiles (15:21-28). These are the people He chooses to reveal the kingdom to. Not the intellectual Pharisees or to the upper class. He again (like always) is using the foolish to confound the wise.

This next note was something that I did not expect, but it was very obvious from the reading. The theme of Ezekiel 11:19-20 and 36:26-27 is carried on here to the fullest extent. In both of those passages it is obvious that the work is done by Yahweh. He changes the hearts of stone to hearts of flesh so that the people may be obedient to His ways. That is continued in Matthew. The places where it is seen are 11:25-27; 13:11; 16:17; 19:11; 20:1-16 [esp. v 15]; 22:14. Notice that God gives understanding to whomever He chooses. I know that not very many people like this. Jesus knew that this was an offensive teaching (John 6:60-61). I am not trying to push an agenda. I am telling you what is on the pages in front of me and trying to relay God's Word to the people around me.

The last big thing to stick out to me was the offense for which Jesus was actually crucified. It is very plain in Matthew 26:65 that the charge against Jesus was blasphemy. He claimed that He was Yahweh. That is why the Pharisees hated Him. Not because He was more popular. Not because He taught true brotherhood. Not because He was a good teacher. Jesus Christ was killed because He believed Himself to be Yahweh. There is no way of getting around that and I know for a fact that this shows up way more in John's gospel.

This is all that I have for you. I know it is a bit different than the notes on the minor prophets and the other books of the Old Testament. I can't promise that I will stick to this style. I probably will at least in the gospels but we will see. As I have said before, this is meant to challenge you. Don't just sit back and think that everything is hunky dory and you've got it all figured out (or even that you've got it figured out that you don't need to have everything figured out). Open up your Bible and read it. This is what we base our entire Christian faith and all our beliefs about God on. It's important.

Soli Deo gloria