“The Christmas spirit is the spirit of those who, like their Master, live their whole lives on the principle of making themselves poor–spending and being spent– to enrich their fellow men, giving time, trouble, care, and concern, to do good to others–and not just their own friends–in whatever way there seems need. There are not as many who show this spirit as there should be.”

-JI Packer, Come Thou Long-Expected Jesus, p. 72.

(HT: Justin Childers)

The Christmas message is that there is hope for a ruined humanity – hope of pardon, hope of peace with God, hope of glory – because at the Father’s will Jesus Christ became poor and was born in a stable so that thirty years later he might hang on a cross.  It is the most wonderful message that the world has ever heard or will hear.

We talk glibly of the “Christmas Spirit,” rarely meaning more by this than sentimental jollity on a family basis.  But what we have said makes it clear that the phrase should in fact carry a tremendous weight of meaning.  It ought to mean the reproducing in human lives of the temper of him who for our sakes became poor at the first Christmas.  And the Christmas spirit itself ought to be the mark of every Christian all year round.

It is our shame and disgrace today that so many Christians – I will be more specific: so many of the soundest and most orthodox Christians – go through this world in the Spirit of the priest and Levite in our Lord’s parable, seeing human needs all around them, but (after a pious wish, and a perhaps a prayer, that God might meet those needs) averting their eyes and passing by on the other side.  That is not the Christmas spirit.  Nor is it the spirit of those Christians – alas, they are many – whose ambition in life seems limited to building a nice middle-class Christian home, and making nice middle-class Christian friends, and bringing up their children in nice middle-class Christian ways, and who leave the submiddle class sections of the community, Christian and non-Christian, to get on by themselves.

The Christmas spirit does not shine out in the Christian snob.  For the Christmas spirit is the spirit of those who, like their Master, live their whole lives on the principle of making themselves poor – spending and being spent – to enrich their fellow  humans, giving time, trouble, care and concern, to do good to others – not just their own friends – in whatever way there seems need.

-J.I. Packer

From World Magazine, J.I. Packer’s advice to new pastors:

You have three priorities: teach, teach, and teach. Evangelical churches are weaker than we realize because we don’t teach the confessions and doctrine. Set new standards in teaching. Understand the word catechesis, and practice that art.

(HT: Justin Buzzard)

From CECHome.com

A movement of 152 Orthodox, Catholic and evangelical Christian leaders have collaborated on the newly-released Manhattan Declaration, which affirms the sanctity of human life, marriage as defined by the union of one man and one woman, and religious liberty and freedom of conscience. The statement endorses civil disobedience under certain circumstances.

Its not often than you come across advice from two highly respected and godly men on the same subject in the same day. But today was an exceptional day…

Here’s some advice from Tim Keller for young pastors.

And here is some advice from JI Packer for new pastors:

“You have three priorities: teach, teach, and teach. Evangelical churches are weaker than we realize because we don’t teach the confessions and doctrine. Set new standards in teaching. Understand the word catechesis, and practice that art.”(you can find the rest of the great article this came from here)

“…But one book is missing from the Packer canon: a systematic theology. He has been teaching systematic theology at Regent for years, so he certainly has done heavy lifting for such a book. Will one be forthcoming? ‘I have a plan,’ he said. ‘But I may not have the time. I would like to leave the world theology that was both catechetical and definitive. But we shall have to see what God has in store.’”

—Warren Cole Smith in his feature of 80-year-old J.I. Packer titled “Patriarch” that appeared recently in WORLD Magazine (Dec 5, 2009, Vol. 24, No. 24). Online here. Pray for health and longevity!

The second section in Andrew Farley’s The Naked Gospel is called Religion is a Headache. I couldn’t agree more.   The idea that our relationship with God is dependent upon us, and our works, is not only burdensome but untrue.

The nature of justification is that it is an act of God’s free grace in which He imputes the righteousness of Christ to all who receive Christ as He is presented to us in gospel.  It is not increased nor decreased by our works, good or bad.

The trouble is, Farley never defines justification.  Farley never defines sanctification, and never distinguishes between the two.  This is at the root of the problem.  Like Roman Catholicism, he does not distinguish between the two.  Unlike Roman Catholicism which then declares that faith AND works are necessary for justification, he says that the law has NO role in our sanctification.

He continually makes two appeals.  The first is that “legalism” as he defines it, makes Christianity look unattractive to non-Christians.  Our lack of joy and satisfaction resulting from our misunderstanding of Christianity drive people away.  The second is to say that if we are to follow the Law we must follow ALL of it, and how absurd it would be for us to follow the 600+ laws given in the Pentateuch.

In the first case, I guess any level of dissatisfaction with marriage should mean that no one should get married.  No, our relationship with God is, at times, dissatisfying and frustrating because we have not yet been made perfect.  We are still adjusting to life with Christ, just as two spouses continually adjust to life together.  Just as no marriage is an entirely blissful relationship, our relationship with God is not all pure bliss and joy this side of heaven.  You get no indication that this is so from Acts or any of the Epistles.  Life was hard and God’s people struggled with sin even though they were on this side of the cross and indwelt by the Holy Spirit.   That last point is one of the ways in which we have a better covenant, but Farley seems to take too much of the “not yet” and deposit it into the “already” aspects of salvation.  He sets people up for false expectations, like the children’s song about being happy all the time since I asked Jesus into my heart.

Secondly, he ignores that the ceremonial aspects of the Law have been declared to have been fulfilled.  Jesus declared all foods clean- I don’t have to follow the dietary laws.  Jesus fulfilled all the sacrifices and other stipulations of the laws of worship, so we do not keep them anymore (Hebrews).  To do so would be to turn back the redemptive clock.  The moral law is more than just a list of dos and don’ts.  It also reveals the character of God, the very likeness we are being conformed into.

This connects with his failure to distinguish between justification and sanctification.  When Paul is addressing the law in terms of justification in Galatians (and Romans), Farley also applies this to sanctification.  He does not keep the context of those passages in mind and therefore misinterprets and misapplies them.

“The New (covenant) involves God’s desires being written inside of us, so that we have the guarantee of being his people no matter what.”

So what are God’s desires?  Wouldn’t that be contained in the 10 Commandments?  Farley refers to Hebrews 8:10, in which he claims “the author of Hebrews actually misquotes the Old Testament.”  Huh?  The Holy Spirit inspiring someone to misquote the Old Testament?  No, not quite.  He claims that the author of Hebrews is clarifying things.  I can agree with that, but not misquoting.  But his clarification is that God is not writing the Law of Moses on our hearts (though  in Ezekiel 27, a parallel promise of the new covenant,  He puts His Spirit in us to move us to follow & keep his laws and decrees, not his desires, which explains Jeremiah 31).  He draws a distinction between the Law (the whole system) and laws (nothing in the Law).    Farley makes a strange, unprovable, distinction between the Law of Moses and God’s laws.  Moses received those laws from God.  It is to the moral law that James refers to which gives us freedom (note how he uses it in the mirror illustration).  But Farley retreats again to the absurdity of saying that if it is the Mosaic covenant it must refer to everything including diet, wardrobe etc.

In his discussion of Hebrews in chapters 4 & 5 he never addresses the context of Hebrews.  Hebrew Christians, under the pressure of persecution, where considering returning to Jewish forms of worship.  To go back would be to reject that which is greater, for Jesus is the greatest prophet, priest and king the One to whom the law pointed and in whom the law is fulfilled.

So what purpose does the law fulfill?  Here is Farley’s answer:

“Today, the law speaks to only one group, namely, unbelievers.  … The law is irrelevant to life in Christ. … Its sole purpose is to convict the ungodly of their spiritually dead state.”

He recognizes that the law is good, holy and righteous.  He recognizes that the problem is with us, not the law.  So rather than Jesus changing us through regeneration and sanctification, Farley argues that God merely gets rid of the law.  The presence of the Holy Spirit in us is supposed to be enough.

Here is where Farley makes a number of errors based on his erroneous definition of legalism.  Though the moral law remains a guide, the power to obey it comes only from Jesus in the presence of the Spirit (granted, I have not yet gotten to the place where he defines the ‘desires’ of God the Spirit writes on us).  He again fails to distinguish between justification and sanctification.  He neglects the fact that when Paul explains love in Romans 13 (within the context of sanctification) he says this:

8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law.  9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (NIV)

Love is the goal of the commandments.  Paul was not afraid of the Law, but saw it as useful for us to understand what love does.  So, the law is our guide to show us how to love God and our neighbor.  Paul does not share Farley’s perspective of the Law.  Paul and James use the Law to convict Christians of their sin.  Those letters are addressed to particular churches, they are not evangelistic.  They are not legalistic in that they do not teach that our acceptance with God is derived or maintained by law keeping.  But they do believe that as new creatures, regenerate persons, God is working in us to conform us to the likeness of His Son (Rom. 8:29) and the Law continues to reveal our sin (that we might confess it) and direct our love.  As Packer notes, it is the rails for love.  The law teaches us what direction love moves in particular situations.

Farley thinks that if we have the Law as our guide we are “under law” and therefore dominated by sin.  In his passages on sanctification, Paul does not say we put the law to death, but our sinful desires to death.  Those sinful desires are revealed by the Law.  We do this in the power of the Spirit- grace!  We remain under grace for we do all of this by faith and in the power of the Spirit, not the flesh.

Farley thinks the leading of the Spirit is enough.  But how does the Spirit lead?  Does He not lead through the Word?  The Spirit leads me into marital faithfulness, generosity rather than greed, guarding the reputation of others rather than gossip, etc.  He leads me to fulfill the Law which hangs upon love for God and neighbor.  We do not think the law changes us- the Spirit does that.  Yet Farley talks of victory over sin.  What is sin but lawlessness (1 John 3:4).  So, obedience is to live in keeping with the law, right?

“Understanding the law’s place in the world today keeps us from the error of antinomianism (“law hating”).”

Here, Farley defines antinomianism as hating the law in a way that denies its place in the world today (according to him) is to convict the world of sin.  So, antinomianism is supposedly hating the law which convicts me of my sin.

“Antinomianism so stresses Christian freedom from the condemnation of the law that it underemphasizes the need of the believer to confess sins daily and to pursue sanctification earnestly.  It may fail to teach that sanctification inevitably follows justification.”  The New Dictionary of Theology

By this more common and accepted definition of antinomianism, Andrew Farley is, in fact, an antinomian who is advocating antinomianism.  He is against the law for its proper use among those who have been redeemed (not even the context of the law in Exodus 20 & Deuteronomy 5-6.  it is given in the context of redemption not to earn justification).

“those who deny the place of the law in the life of the Christian are advocates of free vice in the guise of free grace.”  Thomas Shepherd

Farley gets the relationship between law and gospel correct in matters of justification.  But he fails to get the relationship correct in matters of sanctification.  As a result, Sinclair Ferguson would say in his lectures on the  Marrow Controversy, he distorts both law and gospel.  While we do need to declare the gospel of free grace freely in matters of justification, we also need to declare how grace works in our sanctification freely.  Paul did both, and so should we, if we are to be healthy, biblical churches.  To avoid one error by embracing another does no one any good.

“Were I asked to focus the New Testament message in three words, my proposal would be adoption through propitiation, and I do not expect ever to meet a richer or more pregnant summary of the gospel than that.”

—J.I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: 1993), 214

(HT: Of First Importance)

Paul writes in Romans 8:13, ‘if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.’

This introduces the important but neglected subject of ‘mortification’.

’Mortification,’ says J.I Packer in God’s Words, ‘is war.’ Four steps are involved in this warfare:-

1. We must know our enemy

We fight, not just sins, but the sinful nature which lies behind all instances of sinful actions. The unbeliever is a slave to sin, Ro 6:16-23. But the believer has had a change of heart and mind; he has renounced sin, and is determined to crucify the flesh and its lusts, Ga 5:24. But sin remains as a kind of devilish alter ago. The Christian therefore finds a conflict within himself, Ga 5:17. He wants to be perfect, but he never is, Ro 7:19-20.

‘Neither is it expressible with what vigour and variety sin acts itself in this matter. Sometimes is proposeth diversions, sometimes it causeth weariness, sometimes it finds out difficulties, sometimes it stirs up contrary affections, sometimes it begets prejudices, and one way or another entangles the soul, so that it never suffers grace to have an absolute and complete success in any duty.’ (Owen)

2. We must know our objective

If ignorance of our enemy is blindness, then ignorance of our objective is to fight aimlessly. He who aims at nothing achieves nothing. Our objective is to mortify sin; to put it to death so that it can trouble us no more. We will not achieve this objective in this life, but we are to progress towards it. We are not merely to resist attacks when they come, but to take the initiative against them.

Mortification is:-

(a) a life’s work: we do not cease from the fight until we die;

(b) a painful discipline: sinful habits can become so much part of ourselves that to attempt their destruction is like cutting off a hand, or plucking out an eye, Mt 5:29-30;

(c) but it is an effective discipline: every help is at hand to aid us in the fight, and every satisfaction is enjoyed by those who can look back at sins now conquered by the power of the Spirit of God.

3. We must know our superiority

Nobody has much heart for a fight which he believes he cannot win. But God obliges the Christian to expect success in this matter. In regeneration he has been made a ‘new creation’, 2Co 5:17.

The Spirit:-

(a) has implanted a new life-principle: we have been ‘raised with Christ, Eph 2:5 Col 2:12-13 3:1; we have had implanted in as a spontaneous affinity to God and godliness; to sin may be inevitable, but it is no longer natural;

(b) has dealt a death-blow to sin: this is an effect of our justification and regeneration, Ro 6:6; sin no longer has dominion over us, Ro 6:14; our part is to hasten sin’s inevitable demise. ‘However furious or stubborn sin may prove, however deeply it may have entrenched itself behind bad habits and temperamental weaknesses, sustained pressure cannot fail to uproot and rout it.’

(c) took up residence in the heart: he indwells the believer, Ro 8:9-11 1Co 6:19; he is present in person to oppose indwelling sin. He teaches the Christian to understand and apply revealed truths. He stirs up the Christian to obey and strengthens him as he does so.

It is almost a fact that most Christians now believe that the right to share the gospel must be earned.  Therefore most Christians think of evangelism as starting friendships where the aim is to cultivate trust to the point where a conversation about the gospel would be natural and comfortbale.  Is this a Biblical way to think about evangelism?  NO.

This belief comes from J.I. Packer’s book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God (1961). This book is a foundational document on evangelism, divine sovereignty, and human responsibility.  Besides this one belief it produces, the book is great.  On page 90 Packer says the following:

The right to talk intimately with another person about the Lord Jesus Christ has to be earned, and you earn it by convincing him that you are his friend, and that you really care about him…we must be justified in choosing to talk to them about Christ and in speaking to them about their own spiritual needs…

I know that many who may read this will instantly think that I’m the one who is wrong to say Packer is wrong here, but hear me out.  This line of thinking that we must ‘earn’ the right to share the gospel, and be ‘justified’ in bringing up the gospel with people makes one error.  It makes the error of being more cultural then Biblical.  Do you see Jesus or any of the apostles earning the right to share the gospel in the Bible?  Did Philip earn the right to intrude on the Egyptian eunuchs reading time to ask him “What are you reading?” (Acts Did Stephen earn the right to share with the people before they stoned him? (Acts 7) Did Paul earn the right to preach to those cities?

The answer to this question, from the Bible, is always no.  Everyone who shared the gospel was more concerned with getting the message of Jesus out than the person’s feelings about being offended by the gospel.  If the Jesus or the apostles were concerned with ‘earning’ the right to share the gospel before they shared, I think the growth of the Church would have been drastically different!  This is where I think Packer, and the many who agree with him on this issue, have uncritically accepted a cultural rule over the Bible.

I am not saying that friendships are not a great way to share the gospel, they are and should be used and sought after diligently!  I am not saying that we ought to just go out banging people in the head with our Bibles, screaming at them to repent.  I am not saying that evangelism should be done without love, it ought to!  I am saying that I think Packer is wrong to say that sharing the gospel with someone has to be earned.  It does not.  Would it be loving to let a blind man keep walking toward to edge of a cliff?  No, it wouldn’t.  No one in their right mind would ever think upon seeing this, “I cannot go up and tell him he’s going in the wrong direction, I don’t want to intrude on his choices, and besides, we don’t even know each other, how could I tell him to change the path he has chosen to walk on?”  That is absurd to the highest degree, and just like that, today too many Christians view evangelism in the same manner.  “We cannot just go up to people and say their wrong, and that they should repent and turn to Jesus, that would be foolish and offensive!”

We must see that Jesus never earned the right to share Himself with others, and the apostles never earned the right to share the gospel.  Christians must take up the gospel, as it is, and share it with those around them, in love.  We know their end is hell if they do not repent, and that should move us to share with them and plead with them, IN LOVE, to turn to Jesus while there is still time.  May we never withhold sharing the gospel because we think we have not earned the right to do so!  No messenger of a king bearing the king’s message ever waited to earn his right to share the word from his king.  He shared it, because that was his duty!  So too, all Christians are ambassadors for Christ, and it is our joy to share the gospel with as many as we can.  If Christ has given us approval to go out into the world and make disciples of all nations, we need not earn another’s approval to share the gospel, the message of our king.

This is one place where J.I. Packer has uncritically accepted part of his own culture as Biblical.  Have you done the same?

“The really staggering Christian claim is that Jesus of Nazareth was God made man– that the second person of the Godhead became the ’second man’ (1 Cor. 15:47), determining human destiny, the second representative head of the race, and that He took humanity without loss of deity, so that Jesus of Nazareth was as truly and fully divine as He was human…

It is here, in the thing that happened at the first Christmas, that the profoundest and most unfathomable depths of the Christian revelation lie. ‘The Word became flesh’ (John 1:14); God became man; the divine Son became a Jew; the Almighty appeared on earth as a helpless human baby, unable to do more than lie and stare and wriggle and make noises, needing to be fed and changed and taught to talk like any other child.

And there was no illusion or deception in this: the babyhood of the Son of God was a reality. The more you think about it, the more staggering it gets. Nothing in fiction is so fantastic as is this truth of the Incarnation.”

–J.I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973), 53.

 October 27 , 1553 – Condemned as a heretic for preaching nontrinitarianism and anti-infant baptism, Michael Servetus  was burned at the stake outside Geneva.

“A new heresy has been discovered,” he said. “We must stamp out this burst of hell-fire before it spreads over the surface of the earth…. Freedom of conscience is a doctrine of the devil…. Better to have a tyrant, however cruel, than permit everyone to do what he pleases.”—John Calvin.

“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.”—John Calvin.

Because of these Pure Doctrines—-’Athiest Christopher Hitchens called (our Final Prophet) Calvin a “sadist and torturer and killer,” but who listens to atheists anyway?’

The most famous of these was a Spanish theologian named Michael Servetus. Servetus, who had been arrested and imprisoned by the Catholic church already, attended a sermon in Geneva. He was recognized and arrested in church for heresy. Why because he disagreed with the doctrines of the trinity and of infant baptism. Calvin engineered his prosecution, acted as a key witness for it, and then lobbied for Servetus’ death. Result? Servetus was burned at the stake.

When other Reformers of the day protested the execution of Servetus for a mere doctrinal disagreement, Calvin was incensed: “A new heresy has been discovered,” he said. “We must stamp out this burst of hell-fire before it spreads over the surface of the earth…. Freedom of conscience is a doctrine of the devil…. Better to have a tyrant, however cruel, than permit everyone to do what he pleases.”

Yes, that’s a real quote.

In 1551 Calvin was confronted by a reformer called Jérôme Bolsec, who accused him of making God out to be the author of evil in deciding the fate of the damned before their creation. Bolsec was imprisoned by the magistrates and lucky to be banished from the city.

There were a total of 57 people executed in Geneva during the 4 years of John Calvin’s power over the city of Geneva.

Twenty-three people, mostly women, were burned at the stake was witches. Calvin wrote later that they were found guilty for trying to use witchcraft to spread the black plague.

Several people, mostly women, were executed for the capital offense of adultery.

One little girl was executed for slapping her mother. But that’s just Old Testament law, right?

Jacques Gruet was arrested, tortured for 30 days and, upon confession, beheaded for being an atheist.

Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for being a heretic.

This isn’t to mention a number of other crimes, such as a number of women in Geneva being thrown in prison for the “sinful practice” of dancing. But on Calvin’s 500th birthday, a number of Calvinist theologians have been using the occasion to make the news and defend Calvin.

Christopher Elwood, author of Calvin for Armchair Theologians, a concise summary of Calvin’s life, said “So everyone back then was intolerant. You can’t blame Calvin. In fact, Calvin didn’t want to kill Servetus, he just wanted Servetus to recant his doctrinal error. In fact, Calvin even tried to be lenient and have Servetus beheaded instead of burned at the stake. You wouldn‘t think it, but Calvin was actually deeply influenced by Renaissance humanism.”

Reformed Pastor Jim McClarity quotes J.I. Packer to explain the list of reasons why Calvin having Servetus executed wasn’t really that bad -

“1 – Geneva was a Christian state. In Christian states, denying Christian doctrine is a capital offense. This wasn’t Calvin’s fault. 2 – Other churches like the Catholics burned “heretics” at the stake too. 3 – The Catholics already were planning on killing Servetus for heresy against their church anyway. 4 – Other Protestant Reformers would have killed Servetus too, I mean come on, this heretic was against infant baptism. 5 – Calvin wouldn’t have prosecuted Servetus if Servetus had just admitted that he was wrong. 6 – Calvin just wanted Servetus beheaded – that’s more humane. 7 – This could be seen more as a fault of the culture of the day, not the fault of Calvin’s.”

Oh, ok – we should sympathize with Calvin then. After all, he really was a great Bible scholar.

Reformed Pastor Joe Morecraft said he‘s tired of hearing about Calvin murdering people -

“Look, just because Calvin had all these people executed doesn’t mean his theology was wrong. Geeze, ok, ok, so some of them were executed for disagreeing with his theology – well doesn’t mean they were right. Calvin could have still been right. Do you realize how arrogant it was of Servetus to foolishly go to Calvin’s church. He probably thought he could debate Calvin. Well, he was wrong.”

Elwood also noted that even though Calvin’s predestination doctrine denied the free will of man and seemed to mean that God destined the majority of people to damnation in hell, Calvin and his followers would never emphasize this. “This isn’t something they would push in your face. If you asked them about it, they’d answer you, but no one was burned at the stake for refusing to believe that God created people to go to hell.”

Those who defend our Pure Doctrines are Absolutely Correct in doing so.

Today we Discernmentalists and all members of the GOIP—God’s Only Inerrant Party otherwise known as The Calvinazi Party/The Theocratic Calvinist Christian Fascist Party or CCFP for short celebrate the Pure Christian Fruits and Pure Doctrines of our Final Prophet John Calvin by burning Servetus and all heretics in effigy. When we finally take America back for Jesus and establish our Calvinazi Dominionist Theocratic domination of the world—we will no longer have to burn effigies for we will reestablish the Pure Doctrines of burning all those who disagree with our God-ordained opinions.

Don Jobson—fighting for the Rite of burning  the non-Elect at the stake.

The crucial issue which underlies the “Fundamentalism” controversy thus concerns the attitude in which Christians should approach Scripture, and the use which they should make of it. Evangelicals seek to approach and use it as it demands that men should; that is, they seek to think and live in accordance with its authoritative teaching. Accordingly, they hold that view of the nature and interpretation of Scripture which they believe to be the Bible’s own; and they reject views which they believe to be contrary to it. They reject… the supposition that Scripture errs; for Scripture claims not to err. They reject all methods of biblical criticism which assume about Scripture something other than Scripture assumes about itself. They reject all approaches to Scripture which would not permit it to function in the Church as a final authority. They will not become subjectivists to order. They regard as mistaken those who believe themselves to acknowledge the authority of the Bible while adopting principles of biblical criticism which Scripture repudiates. They reject as misguided all attempts to wield different theological traditions together without seeking to reform them by the Bible. And they do not believe that agreement is possible in this present controversy till both sides have shown the reality of their acceptance of the Lordship of Christ by adopting the biblical interpretation of the principle of biblical authority, and the method of theological procedure which the Bible itself requires.

J.I. Packer, “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God, p 74

New record out based on that old hit show: 

cAlvin and the Chipmunks was a popular children’s cartoon that aired on Nickelodeon. Based loosely on the cAlvin Show from 20 years earlier, this cartoon has many cross overs with iCarly, for no apparent reason. Additionally, the title format is similar to that of iCarly, and the show is set at in the 2080’s A.D. in a newt dominated world, like the contemporary seasons of iCarly.

cAlvin, Simon, (later replaced by Chippy) and Theodore, three Protestant chipmunks, try to balance their musical careers with their primary goal of reforming the church along Calvinistic lines, and fighting the squirrel Pope. Their musical careers are managed by a man called Dave Seville, who, although sympathetic to cAlvin’s theological goals, is primarily concerned with the music business.

 

Truthslayer wanted me to remind you that all Discernmentalists should listen to this  record. It brings a tear to my eye back in the days when Doctrines were Pure! Todd Friel got his start on the show playing Dave and is on this record. My favorite episode is:

             iExile Chippy for Heresy 

cAlvin and Theodore become suspicious of Chippy’s theological leanings. cAlvin calmly confronts Chippy about these issues, but Chippy boldly proclaims himself to be an Arminian, and denounces cAlvin, Theodore, and even their rival Marty as fatalists. Despite much pleading, Chippy refuses to accept the reformed position, and is eventually banished from Geneva. Meanwhile, Spencer builds a sculpture unmolested because Chippy is too involved in a heresy trial to steal Spencer’s tools.

 

Now Truthslayer and I must be off to exile some more heretics.

Don Jobson—Exiling Heretical Youth leaders.

Here’s visual proof that America is a Christian Nation and God’s Chosen Nation—the caption under the photographic evidence reads: “Photograph of that time when Jesus descended from the clouds to deliver the U.S. Constitution. You remember, all of the founding fathers were there, and Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, a liberal professor clutching Origin of the Species to his chest, Satan….” Nevermind these quotes: ” As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
– John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams”As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] … it is declared … that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries….
“The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.”
– Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)”—they were invented by liberals exercising their humanistic pride against our sovereign God who predestined America as His Chosen Nation from the foundation of time. We have visual evidence.

Don Jobson—-Official Voice Of God’s Only Inerrant Party.

We need to realize that while God’s acceptance of each Christian believer is perfect from the start, our repentance always needs to be extended further as long as we are in this world.  Repentance means turning from as much as you know of your sin to give as much as you know of yourself to as much as you know of your God, and as our knowledge grows at these three points so our practice of repentance has to be enlarged.

J.I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit: Finding Fullness in Our Walk with God, 87.

HT: Timmy Brister

“We need to realize that while God’s acceptance of each Christian believer is perfect from the start, our repentance always needs to be extended further as long as we are in this world.  Repentance means turning from as much as you know of your sin to give as much as you know of yourself to as much as you know of your God, and as our knowledge grows at these three points so our practice of repentance has to be enlarged.”

- J.I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit: Finding Fullness in Our Walk with God, 87.

HT: Timmy

“We need to realize that while God’s acceptance of each Christian believer is perfect from the start, our repentance always needs to be extended further as long as we are in this world.  Repentance means turning from as much as you know of your sin to give as much as you know of yourself to as much as you know of your God, and as our knowledge grows at these three points so our practice of repentance has to be enlarged.”

- J.I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit: Finding Fullness in Our Walk with God, 87.

***********

For the context of Packer’s comments click here.

JI Packer states with regards to Luther’s Bondage of the Will:

“Here was the crucial issue: whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. ‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation.  The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia.  What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfil? Is it a part of Gods gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves?”

Martin Luther, On the Bondage of the Will (Revell: USA 1957) pg. 59. (JI Packer’s quote from the introduction to Luther’s work).

CJ Mahaney has some helpful posts on the believer’s adoption. Here’s a great quote from J.I. Packer he includes:

That justification—by which we mean God’s forgiveness of the past together with his acceptance for the future—is the primary and fundamental blessing of the gospel is not in question. Justification is the primary blessing, because it meets our primary spiritual need. We all stand by nature under God’s judgment; his law condemns us; guilt gnaws at us, making us restless, miserable, and in our lucid moments afraid; we have no peace in ourselves because we have no peace with our Maker. So we need the forgiveness of our sins, and assurance of a restored relationship with God, more than we need anything else in the world; and this the gospel offers us before it offers us anything else…

But contrast this, now, with adoption. Adoption is a family idea, conceived in terms of love, and viewing God as father. In adoption, God takes us into his family and fellowship—he establishes us as his children and heirs. Closeness, affection and generosity are at the heart of the relationship. To be right with the God the judge is a great thing, but to be loved and cared for by God the Father is greater.

Knowing God (IVP, 1993), pp. 206–207.

This video by Tim Conway underscores a point I made in my last post regarding the potentially damning dangers of theology.  When theology is pursued as an end in itself, can it become an idol?  I think so; and idolatry in any form, committed by anyone, is nothing short of an act of treason against God (see 1 Cor. 10:1-14).

Continue reading below the video clip for more excerpts from “Knowing God”

Looking at God through the wrong end of the telescope

In my last post, I described my personal gratitude for J.I. Packer’s outstanding book Knowing God.

In the preface, which you don’t want to skip, Packer identifies what he considers the source of much of the church’s weakness: “ignorance of God—ignorance both of his ways and of the practice of communion with him.”

He goes on to list two factors which contribute to that ignorance:

…one is that Christian minds have been conformed to the modern spirit: the spirit, that is, that spawns great thoughts of man and leaves room for only small thoughts of God…churchmen who look at God, so to speak, through the wrong end of the telescope, so reducing him to pigmy proportions, cannot hope to end up as more than pigmy Christians…these capitulations to the modern spirit are really suicidal so far as Christian life is concerned.

Do you have great thoughts of man and small thoughts of God, or great thoughts of God and small thoughts of man?  Your answer, if honest, is very telling.  As A.W. Tozer once remarked:

What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.

If we’re wise we won’t rest until we find a remedy for the inexcusable ignorance Packer describes.  To that end he urges professing Christians to recover the “lost art” of meditation.

What is meditation?

How can we turn our knowledge about God into knowledge of God? The rule for doing this is simple but demanding. It is that we turn each truth that we learn about God into matter for meditation before God, leading to prayer and praise to God…

Meditation is the activity of calling to mind, and thinking over, and dwelling on, and applying to oneself, the various things that one knows about the works and ways and purposes and promises of God. It is an activity of holy thought, consciously performed in the presence of God, under the eye of God, by the help of God, as a means of communion with God…

Its effect is ever to humble us, as we contemplate God’s greatness and glory and our own littleness and sinfulness, and to encourage and reassure us—’comfort’ us, in the old, strong, Bible sense of the word—as we contemplate the unsearchable riches of divine mercy displayed in the Lord Jesus Christ… it is as we enter more and more deeply into this experience of being humbled and exalted that our knowledge of God increases, and with it our peace, our strength and our joy. God help us, then, to put our knowledge about God to this use, that we all may in truth “know the Lord.”

With that exhortation, Packer concludes the first chapter of “Knowing God.”  Can we ever really grow in our knowledge of God apart from meditating on the truth?  Packer seems to doubt it.  So do I.

I could have sworn I covered the Calvin and Servetus situation in a post somewhere.  But aside from passing references, I have not.  This is one of the things people point to in an effort to discredit John Calvin and his theology.  Similarly, some people point to various American Calvinists who owned slaves.

Something people overlook is that all of these men, Calvin, Edwards, Dabney and more, were sinners.  Each time and culture has sinful practices to which their members, often godly in many other ways, can’t see.  We see their sin much more clearly than we see our own sin.  We, too, can be captive to cultural sins.  And we are!

Were I do have done a fully thought out post on the issue of Calvin & Servetus, it could be no better than the thoughts of J.I. Packer on the subject as posted by Justin Taylor.

The anti-Trinitarian campaigner Servetus was burned at Geneva in 1553, and this is often seen as a blot on Calvin’s reputation. But weigh these facts:

1. The belief that denial of the Trinity and/or Incarnation should be viewed as a capital crime in a Christian state was part of Calvin’s and Geneva’s medieval inheritance; Calvin did not invent it.
2. Anti-Trinitarian heretics were burned in other places beside Geneva in Calvin’s time, and indeed later–two in England, for instance, as late as 1612.
3. The Roman Inquisition had already set a price on Servetus’ head.
4. The decision to burn Servetus as a heretic was taken not only by Calvin personally but by Geneva’s Little Council of twenty-five, acting on unanimous advice from the pastors of several neighboring Reformed churches whom they had consulted.
5. Calvin, whose role in Servetus’ trial had been that of expert witness managing the prosecution, wanted Servetus not to die but to recant, and spent hours with him during and after the trial seeking to change his views.
6. When Servetus was sentenced to be burned alive, Calvin asked for beheading as a less painful alternative, but his request was denied.
7. The chief Reformers outside Geneva, including Bucer and the gentle Melanchthon, fully approved the execution.

The burning should thus be seen as the fault of a culture and an age rather than of one particular child of that culture and age. Calvin, for the record, showed more pastoral concern for Servetus than anyone else connected with the episode. As regards the rights and wrongs of what was done, the root question concerns the propriety of political paternalism in Christianity (that is, whether the Christian state, as distinct from the Christian church, should outlaw heresy or tolerate it), and it was Calvin’s insistence that God alone is Lord of the conscience that was to begin displacing the medieval by the modern mind-set on this question soon after Servetus’ death.

He also notes Piper’s summary thoughts on the issue:

So the times were harsh and immoral and barbaric, and had a contaminating effect on everyone, just as we are all contaminated today by the evils of our time. Their blind spots and evils may be different from ours. And it may be that the very things they saw clearly are the things we are blind to. It would be foolhardy to say that we would have never done what they did under their circumstances, and thus draw the conclusion that they have nothing to teach us. In fact, what we probably need to say is that some of our evils are such that we are blind to them, just as they were blind to many of theirs, and the virtues they manifested in those times are the very ones that we probably need in ours. There was in the life and ministry of John Calvin a grand God-centeredness, Bible-allegiance and iron constancy. Under the banner of God’s mercy to miserable sinners we would do well to listen and learn.

I think Packer’s comments in particular put the event in a broader historical context that people never mention when attacking Calvin.  Do I think he erred?  Yes.  Yet, as Packer noted, he showed more love and compassion towards him than anyone else did.  He plead for his repentance.  He participated in the trial, but he did not make the laws or the penalty for breaking them.  Like all of us, Calvin was a person of his own time and we need to show more charity when we look back in time.