Just wanted to let everyone know that I'm still here. It's been a week since my last post. Though it is my ambition to write a blog every week, there may be times where it takes longer. I'm in Pembroke Pines visiting my mom and sister. My mom is throwing my sister a baby shower. It will be my sister's second baby girl. Her name will be Isabella Grace.

As for other things going on. . . all I can say is I'm about to finish my last spring term at Florida Christian College. After this semester I'll be taking 12 credits during summer school, and then 14 more hours next fall and that's it! I'm done baby. . . woo hoo!!!! Then I'm off to seminary. . . holla at me! I'm really looking forward to seminary. This is what I've been waiting for since I started school.

I'll be writing a new blog soon for your edification.

A Clear Articulation of The Trinity

Dr. James White's book "The Forgotten Trinity," is certainly true: The Trinity is forgotten in our day. I mean seriously, when was the last time you heard someone preach on the Trinity. Most of our church services are so casual that we don't even begin by invoking the name of the Trinity. Most ancient services began by the minister saying, "In the Name of the Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit." At this point the congregation would say, "Amen."

Many of you out there know that I enjoy listening to Christian hip hop. One of my favorite artists is shai linne (name written in lowercase on purpose). On his new album The Atonement he has a song called "Triune Praise." One of the things that impressed me and my wife about this song was the doctrinal accuracy of the words. Since I've met shai on a few occasions I know that he is a solid student of the Word. In addition to this, He is a passionate lover of the Truine God. I decided to post his lyrics on this blog so you all can read these words and be encouraged.


Triune Praise
written by shai linne

Verse 1
Praise God the Father, the Immortal Creator
For Your glory you made us, You're the Sovereign Orchestrator
All that You decree will most surely come to happen
You're awesome as can be and Your glory none can fathom
Nothing could ever stain You, the heavens can't contain You
We thank You for sending Your Son to explain You
Otherwise we would have remained in the dark
but You sent Your Holy Spirit to spark a change in our hearts
According to Your eternal purpose and will
You determined to reveal Yourself to those who deserve to be killed
Those of us whom You foreknew adore You
We praise You that You predestined us to be conformed to
The image of Your Son who's the radiance of Your glory
When I meditate on it, the weightiness of it floors me
So Father, we'll praise you over and over again
Because You sent Your only Son to atone for our sins

Chorus

Glory to the Father, Glory to the Son,
Glory to The Spirit- Three and Yet One
One in Your essence, Three in Your Person
The same in Your nature, distinct in Your working
Oh my soul- behold the wonder of the Trinity
Blessed be the Trinity, Oh, what a mystery!
I'll stand amazed for the rest of my days
Pouring out my heart in Triune praise

Verse 2
Praise God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity
You're distinct from the Father, yet you share in His divinity
Fulfilling an eternal covenant- You came through
To planet earth to save who? All the Father gave You
You became a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief
For the glory of Your Father You extinguished the beef
That stood between us at the cross- the Father's anger released
The Shepherd slain for the sheep, the situation is deep
I can't find the right language to speak, in fact it's making me weep-
Just the thought of You saving this creep
You're risen from the dead, I still can't get this in my head,
How the Judge could leave the bench and go to prison instead
Lord Jesus, you're amazing, Your bleeding is what saved men
It's the reason why we're praising, can't wait to see Your face
In the meantime, please help us to see You as colossal
And by the Spirit live lives worthy of the gospel

Chorus

Verse 3
Praise God the Holy Spirit, 3rd person of the Trinity
Distinct from Father and Son, yet share in Their divinity
Holy Spirit we praise You, You don't like the spotlight
You'd rather point away from yourself and give props to Christ
But yet because You're God, You deserve veneration
And You're the One responsible for our regeneration
You apply the finished work of Christ to all the elect
Your call is effectual- You haven't lost one yet
You comfort us when sin, Satan and the world got us bothered
And it's only by You that we cry out "Abba Father"
You're the Spirit of adoption, the Spirit of Truth,
You graciously provide Your people with the gifts and the fruit
You help us kill sin and dis-attach us from our idols
If it wasn't for You, we'd never understand the Bible
Because You wrote it- For our life it will surely suffice
Amazingly, You do it all for the glory of Christ!

Drawing Lines In The Sand: Ligonier Conference '08

Wow! I can't believe the conference is over already. I can honestly say this conference was exactly what I needed. Before attending I prayed and asked the Lord that this conference might motivate me and rejuvenate me in ways that I could not imagine--He answered that prayer.

I entitled this blog "Drawing Lines In The Sand" because I believe that's what this conference did--it drew lines in the sand--separating the true Christians from those who are only Christians in name. If you are confused by such a statement, I suggest you keep reading. To me, this conference could have been entitled after a book Dr. Sproul has written, "Getting The Gospel Right." While the gospel seems so basic to Christianity (and it should be), unfortunately in our day, many want to redefine it, insert language that is ambiguous (this is done in the name of unity), or completely redefine it. The most recent group to try and redefine the gospel would be the "Emerging Church."

Speaking personally, I enjoyed both of John MacArthur's messages, "Who is Jesus?" and "Simultaneously Righteous and A Sinner." While his first message "Who is Jesus?" seems basic to Christianity, he approached it from a different perspective. The gist of the message was that the world cannot just get certain aspects correct concerning the nature and character of Jesus, they must get His identity right, namely, that He is the incarnate Son of God. His second message was very well done. The most important truth I think he communicated in this message was that there is no shortcut to sanctification. There is no such thing as "Crisis sanctification," so called by certain traditions which say that after going through such an experience, one can become completely sanctified, that is, sinless. This is obviously stressed in certain denominations. MacArthur noted that this type of theology stems mostly from Methodism, and more specifically is an aberrant teaching that came from Charles Finney, whose teachings have been labeled heretical (I can say I concur with such an assessment).

While I will not go into too much detail, I will just mention here that both of Dr. Sinclair Ferguson's messages were great. He lectured on "The Substitutionary Atonement," and "The Nature of Saving Faith." As I said, both were great, but if you had to buy either message I would definitely say to get "The Nature of Saving Faith."

I SAVE THE BEST FOR LAST: Hopefully you've read this whole blog, because this is why I have entitled this "Drawing Lines In The Sand." The two most important messages of this entire conference were taught by Dr. Sproul. His lectures were entitled "Sola Fide," and "Imputed Righteousness." I personally believe these messages will go down in history as being two of the most important lectures in our era. This may seem like a massive overstatement, and I may be shown to be wrong in the future. So why do I say such a thing? I say this, again, because of the times in which we live. In a day where the truths of the gospel seem to be "up for grabs," and where there is a careless attitude toward doctrine--especially concerning the content of the gospel. This mostly shines forth amongst Christians who believe that though there are sharp disagreements on exactly what the gospel is, everyone is still saved. That is to say, different Christian traditions say we are saved different ways: some say by faith, some say by faith alone, others say by faith plus baptism, some say "faith" encompasses baptism, etc. The tacit assumption is that all groups basically believe the same thing. My response to that: NOT TRUE! We must, and I repeat, must get the gospel right. All groups cannot be right. A basic course on logic tells us that much.

In his two messages, Dr. Sproul "drew a line in the sand." He presented the truths of sola fide and imputed righteousness and said in no uncertain terms, "This is the essence of the gospel." To believe this is to be Christian, and to repudiate this is to be apostate. There is no middle ground. To reject sola fide is to cease to be a church. Some may not like this and say it is too divisive. To such a statement our rejoinder comes in the form of a question: "Am I seeking the favor of men, or of God? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a slave of Christ?" (Gal. 1:10).

I entitled this blog "Drawing Lines In The Sand." I think it is obvious why I chose that title. Some may not like what I have said. You may think it is too divisive and/or that it raises lots of questions about certain groups within Christendom. Thus, why I said it's about "drawing a line in the sand." The Reformation was about telling people who thought they were Christians, "You are not Christian." May Christians stand up and raise the banner of the biblical gospel and preach it with tenacity and love for the glory of God alone.

Soli Deo Gloria

Ligonier Conference '08

Tomorrow begins the Ligonier Conference for 2008. The topic this year is "Evangelism According to Jesus." My wife and I are greatly looking forward to this. We started attending the conference in 2006, and since then, we've looked forward to it each year. The conference falls during the same week as Spring Break so it does not cause me to miss any classes. It works out perfectly. For me, each year it turns out to be a boost to help me finish the semester strong. As I listen to all these great speakers, I am encouraged to keep studying so that one day, by God's grace, maybe I will be able to speak on these great topics.

The speakers at the conference this year includes John MacArthur, C.J. Mahaney, Sinclair Ferguson, Steve Lawson, Joni Eareckson, R.C. Sproul Jr., and R.C. Sproul. I'm looking forward to hearing Steve Lawson's pre-conference message "The Foolishness of Preaching." During the conference proper I'm looking forward to hearing MacArthur's "Simultaneously Righteous and a Sinner," Ferguson's "The Substitutionary Atonement of Christ," and of course, Dr. Sproul's "Sola Fide."

Lastly, I would just like to encourage everyone to attend conferences if and when you get chances. They can help motivate you, and remind you of why you do what you do. At the end of the conference I will post another blog (Lord willing) to share my thoughts on how I think everything went. Till then. . .stay strong in the Lord (Jude 3).

Hilarious pictures

Check out these hilarious pictures. . . http://www.verumserum.com/?p=1311 You're going to laugh. I'll post one just to get you going.

Sola Scriptura vs. Scriptura Solo

I was recently reading a blog by Mike Brown (his blog is called "Pilgrim People") where he was discussing this issue of Sola Scriptura vs. Scriptura Solo. He pointed out how so many Christians misunderstand what this means. At the end of this post, I will post his blog so you can read it.
If you've spent time in any evangelical church you've probably heard preachers say something like "We believe in Sola Scriptura. . .only the Bible!" This statement may be followed by castigations against Roman Catholics who follow tradition over the Bible. It is true that Roman Catholics have a different view of tradition (I think it is unbiblical personally), but the assumption is that Protestants are opposed to tradition. It's as if Protestants have no tradition. When talking to Protestants, if you mention the word "tradition" they may go into convulsions, or have a panic attack. . .I'm being facetious, but you know what I mean.

I once heard a great quote that says, "It has become a tradition to disparage the value of tradition." I believe that is right. The major issue with Sola Scriptura is that many take it to mean that they can interpret the Bible anyway they see fit. When the Reformers spoke of Sola Scriptura they meant that the Bible is the only infallible source of revelation from God. Not tradition, the magisterium, or the pope. The reformers did not mean that persons could take the Bible into a corner and interpret it any way they like. Also, when the Reformers spoke of Sola Scriptura they did not mean that the church had no authority. Luther and Calvin both said that the Bible is to be interpreted in and by the church.

The problem with American evangelicalism is that they practice Scriptura Solo. They get alone by themselves and believe 1) that they can interpret the Bible in isolation, 2) that God speaks outside of Scripture. Not all evangelicals believe that, but many do. They have erected this bifurcation between Word and Spirit. In this theology, God's revelation is no longer limited to the Scriptures. They believe in some sort of "audible voice of God." Of course, not all believers experience this, only the spiritual elite. Oddly enough, this theology has more in common with gnosticism, than with biblical Christianity.

Another thought for your consideration is that many who claim to be Protestant believe God speaks outside of Scripture. But, if you claim to be Protestant then you would have to affirm the five solas of the Reformation, the first Sola being Sola Scriptura, i.e. the Scriptures alone, meaning God's revelation is confined to the Bible. Martin Luther, in the year before he died said, "Let the man who would hear God speak, read Holy Scripture!" If you don't believe that statement, why would you call yourself Protestant? Just food for thought. . .
Here's the blog. . .

Sola Scriptura can easily be misunderstood to mean, "me-and-my-own-interpretation-of the-Bible-is-authoritative." The question we must ask is: should the Bible be read and interpreted with the church or apart from the church?
American biblicism answers that question a little differently the Protestant Reformers. The early-American biblicists, for example, demonstrated their misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura by adopting a subjective method of interpretation. Creeds, confessions, and historical theology were thrown out in order to proclaim the primacy of the Bible and re-establish pure Apostolic Christianity. In the book I mentioned in the previous post, Nathan Hatch notes that "[a]ny number of denominations, sects, movements, and individuals between 1780 and 1830 claimed to be restoring a pristine biblical Christianity free from all human devices."[1] The early-American biblicists held suspect doctrines and systems of theology developed by men, and viewed them as a likely perversion of genuine biblical truth. Men like Alexander Campbell, for example, vigorously sought to read the Bible as if he had no theological presuppositions whatsoever:
I have endeavored to read the scriptures as though no one had read them before me…and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system or whatever.[2]
Likewise, the early-American biblicists encouraged all Christians to claim their inalienable right to read and interpret the Bible in the same fashion, and not subject themselves to any theological or ecclesiastical authority that might be contrary to their own interpretation.
Such autonomous and subjective views of hermeneutics (i.e. the art and science of interpretation), however, are divergent from the Reformed dictum of Sola Scriptura. Recognizing the Scriptures as the "regula fidei" (i.e. rule of faith) for the church does not give individuals license to think and say whatever they want. The Bible was never meant to be interpreted apart from the pastoral guidance and teaching that Scripture itself prescribes (Eph 4.11-16; 1 Tim 5.17; 2 Tim 2.15; 4.1-5; Tit 1.9; Heb 13.7). Such radical individualization of interpreting the Bible makes error virtually impossible to avoid. For this reason, the Reformers denied the autonomy of the conscience in private, subjectivist interpretation. Said Calvin, "I acknowledge that Scripture is a most rich and inexhaustible fountain of all wisdom; but I deny that its fertility consists in the various meanings which any man, at his pleasure, may assign."[3]
While the early-American biblicists sought to attain immunity from theological systems, that immunity was never realized. Without theological guidance in biblical interpretation, any formulation of teaching inevitably made the biblicists guilty of the very thing they were trying to avoid. As J. Gresham Machen said in his 1923 refutation of Liberalism, "In seeming to object to all theology, the liberal preacher is often merely objecting to one system of theology in the interests of another."[4]
Oddly enough, this kind of dismissal of historic theology actually does violence to Christ's promise to his Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all truth (Jn 16.13) and bring to their remembrance all things (Jn 14.26) in order that Scripture would be preserved for the instruction of the church until the end of the age (Mt 24.35; 28.20). The early-American biblicists seemed to give no credit at all to the Holy Spirit's work in history of gifting Christ's church with pastors and teachers; rather, the early-American biblicists see the Spirit's true work in ministry being that of immediate revelation[5] and privatized religion. Ironically, the biblicists' seeking of direct revelation and a "tabula rasa" illumination compromises their claim of "no creed but the Bible," as one's personal experience is inevitably elevated to the place of Scripture.
Tragically, however, things have not changed for the better. As Hatch chillingly points out, "Americans continue to maintain their right to shape their own faith and to submit to leaders they have chosen." The result of eighteenth and nineteenth century biblicism has been a church that increasingly looks less like New Testament Christianity and more like the egalitarian culture in which she lives. Populist hermeneutics and privatized, experiential religion has continuously had wide appeal to the American individualistic ethos. The "chronological arrogance," to borrow C.S. Lewis' maxim, of disparaging tradition and centuries of theologizing persists with cavalier vigor.
It is in this tempestuous sea of autonomy that creeds and confessions act as an anchor to the ship of Christianity.

[1]Ibid., p.179
[2] As quoted by Hatch in Democratization, p.179. Hatch gives similar examples of such staggering statements by Caleb Rich, Elhanan Winchester, Elias Smith, Abner Jones, William Smythe Babcock and Lucy Mack Smith in pp. 40-43.
[3] As quoted by Hatch in Democratization, p.180.
[4] Machen, J. Grasham, Christianity & Liberalism (1923, repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p.19
[5] See, for example, Hatch's stunning documentation of the experiences described by Lorenzo Dow on pp.36-37 and Caleb Rich, Elhanan Winchester and Elias Smith on pp.40-42 in Democrati