"J. I. Packer puts his pants on one leg at a time, just like you and me," part I

I've neglected posting for a week, and so here I am with a new post.

I went evangelizing last Friday. It was raining--pretty heavily at first, although it let up later on--and I stayed for about two hours. I handed out many tracts, but I had no really good conversations, as I had last week. I did, however, converse for about ten minutes with a man who, standing just outside a door to a restaurant, was leaning against the wall and smoking. In fact, he was the executive chef for the restaraunt, in charge of all the other chefs. Talking to him with a fellow evangelist (a professor from Midwest Baptist Theological Seminary), I challenged him to consider what the overall purpose of his life was. I asked him what he thought would happen were he to die. In responding, he merely shrugged off my questions. However, he took a tract and said he would show the tract to the other chefs.

Rev. Syms and I met last week and discussed his spiritual disciplines.

I haven't really done anything major this week but only miscellany:

• I have been continuing my (almost two-month) study of Romans. I have now reached Romans 9-11, which I am actually kind of studying as a whole. Most of my study has consisted in (besides reading, re-reading, and meditating on the Scripture text) listening to John Piper's sermons in his series on Romans. These are excellent, and I recommend that anyone who enjoys hearing the Word of God exposited faithfully, skillfully, and passionately should download some of them (see links under "Audio Resources").
• I've been continuing to memorize Scripture (though not everyday, as I should). My score on InVerse is now 69 (which means nothing to you unless you have the program--which you can download free at the InVerse website). Currently, I'm in the process of memorizing Acts 4:12, 27-28; Romans 8:28-30; 1 Corinthians 6:18-20; and Jeremiah 17:9-10.
• Wednesday, I attended a discussion panel/debate on capital punishment at William Jewell. The panel consisted of six people, of whom three represented each side of the issue. Within each of these two groups, each of the three people represented a different aspect of the debate: one the legal aspect, one the moral aspect, and one the "personal" aspect. Each of the panelists in turn made a c.20-minute presentation. Although the event as a whole was stimulating, four of the six panelists were at least mildly inept.

Having taken the Greek final exam, I have now completed my third semester of ancient Greek and my study of the fundamental elements of Greek grammar. I'm now eager to begin reading ancient Greek at Cambridge. But which author should I read? From what I've heard, Plato, Euripides, and Xenophon are among the friendliest authors to read in Greek.

A Busy Thursday

This morning I had a dentist appointment, receiving my semiannual general checkup. Today I must study much for tomorrow's Greek final exam. I am currently focusing on memorizing Romans 8. Today, I'm memorizing Romans 8:28-30:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

"The Cross Alone Is Our Theology"

In April 1518, Martin Luther, having been asked to present his theological thinking to his fellow Augustinians, presented these theses at the General Chapter (meeting) of the Augustinian Order of Germany at Heidelberg, Germany. The theses were very important to the Protestant Reformation--even more so (probably) than Luther's more famous Ninety-Five Theses. For, the theses (and their corresponding proofs [see http://www.catchpenny.org/heidel.html]) show clearly Luther's developing theology, which in 1515 began developing toward Luther's mature theology of the early 1520s. These theses contain the first statements of Luther's glorious "theology of the cross," one of the most powerful statements of theology I have ever heard.

1. The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.

2. Much less can human works, which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end.

3. Although the works of man always seem attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.

4. Although the works of God always seem unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits.

5. The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works which are apparently good), as though they were crimes.

6. The works of God (we speak of those which he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless.

7. The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.

8. By so much more are the works of man mortal sins when they are done without fear and in unadulterated, evil self-security.

9. To say that works without Christ are dead, but not mortal, appears to constitute a perilous surrender of the fear of God.

10. Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin.

11. Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work.

12. In the sight of God sins are then truly venial when they are feared by men to be mortal.

13. Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do, it commits a mortal sin.

14. Free will, after the fall, has power to do good only in a passive capacity, but it can always do evil in an active capacity.

15. Nor could free will endure in a state of innocence, much less do good, in an active capacity, but only in its passive capacity.

16. The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty.

17. Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ.

18. It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.

19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened [Rom. 1:20].

(a better translation: The man who looks upon the invisible things of God as they are perceived in created things does not deserve to be called a theologian.)

20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

(a better translation: The man who perceives the visible rearward parts of God as seen in suffering and the cross does, however, deserve to be called a theologian.)

21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.

22. That wisdom which sees the invisible things of God in works as perceived by man is completely puffed up, blinded, and hardened.

23. The law brings the wrath of God, kills, reviles, accuses, judges, and condemns everything that is not in Christ [Rom. 4:15].

24. Yet that wisdom is not of itself evil, nor is the law to be evaded; but without the theology of the cross man misuses the best in the worst manner.

25. He is not righteous who does much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ.

26. The law says, “do this,” and it is never done. Grace says, “believe in this,” and everything is already done.

27. Actually one should call the work of Christ an acting work and our work an accomplished work, and thus an accomplished work pleasing to God by the grace of the acting work.

28. The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.

In an introduction to the Theses in the anthology Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings, Timothy Lull (its editor) provides this concise description of the historical-theological context and significance of the Theses:

Luther had come to think that the trouble with the whole tradition that had developed from Thomas Aquinas was that it tended to be dominated by its opening theological moves. Since the existence of God could be shown rationally or philosophically a style of theology developed that moved too smoothly from what could be known and comprehended clearly in creation to the grace of God in Jesus Christ. Though Thomas himself was clear that the saving mysteries could not be known by reason, much of the energy of subsequent theology went into these foundational questions.

This could obscure what St. Paul had taught so forcefully: the cross of Christ is not a concept compatible with human wisdom and philosophy, but only with deep folly and offense. The cross is not inspiring but a scandal. Therefore the true theologian is not the one who argues from visible and evident things (following Aristotle), but rather the one who has learned from the cross that the ways of God are hidden (deus absconditus), even in the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Here Luther provides not only theological and philosophical theses, but also elaborations of each one, showing the connection of many of the issues which he is discussing with the views of Scripture and various theologians.

What emerges in this document is Luther’s radically grace-centered theology that sets the righteousness of God not only against the claims of philosophy for wisdom, but also against all the best moral achievement of humanity. It is an appeal to rediscover the sharp voice of Augustine (especially in his controversy with Pelagius), which apparently had become muted even in the Augustinian order.

The idea of Christ as a "hidden revelation" of God brings to mind several passages in Scripture, each of which makes a very powerful statement:

1. Matthew 16:13-20. When Peter confesses Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (v. 16 ESV), Jesus replies amazingly, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (v. 17).
2. Luke 7:18-23. When John sends messengers to Jesus asking him, "Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?" Jesus replies, "Go and tell John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me" (vv. 22-23).
3. 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16. Paul powerfully proclaims that Christ is the wisdom and power of God--although, to the world, Christ and the cross appear weak and foolish.

   For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.' Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, 'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord' (1:18-31).

An Anthropocentric Universe?

. . . The IAU said Pluto meets its proposed new definition of a planet: any round object larger than 800 kilometers (nearly 500 miles) in diameter that orbits the sun and has a mass roughly one-12,000th that of Earth. Moons and asteroids will make the grade if they meet those basic tests.

Roundness is key, experts said, because it indicates an object has enough self-gravity to pull itself into a spherical shape. Yet Earth's moon wouldn't qualify because the two bodies' common center of gravity lies below the surface of the Earth.

"People were probably wondering: If they take away Pluto, is Rhode Island next?" Binzel quipped. "There are as many opinions about Pluto as there are astronomers. But Pluto has gravity on its side. By the physics of our proposed definition, Pluto makes it by a long shot."

IAU President Ronald D. Ekers said the draft definition, two years in the making, was an attempt to reach a cosmic consensus and end decades of quarreling. "We don't want an American version, a European version and a Japanese version" of what constitutes a planet, he said.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium at New York's American Museum of Natural History — miscast as a "Pluto-hater," he contends, merely because Pluto was excluded from a solar system exhibit — said the new guidelines would clear up the fuzzier aspects of the Milky Way.

"For the first time since ancient Greece, we have an unambiguous definition," he said. "Now, when an object is debated as a possible planet, the answer can be swift and clear."

Source: Plan would add planets to solar system

Reading this article on the proposed addition of planets to this solar system, I was saddened and frustrated and angered at secular science (and secular academia in general), realizing how ultimately futile and useless ("Vanity of vanities!") and misguided any endeavor for knowledge or worldview is without having "the fear of the Lord" (Prov 1:7) as its starting point. On one hand, how dare we humans presume to classify and categorize the creation of the Almighty God! What an offence and what folly that we presume to be able to package it into some neat little system! And yet, we've been told to do just that, in being given dominion and stewardship over God's creation (Gen 1:26, 28-29).

Indeed, the universe and its billions of galaxies were created for the good purposes and enjoyment of God, and to display his glory, which is indefinable. John Piper is at his best and most passionate when talking about the purpose of creation. I recently read one of his online messages on the purpose of creation. He presents a striking quote from Charles Misner on Albert Einstein's view of preaching back in the '40s and '50s:

I do see the design of the universe as essentially a religious question. That is, one should have some kind of respect and awe for the whole business. . . . It's very magnificent and shouldn't be taken for granted. In fact, I believe that is why Einstein had so little use for organized religion, although he strikes me as a basically very religious man. He must have looked at what the preachers said about God and felt that they were blaspheming. He had seen much more majesty than they had ever imagined, and they were just not talking about the real thing. My guess is that he simply felt that religions he'd run across did not have proper respect . . . for the author of the universe.

This sort of attitude that Einstein recognized is still prevalent--more prevalent, in fact--today.

Monday, August 21, 2006

This post was written Friday night, but, because my internet connection has been down from last Thursday night until today, I was only able to post today.

Truly, God was magnified tonight among the poor and the lost.  Going to Westport (a district near downtown Kansas City), I did street evangelism for the second consecutive Friday.  I dispensed tracts to whomever would take them and preached the gospel--and, to that end, engaged in apologetics--to whomever would listen.  Tonight, God had ordained for me two major opportunities to evangelize and apologize.  The first occurred just after I arrived at Westport.  A man appearing to be about 50 years old, seeing me walking past him, asked me for money.  Charles told me that he and his wife (to whom he later said he had been married for something like 35 years) had ten children, but that they had had nothing to eat for the past two or three days.  Of course, an important rule when ministering to the poor is that they should never--regardless of how desperate their situation--be given money; and so, I told Charles that, although I wouldn't give him money, I would talk to my fellow evangelists (namely, Darin Smith) so that I could see what we could do to help him.  Before our first encounter concluded, however, I told him the gospel.  Charles thought he would go to heaven because he was basically a good person--the typical response of a non-Christians and cultural Christians (and American Christians).

And so, while Charles walked about a block and sat on a street corner bench, I talked to Darin.  Eventually, after consulting Dan Grubbs (one of two "adults," and a Pleasant Valley Baptist Church member, who regularly evangelizes with Darin and from the beginning has supported the street ministry begun by the small group of Jewell students), we decided to buy him some food.  So, Darin and I went to a nearby supermarket and bought two packages of chopped ham, one package containing 72 slices of cheese, two loaves of bread, and a gallon of two-percent milk (spending about 12 dollars).  And so, we took the groceries to Charles.  But what was his reaction?  The first thing he did was look in the bag and tell us that his kids (who, remember, hadn't eaten for two or three days) couldn't eat the kind of cheese we had bought because it made their skin break out (or something).  This was irksome, but only momentarily.

My other major evangelism and apologetics opportunity tonight was a discussion with two young men.  One of the guys claimed to be a Christian and seemed to know enough about Christianity that I suspect he grew up going to church (Sunday school, at least).  He was slightly but noticeably drunk.  The other guy, who seemed almost perfectly sober, was a deist (deism: "a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe" (Merriam-Webster); basically, belief in a god who is impersonal--i.e., he does not interfere in the world [and thus deists deny the possibility of miracles]).  However, while he seemed to know basically what deism was, I would conjecture that he was not a "devout" deist (i.e., that he didn't really know the history of deism, how it came out of the Enlightenment, etc.).  The nominal Christian said that, while he thought that my message was good, he didn't see how I had a right to tell people that they are sinful.  Honestly, they both asked so many good and important questions (though often in an accusatory tone) that they would often both ask very good questions or raise very good objections at the same time, which prevented me from addressing as many of their objections or being as clear as I could have.  I conversed with these two guys for about 35 minutes.  After the two guys left, I handed out tracts for about 15 more minutes, until it began raining.  Then, I left Westport and headed home, driving through heavy rain.

I have finished all my Greek grammar lessons and have only the final exam remaining (which I've scheduled for this Friday at noon).  I have learned a great deal more by studying Greek in an independent study than I ever did in either of the two Greek classes I've taken--and in less time, too (10 weeks this summer vs. a 16-week semester).  I intend to master ancient Greek, so that I might be able to read ancient Greek as easily as I read English.  Oh, that I could read the New Testament in Greek!  (I also look forward to being able to read classical Greek literature.)

I am currently reading Not What My Hands Have Done, a book containing two classic works on the Christian doctrine of justification: Horatius Bonar's "The Everlasting Righteousness" and Charles Hodge's "Justification by Faith Alone."  The title of the book comes from a poem of the same name by Bonar (1808-1889):

Not what My hands have done can save my guilty soul.
Not what my toiling flesh has borne can make my spirit whole.
Not what I feel or do can give me peace with God.
Not all my prayers and sighs and tears can bear my awful load.

Thy work alone, O Christ, can ease this weight of sin.
Thy blood alone, O Lamb of God, can give me peace within.
Thy love to me, O God, not mine, O Lord, to Thee
Can rid me of this dark unrest and set my spirit free.

Thy grace alone, O God, to me can pardon speak.
Thy power alone, O Son of God, can this sore bondage break.
No other work, save thine, no other blood will do.
No strength save that which is divine can bear me safely through.

I bless the Christ of God; I rest on love divine.
And with unfaltering lip and heart, I call this Savior mine.
His cross dispels each doubt; I bury in his tomb
Each thought of unbelief and fear, each lingering shade of gloom.

I praise the God of grace; I trust his truth and might.
He calls me his; I call him mine, My God, my joy, my light.
'Tis he who saveth me, and freely pardon gives;
I love because he loveth me; I live because he lives.

-- Horatius Bonar (1808-1889)

 

The Trinity Foundation is having an essay contest, for which the essay topic is simply this book.  First prize is $3,000.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

I've been trying to memorize Scripture daily. To do this, I'm making use of two free and insanely useful programs, InVerse (http://www.bibleinverse.org/) and Scripture Memory System (http://www.memoryverses.org). I highly recommend both programs to everyone desiring to memorize Scripture. And, I also would encourage every Christian to memorize Scripture, so that they might be able to say with the Psalmist,

How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word. With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments! I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you. Blessed are you, O Lord; teach me your statutes! With my lips I declare all the rules of your mouth. In the way of your testimonies I delight as much as in all riches. I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways. I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word. (Ps 119:9-16 ESV)

On another note, I am currently reading J. I. Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God and John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied.

A Good Friday

Evangelism was good, and God was glorified. At Westport last Friday night, from about 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., I handed out tracts and struck up a few good conversations. I also had a turn speaking on the small, portable amplifier/speaker that Darin always brings. Check out Darin's Summer Evangelism Journal blog for more details on how the night went. I've been engaged recently in a study of Romans 6, reading it, meditating on it, and listening to John Piper sermons on it (which I downloaded from Preaching the Bible.com). I've also been working through Romans Nine. Moreover, I did a careful reading of Philippians yesterday, which was amazing. Soon, I intend to post some reflections on these (and more) here. Right now, though, I must finish my work on this week's Greek assignment. In Christ, Colby Painter

Friday, August 11, 2006

Yesterday I was blessed to be able to go with Amy (my girlfriend) to serve at Forest Avenue Family Shelter, a women's homeless shelter in inner-city Kansas City, MO. Amy and I hung out with Bryan Peters, a recent Jewell graduate, current summer intern at the shelter, and future student at Palmer Theological Semenary. After a brief time of worship in song, Bryan did a message on Isaiah 65 and Revelation 21 and the "new heaven and new earth" that will be created at the end of this world. The message particularly resonated with these ladies, who are poor and homeless. After the message, Amy and I served dinner to the women having come to the shelter for the night. Tuna casserole, green beans, fruit cocktail, and doughnuts: a good meal. After the meal, the ladies did their mandatory chores. Amy and I sat in the shelter office with Bryan, who did the intake for the ladies who were new at the shelter. What a glorious thing it was seeing the gospel being lived at Forest Avenue and in the work of the shelter's staff and seeing it confronting and comforting the poor, the opressed, the downtrodden, the meek, and the lowly! Praise God through the Lord Jesus Christ that by his perfectly obedient life, substitutionary atoning death, and life-giving resurrection I and all Christians should--by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ along--be freely given a perfect imputed righteousness; so that, having all things in Christ, we may, then, because of our great gratitude, be all things to all people in serving others in love. Truly, Christ is being magnified in the ministry of Forest Avenue Baptist Church, and I thank God that Amy and I were able to participate. Indeed, the experience was encouraging, and it reminded me that such a life of serving Christ and glorifying and magnifying and proclaiming his name should be the kind of life of all Christians. No matter by what means, every Christian's primary and ultimate goal in life should be that he glorify God. Tonight is the first friday of the official beginning of my ministry internship and the first time to go evangelizing as part of the internship. I will meet with Darin and whoever else comes in the Pleasant Valley Baptist Church east parking lot at 8:00 before we head out to Westport. I've invited all of Northland Reformed Church; however, this being the first week, in reality I expect that no one will show up from the church. I plan to have the pastor make an announcement again tomorrow (Sunday) during the worship services, and I will be there this week to talk to people after church about it. In addition, I may see if the church would allow Darin Smith to address the congregation tomorrow during the service at Northland, that he might exhort and encourage them to come evangelizing. Last Tuesday, I met with my "mentor" for my internship, Rev. George Syms, to discuss both baptism and conversion in general and his conversion and baptism. Just before the meeting, I listened to a John Piper sermon on Romans 4:11 ff. titled "How Do Circumcision and Baptism Correspond?" In the sermon, Piper examined Romans 4:11, a text that has been called the "lynchpin" in the argument for infant baptism. Piper was not persuaded by the arguments for infant baptism, and in the sermon he argued that, because of certain fundamental differences between God's people in the Old Testament--Israel--under the Old Covenant, and God's people in the New Testament--the Church--under the New Covenant, it is not appropriate to baptize infants as a ritual directly connected to the Old Testament ritual of circumcision. I agree with Piper (and Paul): from what I see in the New Testament, baptism was from the beginning something done by adults as a public proclamation of their conversion and as a dramatic reenactment of their death and resurrection with and in Christ. Unfortunately, the Reformed tradition, along with the Catholic church and the reformers themselves, blew it on this issue. My favorite theologians--John Calvin, Martin Luther, Theodore Beza, and many others--were wrong on this issue. I intend to do some research soon on the movements during the 16th century Reformation that did advocate adult baptism, the Anabaptist movements, and why the practice of adult and believers' baptism was so controversial, such that the Anabaptists were opposed not only by the Catholic church but also by all of the magisterial reformers (i.e., Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et. al.). I also talked to Rev. Syms about his own conversion and baptism. Rev. Syms was baptized as an infant, being in a (theologically liberal) PC-USA church. At 18 years old, his Christian life truly began after he (with his family) moved to Florida (Miami, I think) and he began going to an excellent church having an excellent pastor. At the church, he was greatly influenced and encouraged by his Sunday school teacher who took Rev. Syms under his wing. But even more influential and decisive was his job at a Christian radio station in Miami. Working there, Rev. Syms was greatly encouraged by the radio station's staff of committed Christians, and he was convicted by God that he might commit to and follow Christ. He did. With his resonant bass speaking voice, Rev. Syms actually spent a summer as a missionary in Liberia working as a DJ for a Christian radio station there. In other news, I am nearly finished with my third semester of (Classical) Greek, which I've been taking as an independent study this semester. I have two more weeks of work to finish and one more quiz before I take the final exam the final week of August. I'm actually excited about this week's work, for I get to translate (among many other things) a passage adapted from the Gospel of John: John 11:1, 3-5, 17, 19-27, and 38-44 (in my textbook, the verses omitted in Greek are given in English). What a cool assignment! Studying at Homerton College, Cambridge, UK, next year, I will be taking a fourth semester (acutually, a trimester) of Greek, whence I will begin reading real Greek from (one of) the Ancient Greek writers--Plato, Herodotus, Aeschylus, Euripides, Hesiod, etc. That will be interesting and challenging, and I eagerly anticipate it.

The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University

The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University