Learn to apply Scripture. Take every word as spoken to yourselves. When the Word thunders against sin, think thus: “God means my sins.” When it emphasizes any duty, “God intends me in this.” Many put off Scripture for themselves, as if it only concerned those who lived in the time when it was written; but if you intend to profit by the Word, bring it home to yourselves: a medicine will do no good, unless it is applied.
– Thomas Watson
1620 – 1686
As a follow up to last week’s sermon on Isaiah 53 by J. Randall Easter (see here), I present this Wednesday’s sermon of the week also on Isaiah 53 by Phil Johnson entitled The Atrocity That Pleased God.
Faith is not built by preaching introspectively (constantly challenging people to question whether they have faith); faith is not built by preaching moralistically (which has exactly the opposite effect of focusing attention on the self rather than on Christ, in whom our faith is placed); faith is not built by joining the culture wars and taking potshots at what is wrong with our culture. Faith is built by careful, thorough exposition of the person, character, and work of Christ.
He that says he will be good tomorrow, says he will be wicked today.
– James Janeway
1636 – 1674
Brace yourselves. You will receive more biblical, unadulterated, gospel-preaching truth in the next 12 minutes than what comes from most pulpits in America in a year. You will be moved.
You can download the audio version of this video by right-clicking here.
HT: Regenerated Adam
Any mother who walks into the average American church with six or seven children will tell you, the pagan, secular humanist culture at large is not alone in its negative attitude toward children. Moreover, look at the divorce rates among Christians compared to those of non-Christians, and you will see that our attitudes about and commitment to marriage is anything but exemplary.
– Voddie Baucham
The following is an article by James Swan refuting an attempted defense of Roman Catholicism’s great heresy: The Immaculate Conception. I found the timing of this to be highly apropos in light of a continued discussion that is taking place on this very subject on the comment thread from this post.
How To Prove The Immaculate Conception Without Biblical Proof
10/04/2009 – James Swan
The constant dilemma of the Roman Catholic apologist is to insert doctrines into the Bible that aren’t there to begin with. Their argumentation of meandering logic seeks to demonstrate: a) The Bible doesn’t contradict the doctrine being inserted; b)There are indirect Bible passages that if interpreted by first granting the validity of the extra-biblical doctrine, actually support the extra biblical doctrine. Catholic apologist John Martignoni’s most recent newsletter is a perfect example. He presents “Challenge/Response/Strategy” in defending Mary’s immaculate conception. This argumentation is for his upcoming book on basic Roman Catholic apologetics.
In Martignoni’s argumentation, the immaculate conception must first be brought to the biblical text. That is, by a plain reading of the Bible, one would not read from Genesis to Revelation and conclude Mary was born sinless and remained free of sin her entire life. Martignoni’s apologetic then is to prove the immaculate conception is not disproved by anything the Bible states, and that certain texts can be utilized as indirect proofs. I outlined Martignoni’s hypothetical challenges and his responses in the order he presented them. My counter responses are in red.
Argument 1: The Bible doesn’t use the words immaculate conception. Therefore it is an unbiblical concept.
Martignoni’s Response: The words Trinity and Incarnation are not found in the Bible either.
Swan’s Counter: I know of no serious Protestant apologist that actually uses such an argument. The question is not whether the phrase is found in the Bible, but are there specific direct passages that substantiate such a concept? To substantiate such a concept as a clear teaching of scripture one needs direct passages, not a few vague inference passages.
Argument 2: Trinity and Incarnation are concepts supported by the Bible, the immaculate conception has no such support.
Martignoni’s response: There is no passage in Scripture which directly states that Mary was not conceived without original sin, or that she was not immaculately conceived.
Swan’s counter: Aside from the fact this response doesn’t follow from the argument, this type of argument can [be] applied to many individuals within the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say Priscilla was conceived without original sin, or that she was not immaculately conceived, yet we don’t assume she was. A lack of evidence does not bolster or further an argument.
Argument 3: Romans 3:9-12 and 3:22-23 says all are under the power of sin and that all have sinned, therefore Mary sinned.
Martignoni’s response (four points):
A. Such an argument does not address Mary being immaculately conceived, it addresses whether or not she was sinless her entire life, which is a different question.
Swan’s Counter: Under the heading of “The Immaculate Conception,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long” (CCC 493), so it is not a different question.
B. There is no passage in Scripture which directly states that Mary was not conceived without original sin, or that she was not immaculately conceived.
Swan’s Counter: Luke 1:35 positively says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. There is no such verse about Mary’s conception. There is no verse that states Mary must be sinless in order to bear the Son of God. Martignoni offers no similar positive evidence that would separate her from the rest of humanity described in Romans 3.
C. Some Protestants believe things not found in the Bible. Catholics likewise should be allowed to believe things not directly stated in the Bible. Example: The Bible nowhere says contraception is okay, yet most protestants believe it is.
Swan’s Counter: Martignoni’s argument would not work against Protestants who deny both the immaculate conception and contraception. To prove some Protestants may believe something not found in the Bible does nothing more than prove an inconsistency. To prove such offers no positive support for an extra-biblical belief in the immaculate conception.
D. Some Scripture passages indirectly support the Immaculate Conception, like Genesis 3:14-15. Mary is the woman described. Enmity exists between Satan and the woman. Martignoni says, “If you have sin in you, can you say that there is enmity between you and Satan?” Only a sinless being can be at enmity with Satan. Therefore Mary was not conceived in sin, and did not commit personal sin.
Swan’s counter: This is Martignoni’s only attempt to present positive argumentation. He candidly admits his Biblical proof is indirect. The argument has an unproven assumption: only a sinless person can be an enemy of Satan, at war with Satan. But, there has always been enmity between believers and Satan. One does not have to be sinless to be at war with Satan. Why would Paul exhort the Ephesians to put on the full armor of God “so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes“? Wouldn’t he first clarify that in order to put on the armor, one must be entirely sinless? Similarly, why would Peter exhort Christians to resist the Devil (1 Peter 5:8), or James to resist the devil (James 4:7)? Here we have direct proof that all Christians are enemies of Satan, at war with Satan. John warns us that “if we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves.” Christians are sinners, and they are at war with Satan. Nothing could be clearer.
Martignoni states that he was limited with the amount of time he had to put into this argumentation. Then again, he states this argumentation is for a book (as if the world needs yet another book repeating arguments already put forth by other writers). If he’s going to continue with a similar line of reasoning, perhaps he should back up a bit and explain his proofs are not proofs, but inferences. He claims to be presenting “biblical, historical, and logical perspectives” as to the immaculate conception. His reasoning though amounts to inferences and leaps of logic read into the text.
HT: Isaiah
Rome never changes. Rome will never admit that she has made mistakes. She burned our English Reformers 300 years ago. She tried hard to stamp out by violence the Protestantism which she could not prevent spreading by arguments. If Rome had only the power, I am not sure that she would not attempt to play the whole game over again.
– J.C. Ryle
1816 – 1900
Your sermon of the week is The Suffering Servant by Pastor J. Randall Easter. Pastor Easter preaches a great sermon from Isaiah 53 that I wished to share with the readers (and listeners) of DefCon. I plan to provide you with a sermon on the same subject by Phil Johnson next week.
HT: The Bororean
All the while you delay, God is more provoked, the wicked one [Satan] more encouraged, your heart more hardened, your debts more increased, your soul more endangered, and all the difficulties of conversion daily more and more multiplied upon you, having a day more to repent of, and a day less to repent in.
– George Swinnock
1627 – 1673
This short video is from Reidhead’s sermon Ten Shekles and a Shirt and can be listened to in its entirety on this previous post.
Here’s a quote from the sermon not found in the video:
If I had my way, I would declare a moratorium on public preaching of “the plan of salvation” in America for one to two years. Then I would call on everyone who has use of the airways and the pulpits to preach the holiness of God, the righteousness of God and the law of God, until sinners would cry out, “What must we do to be saved?” Then I would take them off in a corner and whisper the gospel to them. Such drastic action is needed because we have gospel-hardened a generation of sinners by telling them how to be saved before they have any understanding why they need to be saved.
The overwhelming majority of today’s evangelical sophisticates would clearly prefer it if no one ever criticized evangelical Golden Calves. Rampant error doesn’t unsettle them in the least. They are quite happy to live with it and even actively make peace with it.
But let someone dare to voice an objection to a troubling doctrine in the latest best-seller making the rounds on campus—even a denial of the Trinity or some other soul-destroying soteriological or Christological novelty—and the very people who profess to hate criticism (and who work so hard to seem agreeable in their dealings with with the unorthodox) will heap the nastiest kinds of vituperation on the soul of the one who has dared to criticize unorthodoxy and thereby threaten the “unity” evangelicals think their timid silence has won them.
– Phil Johnson
“When they can get rid of me, the Devil will also go.”
Joseph Smith (First false prophet of the Mormon organization)
History of the Church, Volume 6, Page 409
“The Christian God is the Mormon’s Devil.”
Brigham Young (Second false prophet of the Mormon organization)
Journal of Discourses,Volume 5 Page 331
I just completed the book Why Johnny Can’t Preach by T. David Gordon. It is a well thought-out thesis addressing the source of the problem with the ineffective preaching in most Christian churches in the West.
Gordon highlights some of the reasons why preaching in the West is a failure (and consequently some of these are the very reasons why people like Osteen, Warren, Driscoll, Schuller, Noble, and the likes are so popular).
Gordon advances the (lost) notion that preaching from the pulpit should be Christ-centered (it’s sad he has to even mention that which should be a foregone conclusion). His call is reminiscent of a similar call I was sounding back in 2007 with a short post entitled A Sobering Call To Pastors, Preachers, And Teachers.
Christ-centered preaching is the New Testament way of advancing the Gospel that has sadly been hijacked by the hirelings and replaced with preaching such as Moralism messages, How-To lectures, Introspective talks, and the ever popular Culture War sermons.
These things, Gordon says, are valid as “occasional secondary results of Christ-centered preaching” (save the How-To lectures), but they should never be the purpose of preaching.
Gordon also directs us to Robert Lewis Dabney’s seven Cardinal Requisites of preaching; the seven things every sermon should contain to be effective that unfortunately most American sermons are missing on a regular basis.
Why Johnny Can’t Preach is a book that every preacher, pastor, and teacher who’s serious about their call to feed the flock should read. It will undoubtedly help to make the bad preacher (bad not by his doctrine but by his delivery) good, and the good preacher better in his proclamation of the only thing that matters: Christ and Him crucified!
Here’s a quote from the book:
Several of the more incompetent preachers I’ve heard have jumped on the emergent bandwagon, and their ministerial careers are undergoing a resurgence now, as people flock to hear their enthusiastic worship leaders and to ogle their PowePoint presentations. Their churches are no longer moribund, but then the annual carnival isn’t either–it, too, is full of enthusiasm, activity, and lively entertainment. But I’m not sure these emergent activities have any more spiritual effect than the pig races at the carnival.
Here’s another quote:
While it is not my purpose here to present an in-depth discussion of the so-called contemporary worship that has crept across the Christian landscape like a plague, I must observe here how profoundly trite it ordinarily is. Pop music, as an idion, simply cannot address that which is weighty . . . its idiom itelf is faddish, glib, superficial. Therefore, serious lyrics don’t fit in this idiom (nor does there appear to be any effort to accomplish this). Though lamentale, it is not at all surprising to me that the church in a trivial culture becomes a trivial church with trivial liturgy. I am fairly seriously considering following this book with another: Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns.
You can purchase this book here at the Westminster Seminary Bookstore.
The main business of entertainment is to please the crowd, but the main purpose of authentic Christianity is to please the Lord. Both the Bible and history have repeatedly shown that it is seldom possible to do both at the same time for very long.
– Gary Gilley
With NASA’s planned bombing of the moon this Friday (see the news article here), I have to ask again (as I did last year when the announcement was first made), Will the Mormon church be able to stop NASA’s planned assault of the moon?
Since Mormon leaders have taught that the moon is populated (along with the sun), I anticipate that the LDS church will vehemently protest this planned attack on the moon. I expect to see the LDS church publicly confront NASA on their disregard for human life and their insensitivity to the inhabitants of the moon.
This NASA experiment has the potential to not only harm the human inhabitants of the moon, but if the moon dwellers are growing any of those spiritual LDS vegetables, those crops and their entire agricultural infrastructure are sure to be decimated as well.
Can the LDS save the moon people and spiritual veggies in time? If they don’t take a stand here and now Kolob may be next!
As a Christian, you may be called before you are aware, into the field either to suffer for God or from God. . . . God can soon change the scene in which you live, the public affairs and the conditions. Maybe, at present the authorities smile on the church of God; but within a while it may frown, and the storm of persecution arise. There was a time when the churches had “rest throughout all Judea” (Acts 9:31). It was a blessed time. But how long did it last? Alas! Not long.
– William Gurnall
1617 – 1679
What could we conclude about preaching today, other than that the great transaction of the Sin-bearer’s suffering for sinners has receded in importance from our churches? Many, many things feature more prominently in (allegedly) Christian proclamation today, with the necessary logical corollary that they are deemed more important than the atonement.
– T. David Gordon
Christ Alone Wyoming 