The Bible Book-by-Book: John’s Epistles from Michael R. Jones on Vimeo.

Though most sensible people know this, some do not so let me issue a disclaimer right off the bat:

Just because I’m reading a particular book (fiction or non-fiction) doesn’t mean that I agree with everything in it nor does it mean that I endorse it nor does it mean I’m willing to argue the author’s point of view with you in the comments or via email.

Now, on to the list.

D. A. Carson, Collected Writings on Scripture

Somebody gave me this book when it first came out and though I’m sure I will read it all, I picked it up primarily because of the review in the back of John Webster’s Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, Peter Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation, and N. T. Wright’s The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. You don’t have to agree with Carson, but you can’t simply dismiss him.

N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God

I bought this book a few years ago, the summer when Wright wrote Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (as a response to John Piper’s The Future of Justification). I bought it simply because I had been out of the loop while in seminary and wanted to catch up. I breezed through it, hitting the high points, and decided it was time to pick it up again and actually work through it. My choice of this one over the first and third books in the series was based solely on chapter 12, “The Reasons for Jesus’ Crucifixion,” which, I admit, I am reading while reading the rest of the book.

John Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God

A friend of mine studied under John Frame and hearing him talk about Frame made me want to dig into his works. I agreed (for the most part) with his critique of the theology of Westminster West in The Escondido Theology and really should have begun working through this series before. This is the first book in the series so it seemed like a good place to start.

Peter Enns, The Evolution of Adam

I read Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation and really didn’t understand what the fuss was all about, though I didn’t agree with all his conclusions. I’m reading this book to see how his thinking has changed since he was forced out of Westminster and to see if any change is for better or for worse. I also am reading it to be able to interact with critiques of it and because with creation begin a hot topic right now it really is irresponsible of me not to familiarize myself with the latest literature on the issue that lies within my area of expertise (which is theology and biblical studies, not science).

John Romaniello and Adam Bornstein, Man 2.0: Engineering the Alpha

I decided recently to quit pansy-ing around in the gym and get back to the weights like I did back in the day. Much like Arnold says in the foreword (and you shouldn’t have to ask who Arnold is), these two guys are the best of the best right now. I’ve learned quite a bit so far and I’m updating my knowledge base since a lot has changed since I last picked up the weights in the late 90s. Note that there is some adult language in here so if your sensitive to that be forewarned.

George R. R. Martin, Game of Thrones (A Song of Ice and Fire, Book 1)

Every summer I read scifi or fantasy and several people I know have been going on and on about this series. I have not seen the show but I’m more than halfway through this novel and it is as good as anything I’ve read in a while.

Suzanne Collins, Mockingjay (The Hunger Games, Book 3)

I saw the movie because I was bored one night, it was free on Amazon Prime, and I wondered what the fuss had been all about. Obviously I liked it enough to read the book and both the book and movie have many connections to what is going on in our society now. I’ve just started this one and I admit, it’s hard to put down.

Read any good books yourself lately? I’d love to hear about them and a good recommendation will surely end up on my reading list.

that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,

This breaking down of the barriers is still happening today, and not just between races but between people of all kinds who had hatred and ill-will toward one another. It breaks down barriers between abused and abuser, between criminal and victim, between the hater and the hated.

The Gospel breaks down the barriers of human distinction, erected by us as fallen humanity, and unites in Christ those who are far off, far from God and far from one another.

Spreading the Good News of this reconciliation through Christ is our mission. Paul explains this in 2 Corinthians 5:11-6:2 and states it pointedly in 2 Cor. 5:18-20:

Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.

If God so loved the world that Jesus came into the world not to condemn the world but to save it, then who are we to try to limit the mission of God to redeem humanity? (see Peter’s statement in Acts 11:17.)

This is especially true (and relevant) in an age and a culture where race is still an issue. Contrary to what some say, we do not yet live in a post-racial culture.) There are still ill feelings over the sad legacy of American slavery, foreign terrorists who do not look like “the average American (whatever that is) are trying to kill us, domestic terrorists are growing and they thrive on and stir up racial hatred, and illegal immigration is still an issue with people coming here fleeing oppression and poverty or simply looking for a better life for themselves and their families.

While we might ask many questions about these issues in terms of policy and law, the question for the church and for the followers of Christ is: “Can we look with compassion on these who are so different and see them as God sees them: as people in need of the grace, mercy, compassion, and deliverance of God?”

If we cannot, we need to rethink whether or not we have actually received this message of reconciliation. 

If we can, then why are we not reaching out to them when they are our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends, etc.? 

If the early church had done what you do, what many of our churches do, where would that leave you, Gentiles?

The Bible Book-by-Book: Hebrews from Michael R. Jones on Vimeo.

I don’t know Andrew Wilson (and I’m not sure I’ve heard about him before I saw this video). But he handled himself well.

It was kinda fun (and frustrating at the same time) to see how long Rob Bell could go on trying not to answer a simple, straightforward (not loaded) question! When he is asked a theological question (based on Biblical Theology, not a proof text), he looks completely baffled.

If you want to watch the video (it’s 20:47 long), I’ve embedded it at the end of this post. Here are my thoughts on Wilson’s performance versus Rob Bell’s with some implications for those of us who are called on to defend the faith informally.

Wilson does three things that we could all learn from to help in informal debates of this type, not just about homosexuality, but about any topic where we are called on to defend the position of Scripture.

(1) Wilson does not resort to cliches or comedy, and he stays on the topic at hand no matter how wide his opponent wants range in the conversation.

(On a not-wholly-unrelated note, if I hear “Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” one more time I’m gonna grab a strap and start flipping tables.) Bell, on the other hand, kept resorting to sound bites he has used previously or that other opponents have used previously. As I’ll note again in this post, it was as if Bell was prepared for a different type of opponent and wasn’t prepared for someone to actually argue the point.

(2) Wilson argues from all of Scripture rather than simply proof-texting.

It was clear however, that Bell only knew how to answer the proof texts; he had no idea how to argue theologically, which tells me he doesn’t know how to actually “do theology.”

(3) Wilson fit the question of homosexuality in the wider contexts of sexual immorality, human sinfulness, and human fallenness.

Bell, on the other hand, argues mostly from anecdote and experience and uses that to gauge Scripture and guide interpretation, rather than the other way around. Wilson calls him on this later, after the question around 11:50.

Bell shows an entirely different method of debating the issue, and it reveals how he came to the conclusion he did. Some thoughts:

Toward the end (16:00), Bell explicitly states that personal experience and the “witness of the community,” which is essentially public opinion, determine where one must stand on this issue. There is little place for Scripture in Rob Bell’s theologizing except for validating his own preconceived view.

Around that same question (11:45 – 11:50), you’ll notice that Bell doesn’t answer the question he is asked but instead substitutes his own question and answers that question instead. That’s the kind of stuff that people don’t usually call him on but Wilson asks a pointed question in return. Bell’s response of “Your interpretation of verses?” smacks of desperation. It’s also Bell-speak for “You say ‘potayto’ I say ‘potahto.’

Wilson won’t let Bell paint it as a matter of two equal and opposing interpretive views and instead appeals to 2000+ years of interpretation. In other words, he doesn’t let Bell get away with it.

Bell also resorted to a ploy I’ve seen many people do when they get trapped: Instead of answering a straightforward (not a loaded) question, he simply kept asking for further clarification. Now, sometimes you need to do this if your opponent is asking loaded or misleading questions; Bell does it here (and others do it) because he has nothing else to say and he just wants to keep Wilson talking so he won’t have to answer.

Bell also sometimes looks to the moderator before answering. To be fair, this could just be because he’s on radio and doesn’t want to go over time or not be able to answer, but he also could be hoping the host will want to talk so he won’t have to.

At the end Bell tries to paint this whole debate as “This is why so many people don’t want to be part of the church.” But in saying this, he assumes that otherwise people would want to be a part of the church. All questions about God’s sovereignty aside, the fact is that most of the populace weren’t exactly beating down the church doors before this became an issue and before we started debating issues such as this, so why is it that this issue and its public debate is the one thing that keeps people out? Bell needs to think more deeply about this but I doubt he will.

Bell paints this interview as another example of his being persecuted. It apparently hasn’t occurred to him that when someone, especially someone of his stature, speaks out publicly on an issues, especially an issues such as this, he is in essence inviting people to critique his views and statements on the subject. I want to think that he can’t possibly be that naive, but I don’t know how else to parse it.

In trying to sum it up, Bell says, “This isn’t an issue of taking God seriously, this isn’t an issue of God’s holiness, this isn’t an issue of worship, this isn’t an issue of discipleship.”

Wilson calls him on it and asks, “Mightn’t it be an issue of God’s holiness?” Bell’s response is to mention several issues, some not mentioned in Scripture at all, and try to paint this as one among many issues. One of which is worry and anxiety, which he implies is on the same level as sexual immorality. While Jesus did (as Bell noted) preach against worry and anxiety, Scripture does not claim that those who worry a lot will not inherit the Kingdom of God, though it does say that about sexual immorality, homosexuality included.

Again, I want to be gracious so all I’ll say is that Bell has to be smarter than that.

In this last point, and indeed in the whole debate, Bell shows not only a lack of exegetical sensitivity, he demonstrates an inability to handle the Scriptures accurately.

In short, I really liked how Wilson handled himself; he was gracious but firm and displayed a skill in handling both the informal debate, the Scriptures, and biblical theology that all of us should emulate.

This video also confirms what I’ve long said about Bell: Rob Bell not a competent theologian nor a competent exegete. He can tell stories but somehow manages to get the moral wrong. He can ask questions (and many of the questions he asks need to be answered) but he either doesn’t answer them or he answers them in the way that he likes, regardless of what Scripture or the history of interpretation has to say.

I hope we see more of Andrew Wilson defending the faith and I pray God bless his ministry and make it fruitful.

Here’s the video. Watch it and tell me what I’ve missed.

Some say that prayer is unnecessary, even disrespectful, since God knows all and wills all. But God does command prayer for his benefit; he wills it for ours.

Calvin cites the example of Elijah (1 Ki. 18:41-46) who had already prophesied that rain would come yet prays earnestly and sends his servant to look for the rain. Elijah prayed “because he knew it was his duty, lest his faith be sleepy or sluggish, to lay his desires before God.”  Though we know God watches us and even helps us unasked, we pray…

1. So that our hearts may be fired with a zealous and burning desire ever to seek, love, and serve him, while we become accustomed in every need to flee to him as a sacred anchor.
2. That there may enter our hearts no desire and no wish at all of which we should be ashamed to make him a witness, while we learn to set all our wishes before his eyes, and even receive his benefits with true gratitude of heart and even to pour out our whole hearts.
3. That we be prepared to receive his benefits with true gratitude of heart and thanksgiving, benefits that our prayer reminds us come from his hand (Ps. 145:15-16).
4. Moreover, that having obtained what we were seeking, and being convinced that he has answered our prayers, we should be led to meditate upon his kindness more ardently.
5. That at the same time we embrace with greater delight those things which we acknowledge to have been obtained by prayers.
6. That use and experience may, according to the measure of our feebleness, confirm his providence.  [While we remember that he will never fail us and may call upon him at any time, even the point of necessity, we are reminded that he] “ever extends his hand to help his own, not wet-nursing them with words, but defending them with present help.”

On account of these things, our most merciful Father, although he never either sleeps or idles, still very often gives the impression of one sleeping or idling in order that he may thus train us, otherwise idle and lazy, to seek, ask, and entreat him to our great good. [And to his glory.]

Psalm 34:15 – “The eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, And His ears are open to their cry.”

Interpretive perspectives

This category deals with issues relating to one’s interpretive grid: Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, or Salvation-History, and the attendant issues each perspective attempts to address such as the relationship between the church and Israel, the relationship between Old and New Testaments, the nature of eschatological writings and their genre (e.g., is Revelation prophecy, apocalyptic, epistolary, all, none, or a combination and if so what combination?).

Much of the material covered under this category is foundational and will yield interpretive presuppositions that will largely (though not completely) determine how an interpreter answers the questions of the remaining four categories.

The future of ethnic Israel

This category deals with exactly what you would think from reading it: Is there a future for ethnic Israel in the outworking of God’s plan? Or can we expect to see nothing more happen to ethnic Israel beyond individual ethnic Jews coming to faith in Christ during the normal course of Christian evangelism?

This is one is tricky because even if you say no to the first question I pose and yes to the second, you still have to address the issue. You can’t simply say, “No” and leave it at that; you have to have a reason why there is not future for them. I say this not to sway to one side or the other (because I think Dispensationalists and Covenant Theologians are both wrong and right about it) but because too often my covenantal brethren are too quick to say no but not only do they offer no explanation or reason, when you engage them on the topic it is clear that they really haven’t given much thought to it one way or the other.

The future of the church in the world

This category deals with issues relating to the church and her presence in the world in relation to the Second Coming of Christ. Will she be raptured out before cataclysmic events previous to the end of time? Or will she be here through those events yet preserved? The nature of these events and to what extent we see them as God’s wrath will determine our answers to these and other questions.

The Lord’s Return and the events surrounding it

Into this category we fit more than just the question of the timing of the Rapture, it must also hold questions surrounding the Seventieth Week of Daniel, Armageddon, Antichrist, and related issues. Like the question of Israel above, each of these issues must be explored and understood before we can reach a conclusion on it. It is not enough simply to say, “The Seventieth Week of Daniel is still in the future,” we have to be able to justify why we believe that and teach it. We also have to hold our view in humility because many of these questions can be answered from Scripture in multiple ways.

The Millennium

For me this is no longer the watershed interpretive issue it used to be. Postmills will probably always be like Apple fans: a little elitist and taking pity on those poor folk who just can’t see it their way (I write this on my Mac as one guilty of such).

Dispensational Premills seem to be getting a little softer as the years go by (or as each successive generation grows up) until eventually, hopefully, we’ll find some Dispies who won’t automatically accuse amills of denying Scripture.

Historic Premills and Amills are, always, have been, and most likely always will be just a hair apart.

But with the eclectic interpretive view of Revelation being made more well-known by G. K. Beale and Grant Osborne (it’s been around for a while but most evangelicals were firmly entrenched in futurism) in their respective commentaries on Revelation, it seems we might be seeing a renaissance of healthy Revelation commentaries.

There are two big differences between these miracles and the miracles performed by Jesus in the Gospels and the Apostles in Acts.

1. The miracles of the New Testament were obvious healings.

What I mean by this is, the healings of the New Testament were of disabilities and diseases the reversal of which would be easily noticed and unmistakable. Withered hands, the lame made to walk, and a man dead four days raised to life. You see something like that and you know beyond any doubt a miracle has occurred.

There was the woman with the “issue of blood” (as the KJV puts it, probably some kind of hemorrhage relating to menstruation) but in that case both the woman and the Lord knew right away that something had happened and the effect on the Lord was so palpable that those around him knew something had happened. If indeed it was some sort of hemorrhage, there might very well have been some immediate, visible result. She would have had to seek ritual cleansing from the priest so others would no doubt have known of her healing.

The “miracles” of our day are of things like kidney disease, people’s legs being two different lengths (I’ll never understand that), and other things where the healing is not readily apparent. And as far as these go, how do you know the kidney disease or other illness wasn’t simply responding to prior treatment? How do you know they didn’t just go into remission? Who knew so many people just couldn’t walk at all because their legs were two different lengths? You may choose to believe that these were actual honest-to-goodness healings (I don’t) but you can’t deny that these are unlike the healings of the New Testament. This leads me to the other thing.

2. The miracles of the New Testament were immediate.

What I mean is that you could see right away that a miracle had occurred. A man who had been lame from birth, and everybody present knew it, suddenly got up, grabbed his pallet, and walked away. He wasn’t wheeled away in the same wheelchair he rode up in only to go to the doctor the following week and find out he had been healed. In the case of the woman with the blood disease, if it was a hemorrhage, there might very well have been immediate evidence that it had stopped.

In the so-called “miracles” of our day, the person is supposedly healed of some internal disease that no one can really see and many times they are hauled back out on the same stretcher they came in on (as it were). The ones who report healing only find out later after they have gone to the doctor, but, again, how do we know there wasn’t some other reason for the change in blood count of liver function or whatever it was?

I realize that this is considered bad form to discount someone’s experience because our culture holds personal experience sacrosanct, but viewed objectively, these types of healings are suspect. As I concluded before, you may choose to believe that a miracle occurred, but you cannot deny that they are different in form from the healings of the New Testament.

But what if I was healed (or know someone who was healed)?

What if you or a loved one is healed today and you believe it is miraculous either through someone who claims the ability to heal or through prayer or because the elders laid hands on you and prayed over you (James 5:14-15)?

You should praise God. By all means, praise God. Anytime you are delivered from anything whether through prayer, medicine, providence, or a helping hand from a friend, you ought to praise God because he ultimately is behind it.

I have known someone who was healed like this. A cessationist like me, neither they nor their family believed in such miracles any more than I do, but God’s people prayed and they were healed. The cancer was completely gone. I don’t know if it was a mistake on the part of the radiologist, I don’t know if God in his mercy simply chose to remove the cancer, I have no idea. None at all.

But whatever the explanation, I have no doubt that God was behind it and I praise Him for it.

But that doesn’t mean I’m going to bring a bus to the next Benny Hinn revival.

They can’t reconcile my calling them a false teacher when they say things that come out of the Bible (and when they’re nice). But they fail to consider that the Evil One is well-versed in Scripture and knows God’s Word even better than you or I. This means he can twist it and use to his own ends just as the serpent did in the Garden (Genesis 3:1-5).

We really shouldn’t be surprised at this because false teachers are like their master just as Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15. Paul says that since Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light, it is no wonder that his servants also masquerade as such.

This means two things:

1. False teachers are usually very likable.

They have to be likable or you wouldn’t give them the time of day. And that’s what makes it so hard to combat them, and even to recognize them. When I or another pastor points out that someone is a false teacher, people think I’m personally attacking this nice person who seems so genuine. And people just can’t believe that this nice person would ever teach something false (so the pastor must just be jealous, etc.).

2. False teachers may themselves be under the sway of the Evil One.

While I do not believe that a true believer can be demon-possessed, I do believe that they can be under Satan’s influence, which means some false teachers may be true believers who have been deceived. God is gracious and will rescue these before they go too far.

Some, however, may not be true believers at all, though they mimic true believers. This shouldn’t be surprising since Judas, the “son of perdition,” was numbered among the Twelve.

So why then do they say things that agree with the Bible? Here are three reasons why:

1. If they didn’t use the Bible, you’d recognize them as false teachers right away.

People say stuff from the Bible all the time. Saying something from the Bible doesn’t mean that they got the Bible right. And it doesn’t mean that they were saying stuff that agreed with the rest of the Bible.

We all have false beliefs, some of which are probably based on Scripture that we either heard wrong., understood wrong, or were taught wrong. That’s why we do not (or should not) interpret the Bible in a vacuum. The history of interpretation in each of our respective Christian traditions helps us to know when we’re getting close and when we’re way off the mark. This is also why God raises up people to preach to us and teach us, so that we can be guided by the community in our understandings and interpretations.

2. If they immediately taught stuff that you knew was false, you’d recognize them as false teachers right away.

The worst (or best depending on how you look at it) false teachers don’t often come right out and say things that one immediately recognizes as going against the Bible’s teachings. In fact, the bulk of their message may sound perfectly agreeable. Sometimes it’s either the truths that underlie their statements, or the conclusions that they draw (or lead you to draw) from their statements that is way off the mark.

3. If their words didn’t sound like the words you hear in church, you’d recognize them as false teachers right away.

False teachers often use the same words we use but they attach different meanings to them so that you can agree with what they say until you discover what they mean.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to my door a few weeks ago talked a lot about “Christ” but they didn’t mean the same thing that I mean (and that the entire historic Christian tradition means) when I say “Christ.” While they are well-meaning, they are still deceptive (and they are deceived themselves) and it is easy to get drawn in if one isn’t careful.

Likewise, people will talk about sin or salvation but sometimes they don’t mean sin as a human condition that keeps one from God, instead they are talking about systemic issues or cultural issues such as injustice or poverty. When they talk about salvation they may be referring to ending such injustice or poverty. And you can listen to them for a long time before you figure that out.

So what do I watch for?

Remember that false teachers usually have an end goal that is the exaltation of self and they encourage you to have this same end goal. That’s why they talk about you so much; who doesn’t want to talk about themselves and be told how wonderful they are and how much they can accomplish and what great things are in store for them?

But this message is not the message of the Bible. God’s Word does not encourage you to seek your own exaltation rather than exalting Christ. The Bible points people to Christ.

And anytime you exalt God’s gifts above God’s greatest gift: Christ Jesus the Lord, you’ve become an idolator and you are practicing idolatry just as much as if you carved an idol out of stone and bowed down to it. (This is true even if you don’t mean to or don’t realize you are doing it.)

The Lord does not call people to make them healthy, wealthy, and wise with regard to the things of this world; he calls people so that he can give them power from on high, the riches of the Kingdom, and the wisdom of God that is found in Christ Jesus alone.

So the true servant of Christ, the true preacher of Christ, will point you to Christ.

The true servant of Christ will tell you how wonderful Christ is, not how wonderful you are. And he won’t be able to stop talking about Christ.

The true servant of Christ will tell you how much Christ will accomplish in you and through you, not how much you have in you to do. He’ll tell you not to rely on yourself.

The true servant of Christ will tell you what great things Christ has in store for you through his work on the Cross and through his ongoing ministry and his Kingdom.

The false teacher will say many things that you can agree with, even things from the Bible, but in the end, all he will do is point you back to yourself.

And if you had all that you needed already, you wouldn’t have needed Christ to begin with, would you?

This is a series of video introductions to the books of the New Testament. Video and audio of this series is available at the church’s website.

The Bible Book-by-Book: The Corinthian Epistles from Michael R. Jones on Vimeo.