On 11/3/2019, the sermon preached by Pastor Joe Rosales was based on Romans 9:14-29.

The pastor commented on the use of creeds and confessions, which reflect order and consistency. Some don’t like order or being tied down by a coherent system of doctrine, but when you ask them what they believe about the Bible or the doctrines it teaches, they will inevitably recite to you a statement of faith, likely an incomplete and inconsistent one.

The doctrine of predestination, of sovereign election, is offensive to many today, including church folk. And there are many perverted notions of fairness, ranging from socialism, communism, and Marxism, to Arminianism or synergism and the doctrine of free will, that are completely at odds with Scripture.

Many have trouble with the doctrine of hell too. How can a good God predestine people to hell? That’s like asking, How can a good judge send criminals to prison? The amazing thing about God is not that he sends people to hell, for we’re all natural-born sinners in rebellion against a thrice holy and just God who deserve nothing but hell; it is that He, out of his sheer grace and mercy, decided to save any of us!

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. (‭‭Romans‬ ‭5:6-10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

The pastor also clarified the meaning of an often misinterpreted passage: “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (II Peter‬ ‭3:9‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). This does not mean that God desires all men to come to repentance, but that He “is longsuffering toward us”—toward believers, and desires believers to come to repentance. Even so, “these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead”” (‭‭Acts‬ ‭17:30-31‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

But just because God commands all men to repent doesn’t necessarily mean He desires all men to repent. God ultimately neither loves nor desires all men to repent because He hates and hardens the reprobate:

For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? ‭‭(Romans‬ ‭9:17-24‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

The pastor warned against people who attempt to reconcile difficult doctrines prematurely, like the Trinity or Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, since these doctrines are often considered “mysteries.” He admonished us to stick to the Scriptures, and if the person you’re discussing this with continues to object, then use Paul’s retort: “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?” (Romans 9:20). A biblical mystery, however, is something that God obscured in the Old Testament but reveals or explains in the New:

Unbeknownst to the people of Moses' day (it was a "mystery"), marriage was designed by God from the beginning to be a picture or parable of the relationship between Christ and the church. Back when God was planning what marriage would be like, He planned it for this great purpose: it would give a beautiful earthly picture of the relationship that would someday come about between Christ and His church. This was not known to people for many generations, and that is why Paul can call it a "mystery." But now in the New Testament age Paul reveals this mystery, and it is amazing. (George Knight, qtd. in https://thorncrownministries.com/blog/2017/08/08/review-of-when-sinners-say-i-do)

And while Paul does rebuke his opponents, he continues to demolish their objections in verses 21 and following. He answers them squarely with some of the strongest statements in the Bible. I appreciate the wisdom of men like Gordon Clark, who unabashedly deals with the problem of evil, and A.W. Pink when it comes to harmonizing difficult doctrines, which is why their writings are classic contributions that build up the church:

This is, admittedly, the most difficult branch of our subject. Those who have ever devoted much study to this theme have uniformly recognized that the harmonizing of God's Sovereignty with Man's Responsibility is the gordian knot of theology.

The main difficulty encountered is to define the relationship between God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility. Many have summarily disposed of the difficulty by denying its existence. A certain class of theologians, in their anxiety to maintain man's responsibility, have magnified it beyond all due proportions until God's Sovereignty has been lost sight of, and in not a few instances flatly denied. Others have acknowledged that the Scriptures present both the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man but affirm that in our present finite condition and with our limited knowledge it is impossible to reconcile the two truths, though it is the bounden duty of the believer to receive both. The present writer believes that it has been too readily assumed that the Scriptures themselves do not reveal the several points which show the conciliation of God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility. While perhaps the Word of God does not clear up all the mystery (and this is said with reserve), it does throw much light upon the problem, and it seems to us more honoring to God and His Word to prayerfully search the Scriptures for the completer solution of the difficulty, and even though others have thus far searched in vain that ought only to drive us more and more to our knees. God has been pleased to reveal many things out of His Word during the last century which were hidden from earlier students. Who then dare affirm that there is not much to be learned yet respecting our inquiry! (The Sovereignty of God, https://reformed.org/books/pink/index.html?mainframe=/books/pink/pink_sov_08.html)

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me, Amen."

    - Martin Luther

Here I Stand, A Life of Martin Luther by Roland Bainton (New York, New York: Meridian, 1995, 302 pages with bibliography, references, source of illustrations and index).

Many years ago, when first I began to read about the Reformation, I came across Roland Bainton's biography of Martin Luther and couldn't put it down. I thought then, and think to this day, that it is a classic on the subject of Martin Luther and the Reformation.

Born in England in 1894, Bainton lived most of his life in the United States, graduating from Yale University with a Ph.D., where he later served as the Titus Street Professor of Ecclesiastical History. With a background like that, readers it may be tempted to suppose that Bainton's writing, while scholarly, would have little appeal to the non-specialist. He would be half right. While it is true that Bainton was a gifted scholar, Here I Stand is anything but a dull read.

"' 'St. Anne help me! I will become a monk,' " are the first words we hear from Luther in Here I Stand. Always with a flair for the dramatic, Luther, the young university student, was returning to his studies at the University of Erfurt when he was knocked to the ground by a sudden lightening strike. Convinced by this that God was calling him to life in the monastery, Luther would abandon his secular studies to join the Augustinian order of monks.

As the Apostle Paul, whose teachings he would one day expound so well, Luther excelled many in zeal for his calling. Bainton quotes Luther thus, "I was a good monk, and I kept the rule of my order so strictly that I may say that if ever a monk got to heaven by his monkery it was I. All my brothers in the monastery who knew me will bear me out. If I had kept on any longer, I should have killed myself with vigils, prayers, reading, and other work."

As Bainton tells it, Luther was something of a holy terror in the confessional. "He confessed frequently," writes Bainton, often daily, and for as long as six hours on a single occasion. Every sin in order to be absolved was to be confessed...Luther would repeat a confession and, to be sure of including everything, would review his entire life until the confessor grew weary and exclaimed, 'Man, God is not angry with you. You are angry with God. Don't you know that God commands you to hope?' "

But while Luther's confessional zeal exasperated the poor brother unfortunate enough to be tasked with having to hear it, it was the young monk who had the correct understanding of God's holiness. In all this, God was teaching Luther the central tenant of Christianity, that justification comes not through the works of the law but through belief (faith) in Christ alone. Luther wrote, "I greatly longed to understand Paul's Epistle to the Romans and nothing stood in the way but that one expression, 'the justice of God'...Night and day I pondered until I saw the connection between the justice of God and the statement that 'the just shall live by his faith.' Then I grasped that the justice of God is that righteousness by which through grace and sheet mercy God justifies us through faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before the 'justice of God' had filled me with hate, now it became to me inexpressibly sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gate to heaven...."

But if the words of Paul served as a gate to heaven for Luther, the reaction of the Roman Catholic Church to his subsequent activities would soon show him the earthly price of faithfulness to Christ.

As one who understood that a man is justified by faith in Christ alone, Luther soon found himself at odds with the practice of selling indulgences. Exactly one year before his famous act of nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenberg church door, on October 31, 1516 Luther preached against indulgences in the hearing of his prince, the Elector of Saxon. According to Bainton, indulgences "were the bingo of the sixteenth century," and to the extent that they brought in revenue to the Elector, Luther displeased the prince for pointing out the fraud.

Continuing with his discussion of indulgences, Bainton brings out the interesting occasion for Luther's jeremiad against the practice: the construction of St. Peter's in Rome. It strikes this author as no small irony that the construction of the single best-known symbol of papacy - St. Peter's Cathedral - actually served as the spark that helped to set off the Reformation. To hear Bainton tell it, Pope Julius II had commissioned the building of the edifice to replace an old wooden basilica dating from the time of Constatine, but had died before the work could be completed. In Bainton's words, "The piers [of St. Peter's] were laid; Julius died; the work lagged; weeds sprouted from the pillars; [Pope] Leo took over; he needed money."

And to where does a pope in need of money turn in his distress? To the "bingo of the sixteenth century" of course. That is to say, indulgences. And who better to hawk these indulgences than a certain Dominican by the name of John Tetzel, who seemed to be something of a sixteenth century Elmer Gantry. Tetzel had a marvelously effective sales pitch, in which he pleaded with his hearers to release their loved ones from the torments of purgatory through the purchase of indulgences, promising them, "As soon as the coin the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."

All this was too much for Luther, who in response wrote his 95 theses, nailing them to the Wittenberg church door, October 31, 1517. Concludes Bainton, "Luther took no steps to spread his theses among the people. He was merely inviting scholars to dispute and dignitaries to define, but others surreptitiously translated the theses into German and gave them to the press. In short order they became the talk of Germany. What Karl Barth said said of his own unexpected emergence as a reformer could be said equally of Luther, that he was like a man climbing in the darkness a winding staircase in the steeple of an ancient cathedral. In the blackness he reached out to steady himself, and his hand laid hold of a rope. He was startled to hear the clanging of a bell."

There is, of course, much more to Here I Stand than can be discussed in this short review. Suffice it to say that this book is a classic of Reformation history, one that both informs and inspires. All those interested in Reformation history, whether a novice reader or a seasoned scholar, will find value in Bainton's work.

On 10/27/2019, the sermon preached by Pastor Joe Rosales was based on Romans 9:6-13.

Man is corrupt to the core, Radically Depraved. The word radical means root. It doesn’t mean that man is as bad as he can be, but that every part of his being—including his legal standing before God—is affected and corrupted by sin.

The pastor also touched on the claim that the Old Testament God of wrath is different from the New Testament God of love, which is a very popular understanding of the Bible, even in evangelical churches. This is the ancient heresy of Marcion:

Marcion supposed two or three primal forces (ἀρχαί): the good or gracious God (θεὸς ἀγαθός), whom Christ first made known; the evil matter (ὕλη) ruled by the devil, to which heathenism belongs; and the righteous world-maker (δημιουργὸς δίκαιος), who is the finite, imperfect, angry Jehovah of the Jews….

He was chiefly zealous for the consistent practical enforcement of the irreconcilable dualism which he established between the gospel and the law, Christianity and Judaism, goodness and righteousness. He drew out this contrast at large in a special work, entitled “Antitheses.” The God of the Old Testament is harsh, severe and unmerciful as his law; he commands, “Love thy neighbor, but hate thine enemy,” and returns “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;” but the God of the New Testament commands, “Love thine enemy.” The one is only just, the other is good. Marcion rejected all the books of the Old Testament, and wrested Christ’s word in Matt. 5:17 into the very opposite declaration: “I am come not to fulfill the law and the prophets, but to destroy them.” In his view, Christianity has no connection whatever with the past, whether of the Jewish or the heathen world, but has fallen abruptly and magically, as it were, from heaven. Christ, too, was not born at all, but suddenly descended into the city of Capernaum in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, and appeared as the revealer of the good God, who sent him. He has no connection with the Messiah, announced by the Demiurge in the Old Testament; though he called himself the Messiah by way of accommodation. His body was a mere appearance, and his death an illusion, though they had a real meaning. He cast the Demiurge into Hades, secured the redemption of the soul (not of the body), and called the apostle Paul to preach it. The other apostles are Judaizing corrupters of pure Christianity, and their writings are to be rejected, together with the catholic tradition. In over-straining the difference between Paul and the other apostles, he was a crude forerunner of the Tübingen school of critics. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2: Ante-Nicene Christianity, pp. 485-86, Logos edition)

In a similar vein, Thomas Jefferson denounced the apostle Paul as “the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus.”

The pastor also made a bold but biblical claim. Some say that it’s not fair for God to choose some and not others. But if God were truly fair, then everyone would be condemned to hell, for we are all guilty in Adam, rebellious sinners—criminals—according to God’s law. God hates the wicked, in both Testaments: “The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity” (Psalms‬ ‭5:5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

“God is a just judge, And God is angry with the wicked every day. If he does not turn back, He will sharpen His sword; He bends His bow and makes it ready. He also prepares for Himself instruments of death; He makes His arrows into fiery shafts.” Psalms‬ ‭7:11-13‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like one who treads in the winepress? “I have trodden the winepress alone, And from the peoples no one was with Me. For I have trodden them in My anger, And trampled them in My fury; Their blood is sprinkled upon My garments, And I have stained all My robes. For the day of vengeance is in My heart, And the year of My redeemed has come.

I have trodden down the peoples in My anger, Made them drunk in My fury, And brought down their strength to the earth.”” Isaiah‬ ‭63:2-4, 6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“I, the LORD, never change” (Mal. 3:6).

“He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” ‭‭John‬ ‭3:36‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!” Luke‬ ‭12:4-5‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” ‭‭II Peter‬ ‭3:7‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“…since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.” II Thessalonians‬ ‭1:6-9‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“…as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”” Jude‬ ‭1:7, 14-15‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

“Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.” Revelation‬ ‭19:11-15‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

On 10/20/2019, the sermon, “A Heart for the Lost,” preached by Pastor Joe Rosales, was based on Romans 9:1-5.

The pastor gave a good comment on labels: Some Christians are too fundamentalistic, insisting, like some of the immature and divisive Corinthians, that they have no labels, no creed, because they are “of Christ”:

For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:11-13‬ ‭NASB‬‬)

The point is that these men are all part of the body of Christ, so these factions are divisive fabrications. None of the men listed are at odds with each other. We are all one in Christ. Those who deny any subscription to a creed or confession only need to be asked, “Which Jesus do you believe in?” “Who do you say that Christ is?” (‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16:15‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

In keeping with the sermon’s title, the pastor stressed that Hyper Calvinism is not Calvinism. Paul clearly expresses his longing to see his native people, the Jews, saved, wishing even “that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans‬ ‭9:3‬ ‭NASB‬‬). But Paul also recognizes that it’s ultimately up to God, who “has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Romans‬ ‭9:18‬ ‭NASB‬‬).

The pastor also emphasized that Jesus taught a Limited Atonement, for “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep” (John‬ ‭10:14-15‬ ‭NASB‬‬). Christ died only for His sheep, not for the goats. The term “Limited” Atonement is misleading, however, because, while monergists or Calvinists limit the scope of the atonement, in that it was only for the elect, synergists or Arminians also limit the atonement of Christ, namely its power to save, because it doesn’t become effectual unless the sinner ultimately chooses Christ out of his own free will. So Jesus died even for Judas, but because Judas didn’t believe, his redemption was in vain. So Christ died in vain for all those who end up in hell, because their redemption ticket was never “redeemed” by their free will choice.

On 10/13/2019, the sermon, “A Heart for the Lost,” preached by Pastor Joe Rosales, was based on Romans 9:1-5.

The pastor said there’s no double jeopardy in the court of God. We don’t have to face a future judgment because Christ satisfied our judgment already at the Cross. Amen!

He also mentioned that empty prayer meetings are a symptom of a dying church. He quotes Abraham Lincoln again when he responds to the soldier about his concern as to whether we are on God’s side, rather than vice versa.

God is our provider, protector, and justifier. No one can condemn us:

Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. (Romans‬ ‭8:30-34‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

By His stripes we are healed, by His death we are justified, and His resurrection declares our justification, as Horatius Bonar so beautifully explains:

The manifold blessings flowing from resurrection and ascension are not to be over-looked; but nowhere does Scripture teach justification by these. The one passage sometimes quoted to prove this, declares the opposite (Rom 4:25); for the words truly translated run thus: "He was delivered because we had sinned, and raised again because of our justification." It was because the justifying work was finished that resurrection was possible. Had it not been so, He must have remained under the power of the grave. But the cross had completed the justification of His church. He was raised from the dead. Death could no longer have dominion over Him. The work was finished, the debt paid, and the surety went free: He rose, not in order to justify us, but because we were justified. In raising Him from the dead, God the Father cleared Him from the imputed guilt which had nailed Him to the cross and borne Him down to the tomb. "He was justified in the Spirit" (1 Tim 3:16). His resurrection was not His justification, but the declaration that He was "justified"; so that resurrection, in which we are one with Him, does not justify us, but proclaims that we are justified,—justified by His blood and death.(8) (The Everlasting Righteousness, http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Salvation/ER_Bonar/ch_3.html)

Christ is therefore our advocate instead of our Judge, “For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews‬ ‭4:15-16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬), and

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” 1 John‬ ‭2:1‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption.” ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭1:30‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Christ is not begging in tears for us to come him; He has justified and effectually saved us. Because of our Union with Christ we shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven: “But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us” (Romans‬ ‭8:37‬ ‭NASB‬‬).

But not all Jews will necessarily be saved, “for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “ THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED” (Romans‬ ‭9:6-7‬ ‭NASB‬‬).

True Israel, therefore, is the sum of all believers in Christ, both Jew and gentile,

And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. (Romans‬ ‭2:27-29‬ ‭NKJV‬‬)

Only this Jesus, and only this gospel, can save, “for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke‬ ‭19:10‬ ‭NKJV‬‬).

View fullsize

Edward Snowden. Permanent Record. Read by Holter Graham. New York: Macmillan Audio, 2019. Audible edition. https://www.audible.com/pd?asin=1250622689&source_code=ASSORAP0511160006

In his autobiography, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden lays out stimulating discussions on education; identity and privacy; the Internet; whistleblowing; government power, contracting, surveillance, and abuse; cloud storage; and encryption.

Alter ego

Snowden makes an interesting case for using alternate identities and anonymity online, which can make people more willing to learn, admit when they’re wrong, and change their view; whereas using real identities tends to defensiveness and obstinacy in order to preserve reputation. He blames government and business for the Internet’s shift towards the latter. Anonymity, however, is a double-edged sword that just as easily emboldens people to be vicious and wicked (needless to say, much online behavior reflects this) and to shirk responsibility/accountability.

Growing Up…Online

Snowden’s upbringing sheds light on a number of issues. In some ways the young Snowden reminds me of my younger self, an obsessive, all-or-nothing kind of guy, diving headlong into whatever captured my attention, rarely coming up for air. Growing up, especially through puberty, Snowden spent most of his time playing video games and going online, learning as much as he could on messaging boards, without hardly any moderation or supervision. He advocates this kind of activity as a way of self-discovery, of growing up and finding identity; and sees hacking as a way of becoming equal with adults, since technical skill and acumen matter more than age. Somewhat similar to Snowden, however, several mass shooters spent lots of time in the Internet’s sewers, messaging boards like 8chan:

https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/8chan/

The truth is that the Internet, video games, and media in general are often too much for young impressionable minds to handle, especially without close parental supervision. They’re highly addictive, even for adults, and much of the content is inappropriate for youth. They foster impatience, heighten irritability, fuel tempers, destroy self-control, the list goes on and on:

https://www.frictionlessfamilies.com/technology-in-the-family

https://www.drkardaras.com/research.html

Parents need to wake up and stop overexposing their kids to technology and media.

Snowden’s life is also a sad but all too common object lesson of the devastating impact of divorce on children. It affected Snowden deeply when his parents were no longer together. He rightly describes it as both becoming a parent—maturing too quickly by being overexposed to adult problems—and as losing a parent, at the same time. Divorce is a vicious cycle that harms the children the most, including, but not limited to, the separated parents outdoing each other by buying the nicer gifts for their kids, and using the kids to spy on the other parent’s love life; kids having to choose which parent to stay with, and having to “be the parent” with their own parents when they become unstable; and, one of the worst consequences, kids constantly blaming themselves for the divorce. Even though his parents eventually “reconciled” by agreeing to flourish separately, the damage is done and requires supernatural intervention to truly overcome.

Cyber Religion

It’s interesting how Snowden uses overtly religious language to describe the early Internet, what he calls the most successful anarchy he’s ever experienced, which is consistent with his general distrust of authority, and thinking people are better off raising themselves in an online world that’s free of government corruption and corporate greed. He claims that the nascent Internet was more forgiving of online transgressions, and gave people the freedom to start over. The Internet was his idol, and the online communities he frequented his church, an attempt to find community and a sense of belonging. It reminds me of the documentary Ringers: Lord of the Fans, which shows real people forming cults that practically worship Tolkien’s fictional characters. One woman claimed The Lord of the Rings saved her life. Ian McKellen, the actor who played Gandalf, made the stupefying assertion that The Lord of the Rings is true and the Bible is false. John Calvin rightly said the human heart is a perpetual idol factory. It’s sad to see even conscientious individuals, who want justice to triumph corruption, idolize the most ridiculous things, exchanging “the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans‬ ‭1:25‬); rather than worship Christ Jesus, the real God-Man, “the way, the truth, and the life” (‭‭John‬ ‭14:6‬)‬‬, the only One who can truly forgive all our sins and give us, not just a fresh start, but a perfect record of righteousness based on Christ’s perfect life and finished work on the Cross. No works required, just faith: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John‬ ‭5:24‬).

“Homo contractus”

Snowden levels sharp criticisms against the Intelligence Community’s (IC) government contracting, a way of “hacking” the federal head count limits placed on each agency. The black budget he leaked implies that the IC employs just as many contractors as government employees. Due partly to rapid advances in technology, the government turned to the private sector to hire contractors, sidestepping the established vetting and hiring process. Employees often start working for the government to get clearance levels and then jump ship to the highest bidding contractor the first chance they get. IC directors and Congresspeople land cushy jobs with the contracting companies they hired for the government, a blatant conflict of interest. What passes off as “innovation” is more like governmentally assisted corruption. This in part made it possible for Snowden to gain access to all the NSA’s secret documents as a contracted sysadmin fairly quickly.

The Cloud of centralized servers

I appreciated Snowden’s criticism of “cloud” storage, which is regressive technology that stores our data in untold racks of servers consolidated in large data centers, euphemistically pitched as “the cloud.” Consenting to these cloud services means that companies do whatever they want with our data: read it, scan it, sell it, delete it. We don’t really know where our data is and what cloud companies are doing with it. And who knows what parts of the cyber world our data has traveled.

Overall, this is an important book that deals with many pertinent issues affecting us today, though I would’ve liked for Snowden to add VPNs to the discussion, but he didn’t mention them; or to treat some of the controversial fallout resulting from his leaks, such as Operation Socialist:

https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/48/

He gives an excellent discussion of the need for encryption to permeate our online activity and for users to take advantage of anonymous browsers like Tor and messaging apps like Signal, which will reform the Internet back to the “purer” form that Snowden reminisces about:

http://reformedlibertarian.com/articles/politics/simple-online-privacy-measures-everyone-should-be-taking-but-arent/

Disclaimer: The book has some salty language, which was a little unexpected because it starts relatively clean.

On 10/6/2019, the sermon, “God’s Everlasting Love, Part 2,” preached by Pastor Joe Rosales, was based on Romans 8:31-39, and continued from Part 1.

The pastor said that if we truly love God, then we would also love His bride, the church. Some claim they don’t need the church to love God. But that’s a lie; we need God’s people, in part so we can fulfill the numerous “one another” commands in Scripture:

“Be devoted to one another in brotherly love; give preference to one another in honor;” Romans‬ ‭12:10‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Be hospitable to one another without complaint.” 1 Peter‬ ‭4:9‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“Therefore encourage one another and build up one another, just as you also are doing.” ‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭5:11‬ ‭NASB‬‬

“This I command you, that you love one another.” John‬ ‭15:17‬ ‭NASB‬‬

The Christian life, I’ve often said, is not a solo enterprise.

Another excellent point the pastor made is that the gospel is not an invitation, but an effectual call. God’s love and purpose precede the call to repent and believe, just as regeneration precedes faith. Coming to Christ does not ultimately depend on us,

for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls…. So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. Romans‬ ‭9:11, 16‬ ‭NASB‬‬

Contrary to advocates of the “well-meant offer,” which leads to contradictory Calvinism, the gospel is issued by God and the apostles first and foremost as a command, not an invitation, for

those who defend the “well-meant offer” are two-faced in that they seek to maintain conflicting aspects of two contradictory and mutually exclusive systems of salvation. While at times “well-meant offer” defenders appear to be Calvinistic in their belief in God’s sovereign election and particular atonement, they also maintain a belief in the universal desire of God for the salvation of those God predestined to perdition; the reprobate. It is this combination of particularism and pluralism, or simply Calvinism and Arminianism that make up the two faces of Janus. (Sean Gerety, “Janus Alive and Well: Dr. R. Scott Clark and the Well-Meant Offer of the Gospel”)

God also “commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts‬ ‭17:30-31‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). Arminians are similarly inconsistent, though neither are necessarily heretical. “An Arminian may be a truly regenerate Christian,” writes Gordon Clark, “in fact, if he is truly an Arminian and not a Pelagian who happens to belong to an Arminian church, he must be a saved man. But he is not usually, and cannot consistently be assured of his salvation. The places in which his creed differs from our Confession confuse the mind, dilute the Gospel, and impair its proclamation” (quoted in https://www.douglasdouma.com/2016/10/03/gordon-clark-and-the-salvation-of-arminians/).

This also relates to the use of theological labels derived from men in church history, i.e., Calvinism (John Calvin) and Arminianism (Jacobus Arminius). Labels can be used responsibly if they refer primarily to the doctrines they represent, rather than to the men who formulated or taught them, although it is still important to study church history and know who these men are and what they taught. Some prefer to use different labels, such as the Doctrines of Grace, or monergism (salvation is solely God’s work) and synergism (man cooperates with God to be saved). Either way, labels are necessary to make important theological distinctions, because everyone calls themselves Christians nowadays, even Mormons. When used responsibly, labels help to specify more precisely what you mean.

The pastor also touched on the means of sanctification. One of the means God uses is the church—people—to edify and build us up, as ‭‭1 Thessalonians‬ ‭5:11 and numerous other verses attest. In a similar vein Martin Luther said that marriage and family are a school of character. God used my own marriage early on to show me how selfish I was, like a well that draws out and brings to the surface deep-rooted sins that need to be mortified.

The pastor also explained that God uses different personalities to build up His church. Luther was a hammer, bold and aggressive enough to defy the emperor and to write the first principles and manifesto of the Reformation. And Melanchthon was the gentle scholar who smoothed out Luther’s rougher spots. But both men were deeply flawed. Luther never fully bridled his temper, which was so vicious that he condemned fellow Protestants like Zwingli as heretics because they didn’t agree with him on the Lord’s Supper, consequently fracturing the Reformation; and “in Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, Luther condemned the violence [of the peasant’s revolt] as the devil's work and called for the nobles to put down the rebels like mad dogs.” Towards the end of his life, Luther also became embittered towards the Jews after repeated failed attempts to evangelize them, and reserved some of his most ungodly expressions for them. As for Melanchthon, he

fell out of favor because of his compromises with the Papists and Reformed on matters of ceremonies, Christ’s presence in the Supper, and the role of human will in conversion. With regard to the compromises with the Papists specifically, Bente writes, “The plan of Melanchthon therefore was to yield in things which he regarded as unnecessary in order to maintain the truth and avoid persecution.”[5] Sadly, his sincere efforts at peace and compromise on matters that he considered insignificant ended up compromising the central truth for which he and Luther had fought. The price of peace with the world by waffling on the central article of faith, justification by grace through faith, also meant uncertainty regarding peace with God the Father in heaven. (https://lutheranreformation.org/history/philip-melanchthon/)

The pastor then defined sanctification as progressive conformity to Christ. There is a growing awareness of our sin as we grow in sanctification. But we also grow in holiness and sin less, “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Philippians‬ ‭2:13‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). When you are truly saved, God regenerates you and “will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them” (Ezekiel‬ ‭36:26-27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). Even so, believers still sin, and should be corrected lovingly unless they stubbornly refuse to repent.

The pastor concluded with Assurance:

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Romans‬ ‭8:31-34‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Christians have the supreme privilege of knowing God as Father and Christ as Advocate, rather than as Judge. There’s nothing left to prove! Christ has done it all and paid it all on our behalf.

On 9/22/2019 the sermon, “The Cry For Revival,” preached by elder Albert Hernandez, was based on Micah 7.

Micah means “Who is like Jehovah?” The book starts with judgment for Israel and Judah but ends with eschatological hope following the destruction.

The preacher said that repetition is important. God frequently repeats Himself to His people, for we often forget and go astray. That’s also why reform is often necessary. Hezekiah, for example, starts well and leads religious reforms but doesn’t end well. “After Hezekiah’s illness, he was visited by envoys from Babylon. Hezekiah shows them all of Jerusalem’s treasuries. Isaiah rebukes him for this and prophesies the Babylonian exile (2 Kgs 20:14–19)” (Easton’s Bible Dictionary).

The elder encouraged the church to use the Reformed confessions and catechisms. Our church reads from reformed catechisms every Lord’s Day. Most are available free online and in print from Chapel Library:

https://chapellibrary.org/book/cfba/catechism-for-boys-and-girls-a-hulseerroll

https://chapellibrary.org/book/lbcw/the-london-baptist-confession-of-faith-of-1689-with-preface-baptist-catechism-and-appendix-on-baptism

He also quoted the Westminster Confession, Chapter V, On Providence:

The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave, for a season, his own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to [chastise] them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled;t and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.

J.C. Ryle said the greatest trials we face are disappointments in those we love:

Finally, let us leave the passage with a deep sense of our Lord's ability to sympathize with His believing people. If there is one trial greater than another, it is the trial of being disappointed in those we love. It is a bitter cup, which all true Christians have frequently to drink. Ministers fail them. Relations fail them. Friends fail them. One cistern after another proves to be broken, and to hold no water. But let them take comfort in the thought, that there is one unfailing Friend, even Jesus, who can be touched with the feeling of their infirmities, and has tasted of all their sorrows. Jesus knows what it is to see friends and disciples failing Him in the hour of need. Yet He bore it patiently, and loved them notwithstanding all. He is never weary of forgiving. Let us strive to do likewise. Jesus, at any rate, will never fail us. It is written, "His compassions fail not" (Lam. 3:22). (Expository Thoughts on the Gospels)

Another good point the elder made is that sermons are for judgment and rebuke in addition to comfort and edification. God rebukes and chastens those He loves, and pastors are likewise commanded to do the same. We have consolation that God will judge on our behalf and avenge us rather than judge us.

The little foxes ruin the entire vineyard. Ryle said little habits matter:

“Oh, my dear children, who can tell the power of the littles? The power of littles is very wonderful! No one knows what can be done by a little, and a little, and a little.” Ryle continues: “Oh, the importance of little habits! Habits of reading, habits of prayer, habits at meals, little habits through the day—all are little things. But they make up the character, and are of utmost importance.”

The elder noted the last verse of Micah 7, a profound message, and encouraged the church to study it, specifically the words “tread” and “cast”: “He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities under foot. Yes, You will cast all their sins Into the depths of the sea” (Micah‬ ‭7:19‬ ‭NASB‬‬).

I’ll end with food for thought. A couple of Sundays ago we sang the hymn “God of Grace and God of Glory.” The lyrics seem fine, nothing questionable, but I tend to check the author of every hymn we sing. I was surprised that the author was Harry Emerson Fosdick, “the foremost proponent and popularizer of theological liberalism” who opposed Gresham Machen during the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. This begs the question: Is it proper for churches to use hymns written by liberals or false teachers, even if the hymn may not contain questionable content? Pastor G. Craige Lewis sheds light on this issue. There’s a distinction between the lyrics of a song and the spirit—motive, intent—behind the song. Just because the lyrics may not be questionable doesn’t necessarily mean that the spirit the author wrote it in is right. Take the slave girl in Acts 16, for example:

It happened that as we were going to the place of prayer, a slave-girl having a spirit of divination met us, who was bringing her masters much profit by fortune-telling. Following after Paul and us, she kept crying out, saying, “These men are bond-servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.”

It turns out that she was telling the truth about Paul and company, but…

She continued doing this for many days. But Paul was greatly annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, “I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out at that very moment. (‭‭Acts‬ ‭16:16-18‬ ‭NASB‬‬)

The slave girl had perverse motives for telling the truth—to make her masters more money by tapping into the Christian market. It’s possible to say the right thing in the wrong spirit.

This is the start of my thoughts and reflections on the Lord’s Day. The sermon, “God’s Everlasting Love,” preached by pastor Joe Rosales, was based on Romans 8:28-39.

One of the foci was sanctification. It’s important for believers to understand that what we go through in this life, including suffering, is necessary, not for our justification, but for our sanctification, and ultimately consummates in our glorification. “The reason believers inevitably suffer in this life is so they can be sanctified because they must wait in a fallen world for Christ to return before they are glorified, not because it’s a condition they need to fulfill for their glorification [or justification]” (“When Protestants Err on the Side of Rome, Part II”):

The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him….

And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body….

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. (Romans‬ ‭8:16-17, 23, 28-30‬ ‭NASB‬‬)

Unbelievers, however, have no such consolation, because it can only be found in Christ. “I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke‬ ‭13:3‬ ‭NASB‬‬).

A related theme in the passage is election. My pastor gave the best explanation of foreknowledge I’ve heard so far. Divine foreknowledge does not mean, as Arminians claim, that God foresaw those who would believe in the future based on their free will, as if God had no determinative influence on them. Gordon Clark thoroughly refutes this view in God and Evil: The Problem Solved. Rather than mere detached knowledge, foreknowledge signifies an intimate relation, such as when “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain” (‭‭Genesis‬ ‭4:1‬ ‭NKJV‬‬). It really means that God foreloved us—He intimately knew and loved us in His mind, even before he created us. “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you” (Jeremiah‬ ‭1:5‬ ‭NASB‬‬). “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him” (‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1:3-4‬ ‭NASB‬‬). Amazing Grace: The History and Theology of Calvinism also discusses this in depth.

Another good point the pastor made is that God is not on our side. If He were, He would be sinful and wicked. We therefore need to be on God’s side and get on His terms. Prosperity preaching promotes man-centered self-worship. Our focus must be on glorifying God, not ourselves. Soli Deo Gloria.

Logic also came up. God is logical—God is logic—and thinks according to the laws of logic. A sorites, explains Elihu Carranza, is “a series of propositions in which the predicate of each is the subject of the next.  The conclusion consists of the first subject and the last predicate.  The chain of propositions is arranged in pairs of premises to make explicit the suppressed conclusion, thereby revealing the syllogism.  The validity of the entire chain will depend on the validity of each syllogism in the chain.” The Bible contains many sorites, perhaps most notably:

Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭15:15-18‬ ‭NASB‬‬)

One final thought is the importance of order in exegetical preaching. It’s good to start the sermon with the Biblical text, and continuously build and preach from the text, and apply the text throughout. There’s so much to unpack from Scripture that it’s important to stay grounded in the passage. When that happens, the entire sermon becomes a cogent sorites, in which concluding exhortations are more relevant and authoritative because they’re closely and intentionally based on the text.

The sermon ended with Philippians 1:6: “For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”

There was a time when people understood that knowingly holding to contradictory beliefs was immoral. Philosophers and theologians alike strove to present logically consistent systems of thought devoid of any contradictions between their constitutive propositions. With postmodernism’s essentialist declarations concerning anthropology, language, morality, and epistemology, however, contradiction has come to be viewed, ironically enough, as an essential part of human intellection. Systems of thought that purport to be contradiction-free, consequently, are judged to be either hopelessly philosophically naive or arrogant and dishonest. And this, of course, includes religious systems of thought.

Accordingly, the contemporary non-religious world views Christianity as naive and/or dishonest because it asserts that it and it alone is true. Within many professedly Christian churches, the same sentiment is directed against those who assert that certain doctrines are foundationally true, such that a denial of these doctrines indicates that one is lost. Whereas the world demands that Christians abandon our uniqueness and let religious bygones be bygones, many in professedly Christian churches demand that we abandon orthodoxy and let doctrinal bygones be bygones.

In both instances, what is being embraced is the postmodern idea that contradiction is inevitable, even in the pages of God’s Word. Additionally, what is implicitly embraced is the conviction that contradictions, in fact, are good, seeing as they push forward a progressively unfolding and expanding theological dialectic which will never resolve in this life. This open-ended dialectic is seen as the means whereby Christians may be epistemically humbled and led to soften their tone regarding the core doctrines of Christianity.

But Scripture doesn’t support this view of contradictions. In fact, Scriprture consistently teaches that contradictions are evil, wicked. For instance, consider what Paul says in 2nd Cor 1:17 –

Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans according to the flesh, ready to say “Yes, yes” and “No, no” at the same time?

In this passage, Paul explains that saying yes and no at the same time, and in the same sense, is not morally neutral, it is according to the flesh, or carnal. It is to be, in essence, what James calls “double-minded” in James 1:5-8. He writes –

If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Such self-contradictory thinking renders us unstable, unable to think and act in accordance with the truth. Self-contradiction is part and parcel of what is not knowledge at all. In 1st Tim 6:20 Paul writes –

O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge…”

Contradictions, then, are neither profound, enlightening, good, spiritual, or godly. Rather, contradictions are carnal.

WHO CARES?

Some may ask why it is important to point out that contradictions are carnal. There are many reasons we can give, but the following three are among the greatest.

1. False teachers are bitterly opposed to clear thinking. If a teacher trades in contradictory statements regarding his doctrine or his personal life (e.g. whether he is or is not involved in a given sinful relationship or behavior), then we may properly identify him as, at the very least, a threat to the stability of the church. At worst, he is an enemy of God and his church who must be publicly rebuked, renounced, and removed from the pulpit. In either case, he is unfit for the ministry of the Word and should be avoided.

2. Understanding that contradictions are to be eliminated from our thinking will cause us to be more cautious in our doctrine and in our life. The goal of being without any contradictions in our thinking should lead us to strive toward that end, knowing that being consistent in our thinking is not an empty academic exercise but an exercise in godliness.

3. Contradictions are false, and we are to be people of the Truth, who believe the truth, and who are led by the Spirit of Truth to walk in the way of truth.

In regeneration, we are given the mind of Christ. Let us be conformed by his Word to think as he does – without contradictions.

To start, I didn’t sympathize with Piper's irrational emotive appeal for writing this book:

[T]here is another way to commend the vision. A person also wants to know, Is the vision beautiful and satisfying and fulfilling?... Commending Biblical truth involves more than saying, "Do it because the Bible says so." That sort of commendation may result in a kind of obedience that is so begrudging and so empty of delight and hearty affirmation that the Lord is not pleased with it at all.... Not only must there be thorough exegesis, there must also be a portrayal of the vision that satisfies the heart as well as the head.... This little book is meant to fit mainly into the second category. (15-16, emphasis his)

Believers keep God's laws precisely because “the Bible says so.” Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments" (John 14:21). Period. Not because we find them "satisfying": "Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law" (Romans 3:31). "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3). A true believer desires to obey, and grows in obedience to, his heavenly Father out of gratitude, because he's been forgiven by Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirit. The Law of God is only burdensome and "empty of delight and hearty affirmation" to unregenerate sinners because it condemns them and because they hate God. We don't need to somehow be emotionally convinced in addition to "thorough exegesis." The Bible simply says, "Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord" (Isaiah 1:18).

The Bible also contrasts the mouth (what one professes) and the heart (the true, inner self—not mere emotions) rather than the “head” and the “heart.” That’s why Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me'" (Mark 7:6). The psychological distinction between head ("intellect") and heart ("emotions") is unbiblical, which leads Piper to overemphasize emotions and create a false dichotomy between obedience and desire. Unfortunately, this is one of Piper’s most fundamental convictions that drives his entire ministry, from his preaching, to his teaching, to his writing. Much of what John Robbins said in his review of Colson's Loving God applies to Piper's book as well:

...In your [Colson's] book and tapes you attack creeds and philosophies and emphasize the Person and cross of Christ. You contrast a “magnificent philosophy” with a “living truth,” and “academic theory" with a “living Person.” But the Bible makes no such contrast. Indeed, it teaches the opposite: As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. Christ said, “My words are spirit and they are life.” The words are the Spirit. The Gospel, the truth, the words are powerful. There is no contrast in the Bible between words or teaching or doctrine or philosophy and Christ. There is a contrast between profession of belief and actual belief, but not between Christ and his words. The contrast is a figment of modern psychology. We know Christ only insofar as we know about him. One cannot know Christ, or any other person, except by knowing propositions about him. Knowledge is always knowledge of a proposition. Saving faith is always assent to one or more Biblical propositions. Therefore, please do not disparage knowledge or teaching or doctrine, for by doing so, you are disparaging Christ. As Calvin put it, we owe to Scripture the same reverence that we owe to God. (See http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=187)

Piper also confused me when he, apparently referring to liberal theologians Emil Brunner and Paul Jewett, states that "our best Christian thinkers claim not to know what masculinity and femininity are" (20). Those men are a far cry from being “our best Christian thinkers,” especially if they can’t define something as basic and fundamental as manhood and womanhood. Anyone who studies the Bible can know exactly what true masculinity and femininity are.

The book's subtitle, "Manhood and Womanhood Defined According to the Bible," is misleading as well. Piper defines manhood and womanhood as the following:

At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man's differing relationships.

At the heart of mature femininity is a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men in ways appropriate to a woman's differing relationships. (22)

These definitions are “an attempt to get at the heart, or at least an indispensable aspect, of manhood and womanhood” (21). But a more appropriate subtitle would be, "Manhood and Womanhood defined in relation to each other." Although Piper is a complementarian (20-21), his definitions of manhood and womanhood tend to overlook the fundamentals: God's order and creation roles. And why does a woman, according to Piper's definition, seem to have more than one head? 1 Corinthians 11:3-13 reads:

I [Paul] want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.... For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Piper doesn't mention that man was made for God and woman for man. And although spiritually "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28), Christ explains why there is a prescribed natural order:

The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36)

So in this life, God institutes an order for us to follow until the resurrection because we are still in the flesh and marry and have kids...and die. Women should "have a symbol of authority on their heads because of the angels," that is, a woman's "hair is given to her for a covering" (Ephesians 5:16), and the man also covers her because even though women are spiritually equal to men and to the angels in heaven, they are still in the flesh, so they must "submit to [their] own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" (Ephesians 5:22ff.). This order won't be necessary for believers after the resurrection because they will no longer marry and die, and because there will only be one marriage in heaven: Christ, the Husband, and the church, the bride (Revelation 19:7-9). This also shows why God has historically destroyed societies that embrace homosexuality: it violates God's natural order and unravels the moral fabric of society. The most fundamental institution of society is the one that God Himself established first and foremost—marriage.

Piper also argues that "It is not primarily the responsibility of women to build procedural and relational guidelines to protect themselves from the advances of ill-behaved men. Primarily it is the responsibility of mature manhood to establish a pattern of behaviors and attitudes" (45, emphasis his). Nonsense. It is primarily the responsibility of both! Not just the man's. A woman's head is her husband or her father, or God if neither are available; she does not need to rely or depend on any other man to "establish" boundaries. Women must protect themselves and establish biblical boundaries with other men, especially if she’s alone. Piper later claims that "the natural expression of...womanhood will be hindered by the immaturity of the man in her presence" (55). This is also absurd, for true womanhood is affirmed by God and her husband or father, and is only hindered by other immature men if the woman is insecure. But even a mature married woman, according to Piper, "will affirm and receive and nurture the strength and leadership of men in some form in all her relationships with men" (59). This too is false and even dangerous, for the only men a woman needs to "affirm and receive and nurture" is her father and husband! Not every "worthy" man she comes across!

The book had some helpful points, but overall it confuses rather than clarifies biblical manhood and womanhood. For better material see Gary Smalley's If Only He Knew, Pastor Tom Nelson's teachings on marriage and the Song of Solomon (http://dbcmedia.org/), and Pastor G. Craige Lewis' teachings on creation roles (http://www.exministries.com/sermons/atcp-archive/) instead.