In the following inteview, Sam and I speak about what it is like for him to pastor as a reformed charismatic. It is a very interesting exchange, and one I very much enjoyed filming:

Today I continue my interview with Sam Storms. I allowed him to turn the tables on me and interview me about the resurrection. He makes a great interviewer, I think:

One highlight of my time in Minneapolis was finally meeting Sam Storms. I really enjoyed filming a series of interview clips which will be shared on the blog over the next three days. This first section of our time is about his set of two new books on the much neglected epistle of 2 Corinthians. This is probably the most important book of the New Testament for understanding how a minister can relate to his people through great difficulties in a christo-centric way. It is also one of the most neglected books in the Bible.

Here’s what I said about these volumes: In this set of two books, Storms in his usual clear, engaging, heartwarming style unlocks perhaps Paul’s most personal and Christ-centered letter. You will be reminded afresh that everything really is all about Jesus. Release the life-changing power of this much neglected letter as Storms demonstrates that its message can change you in every way.  BUY NOW

A full day of further incredibly helpful and much needed pummeling about joy would be a good way to sum up today.  Worship continued to be meaningful and full of the presence of the Spirit.  The talks continue to be posted on the Desiring God site so you can read full notes, watch, and listen to them there.

Eric Mason is a very gifted preacher. He spoke about having written a Ph.D thesis on how suffering helps our sanctification. He shared how then God had required him to live in the good of it as his wife got very sick. Half way through the talk I realized with a jolt that I had been beginning to delude myself that life will always remain as sweet as it currently is. I have preached many times how Jesus promised us that in this world we WILL have troubles. To have such a strong reminder of the certainty of suffering and its role was good for my soul. I trust it will leave me stronger when I next face a significant trial. I trust it will also help me to keep the more minor hassles of daily life in better perspective.

Sam Storms served us so well, outlining in his first talk of today the theological principles that under-gird Christian hedonism. As I listened, once again a hunger rose within me to experience more of this joy that he was speaking about. I know I have been exposed to most of the ideas I heard today for at least a decade. But, like I suspect everyone in the room, I surely needed to be reminded of them, and there was much that seemed fresh and impacted me. I learned new nuances and an increased depth of understanding of these precious truths. True theology is so simple a child can grasp it, yet so profound we will be able to plumb its depths for eternity. As a result of this talk I felt a new confidence in the firmness of the foundation for Christian hedonism.

Piper’s very strong enthusiasm for the writings C. S. Lewis,  a dead man who he disagrees with on many points, was striking and informative. He claims to have discovered an almost immeasurable treasure by plumbing the depths of Lewis’ writings.  I found myself even more strongly convinced of the need for us to sometimes read people who we profoundly disagree with on even important matters in order to learn vital truths from them. One thing that stood out was  the need to recapture the wonder of ordinary things. Again, I pray that will help me to have a very different perspective on the daily minor frustrations of life.  In this session Piper was talking about one of his top favorite dead people outside of the Bible.  This is a classic talk which quite simply has to be watched, not listened to, by anyone who wants to understand John Piper properly.

This, and his biographical talk on Jonathan Edwards will surely form a pair.  I sometimes think that Piper is even more skilled at this kind of talk than he is at expositional preaching.  Perhaps because so few people speak in this way that is an unfair comparison, but certainly I can think of no better way to be introduced to some of the great heroes of church history, and understand their significance, than to work carefully through these talks, in many cases watching the talks more than once because of their profundity.

We might have thought that such treasure was sufficient for one day.  But Sam Storms switched gear in the evening session.  Having taught us well the theological underpinnings of Christian hedonism in his previous talks, he became less of a scholar and more of a pastor for his final talk of the conference.  He showed us how this teaching has its application in killing sin. This was one of the best explanations I have heard of why legalism or dwelling on the negative consequences of sin are totally insufficient to restrain it. The temporary pleasures of sin can only be expelled by the infinitely  greater pleasure of treasuring Christ. Having demolished the “prosperity gospel,” he then argued that everyone in the room has  been affected by it at least in part.  Have we accepted some of the lie of prosperity gospel?  Do we basically feel that God is obligated to minimize our suffering?  Are we surprised and indignant when he doesn’t? The truth is that there is something that God values more than our comfort! The treasure of us becoming more like Christ is of infinitely more worth.

Not only did this second day feed my mind, mold my heart, and enrich my Spirit,  but I also shared some fantastic fellowship with a number of different people. This included eating with some delightful pastors, and greeting many brothers around the conference center and specifically at the “greet the author” session.  Thanks to everyone who reads my blog who came and said hello. It was wonderful to put faces to some names, and to meet new friends.

Yesterday was an amazing day.  The relational warmth of the people here and their passion for Jesus is infectious.  It was exceptional to meet Sam Storms, who I interviewed via email back in 2006, and whose ministry I have watched from afar. Look out for a video interview with him in the not-too-distant future here.

I went to a “pre-conference” with Paul Tripp. He relentlessly pursued us all to make sure our private lives matched the public, urging pastors to make themselves vulnerable to others. He was so persistent, I thought he was almost like a dog with a bone. Not for the first time I found myself being glad that, although I get to serve in leadership, I am not at the helm of a church as the lead pastor. It can be a very lonely, and at times discouraging, task. We need to learn to do everything we can to support our pastors and be a blessing to them, not a curse.

I then had the opportunity to finally meet two of the many incredible people who have been working so hard behind the scenes at Crossway Books. I spent a few minutes drinking Coke (to help with my jet lag) with Angie Cheatham and Ben Krueger. To partner for the gospel with a group of people like those who work for Crossway is one of the many great privileges of my life, for which I am so grateful. Before I got involved in this whole process I naively thought that book writing was a solitary activity. It really isn’t.

Nothing I had heard about the conference prepared me for the exhilaration of joining my voice to what seemed like around 2000 other men as we worshiped King Jesus. It was great to see the way they enthusiastically welcomed the wives who had made the effort to come, and we all applauded them. As we sang arms were raised, and the presence of God’s Spirit was strong.

Sam Storms preached about the central place of joy in God. The message of Christian hedonism is intoxicating. It is well worth watching this message even if you think you know Desiring God inside out. We must be reminded often. I must be reminded often. Alhough I preached myself on “Rejoice in the Lord” not long ago, I so needed God’s reminder via this sermon from Storms of the need to really pursue joy in God. I especially loved a segment of this talk when he spoke about “joy inexpressible.” He explained that you know you have this joy when human words are no longer enough to express it. The joy rises to the point that mere words cannot express it.  Spurgeon described this well as follows:

“But there is yet another sense in which the Holy Ghost advocates, and that is, he advocates our cause with Jesus Christ, with groanings that cannot be uttered. O my soul, thou art ready to burst within me! O my heart, thou art swelled with grief; the hot tide of my emotion would well-nigh overflow the channels of my veins. I long to speak, but the very desire chains my tongue. I wish to pray, but the fervency of my feeling curbs my language. There is a groaning within that cannot be uttered. Do you know who can utter that groaning, who can understand it, and who can put it into heavenly language and utter it in O celestial tongue, so that Christ can hear it? Oh! yes; is God the Holy Spirit; he advocates our cause with Christ and then Christ advocates it with his Father. He is the advocate, who maketh intercession for us, with groanings that cannot be uttered.” Spurgeon “The Comforter”

Sam Storms writes on worship in More Precious Than Gold, 50 Daily Meditations on the Psalms (Crossway Books: Wheaton, IL 2009), 180-184.

Sam reports how a man once approached him and told him, undoubtedly sincerely, that he was uncomfortable with the way Sam worshiped. Sam’s reply? “I’m certainly open to correction, and I’m sorry you were offended, but I’m not particularly concerned with what puts you at ease. When the day comes that you are the object of my praise and adoration, I’ll pay a bit more attention to what makes you feel comfortable. Until then, I’m primarily concerned about what pleases God.”

Sam wisely shares 10 guidelines for the kind of worship that pleases God:

(1) Worship that pleases God is perpetual and constant (Psalm 92:2)

(2) Worship that pleases God is instrumental (Psalm 150)

(3) Clearly God delights in joyful worship (Psalm 92:4)

(4) Worship that pleases God is grounded in the recognition and celebration of his greatness (Psalm 92:5)

(5) Worship that pleases God is both loud and logical . . . Note well that worship here [in the Psalms] entails noisy songs.

(6) Worship that pleases God is physical (Psalm 95:6)

(7) Worship that pleases God is fresh and creative. (Psalm 33:3, Psalm 40:3, Psalm 96:1, Psalm 98:1, Psalm 144:9, Psalm 149:1)

(8) Worship that pleases God is public. (Psalm 96:3)

(9) Worship that pleases God ascribes glory to his name.

(10) God is especially honored when the whole of creation joins in celebrating his goodness and greatness. (Psalm 96:11-13a).

The 20th most read post on my blog at the moment is my interview with Sam Storms.

In 19th place is another interview, this time with Josh Harris.

UPDATE
You can watch the Newday promo video right here:

If you are looking for more, or your tastes don’t follow mine, Tim Challies also has a list of conferences. There are more conferences still to come this year, but I have also listed some 2009 events.

AUGUST 2008
Newday — Older children and teens conference run by Newfrontiers. Join several thousand young people to worship God and hear his Word.

Together at North — Newfrontiers gathering in the North York Moors.
Contact: north@teesside.org

Together at Borderlands — Newfrontiers Bible weekend in Wrexham.
Contact: eric@rugeleycc.org.uk

Together at Mid UK — Being held in Shuttleworth.
Contact: mailto:mailto:

Together at Wessex — in the New Forest Showground.
Contact: mailto:mailto:

Celebration NorthWest — USA Conference, including Terry Virgo.

SEPTEMBER 2008
The Power of Words and the Wonder of God — The Desiring God National Conference with John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Bob Kauflin, Sinclair Ferguson, Paul Tripp, and Daniel Taylor.

OCTOBER 2008
Together at East of England — Meeting at the Pontins Pakefield Holiday Centre, Suffolk.
Contact: mailto:mailto:

Acts 29 Boot Camp, St Louis

NOVEMBER 2008
Front Edge South West, Winchester.
Contact: office@lifesouthampton.org

Acts 29 Boot Camp, Dallas

JANUARY 2009
Together at London and Surrey, January 23-25, Butlins, Bognor Regis.
I will be there with hundreds of people from Jubilee Church, London and many other Newfrontiers churches. We will take over the whole site for a Bible weekend.
Contact: togetheratbutlins@hotmail.co.uk

Acts 29 Africa Boot Camps

FEBRUARY 2009
Life in the Spirit — “Where reformed theology meets charismatic experience.”
UK conference with Sam Storms, Steve Brady, David Carr, Gavin Calver, and Bernard Thompson. Usual attendance approximately 200.

APRIL 2009
New Word Alive
Next year Carson and Virgo return, and there are two weeks — March 30 – April 4, 2009, and April 4 – April 9, 2009. Spaces are likely to sell out, so get yourself booked in soon.

JUNE 2009
Celebration Midwest
Dates not yet confirmed, so watch this space for this USA conference …

JULY 2009
Together On A Mission 2009 will take place from July 7th to 10th. Book this holiday now!

Celebration Northeast
Dates not confirmed, but watch this space for details of this USA conference …

No. 4 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on August 21, 2007, and was one in a series of posts that catalogued a major debate about baptism and church membership which took place online between such theological heavyweights as John Piper, Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, Lig Duncan, and Mark Dever.

The posts listed below were all so popular they could have made the top 30 in their own right. It’s worth reading all of them:

• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate

• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism
• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper on Baptism
• John Piper Disagrees with Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously
• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord’s Supper
• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord’s Supper
• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem Versus Piper Baptism Debate
• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever Versus Piper Baptism Debate

The post begins as follows:

This whole baptism debate is shaping up to be very interesting indeed. It is surely the first time in living memory that those who I can only think to call the “big guns” have used the blogging medium to have a serious theological debate in front of the rest of us. While Lig Duncan and Justin Taylor have both helpfully shared a bit about what paedobaptists believe, this debate has rather been about whether our local churches must have clear stances on this issue.

Arguing for a more rigorous approach, we have seen Wayne Grudem (who also started the whole thing), Mark Dever, and his 9Marks buddy, Aaron Menikoff, while on the other side we have had comments from John Piper, Abraham Piper, John Bunyan, and now in this post, Sam Storms.

I and many others have very deliberately steered clear of joining in the debate because, for some reason, I’m finding it one that is very stimulating and interesting to observe from the touchline. It has been a model debate, and is a clear example of how we can disagree robustly on an issue while still loving and respecting each other. The following words from Sam Storms are no exception. Sam is a good friend, and has given me permission to republish the following complete article which appeared in his newsletter.

The rest of this post is taken in its entirety with permission from an e-mail from Sam Storms, who retains the copyright and is alone responsible for its content.

---

Reflections (46)

Piper, Grudem, Dever, et al. on Baptism, the Lord’s Table, and Church Membership

(Just how “Together for the Gospel” are we?)

A few days ago Justin Taylor alerted us to a slight change in Wayne Grudem’s view on baptism, to which John Piper then responded. Wayne then posted his response to John’s response, and one needed only to wait for the ripple effect. By the way, you can read these articles on Justin’s blog in the archive section (www.theologica.blogspot.com).

Recently (August 16, 2007), Mark Dever posted on this issue at the 9Marks blog (www.blog.9marks.org). My primary concern is less with the question of the relationship between baptism and church membership (as important as that is) and more with a related topic that emerges in the course of discussion.

Let me take you back to the Together for the Gospel conference that was held in late April, 2006. It was hosted by Mark Dever, Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and C. J. Mahaney, who also invited three others to deliver plenary messages: John Piper, R. C. Sproul, and John MacArthur. Registration for next year’s conference is now open and I strongly urge you to attend. I will certainly be present.

After the conference was officially over, on Friday afternoon, there was a small gathering of some 75 people in one of the adjoining rooms at the Galt House Hotel. The purpose of this meeting was to address an issue that was raised last year by John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

To be brief, John has come to the conviction that the terms on which one enters the membership of the local church should be, generally speaking, as close as possible to the terms on which one enters the membership of the universal church. In other words, he grew increasingly unsettled by the fact that conscientious, born-again, Christ-loving, Bible-believing Christians who were only baptized as infants could not join his local church. It has been the policy of Bethlehem Baptist Church, a member of the Baptist General Conference, that in order to become a functioning member one must, among other things, be baptized as a believer. On this scenario, Ligon Duncan and R. C. Sproul, being Presbyterians, could attend but would not be permitted to join Bethlehem Baptist Church. . . .

Read more . . . Sam Storms’ e-mail

Part of the reason for my blog holiday has been, hopefully, to fit more time for prayer into my schedule which, even without blogging, remains tightly packed. As usual, I have not found that as easy as I would like—although I am praying more than I normally do. What is it about prayer that we find so difficult?

I thought I would interrupt this blog break to bring you the following prolonged extract from Sam Storms’ forthcoming book on Colossians. The daily devotions I am sharing here are all on the subject of prayer, and I have found them helpful to me as I look again at this vital subject. This is taken from The Hope of Glory: 100 Daily Meditations on Colossians, by Sam Storms, pp.309-324, © 2008. Used by permission of Crossway Books, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, http://www.crossway.org/.

The Easiest Thing About Prayer
Colossians 4:2
Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving.
The easiest thing about praying is quitting. Giving up seems so reasonable, so easy to justify. It’s always been that way, which is why Paul wrote in Colossians 4:12, “Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving.” Persevering in prayer when no one seems to listen strikes many people as a sign of fanaticism, if not mental instability.

Not long ago I received an e-mail from a friend who was facing the impending deaths of several people in his church. Soon after, I learned of the untimely passing of an incredibly godly Christian man who left behind a grieving wife and two young children. In any given week I hear the same stories you do: a loved one dies, a job is lost and another not found, bills go unpaid, relationships are shattered, dreams fail to materialize. Rain does not fall and crops fail. A teenager is loved and cared for, yet rebels and abandons God. What makes such incidents especially disturbing is that they all occur notwithstanding persistent and fervent prayer that they not. Why is it that a man or woman prays for relief or deliverance or some essential blessing to alleviate intense aggravation, but hears nothing? In humble faith, with sincerity of heart, not for a moment doubting that God is able both to hear and answer their prayers, they pray. But heaven is silent, or so it seems.

I recently saw the film The Island (that’s not a recommendation!) in which unsuspecting clones are nourished and sustained to serve as organ donors for their wealthy sponsors who aspire to live as long as possible. These “folk” know virtually nothing of the outside world or its ways. Two have escaped and are in conversation with a rather strange man who happens to mention “God.” “What’s ‘God’?” asks one of the clones.

“Oh, well, you know when you close your eyes and ask for something?”

“Yeah.”

“Well, God’s the one who doesn’t answer you.”

It’s a bad joke, but for many people it rings all too true. People in Paul’s day faced the same temptation to quit that we do. But too much was at stake. Though defeated at the cross, Satan and his demons are still active. The weakness of the flesh abides. The threat of schism in the body of Christ is ever present. Great opportunities to share the gospel are at every turn. So, don’t quit, says Paul. Continue steadfastly in prayer. Keep watch at all times lest you despair. Be thankful for all God has done and will do in response to your petitions. Much has already been said in Colossians concerning perseverance in prayer, so I won’t repeat myself here. . . . Instead, I want to briefly address the reasons why a good God who can help often seems not to, or at least not to in accordance with our schedules. There are surely reasons other than these, but here are a few suggestions that I hope will encourage you to “continue steadfastly in prayer” (Colossians 4:2a).

First, we are a presumptuous people. We just assume that God ought always to do what we ask, when we ask, precisely in the way we ask. By delaying his response, God awakens us to the gracious character of all answered prayer. In other words, that God says or does anything at all in response to our petitions is sheer, undiluted grace. Resolute continuation in prayer, watchful perseverance, is often the best way for us to learn this invaluable lesson.

Second, steadfast endurance in coming again and again to the throne of grace is God’s way of cultivating in us a sense of absolute and utter dependence upon him. We are by nature self-reliant, self-sufficient folk. If God were instantly and at all times to answer our every prayer, we would gradually lose our sense of urgency. Truth be told, most of us would soon lose sight of the fact that it is God alone who is the source of all good. By suspending his response, God is saying to each of us: “Just how desperate are you? How conscious are you that I am your only source, your sole and all-sufficient supply?”

Third, persistent praying puts us in that frame of mind and spirit in which we may properly receive what it is that God desires to give. In other words, it isn’t so much that God is reluctant to give, but that we lack preparation to receive. Try to envision what a mess your life would have been if your parents granted you everything you asked for as a child! God often delays his answers because, quite simply, we are in no shape to receive them. Few of us are willing to admit that, but deep down we know it’s true.

Fourth, steadfast, watchful continuation in prayer helps us differentiate between impetuous, ill-conceived, selfish desires, and sincere, deep-seated, Christ-exalting ones. Persistence in prayer thus enables us to weed out improper petitions.

Fifth, endurance at the throne of grace purifies the content of our petitions. By repeating our prayers we are forced to think and rethink what we are saying. We are compelled to evaluate our motivation and aim for asking God for something in particular. It’s a bit like how I read, reread, and read yet again each of these meditations. It helps me identify mistakes, locate typographical errors, and rephrase something that otherwise might be false or misleading. I can almost envision God saying in response to my first articulation of a prayer, “Sam, are you sure you want me to answer that one? Think about it. Contemplate the long-term consequences of a yes. Then come back and ask me again in different terms, with a purified purpose.”

Sixth, perseverance cultivates patience. By withholding an immediate response, we learn how to wait on God. Waiting on the Lord is far from a passive posture. It’s an active, expectant, persistent pressing in to the heart and purposes of a loving God. How might we ever learn to do this were it not for steadfastness in prayer?

Seventh, oftentimes God wants to give, but not now. The answer will come in better circumstances, at a more opportune moment. By delaying his response, a greater and better and more God-glorifying end is secured than by an immediate answer.

Finally, even if none of the reasons given above makes sense to you, persevere anyway! God isn’t asking you to understand; he’s asking you to be faithful.

Pray Thankfully!
Colossians 4:2
Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving.
There’s always a possibility that someone reading this passage might walk away with the idea that prayer is an anxious, troublesome, fearful endeavor. Paul’s language might easily contribute to that, were it not for the final two words of the text. Let me explain.

If I were to exhort you concerning some spiritual activity and insisted, perhaps with great urgency, that you “continue steadfastly” in it and that you remain alert and watchful, you might be inclined to worry, perhaps wringing your hands, biting your nails, and pacing nervously back and forth in doubt of the ultimate outcome. Now let’s be clear about one thing: prayer is serious business. James put it pointedly: “You do not have, because you do not ask” (James 4:2). If we fail to pray, we most likely will not receive. It is utterly presumptuous to think that God will do for us apart from prayer what he has promised to do for us only through prayer.

But this reality must be held in delicate balance with the equally biblical truth that God is sovereign: nothing slips his mind or through his fingers. He will accomplish all his purposes. He “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Ephesians 1:11).

This is the point, I believe, of Paul’s insistence that when we pray, and we should pray always and alertly, we should do so “with thanksgiving” (Colossians 4:2b). Why does he insist on this? And more important still, how do we do it? How does one pray thankfully?

First, I believe Paul includes this qualifying phrase because he wants to instill confidence in us rather than fear and uncertainty as we pray. It’s his way of saying, “Yes, by all means be faithful and fervent in your prayers. But know this: God is always and ever on his throne. The battle in which you fight is ultimately his, on your behalf. Let gratitude for what God has done and will do permeate your petitions. In this way you will never lose hope or fall into despair or live in fear that he has abandoned you in your hour of need.”

But second, and most important, how do we do this? What does it mean to pray “with thanksgiving”? Here are a few thoughts.

First, pray with gratitude that God is actually there, alive and alert and never asleep. We do not speak into a vacuum or to a God who is preoccupied with other, allegedly more important matters.

Second, pray with gratitude that God not only lives and loves but also actually listens to what we say. He hears us! “Therefore the Lord waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. . . . He will surely be gracious to you at the sound of your cry. As soon as he hears it, he answers you” (Isaiah 30:18–19). As you pray, therefore, thank God that he loves to listen and to be gracious.

Third, pray with gratitude that the God who lives, loves, and listens is also more than able to do above and beyond all we ask or think (cf. Ephesians 3:20). I’m so thankful that the God to whom I pray isn’t a wimp or a weakling, but an omnipotent and infinitely wise Father who delights in giving good things to those who ask (Luke 11:13).

Fourth, pray thanking God that he has chosen to include you in the process. God could have ordained that all his will be accomplished independently of our participation. But he didn’t. He has chosen to achieve his ultimate ends through means, the latter being primarily our prayers.

Fifth, pray thanking God for all the ways he is changing you as you pray. Wholehearted and humble intercession transforms the intercessor. Our ideas of God are elevated. Our awareness of personal dependency is intensified. The magnitude of God’s power and providence is manifest in ways that we otherwise might never behold. Our dreams and hopes and desires are cleansed and purified as we humbly submit to his will and crucify our own.

Sixth, pray thanking God that what you are asking him to graciously do in the lives of others he has already done in yours. If we are not grateful for the salvation and healing and mercy granted us, how can we possibly be fervent and diligent in asking that God do the same for others?

Seventh, and finally, pray with gratitude to God not simply for what he has done but for what he will do. Thank him in advance for what he will do in response to your requests. Without being triumphalistic or sinfully presumptuous, we should pray with Thank you, Lord!

The bottom line is this: it’s hard to be fearful when you are immersed in gratitude. Thankfulness turns the human soul toward heaven and away from self. Thankfulness, by its very nature, requires that we fix our focus on the fact that God is and who God is and what God has done and will do. Thankful prayer is necessarily theocentric.

Do you recall the incident in 2 Chronicles 20 where Jehoshaphat and the kingdom of Judah came under siege by the Moabites and Ammonites? After their prayer seeking God’s assistance, the prophet Jahaziel came to them with a bizarre word of counsel. “He appointed those who were to sing to the Lord and praise him in holy attire, as they went before the army, [to] say, ‘Give thanks to the Lord, for his steadfast love endures forever’” (2 Chronicles 20:21).

He instructs them to be thankful on the front end of the battle, before the enemy is ever engaged. Let the reality of God’s steadfast love fill your heart, he told them. Praise him for who he is. Rest peacefully in what he will do. “Stand firm,” he said, “hold your position, and see the salvation of the Lord on your behalf” (2 Chronicles 20:17).

Thus, “when Paul says our praying is to be done with thanksgiving, he means that we should keep our eyes on the victory of God. We do not fight as losers or even as those who are uncertain. We know God will win. And if we have eyes to see, we will recognize the path of his power again and again.”

Just Do It!
Colossians 4:3–4
Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving. At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison—that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak.
Now, wait just a minute. We all agree that God loves lost souls and wants them to hear the gospel of salvation in his Son. So why does he suspend the opening of an evangelistic door on the prayers of the Colossians? I’m tempted to say, in the words of the Nike commercial: “God, ‘just do it!’” Or, perhaps more reverently, “God, why don’t you directly open these doors rather than telling Paul to tell us to ask you to do so? What’s the point of our asking you to do what you’ve already revealed is in your heart to accomplish? As I said, Lord, ‘just do it!’” I suspect God’s response to me would be: “No, Sam. That’s not how I operate. Yes, of course, I could ‘just do it’ directly and instantaneously, without your involvement or anyone else’s. But I prefer to do it when you ask me to. In fact, in most instances I won’t do it unless you ask me to.”

Here’s another question that comes to mind. Why does Paul encourage the Colossians to pray for him? What’s the point of his asking them to ask God to open a door for the Word? Why does he urge them to pray that God would give him clarity of speech? Isn’t it enough that he ask God himself? I’m assuming he did, but he evidently believed that it would greatly help his cause if others joined him in beseeching God for this blessing. Does this imply that God is more inclined to say yes to our requests if more people are united in asking him for them? That seems odd.

Or is it primarily to aid his cause that Paul enlists the prayers of others on his behalf? Could it possibly be that for the sake of God’s greater glory he makes this request of the Colossians? I’ll return to that momentarily.

Let’s be clear about one thing. I didn’t ask these questions because I intend to solve the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I couldn’t solve it even if I wanted to, and how prayer factors into the equation is ultimately something beyond my intellectual ken.

Rather, I’m concerned about the nature of prayer. Or, more accurately, I’m concerned about the purpose of prayer. Why has God chosen to incorporate it into the way he governs the world and accomplishes his purposes?

One thing we know: God loves to be asked, and there’s good reason for it. Consider Psalm 50:12, one of the most sarcastic verses in Scripture. God says to the Israelites: “If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine,” which is to say, if God were hungry (which, of course, he’s not), he wouldn’t need the Israelites to provide him with a meal. “Every beast of the forest is mine,” says the Lord, “[not to mention] the cattle on a thousand hills” (Psalm 50:10).

So, if God doesn’t need us or our prayers, why does he create us and then command us to ask him for things? That’s a pretty profound question, but it comes with a fairly simple answer.

In Psalm 50:15 God says again, “Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me.” When you’re in trouble, says God, when you have needs and problems and trials and obstacles to overcome, pray to me and ask that I intervene and make provision. If you do, I’ll deliver you. And in your obvious dependence upon me I will be glorified. We both win. You get delivered. I get glorified. You receive a blessing. And people and angels and demons see that I’m the all-sufficient supply, the infinitely resourceful God, the one being in the universe who exists to overflow in abundant goodness to weak and needy people like you!

It’s amazing how asking a few questions about the nature and purpose of prayer drives us directly into the reason why God created the universe. God didn’t create us because he was needy or lacking in some profound way. We don’t supply God with anything. “The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24–25).

So, that being true, why did he make it all? He made it all so that in its (our) utter and absolute dependence on him for everything, his glory as God might be seen and savored. Our need magnifies his supply. Our lack draws attention to his abundance. God honors and glorifies himself by overflowing in bountiful blessings to those who otherwise deserve only death. And how do we get these blessings? By praying for them! God suspends his work on our prayers not because he can’t do it alone but because our prayers highlight our dependence and his supply. We are humbled as dependent and he is exalted as depended upon.

Not only does he get the glory for being depended upon but we get the gladness for being dependent. Yes, please read that again. There is no greater joy than getting what God gives (and he is himself, of course, the greatest gift). And there is no greater glory than for God to be giving.

Jesus commanded his disciples to pray, and here’s why: “Whatever you ask in my name, this will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13). Although there are undoubtedly other reasons why God chose to incorporate our prayers in the accomplishment of his purposes, his glory is preeminent.

One more thing: earlier I asked why Paul felt it important to enlist the prayers of the Colossians on his behalf. It’s not because God is stingy and Paul thought that a multitude of intercessors might have greater success in prevailing on God’s otherwise reluctant heart than would he alone. Once again, it’s all about God’s glory. In 2 Corinthians 1:11 Paul wrote, “You also must help us by prayer, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us through the prayers of many.”

Note carefully why it’s important that the Corinthians (like the Colossians) pray for him. It is so that “many will give thanks” for the “blessing” that God grants to him in response to their prayers. God’s glory is more readily seen and known and savored when many rise up in unified gratitude for what he has done than if only one or a few do. So, when we pray for one another we get gladness in receiving what God gives and God gets glory for giving what we get.

Open Doors for the Gospel
Colossians 4:3–4
Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving. At the same time, pray also for us, that God may open to us a door for the word, to declare the mystery of Christ, on account of which I am in prison—that I may make it clear, which is how I ought to speak.
Political correctness notwithstanding, Christianity is an evangelistic religion. Its aim is to proclaim the good news that there is eternal life in only one: Jesus Christ. Its aim, by the grace of God, is to bring about the deliverance of men and women out of the domain of darkness into the kingdom of light. There are some things, no doubt, for which we as Christians ought to apologize, but declaring that faith in Jesus Christ alone is essential for eternal life isn’t one of them. We should never hesitate to proclaim the “mystery of Christ” or shrink back from seeking the conversion of every soul.

Here in Colossians 4:3–4 Paul solicits the prayers of these believers, not for his own health or freedom or prosperity but for the opportunity and clarity to proclaim Jesus as Lord to lost and dying people. There are two elements in Paul’s request that call for our attention.

First, he asks them to ask God to open “a door for the word” that he might proclaim “the mystery of Christ” (v. 3). This isn’t the first time he’s used this imagery for evangelistic opportunities (see also Acts 14:27; 1 Corinthians 16:8–9; 2 Corinthians 2:12).

The “door,” evidently, is closed. This may suggest political opposition; social, cultural, and educational barriers to sharing the faith; adverse weather that hinders travel; or any number of factors that make evangelism difficult from a human perspective. It may be that Paul is asking God to grant him favor with those who have the authority to give him access to certain arenas of activity or platforms from which he might declare his message. In any case, Paul believed that God is sovereign over all such circumstances and that he can remove obstacles and overcome resistance and restrain the enemies of the faith when asked to do so by his people.

That an apostle, no less, would ask ordinary Christians like these Colossians to pray for his evangelistic success is stunning. Paul refused to trust in his skill or eloquence or theological knowledge alone. He needed the intercessory support of other believers. It’s almost as if he’s saying, “I’m helpless if you don’t ask God to help me.” Amazing!

And what might Paul do should the door be opened? He has one goal, one solitary purpose: to proclaim the mystery of Christ. The word mystery doesn’t mean what it does in a P. D. James novel or in a Sudoku puzzle. Paul typically uses this word when he has in mind a truth formerly hidden but now made known in Jesus Christ.

The mystery of Christ is the revelation of what God has done in and through his Son to make possible atonement for sin and its forgiveness. That the Word should become flesh (John 1:14) is a mystery now made known for our salvation. That God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Corinthians 5:19) is a mystery now revealed for our justification. That faith alone in a crucified Messiah is the power of God unto salvation is a mystery now made known for our eternal welfare.

Where Christ is not proclaimed, the gospel is not known. No matter how psychologically soothing a sermon may be, if the mystery of Christ is not center stage, the gospel has not been preached. The focus of our message is not self-esteem, social justice, the plight of the poor, or world peace (as important as those issues are in their own right), but Jesus Christ crucified and risen for the salvation of lost souls.

Paul’s second request is that they ask God to enable him to proclaim this mystery with clarity (v. 4). “Pray that God will work in me,” says Paul, “that I might have the words to speak in the most persuasive manner and at the most appropriate time. Ask God to operate in my heart and mind and soul so that my message will ring true and will reverberate with passion and conviction and courage.”

Stunning, isn’t it, that a man of Paul’s spiritual caliber and gifting felt so desperately dependent on the prayers of others for his effectiveness in ministry! He made a similar plea to the Roman church, appealing to them to strive together with him in their prayers to God on his behalf, that he might be delivered from the unbelievers in Judea and that his service for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the
saints (Romans 15:30–31).

His request of the Colossians raises an interesting question: What precisely might serve to inhibit or hinder his clarity of speech or prevent him from proclaiming the gospel in the way he desired? It may be that he anticipated trick questions from a hostile crowd and needed the assistance of the Spirit to see through their deception and speak truth into the fog of error. It may be that he sensed the importance of using just the right illustration or parable or analogy to make a point that would penetrate a closed and calloused heart with the truth that brings light and life. Paul, no doubt, felt confused at times and needed the quickening ministry of the Spirit in his mind. “Pray that God would clear my head of intellectual cobwebs and overcome any sluggishness of speech that would be unworthy of the gospel I proclaim. Pray that the Father would fill me with the Spirit of boldness and confidence and drive from me all fear of man and concern for my own reputation or physical safety.”

If he felt this burden, how much more you and I! Have you committed to praying consistently for your pastor each time he preaches? Have you interceded for that Sunday school teacher who tells the story of Jesus to indifferent and mocking junior high students? Have you petitioned God for yourself as you prepare to share your testimony with an unsaved neighbor? We are all desperately in need of such anointing and spiritual support from on high every time we open our mouths to speak of Christ.

“O, grant us open doors, Father, that we may speak boldly and clearly and joyfully of your Son and all that you have done for sinners in and through him! Work in us by your Spirit that we might have just the right story, the most telling illustration, the most persuasive phrasing as we declare the mystery of Christ Jesus! Amen.”

No. 17 on the list of the most-read posts on this blog appeared on April 12, 2006, and was my interview with Dr. Sam Storms. Sam is a well-known Calvinistic charismatic speaker. He writes popular books which express a very similar theology to that of John Piper in an accessible way. His latest book, Signs of the Spirit, is an interpretation of Jonathan Edwards’ Religious Affections, and another book, scheduled to be released by Crossway in February, is entitled “The Hope of Glory—100 Daily Meditations on Colossians.” It was good to be able to ask Sam some questions via e-mail.

Adrian
It’s a delight to welcome Sam Storms of Enjoying God Ministries to the blog today. Sam, to begin with, would you tell us a little bit about yourself, your family, and your ministry?

Sam
Thanks, Adrian. I’m honored that you would want to interview me. I’m 55 years old and have been married to my incredible wife, Ann, for nearly 34 years. I’m a bit surprised you didn’t ask the question that so many others have, so I’ll come right to the point: Yes, I did propose to her on our first date! I certainly don’t recommend that for anyone else. But after 34 wonderful years of marriage, it worked for us (or maybe it worked in spite of that rather impetuous proposal).

I have two daughters. Melanie is 27 and lives in Kansas City with her husband and two sons. What that means is that, much to my surprise, I’m old enough to be married to a grandmother! My other daughter, Joanna, is 21 and is in her third year at Wheaton College, where I taught Theology from 2000 through 2004.

I left Wheaton in 2004 and established Enjoying God Ministries so that I could have more liberty in what I study, write, and teach. I loved Wheaton. Although Wheaton is mainstream evangelical and not even remotely charismatic, they were incredibly kind and generous to me. I had the opportunity to stay there another two years, but felt the Lord was leading us to leave. I describe in some detail in my book, Convergence, how we were led to Wheaton and again back to Kansas City.

Enjoying God Ministries is primarily designed to be a resource to pastors, Christians, and churches everywhere. I’ve put virtually everything I’ve ever written on the website (except for books still in print), free for anyone to download and use as they please. I’m traveling extensively and trying to write as much as I can. Crossway will be publishing my revised and expanded book, Chosen for Life: A Defense of Divine Election, later this year. So I’m staying exceedingly busy, to say the least.

Adrian
Can you tell us a bit more about how you came to become a Christian, and how you got into ministry?

Sam
I was raised in a very conservative Southern Baptist home. We lived in Oklahoma and Texas until I moved to Kansas City in 1993. My parents led me to Christ when I was about nine years old. But honestly, I can’t recall a time when I didn’t know Jesus as my Savior. I know there was a time, but I was immersed in the life and faith of my family and the church from as far back as I can remember.

I had a very distinct and powerful “call” into ministry when I was ten years old. For awhile, in my late teens, I thought I might pursue a career as a professional golfer, but even then I envisioned some form of ministry being tied up in it. My golf career came to a fitting end when I realized that I had too little talent and too much of a bad temper!

Adrian
Who, would you say, has had the biggest influence on you?

Sam
My parents and my sister, first and foremost. I had a wonderful Christian home and family. In terms of spiritual development, two men in particular had a powerful impact on me. Russ McKnight, a lay elder in a church in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, profoundly influenced me beginning in my college years. He was the first person to introduce the Reformed faith to me and put up with my Arminianism very patiently. He, more than anyone else, is the reason I’m a Calvinist. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, who was professor of New Testament, and later Systematic Theology, at both Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, had the greatest impact on my overall theological development. But more than that, he provided me with a model of godly excellence in all of life.

As for those still living who’ve influenced me, certainly John Piper would be at the top of the list. John’s personal friendship and theological orientation have been an indescribable blessing. In fact, I’m answering this question as I sit in the airport on my way to preach for him at Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis. John and I first met at a Jonathan Edwards conference in Wheaton back in 1984.

Others whom God has used in my life would include Mike Bickle, Jack Deere, and Wayne Grudem, primarily when it comes to my rejection of cessationism and my broader experience of the Holy Spirit.

As for the distant dead, Jonathan Edwards towers above all others. But there have been others. Calvin, Luther, Owen, the 19th century Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge, 19th century theologian, William G. T. Shedd (I consumed his multi-volume, Theology, while in seminary), and B. B. Warfield. More recently I’d have to point to Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Read more . . . Interview With Dr. Sam Storms

My buddy, Jesse, has recently completed a nine-part series of posts on Signs of the Spirit, in which Sam Storms interprets Jonathan Edwards’ classic work on experiential Christianity, The Religious Affections. Here are the links:

1. True spirituality is a hunger for God

2. Public gathering, prayer, preaching, and singing

3. You’re not a Christian just because you…

4. Sign 1) A new spiritual ‘sense’

5. Sign 2) A love for the things of God

6. Experience, emotion, Edwards and public worship

7. Signs 3-5) Moral excellency, right understanding, conviction.

8. Sign 6) Genuine, evangelical humility

9. Remaining 6 signs of genuine religious affections

Book photo courtesy of Tony S. Reinke, The Shepherd’s Scrapbook. Used by permission.

Lig Duncan has responded resoundingly to both sides of the debate about whether he should be allowed to join a Baptist church. He argues that these differences are important and demonstrate a passion for truth that is critical. Here is just some of what he says:

“. . . let me say that this significant difference (on baptism and church membership), far from being fatal to our unity, is precisely one of the reasons that Mark and Al and C. J. and I are in fact “Together for the Gospel.” It is precisely one of the things that makes Together for the Gospel so different and extraordinary. Let me attempt to begin to explain.

The unity of T4G is not a unity in spite of doctrinal differences, in which we gain unity by downplaying doctrine, minimizing ecclesial differences and going with a lowest common denominator. Our unity is instead a unity of respect for the truth and for truth-in-practice, that sees in each other such a dogged commitment to God’s Word in both faith and practice that we want to be together promoting biblical Christianity, even in the points of principle on which we seriously disagree . . .

I would never want to say to Mark or Al, “I will be with you ‘Together for the Gospel,’ as long as you relinquish your Baptist principles or as long as you do not follow your Baptist convictions in church practice.” No, it is precisely their love of truth and their desire to see Gospel truth and love worked out practically in the life of the local church which causes my heart to love them as Jonathan did David.

I love Mark and Al’s deep concern for truth and biblical church practice (even and especially at the points in which they disagree with me). I love the fact that they are not willing to compromise on points of biblical conviction, and yet at the same time they work so hard to promote principled unity. I love the fact that even though they believe me to be in serious error on this issue of baptism, they truly love me, constantly co-labor with me (and invite me to do the same with them), and reach out to numerous other non-Baptist evangelicals regularly, deliberately, nationally, and internationally to build biblical consensus and cooperation among the churches. To know Mark and Al is to know two men of unshakable conviction and broad sympathy, and I deeply value that.

There are actually good reasons why this debate should not be an easy one to resolve . . . “

In the comments section of Sam Storms’ contribution to the baptism debate is a comment that is too good to leave there. Here is what the commentator said:

Adrian,

I think Sam might be misunderstanding Mark’s position. He keeps referring to the idea that Mark would deny a [paedobaptist] (visiting his church, maybe even speaking in his pulpit) access to communion. Hence Sam writes:

“One more thing should be noted. In his recent post, Dever indicated that he planned on having an Anglican and a Presbyterian preach from his pulpit in the near future. In the comment section of his blog, one person said: ‘The implication . . . is that there are people whom you are happy to have in your pulpit but not at the Lord’s Table. That seems a little odd.”

Yes, it does. But Mark is in print saying something entirely different:

“Questions of visitors coming occasionally to the table may be separated from the question of Christians regularly coming as members under the care and guidance of that particular congregation. Such occasional communion may be considered as similar to occasional pulpit fellowship, or other kinds of Christian cooperation between congregations that may not agree on secondary matters, but that would agree on the primary issue of the gospel. On the issue of pulpit fellowship with those who have not been baptized as believers, see Dagg, Church Order, 286—298. Dagg concluded that it was not inconsistent for a Baptist congregation to allow someone to preach to it and yet for the congregation to deny that same paedobaptist minister membership in their Baptist congregation.”

Mark Dever, “Baptism in the Context of the Local Church” from Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, footnote 16. p. 341.

To use Sam’s analogy, Mark may occasionally have a paedobaptist visit his church and preach (and/or take communion). This is an expression of fellowship and togetherness! But he wouldn’t have them come and preach weekly, nor would they join his church, nor would they be allowed regular, consistent continual attendance at the table.

Sam may still not agree with Mark’s position, but it seems he needs to state it more carefully before he attacks it,

Or, am I the one that’s getting this wrong?

Tom (promiseskept.wordpress.com)

Sam Storms has replied as follows:

Tom,

Thanks for your comments on my article. There appears to be some confusion on the point you raised. I’ve actually written to Mark for clarification on his view, and if it becomes clear that I’ve misrepresented what he believes, I’ll make immediate corrections in what I wrote.

But in the meantime I should point out that both Mark and Al Mohler were quite clear in their public comments at the T4G forum that a paedobaptist would not be permitted to participate in the Lord’s Table at their churches. You rightly point out that the footnote in Mark’s article appears to suggest that he might allow “occasional” participation by a paedobaptist. But this creates problems of its own. What constitutes “occasional”? Once? If once, then why not twice? If twice, then why not three times? Who draws the line and on what basis? It quickly becomes rather arbitrary, does it not?

It seems to me that if a paedobaptist is EVER disqualified from the table (simply for being a paedobaptist), he/she is ALWAYS disqualified from the table. Whatever it is that makes their subsequent and repeated presence at the Table unbiblical and wrong would make their initial and even “occasional” presence unbiblical and wrong.

What do you propose be said to a paedobaptist who has been granted access to the Table once or twice and then comes a third time? “I’m sorry, sir/madam, but although we didn’t regard your convictions as worthy of disqualification before, now we do. You weren’t in sin by partaking of the elements before, but you are now. Furthermore, although WE weren’t in sin by allowing you to partake before (on ‘occasion’), we would be in sin if we let it continue.” Is this really what we glean from the NT concerning celebration of the Table?

So, my point is simply that if a paedobaptist is welcomed by God to the Table once, he/she is welcomed by God at all times (assuming, again, that he/she is not under discipline). Otherwise you put the credobaptist in the rather awkward (and what seems to me unbiblical) position of compromising on his/her convictions out of compassion or friendship, but only once or twice, i.e., only “occasionally,” and then expecting them to do what they really believe is right and closing the Table to any further participation by paedobaptist believers.

The bottom line is this. If you believe the Bible forbids that a paedobaptist should be granted access to the Table, then abide by your convictions. Aim for consistency. Don’t try to make everyone feel better by saying, “Well, for the sake of ‘fellowship’ and in order to avoid giving offence to those we regard as ‘friends,’ it’s o.k. this one time. And maybe we’ll stretch it to twice, but after that we’ve got to stand firm on what we believe is biblical.”

Again, thanks for your comments. I hope this helps bring some clarity to the issue.

Sam Storms

In light of Sam Storms’ contribution to the great baptism debate yesterday, Wayne Grudem has sent me an e-mail which includes an extract from his Systematic Theology which, unlike his perspective on baptism and church membership, has not changed recently.

The rest of this article was written by Wayne Grudem and is published with permission:

Just for the record, I am already in print agreeing with what Sam Storms says on this question. (And, I would add, in the case of convinced paedobaptists, I would argue, as does my friend Sam Storms, that they should surely be allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper for their entire lives as non-members of the church, but as genuine believers and members of the universal body of Christ. I think the negative symbolism of not allowing these believers to partake of the Lord’s Supper is surely something that Jesus did not intend in instituting this ordinance.) Here is the section from my Systematic Theology (it is on pp. 996-997 in both the old and new (2007) printings). My own view is expressed in paragraph 3:

D. Who should participate in the Lord’s Supper?

Despite differences over some aspects of the Lord’s Supper, most Protestants would agree, first, that only those who believe in Christ should participate in it, because it is a sign of being a Christian and continuing in the Christian life. Paul warns that those who eat and drink unworthily face serious consequences: “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Corinthians 11:29-30).

Second, many Protestants would argue from the meaning of baptism and the meaning of the Lord’s Supper that, ordinarily, only those who have been baptized should participate in the Lord’s Supper. This is because baptism is so clearly a symbol of beginning the Christian life, while the Lord’s Supper is clearly a symbol of continuing the Christian life. Therefore if someone is taking the Lord’s Supper and thereby giving public proclamation that he or she is continuing in the Christian life, then that person should be asked, “Wouldn’t it be good to be baptized now and thereby give a symbol that you are beginning the Christian life?”

But others, including the present author, would object to such a restriction as follows: a different problem arises if someone who is a genuine believer, but not yet baptized, is not allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper when Christians get together. In that case the person’s non-participation symbolizes that he or she is not a member of the body of Christ which is coming together to observe the Lord’s Supper in a unified fellowship. (See 1 Corinthians 10:17: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”) Therefore churches may think it best to allow non-baptized believers to participate in the Lord’s Supper, but to urge them to be baptized as quickly as possible. For if they are willing to participate in one outward symbol of being a Christian, there seems no reason why they should not be willing to participate in the other, a symbol which appropriately comes first.

Of course, the problems that arise in both situations (when unbaptized believers take Communion and when they do not) can all be avoided if new Christians are regularly baptized shortly after coming to faith. And, whichever position a church takes on the question of whether unbaptized believers should take Communion, in the teaching ministry of the church, it would seem wise to teach that the ideal situation is for new believers first to be baptized and then to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 4th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 5th most-read post was “Steve Chalke and the Lost Message of Jesus.”

The 4th most widely-read post was one in a series of posts that catalogued a major debate about baptism and church membership, and took place online between such theological heavyweights as John Piper, Sam Storms, Wayne Grudem, Lig Duncan, and Mark Dever. The posts listed below were all so popular they could have made the top 30 in their own right. It’s worth reading all of them:

• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate

• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism
• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper on Baptism
• John Piper Disagrees with Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously
• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord’s Supper
• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord’s Supper
• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem Versus Piper Baptism Debate
• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever Versus Piper Baptism Debate

***************

Sam Storms has written a two part review of PFOT. This is the must-read book of the year. It is not a light read, but it is on such a vital subject that every thinking Christian needs to get a copy. The review is in two parts. I will quote from the first, but the second part is also worth reading.

Let me begin with the Foreword. Count on John Piper to say it straight and true. He pulls no punches as to why this issue is necessarily at the forefront of evangelical dialogue: “For if God did not punish his Son in my place, I am not saved from my greatest peril, the wrath of God” (14). That may strike some as odd language, but only because we have lost sight of that from which we most need to be saved and delivered: God! We have only one hope, says Piper and it is “that the infinite wisdom of God might make a way for the love of God to satisfy the wrath of God so that I might become a son of God” (14).

I suppose I should begin as the authors do with a definition of penal substitution. In the opening paragraph of the Introduction, they write: “The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin” (21). You may find it shocking that this would even be up for debate, for “this understanding of the cross of Christ,” say our authors, “stands at the very heart of the gospel” (21).

There simply can be no Christian gospel apart from the truth that Jesus Christ has endured and suffered in himself, on the cross, the wrath of God due to sinners, thereby propitiating or satisfying said wrath on behalf of those for whom he died. Yes, indeed, it is shocking that professing evangelicals should call it into question or, worse still, describe it as tantamount to “cosmic child abuse.”

Among those who have questioned or utterly rejected penal substitutionary atonement (hereafter, PSA), thus calling for this book to be written, are C. H. Dodd (from a generation ago), Stephen Travis, Eleonore Stump, Colin Gunton, Paul Fiddes, Vernon White, Stephen Sykes, Timothy Gorringe, Tom Smail, Joel Green, Mark Baker, J. Denny Weaver, John Goldingay, Steve Chalke, Alan Mann, and Brian McLaren.

Those who in past years have come to the exegetical and theological defense of PSA include Leon Morris, Roger Nicole, John Murray, J. I. Packer, John Stott, Mark Meynell, Henri Blocher, David Peterson, D. A. Carson, Tom Schreiner, A. T. B. McGowan, Robert Reymond, and numerous others, all of whose books are mentioned in the Introduction. One volume in particular, written to honor the life and ministry of Roger Nicole, is especially important: The Glory of the Atonement, edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III (IVP, 2004).

The focus of Pierced is summarized by its authors: “In brief, we argue that penal substitution is clearly taught in Scripture, that it has a central place in Christian theology, that a neglect of the doctrine will have serious pastoral consequences, that it has an impeccable pedigree in the history of the Christian church, and that all of the objections raised against it can be comprehensively answered” (31).

Sam Storms launched his blog only yesterday. On day two, he launches a broadside against Jimmy Draper’s latest article about tongues. Sam Storms quite rightly believes that tongues were NEVER meant to be evangelistic . . . . This could get interesting in the comment section. I am keeping out of it this time! Sam is very persuasive in his article.

In recent days two bloggers have taken up the question of the gift of speaking in tongues in the New Testament: see http://adrianwarnock.com/ and http://www.teampyro.blogspot.com/. The latter of these two, written by Dan Phillips, argues that “the Bible only knows one kind of tongues . . . . That kind is supernaturally-acquired human languages.” The argument of Phillips and other cessationists is that modern manifestations of “tongues” have been shown not to be human languages and therefore are not the same as what we read in the New Testament.

In 1 Corinthians 14:2, Paul asserts that whoever speaks in a tongue “does not speak to men, but to God.” But if tongues are always human languages, Paul is mistaken, for “speaking to men” is precisely what a human language does! If tongues-speech is always a human language, how could Paul say that when one speaks “no one understands” (1 Corinthians 14:2)? If tongues are human languages, many could potentially understand, as they did on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:8-11). This would especially be true in Corinth, a multi-lingual cosmopolitan port city that was frequented by people of numerous dialects. Moreover, if tongues-speech always is in a human language, then the gift of interpretation would be one for which no special work or enablement or manifestation of the Spirit would be required. Anyone who was multi-lingual, such as Paul, could interpret tongues-speech simply by virtue of his educational talent. Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 13:2, Paul refers to “the tongues of men and of angels.” While he may be using hyperbole, he just as likely may be referring to heavenly or angelic dialects for which the Holy Spirit gives utterance. Gordon Fee cites evidence in certain ancient Jewish sources that the angels were believed to have their own heavenly languages or dialects and that by means of the Spirit one could speak them (Fee, 630-31; see Hays, 223). We should also take note of the Testament of Job 48-50, where Job’s three daughters put on heavenly sashes given to them as an inheritance from their father, by which they are transformed and enabled to praise God with hymns in angelic languages. Some have questioned this account, however, pointing out that this section of the Testament may have been the work of a later Christian author. Yet, as Forbes points out, “what the Testament does provide . . . is clear evidence that the concept of angelic languages as a mode of praise to God was an acceptable one within certain circles. As such it is our nearest parallel to glossolalia” (185-86).

The fact that tongues are said to cease at the parousia (1 Corinthians 13:8) leads Anthony Thiselton to conclude that it cannot be angelic speech, for why would a heavenly language terminate in the eschaton (see his First Corinthians, pp. 973, 1061-62)? But it would not be heavenly speech per se that ends, but heavenly speech on the part of humans designed to compensate now for the limitations endemic to our fallen, pre-consummate condition. Some say the reference in 1 Corinthians 14:10-11 to earthly, foreign languages proves that all tongues-speech is also human languages. But the point of the analogy is that tongues function like foreign languages, not that tongues are foreign languages. Paul’s point is that the hearer cannot understand uninterpreted tongues any more than he can understand the one speaking a foreign language. If tongues were a foreign language, there would be no need for an analogy. Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:18 that he “speaks in tongues more than you all” is evidence that tongues are not foreign languages. As Wayne Grudem (Systematic Theology, 1072) notes, “If they were known foreign languages that foreigners could understand, as at Pentecost, why would Paul speak more than all the Corinthians in private, where no one would understand, rather than in church where foreign visitors could understand?” Finally, if tongues-speech is always human language, Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 14:23 wouldn’t necessarily hold true. Any unbeliever who would know the language being spoken would more likely conclude the person speaking was highly educated rather than “mad.”

I’m sure that much more could (and probably will) be said on the subject, but I hope these brief observations will prove helpful in the discussion.

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 17th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 18th most-read post was Dr. Kim Riddlebarger’s response to John MacArthur’s assertion that non-dispensational Calvinists are not “really reformed.”

Sam Storms is well-known as a Calvinistic charismatic speaker. He writes popular books which express a very similar theology to that of John Piper in an accessible way. It was good to be able to ask him some questions via e-mail.

***************

Adrian
It’s a delight to welcome Sam Storms of Enjoying God Ministries to the blog today. Sam, to begin with, would you tell us a little bit about yourself, your family, and your ministry?

Sam
Thanks, Adrian. I’m honored that you would want to interview me. I’m 55 years old and have been married to my incredible wife, Ann, for nearly 34 years. I’m a bit surprised you didn’t ask the question that so many others have, so I’ll come right to the point: Yes, I did propose to her on our first date! I certainly don’t recommend that for anyone else. But after 34 wonderful years of marriage, it worked for us (or maybe it worked in spite of that rather impetuous proposal).

I have two daughters. Melanie is 27 and lives in Kansas City with her husband and two sons. What that means is that, much to my surprise, I’m old enough to be married to a grandmother! My other daughter, Joanna, is 21 and is in her third year at Wheaton College, where I taught Theology from 2000 through 2004.

I left Wheaton in 2004 and established Enjoying God Ministries so that I could have more liberty in what I study, write, and teach. I loved Wheaton. Although Wheaton is mainstream evangelical and not even remotely charismatic, they were incredibly kind and generous to me. I had the opportunity to stay there another two years, but felt the Lord was leading us to leave. I describe in some detail in my book, Convergence, how we were led to Wheaton and again back to Kansas City.

Enjoying God Ministries is primarily designed to be a resource to pastors, Christians, and churches everywhere. I’ve put virtually everything I’ve ever written on the website (except for books still in print), free for anyone to download and use as they please. I’m traveling extensively and trying to write as much as I can. Crossway will be publishing my revised and expanded book, Chosen for Life: A Defense of Divine Election, later this year.

So, I’m staying exceedingly busy, to say the least.

Adrian
Can you tell us a bit more about how you came to become a Christian, and how you got into ministry?

Sam
I was raised in a very conservative Southern Baptist home. We lived in Oklahoma and Texas until I moved to Kansas City in 1993. My parents led me to Christ when I was about nine years old. But honestly, I can’t recall a time when I didn’t know Jesus as my Savior. I know there was a time, but I was immersed in the life and faith of my family and the church from as far back as I can remember.

I had a very distinct and powerful “call” into ministry when I was ten years old. For awhile, in my late teens, I thought I might pursue a career as a professional golfer, but even then I envisioned some form of ministry being tied up in it. My golf career came to a fitting end when I realized that I had too little talent and too much of a bad temper!

Adrian
Who, would you say, has had the biggest influence on you?

Sam
My parents and my sister, first and foremost. I had a wonderful Christian home and family. In terms of spiritual development, two men in particular had a powerful impact on me. Russ McKnight, a lay elder in a church in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, profoundly influenced me beginning in my college years. He was the first person to introduce the Reformed faith to me and put up with my Arminianism very patiently. He, more than anyone else, is the reason I’m a Calvinist. Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, who was professor of New Testament, and later Systematic Theology, at both Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, had the greatest impact on my overall theological development. But more than that, he provided me with a model of godly excellence in all of life.

As for those still living who’ve influenced me, certainly John Piper would be at the top of the list. John’s personal friendship and theological orientation have been an indescribable blessing. In fact, I’m answering this question as I sit in the airport on my way to preach for him at Bethlehem Baptist in Minneapolis. John and I first met at a Jonathan Edwards conference in Wheaton back in 1984.

Others whom God has used in my life would include Mike Bickle, Jack Deere, and Wayne Grudem, primarily when it comes to my rejection of cessationism and my broader experience of the Holy Spirit.

As for the distant dead, Jonathan Edwards towers above all others. But there have been others. Calvin, Luther, Owen, the 19th century Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge, 19th century theologian, William G. T. Shedd (I consumed his multi-volume, Theology, while in seminary), and B. B. Warfield. More recently I’d have to point to Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Adrian
You recently wrote a book called Convergence. Can you tell us a bit about how you came to write the book and the hopes you have for it?

Sam
A lot of people who’ve known my story encouraged me to write it. Up until the late 1980′s, there wouldn’t have been much to write about. But from 1988 through 1993, my wife and I had some amazing things happen to us that we neither sought nor fully understood. My purpose in the book was really three-fold. First, I wanted to provide a case for the convergence or merger or wedding of spirit and truth, of power and principle, of mind and affection. The divisions in the body of Christ along these “party lines” are rampant and grievous. Second, I thought my story and the path on which God has led me would provide a case study for how it is possible to be Reformed and charismatic without going nuts! Of course, a few who’ve read my book are convinced that I failed in that regard. They find some of the stories and encounters to be “weird.” Well, yes, they are weird. But I tried to be faithful in recording them as they happened. People can draw their own conclusions. Then, third, I used the subject of hearing God’s voice in general, and the gift of prophecy in particular, as examples of how one can both affirm the centrality of Scripture and the sovereignty of God on the one hand, and the power of the Spirit and the contemporary revelatory gifts on the other.

As you know, Adrian, the U.K. version of the book is going to be released by Kingsway on June 1st.

Adrian
You speak of wanting to see the best of the Reformed and charismatic “wings” of the Church coming together. Are you hopeful that this is indeed possible? Are you a believer in the notion that the Church will be “restored” before Christ’s return?

Sam
I’m hopeful, but not naive about such prospects. It will take a massive dose of humility on everyone’s part. Recently a close friend of mine who has been a cessationist said that on reading the book he felt I was asking far more of those on his side of the fence than of those on the continuationist side. I think he’s right, if for no other reason than it’s more difficult for cessationists to embrace the contemporary validity of spiritual gifts than it is for continuationists to embrace the foundational and central role of Scripture in the Christian life.

I’m not fond of using “restorationist” language. It’s a bit idealistic. I would rather talk in terms of renewal and revitalization and maturity. I do believe there is hope for the increasing unity of the Church and the possibility of a global revival and harvest before Jesus returns.

Adrian
What examples of individuals, churches, or movements have you seen today that best exemplify what you are hoping to see?

Sam
There isn’t any single denomination or movement that I could point to as doing it perfectly, but one thinks immediately of Terry Virgo and Newfrontiers, as well as C. J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries. In my extensive travels, I come across Southern Baptist churches, Presbyterian churches, Vineyard churches, as well as a lot of independent so-called “Bible” churches and others that are pursuing a convergence with or without the approval of their denomination or movement. There are numerous independent charismatic churches whose pastors are reformed in their soteriology. The “convergence” may not be well-organized or visible to many, but I assure you it’s there and it’s growing.

Adrian
It is interesting to see that the leaders of many movements in the Church today seem to be forging strong relationships. The Together for the Gospel conference is one example, as is Mark Driscoll inviting Josh Harris to his conference and being invited to John Piper’s. Are you encouraged by these developments?

Sam
Yes, of course. I hope everyone would be. I’ve worked side-by-side in ministry with cessationists and Arminians and have thoroughly enjoyed doing so. I trust that such alliances will continue to flourish without leading to doctrinal compromise.

Adrian
Do you think all this working together can go too far? What if it meant that people felt they had to stop talking about their theological differences in order to not offend each other—would that be a good outcome?

Sam
The only way it would be going too far is if someone began to feel pressure to violate their conscience or convictions in order to preserve some expression of “unity.” Unity is never served by the sacrifice of truth. Personally, I love dialoguing with others about our theological differences. I find it stimulating, challenging, and extremely helpful in making it possible for me to see my own theological blind spots. I don’t know that I’ve ever grown much spiritually apart from being challenged to think through issues by people with whom I disagreed. The key here is being able to talk and disagree without being offensive and abrasive and arrogant.

Adrian
Do you feel that there should be any boundaries to all this working together? Are there groups or theological positions from whom we should distance ourselves?

Sam
Of course there are boundaries. I couldn’t work with an Arminian who is motivated by a desire to exalt human freedom at the expense of divine sovereignty. But most Arminians I know have no intention of doing so. I couldn’t work with a Calvinist who used divine sovereignty as an excuse for justifying passivity or ignoring the lost and dying across the earth. I couldn’t work with a charismatic who insisted that only people who speak in tongues are saved, or Spirit-filled, or are useful to the Lord. But these are all examples of extreme expressions of each position. There are certainly others in each group who embrace radical and unbiblical beliefs that might serve to undermine orthodoxy. The bottom line is, I don’t embrace “convergence at any cost.”

Adrian
This whole notion of how we honor each other while still disagreeing comes up a lot on Christian blogs. I understand that you read at least a few of them—what is your impression overall? Do you think we do a better or worse job at speaking the truth in love than Christians in the “real world”?

Sam
When the blogging phenomenon first started, I spent way too much time reading them. I’ve narrowed it down now to about a dozen that I regularly check. My concern is that people who need to spend more time reading and studying and praying and serving are overly consumed with seeing their name and ideas on the Net.

Adrian
So which of the blogs that you have read do you feel are particularly helpful for someone who is seeking to live out the message of Convergence?

Sam
Dare I say yours? Yes, by all means! Most of those I read don’t focus directly on the issue of convergence. If you visit my website at http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/ and go to the Recommendations section, I list a few.

Adrian
Do you have any plans to start a blog of your own? Do you think that in the future most Christian leaders or ministries will have their own blogs?

Sam
I’ve been encouraged to do so. Perhaps I should. I suspect the number of blogs will increase greatly in the future. I’m not sure this is a good thing. Can pastors and leaders of ministries really afford to invest so much time and energy in blogging when their people and churches need their personal presence and direct involvement? I would hate to see a time come when pastors and ministers are so busy writing and responding on their blogs that they can’t lead, meet with, pray for, counsel, disciple, visit, and minister to their flock. And nothing is worth taking time away from sermon preparation. So, I’m not overly excited about the expansion of the blogosphere.

Adrian
Speaking personally, I have found blogging to be a great aid to my sermon preparation, but I can sure see how it can also be a massive distraction.

We need to draw to a close, soon, so do tell us, how would you sum up your life’s message in just a few words?

Sam
My life verse is Psalm 16:11, “You have made known to me the pathway of life. In your presence is fullness of joy, at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” If I had only one opportunity in life it would be to persuade people that this is true. Lives would be forever changed, sin would be dealt a death blow, and God would be exalted through the satisfaction of his people in Him alone.

Adrian
Thank you so much for joining us!