We have now arrived at the countdown of the top ten most popular posts of all time with readers of this blog. No. 10 appeared on July 19, 2007, and of all the posts I have written, this one is probably my own personal favorite. It is a rallying call to a kind of Christianity that is not ashamed to embrace the best from many different backgrounds.

The last four words of the above title are not new to me, but they are certainly resonating with me at the moment — "I Want It All!" Why should I have to choose, for example, between being enthusiastic about theology and being charismatic?

I know what some of you are thinking as you've been reading my posts on the Together On a Mission conference. You're wondering why it is that someone who is so enthusiastic about what was obviously a very charismatic conference can also be deeply committed to defending and understanding biblical doctrine. I know it's hard for some of you to believe, but it really is the same me who wrote all those posts on the atonement who also was so deeply touched by this latest conference. For those of you who have never met one, I am indeed that rare breed — a Reformed Charismatic.

Too often, however, the temptation for me is to downplay one side of that equation or the other in order to appear "balanced." When I am with the charismatics, my reformed doctrine often appears alien to them, although in the UK, Newfrontiers offers a major exception to that with over 200 churches that are broadly reformed and charismatic. When I'm with the reformed, I'm tempted to soften my charismatic viewpoint and not speak too much of the things I have seen and experienced. Why is it that on this issue, as on so many others, the Church seems to be split in half? Why can't we be both radically reformed and radically charismatic? Why do we see a conflict and therefore try to play down both in order to be "balanced?" I don't want to be balanced, I want it all!

On the one hand there are those who care about theology enough to study God's Word in detail, weigh scripture against scripture, study great theological minds, and preach intellectually stimulating messages that would stretch even a PhD in Theology — which, incidentally, I am certainly not! Why is it that for the majority of us, if we want such a feast for our minds, we must sacrifice certain other things? Why are some leaders in the Church committed to theology almost exclusively? Is even great theology so captivating that it is the only need of the Church? I don't believe it can be, or God would have given us a Bible that was a systematic theology and not the one we have, which is essentially a collection of lots of stories with a few doctrinal portions.

Read more . . . I Don't Want Balance! I Want It All!

Before going on a summer break, I ended with a post which expresses clearly the driving passion behind my life—I DON'T WANT BALANCE, I WANT IT ALL!

Other than that, and the posts on the atonement I listed in yesterday's review, July was totally dominated (and rightly so) by Together On a Mission. This conference is a phenomena that you really ought to experience at least once in your life. The fact that next year we will have Mark Driscoll here in the UK as the main speaker is just one reason to come. There are many, many more! Here are all my posts from this amazing conference and the events surrounding it:

• TOAM07 - Quotable Quotes


• TOAM07 - Pedro Reflects


• TOAM07 - Many More MP3s Now Available FREE


• TOAM07 - Session 1: Stephen Van Rhyn on Exodus 32


• Andrew Fountain Interviews Adrian Warnock


• TOAM07 - Conference Video


• TOAM07 - Final Thoughts Around the Blogosphere


• TOAM07 - FREE Audio Available and a Video Introduction


• TOAM07 - Interview with Rob Rufus


• TOAM07 - Session 9: Terry Virgo on the Sin of Achan


• TOAM07 - Seminar: Sam Poe and Guy Miller - Prophecy: The Battle for Team


• TOAM07 - Video of Prayer Giving and Worship


• TOAM07 - Prophecy From Smith Wigglesworth


• TOAM07 - Interview with John Lanferman


• TOAM07 - Session 8: Rob Rufus on the Glory of God


• TOAM07 - Session 7: David Stroud on the Identity Markers of Newfrontiers


• TOAM07 - Seminar: Guy Miller and Julian Adams On Prophesying in Power


• TOAM07 - Interview With Tom Shaw: Leader of Mobilise


• TOAM07 - Session 2: Rob Rufus


• TOAM07 - Session 6: Dave Devenish on World Mission


• TOAM07 - Session 5: Rob Rufus on Faith and Healing


• TOAM07 - Session 4: P-J Smyth


• TOAM07 - Updates From the Blogosphere


• TOAM07 - Live-Blogging From Andrew Fountain


• Partying For Jesus


• George Whitefield's Final Resting Place and the Lewis Revival


• TOAM07- Introducing Pedro Anosike


• Newfrontiers - A Family Of Churches Together On A Mission


• Terry Virgo On Apostles Today

In August I also did a mini-series of quotes on the Calvinistic doctrines, otherwise known as TULIP—just in case people thought I was just some kind of wacky charismaniac. The posts were:

• Will I Make It Until the End? The Perseverance of the Saints


• The Unstoppable Saviour - Irresistible Grace


• Limited/Unlimited Atonement - Just Who Did Jesus Die For?


• Credit God, Blame Man, Or Why Double Predestination is Error - Charles Simeon


• How Total Depravity Helps Your Marriage

Another really interesting thing happened during the "silly season" of August. All the big guns got involved with a big debate with each other about baptism. It was a historic first and of great interest to the rest of us who did not dare to express an opinion! I provided excerpts of all the key posts as follows:

• Why Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Church Membership Differences Exist


• Massive Collection of MP3 Messages Made Free


• Lig Duncan On the Great Baptism, Church Membership, and Lord's Supper Debate


• "Lig Duncan Baptized as a Believer," Reveals Justin Taylor


• Sam Storms Feels Mark Dever is Confusing on the Lord's Supper


• Wayne Grudem Says Sam Storms is Right About the Lord's Supper


• Sam Storms, John Piper, and John Bunyan vs. Wayne Grudem, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever


• Baptist and PCA Agreements About Baptism


• Lig Duncan Speaks Up for Paedobaptists


• The Pipers Respond to Dever in the Baptism Debate


• John Bunyan and the Grudem & Dever vs Piper Baptism Debate


• Mark Dever Joins the Grudem vs Piper Baptism Debate


• Wayne Grudem Replies to John Piper On Baptism


• John Piper Disagrees With Wayne Grudem Over Baptism Graciously


• Wayne Grudem Changes His Mind on Baptism

Last Sunday, my dear friend and leader, Tope preached the following sermon at Jubilee Church, London. This was the begining of a series whereby we intend to preach through the letter.

Many people say that Romans and Galatians prompted the Reformation. I think it is true to say that it is the book of Ephesians that prompted what some people are calling the "second reformation." Certainly it is foundational to what I believe as a reformed charismatic.

In this sermon, Tope focused on predestination. He did not cover the subject of being sealed with the Spirit as he did that midweek with the church instead. If you do want to read more about that crucial part of chapter one, I have written extensively about it in posts tagged "The Baptism with The Holy Spirit."

If you want to listen along to the whole series, you can subscribe using iTunes. You can also download the audio, or listen to it right here:

As regular readers will already know, this week I am swiftly working through the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Today we reach the end of our short series with the doctrine of the persevernace of the saints, which teaches that God will insure that genuine believers in Christ remain faithful to the end. I give the last words to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

". . . the eternal God knows us and is interested in us and has a plan for us. If that is not enough for you, then I despair! The astounding thing I find here is that the eternal and absolute God knows me, that he thought of me before the foundation of the world, not only before I was born, but before he even made the world; that this eternal, absolute Being is interested in me, even me, as an individual and as a person, and that I was in his mind when he conceived this amazing plan that includes the incarnation and the cross, and the resurrection and the ascension, and the reign of his Son at his side that is going on now. What a staggering, yes, but what a glorious thought!

. . . there is therefore nothing uncertain about my acceptance with God, nor about my forgiveness, nor about my sonship. When I realize that I have been brought into God’s plan I know that nothing can frustrate this . . . plan of God which cannot be broken and which cannot fail. It is as absolute as God, himself; he knows the end as well as the beginning. ‘Neither shall any man,’ said Christ, ‘pluck them out of my hand.’ It is unthinkable.

. . . Let me put it like this: God, who is sufficiently concerned about me to send his Son to die on the cross of Calvary for me, is not going to let me down when any difficulty or temptation faces me. My dear friends, there is nothing for you to fear! You belong to One of whom we are told that all power has been given to him over all flesh. You are in the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ if you but knew and realised it, and he controls everything. He controls every human being, all the affairs of nature, he is even controlling the devil himself. All power is given unto him, thrones, dominions, principalities and powers are subject unto him, so you need never fear! You and I have but to realize that we are in those mighty hands, that that strong arm is engaged on our behalf, that all flesh under his power, and that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him."

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. The Assurance of Our Salvation: Exploring the Depth of Jesus' Prayer for His Own: Studies in John 17. Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, 2000, S. 65.

As regular readers will realize, this week I am swiftly working through the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Today we reach irresistible grace.

Today's first quote comes once more from Charles Simeon:

"A river flowing with a rapid and majestic current to the sea would defy the efforts of the whole world to turn it back again to its source; yet by the returning tide it is not only arrested in its course, but driven up again with equal rapidity towards the fountain-head. It is thus that a sinner, when rushing with the whole current of his affections towards this present world, is stopped in his career of sin, and turned back with an irresistible impulse towards high and heavenly things. Let men, yea, let all the angels in heaven, attempt to effect this change, and their united efforts would be in vain. Who then that witnesses this change, and beholds the believer’s victories over sin and Satan, and his progressive advancement in the ways of holiness, must not adore that power by which so great a miracle is wrought? In this Christ is indeed magnified: “the exceeding greatness of his power is made known;” and the sufficiency of his grace is incontrovertibly established."

Simeon, Charles: Horae Homileticae Vol. 18: Philippians to 1 Timothy, London, 1832-63, S. 25.

The second is from the Doctor, Martyn Lloyd-Jones:

". . . it is the internal operation of the Holy Spirit upon the soul and the heart of men and women that brings them into a condition in which the call can become effectual. And when the Spirit does it, of course, it is absolutely certain, and because of that some people have used the term—which I do not like myself—irresistible grace. I do not like the term because it seems to give the impression that something has happened which has been hammering at a person’s will and has knocked him down and bludgeoned him. But it is not that. It is that the Holy Spirit implants a principle within me which enables me, for the first time in my life, to discern and to apprehend something of this glorious, wondrous truth. He works upon my will. ‘It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do.’ He does not strike me; He does not beat me; He does not coerce me. No, thank God, what He does is operate upon my will so that I desire these things and rejoice in them and love them. He leads, He persuades, He acts upon my will in such a way that when He does, the call of the gospel is effectual, and it is certain, and it is sure. God’s work never fails, and when God works in a man or woman, the work is effective."

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn: God the Holy Spirit, Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books, 1997, S. 73.

As regular readers will know, this week I am swiftly working through the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Today we reach the Limited Atonement item which is, in my opinion, the most misunderstood, and the item with possibly the most nuances needed in our understanding of it. As such, it will get the largest number of quotes so far.

I found a couple of interesting quotes in a post and comment section that asked, What does Mark Driscoll mean by limited/unlimited atonement?. The first came from D. A. Carson in The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2000, pp. 73-79).

"I argue, then, that both Arminians and Calvinists should rightly affirm that Christ died for all, in the sense that Christ's death was sufficient for all and that Scripture portrays God as inviting, commanding, and desiring the salvation of all, out of love . . . Further, all Christians ought also to confess that, in a slightly different sense, Christ Jesus, in the intent of God, died effectively for the elect alone, in line with the way the Bible speaks of God's special selecting love for the elect . . . "

—D. A. Carson

The second can be found in a pdf about Limited Atonement by Bruce Ware in which he outlines an alternative to what is usually seen as classical Calvinism and classical Arminianism on this point:

"God’s intentions in the death of Christ are complex, not simple; multiple, not single:

1. Christ died for the purpose of securing the sure and certain salvation of his own, his elect.
   
   
2. Christ died for the purpose of paying the penalty for the sin of all people, making it possible for all who believe to be saved.
   
   
3. Christ died for the purpose of securing the bone fide offer of salvation to all people everywhere.
   
   
4. Christ died for the purpose of providing an additional basis for condemnation for those who hear and reject the gospel that has been genuinely offered to them.
   
   
5. Christ died for the purpose of reconciling all things to the Father."

I thought I would finish this post by linking to a page on Mars Hill Church's website where Mark Driscoll and others can be heard explaining their take on limited/unlimited atonement, which is either what all true Calvinists basically believed all along or an Arminian heresy, dependent on your perspective!

Last week, as you may know, I preached on Jacob. During my preparation I was, not surprisingly, taken once more to the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Jacob is used in Romans as a supreme example of God's free grace.

This post is part of a mini-series highlighting quotes from others on each of these five points of Calvinism. It will also provide links to some old posts I wrote on Calvinism. We began the series with a quote that claims the doctrine of total depravity helps your marriage.

To some degree the doctrines of grace, or rather one aspect of them, Unconditional Election, came up in my sermon last week (although I didn't use the words). One quote I have been meaning to share with you, but the baptism debate got in the way, has been the following from Simeon, whose works are now available from Logos Bible Software.

Like Spurgeon and myself, Simeon is adamant that there is no such thing as what some call "double-predestination." Thus, people are wholly to blame for their own damnation, while God is wholly credited with saving us. God does not foreordain that some go to hell in the same way he foreordains that some will be saved. This might sound illogical, but it is, I believe, biblical and a great mystery we cannot fully fathom.

Charles Simeon puts it like this in a quote that should whet your appetite for the rest of his works, which are proving to me to be as useful as Spurgeon's:

"If, as the Apostle says, 'there is a remnant according to the election of grace,' we are ready to suppose that those who are not of that number are not accountable for their sins, and that their final ruin is to be imputed rather to God’s decrees than to their own fault. But this is a perversion of the doctrine. It is a consequence which our proud reason is prone to draw from the decrees of God: but it is a consequence which the inspired volume totally disavows. There is not in the whole sacred writings one single word that fairly admits of such a construction. The glory of man’s salvation is invariably ascribed to the free, the sovereign, the efficacious grace of God: but the condemnation of men is invariably charged upon their own wilful sins and obstinate impenitence. If, because we know not how to reconcile these things, men will controvert and deny them, we shall content ourselves with the answer which St. Paul himself made to all such cavillers and objectors; 'Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?' And if neither the truth nor the authority of God will awe them into submission, we can only say with the fore-mentioned apostle, 'If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.' As for those, if such are to be found, who acknowledge the sovereignty of God, and take occasion from it to live in sin, we would warn them with all possible earnestness to cease from their fatal delusions. In comparison of such characters, the people who deny the sovereignty of God are innocent. We believe there are many persons in other respects excellent, who, from not being able to separate the idea of absolute reprobation from the doctrine of unconditional election, are led to reject both together: but what excellence can he have, who 'turns the very grace of God into licentiousness,' and 'continues in sin that grace may abound?' A man that can justify such a procedure, is beyond the reach of argument: we must leave him, as St. Paul does, with that awful warning, 'His damnation is just.'"

Simeon, Charles: Horae Homileticae Vol. 1: Genesis to Leviticus. London, 1832-63, S. 210

Last week, as you may know, I preached on Jacob. During my preparation, not surprisingly, I was taken once more to the glorious doctrines of grace—the so-called "TULIP." Jacob is used in Romans as a supreme example of God's free grace. This post is part of a mini-series highlighting quotes from others on each of these five points of Calvinism. It will also provide links to some old posts I wrote on Calvinism.

We begin the series with a quote from Jollyblogger that claims the doctrine of total depravity will help your marriage. Here is what David Wayne had to say:

These 20 years have gone by way too fast and I wouldn't trade them for anything. I won't try to wax eloquent on keys to a happy marriage except to say that sound theology is the foundation for a sound marriage. I truly believe that if a married couple can grasp total depravity and grace then they are on a sound footing—they won't need much extra advice. If we don't grasp total depravity and grace, then all the marriage books and seminars in the world won't mean a thing.

Total depravity is key because it reminds me that my wife is married to a sinnner, so I need to go easy on her—she's got a tough life being married to me. It also reminds me that she is a sinner, so I don't have to burden her with a load of expectations she can never meet. Grace reminds me that her performance is not the basis of my acceptance of her any more than my performance is the basis of God's acceptance of me.

I won't say that those two things are operative every day in our lives, as there are plenty of times when we act in un-graceful ways. But God is good and always brings us back and keeps us centered on grace.

As to how I feel about Mrs. Jolly, let me quote someone else. We have this wonderful older couple in our church named Martin and Peggy Smith who have been married for somewhere north of umpteen years. Martin says this of Peggy—"even when I'm mad at her, I'd still rather be with her than anyone else." That's how I feel about Mrs. Jolly; she is my wife, my lover, my confidant, my best friend, and there is no one I'd rather be with.

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 10th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 11th most-read post was The Atonement—Wright Attacks Both Sides of the Debate.

Of all the posts I have written, this one is probably my own personal favorite. It is a rallying call to a kind of Christianity that is not ashamed to embrace the best from many different backgrounds.

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

The last four words of the above title are not new to me, but they are certainly resonating with me at the moment — "I Want It All!" Why should I have to choose, for example, between being enthusiastic about theology and being charismatic?

I know what some of you are thinking as you've been reading my posts on the Together On a Mission conference. You're wondering why it is that someone who is so enthusiastic about what was obviously a very charismatic conference can also be deeply committed to defending and understanding biblical doctrine. I know it's hard for some of you to believe, but it really is the same me who wrote all those posts on the atonement who also was so deeply touched by this latest conference. For those of you who have never met one, I am indeed that rare breed — a Reformed Charismatic.

Too often, however, the temptation for me is to downplay one side of that equation or the other in order to appear "balanced." When I am with the charismatics, my reformed doctrine often appears alien to them, although in the UK, Newfrontiers offers a major exception to that with over 200 churches that are broadly reformed and charismatic. When I'm with the reformed, I'm tempted to soften my charismatic viewpoint and not speak too much of the things I have seen and experienced. Why is it that on this issue, as on so many others, the Church seems to be split in half? Why can't we be both radically reformed and radically charismatic? Why do we see a conflict and therefore try to play down both in order to be "balanced?" I don't want to be balanced, I want it all!

On the one hand there are those who care about theology enough to study God's Word in detail, weigh scripture against scripture, study great theological minds, and preach intellectually stimulating messages that would stretch even a PhD in Theology — which, incidentally, I am certainly not! Why is it that for the majority of us, if we want such a feast for our minds, we must sacrifice certain other things? Why are some leaders in the Church committed to theology almost exclusively? Is even great theology so captivating that it is the only need of the Church? I don't believe it can be, or God would have given us a Bible that was a systematic theology and not the one we have, which is essentially a collection of lots of stories with a few doctrinal portions.

Also, why is it that those who are most committed to following the Bible in everything also seem most committed to relegating a book like Acts to mere descriptive stories to tell our children? It's not even just the book of Acts; there are swathes of the New Testament that in some theologies become almost entirely irrelevant to us. That was for then, we are told. When I read passages like those found in the book of Acts, I find myself yearning for something more than I am experiencing currently, yearning for a dynamic sense of the supernatural presence of God, longing for God himself to surprise and astonish me by his dynamic actions. Why is it that so often I am left with the impression that we are being encouraged to merely learn about God rather than get to know him? Would I be satisfied if I had read hundreds of e-mails from my wife, but had never actually met her or seen her do anything?

On the other hand, I could find many so-called men of faith who have stories to tell of miraculous healings or of prophecies that have had a life-changing impact. Listening to them, especially if I suspend my natural British cynicism and reserve, I hear tales of powerful encounters with God. Sadly, however, theological truths don't seem to be emphasized at all by most of those committed to experiencing the supernatural presence of God. It is often even implied that it is all right for people to make glaring errors in their teaching or show little interest in what the Bible actually says.

Why is it that so many men who seem on first appearances to have such intimacy with God, such access to his power, such supernatural giftings, and such powerful prophecies, also have much less interest in the words that the Person they often describe as their best friend, the Holy Spirit, wrote 2000 years ago? Why is it that when listening to some of these men, the greatest miracle is no longer what happens in someone's life when they are saved, but rather the latest supernatural healing or encounter with God? Why do we put up with so much flakiness and even blatant deception from figures claiming to have an anointing of the Spirit? How has it got to the point that even hearing the word "faith" seems to raise antibodies in me and make me feel uncomfortable? Why, though, do I feel in honest moments that some of those people with whose theology I most disagree seem to have something that I haven't got, and that I want? Is it so wrong to want to learn more about faith and experience the supernatural acts of God without becoming flaky or doctrinally suspect? Is it not possible for me to both want and get it all?

This desire to "want it all" and have it all in extreme form rather than just a little of everything so as to become "balanced" is not confined to the issue of the truth of God's Word and the experience of the supernatural. There are so many other stalls in the modern marketplace that is the global Church of Jesus. I can see them all before me selling their wares, each of them sure they have the answer to the ills of the Church. How do I choose which one to follow? Can't I have it all? Can't I learn from each of them? Must I choose only one? Where is the person who will overturn all these market stalls and say, “You need a bit of everything — no, change that — you need A LOT of everything — you need it all!”

Let's consider those in the Church who understand the reason we are here on earth. They understand that we are here to enjoy God and bring glory to him by evangelizing the world and producing more worshippers. These guys have such enthusiasm that it is inspiring. Many are also so creative. They split into different tribes, however, sitting as it were at different stalls in the marketplace. There are those who believe in old-style tent crusades, those who want to fill stadiums again, those who knock on doors, those who tell strangers they are sinners, those who befriend sinners in order to evangelize them, those who run seeker sensitive services, those who speak of being missional and incarnating the Gospel, those who run Alpha, and those who preach a certain kind of evangelical "gospel" message every Sunday morning that has to include penal substitution. The different brands may disagree about the methods, but yet they all thrill me with their determination and commitment to see more people becoming Christians. Isn't there room for us to use some methods from almost all of these brands of evangelism?

What troubles me most about so many of these devoted evangelists and missionaries is that so few of them are also deeply devoted to and thrilled with the Church. Why does there seem to be a dichotomy between being "out there" reaching the world and building the community of God such that we love each other so much the world knows we are Jesus' disciples? Also, why does the message of the evangelist sometimes ring hollow in my ears and fail to inspire me like it should? Is there something wrong with me? Dare I even admit that there have been times in the past when I have felt I don't want to hear another "simple Gospel presentation" ever again? Why do the sermons I read in Acts sound so different to the vast majority of evangelistic messages I have ever heard? For that matter, if the Gospel is a handful of reductionistic propositions that we must preach on every occasion, and those few ideas are all that matters, why does so much of the Bible even exist? Much as I believe in penal substitution, it is not to be found in every verse of the Bible. Why are some evangelicals frightened to preach the whole counsel of God? Is it wrong to want to preach the message of the whole Bible?

Why is it, for that matter, that so many of us feel we lack practical wisdom of how to live our lives? I know I have felt like this many times in my life. How can it be that I can work through the Gospel from A to Z, listen to theologically-sound sermons, read the Bible, pray even, and do all the "right" things they tell me to, but somehow not know how to live? Why is it that the breed of practical living teachers are so rare in the Church that many feel they have to learn by watching programs like Nanny 911 because no Christian leader ever taught them how to raise their children? Why are there so few places in the Church to send someone who is struggling with a breaking marriage or with mounting debt? Why, when we find someone in the Church who is valiantly teaching us practical living tips that we should have learned from our parents do they so often sound no different to someone in the world? Where is the teaching that is biblically rooted, yet shows me how to run my life in the 21st century? Isn't the Bible supposed to teach me how to have a good marriage, hold down a job, be a parent, have friends? It's easy to condemn those preaching "self help" in the name of Jesus, but where are those teaching me how God wants to help me live wisely?

Again, why is it that as churches we are not all stirred to activism to help the poor? Adopting a village in Africa, helping HIV victims, befriending single mothers, housing drug addicts — the list goes on and on. Christians who really care, frankly, put me to shame. Why do I so shamefully neglect this? I know that I do give some money that is channeled to such projects by my church, but why do I feel I should be doing much more? Surely we should be demonstrating God's kingdom on earth for the world to see. And yet, why do some of the people who give themselves to this kind of work which is meant to demonstrate God's kingdom seem more like social workers than Christ's ambassadors? Why do we seem to allow the Gospel to be squeezed out of our attempts to help the poor?

I can go on — what of the worshippers? There are many people who love God, feel his presence, and "waste time" with him. Why do I find it so hard to squeeze contemplation into my busy life? Why should worship become an option that excludes other options? Why is meditation considered to be something for Buddhists when the Bible invented it? What about prayer — shouldn't it be more than merely reciting a shopping list of requests to some heavenly slot machine? Shouldn't it be something other than worrying out loud?

And what about a sense of belonging? Of a Church that loves each other and builds a community in this loveless world? Why are there some small churches that really are a family, and yet find it hard to grow? How can large churches retain the feeling that people are there for me and know me? How can we avoid merely having hundreds of superficial acquaintances and yet still feeling totally alone? How can we learn how to do things well for God without becoming just a commercial entity led only by the world's management techniques?

I guess this all leads to a feeling that there is something wrong with the Church. I suspect many of us feel that way as Christians. But what is it that is wrong? Is it, as some would say, "Well, the danger is an overemphasis on feelings, so here we preach the truth of the Bible — that is what we need most." That sounds so good until you hear someone else say something like, "What the Church really needs to do is to learn to care more — we have to love each other and then learn to love the world — that's the problem with the Church," or someone else says, "Your problem is that you know the Bible, but you don't know God — you people just have a form of godliness, but deny its power."

I don't just want balance, however, and certainly not if it means we end up missing EVERYTHING. I thank God that there are those who are attempting to be balanced and have a bit of all of these things. Yet, I am concerned that in an anxiety to be balanced, we end up being mediocre at all of these things. I suppose as individuals we will always be better at some of them than others, but as a healthy local church can't we have it all?

Social action needn't be the enemy of building a nice community, nor should singing be a chore to get through until the preaching starts. Do we really have to wince every time someone begins to prophesy for fear of what our visitors may think? We shouldn't have to be anxious, when preaching, that our people are being bored or that we are offending visitors. These things are not enemies of each other.

Why shouldn't we have churches that are every bit as concerned about doctrinal accuracy and knowledge as John MacArthur, that love relational intimacy with Jesus as much as John Arnott, see miraculous healings that are every bit as dynamic as the ones the tele-evangelists claim to have seen, are as full of vision and purpose as Rick Warren, as skilled in leadership as Bill Hybels, as humble and committed to spiritual maturity as C. J. Mahaney, as relevant to practical life as the author of any self-help book you can think of, that impact social needs in the model of Shaftsbury, tackle political issues like Wilberforce, preach with both the passion for souls of Spurgeon and the passion for God's glory of John Piper, that hear from God as clearly as any modern prophet, are as aggressively missional as Mark Driscoll, have the apostolic drive of Terry Virgo, and yet somehow still feel as comforting as my wife's homemade apple crumble with custard?

Am I being greedy to say "I want it all, and I wish I could become an extremist for all of these things at once?"

In the introduction to the 1859 volume of Spurgeon's sermons we find the following provocative few paragraphs:

In the history of the Church, with but few exceptions, you could not find a revival at all that was not produced by the orthodox faith. What was that great work which was done by Augustine, when the Church suddenly woke up from the pestiferous and deadly sleep into which Pelagian doctrine had cast it? What was the Reformation itself but the awaking up of men's minds to those old truths?

However, far modern Lutherans may have turned aside from their ancient doctrines . . . yet, at any rate, Luther and Calvin had no dispute about predestination. Their views were identical, and Luther's Bondage of the Will is as strong a book upon the free grace of God as Calvin himself could have written . . . . Need I mention to you better names than Huss, Jerome of Prague, Ferel, John Knox, Wickliffe, Wishart, and Bradford?

Need I do more than say that these held the same views, and that in their day anything like an Arminian revival was utterly unheard of and undreamed of? And then, to come to more modern times, there is the great exception, that wondrous revival under Mr. Wesley, in which the Wesleyan Methodists had so large a share; but permit me to say, that the strength of the doctrine of Wesleyan Methodism lay in its Calvinism.

The great body of the Methodists disclaimed Pelagianism, in whole and in part. They contended for man's entire depravity, the necessity for the direct agency of the Holy Spirit, and that the first step in the change proceeds not from the sinner, but from God. They denied at that time that they were Pelagians. Does not the Methodist hold, as firmly as ever we do, that man is saved by the operation of the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost only? And are not many of Wesley's sermons full of that great truth, that the Holy Ghost is necessary to regeneration?

. . . And then, let me say, if you turn to the continent of America, how gross the falsehood that Calvinistic doctrine is unfavorable to revivals. Look at that wondrous shaking under Jonathan Edwards, and others which we might quote. Or turn to Scotland—what shall we say of M'Cheyne? What shall we say of those renowned Calvinists, Dr. Chalmers, Wardlaw, and before them, Livingstone, Haldane, Erskine, and the like?

What shall we say of the men of their school, but that, while they held and preached unflinchingly the great truths which we would propound today, yet God owned their word, and multitudes were saved. And if it were not perhaps too much like boasting of one's own work under God, I might say, personally I have never found the preaching of these doctrines lull this church to sleep, but ever while they have loved to maintain these truths, they have agonized for the souls of men, and the 1,600 or more whom I have myself baptized, upon profession of their faith, are living testimonies that these old truths in Publishers "Introduction,"modern times have not lost their power to promote a revival of religion.

---

Publisher's "Introduction", Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Revival Year Sermons: Preached at the Surrey Gardens Music Hall during 1859 (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust). Cited at The Resurgence.

Today I want to bring you quotes from a talk given by John Piper about Charles Simeon. We begin with a description of Simeon's recollection of a conversation he had with the Arminian, John Wesley, when he was a young man. The conversation is instructive about how we should deal with people we disagree with and about how sometimes moderates from both sides of a theological debate are closer than we realise.

"Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree." (Moule, 79f)

But don't take this to mean that Simeon pulled any punches when expounding Biblical texts. He is very forthright in teaching what the Bible teaches and calling error by its real name. But he is jealous of not getting things out of balance.

He said that his invariable rule was "to endeavor to give to every portion of the Word of God its full and proper force, without considering what scheme it favours, or whose system it is likely to advance" (Moule, 79).

"My endeavor is to bring out of Scripture what is there, and not to thrust in what I think might be there. I have a great jealousy on this head; never to speak more or less than I believe to be the mind of the Spirit in the passage I am expounding" (Moule, 77).

He makes an observation that is true enough to sting every person who has ever been tempted to adjust Scripture to fit a system.

"Of this he [speaking of himself in the third person] is sure, that there is not a decided Calvinist or Arminian in the world who equally approves of the whole of Scripture . . . who, if he had been in the company of St. Paul whilst he was writing his Epistles, would not have recommended him to alter one or other of his expressions.

But the author would not wish one of them altered; he finds as much satisfaction in one class of passages as another; and employs the one, he believes, as freely as the other. Where the inspired Writers speak in unqualified terms, he thinks himself at liberty to do the same; judging that they needed no instruction from him how to propagate the truth. He is content to sit as a learner at the feet of the holy Apostles and has no ambition to teach them how they ought to have spoken." (Moule, 79)

With that remarkable devotion to Scripture, Simeon preached in the same pulpit for fifty-four years. What drew me to him was his endurance – not just because of the length of time, and not just because it was in the same place for all that time, but also because it was through extraordinary opposition and trials . . . .

In 1807, after twenty-five years of ministry, his health failed suddenly. His voice gave way so that preaching was very difficult and at times he could only speak in a whisper. After a sermon he would feel "more like one dead than alive." This broken condition lasted for thirteen years, till he was sixty years old. In all this time Simeon pressed on in his work.

The way this weakness came to an end is remarkable and shows the amazing hand of God on this man's life. He tells the story that in 1819 he was on his last visit to Scotland. As he crossed the border he says he was "almost as perceptibly revived in strength as the woman was after she had touched the hem of our Lord's garment." His interpretation of God's providence in this begins back before his weakness. Up till then he had promised himself a very active life up to age sixty, and then a Sabbath evening. Now he seemed to hear his Master saying:

I laid you aside, because you entertained with satisfaction the thought of resting from your labour; but that now you have arrived at the very period when you had promised yourself that satisfaction, and have determined instead to spend your strength for me to the latest hour of your life, I have doubled, trebled, quadrupled your strength, that you may execute your desire on a more extended plan. (Moule, 127)

So at sixty years of age, Simeon renewed his commitment to his pulpit and the mission of the church and preached vigorously for seventeen more years, until two months before his death . . . .

Simeon was utterly unlike most of us today who think that we should get rid once and for all of feelings of vileness and unworthiness as soon as we can. For him, adoration only grew in the freshly plowed soil of humiliation for sin. So he actually labored to know his true sinfulness and his remaining corruption as a Christian.

I have continually had such a sense of my sinfulness as would sink me into utter despair, if I had not an assured view of the sufficiency and willingness of Christ to save me to the uttermost. And at the same time I had such a sense of my acceptance through Christ as would overset my little bark, if I had not ballast at the bottom sufficient to sink a vessel of no ordinary size. (Moule 134f.)

He never lost sight of the need for the heavy ballast of his own humiliation. After he had been a Christian forty years he wrote,

With this sweet hope of ultimate acceptance with God, I have always enjoyed much cheerfulness before men; but I have at the same time laboured incessantly to cultivate the deepest humiliation before God. I have never thought that the circumstance of God's having forgiven me was any reason why I should forgive myself; on the contrary, I have always judged it better to loathe myself the more, in proportion as I was assured that God was pacified towards me (Ezekiel 16:63) . . . There are but two objects that I have ever desired for these forty years to behold; the one is my own vileness; and the other is, the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ: and I have always thought that they should be viewed together; just as Aaron confessed all the sins of all Israel whilst he put them on the head of the scapegoat. The disease did not keep him from applying to the remedy, nor did the remedy keep him from feeling the disease. By this I seek to be, not only humbled and thankful, but humbled in thankfulness, before my God and Saviour continually. (Carus, 518f.)

If Simeon is right, vast portions of contemporary Christianity are wrong. And I can't help wondering whether one of the reasons we are emotionally capsized so easily today – so vulnerable to winds of criticism or opposition – is that in the name of forgiveness and grace, we have thrown the ballast overboard.

Simeon's boat drew a lot of water. But it was steady and on course and the mastheads were higher and the sails bigger and more full of the Spirit than most people's today who talk continuously about self-esteem.

Simeon's missionary friend, Thomason, writes about a time in 1794 when a friend of Simeon's named Marsden entered his room and found Simeon "so absorbed in the contemplation of the Son of God, and so overpowered with a display of His mercy to his soul, that he was incapable of pronouncing a single word," till at length, he exclaimed, "Glory, glory." But a few days later Thomason himself found Simeon at the hour of the private lecture on Sunday scarcely able to speak "from a deep humiliation and contrition."

Moule comments that these two experiences are not the alternating excesses of an ill-balanced mind. Rather they are "the two poles of a sphere of profound experience" (Moule, 135). For Simeon, adoration of God grew best in the plowed soil of his own contrition.

Simeon had no fear of turning up every sin in his life and looking upon with great grief and hatred, because he had such a vision of Christ's sufficiency that this would always result in deeper cleansing and adoration.

Humiliation and adoration were inseparable. He wrote to Mary Elliott, the sister of the writer of the hymn, "Just as I Am,"

I would have the whole of my experience one continued sense - first, of my nothingness, and dependence on God; second, of my guiltiness and desert before Him; third, of my obligations to redeeming love, as utterly overwhelming me with its incomprehensible extent and grandeur. Now I do not see why any one of these should swallow up another. (Moule, 160f.)

As an old man he said, "I have had deep and abundant cause for humiliation, [but] I have never ceased to wash in that fountain that was opened for sin and uncleanness, or to cast myself upon the tender mercy of my reconciled God" (Carus, 518f).

The whole talk is well worth a read or listen.

For more information on Charles Simeon visit the following:

Online biography of Charles Simeon

Biography of Charles Simeon used by John Piper

Simeon's Writings
Piper mentions the massive 21-volume set of Simeon's sermons that form a commentary on the Bible. Having read what I did above, I was eager to get ahold of these. Sadly they are not in print. So I have started a personal campaign to persuade the good folks at Logos to produce a version of them. If you, too, would be interested in purchasing an electronic, searchable edition of his writings, then let me know via email or in the comments section here.

Spurgeon seemed to love the work and said the following about it in his book reviewing commentaries:

SIMEON (CHARLES, M. A. 1759-1836). Horae Homileticae; or, discourses digested into one continued series, and forming a commentary upon every book of the Old and New Testament; 21 vols. Seventh edition. London, H. G. Bohn, 1845. S.f2 10s. [Being the entire works of Charles Simeon, with copious indexes, prepared by T. Hartwell Horne.] Not commentaries, but we could not exclude them. They have been called 'a valley of dry bones': be a prophet and they will live.

I am praying that they may live again!

By John Piper © Desiring God
Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/
Email: mail@desiringGod.org
Toll Free: 1.888.346.4700

links for 2006-04-25

• Calvin on Offering the Gospel to All
  �As the ministers of the Gospel, and those who are called to the office of teaching, cannot distinguish between the children of God and swine, it is their duty to present the doctrine of salvation indiscriminately to all.�
  (tags: calvinism gospel preaching)
• Righting (and writing) Wright's Wrongs: Reflections as the Dust Settles
  "If belief in the bodily resurrection of our Lord is optional, can there possibly be any doctrine that isn't optional? Well, CAN there? And if so, what IS the Christian faith anyway?"

Over at Together for the Gospel Lig Duncan has a great post that will enrage the hearts of any Arminian readers I have left. He lists multiple reasons why he feels Reformed preachers are better evangelists!

My friend Dave Routlege shows his calvinistic training in his commentary about the history of his blog (which I helped him set up) arose. Astute readers will notice the correspondence to the five points of calvinism which cannot have been accidental (for more on the five points of calvinism follow the links at my post on Calvinism and worship. Anyway here is what Dave said:

1.I was totally incapable of setting it up myself. (Total depravity)

2.I did nothing to deserve it. (Unconditional Election)

3. No one else in the house has got one. (Limited atonement or in this case limited assistance!)

4. Once you suggested the idea, I was powerless to resist. (Irresistable grace)

5. Now that I have it; it will be there forever. (Perseverence of the blogs I mean saints - sadly like many apparent professions of Christian faith, blogs often die young. I predict Dave will make it past the crucial three-post hurdle at least!)

I am working on a list of Reformed Charismatic bloggers- if you are one and would like to be included in such a list please let me know. If you arent one and I have included you as one by acccident, please also let me know! I will post more about this probably later on to day, for now its off to work I go!

UPDATE

This seems to be an idea of the moment. God is clearly doing something in gathering us reformed and charismatic bloggers together. I am so excited that requests to join are positively flooding in!

It is a good time for this to happen especially with the Charismatic /cessationist debate continuing to mushroom. (The link takes you to the Google Blog search feed which is probably the best way to keep up to date with it)

To those of you who have asked to join, I will ask one of my helpers Scott or Diane to help in a basic check of the blogs and to add you.

Please can you also promote this on your blogs. A link and/or a blog post would be fantastic right about now. I am sure there are more out there who would love to be in.

As far as definitions, I dont plan on giving people a theology exam (or for that matter ask them to speak in tongues over google talk!) to decide whether to admit someone or not - essentially we will have to rely on folks to be honest about whether they shoud be described as both reformed and charismatic. A good rough guide on the reformed side might be the entry requirements for the league of reformed bloggers, which incidently I would encourage you to join as well!

If you would like to include the complete list of Reformed and Charismatic blogs on your own site please simply include the following code in your template:

<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript" src="http://rpc.blogrolling.com/display.php?r=3ca91c144e1c15ae28510e69140149f8"></script>

A reader sent me an email and asked the following:

Hi there, I stumbled upon your blog by accident (or was it predestined...?), by doing a search on Calvinism, and I've enjoyed reading it. I do have a question, though, and it goes like this:How can a person believe in the doctrine of "Once Saved, Always Saved", whe