Hilarious

Check out the funniest guys since Victor Borge:

Why "Wronger" Should Be a Word

Reading Charles Ryrie's Basic Theology in preparation for a Sunday school lesson, and came across a phrase that was so wrong that it begs a new, more intensive word: there's wrong, but then there is wronger. Now, I'm not knocking Ryrie or his book, as a whole. But this particular claim was pretty far off the beam:


"Historically, this consideration has been labeled the ordo salutis, or way of salvation, and it attempts to arrange in logical order (not temporal order) these activities involved in applying salvation to the individual. But like the question of the order of the decrees in lapsarianism, the ordo salutis in reality contributes little of substance."
- Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Basic Theology : A Popular Systemic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1999), 374.

Au contraire, mon ami. There is a universe of difference between a soteriology that begins with faith, and one that begins with regeneration. One is synergistic; one monergistic -- and that is two totally different gospels at the core. In fact, I would argue that the ordo salutis is one of the watershed issues of the whole debate!

True Courage

Studying for Sunday's sermon, from Ruth 1. Alexander MacLaren captures Ruth's character beautifully:

Put the sweet figure of the Moabitess beside the heroes of the Book of Judges , and we feel the contrast. But is there anything in its pages more truly heroic than her deed, as she turned her back on the blue hills of Moab, and chose the joyless lot of the widowed companion of a widow aged and poor, in a land of strangers, the enemies of her country and its gods? It is easier far to rush on the spears of the foe, amid the whirl and excitement of battle, than to choose with open eyes so dreary a lifelong path. The gentleness of a true woman covers a courage of the patient, silent sort, which, in its meek steadfastness, is nobler than the contempt of personal danger, which is vulgarly called bravery. It is harder to endure than to strike. The supreme type of heroic, as of all, virtue is Jesus Christ, whose gentleness was the velvet glove on the iron hand of an inflexible will. Of that best kind of heroes there are few brighter examples, even in the annals of the Church which numbers its virgin martyrs by the score, than this sweet figure of Ruth, as the eager vow comes from her young lips, which had already tasted sorrow, and were ready to drink its bitterest cup at the call of duty. She may well teach us to rectify our judgments, and to recognise the quiet heroism of many a modest life of uncomplaining suffering. Her example has a special message to women, and exhorts them to see to it that, in the cultivation of the so-called womanly excellence of gentleness, they do not let it run into weakness, nor, on the other hand, aim at strength, to the loss of meekness. The yielding birch-tree, the ‘lady of the woods,’ bends in all its elastic branches and tossing ringlets of foliage to the wind; but it stands upright after storms that level oaks and pines. God’s strength is gentle strength, and ours is likest His when it is meek and lowly, like that of the ‘strong Son of God.’

- Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of the Holy Scripture (DEUTERONOMY, JOSHUA, JUDGES, RUTH, 1 SAMUEL, 2 SAMUEL, 1 KINGS, AND 2 KINGS Chapters I to VII), 130.

Stealth Mysticism

There is a widely-accepted rule in hermeneutics called the Law of (or the Principle of) First Mention. I remember hearing about it in church when I was growing up, indeed hearing entire sermons based on a "truth" derived by the First-Mention Principle. I don't remember hearing it taught in the first Bible college I attended because they, somewhat tellingly, did not even OFFER hermeneutics (the last thing a hireling needs is someone being taught shepherding skills!). I was, however, taught this principle in a hermeneutics class in the second Bible college I attended.

But the more I reflected on it, this Principle of First Mention is a serious fallacy. Think about it: if the key to interpreting any person, place, thing, or idea in Scripture is to be found in its first appearance, this is the opposite of progressive revelation. The key to understanding redemption, for example, is not Genesis 3:15; it is the full exposition in Paul's writings. If the key to understanding lions is the first mention of a lion in the Bible, what exactly are we to learn from Genesis 49:9

          “Judah is a lion’s whelp;
          From the prey, my son, you have gone up.
          He couches, he lies down as a lion,
          And as a lion, who dares rouse him up?"

Are we to, upon later learning that Christ is the lion of Judah, teach that He had made sin and death His prey, and, let's see . . . He crouches, He lies down, so that refers to His resting after completing His work . . .

Oh, the sermons we could write. Oh, the ears we could tickle. The only problem is that NONE of that is in the Text! And the Principle is shown to be a quiet, stealthy infiltration, an unguarded back-door through which allegorizing and spiritualizing creeps in.

I'd be interested to learn the provenance of this First-Mention Principle. Who came up with this idea? Were they prone to spiritualizing the Text in other ways?

And are there other fallacies lurking in the methods we employ to prepare the weekly meal for His flock?