Searchlights from the Scriptures

Monday, August 06, 2007

In April, I attended a conference at SEBTS on the last chapter of Mark's Gospel. I happened to run into Dave Woolard there, a teaching colleague from Winston-Salem Bible College (now Carolina Christian College). As Dave and I walked through the bookstore, he pointed out a book that he had found helpful and recommended it to me: Frederick W. Danker's Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study. I purchased it on his recommendation, and I can say that it has been extremely helpful and enjoyable to read. Yet, I wonder how it can be that I have completed three academic degrees in Bible and Theology and never heard of this book. While we were introduced to the Greek New Testament in three semesters of Seminary Greek classes, mostly we dealt only with the text itself, and briefly with the textual apparatus. However, in Danker's book, you will find an overview of the front matter (which, in the NA edition, is full of helpful information including a wonderful harmony of the gospels) and more information on using the apparatus. There is an overview of Greek and Hebrew texts, Concordances, Lexicons, and other resources. Danker does more than tell you what they are, he tells you how to use them effectively and provides examples. The downfalls of the books are twofold: One is that, by nature, it is quickly outdated with the ceaseless publication of new works. Second, the book will only fuel the fires of book addiction by pointing out numerous (and expensive) volumes that you will feel that you cannot live without after reading Danker. I highly recommend the book for pastors and serious students of the Word.

The Biblical Deacon: Acts 6, 1 Timothy 3

This Sunday, we held Deacon Elections at IBC. On this particular occasion, I always preach the same message essentially. After all, the role and qualifications of deacons has not changed, has it? Yet we fall easily into unbiblical thinking about this very important biblical ministry, so I feel it is profitable to remind the congregation of these truths annually. Rather than reposting it in it's entirety, I will point you to the previous posting from a year ago. Audio will be available soon.

Good Blog Reading

Pyromaniacs has posted the latest dose of Spurgeon entitled, "About Those New-Model Theologians..." As usual, Spurgeon is as relevant as today's newspaper, or more so. Here's a taste:

"I am a Radical in many things, but in the doctrines of the gospel I
would have you to be Conservative to the backbone, not for an hour
yielding any point of truth to the most brilliant thinker that the
world can produce. Thinkers are not appointed to tinker up a gospel for
us; thank God, we have a perfect gospel already. Their shifting gospel
changes about every ten years, and comes out spick and span as a new
theology, but we have grasped the old infallible truth, and we mean to
hang to it for dear life, being strong in faith, giving glory to God."

Jane Macartney, Beijing reporter from the UK's Times Online (timesonline.co.uk), informs us, "Tibet’s living Buddhas have been banned from reincarnation without permission
from China’s atheist leaders." A report issued from the State Administration for Religious Affairs says, "The so-called reincarnated living Buddha without government approval is
illegal and invalid." While I deplore the suppression of religious freedoms, I also am torn between which is more absurd -- the belief in reincarnation, or the belief that the State can regulate it. Oddly, I find myself thinking that the latter is more absurd.

And now for something completely different ...

For this, and a host of other hilarious "Po-MoTivators," see Phil Johnson's work here.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Statement on a Statement about a Statement

I have been asked by several people to respond to the Vatican statement that declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. It's old news now, but my attention has needed to be elsewhere in the last few weeks. My response to the statement is brief. I'm not surprised at the statement, but I am surprised at their willingness to voice it. The fact is that this has always been the belief of the Catholic church, but post-Vatican II, no one really wanted to say it. I have great respect for Pope Benedict XVI, not because I agree with him (in this case and in many others, I vehemently disagree with him), but rather because I appreciate his willingness to take unpopular stands for what he believes is the true doctrine of his religion. I wish that more evangelicals had that courage. I am not offended by the statement, I expect the statement because of what I know about Catholic doctrine. Frankly I do not concern myself with the opinions of those who do not base their sole authority in the Scriptures alone (and the Catholic Church does not). Unless one can take a Bible and show us from it that we are not a true church, I don't worry what anyone else thinks. What does offend me slightly is that when the Pope spoke negatively toward Mohammed several months back, there was much back-peddling and apologizing and CYP (that's "Cover Your Papacy"). But for the Catholic church to speak negatively toward protestants and evangelicals is completely permissible, with no apologies necessary. It is, as one friend said, "because he knows we won't come bomb the Vatican."

For further response to the Catholic Church statement, see Al Mohler's statement, found by clicking here. For now this brings to a close my statement on Dr. Mohler's statement about the Catholic Church statement. If you would like to make a statement on my statement about his statement about their statement, you may do so in the comment section. But please bear in mind that when you make a statement on my statement about his statement about their statement, that I or someone else may make a statement about your statement about my statement on his statement about their statement. This ends my statement.