Judging or Perceiving? Case Closed... I think...

Taken from: http://www.socionics.com/main/types.htm.

Perceiving vs. Judging 

Perceiving types are motivated into activity by the changes in a situation. Judging types are motivated into activity by their decisions resulting from the changes in a situation. The most common differences between Perceiving and Judging types are shown below: 

Perceiving types: act impulsively following the situation can start many things at once without finishing them properly (yes) prefer to have freedom from obligations (yes) are curious and like a fresh look at things work productivity depends on their mood (yes) often act without any preparation

Judging types: do not like to leave unanswered questions plan work ahead and tend to finish it (no) do not like to change their decisions (no) have relatively stable workability easily follow rules and discipline (no)

Judging or Perceiving?

OK, so I've been researching my Myers-Briggs personality type. I was convinced for a while that I was an INTJ, but now I'm realizing I may, in fact, be a pure-blooded INTP. I seem to resonate with both (this would be due to them both being NT - Rational personalities).

It's the INTP's alleged obsession with "truth" and "logic", as well as their volatility in school and their frequent disregard for social norms, rules, and hierarchies which is persuading me that I am more P than J. INTP's are simply "Thinkers".

Anyone have the answer to this? INTJ or INTP? Read up on the two types and let me know, and I'll be forever grateful.

Introvert in an Extrovert's Habitat, Part 2

Some related links:

Don't Call Us, We’ll Call … Well, No, Actually We Probably Won’t... | Psychology Today

The Death of the Phone Call

Introvert in an Extrovert's Habitat

I remember once, when a pastoral candidate was visiting our church, my mother encouraged me to "go and say 'Hi!'" My almost immediate reply was, "I don't say 'Hi!'" I wasn't being unfriendly, but simply expressing the difficulty of being an introvert in an extrovert's habitat - the expectation is that people go and strike up conversation with whomever they wish. Unfortunately, for the introvert that's an overwhelming task.

The pastor whom I refused to meet that Sunday did become our Senior Pastor. Not only did I eventually meet him, he became my boss for a summer as I did an internship in the worship ministry at my church - Introverts aren't incapable of social interaction, they just have to meet people in a way which keeps themselves feeling at ease.

An article from Focus on the Family's "Boundless" webzine piqued my interest on this issue:

An Introvert Goes to Church

Debating Calvinism

Evaluating the Phrase “Personal Relationship with Jesus”

Evangelicalism today is inundated with sentiments such as "Christianity is not a religion - it's a relationship". Which is fine - sort of.

That kind of thinking a) exhibits a misunderstanding of the historical denotation of the word "religion" and b) is an expression of the radical individualism which permeates our culture and can potentially mislead our understanding of conversion.

But is it a bad phrase? I have my own opinion on the matter, but read this and make up your own mind:

Rethinking our Vocabulary: “Personal Relationship with Jesus” | Said at Southern

Some Differences between First-Century Slavery and Modern Slavery – Justin Taylor

Some Differences between First-Century Slavery and Modern Slavery – Justin Taylor

Thoughts on Negativity

1. My pastor has convinced me that I need to be more positive. Not in a "New-Agey" kind of way, of course; nor in a "Pollyanna" kind of way. Rather, in my opinions and polemics especially, I tend to be forceful in what I'm against; the result being that people are less willing to receive what I have to say. I agree with him, though I admit that in practice it is much more difficult than it sounds. 
2. In a similar vein, I came across an online news article from this past April entitled, "Strange but True: Emotion Expressed as Negativity is Bane of Blogosphere". How true. Even as I survey my recent posts, it sounds very much like I'm angry all the time. Many bloggers, myself included, use blogging as an outlet to "vent" a lot of negative thoughts about various things. How many of the comment threads in cyberspace become lengthy only because people are arguing? I myself need to learn when argument is necessary and/or constructive, versus it being done to satisfy a sinful need to feel superior, without the parties involved ever attempting or desiring to understand the other side of the issue. Read the section entitled "INTJ Personal Growth" in the My Personality section of my blog for more of my personal challenges on this issue. 
3. I received a comment recently, after leading worship one Sunday and using what some people considered an overabundance of songs in minor keys (I used two). It is interesting how minor modes are often associated entirely with negativity - indeed, I myself tend to think that only songs of lament and anger should be in minor keys. Yet, the minor key provides melodies that can be haunting, gripping and very memorable, without necessarily being coupled with "negative" lyrics. Ancient Jewish culture, for example, used minor modes extensively for all sorts of lyrics expressing all manner of emotions. It would be an interesting experiment to couple "happy" lyrics with a gripping minor melody. 
4. In a recent post, I used the word "hate". As my pastor pointed out, "them's fightin' woyds!" An interesting debate - is the word "hate" un-Christian? "Hate" is a strong word, to be sure, but it expresses a strong emotion. It is negative, yes, but is it excessive? So, to rephrase the question, is negativity appropriate, and if so, in what measure? Who decides how much negativity is too much? 

I'll try to post some "positive" thoughts soon, to balance out the fightin' words that have characterized recent posts. 

Phil Johnson is a Funny Man...

Taken from the "Pyromaniacs" blog

First Sermon

True Worship.MP3

"True Worship: Part 1"

Preached at Vegreville Alliance Church on Sunday, June 20th, 2010.

Four Spiritual Laws vs. The Gospel

Dr. Charles Woodbridge expresses his concern with one of the most common evangelistic tools used in Evangelicalism: The Four Spiritual Laws.

Quite simply, I hate the Four Spiritual Laws. They are a perversion of the gospel. I appreciate Dr. Woodbridge's dissent with Campus Crusade on this issue. It seems that the biblebelievers.net website are also avid King-James-Only people, so I don't advocate everything on the site, just this article in particular. 

Four Spiritual Laws vs. The Gospel

RefTagger Rocks!

I just added RefTagger to my blog: that cool gadget that allows you to have scrollover bible references on your site.

So, all I have to do is type out a Bible reference like this: John 3:16, and RefTagger adds the scrollover box for me.

How sweet is that?

Questions I'm Asking Myself Right Now

Why are people so threatened by clear thinking? I try to simply, clarify, define the problem so that a solution can be reached. But it's those very things which everyone else wants to resist. If not clarity, what then? What alternative is there? How can any fruit come from a discussion if there is no clarity and precision? Clarity is necessary, but everyone seems to find it offensive.

Why does no-one else think properly? They repeat themselves, double back on themselves, forget the point of what they're trying to say. They don't have the ability to edit out those things they want to say that don't relate to the point - they don't go from point A to B, without making points C, D, E and F along the way - a very messy way of thinking. Not linear, not logical, not clear; over-complicated, verbose and repetitive.

Is there any person I can be honest with without them getting offended? I'm not convinced. If people can't handle my thoughts, how can they handle my feelings? Am I not then alone?

Will anyone understand?

Puritan Fellowship: Sarcasm is Biblical - Kevin Williams

Puritan Fellowship: Sarcasm is Biblical - Kevin Williams

A New Kind of Christianity | Challies Dot Com

Tim Challies wrote a blog post containing a brief review of Brian McLaren's book A New Kind of Christian. It's not really a book review in the strictest sense, it's more of a brief outline of how far McLaren has strayed from authentic, orthodox Christianity.

According to Challies, McLaren likes Jesus but hates God, and has constructed an aura of false humility for himself, which conceals the arrogance to stand up and accuse every theologian in church history whom he disagrees with of getting the Bible wrong, while at the same time pretending to be desirous only of a friendly "conversation" on these topics.

The emergent church has strayed unbelievably far from the gospel.

Read Challies' tirade at A New Kind of Christianity | Challies Dot Com.

What is an "Evangelical"?

Phil Johnson has an conference message on his website in which he explains the history of evangelicalism.

Contrary to the current working definition of evangelicalism, which seems to hinge on diversity (i.e, the definition of the evangelical movement is that it is so ethnically, socially and theologically diverse that it can't be precisely defined), Phil traces the history of the term "evangelical", and the thinking that lay behind it.

Basically there are two key points on which all traditional evangelicals agree on:

1. The authority, inerrancy and primacy of Holy Scripture - that is, the Bible, not popes, bishops or councils, is the authority on church doctrine and practice.
2. The centrality of the Gospel - the notion that salvation is obtained by faith alone, through grace alone. 

Any strand of modern Evangelicalism (or what is currently masquerading as Evangelicalism) which departs from either of these two principles has departed from the bounds of traditional Evangelical conviction.

Phil Johnson has also written in his blog about the death of what has, for the last 50 years, been called evangelicalism. He asserts that its death is neither preventable nor lamentable, and calls all true Evangelicals back to the fundamental issues of sola Scriptura and sola fide.

So, what is an "Evangelical"? Someone who affirms both the authority of Scripture and salvation by faith. 

Epitaph for an Expositor

Here's how Hughes Oliphant Old, a Christian historian, summed up John MacArthur's ministry in his recent book The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church:

Why do so many people listen to MacArthur, this product of all the wrong schools? How can he pack out a church on Sunday morning in an age in which church attendance has seriously lagged? Here is a preacher who has nothing in the way of a winning personality, good looks, or charm. Here is a preacher who offers us nothing in the way of sophisticated homiletical packaging. No one would suggest that he is a master of the art of oratory. What he seems to have is a witness to true authority. He recognizes in Scripture the Word of God, and when he preaches, it is Scripture that one hears. It is not that the words of John MacArthur are so interesting as it is that the Word of God is of surpassing interest. That is why one listens.

I don't know about you or your pastor, but that's the kind of preacher I'd like to sit under. That's the kind of preacher I'd like to be!

(http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/04/preaching-of-john-macarthur.html)

Todd Friel: 10 Reasons Not to Ask Jesus Into Your Heart

The music weeps, the preacher pleads, “Give your heart to Jesus. You have a God shaped hole in your heart and only Jesus can fill it.” Dozens, hundreds or thousands of people who want to get their spiritual life on track make their way to the altar. They ask Jesus into their heart.

Cut to three months later. Nobody has seen our new convert in church. The follow up committee calls him and encourages him to attend a Bible study, but to no avail. We label him a backslider and get ready for the next outreach event.

Our beloved child lies in her snuggly warm bed and says, “Yes, Daddy. I want to ask Jesus into my heart.” You lead her in “the prayer” and hope that it sticks. You spend the next ten years questioning if she really, really meant it. Puberty hits and the answer reveals itself. She backslides. We spend the next ten years praying that she will come to her senses.

Telling someone to ask Jesus into their hearts has a very typical result, backsliding. the Bible says that a person who is soundly saved puts his hand to the plow and does not look back because he is fit for service. In other words, a true convert cannot backslide. If a person backslides, he never slid forward in the first place. “If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation.” (2 Cor. 5:17) No backsliding there.

Brace yourself for this one: with very few if any exceptions, anyone who asked Jesus into their hearts to be saved…is not. If you asked Jesus into your heart because you were told that is what you have to do to become a Christian, you were mis-informed.

If you have ever told someone to ask Jesus into their heart (like I have), you produced a false convert. Here is why:

1. It is not in the Bible. There is not a single verse that even hints we should say a prayer inviting Jesus into our hearts. Some use Rev. 3:20. To tell us that Jesus is standing at the door of our hearts begging to come in.
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock.” There are two reasons that interpretation is wrong.

The context tells us that the door Jesus is knocking on is the door of the church, not the human heart. Jesus is not knocking to enter someone’s heart but to have fellowship with His church.

Even if the context didn’t tell us this, we would be forcing a meaning into the text (eisegesis). How do we know it is our heart he is knocking at? Why not our car door? How do we know he isn’t knocking on our foot? To suggest that he is knocking on the door of our heart is superimposing a meaning on the text that simply does not exist.

The Bible does not instruct us to ask Jesus into our heart. This alone should resolve the issue, nevertheless, here are nine more reasons.

2. Asking Jesus into your heart is a saying that makes no sense. What does it mean to ask Jesus into your heart? If I say the right incantation will He somehow enter my heart? Is it literal? Does He reside in the upper or lower ventricle? Is this a metaphysical experience? Is it figurative? If it is, what exactly does it mean? While I am certain that most adults cannot articulate its meaning, I am certain that no child can explain it. Pastor Dennis Rokser reminds us that little children think literally and can easily be confused (or frightened) at the prospect of asking Jesus into their heart.

3. In order to be saved, a man must repent (Acts 2:38). Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of repentance.

4. In order to be saved, a man must trust in Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31).
Asking Jesus into your heart leaves out the requirement of faith.

5. The person who wrongly believes they are saved will have a false sense of security. Millions of people who sincerely, but wrongly, asked Jesus into their hearts think they are saved but struggle to feel secure. They live in doubt and fear because they do not have the Holy Spirit giving them assurance of salvation.

6. The person who asks Jesus into his heart will likely end up inoculated, bitter and backslidden. Because he did not get saved by reciting a formulaic prayer, he will grow disillusioned with Jesus, the Bible, church and fellow believers. His latter end will be worse than the first.

7. It presents God as a beggar just hoping you will let Him into your busy life. This presentation of God robs Him of His sovereignty.

8. The cause of Christ is ridiculed. Visit an atheist web-site and read the pagans who scoff, “How dare those Christians tell us how to live when they get divorced more than we do? Who are they to say homosexuals shouldn’t adopt kids when tens of thousands of orphans don’t get adopted by Christians?” Born again believers adopt kids and don’t get divorced. People who ask Jesus into their hearts do. Jesus gets mocked when false converts give Him a bad name.

9. The cause of evangelism is hindered. While it is certainly easier to get church members by telling them to ask Jesus into their hearts, try pleading with someone to make today the day of their salvation. Get ready for a painful response. “Why should I become a Christian when I have seen so called Christians act worse than a pagan?” People who ask Jesus into their hearts give pagans an excuse for not repenting.

10. Here is the scary one. People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment. How tragic that millions of people think they are right with God when they are not. How many people who will cry out, “Lord, Lord” on judgment day will be “Christians” who asked Jesus into their hearts?

So, what must one do to be saved? Repent and trust. (Heb 6:1) The Bible makes it clear that all men must repent and place their trust in Jesus Christ. Every man does have a “God shaped hole in their hearts,” but that hole is not contentment, fulfillment and peace. Every man’s heart problem is righteousness. Instead of preaching that Jesus fulfills, we must preach that God judges and Jesus satisfies God’s judgment…if a man will repent and place his trust in Him.

If you are reading this and you asked Jesus into your heart, chances are good you had a spiritual buzz for a while, but now you struggle to read your Bible, tithe, attend church and pray. Perhaps you were told you would have contentment, purpose and a better life if you just ask Jesus into your heart. I am sorry, that was a lie.

(Taken from http://www.wretchedradio.com/pdf/ten_reasons.pdf.)

For a more moderate critique of the phrase "Ask Jesus into your Heart", see: http://saidatsouthern.com/mohler-on-asking-jesus-into-your-heart/.

Have You and I Become Christians for the Wrong Reasons?

Christian Apologist Ray Comfort preaches on the use of the Law of God in convicting a sinner and leading them to repentance, over against the preaching of man-centered, "ask Jesus into your heart" gospel:

Hell's Best Kept Secret | Living Waters

Martin Luther on His Harsh Words against his Opponents

I cannot deny that I am more vehement than I should be…But they assail me and God’s Word so atrociously and criminally that were I not carried away to write warmly, even a mind of stone might be moved to war by indignation. How much more, then, would I, who have a warm temperament and a pen that is not at all blunt, be moved to war!

These monsters are carrying me beyond the bounds of moderation. I wonder whence this new scrupulousness is born which calls all that is aid against an opponent abuse. What do you think of Christ? Was He abusive when He called the Jews an adulterous and perverse generation, an offspring of vipers, hypocrites, and children of the devil? Paul, too, speaks of dogs, vain babblers, seducers, unlearned.

In Acts 13:10 he rages against a false prophet in such a way that he might seem to be insane. He says: ‘O full of all guile and all villainy, thou son of the devil, thou enemy of all truth!’ Why does he here not rather modestly flatter this fellow in order to convert him instead of thundering in such a way? The truth, which one is conscious of possessing, cannot be patient against its obstinate and intractable enemies.

- Martin Luther  

Taken from: http://newdemonstration.com/truth-matters/truth-patient-enemies

One True Gospel in a Sea of False...

Acts 2:31-39 (emphases mine):

[David] foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we are all witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, 'The Lord said to my Lord, sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.' Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. 

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off,  everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself."

 With every week that passes, I discover yet another area in which the true, biblical gospel has been undermined. Whether among my peers at university through the teachings of professors or prominent liberal and post-modern theologians, or through common, even prevailing, modern-day versions of the gospel which leave out the most basic requirements of salvation according to the Bible.

Furthermore, with every week that passes, I become more enamored with the examples of men like Charles Spurgeon, John Calvin, and above all Martin Luther, men who declared war on false gospels and preached the true gospel with such fervor - men who were not hindered by niceness or propriety in their attacks on the false gospels and false preachers which poison Christian thinking.

So here, rather than try to answer every single false gospel, which is an impossible task, I will simply affirm the true gospel as I find it in the Scriptures. And, unless convicted by Scripture and plain reason that I am wrong, I will stand with the likes of Spurgeon, Calvin and Luther and declare war on any and all gospels which oppose, deny, or contradict these teachings.

Above, I quote Acts 2 with several phrases emphasized. I want to take each of those phrases in order to make a few key points:

1. Whom you crucified - Peter has just finished preaching to a large Jewish crowd on the Day of Pentecost. He has recited the prophecy of Joel concerning the "last days", and told the people that Jesus Christ has fulfilled it. Then, after asserting that Jesus Christ is the long-expected Messiah, he then turns to the crowd and tells them that they have crucified this Messiah. "You have spent your lives waiting for the Christ. I tell you now that he has appeared - and you killed Him!" Ouch. This is where the gospel begins - with an assertion of human sin - and not as a means to another end - that is, we don't teach that we need Jesus to improve our lives, but sin stands in the way. No, sin is the one and only problem which a gospel preacher need address. 
2. Cut to the heart - the response of the crowd is to be cut to the heart, caught under the crushing weight of their sin. How could they not? They killed the very one they had been waiting for. How could they escape the judgment of God? This is their motivation to become Christians. 
3. What shall we do?  - so they ask the Apostles what they have to do to escape the judgment of God. Their question is the one which I want to answer - "What shall we do to be saved?" Or, even simpler, "How do we become Christians?" 
4. Repent... - Peter gives two commands to them. The first is to repent. Even as they are crushed under the weight of their sin and the righteous judgment of God, they are commanded to repent - to turn from sin, to plead mercy, just like the tax collector in the temple, beating his chest and saying, "God, have mercy on me, a sinner!" (Luke 18:13).
5. ...and Be Baptized. - Interesting. What immediately follows repentance in Peter's admonition? Not "believe". Not "ask Jesus into your heart". Not "pray this prayer after me". Peter commands them to be baptized. I won't belabor the point at this juncture, as it is a matter of further study for me at the moment, but evidently, in preaching the gospel one also preaches baptism - Peter gave the command to be baptized before they had become Christians, in the same breath as "Repent", which is how you become a Christian. 
6. Everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself - The promise is not for everyone, but everyone who believes, whom God calls to himself. Notice the limitation of the last phrase - everyone whom the Lord our God calls. Implication - those who do not respond have not been called. That is, the call of the gospel is not to "believe that Jesus died for you". The gospel is, "Jesus died to save all those who believe. Therefore, believe!" The promise of the gospel is offered to all, but it is not for all - it is only for those who believe, who have been called. Furthermore, notice whose prerogative is the focus - everyone whom God calls. God is the one who calls. Salvation is the Lord and of His will - not human free will. An appeal to the free will of humans has no place in the preaching of the gospel. To preach the gospel is to preach the doctrines of grace, and of human inability. It is the sufficiency of Christ to save, and not the sincerity of human response to Him, which works salvation. 

The call of the gospel is to Repent and Believe. A gospel presentation which says different than this is not scriptural. May God unify his Church under one banner - the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Is Honesty Always the Best Policy?

I've come to question the common catchphrase, "honesty is the best policy" in the last while, because it seems to me that very people have the emotional strength to handle my honesty.

What I mean is,  I'm often asked "what I think" about this or that. Sometimes this puts me in a difficult position - my truly honest opinion will likely offend or hurt them, but I can't honestly answer the question otherwise. The only other alternative is to avoid the question either through clever deflection (which never seems to work) or through outright refusal - which makes people more curious than before.

Some examples - a friend recently asked me for a discussion about Rob Bell - creator of the NOOMA video series and author of Velvet Elvis and other books. Anyone who knows me is aware that I think Rob Bell is a heretic - and I don't mean that to be hyperbole, I honestly believe he preaches a false gospel that leads people to hell. My friend and I began the discussion at the appointed time, but it started out as shooting the breeze, life updates, etc, as if she was avoiding the topic of Mr. Bell. When I finally broached the subject of Rob Bell with her, the conversation quickly went downhill. She had asked for this conversation, remember; and not only that, but she had done so in a way which sounded like she almost agreed with me and saw where I was coming from. Yet, when we talked and I reiterated my opinion on the subject, she became angry and upset, going so far as to call me an "arrogant prick" at one point.

Then this morning, in a church staff meeting, when my pastor kept using the phrase "planting a seed", I started cringing every time it was used. I realized very quickly that I hated that phrase. Someone else in the meeting asked about the phrase, so I mentioned I had a distaste for it. My pastor asked me why, so I gave him my honest opinion - essentially, I thought the phrase was utterly needless "Christian-ese". The discussion continued for a while, and at one point my pastor mentioned that he was feeling a bit defensive (since I had challenged a phrase which he held dear and used often). Now, I respect my pastor and his opinion. And I might be wrong about "planting seeds". But once again, I was asked my opinion, I answered truthfully, and someone got upset (almost).

So, what to do? I'm an opinionated person, and I love debates, discussions, arguments. Honestly, it's where I thrive, and it's how I learn. By forcing others to justify their beliefs while being forced to justify mine, I believe both parties come to better understanding of an issue. But most people can't seem to handle the kind of blunt honesty and air of definiteness that I have (I don't describe myself thus on my own authority - many other people have said that to me). They don't understand that the moments when I appear to be trying to attack and destroy someone's beliefs are the moments which I am most willing to learn - I want to be challenged, argued with, even attacked, with a sound, reasoned defense. That is how I learn.

But not everyone learns that way - in fact, in talking with my pastor, it seems most people in the world don't operate that way. It may sound foolish to most people, then, when I say that that fact is mind-boggling to me: it is so normal to shut my personal emotions down and operate on a purely logical level. The fact that most people can't understand where I'm coming from when I do this has always baffled me, and now I understand a bit more why.

By God's Grace, may I continue to fight for what I believe, but do so in a way which people are willing to receive.