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.

Summer Reading Projects

I have engaged in two summer reading projects.

The first is to read through the entire New Testament by the end of August. Since I began in the first week of May, I've read:

• Mark
• Galatians
• 1 & 2 Thessalonians
• 1 & 2 Timothy
• Hebrews

Next up, Titus, Philemon, then I think I'll tackle the Gospel of John.

The second project is a friendly contest with Kelsey Sturm. Both of us being fans of Agatha Christie, we're trying to outdo each other in number of her books read by Aug. 31. I'm about 3/4 done "Murder in the Mews" (which, apparently, I've read before under a different title). I have a terrible feeling that she's already well ahead of me. Oh well. Check back for progress updates!

Tearing Down Strongholds

Defend the Bible? Would you defend a Lion? Loose him; and let him go!

Charles Spurgeon 

I used to think that if you were clever enough, if you gave enough evidence, if your logic was sound enough, if you won every debate, that you could argue unbelievers into the Kingdom of God.

Boy, was I wrong!

Case in point, today I read a post by Christian apologist Ray Comfort, which simply states his burden to lead atheists away from hellfire. It seemed such a benign post to my sensibilities, and yet there was an overwhelming number of negative comments, atheists trying to logically de-construct Ray's post, his beliefs, and his ministry.

I felt sorry for all this unwarranted criticism from those whom Ray is actually labouring to save, so I felt moved to respond. Up until even just a few months ago, I would've engaged in intellectual debate and tried to logically de-construct their logical deconstructions line-by-line. But, as I've learned, that would've led to nothing but my own frustration and their further hardness of heart.

So I simply quoted John 3:18-20, and said that the atheists involved didn't actually want the evidence for the existence God that they were screaming for; they wanted an excuse to continue sinning, and they should instead repent of their sin and trust Christ. That is the truth. That is what the Bible says about them. And that is all I needed to write.

Charles Spurgeon said that Scripture was a lion - it doesn't need protecting, it just needs someone to open its cage. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 10 that

the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ

2 Corinthians 10:4-5

To destroy arguments against God, you need divine weapons. What can these be except those Paul lists in Ephesians 6: truth, righteousness, the readiness of the gospel, faith, salvation and, our only offensive weapon, the Word of God?

The Bible is the only thing we have that can ultimately lead someone to reject their unbelief and repent of their sins. No-one can be intellectually forced to believe. They can only be convicted of sin by the words of the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Debate is good and apologetics are good, but only the Word of the Lord can save.

I love arguments. But may I love preaching the Word even more.

Who knows how people will receive my comment. It will probably be hated, or simply ignored. But it was the truth, and that is all that needs to be said.

Casino Royale: The Best and Worst Poker Movie Ever

The James Bond film "Casino Royale" with Daniel Craig, is one of the things which initially sparked my interest in poker, and my experience is not altogether uncommon in that regard. Casino Royale has helped fuel the poker boom and drawn many people to learn the game, and for that, it is a great poker movie.

However, as my understanding of the fundamentals of poker strategy has grown, I've noticed that the film's portrayal of how poker is played is quite inaccurate: a poor use of terminology and highly improbable gameplay. Here follow some examples from the key poker scenes in the film:

1) The scene in which Bond discovers "Le Chiffre's" "tell":
There are 4 players who see the flop, which comes 5, 8, 9, all hearts. Two checks, Le Chiffre bets $50,000, Bond calls, the other two fold. The turn is the 9 of clubs. Le Chiffre bets $100,000, Bond again calls. The river comes the deuce of hearts. Le Chiffre bets $200,000, and Bond calls one more time. Le Chiffre shows pocket deuces, for a full house, deuces over nines, and Bond folds his hand.

Bond later describes Le Chiffre's tell as a "twitch he has to hide when he bluffs." The full house, argued Bond, "he got on the last card....When he made his first raise [on the flop] he had nothing. Winning was blind luck."

Bond's analysis of the hand however, is not very accurate. Le Chiffre did not "have nothing" on the flop - he had a pair of deuces. Not a very good hand, but it wasn't a bluff. His bet was, as some call it, an "information raise". He put out a bet so that he could learn, through his opponents' actions of either calling, raising, or folding, whether his deuces were the best hand. On the turn he made two pair, and made a full house on the river card. Bond is right in the sense that Le Chiffre could not have known that he had the best hand until he made a full house on the last card, because his deuces were in great danger to a 5, 8, 9 or two hearts. But this is not even worth mentioning, since betting without the best hand and then making the best hand on the next card is a common occurrence in poker.

Now, Bond's statement that Le Chiffre was bluffing could mean that he himself actually had the best hand until the river. Given that he called and didn't raise each time, this would most likely mean either a) he had a 9, giving him three of a kind on the turn, but he didn't raise because Le Chiffre would likely only have called with a flush or better, or b) he had the King, Queen, or possibly Jack of hearts in his hand, giving him a flush on the last card, which would've been worth calling with but not necessarily raising, since he would've likely been called only by a higher flush. An alternative solution is that Bond called three times with nothing, wanting only to discover the meaning of the "twitch", but in that case, why call it a "bluff" when Le Chiffre had been betting the best hand all along?

2) The scene in which Bond goes broke:
The board reads J, K, A, J (all of different suits) on the turn. Bond, Le Chiffre, and Felix Leiter are involved in the hand. Felix bets $300,000; the other two call. The river is another King. Felix checks, Bond double-checks his hole cards (it is revealed at this point he has the Ace-King of hearts, for a full house) and bets $500,000 (a pretty small bet, considering that $900,000 went into the pot on the turn alone!). Le Chiffre begins to "twitch" again, leading Mathis to remark to Vesper that "he is bluffing." He raises to $1 Million (he would raise if he were bluffing, since that is the only way he could win the hand, but in real life he would have likely raised to at least $1.5 million to discourage anyone from calling, rather than simply raising the minimum amount). Felix grudgingly folds, saying "it seems someone knows something I don't" (He probably had a single ace, making two pair, Aces and Kings. It was a good hand, but vulnerable to a single King or Jack. A good fold by Felix). Bond then re-raises to $2 Million (another fairly small raise, especially considering he had a full house and Le Chiffre had just represented a strong hand by re-raising). Le Chiffre then moves all-in for $40.5 Million (now that's hard to believe, after the two players each doubled the last player's raise, he suddenly decides to put in a raise for 20 times the last bet? In the words of poker pro Daniel Negreanu when someone did the same thing to him, "That might be how y'all play, but that's not poker.") Bond calls and turns over his full house. Le Chiffre (who should have been the first to show his hand, but obviously couldn't because there would be no drama in the film if he did!), stacks his cards face-up to show only one Jack (which would've made an inferior full house), but then spreading out his cards to reveal 4 of a kind, saying "You must have thought I was bluffing, Mr. Bond."

A few problems here. I've already given running commentary on the unrealistic way the bets were sized. This could very well be just to simplify the numbers and allow those without a working knowledge of poker to follow along. Another issue is the way Le Chiffre revealed his cards, allowing Bond to think he had won, and then showing the 4th Jack. That is called "slow-rolling", taking a long time to reveal the best hand, and it's a breach of poker etiquette and just a nasty thing to do. Of course, Le Chiffre is a nasty character, so perhaps it's fitting.

Most importantly, here is another misunderstanding of the concept of bluffing. Bond wouldn't really have decided to call based on whether or not Le Chiffre was bluffing, despite Mathis' insistence about the "tell". When one player holds a full house while the other hold 4 of a kind, it is virtually guaranteed that both players will be going all-in. Those are two monster hands, both of which merit putting all your chips in the middle because they are both likely to be better than whatever your opponent holds. In Bond's case, of course, it wasn't good enough, but that's called a "bad beat" in poker. (In fact, Le Chiffre's hand wasn't unbeatable either, he could have lost to 4 Kings. But I digress). Bond's decision to call all-in was based entirely on the strength of his hand and the mathematical probability that it was the best hand. It had nothing to do with Bond picking up on a bizarre "tell".

To elaborate, in such a situation there were only two hands that could have beaten Bond's full house: two Aces (a better full house) or in this case, two Jacks (quads). There are also 22 hand combinations which Le Chiffre likely would have moved all-in with, which Bond's full house would have beaten: a single King, a single Jack (two jacks remaining), a single Ace, Ace-Jack (2 possible combinations), or Queen-10 to make a straight (16 possible combinations). Assuming Le Chiffre would never have bluffed in this hand and would only have moved all-in holding 1 of those 24 hands (ignoring the possibility of him holding another Ace-King, which would have meant a tied pot, or a hand like pocket Queens), Bond's odds of having a better hand were 92%, (he beats 22 out of 24 hands), while the $40.5 Million it would cost to call represents only about 47% percent of the total pot, making Bond's call a mathematically sound play by a very large margin, regardless of whether Le Chiffre actually was bluffing. If there was a possibility Le Chiffre actually was bluffing, as his "twitch" suggested, the odds of Bond winning were even greater. All this is to say that Bond did not make a mistake in calling, he actually made the right play but, unfortunately, came up on the losing end this time.

I know this is all very technical and a bit nit-picky. Honestly, I do like the film and its poker scenes. I mention all of this not to trash the film, but simply to help people understand the game of poker a bit better, and to show the amount of calculation, math and psychology that can factor into a single poker hand. And I'm glad "Casino Royale" has introduced so many people to poker, including myself.

"A trustworthy saying"

I had a really rich devotional time last night in reading 1 Timothy. The portion which stuck with me the most is chapter 3 verses 1-7: 

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

The passage outlines the qualifications for eldership. Paul introduces them by encouraging those who desire to become elders, calling eldership a "noble task", or a "good work" in the New King James version. Paul then goes on to outline what is required for a man to be worthy of such a noble task. The list of stipulations he offers form a wonderful list of aspirations for me, and for any man who desires to honour God: 


1) Above reproach - may my life be lived in such a way that no accusation of wrongdoing is possible
2) The husband of one wife - may God make me faithful to "not awaken love until it so desires", and to be ever faithful to the wife God provides in His own time
3) Sober-minded - may God grant me a clear mind and sound judgment, to make decisions that are wise
4) Self-controlled - may I be disciplined, able to say "no" and to control my body and life in a manner worthy of the Lord
5) Respectable - may I act in a way deserving of respect and honour
6) Hospitable - may I be generous and friendly, opening my home and exercising Christian charity
7) Able to teach - may I be faithful to teach the whole counsel of God to those entrusted to my ministry
8) Not a drunkard - may God give freedom from all manner of addictions which destroy sound judgment and dull my taste for true happiness
9) Not violent but gentle - may I never vent anger in unholy physical displays
10) Not quarrelsome - may I not pick fights for their own sake, but fight only "the good fight" of faith
11) Not a lover of money - may I never give in to "the root of all kinds of evils". 


May every man who believes in Christ aspire to be worthy to govern Christ's church if called upon.