Jim Caviezel on properly followng Christ

Here is a very inspirational interview by Jim Caviezel, the actor who portrayed Jesus in Mel Gibson’s flick, The Passion of the Christ.  It’s very encouraging and Caviezel is a softly-spoken, genuine man who really loves Christ and understands that there is no glory (resurrection) without suffering (the Cross).  Amazingly he survived a lightening strike on set and almost had a heart attack portraying Christ on the Cross.

The best part of the interview is about half-way through the vid, where he prophetically lambasts Christians for trying to be ‘cool’ to their non-Christian friends but not being distinctive for Christ (21:00 and onwards):

Reformed Baptist position

Recently my family and I have been going through some moments of change: now that I have almost completed my Bachelor of Theology we have been told that we need to leave by the end of this year.  As such, I am assessing my options as to what part- or full-time ministry options are available.  Although I want to pursue accreditation within the Baptist Church I want eagerly to ‘go into the field’ and start doing ministry.  (If you know of anyone who might be able to give me such a ministry job soon, please let me know!!).  In some ways this will be a bit of a challenge since I am, in particular, a Reformed Baptist.  Baptist churches in Australia, generally, are theologically diverse and not many of them are Reformed.  However, I am very much Reformed by conviction like the great Baptist preacher of the 1800s, Charles Haddon Spurgeon (who is one of my heroes of faith).  

Being Reformed Baptist means, effectively, holding to biblical doctrines concerning matters such as salvation and so on from a Calvinistic perspective (i.e. God is sovereign over salvation and elects only a chosen group of people to be saved by Him).  The core document that summarises such doctrines for the Baptist Church is the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (the Second London Baptist Confession).  For other denominations, there are statements like the Westminster Confession.  For some Baptists, it is the 1689 confession.   Spurgeon once described it thus, “This ancient document is the most excellent epitome of the things most surely believed among us. It is not issued as an authoritative rule or code of faith, whereby you may be fettered, but as a means of edification in righteousness. It is an excellent, though not inspired, expression of the teaching of those Holy Scriptures by which all confessions are to be measured. We hold to the humbling truths of God’s sovereign grace in the salvation of lost sinners. Salvation is through Christ alone and by faith alone”.  Were I to work in a church this would be the kind of thing that I would teach my congregations.  

If you are interested, here is the 1689 Baptist Confession in PDF (which I agree with in part).

My testimony published!

Yesterday was a busy day for me.  In the morning I taught on pastoral care, ethics, and apologetics concerning homosexuality at Sydney Missionary & Bible College.  Then in the afternoon I went to New South Wales’ Parliament House; there I stood with American author Bill Muehlenberg and Christian MP Rev Fred Nile.  The purpose of that presentation was to launch a book by Muehlenberg on homosexuality (see below) that contained my testimony on *coming out* of the homosexual death-style.  (The book also contains the testimony of Anne Paulk, who came out of lesbianism and has become a friend.)  Praise God for how He is using my testimony to bless others.  Bill’s book can be purchased on Amazon.  

T2  T1

Tower of Babel and Homosexuality: Spiritual Warfare

Here’s a helpful and interesting article on how to defeat the spiritual bondages of homosexuality. The author deftly writes, “Love the sinner, hate the sin. Is this really the limit of our wisdom? … After loving the sinner and hating the sin, where does that leave us? What else do we do?” His article provides a superior strategy for overcoming the evil one with respect to homosexuality. 

Keller and evolutionary syncretism

I recently came across a helpful article on how many Christians are syncretising evolution with the Biblical account of God’s creation of the world.  (Here is the original location of the article, but I’ve posted it all below.)  I do disagree with the writer, however, on his advocacy for cessationism. In this article particularly, he overlooks the fact that many of the New Calvinists that he critiques, like Mohler, actually share his own position against evolutionary theism. But what he says here generally hits the mark.  Having studied Hebrew, I’ve learned that the word for day (yom, יום) = literal 24 hours.  It never ever means an age or an eon; the suggestion that a day is an age is a modern-day imposition on the Genesis 1-2 account to rob it of its truth.  

The other problem with the evolutionary theistic position is the assertion that Genesis 1-2 is merely poetry.  Genesis 1-2 (which I translated last semester) does have some poetic rhythm, but it is not merely poetry.  It is ordered and describes how God physically created the world in 6 24-hour periods.  The book of Lamentations in the Old Testament is actually an acrostic poem, yet it describes how Jerusalem was sacked by the Babylonians.  History in the Bible IS often recorded poetically, but that does not diminish the truthfulness merely because of its form or genre.  Reducing Genesis 1-2 to being mere poetry robs the text of his life-saving savour and leads people like many ‘Christian’ scholars like Tremper Longman to deny that Adam and Eve were real, historical people.  It’s a very slippery slope that undermines trust in the rest of the Biblical account.  After all, if the miracles of creation in Genesis aren’t true, why would any of God’s other miracles be trustworthy (like the resurrection from the dead)?  Enjoy.

The New Calvinism is a movement that boasts groups like The Gospel Coalition (founded by D.A. Carson & Tim Keller in 2004) and Together for the Gospel (Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, C. J. Mahaney, and Al Mohler, founders). As a movement, the New Calvinism repeats in some ways of the original New Evangelicalism of the late 1940s and 1950s. Several emphases of the New Calvinism are to be appreciated: the Gospel focus, expository preaching, and the desire to have the Gospel touch every aspect of a believer’s life …

The first point stated of New Evangelicalism that parallels the New Calvinism is stated simply: “a friendly attitude toward science.”[2] Dr. Ernest Pickering says that original New Evangelicals “seemed embarrassed to observe that the world view of fundamentalists was so extremely contrary to the world view of liberals” and thus they sought to “reconcile the teachings of the Bible with the various scientific theories that were current” in order to “make the Christian view more acceptable to godless intellectuals.”[3]

Like the New Evangelicals of old, some of these New Calvinists remain deeply embarrassed by a belief in God’s literal creation of the world in seven days. Tim Keller, one of the most popular New Calvinists is the pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. He aggressively promotes and unabashedly teaches a theistic evolution. This view may win him many friends among the cerebral elites and major media in our metropolis, but his tragic compromise undermines the very Gospel that he says he holds dear. In The Reason for God, Keller replies to the concerns of a young intellectual who is terribly bothered by the “unscientific mind-set” toward the Biblical teaching that God directly created the world by His wisdom and power in six days. Keller responds to this unbelief with these words:

“Evolutionary science assumes that more complex life-forms evolved from less complex forms through the process of natural selection. Many Christians believe that God brought about life this way. For example, the Catholic church, the largest church in the world, has made official pronouncements supporting evolution as being compatible with Christian belief.”[4]

Mr. Keller overlooks a number of significant truths in this one statement. First, he believes the philosophical assumptions of ever-changing evolutionary theory rather than the literal truth of God’s Word. Although evolutionary scientists assume evolution, the Bible does not. Rather, throughout Scripture God says that He is the immediate creator of the heaven and earth, and His creation declares His glory. Further, in Genesis 1, God tells us in clear language that He created the world in “six days.” The word “day” is a word that normally means a day in the twenty-four hour sense. The days of creation in Genesis 1 were defined by distinct boundaries with the phrase, “evening and morning.” The days of creation are also numbered in a series which points to literal twenty four hour days. There are no exceptions in Hebrew of a series of days meaning anything other than literal twenty four hour periods of time. The days of creation were also modified by a number, first day, second day, etc. The Ten Commandments resolve any possible uncertainty as God commands us to work six days and rest one day just as He worked on the six days of creation and rested on day seven (Exodus 20:9-11). Second, In Genesis 2:7, Scripture tells us that God made man from the dust, not a monkey or hominid. Jesus agrees with this and Himself said: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4). Third, Keller buys into the lie of so-called simple life forms. Man could not evolve from less complex life forms. Why? Because there is no such thing as a simple life form, for all life is irreducibly complex, even a single cell. Even if evolutionists assume it and “many Christians” believe it, let God be true and every man a liar. Keller makes his argument for evolution based on majority rule rather than on God’s Word. Fourth, to call the Catholic church a true church is indeed a tragic compromise. The Roman Catholic system attacks the Gospel of the grace of God, places tradition equal to Scripture, and establishes the church as the infallible authority and interpreter of the Bible, yet Keller calls it “the largest church in the world.” Mr. Keller is not seeing clearly to take such a position, yet many hold his intellectualism in high regard.

Mr. Keller writes extensively for the Biologos website, whose purpose is unequivocally stated: “We at BioLogos believe that God used the process of evolution to create all the life on earth today… (and) agree with the modern scientific consensus on the age of the earth and evolutionary development of all species, seeing these as descriptions of how God created.”[5] In one such Biologos article titled “Creation, Evolution, and Christian Laypeople,” Keller wrestles with how to present science to Christian laypeople in such a way that evolution and the Bible seem compatible.[6] He writes with a tolerance toward almost everyone—to theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists—to everyone that is, except biblical creationists! It seems Keller sees Biblical creationists as ‘anti-scientific religionists’ who must be enlightened.[7]

Although Keller accepts a literal Adam and Eve, he believes they are still “a product of evolutionary biological processes.”[8] According to Keller, this would make Adam the son of a “soulless human-like hominid.”(( Ibid.)) By hominid I mean a human ancestor between a man and a monkey but a species closer to man than a monkey. Evolutionists would say all such hominids are now extinct. Keller argues for both a literal Adam and a hominid. Keller simply cannot have it both ways. If he believes in a literal Adam, he must contend that sin and death began with Adam according to Romans 5:12, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” If he says that man evolved from a hominid, he must allow for death before Adam’s sin.

This is a dangerous accommodation and deliberate re-interpretation of the Bible to conform to the worldly spirit of our age. Such evolutionary teaching that allows for a hominid, creates far more problems than it solves, and it attacks the foundations of the Gospel. This teaching undermines the Bible teaching of the sinful nature of man created in the image of God. Allowing for hominids would mean that Adam was formed in a way entirely different from the Biblical text and would also necessitate that there was death before sin, contradicting clear Scripture. Paul also writes, “The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit… The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:4547). It is clear that Paul refers back to the literal Genesis account of creation where we read, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breathe of life; and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). That one man was Adam, created from the earth in the image and likeness of God. The Biblical record emphasizes that God directly created man, from the dust, wholly apart from the use of previously existing animals. To promote theistic evolution and then pronounce the Roman Catholic system as a reason to hold to such a view is a deeply flawed approach that will set any ministry in the direction of disaster. May God give us grace to stand for a strong view of Scripture, and to hold without shame those points under ferocious attack, refusing to bend the Bible in order to appease those who criticize it.

Matt Recker is the pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in New York City.

  1. “Is Evangelical Theology Changing?” Christian Life, March 1956pp. 17-19. []
  2. “Is Evangelical Theology Changing?” Christian Life, March 1956, pp. 17-19. []
  3. Ernest Pickering, The Tragedy of Compromise (Greenville, SC: BJU Press, 1994), p.14-15. []
  4. Tim Keller, The Reason for God (New York, NY: Dutton, 2008), p.87. []
  5. http://biologos.org/questions/biologos-id-creationism []
  6. http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf; “Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople, Tim Keller. []
  7. http://creation.com/timothy-keller-response, A response to Timothy Keller’s ‘Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople, Lita Cosner. []
  8. Ibid. []


Sin of being in control

Today I came across a rabbi on Facebook named Yosef Mizrachi.  He had a very insightful post about the issue of control.  He looks at how an unhealthy expectation of control is actually a barometer of what kind of person we are and is actually a training ground for what God is trying to make us more like Himself by recognising that we are the creatures who are not in control.  I though it was excellent – I know I am guilty of this.  Thanks, Rabbi.  (PS – Hashem is the Hebrew word Ha (the) + Shem (Name), which is a euphemism for God, since His Name is The Name):

Nearly all anger is rooted in the thought that “I can control the situation.” This thought leads us to form mental images of what should be happening to us and how other people ought to treat us. When these expectations are not fulfilled, we become angry.

This concept is clearly illustrated by parent-child relationships. Perhaps one of the reasons people so frequently find themselves angered by their children is that parents have such profound feelings of control over them. Having brought them into the world and having provided them with everything they need — clothes, food, schooling — a parent feels he “owns” his children, just as he owns a piece of property. Since he has mental images of how they should behave, he becomes frustrated when they act up.

Of course, it is a parent’s responsibility to educate his children and make certain that they behave properly, but at the end of the day, children have their own free will. If they disobey, the correct response is not unrestrained anger, but another attempt to calmly teach them better. Even when the best way to teach them is through showing anger, it is meant to be an external, premeditated show of anger, never a real, inner, spur-of-the-moment anger.

Besides persuading himself that he controls other people, a person also imagines that he controls his time. That is why nothing rattles a person more than when his meticulously planned schedule goes awry. We can all relate to the frustration of missing a plane or watching the clock tick by as we wait for a friend, knowing that our time for lunch together is getting shorter and shorter. Convinced that he has some kind of ownership over his time, he becomes irritated when faced with the stark reality that he is not really in charge after all.

When one always remembers and truly internalizes the fact that Hashem (G-d) and only G-d is in control, his perspective changes, for he realizes that the end result is not in his own hands, but in God’s (and those are the BEST hands to be in). One who is late no longer gets annoyed, as he understands that what matters most is not whether he arrives on time, but whether he is the best person he can be along the way.

When a person expects frustrations and mentally prepares himself for them, he is capable of managing almost any challenge. The reason people are so frequently frustrated is that they are not expecting the test. They think only of the end result — getting to the meeting on time or being ready for Shabbos — and view any obstacle along the way as a nuisance. But the “obstacle” is not an obstacle at all; it’s the main point of the event. Facing that challenge and conquering our undesirable character traits gives meaning to our lives.