For those thinking about expositional preaching or interested in books on preaching, here are a few blog posts and book recommendations.
A 3-part sermon series on purity from Josh Harris. (HT: titus2talk).
Apparently, my boy Mark is loosening the fundy straight laces and talking about sex--Puritan style at the Family Room. Listen or watch at DG. (HT: titus2talk).
Language and the church... something to consider from Dying Church:
'Language which is not taut with a sense of its own significance, which is apologetic in its desire to be acceptable to a modern conciousness, language in other words which submits to its audience, rather than instructing, informing, moving, challenging, and even entertaining them, is no longer a language which can carry the freight the Bible requires.' If language is shaped, Nicolson goes on to say, by 'an anxiety not to bore or intimidate,' then 'it has, in short, lost all authority.'
Carter is challenging us to hear more clearly from Voddie what he's been saying for years about youth ministry--The Home Is the Key. But he warns, this is not for the faint-hearted youth ministry crowd.
Finally, Rick Phillips says what I've been saying for years... again, only better and more succinctly. Slavery is contrary to the gospel. The real question is, "How are we to think of those who held slaves and claimed the name of Christ?" And by the way, Phillips tips us to the fact that Phil Ryken has a new commentary on 1 Timothy coming out soon. Keep your eyes open.
Posts
6 comments:
It is a plausible ground of opposition to slavery, to charge it with the guilt of the slave trade. It is argued that unless we are willing to justify the capture of free and-innocent men, on their own soil, and their reduction from freedom to slavery, with all the enormous injustice and cruelty of the African slave trade, we must acknowledge that the title of the Southern master to his slave at this day is unrighteous; that a system which had its origin in wrong cannot become right by the lapse of time; that, if the title of the piratical slave catcher on the coast of Africa was unrighteous, he cannot sell to the purchaser any better title than he has; and that an unsound title cannot become sound by the passage of time. It need hardly be said that we abhor the injustice, cruelty, and guilt of the African slave trade. It is justly condemned by the public law of Christendom -a law which not Wilberforce, nor the British Parliament, nor British, nor Yankee Abolitionists, have the honour of originating, but the slaveholding Commonwealth of Virginia. It is condemned by the law of God. Moses placed this among the judicial statutes of the Jews: "And he that stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.' We fully admit, then, that the title of the original slave catcher to the captured African was most unrghteous. But few can be ignorant of -the principle, that a title, originally bad, may be replaced by a good one, by transmission from hand to hand, and by lapse of time.
However helpful Mr. Dabney was on some grounds, "few can be ignorant of the principle" that two wrongs don't make a right. Purchasing stolen goods from the hands of WalMart shoplifter doesn't make the goods lawfully the property of the purchaser. The fact that he/she didn't himself lift the goods from the shelves and scurry out the side door with them is no justification for either supporting the thief or of claiming the property is now justly their own. When Mr. Sam Walton comes with his lawyers, be assured he'll confiscate his property and see that justice is done to all. When Jesus returns, He will be far more just than either Sam Walton or his lawyers. I pray His mercy on Dabney and us all.
The man-stealing reference is not nearly as the Philemon one in which Paul says that he could rightly compel Philemon to free Onesimus.
On what ground, other than the moral law of God, could Paul have compelled him? Certainly, there is nowhere in Scripture that endows one holding the office of apostle with permission to seize the property of another, or to bind the conscience against something that is not in itself sinful.
Only then, on the ground that slave-owning itself is contrary perhaps to the law of God, but especially to the grace of God, could Paul have "ordered" Philemon.
And how much ought we to learn from this: that even in a place where Paul could have rightly bound the conscience, he still chose to make an appeal to love! Might we not get much further on so many issues of Christian morality, if we approached our antinomian brothers with appeals to love even on issues where we could rightly bind the conscience?
I am certain that in areas yet unknown to me, I am conveniently antinomian. Because the one who loves Christ will keep His commandments, I hope that if there is a human instrument involved in bringing them to my attention, he will do so with an appeal to love.
Have a great Lord's Day, Thabiti!
cheers
Pastor Anyabwile,
I've been reading your blog on and off for a few months; several others (Justin Taylor's and Tim Challies') for longer. I've been interested to read the last several posts you've had, and was wondering if you might be able, at your convenience, to e-mail me and perhaps help me work through a couple issues you've raised in a less-public forum. My e-mail is dparthur@crossandeagle.com.
If you're in Minneapolis this week, look for my parents, Brad and Deborah Arthur. They're BBC members and will be helping with the conference - I'm sure they'd enjoy meeting you.
In His Service,
Daniel Arthur
Wow! The Voddie Baucham message is one of the best I've heard! Thanks for posting it (I put it on my blog as well). Have you seen Dr. Baucham's blog where he answers objections to his position?
Voddie Baucham answers objections
I found a link for Dr. Baucham's entire sermon at Amy's Humble Musings.
Entire Baucham message
I am so excited about this! Thank you, Thank you!
Post a Comment