Popular Posts

"You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!" ~ Richard Feynman

I have always found that quote amusing. Feynman's child-like amusement at seeing a random license plate is entertaining. Most of us would look at that and think, "So what?". However, this post is not really about Feyman's quote. I actually was looking at the views of each post on my blog over its lifetime, and the top four posts are not ones I would have expected. To echo Feyman, out of all the posts (not millions, of course) on my blog, what are the chances that these posts would be the top ones? They would not be the ones I would have predicted:

1. At more than four times the popularity of the fifth highest viewed post, "The Drama of Persecution" comes in first. This post I wrote about the early Christian persecutions: persecutions that showed the world that God’s plans are like the foundations of the earth—they will outlast any nation or people.
2. Coming in at just under four times the popularity of the fifth highest viewed post, "Mote of Dust in a Sunbeam" comes in second. This one is definitely a surprise to me. I wrote it two years ago in just a few minutes to give my readers a little perspective on the size of our universe. I considered it a very minor post. Somehow it has continued to be one of the top posts. 
3. Placing third all-time, "Galileo's Trial: An Epic Struggle of Science Against Religion?" comes in just a few pageviews under second place. This post I wrote to show the historical research that has been done on Galileo's trials, and attempt to counter the erroneous view that these trials were all about the big, bad, monolithic Roman Catholic Church persecuting the poor, innocent scientist because of their ignorance. It has been upheld as an icon of science vs. religion but the historical facts simply do not support that caricature. 
4. Finally, coming in fourth with more than three times the pageviews of the fifth place post, "Redefining the Chemistry of Life?". This post is one my science commentaries on a discovery that makes it into the popular media (a media that more-often-than-not misrepresents the discovery), which I do from time-to-time. The discovery was a strain of bacteria, GFAJ-1, that appears to be able to able to incorporate arsenates (a toxic molecule) into its biochemistry instead of phosphates. The discovery was heralded as "redefining the chemistry of life", but after reading the journal article on the subject and looking at some peer criticism, I came to a different conclusion.

As Feynman said, "Can you imagine?" well I would not have, but there you have it—the top four posts. They are not just the top four by a small margin but number four is still three times more popular than number five. Not at all what I would have expected.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Baptism

"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein Christ hath ordained the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to be a sign and seal of ingrafting into himself, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit; of adoption, and resurrection unto everlasting life; and whereby the parties baptized are solemnly admitted into the visible church, and enter into an open and professed engagement to be wholly and only the Lord’s." ~ Westminster Larger Catechism, answer to question #165

Last week I wrote briefly about what I learned in my recent preaching concerning the Lord's Supper. Today I thought I would share a little bit of what I learned about baptism by sharing with you some great resources as well as the two sermons I wrote for this class on baptism.

First, I would like to call your attention to question #167 of the Westminster Larger Catechism, "How is our baptism to be improved by us?":

The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

This one of the key things I learned while taking this course. I had probably read this question and answer a dozen times but it never hit me. Our baptisms, which for many of us was a very long time ago, can be improved by us. Baptism is not just a sacrament that is administered and forgotten about. It is something that can be improved by us and something that God uses for our sanctification. Apparently I am not the only one who had neglected this, for even in the 17th century, when this was written, it was neglected: "The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism..." So, my first sermon, which was normal length sermon (just a hair over seven pages), was written on this subject from Titus 3:1-8.

Some of you may be unsure what baptism really is. I think a lot of us who have grown up in the Church have, at best, a nebulous idea about what baptism really is. Well, my second sermon was written to (hopefully) answer that question. It is a short (only about two pages), pre-baptismal sermon, which was written as if I were about to baptize someone.

There are some good resources out there on baptism that I would recommend:

• Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin (Book 4, Chapters 14-16): Again, like with the Lord's Supper, I highly recommend Calvin's work on this subject.
• Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children by Daniel Hyde: This is an excellent source on the subject of baptism that clearly explains baptism from a holistic, biblical perspective; answers the questions many people have about infant baptism; and compares infant baptism to "baby dedication" noting the fundamental differences between the two. It is well written, short, and charitable to opposing viewpoints. 
• "Baptism and the Benefits of Christ: The Double Mode of Communion in the Covenant of Grace" by R. Scott Clark: This is an excellent journal article written on the subject. 

As with my post about the Lord's Supper, I pray that these resources would increase your view of baptism and ultimately God's glory in giving this sacrament to us.

By His Grace,

Taylor

The Lord's Supper

"I am convinced that where the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is taken lightly the people of God are sorely impoverished. Without both the Word and sacrament we face a spiritual famine." ~ R. C. Sproul

I just finished a preaching course that was focused on the sacraments (the Lord's Supper and Baptism) and after having taken this course, studied the sacraments, and preached on them, I am more convinced than ever that what Sproul says in the quote above is exactly right. The sacraments have taken a back seat in the Protestant Church and that is to our detriment. This is probably because of a reaction to Roman Catholic sacramentalism (which is the name for a particular erroneous view on the sacraments) and/or because of modernism creeping in and giving us an inadequate view of faith. The reasons, however, are not what I want to discuss here. I thought I would post the sermons I wrote on the Lord's Supper as well as some books I recommend you read. Hopefully these resources will serve to increase your view of the Lord's Supper, give you a more joyful and expectant reception of it, and increase God's glory in your heart for giving us this amazing gift.

First, the recommended reading: There are some good books out there on the sacraments and some bad ones, so I would like to suggest a few that I think are good.

• Given for You by Keith A. Mathison: This is a book on the Reformation theology of the Lord's Supper, particularly John Calvin's work done on it and the Reformed changes since then. 
• John Owen on the Lord's Supper by Jon D. Payne: This book was written by my professor and is a short summary of the history of the British Puritan battle with the Church of England for a proper view of the Lord's Supper, a summary of Owen's theology on the subject, and 25 of Owen's pre-Lord's Supper sermons, which will bless your soul (if you read them slowly because of Owen's old English style of writing).
• Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin (Book 4, Chapters 14, 17-18): John Calvin's Institutes is one of the most, if not the most, influential Christian works of all time and for good reason. His writing on the sacraments and the Lord's Supper is wonderful. 

Second, my sermons: If you are interested in reading my sermons on the subject the links are below:

• Short, pre-Lord's Supper sermonette: This assignment was to write what I would say before giving the Lord's Supper in a worship service. This sermon is only two pages and is written as if I were actually giving the words of institution for the Lord's Supper during a service. 
• Longer, standard sermon: This sermon is a normal sermon that I would preach during a worship service on the subject of the Lord's Supper (with a few modifications since I wrote it to be preached to my class). Since it is a normal sermon it is a little longer--just over seven pages.

I pray that these resources would increase your view of the Lord's Supper and ultimately God's glory in giving this sacrament to us. 

By His Grace,

Taylor

Preaching and a Preacher's Growth

"I give you the motto, 'Go forward.' Go forward in personal attainments, forward in gifts and in grace, forward in fitness for the work, and forward in conformity to the image of Jesus...If there be any brother here who thinks he can preach as well as he should, I would advise him to leave off altogether." ~ Charles Spurgeon

I am in a preaching lab class at my seminary, RTS Atlanta, and my professor sent a great blog post out to the class about how preachers should evaluate their preaching. It is a great article that I would recommend anyone reading, even those who have no plans of ever preaching. If you are reading this and you are not a preacher, nor do you have any plans to become one, I do not write this here to give you a means by which to criticize your pastor but quite the contrary. I write this so you can know how to pray for your pastor and his preaching and so you can know what he pours into it when he does it in a godly, biblical manor. No preacher gets all this right all the time (I preached at my church this past Sunday and found this article both encouraging and quite convicting), which is why he needs your prayer for his preaching.

The article's major points are the following:

• Did I preach as God's servant? The author summarizes, "Evaluate your sermons for any hint that you stood in the pulpit as a lord and savior instead of a humble servant and messenger whose authority comes solely from God."
• Did I preach to build God's Church? The author summarizes, "When evaluating your preaching, ask yourself whether you preached with a burning love for God which made you long to see His church built up on earth. God loves His church with an everlasting love. If you love God, your preaching must be full of love for God’s church."
• Did I preach Christ as the only foundation? The author states, "Christ is everything to the believer: our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ is not only the door into salvation; He is the entire road on which we must travel to glory."
• Did I build my sermon with the precious materials of Reformed experiential preaching? He, again, summarizes, "The wisdom of the Scriptures is the only material worthy of use in God’s holy temple. Therefore, do not build your sermons with the materials of man which will perish in God’s flaming glory."
• Did I preach for the Master's reward? He states, "Though you and your hearers may have long forgotten the specifics of what you preached, the Lord will judge every sermon. Every sermon will have one of two outcomes on Judgment Day: it may be found precious in God’s sight and receive His approbation, or it will be judged unworthy and the fire of God’s glory will consume it."

Those are the major points of this blog post but there is some great content in between them. I recommend reading the whole thing. And, remember, read with the heart wanting to know how to pray for your pastor, not judge his sermons for all of the above questions are attitudes of the heart that only he and God can know fully.

By His Grace,

Taylor

Morality, God and the "New Atheism"

I have written in the past in several places (like here and here) about faith in the view of atheism. Most of my writing, however, was been in the arena of science. Recently, on Biola Magazine, Craig Hazen wrote a good article on the idea of morality and the "new atheism", which does not specifically mention faith but it does highlight that atheists "began embracing basic morality as some sort of natural feature of the physical universe." This takes faith (something most ardently claim not to rely on), just as it does to accept the Laws of Physics as a "given". Of course, the article makes more points than that and it is well worth reading. Below is a sample of the article:

It’s been fascinating to watch the very vocal and prolific new atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins, make a case for objective morality. The phrase “objective morality” is a way of indicating that some behaviors are right (truth telling, kindness, tolerance) and some behaviors are wrong (rape, murder, racism) — for real. Morality is not just a matter of personal preference and choice (akin to liking peanuts better than almonds), but rather laws that are real and true and binding no matter what one thinks about them or whether one chooses to follow them.

The reason it has been fun to watch the new atheists defend this idea is because atheists of an earlier generation (such as J.L. Mackie and Bertrand Russell) thought it folly to do so. Classic atheists from the mid-20th century were very reluctant to grant that there was an objective moral law because they saw that it was just too compelling for believers to take the easy step from the moral law to God who was the “moral law giver.” Accepting a real objective moral law would be giving far, far too much ground to the Christians and other theists.
...
The primary technique the new atheists have adopted for dealing with the issue of the origin or grounding of the moral law is obfuscation. The new atheists are very fond of saying, “We don’t need God to be good.” Indeed, they often say that atheists, agnostics and skeptics often lead more wholesome lives than lifelong professing Christians. Now, theists should not be fooled by this. Our response should be, “Of course you don’t need God to be good — we’ve never claimed that you do.” You see, it is not knowledge (epistemology) of the moral law that is a problem — after all, the Bible teaches that this law is written on every human heart. Rather, the daunting problem for the new atheist is the nature and source (ontology) of the moral law.

I recommend you read the rest of the article and then start asking some tough, uncomfortable questions about morality.

By His Grace,
Taylor