Josh King

Tolle Lege: Finally Free

Readability: 1

Length: 159 pp

A porndemic is upon us, Christians not excluded. Inoculation is possible, even for the infected. In such deadly times I am deeply thankful for Heath Lamber’s Finally Free. I say with many others that this is best book I know of to help those battling pornography.

This book is not about pornography. You can find countless books about pornography.

…The goals of these other books are noble. There is a time and place to talk about all of these issues. But this book has a different purpose. For the past decade, I have spent thou- sands of hours talking with hundreds of people who struggle with pornography. I have never met anyone who experienced profound change because someone told them how many billions of dollars are spent on pornography every year. I have never met anyone whose life was radically changed by hearing (again) how damaging the pornography industry is and how they desperately need to think differently about it. Rather, every person I have ever talked to who sincerely wanted help already knew most of this information. People who are trapped in the deceitful web of pornography do not need more information about pornography.

This book is about something much better than pornography. This book is about the amazing power of Jesus Christ to free you from pornography.

In this book, I want to share with you the amazing depth and effect of Christ’s power to eradicate pornography from your life. Whether you struggle with pornography yourself or are trying to help someone who struggles, I have good news for you: no matter how intense or long-standing the struggle, it is the work of Jesus Christ to set people free from such sin.

WTS Books: $11.39 Amazon:$12.33

The Dogmatician: The Source of Truth

The assertion that the religious and moral human being is autonomous is always linked with either deism or pantheism. Deism makes human beings independent of God and the world, teaches the all-sufficiency of reason, and leads to rationalism. Pantheism, on the other hand, teaches that God discloses himself and comes to self-consciousness in human beings and fosters mysticism. Both destroy objective truth, leave reason and feeling, the intellect and the heart, to themselves, and end up in unbelief or superstition. Reason criticizes all revelation to death, and feeling gives the Roman Catholic as much right to picture Mary as the sinless Queen of Heaven as the Protestant to oppose this belief. It is therefore noteworthy that Holy Scripture never refers human beings to themselves as the epistemic source and standard of religious truth. How indeed, could it, since it describes the ‘natural’ man as totally darkened and corrupted by sin in his intellect (Ps. 14:3; Rom. 1:21-23; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:14; Eph. 4:23; Gal. 1:6,7; 1 Tim. 6:5; 2 Tim. 3:8); in his heart (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Ezek. 36:26; Mark 7:21); in his will (John 8:34; Rom. 7:14; 8:7; Eph. 2:3), as well as in his conscience (Jer. 17:9; 1 Cor. 8:7, 10, 12; 10:28; 1 Tim. 4:2; Titus 1:15)? For the knowledge of truth Scripture always refers us to objective revelation, to the word and instruction that proceeded from God (Deut. 4:1; Isa. 8:20; John 5:39; 2 Tim. 3:15; ). And where the objective truth is personally appropriated by us by faith, that faith still is never like a fountain that from itself brings the living water but like a channel that conducts the water to us from another source. —Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics

Test the Book but It’s Your Heart that’s Proven

You know how it was with Moses, when he saw two men fighting, one an Egyptian, and another an Israelite, he killed the Egyptian; but when he saw two Hebrews fighting, now, saith he, I will go and reconcile them, for they are brethren; why so, but because he was a good man, and gracious? So also it is with a gracious heart; when he sees the Scripture fighting with an Egyptian, and heathen author, or apocryphal, he comes and kills the heathen… the Egyptian, or the apocrypha; but when he sees two Scriptures at variance (in view, though in truth not), Oh, saith he, these are brethren, and they may be reconciled, I will labour all I can to reconcile them; but when a man shall take every advantage of seeming difference in Scripture, to say, Do ye see what contradictions there are in this book, and not labour to reconcile them; what doth this argue, but that the corruption of a man’s nature, is boiled up to an unknown malice against the word of the Lord; take heed therefore of that. —William Bridge from A Quest for Godliness by J.I. Packer

Tolle Lege: Reforming Marriage

Readability: 1

Length: 144 pp

Author: Douglas Wilson

There are few authors I enjoy more than Douglas Wilson. There is no subject I enjoy reading Douglas on more than family. Here is a smattering of why that I hope will intrigue.

God is the one who called our first parents by the collective name Adam. Now Adam is also a generic term for man or mankind. This shows clearly the biblical practice of including women under such a description. Our English use of the generic man and mankind follows this biblical example exactly. Far from being insulting to women, as feminists want to maintain, it reflects a biblical pattern of thought. The feminist reaction to this, and their rejection of taking a new last name (in order to keep their father’s name!), is not just a small bit of modern silliness. It is a fundamental rebellion against God. So when our Susan Miller becomes Mrs. Robert Carter it is not just “something we do.” It is covenant security.

[Commenting on Ephesians 5:23 where Paul says, “the husband is the head of the wife.”] Because the husband is the head of the wife, he finds himself in a position of inescapable leadership. He cannot successfully refuse to lead. If he attempts to abdicate in some way, he may, through his rebellion, lead poorly. But no matter what he does, or where he goes, he does so as the head of his wife. This is how God designed marriage. He has created us as male and female in such a way as to ensure that men will always be dominant in marriage. If the husband is godly, then that dominance will not be harsh; it will be characterized by the same self-sacrificial love demonstrated by our Lord—Dominus—at the cross. If a husband tries to run away from his headship, that abdication will dominate the home. If he catches a plane to the other side of the country, and stays there, he will dominate in and by his absence. How many children have grown up in a home dominated by the empty chair at the table? If the marriage is one in which the wife ‘wears the pants,’ the wimpiness of the husband is the most obvious thing about the marriage, creating a miserable marriage and home. His abdication dominates.

[A] husband can never stop talking about Christ and church. If he is obedient to God, he is preaching the truth; if he does not love his wife, he is speaking apostasy and lies—but he is always talking.

WTS Books: $12.23 Amazon:$13.50

The Dogmatician: Dogmatics vs. Ethics

Dogmatics describes the deeds of God done for, to, and in human beings; ethics describes what renewed human beings now do on the basis of and in the strength of those divine deeds. In dogmatics human beings are passive; they receive and believe; in ethics they are themselves active agents. In dogmatics, the articles of the faith are treated; in ethics, the precepts of the decalogue. In the former, that which concerns faith is dealt with; in the latter, that which concerns love, obedience, and good works. Dogmatics sets forth what God is and does for human beings and causes them to know God as their Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier; ethics sets forth what human beings are and do for God now; how, with everything they are and have, with intellect and will and all their strength, they devote themselves to God out of gratitude and love. Dogmatics is the system of the knowledge of God; ethics is that of the service of God. The two disciplines, far from facing each other as two independent entities, together form a single system; they are related members of a single organism. —Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics

According to Script (Matthew 26:1-16)

“When Jesus had finished…”

When Jesus finishes speaking of returning in glory, He then says it is time for Him to be humiliated. After speaking of a judgment He will bring, He reminds the disciples that He is off to be judged. Jesus is saying that everything is going according to plan.

Jesus was no sailor adjusting for wind. He is the God of the wind and the sea. The cross isn’t some improvised plan B during an intense field operation. Jesus didn’t just recently have an epiphany with a sudden courageous resolve. The cross wasn’t just en route to the throne, it was the road. And it was the only road. Jesus here is saying, “I’ve got them where I want them.” Imagine a quarterback readying for the Super Bowl turning to his teammates saying, “Well, it’s victory time, so I’m off to their locker room to let them break my arm.” The King turns to His knights saying, “Victory is certain. Here is the plan: I’m going to let the dragon eat me.”

Christ never so effectually bruised Satan’s head, as when Satan bruised his heel. The weapon with which Christ warred against the devil, and obtained a most complete victory and glorious triumph over him, was the cross, the instrument and weapon with which he thought he had overthrown Christ, and brought on him shameful destruction. Col. 2:14,15. ‘Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances,—nailing it to his cross: and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.’ In his last sufferings, Christ sapped the very foundations of Satan’s kingdom, he conquered his enemies in their own territories, and beat them with their own weapons as David cut off Goliath’s head with his own sword. The devil had, as it were, swallowed up Christ, as the whale did Jonah—but it was deadly poison to him, he gave him a mortal wound in his own bowels. He was soon sick of his morsel, and was forced to do by him as the whale did by Jonah. To this day he is heart-sick of what he then swallowed as his prey. —Jonathan Edwards

Jesus is no improv actor. Everything is going according to Script.

In a good story, the villain’s plotting cannot outdo the author’s plot. All of man’s rebellion can do nothing but accomplish God’s plan. Efforts to rebel against God are more futile than a character in a book trying to rebel against the author. The villain wants to kill the hero, so does the Author, but whereas one means to take life, the other means to unleash it. A good story is being told, the very best one, and no evil can ruin it.

Tolle Lege: The Philosophy of Tolkein

Philosophy of Tolkien Readability: 2

Length: 225 pp

Author: Peter Kreeft

There are a lot of The Gospel According to (fill in the blank with latest hip movie) titles out there. Corny seems too cheesy a word to describe my reaction to such titles. Gag reflex. Not interested. Sure, Star Wars has spiritual themes, and there is a worldview behind The Matrix, but I sense that such books labor hard to put something there that isn’t. Like trying to turn a Slim Jim into a steak. Sure, technically it’s meat, but I’m not paying $14.95 for it. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I need to expand my palate, but I’m almost certain most such titles are junk food of the worst kind, something like Crystal Pepsi.

Peter Kreeft’s The Philosophy of Tolkien is nothing like my guesstimation of the aforementioned titles. Here are some reasons why. First, Kreeft is a legit philosopher. I’d venture he reads a lot more books than he watches popular movies. It’s the difference between a hobbit trying to make magic, and a wizard. Second, he is dealing with good material. He has a real fillet in front of him, not a meat snack. Kreeft isn’t dealing with a film, but a book—a big book. Arguably the greatest work of fiction. Kreeft, as the subtitle says, is looking for “The Worldview behind The Lord of the Rings.” We bring our worldview to everything we do. What we do likewise reveals our worldview. With books, fiction especially, worldview can be powerfully and persuasively communicated. The Lord of the Rings was a massive undertaking and therefore communicates Tolkein’s worldview, a good one in my opinion, in a very potent, concentrated way. Further, Kreeft legitimately brings out, rather than puts in. Concerning Tolkein’s trilogy he does exegesis, not eisegesis. An added bonus is that The Philosophy of Tolkein also serves as a good introduction to philosophy. Finally, this steak is seasoned with Kreeft’s clear and enjoyable style. Tolkein is fun to read. This is too.

[I]t is no surprise that in a culture in which philosophers scorn wisdom, moralists scorn morality, preachers are the world’s greatest hypocrites, sociologists are the only people in the world who do not know what a good society is, psychologists have the most mixed-up psyches, professional artists are the only ones in the world who actually hate beauty, and liturgists are to religion what Dr. Von Helsing is to Dracula—it is no surprise that in this culture the literary critics are the last people to know a good book when they see one.

Beauty is the bloom on the rose of goodness and truth, the child conceived by their union; and thus it is not only good, but heavenly.

The weakness of evil is that it cannot conquer weakness. No matter how much power evil has, it is always defeated by the free, loving renunciation of power. It can be defeated in Middle-earth as it was on Calvary: by martyrdom. Scripture’s image of the last battle between good and evil is a battle between two mythical beasts: Arnion, the meek little Lamb, and Therion, the terrible dragon beast. And the Lamb overcomes the Beast by a secret weapon: His own blood.

Evil is limited to power; it cannot use weakness. It is limited to pride; it cannot use humility. It is limited to inflicting suffering and death; it cannot use suffering and death. It is limited to selfishness; it cannot use selflessness. But good can.

It takes selflessness to give birth, whether biologically or artistically. You let yourself be used as a birth canal, or as an instrument of divine inspiration. Evil cannot create, or give birth. For ‘nothing is evil in the beginning’ (LOTR, p. 261). ‘Trolls are only counterfeits, made by the Enemy in the Great Darkness, in mockery of Ents, as Orcs were of Elves’ (LOTR, p. 474) ‘The Shadow that bred them can only mock, it cannot make’ (LOTR, p. 893).

http://rcm-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=000000&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=glo-20&o=1&p=8&l=as4&m=amazon&f=ifr&ref=ss_til&asins=1586170252

The Dogmatician: Dogma—A Good but Fallible Servant

Accordingly, dogmatics is not itself the Word of God. Dogmatics is never more than a faint image and a weak likeness of the Word of God; it is a fallible human attempt, in one’s own independent way, to think and say after God what he in many and various ways spoke of old by the prophets and in these last days has spoken to us by the Son. —Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics

“I’m Against Doctrine” is a Doctrine

When you read “dogmatics” with Bavinck think systematic theology. When you see “dogma,” think doctrine, or truth.

[O]ne who clings to the truth of religion cannot do without dogma and will always recognize in it an unchanging and permanent element. A religion without dogma, however vague and general it may be, without say, faith in a divine power, does not exist, and a nondogmatic Christianity, in the strict sense of the word, is an illusion and devoid of meaning. Opposition to dogma is not resistance to dogma as such, for ‘unbelief has at all times been most dogmatic” (Kant), but to certain specific dogmas with which people no longer agree. —Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics

The Sheep’s Wool (Matthew 25:31-46)

When Jesus separates the sheep and the goats pronouncing judgment upon them, neither one is shocked by the destination, but the reasoning given. The sheep are blessed for the ministered to Jesus in His need, whereas the goats are cursed because they failed. But we shouldn’t mistake this for saying the sheep merited their destination.

The decisive grounds upon which the sheep and goats are divided is that one is comprised of sheep and the other of goats. The deeds of mercy act as an outer mark that identifies the sheep. They are the evidence, not the grounds. Some similar language about those who eat sheep may help.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. —Matthew 7:15-20 (ESV)

The eating of sheep does not make one a wolf; the being a wolf means an appetite for sheep. The bearing of good fruit does not make one a good tree; the being a good tree means bearing good fruit.

The King/Shepherd says, “All sheep may enter,” and then He turns to you and says, “Come, for you are covered with wool.” The wool didn’t make you a sheep. The last thing any sheep will say on that day is, “I got in by the wool on my baaack, baaack, baaack. Yes this wool, I did it.” If so, an interrogation would commence. “Were you always a sheep? Who then transformed you into a sheep? Who gave you the only food, and water (the Spirit and the Word) that then can cause such wool to grow? Who gave you health and life so that the wool could grow? Who protected you and led you beside still waters so that the wool could grow?” The Shepherd gets all the credit. When He says, “Come for you are full of wool,” He is saying, “Look at what I did. See. This one is mine.”

What is the distinctive wool specifically mentioned here are a mark of those who are the Good Shpeherd’s? Love for the church. Shouldn’t we as Christians love all who are destitute? Certainly. Is that the point of this text. By no means. “The least of these,” are “my [Jesus’] brothers.” This language echoes Matthew 10:40-42 and Matthew 18 where the “little ones,” are Jesus’ little ones, His disciples.

One evangelical pastor wrote a popular book titled They Love Jesus but Not the Church. He had some legitimate criticisms of the church, but he missed it with his title. You cannot love Jesus and not love the church. If you fail to love the church, you do not love Jesus. You are a goat.

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. …If anyone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. —1 John 4:7-8, 20-21