He is somewhat of a legend in apologetics circles because of his gifting on the debating floor. In fact, he is such a formidable opponent that on numerous occasions atheists have either refused point-blank to engage him in public debate, or having accepted the invitation, turned it down at a later date with fairly lame excuses.

One example of a man who will not debate Craig is Professor Richard Dawkins.

I have never seen Craig debate, but I was excited to hear that he’s doing a tour here in the UK. There are a couple of events in London, including a training day held in our building. It would have been amazing to witness Stephen debating the religious authorities of his day, since “they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking” (Acts 6:10). Perhaps hearing Craig is the next best thing available today?

Intrigued? I certainly am.

I recently ordered a copy of a brand new album by Chris Haines, entitled But God. From the moment I started listening I was repeatedly surprised by just how good this album is. The music is outstanding, the lyrics deeply scriptural, the overall impact uplifting and edifying.

This was all the more surprising because Chris is a friend, and I had no idea he was this good. We went to school together, and I recall the days of chastising him for his language (now thoroughly sanctified). I also remember this slightly chubby child strumming away at his electric guitar in music classes, little knowing his skills would develop to this extent.

This album is moving, and to listen to it is to experience a spiritual journey. I think it has been quite some time since I’ve heard a worship album that feels so original and refreshing, and yet also so old in that it is largely a weaving together of Biblical ideas and phraseology. Haines describes the album in a way that captures it very well: ‘Melodies from my head, words found in a book.’

You can get a taste of it by listening to the samples on the But God website.

Depending on their particular degree of conservatism, they may argue for fresh fillings of the Holy Spirit as something experiential and known to you, the recipient, (check out some ‘Third Wave’ Reformed Charismatics like Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms). Or, they may simply not expect any felt experience of the Spirit whatsoever in the Christian life. You get it all at conversion. No doubt there are many nuanced positions somewhere in between.

Now, the more conservative Reformed tend to be nervous that we might create two classes of Christians if we follow Lloyd-Jones – those who have not been baptised in the Spirit, and those who have. They will go to 1 Cor 12:13 (“For in one Spirit we were all baptised into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit…”) and the basic argument is that, since all the Corinthians had drunk of one Spirit, they had all been baptised in the Spirit at conversion.

I don’t see the logic. Paul is obviously writing to a church he planted (see Acts 18:1ff) and we know it was his practice to pray for all his converts to receive the Spirit (see Acts 19:1-7). So it simply doesn’t make sense to argue that baptism is regeneration based on the fact that all the Corinthians had received the Spirit. The alternative (that some had not received the Spirit) was unthinkable to Paul, since he went out of his way to make sure all believers had received the Spirit (Acts 19:2).

But not only is the case for baptism-in-the-Spirit = regeneration pretty flimsy if built on this verse, the whole drift of the book of Acts points to the doctrine that baptism in the Spirit is something separate to and distinct from conversion.

Take Acts 8 as an example. Philip preaches the gospel in Samaria, and they believe. Later, Peter and John come down and find that they haven’t received the Spirit, so they pray for them and they do. Two things are hugely important and striking from this passage:

1. The Samaritans are called believers in 8:12, and they’ve been baptised in water, but they receive the Spirit later when Peter and John pray for them (8:15, 17). Therefore, being born again does not equate to receiving the Spirit, though the new birth / regeneration is, of course, the work of the Spirit.

2. When they receive the Spirit it is such a remarkable event (details not provided) that Simon Magus, an ex-magician, wants to pay good money to have the gift that Peter and John seem to have of touching people, and those people receiving the Spirit (8:17). If it were an invisible work of God, he would hardly want to part with his cash (8:19-20); that would be a pretty rubbish magic trick.

Simon was clearly wrong in his motive, and Peter tells him so. But we shouldn’t miss the underlying point – receiving the Spirit in the book of Acts was a felt experience, so remarkable and obvious that people knew if they had or had not received the Spirit, and observers could even see it happen.

I’m getting a bit off track with the second point, and so want to get back to underlining the first; receiving the Spirit is not the same thing as being born again. Now, I’ve heard the argument that says that since this was the first time the gospel had gone to Samaria their experience was unique. Like the experience of the disciples in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, this was a turning point in history. As the gospel went out in successive phases from Jerusalem to Judea, Samaria, then the ends of the earth, so did the promise of the Spirit. Therefore, it is concluded that the experience of these early believers should not be expected today. No, today it happens differently. Today, regeneration is baptism in the Spirit.

Huh? I’m sorry, but that simply isn’t a Biblical argument. You’ll never find a verse or passage to support the idea that “It was different then”, and it doesn’t make sense anyway. Of course, it fits nicely with church history and the weight of teaching through the centuries, where most of the dead guys we respect did not think there was an experience of the Spirit after conversion. But even so, it’s not Biblical. Dead guys are wrong sometimes.

Conclusion; Every new believer should be prayed for to receive the Spirit as part of the normal Christian birthing process (usually just before or just after baptism) and they should know when it has happened to them.

Thankfully, we do have plenty of recordings of Lloyd-Jones’ preaching, and listening to them is a thrilling experience. Up to now, however, I have not seen any video footage of the man. I have searched the internet on many occasions. The closest you get are various photos (in which he almost never smiles).

But finally, in the last couple of weeks, the MLJ Recordings Trust have posted some videos of him in interview, and presenting a documentary. Enjoy.

Right-click here to download lyrics and chords

Right-click here to download mp3

The title of this book will be off-putting to many, and attractive to some. I wouldn’t usually pick up a book like this, because I would assume that if it’s ‘basic’ it can’t be that interesting. After all, I’ve been going to church for 27 years. But I decided to use it as a tool in helping a guy at church get a clearer understanding of the Gospel. I soon discovered that this is an exceptional book that everyone should read.

Although the title might be off-putting to many who, like me, assume they’re clear on the basics, behind the cover there lies a stimulating and compelling case that will provoke and excite you. This book is a must read for every Christian who (a) wants a clearer understanding of why they believe, and (b) wants to be better equipped to explain their faith to others.

Sadly, many Christians struggle to make anything approaching a reasonable case for Christianity when in conversation with an enquirer. It is not always easy to think on the spot and to find a line of argument that makes sense. If someone asked you, How do you know that Jesus is the Son of God? would you be able to respond articulately, concisely, and persuasively? This book will help. It gets right to the point.

This book is also the perfect resource to drop into the hands of someone investigating the Christian faith. They won’t be confused, and they may well be utterly compelled.

Stott wrote Basic Christianity back in the ’50s and the fact that it is still being printed is a testament to its enduring qualities. This is a true classic. Buy a copy for yourself, and several more for your friends.

1) Audio Bible. You can look up any passage and click ‘play’.

2) Note-taking function. You can write your own thoughts and reflections on a passage and they are stored there for future reference (providing you register).

3) Study-Bible notes. If you own an ESV Study Bible, you can access all the notes on this new site, providing you either put in your reference number (which came with your purchase of the Study Bible), or if you have already done that on the old Study Bible website, then wait a couple of days and the ESV team will recognise your email address and make the Study Bible notes available on the new website.

Here is the link: www.esvonline.org

When you’re considering the debate over evolution and creation, there is a rather large problem for the evolutionists; how did life originate? How did molecules organize themselves into the first self-replicating organism?

People try to imagine what life might have looked like back then. But it’s important to bear in mind that they’re just imagining; the simplest life-forms we know of that are capable of autonomous survival are not exactly simple, and we have no reason to think that they ever were simple. In fact, the simplest life-forms still require about 1000 different proteins to survive, these being single-celled organisms (like e. coli).

With this in mind, read the following excerpt. It’s written by Dr John Baumgardner, giving us some straight-forward calculations on the probability of life arising by chance. It’s certainly worth the effort to get your head around what Baumgardner is saying:

“Let us first establish a reasonable upper limit on the number of molecules that could ever have been formed anywhere in the universe during its entire history. Taking 1080 [the number 1 followed by 80 zeros] as a generous estimate for the total number of atoms in the cosmos, 1012 [the number 1 followed by 12 zeros] for a generous upper bound for the average number of interatomic interactions per second per atom, and 1018 seconds (roughly 30 billion years) as an upper bound for the age of the universe, we get 10110 as a very generous upper limit on the total number of interatomic interactions which could have ever occurred during the long cosmic history the evolutionist imagines. Now if we make the extremely generous assumption that each interatomic interaction always produces a unique molecule, then we conclude that no more than 10110 unique molecules could have ever existed in the universe during its entire history.

“Now let us contemplate what is involved in demanding that a purely random process find a minimal set of about 1000 protein molecules needed for the most primitive form of life. To simplify the problem dramatically, suppose somehow we already have found 999 of the 1000 different proteins required and we need only to search for that final magic sequence of amino acids which gives us that last special protein. Let us restrict our consideration to the specific set of 20 amino acids found in living systems and ignore the hundred of so that are not. Let us also ignore the fact that only those with left-handed symmetry appear in life proteins. Let us also ignore the incredibly unfavourable chemical reaction kinetics involved forming long peptide chains in any sort of plausible non-living chemical environment.

“Let us merely focus on the task of obtaining a suitable sequence of amino acids that yield a 3D protein structure with some minimal degree of essential functionality. Various theoretical and experimental evidence indicates that in some average sense about half of the amino acid sites must be specified exactly. For a relatively short protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids, the number of random trials needed for a reasonable likelihood of hitting a useful sequence is then in the order of 20100 (100 amino acid sites with 20 possible candidates at each site), or about 10130 trials. This is a hundred billion billion times the upper bound we computed for the total number of molecules ever to exist in the history of the cosmos!! No random process could ever hope to find even one such protein structure, much less the full set of roughly 1000 needed in the simplest forms of life. It is therefore sheer irrationality for a person to believe random chemical interactions could ever identify a viable set of functional proteins out of the truly staggering number of candidate possibilities.” (John Baumgardner; extract from In Six Days edited by Dr John F Ashton, p.207-208.)

Baumgardner is not the only scientist to have made such calculations; in fact, I think Sir Fred Hoyle was the first (you can check out his calculations on his Wikipedia page).  Any honest person would read the above and say, it can’t happen – life cannot originate by chance.

But the real problem is that such an admission opens the door to larger questions too scary to handle.

There is an obsession in the world today with getting popular approval, mass support, and adoration.  I sometimes wonder just how much this desire has infiltrated the church.  Some pastors (not all) want big churches because big churches mean big popularity.  Some church members want their church to be big because that means we look credible and impressive in the eyes of the world.  It’s nice to tell your friends or colleagues how many hundreds or thousands of people are at your church.

I’m not against big churches or the very deliberate effort to grow churches.  On the contrary, I believe that is the very definite plan of God.  I’m convinced the Bible predicts a very, very impressive picture with regard to the future of the Church.  As one preacher put it, “Jesus is coming back for a massive bride…” (an unfortunate turn of phrase, I’ll admit.)

However, despite this very definite trajectory that the Church of Jesus Christ is set on – unstoppable growth – it is nevertheless equally true that the crowds we call churches may be deceptively big.  Not everybody in a church is necessarily in the Church.

What do I mean?  It’s obvious when you think about it that size does not equate to success in any direct sense.  If it did, then the Catholic Church is clearly doing quite well… Jesus isn’t interested in gathering crowds if the individuals in that crowd can get the wrong idea that they’re part of Jesus’ Church, when in fact they’re not.  There may be a feeling of safety in numbers that actually stops people getting saved.

For this reason Jesus does some very interesting things when he’s faced by crowds in the gospels.  On the one hand, there are many, many occasions when Jesus is surrounded by crowds and he enjoys a good rapport with them.  He teaches – they listen and are amazed.  But there are some very significant moments when Jesus sees the crowds and then proceeds to say things that he knows will turn them away in dismay or disgust.  He deliberately cuts through the mass hysteria and whittles down the mob to allow true faithfulness to emerge.

On one occasion he tells his followers that unless they eat his flesh and drink his blood, they won’t inherit eternal life (John 6).  The immediate effect is that a good deal of his own disciples abandon him, because he sounded more than a little crazy.  Here is another example: ‘When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation…” ‘ (Luke 11:29 ESV).  I don’t think I’ve ever heard a sermon open with that line.

Here is one final example, and it’s worth quoting in full:

‘Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” ‘ (Luke 14:25-26 ESV)

My point is simple, but important.  If preachers are softening their messages in order to grow bigger churches, then they are not preaching like Jesus preached.  Instead, the truth should attract and repel; it should woo and it should come down like a hammer on anything resembling half-hearted commitment.  To fail to do this is simply unloving, since it perpetuates the confusion people have that there is safety in numbers.

What would Jesus say to so many ‘successful’ churches where the numbers are up, but truth is down?

I thoroughly recommend you work through these 35 questions, and journal your answers. I have found this process very helpful. It doesn’t provide a quick-fix solution, but at least it sheds light on those dark corners of your heart that rarely get attention. This, in turn, helps you to repent and change.

So, to see the questions, check out this blog post by Scott Thomas.

First, take all of God’s gifts with thanksgiving.  There are plenty of people who feel guilty enjoying rest and food.  That’s sad, because God has given them to us.  It’s worse than sad when they try and put their guilt on other people – in fact, it’s downright wrong.  Paul knew this, and that’s why he described such people as devoted to the doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:1-2).  In contrast he tells you, Christian, to enjoy everything God has given with thanksgiving.  ”For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:4-5).

Second, maintain discipline even in your feasting and your resting.  It’s very obvious as you look at the festivals for the Israelites in Leviticus 23 that they involve much enforced rest, but their feasting also contained rhythms and rituals designed to draw the worshipper’s attention to God their Redeemer.  So also at Christmas, I encourage you to rest well and eat well, but also to take up the opportunity to worship well, and to approach God daily in prayer and listening to his Word.

There are bad ways of feasting which involve the extremes of either pious legalism (and its accompanying false guilt and self-righteous pride), or flabby licentiousness (leading to the New Year blahs and a long recovery process).  As you seek to feast well this Christmas, take God’s gifts with thanksgiving, and return to him daily for the true rest that he alone can bring to your soul.

Campbell Morgan's Friday evening lecture (complete with chalk board), c.1911

Do we live under the weight of our history as a church?

In some ways, maybe we do.  Onlookers tend to feel that they own the Chapel, even if it has never been their place of worship.  There’s a constant feeling of being scrutinized, and that our every move is being watched.  Do they still stand for expository preaching?  Why is the place not full?

It seems silly in one sense, because when you worship at Chapel, you realise it’s just a regular church.  We’re pretty normal.  Most of the people we have with us now have joined in the last 7 years.  Why the attention?

But in another sense, I get it.  I get why people look at Chapel and feel a special concern.  The history is spectacular, and I understand why we (as the present members and leaders) need to be very aware of all God has done in the past.

So we celebrate the past.  We look back with admiration.  We read the books, the sermons, the newspaper cuttings (like these) and we feel such a sense of wonder at how God has brought us to a place like this, for a time like this.  You can’t step into the big circular pulpit and not feel the adrenaline as you survey the view, and size-up the hefty lectern.  There’s something amazing about walking into the vestry and seeing Lloyd-Jones’ preaching gown (complete with his name on the tag) hanging in the cupboard.

John Piper’s biography of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones is incredibly insightful.  He ends by considering five areas of weakness in the Doctor’s ministry – ways in which his preaching did not necessarily lead to practical outworking.

The truth is, we have actively sought to correct these and other weaknesses.  Of course we do not downplay the importance of preaching.  We don’t want to trade off our heritage, and our Gospel-focus.  But we take heart that what we’re doing now is right, and God will honour that.

We have hopeful hearts.  We were recently looking at Haggai 2 (“…the glory of the latter house will be greater…”) and there’s a sense in which that passage resonates with us.  Obviously, we’re not building a physical temple, but we are nevertheless part of the building-work on God’s living temple.  And there’s a huge expectancy that swells in our hearts.  Would God graciously move among us to save the lost in great numbers?  Will we see our building filled again, overflowing, with queues of people seeking the truth?  Yes, we will.

I encourage you to pray for us.  There’s so much to thank God for, and it feels that we’re more a church now than we ever were.  The sense of love, of family, of unity, has grown enormously.  Nobody could accuse us of being a preaching centre (in the negative sense of just being a crowd) any more.  But surely there’s more!

Becoming more missional will involve taking risks.  We’ll no doubt draw more scrutiny (“The Doctor wouldn’t have done that…”).  But increasingly our passion is to reach the lost people of London, and though we will not trade off our confidence in the Gospel (we have nothing else to offer) we will bolster the preaching with more and more efforts to live out the Gospel in practical dimensions.

Campbell Morgan and Albert Swift (his assistant) were spectacularly successful in this – as was the first Chapel pastor, Samuel Martin.  We want to re-dig those old wells so that people come to our church and see more than just the preached word, but they will see a loving family, moving in the spiritual gifts, helping the poor, and binding the broken-hearted.

[If you're interested in the history of Westminster Chapel, go to our Audio page and download 'The Faith of Our Fathers' by Josh Harvey, with the accompanying PowerPoint presentation.]